Sitting of 30 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—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Illegal Immigrants
    Mr. Viggers: If he will estimate the number of persons who entered the United Kingdom illegally in the past year. [35148]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): By the nature of the problem, we do not know, and estimates may be misleading. It is not possible to establish whether a person is in the United Kingdom illegally until he or she is traced. Provisional figures for 1997 show that 14,150 people were traced and served with illegal entry papers, but many of them may have entered in previous years.
    Mr. Viggers: If 250,000 people have applied for political asylum in this country in the past 10 years, of whom 10,700 have been granted asylum and 13,000 deported, where does the Minister think that the other 226,300 people are? Moreover, bearing in mind the recent growth in economic migration, does he think that our institutions are strong enough to cope with it?
    Mr. O'Brien: Our inheritance from the previous Government was pretty appalling; in fact, the asylum system that we inherited was a shambles. There were 50,000 people in the Home Office backlog, there were 23,000 in the appeal system and other people had simply disappeared. We are now reviewing the whole process and ensuring that we put in place a firmer, faster and fairer asylum system.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To raise an issue that I have raised many times, why do we not seriously consider introducing in the United Kingdom a national identity card scheme, which would deal with very many problems that are being repeatedly raised with all Departments of State, at least during this Parliament?
    Mr. O'Brien: There is something to be said for a voluntary ID scheme, but a compulsory one might create as many problems as it resolved, as Lord Chief Justice Goddard—of all people—said as long ago as 1952, when he expressed concern about the way in which it could
    882
    affect the relationship between the citizen and the police. Nevertheless, those issues are a legitimate part of the political debate.
    Mr. Beith: Although I welcome the Minister's caution on the difficult issue of identity cards, may I ask him what is being done through the EU presidency to make states take a responsible attitude to asylum seekers, instead of dumping them on the Eurostar train as Belgium has done? Does he recognise that we need to ensure that genuine asylum seekers have their cases dealt with quickly to prevent the situation where, as the Minister said, very many people are disappearing into the system because cases have not been dealt with quickly enough?
    Mr. O'Brien: The presidency is doing a great deal to try to sort out some of the difficulties that we inherited, one of which is the Dublin convention. It was signed in 1991 and came into force in September 1997, and it has caused us enormous difficulties in removing some of the people who would usually have been dealt with in the European country from which they came. That convention must have been appallingly negotiated; we have been left to clear up that mess, too. Much work is being done on it during the presidency.
    On the recent events in relation to persons coming from Brussels on Eurostar, we quickly contacted the Belgian authorities, who have assured us of their co-operation and their effective efforts to deal with the problem on our behalf.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: After nearly a year in power, the hon. Gentleman must eventually stop wringing his hands and start governing. Given his answer and the new Labour briefing that has been going on, of which I am sure he is aware, to the effect that the Government are considering an amnesty for some people, will he take this opportunity to rule out an amnesty for those who have been in the United Kingdom for many years, but whose permanent residence has not been regularised?
    Mr. O'Brien: The previous Government—as the right hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly know—had a rule: when someone had been caught in the asylum system for seven years, his or her circumstances would be regularised. He will also know that, in the 1990s, there were periods in which exceptional leave to remain was granted to more than one in two of those in the list. We are, therefore, examining all aspects of the asylum process. I assure the right hon. Gentleman—let me be very clear about it—that we do not plan any blanket amnesty for 50,000 people caught in the backlog, as erroneously reported a couple of weeks ago by The Mail on Sunday.

    Bribery of Members
    Mr. Cranston: If he will make a statement on his plans to make bribery of hon. Members an offence. [35149]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): We are committed to tackling all forms of corruption, including bribery of hon. Members. We expect to make a statement as soon as possible on the reform of the law, taking

    883
    account of the results of various consultation exercises—including the views of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, if those are available.
    Mr. Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, may I press him a bit further? The legal and conceptual issues are quite simple, and have been discussed over many years—in the 1970s, in the Salmon committee's report; more recently, by the Nolan committee; and now, in the Law Commission's very clear paper on corruption. Where is the delay? Is there a problem with the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege? May I have a specific assurance that, in the next parliamentary Session, the next criminal justice Bill will contain a provision to deal with the matter?
    Mr. Howarth: Obviously, this is a matter of concern, and my hon. Friend is right to say that we are concerned about it. In June, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement on the Law Commission's report on corruption offences. The work of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and all the emerging conclusions, are under consideration. We hope to take action as soon as is reasonably possible, given the Government's other commitments.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: In the Minister's definition of bribery and corruption, would he include an attempt by one hon. Member to induce another to give up his seat in return for a peerage? As the Minister is a reasonable person, will he have a quiet word with the leader of the Labour party on that exact point?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is himself a nice person, but I am not prepared to take any lectures from Conservative Members on the use and abuse of power in that type of activity—in which we are not involved, although he and the Conservative party know plenty about it.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the past 18 years— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes, 18 years. Does he agree that, in that time, nearly every single Tory Back Bencher, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), has been given a knighthood for services to the Tory party? On top of that, scores of them were given peerages to keep quiet. I tell my hon. Friend that I do not want one, because I am going to keep opening my mouth.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend will disappoint not only other hon. Members but the public, all of whom would like to refer to him as "Sir Dennis". Every sensible suggestion that we made when we were in opposition was resisted by Conservative Members because—my hon. Friend is quite right—they had no interest in cleaning up our politics. However, we will do it.

    Inquests
    Mr. Simon Hughes: When he will reform the laws of procedure on the conduct of inquests. [35150]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): In his recent report on the Hillsborough disaster, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith endorsed the recommendation of a Home Office working group that, in its current form, the inquest system was an inappropriate way in which to inquire into major disasters. I agree with that, and shall introduce legislation as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.
    Mr. Hughes: I am very encouraged by the Home Secretary' answer, for which I thank him. For many years, there has been a file on the desk of his predecessors marked "Reform of the Inquest System", which has lain unattended to.
    I share the right hon. Gentleman's view—it is not just the view of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith—on the Hillsborough inquiry. The families of people who lost their lives in the sinking of the Marchioness and many others feel that, unless we sort out the relationship between inquests, civil and criminal proceedings and public inquiries, we are condemning many people to a lottery of decisions, often involving many years of grief and difficulty. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants support and encouragement to get an agreed procedure, many of us will be happy to oblige?
    Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I cannot vouch for the contents of my predecessor's desk, as it was cleared just before I got to the room. Of course, I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the inappropriate interaction between inquests, civil proceedings and major inquiries of the type established in the wake of the Hillsborough disaster. I have made it clear, not least in my statement on the Hillsborough disaster, that it was quite unnecessary and inappropriate and merely added to the grief of the families involved for the initial inquest, which would always take place to establish the immediate cause of death, to be followed by a major public inquiry, in this instance conducted by Lord Justice Taylor—it did a very good job—and for the families then to be put through the mill of further, detailed inquests, which frankly served very little purpose.
    Maria Eagle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to reforming the inquest system. In that connection, will he consider the adverse impact that findings of accidental death have on families of the bereaved in circumstances such as those surrounding Hillsborough? Will he include in his review and in any legislation some attempt either to refine or to widen the type of verdict available to the coroner, because it is the idea that people died accidentally that the families of the Hillsborough victims find so unacceptable and with which they cannot cope?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, we will, of course, take that on board. One of the continuing problems with inquests is that they are intended to deal with a very narrow issue, —the immediate or medical cause of death—not with the wider causes. That is a further reason why, when there has been a major inquiry of the kind established after Hillsborough, it should not be followed by further inquests. That simply implies that an inquest is meant to establish wider causes when it does not have that function or locus at the moment.

    Youth Crime
    Mr. Love: What plans he has to tackle crime among young people. [35154]
    Mr. Straw: The Government's plans for reducing youth crime were set out in the White Paper "No More Excuses" which was published last November. Proposals to speed up youth justice proceedings, to replace repeat cautions with a new final warning scheme, to introduce new community-based sentences and to establish a national youth justice board and local youth offending teams are included in the Crime and Disorder Bill.
    Mr. Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As he will be aware from his recent visit to Edmonton, many people in the Bush Hill Park area of my constituency have been subjected to the criminal activities of a few persistent young offenders. Does he agree that the time is now right to take action against those people?
    Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. On my visit to the Bush Hill Park area of my hon. Friend's constituency a few weeks ago, I saw, yet again, the trouble caused by young offenders who are allowed to offend again and again, and who have received the message that they can go on doing so and get away with it. It is for that reason that we are proposing in the Crime and Disorder Bill a root and branch reform of the youth justice system, so that never again will a generation of youngsters believe that it can offend and behave criminally with impunity.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I direct the Home Secretary's attention to one particular aspect of youth crime, which is that committed by a small minority of people while they are allegedly supporting football teams and attending football matches? I am sure that all hon. Members extend their sympathy to the family and friends of the fan who was so brutally murdered on Saturday.
    In that context, at least one Minister has known since last year of the new knife sponsored by FIFA during the World cup. Were the use and selling of the knives considered at the seminar on policing the World cup which the Home Secretary held in Blackburn earlier this year? What steps does he plan to take to reinforce the message that, no doubt, all hon. Members would support—that taking knives to football matches in Britain or at the World cup is totally unacceptable?
    Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Gentleman said, I am sure that the whole House joins me in expressing the deepest sympathy with the family and friends of Matthew Fox, who was brutally murdered on Saturday as he came out of Priestfield Park football ground at Gillingham, and profound anger at the reappearance of football hooliganism. I assure the House that, in co-operation with the police and the football authorities, we shall do all that we can to ensure that such hooliganism is clamped down on heavily.
    The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the FIFA-branded knife which, wholly inappropriately, is being sold in France as part of the so-called World cup memorabilia. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport raised the matter with me as soon as he became aware of it—I think that it was earlier this year rather than last year.
    886
    I have taken it up with the football authorities in France and with FIFA. It is a matter of enormous regret to me that they have not acted on those representations, as it sends out entirely the wrong message to sell knives as part of the memorabilia for football games.
    Mr. Paul Clark: May I, too, refer to the tragic events on Saturday at Priestfield stadium in my constituency of Gillingham? They have stunned the people of Gillingham and the Medway towns. Of course we add our condolences to the relatives and friends of Matthew Fox who was so tragically killed. May I inform my right hon. Friend that I, too, was at that match? Both sides played excellent football; the match was conducted in good humour and good spirit, and was extremely well policed and organised. Gillingham prides itself on being a family club and that was the atmosphere that afternoon. May I ask for further assurances that, wherever possible, steps will be taken to eradicate the violence that we witnessed at Priestfield Park on Saturday and that all the relevant authorities will leave no stone unturned, and will find out what happened and the lessons to be learnt?
    Mr. Straw: As I have said, we share the grief of my hon. Friend's constituents and the family and friends of Matthew Fox, the young man who was murdered. We all understand the sense of shock that affects the entire community in the wake of an unnecessary tragedy. My hon. Friend asked me what inquiries were being made. The police are assiduously pursuing their inquiries and the Football Association is also establishing an inquiry into matters of crowd control, and that is quite right.

    Juvenile Remand Prisoners
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What representations he has received with regard to the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons. [35155]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): I have received a number of representations expressing concern about 15 and 16-year-olds on remand in adult prisons. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have initiated a review of the juvenile secure estate.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the primary way in which to deal with youngsters on remand in that age group is to try to find them secure local authority accommodation? In that connection, does she recall the repeated attacks by members of her ministerial team and the Prime Minister when they were in the shadow Home Office team on the Conservative Government's programme of building 170 such places? How does she square that attack with the revelation by the Under-Secretary of State for Health in a written answer on 11 March that the new Government planned only six such places to be built between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1998?
    Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that, although the Conservative Government introduced legislation to end the remanding of juveniles to prison in 1991, six years later, the problem had become worse.
    Mr. Cunliffe: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that many of the young offenders on remand are drug

    887
    takers. Will she bear in mind the astounding success of the American drug courts, which have a specialised judge and a specialised team of workers? Their aims are to deter and to rehabilitate young offenders. Statistically, the programme has been a resounding success. Does she agree that adopting such an approach would speed up the process of bringing young offenders to trial? Will she consider at least a pilot scheme to tackle that very grave problem for young people?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must respond appropriately to the problems of those who offend because they are addicted to drugs. The Government are introducing a drug treatment and testing order to enable us to work with such people.
    Mr. Clappison: Is the Minister aware that the Crime and Disorder Bill will explicitly allow the remanding of 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prisons? The Government are providing for only six places—that is places for six individuals, not six institutions. Will that not ensure that 15 and 16-year-old boys continue to be remanded to adult prisons for many years, even though Labour Front-Bench spokesmen said that the situation was a scandal when they were in opposition? Is not the real scandal the comprehensive failure of the Labour party—including the Prime Minister—to deliver on its promises?
    Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman knows that the real scandal is the comprehensive failure of his Government over six years to tackle the problem. Indeed, they made it a good deal worse. We are committed to dealing with the problem that they left us.

    WPC Fletcher
    Mr. Dalyell: Pursuant to his answer of 22 December 1997, Official Report, column 569, if he will make a statement on the police investigations into the murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher. [35156]
    Mr. Straw: The current police investigation into the murder of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher was established last year to inquire into the issues raised by the "Dispatches" programme. The investigation, which has proved more complex than originally expected, involves extensive inquiries overseas and is continuing. I expect to receive a report as soon as is practicable after the police inquiries are completed.
    Mr. Dalyell: I saw Assistant Commissioner David Veness in Scotland Yard last July. I have not the slightest doubt that the police are doing everything possible to get to the bottom of a case that affects one of their own. However, will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Foreign Secretary, because these complex issues involve overseas visits? Does he accept that, as with Lockerbie, the case against Libya is not so simple that it can form a sound basis for continued United Nations sanctions? As a senior member of the Government, will he confront the Foreign Secretary on that?
    Mr. Straw: The first thing that I shall do is pass on my hon. Friend's thanks to Assistant Commissioner David Veness. The police have been pursuing the matter with
    888
    the greatest of assiduity. I have no intention of confronting my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, I talk to him frequently. I shall certainly raise what my hon. Friend has said.

    Probation Service
    Mr. Bill Michie: If he will make a statement on the role of his Department in respect of complaints against the probation service. [35159]
    Ms Quin: The responsibility for dealing with individual complaints rests with the probation committee for the area concerned. We have no evidence that any committee is failing to carry out those responsibilities properly, but if such evidence became available, we have power to make an order directing remedial action. In the longer term, the question of how complaints are dealt with will need to be considered further in the light of consultation on the future of the family court welfare service and the prisons and probation review.
    Mr. Michie: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It goes some way to resolving the problems that some people face when complaining about what happens in the probation service. As far as I understand it, the first complaint goes to the probation service. If it is not satisfactorily resolved, it goes to a probation committee and can go no further unless it is a complaint about maladministration. Neither the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration nor the local government ombudsman has a remit to interfere if there is a complaint. The Home Office will not interfere unless there is some other evidence. I hope that we can review and tighten up the regulations so that people who have a genuine complaint feel that they are treated satisfactorily.
    Ms Quin: It is important to state that there are very few complaints against the probation service. The majority of them tend to concern family court welfare issues, where perhaps, by the very nature of the issue, one party to the dispute feels aggrieved, particularly if it is denied custody of a child, for example. None the less, I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's point. We shall certainly look at the complaints procedure, but we believe that probation committees represent interests apart from probation officers, such as magistrates and local authorities, and have a good record for taking an independent view.
    Mr. Baldry: Does the hon. Lady find it a little depressing that the only questions her hon. Friends ever ask her on the criminal justice system concern complaints about judges and police officers, and now probation officers? Does she agree that the role of probation officers is one of the most unsung parts of the criminal justice system? If there is to be any hope of an alternative to custodial and community sentences that will work, should not Labour Members herald the work done by probation officers in our constituencies instead of trying to undermine the probation service and other parts of the criminal justice system?
    Ms Quin: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's questions. It is simply not true that my hon. Friends have made only complaints; they have made many

    889
    complimentary comments about the probation service in their areas in Question Times since May. Indeed, it is quite obvious that they have made far more complimentary comments about the probation service than the previous Home Secretary.

    Prisoners
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What estimates he has made of the level of the prison population in England and Wales on 1 April (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [35160]
    Ms Quin: The prison population is projected to be 65,100 at the end of March, 69,000 by March 1999 and 72,400 by March 2000. However, projections exclude proposals not yet implemented, such as home detention curfew, which may reduce the need for additional prison places by about 3,000, and the new community sentence provisions and orders, which the Government are introducing, particularly under the Crime and Disorder Bill.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend very much for that comprehensive reply. Does she agree that, financially and administratively, it would be very imprudent to think of signing 25-year contracts with Securicor, the Corrections Corporation of Connecticut or whatever company for extra prisons if we do not know whether the prison population will rise, as it did under the Home Secretary's appalling predecessor, or fall, as it did under the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)?
    Ms Quin: I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that, given the projections that I described, it would not be responsible not to plan for that accommodation. At the same time, the question is not just of choosing between approaches adopted by two previous Conservative Home Secretaries. There is our own Labour Government approach, which will make for a better criminal justice system in terms of reducing delays, increasing bail support and making much better use of probation and electronic monitoring.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Minister will be aware that many share her concerns about the increasing prison population. Obviously, some people need a prison sentence, but there are others for whom a community sentence would be much more appropriate. The Minister could try education and exhortation, or she could introduce additional sentences; ultimately, however, there is central funding for prison sentences, while community sentences are funded locally. Behind the rhetoric, the Government have starved local probation services and those providing community services of cash. Will she tackle the perverse financial incentive in the system that makes a prison sentence easier?
    Ms Quin: The cut that affected the right hon. Lady's probation service was introduced by the Conservative Government. There is central funding for the probation service, which we want to be properly resourced in future. We are looking at the issues as part of the comprehensive spending review. We can build confidence in community
    890
    sentences, which can be effective and challenging, and we look forward to such sentences operating even more successfully in the future.
    Mr. Grocott: Can my hon. Friend confirm that levels of crime were dramatically lower—and that a prison population of 40,000 was regarded as dangerously high—under the Labour Government of the 1970s? Can she further confirm that the enormous pressure on the Prison Service and the increasing prison population today is a direct consequence of one shameful statistic—that crime doubled under the Tories?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both points. The Government's approach—particularly in the Crime and Disorder Bill, the work on crime prevention and early intervention with young offenders—will mean that, over time, fewer people will come into the prison system because we will have taken more appropriate measures earlier.
    Mr. Llwyd: I endorse the Minister's comments on community-based sentences, but may I remind her respectfully that such programmes will need to be properly financed if they are to be used more? If community sentences are used more frequently, they can be economic in terms of low reoffending rates and compared with the cost of keeping someone in prison.
    Ms Quin: The measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will be resourced. That is important. Many probation services do an excellent job, but there is tremendous variation across the country. For that reason, it is important to identify the best and most cost-effective programmes and build on them for the future.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend take a hard look at the statistics on women in prison, as the increasing number of women being committed to prison is quite frightening? One wonders whether the severity of the sentences reflects the severity of the charges. It is always right that people should be punished, but the families pay an inordinately high price.
    Ms Quin: I assure my hon. Friend that I take a particular interest in women in prison. We are committed to ensuring that the delays in the system, which seem to affect women on remand in particular, are curbed. We must act to ensure that people are not held unnecessarily in prison; we must also ensure that those who are imprisoned are those who present a risk to the public and have committed serious offences.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Loughton: What changes the Government are planning to introduce to the current system of admitting asylum seekers; and whether he will make a statement. [35162]
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: We are considering the report of an interdepartmental study of the asylum process carried out as part of the Home Office comprehensive spending review and will announce our conclusions in due course.
    Mr. Loughton: Given that the number of asylum seekers has fallen by some 20 per cent. since the

    891
    Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 was enacted, and given the success of the previous Government in changing benefit restrictions, how does the Minister account for press reports that the Home Office is being overwhelmed with processing applications; and that up to 55,000 bogus asylum seekers may be granted permission to stay indefinitely in this country?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the asylum shambles that we inherited from the previous Government. There will be no blanket asylum for 50,000 asylum seekers—the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. I might add that those in glass houses should not.
    An examination of the statistics on grants to asylum seekers of exceptional leave to remain shows that, last year, 3,000 people received it—about 9 per cent. of all asylum seekers. That excludes those with refugee status. In the first six months of 1993, under the Conservative Administration, the ELR granting statistics leapt—to 57 per cent. of asylum seekers, or 11,000 people. In addition, refugee status was granted to 7 per cent. The figure dropped back to 14 per cent. in the second six months of 1993. In 1992, the Conservatives granted ELR to 15,000 asylum seekers, or 44 per cent. of the then total. Was that a Tory amnesty, or was it the pragmatic granting of ELR to cut the backlog? I shall say no more.
    Mr. Gerrard: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for the people responsible for leaving more than 10,000 applications undecided from before the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 to complain about what is happening now? They talked tough but did nothing—nothing to enforce refusals and nothing to regulate unscrupulous and fraudulent immigration advisers. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when bringing in a fairer system, it is essential to deal with the huge backlog, or the whole system will be bogged down? We have been left with a great many people who have been in the country several years and, often, who have had children here; in effect, they have become settled here.
    Mr. O'Brien: I broadly agree with my hon. Friend. We will put in place sensible proposals that will ensure a firmer, faster and fairer asylum system.

    Sentencing Tariffs
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: What plans he has to amend the tariff system on length of sentences for serious indictable offences. [35163]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): We have no plans to amend the tariff systems that apply to mandatory and discretionary life sentences. We intend to ensure that courts have the powers they need. Severe maximum penalties and in some cases minimum and mandatory penalties are available for serious indictable offences. We will keep these penalties under review.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that persistent and repeated offences of burglary and serious drug dealing are a scourge on society? Does he recall that we proposed in our manifesto mandatory sentences for such offences? Will he consider introducing such
    892
    mandatory sentences? If not, how does he intend to enhance Labour's reputation, enunciated by the Prime Minister before the election, to the effect that he would be tough on crime and on the causes of crime?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Government are tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. He should also be aware, although it was not part of our manifesto, that we have implemented mandatory sentences in the way proposed by the former Government.

    Vulnerable Witnesses
    Angela Smith: What plans he has to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are afforded greater protection in court. [35164]
    Mr. Straw: In June last year, I announced a wide-ranging review of the way in which vulnerable and intimidated witnesses are treated in the criminal justice system. The review, which is nearing completion, has looked at issues from the investigation stage through to the trial, including ways to assist such witnesses to give their evidence safely to the court.
    Angela Smith: I, too, welcome the review. I should like, however, to press my right hon. Friend a little further about its aims. I should like a commitment that vulnerable witnesses will be able to give evidence safely and without fear of retribution.
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The whole House resiled in horror from some of the stories about rape victims being cross-examined by defendants, quite unnecessarily, about their sexual histories in a way that was not relevant to the issue before the trial.
    Mr. Hogg: While it is right that the Home Secretary should look into safeguarding the interests of vulnerable witnesses, will he take care to ensure that the proper interests of defendants are not prejudiced?
    Mr. Straw: Yes.
    Mr. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that witnesses in local drugs trials face a great deal of intimidation, with the result that many cases that should be prosecuted are probably not being prosecuted?
    Mr. Straw: Yes. As well as the action that we hope to take in respect of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in the current Crime and Disorder Bill, which will have its Second Reading next Wednesday, we have provisions for anti-social behaviour orders, which are designed to crack down heavily on anti-social behaviour, including drug dealing. Those are civil orders where the burden of proof is lower and, therefore, action against people causing such intimidation should be easier to secure.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. Gentleman knows that across the House we find unacceptable the way in which some rape victims have been interviewed and cross-questioned in court by the defendants. The Home Secretary said that he would introduce legislation on that matter, but not until the next parliamentary Session in a proposed criminal justice Bill. Because there is a shared view that such cross-questioning is unacceptable, may I persuade the right hon. Gentleman to introduce such legislation by way of amendment of the Crime and Disorder Bill in this Session of Parliament and not to wait for another year?
    Mr. Straw: There is one thing worse than no law, and that is bad law. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not make the issue a political football between the parties. My predecessor as Home Secretary was concerned about the matter and so am I, but, precisely for the reasons mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), we must balance the interests of witnesses against the necessary interests of defendants. This is a complicated matter on which it is important to get the law right. For that reason it is appropriate for the working party to submit its report, for that to be digested and considered, not least by Members of Parliament, and for legislation to be introduced next Session.

    Firearms
    Mr. Amess: How many representations he has received in respect of the payment of compensation to gun owners who have surrendered their firearms. [35165]
    Mr. Michael: We have received a great many queries and representations, most of which refer to the progress of individual compensation claims. Few have commented on the outstanding work of the police and the firearms compensation section, which has so far led to more than 41,670 payments, to a value of more than £41 million.
    Mr. Amess: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindness and courtesy in inviting me to today's dress rehearsal for Home Office questions in room W1, where I would be given a helpful supplementary. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I could not be present, but as I am a Conservative Member I prefer to ask my own supplementary: when can gun owners and gun companies in Southend, West, who surrendered their arms in good faith last September, expect compensation, particularly in relation to category C?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman might have got a better standard of question if he had attended the briefing. The more straightforward option A and B claims based on published values are expected to be completed by the end of May. The more complicated option C claims will take longer, but the bulk of them should be completed by the end of the year. We are moving as quickly as we can.
    Mr. Greenway: Does not the Minister realise that gun owners are angry? On the figures that he has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), gun owners have received barely more than a third of the £115 million that the Government expected to pay out by tomorrow—the end of the financial year.
    894
    What more evidence could anyone need of the Government's inept handling of the matter and their contempt for the interests of gun owners? Has the Minister any real idea when all claims, including category C, will be met? Can gun owners expect their money by Christmas, or by this time next year, or by the opening of the millennium dome? When? What would he consider sufficient delay to justify the payment of interest?
    Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), he would have heard me answer that question precisely. These matters are being dealt with very quickly, but we have a complicated compensation scheme—as he and his colleagues knew when they passed the original legislation.

    Security Service
    Mr. Baker: What conclusions he has reached in his consideration of possible changes to improve the accountability of MI5. [35168]
    Mr. Straw: The arrangements for ministerial accountability of the Security Service are set out in the Security Service Act 1989. They have been strengthened by the establishment and work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I am always happy to receive the views of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), on such matters.
    Mr. Baker: Will the Home Secretary confirm that it will be possible to introduce much more openness into the Security Service without endangering national security in any way? For example, will it be possible to publish information on the number of individuals on whom files are held? Perhaps the method of dealing with telephone tapping warrants could be changed so that the public can know how many warrants have been issued in relation to individuals.
    Mr. Straw: I accept that there should be the greatest openness in the work of the Security Service, provided it does not endanger national security in any way. That is a key proviso. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have taken several decisions that have secured greater openness. I hope to continue to do that, but the test must always be whether a change will endanger national security.
    Mr. Soames: I applaud the Home Secretary's answer. Does he agree that openness is all very well so long as the Security Service's ability to do its job remains of the first importance? Will he take it from me that the process has gone quite far enough and that the Security Service must now settle down and get on with doing its extremely important job without feeling that someone is leaning over its shoulder any more than is absolutely necessary?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's compliments in the first part of his question. It is important that everyone in the public service, including those in the security and intelligence agencies, are accountable for their actions and are held properly to account, particularly by responsible Ministers. The issue of openness often arises in respect of the history of those

    895
    agencies, but it cannot, in practice, arise in respect of their day-to-day current work. There is quite a good case for opening more historical files than have been opened up to now, and 1 am currently considering that matter.

    Young Offenders
    Mrs. Brinton: What plans he has to introduce schemes to (a) identify and (b) improve literacy and numeracy standards among young offenders in non-custodial regimes. [35169]
    Mr. Michael: There are three measures that will help in particular: the final warning scheme will give an opportunity to nip things in the bud; the action plan order will give the courts the means to address a young offender's educational needs where those are relevant to offending; and the youth offending teams will include educational staff and have a key role in planning and supervising community sentences.
    Mrs. Brinton: Does my hon. Friend agree with me—I am speaking as an ex-teacher—that many learning difficulties, particularly dyslexia, can lead to problems of social exclusion and alienation? Is he aware of the work that the Cambridgeshire probation service, which is based in Peterborough, is doing to research that important matter?
    Mr. Michael: I am certainly interested in the results of any scheme. My hon. Friend is right to say that the failure to identify learning difficulties can lead to problems. Addressing offending behaviour often involves changing several aspects of young people's lives. I shall certainly study with interest any specific example on which my hon. Friend can provide information.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that these matters should be considered in relation to young people on bail in bail hostels? Is he aware of the difficulties being faced by local communities, such as Elworth near Sandbach in my constituency, where young people take drugs during daylight hours when they are completely free? Would it not be a good idea to provide further education for such young people or to occupy their time constructively in some other way?
    Mr. Michael: I agree with the hon. Lady's final sentence. I hope that she will support the Government in introducing youth offending teams, one of whose targets will be bail support in order to ensure that such activities are avoided and something better is put in place for youngsters awaiting trial.

    European Convention on Human Rights
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: If he will make a statement on the impact of the European convention on human rights on United Kingdom citizens. [35171]
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Human Rights Bill will enable people in the United Kingdom to have access to their convention rights before our own courts and will significantly enhance the protection of human rights in this country.
    Mrs. Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd that British citizens are not able to access the protection of the convention through the British courts and have instead to take expensive and lengthy cases to the European Court in Strasbourg? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that it is new Labour which is putting this right?
    Mr. O'Brien: Yes. The Bill will enable everyone in the UK to enforce their convention rights before our own courts; it will bring rights home to the British people. It will not only improve access but reduce delays and costs—and it will not affect the sovereignty of Parliament.
    Mr. Collins: Does the Minister believe that confidence among United Kingdom citizens in the proposals would be increased if they had the unanimous support of the Churches, which they do not, and if he was proposing reforms to tackle the fact that some members of the Court do not have a legal qualification?
    Mr. O'Brien: The Churches do not have a unanimous view on this, but many of them have welcomed in principle the convention's entry into our legal system. We are discussing with the Churches the issues about which they are concerned. We hope that we shall be able to bring the Churches with us in granting greater rights to all their members in our British courts.

    Asylum Seekers
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on procedures for dealing with political refugees. [35172]
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Applications for asylum are considered in accordance with the criteria set out in the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is it really the case that third world refugees who apply for asylum and have been sent to Britain from Belgium and France are not permitted to be sent back to Belgium or France if we find them unsuitable? Is not that a scandal? Where does that rule come from? Can the Government do something about it? I do not want to make a political point, as I appreciate that these Euro rules come up no matter who is in power, but can the Minister at least say how this can be sorted out? Does not it cost the Government a great deal of money, and is it not nonsense?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: it is a shambles and a disgrace—and one which we inherited. It is partly due to the Dublin convention of 1991, which was signed up to by the previous Government and was clearly inadequately negotiated. That convention has caused enormous problems in sending some people back to claim asylum in the European countries where they should be claiming it. The convention came into force in September last year and has

    897
    caused us many difficulties and made the way in which refugees are dealt with a lot more hazardous. If he wants to blame someone, they are all sitting over there, on the Conservative Benches.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present situation with regard to asylum seekers is ludicrous? Genuine asylum seekers face huge delays, as do those whose claim may not succeed under the convention. Perhaps he will comment on the case of my constituent, Mr. Din, who applied for asylum in 1991, but was not even interviewed until 1996. His application was refused in 1997, but, because of delays, he is still awaiting an appeal. In the meantime, having lived here for so long, he has married a disabled woman who is dependent on him for support. Will my hon. Friend ensure, as part of the review, that claims to remain on some other basis are examined rather than there being continuing delays in the asylum process?
    Mr. O'Brien: Individual cases will be considered on their merits, but my hon. Friend is quite right to point out that her constituent and 9,999 or so others have been in the backlog since before 1993. We inherited that backlog. Our aim is to protect the integrity of the asylum system to ensure that we protect genuine refugees and tackle the problems caused by abusive asylum seekers.
    Dr. Harris: If he will make a statement on the detention of asylum seekers. [35173]
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: No one is detained merely because he has sought asylum. The Government's position is that
    898
    detention should be used very sparingly and normally only where there is a reasonable belief that the individual will fail to keep the terms of temporary admission or release.
    Dr. Harris: Does the Minister accept that our practice of detention, including that at Campsfield house in my constituency, has been criticised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, among others? Will he accept also that the chief inspector of prisons inspected Campsfield house in mid-October, submitted a draft report to the Home Office in mid-November and that a final report was sent on 19 January, which has not been heard of since? Will the Minister explain why that report has not been published? Will he write to the chief inspector of prisons today, giving him permission to publish this long-awaited report so that my constituents may have some relief from some of the bad practices in our detention centres?
    Mr. O'Brien: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not approached the Campsfield house report very sensibly. My officials received the final report of Her Majesty's inspector of prisons on the Campsfield detention centre on 16 March. I read the report over this weekend. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not seen it yet. We shall publish the report after Easter due to Sir David Ramsbotham's, and my, holiday commitments. The inspection was carried out at my request and I intend to get the report into the public arena as soon as is reasonable and practicable.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Recently, there have been a number of occasions when you have had cause to give rulings on ways in which the press are informed of matters before the House is made aware of them. In that connection, I wonder whether you have had notification today of any intention by the Prime Minister to make a statement on the subject of his relationships with Mr. Rupert Murdoch, about which a great deal of rapidly changing information has been given to the press by his officials and on which the Prime Minister's officials have scandalously abused and insulted journalists who have written perfectly proper and accurate stories.
Madam Speaker: I am not aware that any Minister is seeking to make a statement today.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have a further example of the Government's attempt to ensure that the Executive has easy questions, as a result of a briefing that was supposed to take place in Room W1. On several questions this afternoon, the only hon. Members rising to ask supplementary questions were on the Opposition Benches. I know— [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] I am thinking of Questions 13 and 14, on which no one rose from the Government Benches. I know that it is custom and practice for you to alternate questions between Government and Opposition Members. Perhaps you will consider the position when no one from the two thirds of the House represented by the Government party will allow the third of us who represent Opposition parties to hold the Executive to account.
Madam Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman is not correct. Mr. Miller rose on Question 13. I shall check the position on Question 14. More often than not— [Interruption.]—Members rise. Let us have it correct. Mr. Miller rose on Question 13, as I have said. I am well aware of who rises. I keep a good balance in the House, which includes the minority parties, which will bear me out on this issue.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot believe what I am
900
hearing about the idea that there are planted questions in Room W1. That is the Room which is occupied by the socialist Campaign Group. We meet every Wednesday night at 6 o'clock.
Madam Speaker: Internal party matters are not for me.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), do you, Madam Speaker, not think it extraordinary that the Prime Minister has not made a statement on why he intervened on behalf of Mr. Murdoch in a commercial deal in Italy? Do you not think that the House has a right to hear an explanation? The issue has been so well aired in the press, yet not in the House.
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member and a former Minister. He knows full well that he is seeking a statement from a Minister. There are procedures by which he does that, and he does not use the Chair. The procedures are called the usual channels. If the hon. Gentleman does not know how to use them and if he comes to see me, I shall tell him how to do so.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I hope it will not be like the previous point of order.
Mr. Bercow: It is further to points of order raised by my hon. Friends, Madam Speaker, in respect of which I seek your guidance, and I shall be grateful for it. If it transpired that information relating to the relationship between the Prime Minister and Mr. Rupert Murdoch had been inaccurate, and that inaccurate information had entirely inadvertently been given to right hon. and hon. Members, would you, in such circumstances, expect the Prime Minister, as a matter of courtesy, to come to the House to put the record straight and to explain himself to right hon. and hon. Members?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not a long-standing Member of the House, but let me tell him now that I do not deal with hypothetical situations. He will know in future not to ask me hypothetical points of order.

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [13 January],
That the Order [13th January] relating to the Scotland Bill (Programme) be further amended as follows:

(a) In paragraph 1, by leaving out 'at Ten o'clock' and inserting 'six hours and thirty minutes after the House resolves itself into a Committee on the Bill', and

(b) By inserting after paragraph 1A the following paragraph—

'1B. On the seventh and eighth allotted days paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for any part of the period of six hours and thirty minutes after the House resolves itself into a Committee on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the further Report [26th March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. McFall.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That this House agrees with the Committee in its resolution.—[Mr. McFall.]
Question agreed to.
The Resolution of the Business Committee was as follows:

Proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the end of the periods specified below (if the motions relating to the Scotland Bill (Programme) are agreed to):

Schedule 5 up to and including line 16 on page 59 of the Bill— 20 minutes

Schedule 5 up to and including line 35 on page 59 of the Bill— 40 minutes

Schedule 5 up to and including line 30 on page 60 of the Bill— 2 hours 10 minutes

Schedule 5 up to and including line 40 on page 60 of the Bill— 3 hours

Schedule 5 up to and including line 44 on page 60 of the Bill— 3 hours 15 minutes

Schedule 5 up to and including line 18 on page 61 of the Bill— 3 hours 30 minutes

Schedule 5 up to and including line 20 on page 63 of the Bill— 5 hours

Schedule 5 up to and including line 44 on page 65 of the Bill— 6 hours 10 minutes

Schedule 5 up to and including line 27 on page 68 of the Bill— 6 hours 30 minutes

Orders of the Day

  Scotland Bill
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee, [Progress 4 March]
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]
  3.36 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Sir Alan. According to the Official Report, an exchange of views took place across the Dispatch Boxes on 4 March, and I refer you to it because I believe that it raises a serious point.
  I had previously referred to what I understood to be the readiness of Ministers to consider an English Grand Committee as part of the solution to the problem that we were then discussing. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office said:
  "I tell the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that we have absolutely no plans to consider an English Parliament or an English Grand Committee."
  At that point, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), referring to an article in The Scotsman newspaper of that day, said:
  "What about this article in this morning's press?"
  The front page of The Scotsman stated:
  "The Scottish Office circulated a briefing paper which holds out the prospect of an English grand committee at Westminster as an answer to the West Lothian question."
  The Minister of State answered:
  "There was absolutely no foundation in that article".— [Official Report, 4 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1092.
  On Monday 9 March, the Minister was asked:
  "what briefing on the establishment of an English Grand Committee of the House was circulated to the Press before the debate on … the Scotland Bill; and if he will place a copy of the briefing in the Library."
  He answered:
  "I briefed the Parliamentary lobby correspondents on Tuesday 3 March on the background to the 6th day of the Commons Committee Stage of the Scotland Bill. As part of the briefing I made available a lobby note to help the correspondents to understand the part of the Bill due to be debated and the issues which might be raised in the debate. The note, as usual, is not an official Government document and was not intended for publication or reproduction."— [Official Report, 9 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 81–82.]
  The note, which was attached to the answer, stated:
  "As to the establishment of an English Grand Committee, it will be for the House to decide in due course whether it would improve the efficient conduct of business to establish such a Committee. There are arguments for and against, but certainly not something to be included in the Scotland Bill."
  It appears from the answer that it was incorrect to claim that the article, which stated that a briefing paper held out that prospect, was absolutely without foundation.
  I rise to ask two questions: first, have you, Sir Alan, had any request from the Minister to make a statement to the Committee today to correct what may have been his unintentionally misleading the Committee? His remarks were certainly not consistent with his subsequent answer.

  903
  Secondly, what is the view of the Chair about briefing papers relating to debates in Committee being issued to the press but not to hon. Members? The press apparently has a clearer indication than hon. Members of the Government's view before the debate starts. I ask for your counsel on both matters.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): It has already been made clear on a number of occasions by Madam Speaker that the fullest possible information on all matters should be made available to hon. Members at the earliest possible moment. The substance of the matter is hardly a matter of order for the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there may be other ways of extracting information from those on the Treasury Bench.

  Schedule 5

    RESERVED MATTERS
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I beg to move amendment No. 509, in page 59, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 and insert—

    'Paragraph 1 does not reserve—

    () Her Majesty's prerogative and other executive functions, or

    () functions exercisable by any person acting on behalf of the Crown'.

    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 486, in page 59, line 8, leave out
    '(1) Subject to sub—paragraph (2),'.
    Government amendment No. 510.
    No. 487, in page 59, leave out lines 12 to 16.
    Government amendments Nos. 511 to 521.
    Mr. McLeish: Government amendments Nos. 509 to 520 make minor technical amendments to the part of schedule 5 dealing with the constitution. Amendment No. 509 would alter the wording of paragraph 2(1) to extend the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence so that it can make provision for all the prerogative and other executive functions carried out personally or in the name of the Queen in so far as they relate to matters that are not reserved. A key example of its effect as against the present provision would be to enable the Scottish Parliament to confer powers of appointment on the Queen, for example to appoint the Scottish Parliamentary Ombudsman. Not to make this amendment would leave a significant and unnecessary gap in a range of powers available to the Parliament.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Have the amendment and its substance been agreed with the Palace?
    Mr. McLeish: Yes.
    Amendments Nos. 510 and 511 would adjust the wording of paragraph 2(2) to take into account amendment No. 509. Amendment No. 511 would clarify
    904
    the fact that the Lyon Court and the Lord Lyon in his judicial capacity are devolved, despite the reservation of the functions of the Lord Lyon in relation to the granting of arms. Amendments Nos. 512, 513 and 514 would amend paragraph 3(1) to ensure that Crown property owned by or held in trust for anyone acting on behalf of the Crown is not caught by the general reservation of the Crown. That is to ensure that the property of the Scottish Executive is covered by this provision. The reference to "government department" in the present version of the Bill could leave that in doubt. Amendment No. 515 would alter the wording of paragraph 3(3) to take that change into account.
    Amendment No. 516 would make it clear that the compulsory acquisition of property held by a Minister of the Crown is reserved, so that the Scottish Parliament could not compulsorily acquire property held by Departments of the United Kingdom Government. In general, the law relating to compulsory purchase will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but it would obviously not be right for the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Executive to be entitled to purchase compulsorily property held by, for example, the Ministry of Defence or by the Department of Social Security for reserved purposes.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Which Department will be responsible for the cost of the maintenance of Holyroodhouse? Will the Scottish Parliament or a Department in London pay that bill? I understand that the annual cost of upkeep is slightly in excess of £1 million.
    Mr. McLeish: The cost will be borne by the Scottish Parliament and administered from Holyrood.
    The general exception for Crown property was not designed to permit such compulsory purchase, and amendment No. 516 makes that clear.
    Amendments Nos. 517 and 518 adjust the drafting of paragraph 4 to take account of other changes in drafting, including amendment No. 509. Paragraph 4 makes it clear that property held by the Queen in her private capacity is not reserved—it will be subject to general legislation of the Scottish Parliament on matters such as planning and the environment—but that the regulation of that property under the Crown Private Estates Acts is reserved.
    Amendments Nos. 519 and 520 would delete paragraphs 5(a) and (c), which would be redundant if the other amendments are made.
    I trust that the House will agree that these amendments are necessary to clarify these matters.
    Amendment No. 521 would add an express reservation for the registration and funding of political parties. As hon Members will be aware, the Government will be introducing legislation for a national scheme of party registration, and party funding is currently being considered by the Neill committee. It is expected that such provision will be developed at a United Kingdom level. This amendment would ensure that these issues are reserved along with matters relating to the constitution and elections.
    Mr. Donald Gorrie: The Liberal Democrats have two amendments. Amendment No. 486 is a paving amendment. Amendment No. 487 would

    905
    remove the reservation regarding the function of the Lord Lyon King of Arms in the granting of arms and the honours and dignities apart from his functions. This is not the world's most earth-shattering issue, although the matter of honours considerably excited the Scottish media recently.
    Not everyone wants a coat of arms and it is not an important issue, but why should the Lord Lyon King of Arms and his staff be answerable to the Government in London rather than to the Parliament in Edinburgh? There seems to be no logic in that. Surely, if it has been accepted in a Government amendment that the Lord Lyon's legal functions should be dealt with by the Scottish system, all his other functions should as well, for the sake of tidiness. I am sure that the Scottish Parliament would not interfere with the normal way in which the Lord Lyon makes his decisions—although Lord Russell-Johnston, formerly a Member of the House of Commons, recently encountered enormous difficulties relating to his title. I gather, however, that that involved the Garter King of Arms. Certain hon. Members with much more distinguished careers than mine may have a vested interest in the matter; I simply think it tidy and logical for all the Lord Lyon's functions to be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament.
    3.45 pm
    Different Members will have different views about the honours system, but surely, whatever method is used to make recommendations to the Queen—who will eventually grant the honours—that process should go through the Scottish Parliament rather than some Minister in London. Again, our suggestion strikes me as sensible, tidy and logical. It will avoid the difficulties that arose recently, when various parties blamed various other parties. The buck should stop clearly with the Scottish Administration and the Scottish Parliament.
    I think that our amendments are worth supporting, and I hope that the Government will consider them.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I raise a question about the Crown Estate? I know that I am the object of suspicion whenever I say anything about that, but I ask my question in all seriousness and with good intent.
    The Parliament building is to be erected on the Holyrood site. Am I right in thinking that the archaeology of the site is almost certain to be extremely important in relation to early mediaeval Edinburgh? Preliminary investigations by Mr. Gordon Barclay and others have produced evidence that there could be important findings under the site. The matter is relevant to the Crown Estate Commissioners, and I do not know under what other part of the Bill I could raise it.
    Let me ask the Minister a question, which I do not expect him to answer off the top of his head. If he went to Frankfurt, he would see a remarkable development. After the bombing, a new museum was built on what turned out to be a very important archaeological site on which were Gallo-Roman remains. Those remains were put in the museum.
    I know that a good deal of expense would be involved, but when public buildings—let alone parliamentary buildings—are erected, surely those in authority have some obligation to set an example. It is often said in the House that we must look after our archaeology. I do not
    906
    know how important the findings are likely to be—nor, I suspect, does anyone else—but I should like an assurance that the subject will be taken seriously, that proper inquiries will be made of the relevant authorities in Historic Scotland before there is any question of bulldozers or contractors going in, and that an arrangement will be reached with the contractors regarding what they will do.
    The problem is that there could be time slippage. If archaeological work is done properly, it adds to costs. Nevertheless, we have a serious obligation to our history, and to the city of Edinburgh, at least to find out what is there, and not to rush things. We do not want important parts of Edinburgh's past, and Scotland's past, to be obliterated through haste.
    What advice have the Government been given about the archaeology of the site and, indeed, the surrounding areas? May we be assured that the subject is being looked at? It is a subject to which some of us will return time and again.
    Mr. McLeish: Plans for the redevelopment of the Holyrood site include an archaeological examination. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the importance of this matter and I am willing to write to him about it. I share his interest in this important issue.
    Amendments Nos. 486 and 487 seek to devolve aspects of the functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners. We shall shortly debate the commissioners in more detail, so I shall say no more about the matter now. The amendments also seek to devolve the matter of honours and dignities so that the Scottish Parliament would be able to legislate on the Crown's right to grant honours. The ministerial function of recommending such honours would be transferred to Scottish Ministers.
    Unfortunately, the Government cannot agree to those proposals. In our view, it is right that there should continue to be a unified system of dignity and honours covering the whole United Kingdom. However, the fact that that would remain a reserved matter does not mean that the Scottish Executive would be unable to propose who should receive honours. It is important that the Lord Lyon and his court will be devolved and that the function of granting arms will remain a reserved matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 510, in page 59, line 12, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 13 and insert—
    'Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of honours and dignities or'.
    No. 511, in page 59, line 14, leave out from 'arms' to 'the' in line 17 and insert
    'but this sub—paragraph does not apply to the Lord Lyon King of Arms in his judicial capacity.
    () Sub—paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of'.— [Mr. McFall.]
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 345, in page 59, leave out line 17.
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in page 59, line 17, after 'Commissioners', insert
    '(except for the rights and powers of the Commissioners in respect of the sea bed in Scotland).'.
    No. 346, in page 59, line 17, at end insert
    'with the exception of the right of abolition of the Commissioner's control over the sea bed and foreshore, issues relating to mineral rights and base and precious metal deposits, the forfeited estates, ownership and regulation.'
    Ms Cunningham: The amendments relate to the Crown Estate Commissioners, and the matter is of great concern in Scotland. Last week the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) presented a ten-minute Bill about the Crown Estate Commissioners. The issue causes cross-party concern in Scotland. I shall listen carefully to the Minister in the hope of finding assurances that the reservation of so many powers that are exercised by the commissioners will in no way limit the new Parliament's ability to legislate effectively for land reform in Scotland. That is a cross-party priority and, if my memory serves me correctly, even former Tory Members have said that changes are needed.
    Dr. Godman: As the hon. Lady knows, the activities of the Crown Estate Commissioners are critical to our fishing communities. Who are the commissioners and how are they appointed?
    Ms Cunningham: I hope that we shall get more information about that. It is generally felt that the commissioners constitute one of the most secretive and unaccountable bodies in Scotland. I do not think that anyone would disagree that reform is urgently needed. Every year, the commissioners produce glossy material to highlight the range of their powers and activities. The material gives some information, but it does not tell us a great deal about the commissioners. It states what they think are their powers. One leaflet entitled "Scottish Estate" states:
    "The Estate can broadly be divided into four sectors: Commercial Property, Agriculture and Forestry, Fish Farming and Marine".
    That is the matter that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is concerned about. The leaflet continues:
    "In addition to these four main areas of management, the Crown Estate in Scotland also comprised salmon fishings and mineral rights, including rights to gold."
    The Crown Estate comprises 1,000 acres in Scotland, including approximately half of Scotland's foreshore and almost all the sea bed around Scotland's coastline. That information comes from another Crown Estate Commissioners leaflet entitled "Marine". Apparently, that ownership gives the commissioners the right to issue and charge for
    "consents for any activity which makes use of the resource".
    In effect, what it comes down to is that the Crown Estate controls most activity and development around the Scottish coast. In many cases, it charges excessively for mooring rights, often backdating the charges.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has recently had to deal with a case involving Gardenstown harbour in his constituency, where
    908
    the Crown Estate claimed ownership of the harbour sea bed and was thus going to charge mooring fees and seek centuries of backdated payments for use of the harbour. It took apparently extensive searches of the records in the national library of Scotland and the translation of a 16th-century Latin grant of land before the commissioners backed off and conceded that they had no rights in that area.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: To elaborate on the point slightly, Gardenstown is a voluntary harbour. It is a small community in my constituency. It is true that we escaped the imposition from the Crown Estate Commissioners—which would have disabled the harbour trust totally—only by coming up with a 16th century Scottish Crown document that exempted the harbour from such dues. The idea that a powerful organisation such as the Crown Estate should subject a voluntary harbour in a small village community to such pressure over so long a period illustrates the point that my hon. Friend makes: reform of what is happening the length and breadth of Scotland is long overdue.
    Ms Cunningham: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The Crown Estate Commissioners want to take a substantial amount of money out of a small local community simply by exercising an ancient and meaningless Crown privilege.
    In many areas, the Crown Estate Commissioners act as a direct barrier to economic development in Scotland with their interference in foreshore developments in particular and their role in the fish farming industry. They boast—I quote again from "Marine"
    "It is difficult to think of many foreshore or seabed activities which do not involve the Crown Estate in some way".
    Hon. Members representing constituencies from around the Scottish coast will be able to illustrate the full extent and negative nature of much of that involvement. The Crown Estate's multi-million pound income is a drain on Scotland's rural economy and rural communities. It takes much out, but it is difficult to see what it gives in return.
    The Scottish Land Commission, which was independently set up several years ago, spent two years investigating proposals for land reform. Much of its work of necessity touched on the powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners. It made sensible recommendations for reform, which would transfer the income powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners to local communities through directly elected land councils.
    I know that the issue of land councils has been controversial recently. I understand that the Scottish Landowners Federation is a little wary of there being any community involvement in the issue of land usage, but I suggest that perhaps it needs to accept that the time is coming for change, and that it had best be part of change instead of attempting to stop it.
    The moves proposed by the Scottish Land Commission and any attempt to develop industries such fish farming would be out of bounds for the Scottish Parliament if the Crown Estate Commissioners continue to be a reserved matter. As far as I understand it, the far-reaching proposals of the Scottish Land Commission could be barred by the Bill, but more mundane reform could also be prevented.

    909
    The Scottish Land Commission made proposals on the rationalisation of the ownership of mineral rights, which currently can be split between three owners, none of whom necessarily may be the owner of the land under which the minerals lie. That is nonsense. Reform is urgently required to allow the continued growth of our base and precious metal mining industry.
    Similarly, bodies have made proposals for the rationalisation of fishing rights, but, with salmon ownership reserved to the Crown and Westminster, that simple sector will also be out of bounds for any land reform legislation in Scotland. I should like the Minister to explain why it appears that the hands of the Scottish Parliament are being tied in that fashion. I know that he and his colleagues have long talked about the opportunity for land reform in the Scottish Parliament, but, as we have seen, the continued reservation of the Crown Estate Commissioners would mean that the Parliament could adopt only a piecemeal approach to reform. That will not satisfy the expectations and demands for land reform that come daily from the people of Scotland.
    I hope that the Minister will not tell us that land reform could be only topsoil-deep and that we shall not be able to legislate for what lies beneath our land; or that land reform will have to stop at the high-water mark, and that our beaches and sea lochs are off limits.
    I hope that the Minister will be able to give the necessary assurances that the Parliament's hands will not be unduly tied by that reservation, or that he will at least say that the Government will consider the area, and perhaps table amendments on Report to ensure that if the Scottish Parliament wishes to make radical changes in land ownership and land use in Scotland, it will be able to do so. I believe that such an expectation is widespread in Scotland.
    4 pm
    Dr. Godman: I have long been critical of the Crown Estate Commissioners, especially for their decisions concerning fish farming, which impinge on the activities of our commercial fishermen. I declare an interest. I am an honorary member of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, of which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) is an honorary president. Incidentally, we receive nothing for that onerous duty, but— [Interruption.] The Minister suggests to me from a sedentary position that the Scottish Parliament might change that type of thing. He obviously knows nothing about the fisherman members of the Clyde Fishermen's Association.
    I am making a serious point. I believe that the Crown Estate Commissioners have taken some disastrous decisions regarding the installation of fish farms, especially sea fish farms—salmon farms. Several times, fishing organisations have objected to such decisions relating to the west coast. Given the powers of that secretive body of men—I say "men" because I suspect that there are no women members of the Crown Estate Commissioners, but I may be wrong—it is a matter of great regret that the Scottish Parliament will not have control of strategic decisions that profoundly affect our commercial fishermen.
    Something needs to be done about the Crown Estate Commissioners, because their decisions on fish farming developments have harmed game fishermen and
    910
    fisherwomen over the years. Undoubtedly, there has been a dreadful decline in sea trout on the west coast. I know that rivers and lochs in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have also suffered a reduction in sea trout catches, but I believe that our coastline and the activities there should be controlled by a Scottish Parliament. I regret that they are a reserved matter.
    I ask the Minister a question to which I do not expect an answer today, but on which I should be extremely grateful if he would write to me. May I take it that the Fisheries Act 1705 will remain on the statute book? It is colloquially know as, and all hon. Members know it as, "the Queen Anne Act". I was prompted to ask that question by the intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) because, as the Minister knows, the Queen Anne Act has important implications for our fishermen's use of harbours.
    At the moment in Greenock, we have a dispute with the Renfrewshire Enterprise Company about the development of East India harbour. When. Mr. John MacKay, then Scottish Fisheries Minister, introduced the Inshore Fishing Act 1984, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I were able to persuade him to retain the Queen Anne Act. I hope that the Minister, who has a keen interest in the fisheries, can confirm that, if these reserved powers are left with the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Queen Anne Act will remain sacrosanct.
    There will be a gap in powers controlling coastline activities. I think that the Crown Estate Commissioners' powers extend six miles from the low-water mark, and therefore cover some traditional inshore fishing grounds—which could be interfered with by the crass decision making of that secretive body. I have serious concerns about that matter. If we are to have some type of quango protecting our coastline, it should be composed of ordinary mortals—people who have more than a passing interest in coastal fishing and related industries.
    I should like the Crown Estate Commissioners to be kicked into touch or to work down here, in England and Wales. Our coastline should be protected by a Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. James Wallace: Our amendment No. 21 would allow devolution of the Crown Estate Commissioners' rights and powers in sea bed matters, and I should like to echo much of what has been said by the hon. Members for Perth (Ms Cunningham) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). On Tuesday last week, I outlined my concerns in some detail in introducing a ten-minute rule Bill. I shall therefore not detain the Committee by repeating all those concerns.
    There are serious problems with the Crown Estate Commissioners' activities—particularly in granting sea bed leases; charging rents to the salmon farming industry, which is effectively a tax on production, imposed at a time when the industry is in difficulty; and imposing rents on non-profit making marinas, for mooring charges for small craft. Marinas that have been built up by local fund raising are being subjected to the rent levels imposed on gin palaces and some of the bigger mainland marinas.
    Serious problems are also being caused by the Crown Estate Commissioners' charges on piers and other infrastructure. The Scottish Office and the European

    911
    Union have provided money to build piers and ferry terminals, to assist in maintaining vital transport links in many of the isles. However, the commissioners have come along and lumped a big charge on that infrastructure, taking back some of the money that has been given. An examination of their activities is long overdue.
    If the Scottish Parliament had the ability to deal with some of the Crown Estate Commissioners' rental activities, there might be much more equity in the way in which Crown Estate tenants across Scotland are dealt with.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: I reinforce the fact that hon. Members—and the Minister, I hope—should understand that the Crown Estate Commissioners are deeply resented in many parts of Scotland, particularly after they suddenly came along with a helicopter to identify and slap rents on little piers and jetties that had no commercial value. Everyone thought that that was appalling.
    Mr. Wallace: I can readily understand how my hon. Friend's constituents felt. In recent years, Crown Estate Commissioners have taken a much tougher—a draconian—line on the matter. We heard about the case of Gardenstown, where the commissioners attempted to get money from rentals that they had not attempted to obtain for years, decades or even centuries before.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland has powers, under the Crown Estate Act 1961, to give directions to the Crown Estate on matters relating to the Crown Estate in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how—if the Government reject this group of amendments—those powers might be exercised after devolution.
    There is a consultation paper on transferring to local authorities some of the powers to regulate salmon farming—especially environmental regulations—that are currently exercised by the Crown Estate. I am grateful to the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office for sending me a letter, which I received today, dealing with matters that I raised with him. He said that he does not foresee any difficulty in a transfer of powers meeting the terms of paragraph 3(1) of schedule 5, which states that the reservation of powers does not apply to
    "property belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to a government department".
    It should therefore be possible to extend local authorities' powers in regulating salmon farming.
    Such an extension would command widespread consent. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when it might be achieved, because it is long overdue.
    Mr. McLeish: I share the concerns about land reform outlined by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham). While it is not for this House to determine the priorities of the new Scottish Parliament, I sincerely hope that land reform will be an urgent priority of that Parliament and covered by one of the first Bills to come before Holyroodhouse. I hope that that provides some reassurance.
    912
    I also share the concerns about fishing expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), although I am not sure that fishing should be elevated to the all-embracing passion that he attributed to me. Nevertheless, I am happy to correspond with him about the 1705 Act.
    I did send the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) a letter. I apologise for its late arrival, but I hope that it will deal with some of the matters relating to the Crown Estate.
    I now deal specifically with the points covered in the amendments. They seek variously to devolve the Crown Estate Commissioners and aspects of their functions and of the property and interests forming part of the Crown Estate itself. In the Government' s view, it would be wrong for the Committee to accept the amendments. Their wording suggests some uncertainty about what precisely will be reserved by the present wording of the Bill. As I shall try to explain, some of the matters that the amendments seek to devolve are not reserved.
    It may be helpful if I explain what is and is not caught by the reservation. The devolution White Paper made it clear that the reserved matters would include the Crown, and that is given effect to in paragraph 1 of schedule 5. As hon. Members may be aware, the Crown Estate Commissioners are responsible for managing and regulating the Crown Estate, which is that part of the sovereign's hereditary possessions from which the revenue has, since 1760, been surrendered to the Exchequer as part of the civil list arrangements. That arrangement and the role of the commissioners in it will be reserved matters.
    However, paragraph 3(1) provides that paragraph 1 of the schedule does not reserve property belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown. Therefore, the property and interests forming the Crown Estate, as distinct from the Crown Estate Commissioners, is not a reserved matter.
    The Crown Estate would be subject to the Scottish Parliament's legislation about devolved matters, such as planning, environmental protection and fisheries. The Scottish Parliament would, for example, be able to legislate to implement the current proposals to extend offshore the role of planning authorities, to cover marine fish fanning. In the context of legislating about a harbour or port, the Scottish Parliament could also extinguish public rights over the foreshore or sea bed affected by it.
    The revenues from the Crown Estate, which are passed to the UK Exchequer, would be reserved by paragraph 3(3), which reserves the hereditary revenue of the Crown.
    My noble Friend Lord Sewel announced proposals on 10 November for responsibility for planning control in relation to marine fish farming to be passed to planning authorities. We are planning on the basis that the necessary legislation would be made by the Scottish Parliament.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), announced on 17 December that new statutory procedures for the licensing of dredging of marine minerals in Scotland would be introduced to replace the existing non-statutory procedure.
    The current power of direction over the Crown Estate Commissioners, which is shared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the

    913
    Exchequer, would not pass to the Scottish Ministers. It is right that it should remain with the United Kingdom Government, in line with the reservation of the commissioners.
    I trust that, in the light of those explanations, and particularly of the assurance that the reservation of the Crown Estate Commissioners will not affect the Scottish Parliament's competence over planning, fisheries and the protection of the marine environment, the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Salmond: These matters are rather involved and are of great interest to rural communities. I think that
    I heard the Minister say, in effect, that the devolved Scottish Parliament will have less authority in terms of powers of direction over the Crown Estate Commissioners than is currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Did he say that? If so, will he reflect again before Report?
    Mr. McLeish: Indeed. I have tried to explain that the current position will allow us to exercise power over planning and the environment, but the current power of direction over the Crown Estate Commissioners, which is jointly shared, will not pass to the Scottish Ministers.I am keen to be helpful so I hope to clarify that further for the hon. Gentleman. In the light of my comments and assurances, and in view of that fact that we, too, regard these matters as important, I hope that the hon. Member for Perth will withdraw the amendment.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Amendments made: No. 512, in page 59, line 18, leave out 'Subject to sub-paragraph (3)'.

    No. 513, in page 59, line 19, leave out 'a government department' and insert

    'any person acting on behalf of the Crown'.

    No. 514, in page 59, line 20, leave out 'a government department' and insert

    'any person acting on behalf of the Crown'.

    No. 515, in page 59, leave out line 24 and insert—

    '() Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of'.

    No. 516, in page 59, line 26, at end insert—

    '() the compulsory acquisition of property held or used by a Minister of the Crown'.

    No. 517, in page 59, line 27, leave out 'Subject to sub-paragraph (2)'.

    No. 518, in page 59, line 29, leave out 'Paragraph 1 does reserve' and insert

    'Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of'.

    No. 519, in page 59, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (a).

    No. 520, in page 59, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph(c).

    No. 521, in schedule 5, page 59, line 35, at end insert—

    'Political parties
    The registration and funding of political parties is a reserved matter'. — [Mr. McFall.]
    4.15 pm
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move amendment No. 522, in page 59, line 38, leave out from 'European' to second 'and' and insert 'Communities (and their institutions)'.
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 72, in page 59, line 45, at end insert—
    '(c) dealings directly related to international agreements affecting devolved matters'.
    No. 73, in page 59, line 45, at end insert—
    '(c) acting on behalf of the United Kingdom in relation to any matter to which that sub-paragraph applies, in respect of which the economic or social interests of the United Kingdom are located solely, or predominantly, in Scotland.
    (3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, fisheries and forestry are matters falling within sub-paragraph (2)(c).'.
    No. 261, in page 59, line 45, at end insert—
    '(3) "Assisting" in sub-paragraph (2) includes, where a Minister of the Crown deems it appropriate, attending with and participating in the United Kingdom delegation in any international forum, including the Council of Ministers of the European Union.'.
    New clause 13—Delegations to Europe—

    '(1) When matters in relation to which the Parliament has competence are being discussed between the United Kingdom and any of the institutions of the European Union, the appropriate Scottish Ministers shall be entitled to accompany United Kingdom Government Ministers and to participate in such discussions on behalf of the Parliament.

    (2) Where the matters to be discussed under subsection (1) are non-reserved matters that only affect Scotland and do not affect other parts of the United Kingdom, Scottish Ministers shall be the sole representatives of the United Kingdom.

    (3) In appropriate cases, on non-reserved matters affecting both Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, a Scottish Minister, with the agreement of a Minister of the Crown may lead the United Kingdom delegation.'.

    New clause 14—Representative office for Scotland in Brussels—

    '(1) The Parliament shall establish a European Union representative office in Brussels.

    (2) The office shall have the functions of providing advice to, and carrying out consultation with, the institutions of the European Union on matters affecting Scotland.'.

    New clause 15—Secretary of State to consult Scottish Parliament about EU negotiations—

    (1) Before any Minister of the Crown attends a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Union at which consideration is to be given to any issue related to devolved matters, the Secretary of State shall consult the Parliament and seek its views on the issue.

    (2) Following a meeting of the Council of Ministers at which any issue related to a devolved matter has been discussed, the Secretary of State shall forthwith make a report to the Parliament on the substance and the outcome of the meeting and shall respond to any questions that the members of the Parliament may put to him.'.

    Mr. Dewar: The House will be glad to know that amendment No.522 is a minor technical amendment on a matter that in other areas and at other times might have entranced us for a considerable time. The European Union does not have legal personality and, therefore, does not

    915
    have institutions in the way implied by the present drafting of the Bill. The amendment corrects the reference to the European Union and refers instead to the
    "European Communities (and their institutions)".
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is the Secretary of State aware that, under the Amsterdam treaty, the European Union takes on legal personality?
    Mr. Dewar: That is an interesting point on which I am quite happy to take further advice. However, as the Amsterdam treaty has not yet been ratified, it is something of a hypothetical possibility. The fact that the treaty has not yet come into force is a matter of some importance. Although its terms and contents are of considerable future interest, they are not relevant at the moment.
    I have enormous respect for the legal erudition of the right hon. —and indeed learned—Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram): every whigmaleerie will be added to his title in his due honour. However, my understanding is that the proper way of achieving the intended effect is for the Bill to refer to the European Communities and their institutions. They are in the plural as they include those relating to iron and steel, Euratom and one or two others. I hope that the Committee will accept that.
    Mr. Ancram rose
    The Chairman: Order. The Secretary of State has sat down.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: That was quite an interesting exchange between two Scottish legal personalities on amendment No. 552, which materialised very late in the day. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 72 and 73 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.
    The amendments, which were tabled immediately after Second Reading, seek to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is a genuine part of the international community. The decisions taken on 11 and 12 September represent a major step forward by all the peoples of Scotland. Indeed, 1997 reversed what happened in 1979 and reflected the growing confidence among the peoples of Scotland that they should have their own parliament. The international community also recognised that that decision represented Alba's emergence into the community of nations and not simply the establishment of a chamber in Edinburgh. As someone said to me recently, it is not a matter of raising a flag above a building somewhere in Scotland; it is an opportunity for future generations. I very much endorse that view.
    It is important to recognise that the world has moved on since 1979, and so have our continental neighbours. For many years, I have had the pleasure of serving on the Select Committee on European Legislation. It is important that we recognise the significance of the direction, the directives and the regulations that emerge through the acquis communitaire that some hon. Members resent. There is a general feeling that we should all be working together.
    Other countries, such as Belgium and Spain, decentralise decision making. In the wake of the Maastricht treaty, great play was made of subsidiarity. That concept has substance in Belgium and Spain, but it seems to involve sidelining Scotland.
    916
    In January 1997 at the Scottish Grand Committee, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was then the shadow spokesman, said that Scotland's Parliament should have
    "the same observer status as the German Lander at appropriate meetings"— [Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 13 January 1997; c. 29.]
    Articles 23 and 50 of the basic law give the lander full constitutional rights of information from the federal Government on the European legislative programme. I would like that for Scotland's Parliament. The lander also have the constitutional right to express opinions on European Union legislation. That opinion is binding in their core areas of competence.
    We should all be concerned about the core areas of competence that have been delegated to the Scottish Parliament. I see that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who has served on the Select Committee with me, is listening with particular interest. Fishing should be a core area of competence for the Scottish Parliament, as should agriculture and forestry, because they are vital to Scotland's economic future.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Lady saying that representatives of the Scottish Parliament in Brussels or Strasbourg should speak for the fishing and forestry interests of England?
    Mrs. Ewing: If the hon. Gentleman hauds his wheesht for a moment, he will hear the answer. The Scottish Office leads on forestry for the United Kingdom. There is no reason why we should not consider other areas of competence.
    Since Maastricht, those competencies have been adopted into German law. A land representative can be the sole German representative in the Council of Ministers. That has happened four times in the past two years.
    I am a rural Member of Parliament, but I used to represent a more urban constituency. We are not saying that every power specified in the schedule should be preserved. The Parliament should move forward on what issues are reserved powers, not in a selfish way but in the important international context.
    Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be difficult or try to catch the hon. Lady out in a cheap way, but she is dealing with a matter of central importance. Will she specify the four occasions on which the German lander represented the Bonn Government in the Council of Ministers, as she has claimed?
    Mrs. Ewing: Although I could detain the Committee for some substantial time by doing so, the relevant documentation is in the Library. The Ministers to whom I referred were lead Ministers on behalf of the federal Government on four occasions over those two years. We should all recognise that.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has raised an important point. I understand that the lander are allowed to make representation in the Council by their own law where it is a matter of exclusive

    917
    legislative competence of the lander. What would the hon. Lady regard as exclusive legislative competence in those terms in relation to the United Kingdom and Scotland?
    Mrs. Ewing: If the right hon. Gentleman had read the amendments, he would have seen the examples that I have already given. He obviously wants to reserve all powers permanently in Westminster, but we are arguing that, where Scotland has particular interest, it should take the lead in discussions in conjunction with other UK countries. That would not be a major problem. On particular issues—fishing is one of the critical ones to us—we would want very much to have the lead.
    Mr. Ancram rose
    Mrs. Ewing: I am being very polite, Sir Alan. I realise that this is a time-limited debate, and I would like to make further points. I shall be courteous in giving way to the right hon. Gentleman, and thereafter I should like to complete my remarks.
    The Chairman: As the hon. Lady knows, it is entirely up to her whether she surrenders her time by giving way.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. We are in Committee, after all, which I am sure she appreciates is slightly different from a normal debate in the House. The matter to which she referred is of concern; she will realise that our amendments also try to move matters forward in a certain way. She will see in the documents to which she has referred that German competence relates to exclusive competence. Is she satisfied that that would cover the areas that she is trying to cover with regard to Scotland? I do not think that it would.
    Mrs. Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to ensure that Westminster will always have the right to determine the issues that will be led by the Scottish Parliament. I am proposing that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to determine the areas in which it will lead in the Council of Ministers.
    In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Scotland argued that we should not necessarily compare ourselves to the German lander. He suggested that we should look at Catalonian and Basque territories, which did not have the statutory rights given to the lander. I emphasise again that Europe and the world have moved on. Since that speech, the Spanish Parliament has voted for a guaranteed right of representation for Catalonia, and for the Basque countries in devolved areas. The Secretary of State should look very carefully at that.
    I should also like to draw the Committee's attention to the situation in Belgium. Amendment No. 72 would give Scotland the same status as that entrusted to Community and regional Ministers under the special law of 8 August 1980, as amended on 5 May 1993, on international relations of communities and regions. In effect, the amendment would take away the Whitehall veto, which does not exist in countries such as Belgium, where devolved and exclusive powers have been recognised.
    918
    It was reported in The Herald today that the Scottish Office is to set up permanent representation in Brussels. I do not know whether that is true or whether it has been trailed by a spin doctor, but I would like clarification.
    My understanding is that two posts will be established in Brussels. Will they be civil servants or people appointed by the Scottish Parliament? Will a Minister from the Scottish Parliament lead any permanent representation? Will they be a part of the UK's permanent representation or the Committee of Permanent Representatives? Until we know, will the Scottish Parliament be any different from the 2,000-plus lobbying organisations that have permanent representation in Brussels?
    4.30 pm
    Ms Rachel Squire: I wish to comment briefly on how developing a relationship between the Scottish Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament and the European Union gives us real opportunities to tackle the democratic deficit in our country and the perceived problems in the relationship between this country and the rest of Europe.
    I support Government amendment No. 522. We must recognise that Europe is in a process of constant change, as are the Governments of Europe. Today, for example, Governments from the former eastern European bloc are meeting European Union countries, eager to discuss the details of their membership. Europe is enlarging, and there are tremendous opportunities and challenges for us in developing a European Community that is of benefit to everyone.
    I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), with whom I used, at times, to endure the Select Committee on European Legislation. We would listen to the somewhat contrasting views expressed by the various members of the Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood).
    I appreciate the demand for a distinctive Scottish voice and identity on issues affecting us in our relationships with Europe. My concern about amendments Nos. 72 and 73 is that they adopt a narrow nationalistic approach, when we should be looking to develop an international agenda. The Scottish Parliament must help to promote that international agenda, and we must develop a partnership between the Scottish and UK Parliaments.
    We all recognise that there are distinctive Scottish issues in areas of European legislation. However, the fishermen of the Scilly Isles may feel that they have a lot in common with the fishermen of the western isles. The industrial devastation done to parts of Scotland during the period in office of the previous Government has been experienced in parts of northern England and the midlands. In terms of the reform of the common agricultural policy, farmers in north Wales may have common interests with farmers in Scotland.
    I would certainly oppose an amendment which seems to suggest that we are better off going it alone or adopting an isolationist approach. That tends to be the approach of the official Opposition, who seem to think that it will benefit the United Kingdom to go it alone. The experience of our European neighbours with devolved government is

    919
    that working in partnership—in our case via the Scottish and UK Parliaments—leads to a stronger voice and better representation of their clear interests.
    Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend has referred to enlargement of the EU. Some of us believe that there can be no such enlargement without reform of the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. Some of the states seeking membership are littoral nations with huge fishing fleets; we could not allow them in without a revised CFP.
    Ms Squire: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's strong representations on the fishing industry, and I certainly recognise his concerns. We must not, however, tie ourselves down when amending the Bill. We need to recognise the continual changes and pressures, and ensure that we can respond to them coherently.
    Dr. Liam Fox: The hon. Lady has used fishing to illustrate the common interests that exist across different parts of the UK. Would it not be more logical to argue in favour of reserving fishing to the UK Parliament, not devolving it to the Scottish Parliament, where there will be differences even within Scotland?
    Ms Squire: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I know that Scottish fishing interests predominate in the United Kingdom. Hence, the voice of Scottish fishermen, heard in a Scottish Parliament—and also in the UK and European Parliaments—will benefit fishermen throughout the United Kingdom. Opposing a Scottish Parliament, as the hon. Gentleman's party has done, and opposing the idea that an area of the country with a distinct identity and with distinct interests can say things in Europe that will benefit the whole United Kingdom, is wrong.
    The hon. Member for Moray mentioned press speculation that an office may be set up for the Scottish Parliament in Brussels. I am well aware that Scotland Europa promotes the interests of non-governmental bodies in Brussels, and that the UK permanent representatives have worked well with the Scottish Office. I hope that, on this occasion, the media speculation turns out to be correct. Such an office would help to give us a strong voice. The fact is that the sooner a country starts to make its views known to the European Commission, the better its chances of influencing draft directives and regulations.
    I have been assured that the Scottish Parliament will be able to legislate to give effect to European Community obligations; that Scottish Ministers will have the power to give effect to regulations; and that the Scottish Parliament will be able to scrutinise and debate proposed legislation. One reason why I am so enthusiastic about the establishment of a Scottish Parliament is that it can take a lead in bringing the EU closer to the people, not just of Scotland but of the United Kingdom. It could develop a political framework that would be seen to be far more in touch with the daily concerns of people such as fishermen, farmers and workers in previously heavily industrialised areas.
    The Bill offers the possibility of closing the perceived gap between the realities of everyday life and the political process, especially that involving Europe, which all too
    920
    often seems to the general public to consist of a bunch of faceless bureaucrats. Devolution represents an opportunity to bring the European Union and its decisions closer to the people, and to influence legislation at a much earlier stage, to ensure that it benefits the Scottish people and the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) seems to have misunderstood the purpose of the amendments. She said that she wanted a strong place for the Scottish Parliament through a strong United Kingdom representation in Europe. It is precisely because there is no provision for that in the Bill that my hon. Friends and 1, and Members from other parties, have tabled amendments to try to ensure that that happens.
    I am taking advice, but I am informed by those who understand matters European that, even given the Secretary of State's amendment providing for a position that adheres at present and not for one that is contingent, as he told us, that is still wrong. I am told that the Maastricht treaty removed the word "communities" and inserted the word "community" in the singular. If that is the case, the right hon. Gentleman's amendment would still be incorrect. Would he like to check whether that is the case, and if so, would he like to withdraw his amendment and try again?
    Mr. Dewar: I shall take further advice. If we have got it wrong, that will cause real excitement in another place. Their lordships will no doubt look forward to it as a major clash. In the mysterious ways that information appears in the hands of Front-Bench spokesmen, I have a brief note that says,
    "Does not have legal personality"—
    that is, the European Union
    "even after Amsterdam."
    Mr. Ancram: I am told that the argument that I am advancing may have moved forward or backward from there. It refers to the Maastricht treaty, which, the right hon. Gentleman may find, changed the term to "community", in which case he will no doubt make the amendment in due course.
    I listened to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), and I understand what she is trying to achieve, but I am not sure that her examples from Europe are helpful. The German lander can exercise their right of representation only where it is a matter of their exclusive legislative competence, and where the federal Government have no competence. By that definition, under the Bill as presently framed, there would be few areas in which such competence could be exercised.
    The position in Spain is, if anything, weaker. The Library brief state:
    "Regions do not participate directly in European decision-making on many areas, including agriculture, fisheries, industry, economic and so on, which are within their competence, for various reasons."
    The German and Spanish examples may not be the most helpful, to the hon. Lady's cause or to mine.
    4.45 pm
    As I have made clear during our deliberations, I am concerned about the Bill being implemented in a way that leaves gaps that could cause immense confrontation

    921
    between London and Edinburgh. That would be bad for devolution and bad for the Union. We probably share enough of a common interest to want that to be avoided.
    There is a distinct gap. All we have is the rather strange reference in schedule 5, paragraph 6(2)(b), which refers, in relation to the European Union and its institutions, to
    "assisting Ministers of the Crown in relation to any matter to which that sub-paragraph applies."
    "Assisting" is the most unsatisfactory word, which could stretch from licking envelopes to doing something more important. To leave it at that in the Bill is a weakness. I have said that from the beginning. When I originally saw that, first in the White Paper and then in the Bill, I thought that the Government had missed something, as Governments occasionally do.
    I want to revisit the situation today. The last time that I raised the matter, on Second Reading, I was asked why I was worried, because matters worked satisfactorily at present, and nothing had changed. My view of the Bill is that matters have changed dramatically.
    At present, Scottish Office Ministers are members of the United Kingdom Government. They bear collective responsibility for the collective decisions of that Government. When they go to Brussels to a Council of Ministers—I understand that the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers may be going fairly soon—they go as UK Ministers, fully able to represent the United Kingdom, as any other UK Minister can. What will have changed is that, after devolution, there will be two Administrations and two sets of Ministers, and they will not necessarily be the same people, and not necessarily even of the same view or the same party.
    It is not enough to say that nothing has changed, and that matters can be left to the good will of the parties concerned. We must write into the statute some assurance that the voice of Scotland will be heard. The current position is that the Scottish Minister can speak for the United Kingdom, bringing Scotland's case to bear when he does so. It never happened to me when I was a Scottish Office Minister, because I was not in the areas that were concerned with Europe, but colleagues of mine went to Europe and argued the Scottish case within the United Kingdom context. When Ministers have done so, they come back and are answerable to the United Kingdom Parliament for what they have done.
    That situation will have changed. There will be two Administrations, served by two sets of civil servants—I shall deal with them later—who may not be of one mind. If the Scottish Minister were to represent the United Kingdom, he would not be able to come back to the House and give account of the representation that he had made. Much is different, and it is not enough to rest on the complacent approach that the Government have taken so far.
    My understanding is that, where there is a United Kingdom position, it is arrived at as a result of much preparatory work done by civil servants in Whitehall. Civil servants come from the Scottish Office to the Cabinet Office or to another Department, and together, as civil servants operating to the same Government, they come to a common position, which is the position taken in Brussels.
    In future—we do not know the details—if the Scottish view is to be represented, Scottish civil servants who are answerable not to this Parliament but to the Scottish
    922
    Parliament, will come down and presumably take part in the preparations not as part of the same civil service, but as parts of different civil services, possibly with different loyalties.
    In those circumstances, how will a common position be arrived at, so that the Scots can be assured that the voice of Scotland will be properly heard? That is a serious question. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State laughs, but there are many in Scotland who take the question seriously, as do I.
    This area, above all others, has the potential for creating conflict between England and Scotland. Imagine what would happen if a situation arose in which the position taken by the UK Government largely reflected the English interest, because that was where the Minister at the talks came from, and ignored the Scottish interest. There would be an outcry in Scotland. Believing as I do in the preservation of the Union, I have a strong incentive to avoid that happening.
    I was given the other day by some Scottish fishermen an example that I had not thought of—I share it with the House, because it is relevant. They asked what would happen some time in the future, even if the two Administrations were the same political colour, if, just before a Fisheries Council, the Spaniards got hold of the MAFF Minister and said, "Look, we can do a deal overall on the common fisheries policy. We know that you don't like us coming into the channel and into Cornish waters, so we'll withdraw from there, if you'll quietly let us abolish the Shetland box." If that were to happen, there would be major Scottish interest in retaining the Shetland box. The Scottish fishermen asked—this is their hypothesis, not mine—"Where is the incentive for MAFF to ensure that that did not occur?"
    Dr. Godman: Can the right hon. Gentleman recall, from his days in the Scottish Office, whether tensions arose among Scottish and English fisheries Ministers vis-a-vis Fisheries Council meetings, total allowable catches, quotas and so on? If there were such tensions, how were they resolved?
    Mr. Ancram: I was not personally involved in such negotiations. However, during my latter days in Northern Ireland, there were considerable discussions between the Agriculture Ministers of Northern Ireland, Scotland and England about the question of accredited herds in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Northern Ireland had an advantage in that area, and we discussed whether various parts of the United Kingdom should be treated separately. At the end of the day, the issues were resolved because the Ministers involved came from the same party and were members of the same Government. They were able to reach a common position for which they were then bound to accept collective responsibility. That is the reality of the present situation.
    After devolution, that position will no longer necessarily adhere. It certainly will not adhere that the Scottish Minister will be from the same Government and have the same loyalties and collective responsibility as his colleague from London. We must address that difference in some way in terms of the legislation, and that is what we are attempting to do.
    Mr. Salmond: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a specific example involving fisheries in the late 1980s. For

    923
    several years, the then Scottish fisheries Minister, Lord Sanderson, favoured a decommissioning scheme. He expressed that position privately to colleagues and it was well known in the fishing industry. Unfortunately, the then Minister responsible for fisheries in MAFF opposed a decommissioning scheme because of his personal experiences in the early 1980s. Will the right hon. Gentleman remind hon. Members what happened during those years regarding that key area of fisheries policy, which was absolutely central to the prospects of the Scottish fishing industry? Whose view prevailed—that of Scotland or that of London?
    Mr. Ancram: We believe that the Bill presently provides no assurances to the people of Scotland, and I understand that the purpose of the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is similar to our own. However, every time I try to explain why it is important that there be some provision in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman tries to suggest that my argument is wrong. For someone trying to achieve a particular purpose, the hon. Gentleman is putting political expediency before his principles on this occasion. We will not do that because we are trying genuinely to put a provision into the Bill—and I shall turn to the purposes of our amendments in a moment.
    We are told that the matter will be arranged by concordat. We shall consider concordats later in Committee, and I do not wish to pre-empt that discussion. A concordat is a non-statutory agreement. We know from the helpful note on concordats produced by the Scottish Office that they are not legally enforceable. They will not be subject to approval by this place or by the Scottish Parliament, and are likely to be signed between civil servants and officials rather than between Ministers, except on specific occasions.
    The note states that concordats
    "will set down common processes and the main features of good working relationships, rather than specify substantive outcomes."
    We are talking about regulations or provisions by which Scotland may be assured that it will have a voice in the councils of the European Union. The definition of concordat does not cover those matters. Even if it did, concordats are not legally enforceable. They can be unilaterally breached at any time and, if that occurs, there can be no legal retribution.
    I agree with the view expressed by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in the paper that it sent to us. The federation made it clear that it is very suspicious about whether the concordats will ultimately deliver what the Government intend. The paper states:
    "The Government's White Paper ignores it completely whilst implying that the handling of fisheries policy between MAFF and the Scottish Executive should not involve significant change from current practice; the Scotland Bill, as currently framed, leaves the power in European Fisheries negotiations in the hands of London, and makes no attempt at all to recognise the dominant position of the Scottish Industry, whereas what we know, unofficially, of the Draft Concordats which are meant to regulate relations between Whitehall and Edinburgh, provides us with no comfort on the issues outlined in this note."
    924
    I believe that a matter of such importance should be addressed on the face of the Bill: it should not be left to the whim and invitation of future Governments at Westminster.
    Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman claims that his amendment will ensure that Scotland has a say. Amendment No. 261 uses the words:
    "where a Minister of the Crown deems it appropriate".
    What happens if there is some kind of breakdown? In such circumstances, a Minister of the Crown might deem it inappropriate.
    Mr. Ancram: I shall turn to my amendments. I freely admit that it is difficult to find the means—which is why I criticised the comments of the hon. Member for Moray—of constitutionally providing a role to a Scottish Minister in terms of representing the whole United Kingdoms. I have tried to raise that issue before, but I was brushed off. It remains a difficult constitutional position to achieve.
    Hon. Members must view our two sets of amendments in the round. New clause 15 sets out to try to build up a provision whereby the United Kingdom Minister would be required to consult the Scottish Parliament and seek its views on any devolved issues that may arise. There would have to be consultation before the Council of Ministers meeting. After that meeting, the Minister would have to report on and respond to questions regarding events at the Council of Ministers. The new clause would create a direct link between the delegate to the European Council of Ministers, in the person of the United Kingdom Minister, and the Scottish Parliament both before and after the event. That link is not in the Bill at present.
    In amendment No. 261, we seek to give statutory framework to the intention that the Government stated when they introduced the White Paper but which does not appear in the Bill: where it is deemed appropriate, a Scottish Minister could attend and participate in the United Kingdom delegation. By putting that provision in the Bill, we are providing an assurance that the Government can give only verbally at present, because it does not appear in writing.
    While it may be easier for the Government to believe that, after devolution, everything will be so friendly and co-operative that no one will ever fall out, I urge them to look closely at the opinion polls in Scotland. The Government should consider whether they will see that degree of co-operation at the beginning of the Scottish Parliament. Even if they do, the Government have a duty and a responsibility to legislate not just for this year and next year, but for the future.
    We are addressing interests of fundamental importance to Scotland in terms of fishing—Scottish fisheries form a predominant part of the United Kingdom industry—and agriculture, which has specific requirements. At present, the situation is uncertain and unhappy because there is nothing on the face of the Bill.
    I ask the Secretary of State to look closely at our proposals. He should stop being complacent. He must understand that, if one buries one's head in the sand, one tends to leave exposed other parts of one's anatomy that, if one is not careful, others will come up and kick. The Secretary of State could avoid that consequence by accepting our amendments.
    Mr. Douglas Alexander: I shall direct my remarks to amendments Nos. 72 and 73, to which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) spoke. In the Bill, foreign relations, including our relations with Europe, are a matter reserved to Westminster, and remain the responsibility of the British Government. The devolution scheme endorsed so overwhelmingly by the Scottish people on 11 September last year will take place within the enduring framework of the United Kingdom. That is what the people of Scotland voted for.
    Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 run contrary to the thrust of the Bill. Amendment No. 72 seeks to devolve dealings directly related to international agreements that affect only devolved matters. I must admit that I had difficulty imagining what such matters would be and how many there would be. Amendment No. 73 proposes to devolve responsibility for the conduct of international relations on behalf of the whole United Kingdom in areas where the majority of the United Kingdom interest lies within Scotland.
    In effect, the amendments propose that foreign policy be directed from Edinburgh. To that extent, they owe more to the theory of independence within Europe than devolution.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's colleagues might help him out. I seem to remember a document of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which said that, where appropriate, Scottish Ministers could lead UK delegations. Am I right, or am I wrong?
    Mr. Alexander: It is still right. I shall come to that matter directly.
    In effect, the amendments propose independence in Europe rather than the devolutionary scheme on the face of the Bill. I need hardly remind the hon. Gentleman or, indeed, the Committee, that, whenever independence has been offered to the Scottish people, it has been overwhelmingly rejected.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Alexander: No, I have already given way.
    The Bill strikes a far better balance in the interests of the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament will, of course, continue to scrutinise European proposals, and Scottish Ministers—to answer the hon. Gentleman's query—will be involved in the domestic formulation of UK policy, and will have a role to play in the relevant meetings of the European Councils of Ministers, and in other European negotiations while devolved matters are discussed.
    Mr. Salmond: Will Scottish Ministers have the ability to lead a UK delegation, as was once promised by the Scottish Constitutional Convention?
    Mr. Alexander: Yes, as part of the UK delegation, which is the critical point and the failing of the amendments as drafted. The Bill avoids independence in Europe by the back door. It ensures that Scotland continues to enjoy the benefits of being one of the major players in the European Union, and to that extent is in total contradiction of independence in Europe—the policy of the Scottish National party.
    5 pm
    Mr. Wallace: We start from the view that the United Kingdom is a signatory to the European treaties, and therefore the relationships are first and foremost between the United Kingdom and the European Union. In this group of amendments, recognising that fundamental truth, we are trying to find ways to ensure that the Scottish interest is best safeguarded.
    It was reassuring and welcome that the Government said in the White Paper
    "Ministers and officials of the Scottish Executive should have a role to play in … Council meetings and other negotiations"
    and although
    "the UK lead Minister will retain overall responsibility … Scottish Executive Ministers could speak for the UK in Councils"
    in appropriate cases. That is something which my hon. Friends and I particularly welcome. However, we are somewhat disappointed that there is nothing in the Bill to guarantee that. I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that we should legislate for the worst-case scenario, as someone on the Treasury Bench might be of a different political persuasion from Edinburgh and there might be potential for conflict, and co-operation and good will might not exist. We might want Scotland's rights guaranteed. It should be able to participate in the discussions in the Council of Ministers.
    What is proposed in new clause 13 might be described as a triple lock, as it caters for three different situations. On matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, but which have a wider UK interest and concern, we propose that the right should be established in law that members of the Scottish Executive can participate in the discussions.
    Secondly, where non-reserved matters affect only Scotland and not other parts of the United Kingdom, we would argue that Scottish Ministers should be the sole representatives. We are talking about two conditions. The matters should be exclusively Scottish and non-reserved. I can see the right hon. Member for Devizes asking what they are. Salmon farming is almost an exclusively Scottish interest, and therefore when it is dealt with it should be led by a Scottish Minister.
    Let us return to the German lander. The German constitution states
    "where essentially the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the lander is affected the exercise of the rights of the Federal Republic of Germany as a member state of the European Union shall be transferred to a representative of the lander".
    Culture is given as an example in the House of Commons Library briefing. I pay tribute to the Library, as it produces good briefings.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about exclusive legislative competence. In the light of clause 27(7), what is exclusively legislatively competent to the Scottish Parliament alone?
    Mr. Wallace: We are talking about non-reserved matters on which the Scottish Parliament has the right to legislate. The right hon. Gentleman is making a sophisticated constitutional point, which he is absolutely right to do, in terms of clause 27(7), but we are looking at practical politics in this matter. We are talking about

    927
    matters which, in the normal course of events, would be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament and which apply exclusively within Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: The hon. and learned Gentleman will complete, will he not, the quote from the Library briefing, because it goes on to say
    "The responsibility of the Federation for the whole state has to be maintained in the process."
    That is rather crucial.
    Mr. Wallace: I accept that it is crucial. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for completing the quote, but I am not sure that it detracts in any way from the point that I made. It is a delegated responsibility as far as the lander are concerned, but, at the end of the day, the relationship is between the United Kingdom and the institutions of the European Union.
    Thirdly, there are matters in which Scotland has a particular interest, but which may also affect other parts of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, with the agreement of the Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Minister may lead the United Kingdom delegation. Fisheries is a good example, as 70 per cent. of landings are in Scotland. A matter could have an overwhelmingly Scottish interest, but also a minor interest for another part of the United Kingdom. It would be appropriate in such circumstances for the Scottish Minister to lead at the European Council meeting, with the concurrence of the United Kingdom Minister.
    There are other examples. The European Union has been known to deal with ethnic—if that is the right word—languages, such as Gaelic or Welsh. It could be of no interest to the UK Parliament because the Gaelic and Welsh languages would be devolved matters. It might be for the Scottish and Welsh Executive to sort out between them which one takes the lead. We are talking about trying to get these matters dealt with practically. Although we maintain that the level at which the legal relationship exists with the European Union is at United Kingdom Government level, the responsibility for particular negotiations could be led by the Scottish Parliament.
    Dr. Fox: On new clause 13(3), what would the House's mechanism of scrutiny be? How could the House call to account a Scottish Minister who led and made detailed negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom? How does the hon. and learned Gentleman envisage that happening?
    Mr. Wallace: It would have to be with the concurrence of a Minister of the Crown. No doubt a Minister of the Crown would have concurred in that matter. He would have to be answerable to the House and would have to answer for what was done. If only the House were interested in these matters sometimes. In May, a fundamental agreement was made with regard to salmon farming, which has never been the subject of any discussion in the House, in spite of some of our efforts. It would be reassuring to know that hon. Members were interested. I rather suspect that if the issue related to the Gaelic or Welsh languages, there would not be a great outpouring of interest on the Conservative Front Bench to call Ministers to account.
    Mr. Salmond: I am fascinated by the argument that a Minister must be present in the House of Commons.
    928
    There have been a number of occasions when Lords have led United Kingdom delegations. They were not present in the House to answer for their performance—[Interruption.] I shall choose my own words.
    In a previous discussion, the occupants of the Conservative Front Bench were frightfully keen to ensure the right of Parliament to summon Scottish Ministers. They were frightfully keen also to stop the right of the Scottish Parliament to summon Westminster Ministers, presumably to account for their actions.
    Mr. Wallace: I recall the debate to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It might provide a further answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The responsible Scottish Minister perhaps could be summoned before one of the sub-committees of the Select Committee on European Legislation.
    I accept that good words and good intentions are set out in the White Paper. However, we want a guarantee so that in future, if there were any conflict, the Scottish Parliament could not have its interests overridden by a Westminster Government of any persuasion.
    In new clause 14, we propose the establishment of
    "a European Union representative office in Brussels"
    having the
    "functions of providing advice to, and carrying out consultation with, the institutions"
    of the European Community or Communities rather than the European Union
    "on matters affecting Scotland."
    I welcome the fact that in a press release issued today the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has announced that there will be an office to act for the Scottish Parliament and Executive in Brussels once the Parliament is established. There will be a new unit staffed by two Scottish Office officials, which will be based within the United Kingdom permanent representation to the European Union. That is a welcome response to new clause 14.
    Mr. Ancram: It would have been better announced in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Wallace: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, that it might have been better if the announcement had been made in this place rather than, as I think is the case, picked up off the website two minutes and 36 seconds past 4 o'clock.
    Mr. Ancram: We are dealing with an important matter of principle. The hon. and learned Gentleman is looking for a response to new clause 14 in the House of Commons. Instead, it has been responded to on the website or the internet. That would have been without the knowledge of the House of Commons if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not had somebody to find it for him.
    Mr. Wallace: We have dealt with this matter already. However, I accept that it is important. When announcements have to be made, especially on legislation, it would be infinitely preferable if they were made first to the House of Commons. I do not want to detract from the significance of that.

    929
    Council of Minister level is often the last stage for dealing with the most intractable of issues. Very often important decisions and negotiating points are dealt with at an earlier stage. The fact that the Scottish Parliament and Executive will have an inside track will be of considerable benefit to a range of interests in Scotland where European Union legislation is relevant.
    When the Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will tell us what the relationship will be between the proposed office and the Scottish Executive and the Committee of Permanent Representatives. I understand that, at present, there is a Scottish Office civil servant who is almost invariably seconded to the UK permanent representation in Brussels, who is obviously on the inside track there. Will the Scottish Parliament and Executive representatives also be present at COREPER meetings, which often set the agenda and at which important decisions and negotiations often take place?
    The flow of information is vital. We may have Governments of different complexions at Westminster and Edinburgh; control of information could be vital. It is important that there are reassurances that the Scottish Parliament and Executive office in Brussels will have access to that information and will be involved not only at the formal and final stages of Council of Ministers meetings but at many of the informal but important stages that precede the final stage of negotiations.
    Mrs. Ewing: It is my understanding that, in the past, civil servants have been seconded on a temporary basis. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman arguing the case for permanent secondment on a permanent basis?
    Mr. Wallace: At present, there is at least a representative. Obviously we want to see the position improved. Indeed, it is important that it is improved. We will not sentence someone to be present for the rest of his days, but at least there should be continuity. There should not be an ad hoc arrangement. Something should be properly established and guaranteed.
    There will be important matters on which United Kingdom Ministers will lead. Let us not beat about the bush, the title "lead Ministry" usually applies to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is substantially or predominantly an English Ministry. It will have to be far more conscious of its United Kingdom responsibilities when those representing it are lead Ministers. I hope that that message will get through to the Ministry. Its Ministers should no longer think of themselves as being exclusively English Ministers. As a UK Ministry it has a wider responsibility. If that can be brought home to Ministers, it might be reassuring to many Scottish interests.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Dalyell: Allow me to be agreeable to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). Anyone who sits on the Select Committee on European Legislation should be given a medal. I sat under the late Julius Silverman, a clever man. Much unsung work is done by the Committee, and I salute its members for that. We are in the debt of the hon. Member for Moray for raising a vital issue. There, I fear, agreement ends.
    I spent last week sitting through the Welsh devolution debate. It was fascinating. It— [Interruption.] My hon. Friends may laugh, but it was an extremely interesting
    930
    debate. It was very different, as some of those on the Opposition Front Bench who sat through it may agree, from the debates that we have had on the Scotland Bill. There were long probing speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). As a result, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made a statement. He said:
    "Concordats will need to address those issues in the context not only of domestic policy and legislation but of the European Union. The assembly's role in policy discussions, both in the United Kingdom and in Europe, on matters within its field of responsibility will therefore be a central feature of relevant concordats. In line with current arrangements, the concordat will provide for matters such as access to relevant papers, attendance at interdepartmental meetings, consultation with the assembly about the development of the United Kingdom negotiating line, and participation in United Kingdom delegations to Brussels. They are precisely the points that were raised during the debate." — [Official Report, 25 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 618.]
    If we were not time limited, a great deal could be said about that. However, I think that I am entitled to ask for further clarification of exactly what the Government's position is.
    The hon. Member for Moray referred to four occasions in her opening speech. This was not a throw-off remark. Indeed, it is crucial. The first occasion to which she referred was on 28 and 29 November 1996, when there was a meeting on justice and home affairs. The State Secretaries for Justice and the Interior and the Senator for Internal Affairs of Hamburg attended the meeting. On 16 December 1996, there was a meeting to discuss audiovisual and cultural affairs. The Foreign Affairs Minister and Minister President of Rhineland-Palatinate attended the meeting. On 20 November 1997, the State Secretary for Education, Science, Research and Technology and the Minister for Culture of Hessen attended a meeting on education, and on 24 November 1997, the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Minister for Education, Culture, Science and the Arts of Bavaria attended a meeting on culture. Although lander Ministers attended Council meetings on four occasions—this is the crucial point—they were never the sole representative of the German Government. I understand that on no occasion could they be said to have been a lead Minister, so I fear that the hon. Lady's German example is flawed.
    Mrs. Ewing: I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman because the Ministers did not attend on their own, although perhaps I did not say so, but if he looks carefully he will see that my amendments would give us equality with the lander. I am arguing not for independence and full, sole representation, but merely for equality at this stage. Those people should be directly involved where there are specific or lead interests for the Scottish Parliament; they should not be dictated to from Whitehall, as Conservative Members want.
    Mr. Dalyell: I fear that some of us, who were listening carefully to the hon. Lady, formed a rather different impression, but of course I accept what she says.
    When considering such examples, it is crucial to take account of article 23, paragraph (6) of the German constitution, which states:
    "The Federation shall delegate the exercise of rights of the Federal Republic of Germany as a member of the European Union to a representative of the States (ie the Lander) nominated by the Senate (ie the Bundesrat) if exclusive legislative competencies of the States are centrally affected."

    931
    That brings me back to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Paragraph (6) continues:
    "These rights are exercised with participation of and in coordination with the Government; the responsibility of the Federation for the whole state has to be maintained in the process."
    I ask the Minister for the assurance, which I am sure will be forthcoming, that delegations from Britain to the European Union will include Ministers who can report back to the House on anything that is discussed in Brussels.
    Mr. Salmond: I noticed surprise among Labour Members when my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was explaining the purpose of our amendments. I can believe only that they were not present on Second Reading, when I clarified our outlook on the Bill.
    Independence for Scotland will be decided by the people of Scotland; that was the common ground between the Secretary of State and me in the referendum campaign. All our amendments have been designed to improve and enhance the Bill from within the devolved context, as they have. [Interruption] I hear guffaws from Tory Front Benchers—I shall deal with the Tory amendments in a few moments—but if they read the Official Report they will see that we have tabled constructive amendments on issues such as broadcasting or Committee powers to enhance and beef up the powers in the Bill. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that the issue of independence will be tested at the ballot box in Scotland in the not too distant future. I am reasonably satisfied with current trends on the way in which the argument is going.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Moray tried to raise the sights of hon. Members by mentioning examples from other European states, even within a devolved or federal context, where right of European representation of some sort is built in to their subsidiary bodies or federal units. In Belgium, substantial rights parallel those in amendment No. 72. Amendment No. 73 parallels what the Scottish Constitutional Convention claimed should be the state of play: there would be a right to lead a United Kingdom delegation, where appropriate. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) says that that right still exists. If so, what is the difficulty with including it in the Bill? The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) correctly said that references in the White Paper gave us encouragement about European representation, but those references and that encouragement disappeared when the Bill was published.
    Conservative Members claim the high ground and say that they are providing assurance that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation will find comforting. However, amendment No. 261 would give Westminster Ministers the power to deem when, and presumably whether, a Scottish Minister would attend the Council of Ministers. That is exactly the position without such a provision being included in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) knows the gentlemen of the SFF a lot less well than I do after years of debating and lobbying in the House if he thinks that such a mouse of an amendment would satisfy their concerns.
    The argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray is surely right. In a variety of states and in a variety of contexts, it has been possible to give some
    932
    assurance about, and some statutory base to, the position of the subsidiary Parliament. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State rested his case on the example of Catalonia. He rests a lot on Catalonia at the moment—there are those in Barcelona who tell me that his face is becoming as familiar as the face of Mr. Terry Venables used to be in that fair city. The difficulty for the Secretary of State is that the position in Catalonia is changing. He shook his head vigorously when my hon. Friend the Member for Moray mentioned that important point, but on 5 March 1998
    "the Spanish Congress and Senate Committee on the EU voted to give the Autonomous Communities the right to be part of the Spanish government delegation in those Councils dealing with autonomous (devolved) functions."
    Examples in other devolved and federal areas of Europe suggest that the devolved or subsidiary Parliaments want some right of representation within European councils, not the grace and favour offered by the Conservative party or the non-existent commitment offered by the Government. Surely we can devise a method to give the first Scottish Parliament for 300 years some access to European decision making.
    Dr. Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Salmond: No.
    Mr. Dewar: I have listened with great interest to this lively debate, and agree entirely that it has been important.
    I am not tremendously impressed by the examples from other countries. We must find one that is right for us, and trying to force our arrangements into formulas that have been adapted by other countries would not necessarily be satisfactory. As we know, the German lander have certain rights.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady must allow me to continue.
    As has been pointed out, the powers of the German lander lie where there is exclusive legislative power for them. Hon. Members will recognise the a fundamental difference: the German system is fully federal, which makes for different arrangements and relationships.
    I tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that I have, of course, taken an interest in matters Spanish over recent weeks, because I was hospitably asked to visit not only Catalonia, but one of the southern autonomous regions and the central Government in Madrid. I enjoyed the visit, and found it particularly interesting to listen to the distinguished politician who has led the nationalist movement in Catalonia for 18 years as president of the province. He explained in precise and vehement terms to the Spanish press that the idea that he was going, little by little, towards independence was total nonsense, that he regarded independence from Spain as a logical abomination and that the whole point was to obtain the right voice for Catalonia within Spain. The hon. Gentleman might want to consider that message.
    There are other points about the Spanish experience. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is right that there has been a change—not a legal change in legislation, but the passing of a motion similar to an early-day motion

    933
    or to a resolution at the end of a debate, which the Spanish Government are considering how to implement by agreement and conciliation. There is no right, as she suggested, for Catalonia, the Basque country or any other region to be part of the delegation. One representative of the 17 provinces will be on the delegation, and the great question is how the 17 provinces will decide who that person should be. Priorities may differ considerably in the various provinces. The problem is being handled by discussion and agreement about the best way forward. There is a message for us.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne rose—
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Dewar: No, let me continue.
    The White Paper promises that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament will be directly and fully involved in the formulation of United Kingdom policy, and will have a role to play in relevant Council meetings. It has been suggested that that cannot be delivered if it is not enshrined in statute. Well-intentioned and well-meaning attempts have been made to achieve that.
    I do not support amendments Nos. 72 and 73. Amendment No. 72 deals with international agreements that affect only devolved matters. It is extremely unlikely for an international agreement to refer only to Scottish devolved matters and have no impact on any other activity in the United Kingdom. It would not be appropriate for the Scottish Parliament to take on such a role in international affairs, because Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom, which follows the common foreign policy.
    It is dangerous to assume that if a majority of the UK interest lies in Scotland, the Scottish Executive's representative should be the UK's spokesperson as of right, as amendment No. 73 proposes. If that were true, the mirror image would also be true. There are 56 million people south and 5 million north of the border, so on many issues the bigger interest will lie south of the border. The principle that the right to representation goes to the largest numbers is not a precedent which I would be prepared to endorse.
    Mr. Salmond: Thousands of Council of Ministers meetings have been held in the past 20 years. Will the Secretary of State tell us on how many occasions the UK delegation to those meetings has been led by a Scottish Minister? I shall give him a starter for 10: there have been some occasions.
    Mr. Dewar: I can say with total pride that I cannot answer that question. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan thinks that I have spent the past two years going back through thousands of meetings to see who was in the delegation and who led at one particular point or another, he is looking at the issue through the wrong end of the telescope and inevitably getting a distorted view.
    Mr. Swayne: Is the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) correct that Scottish Ministers will be able to lead delegations?
    Mr. Dewar: Of course, he is correct. Were it not for Hansard, it would be dangerous to say such things,
    934
    because that remark was immediately translated by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan into a right to lead. We have never claimed that Scottish Ministers will have a right to lead. The White Paper is specific on that point. We have said that there is an opportunity to lead. In the same way as the Spanish will settle matters of representations, and as the German lander agree on representation when they decide who will lead on an area of exclusive jurisdiction, the UK delegation will hold discussions, and sensible arrangements will be made on who should lead on each occasion.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Gentleman would take his seat, I may—he has no right—allow him to intervene later as a representative of an interested minority group.
    I want to be serious about this issue: I hope that hon. Members recognise that I am being serious, because this is important. It is right for there to be Scottish representation in Brussels within the United Kingdom delegation, using the strength of the United Kingdom to advance a common cause that has been agreed in negotiation and discussion. That happens at the moment. I do not want to go into details, but I have been discussing some tricky matters affecting common interests in fishing. I was greatly helped by the fact that in the Council of Ministers that took place last week my noble Friend Lord Sewel, who was part of the UK delegation, was able to see Commissioner Fischler on behalf of the delegation to put a UK point that was of particular significance to Scotland, although it has some relevance to fishing ports in England, albeit not so dramatic. I value that arrangement, and it should continue.
    We are being asked to assume that the system is unworkable unless it is bolstered and buttressed by law. It is important that we have negotiation and discussion at official level and, if necessary, at ministerial level between the Scottish Executive and United Kingdom Ministers. At the moment, a tremendous number of bilateral meetings are held. Even in the short period in which I have been in office, I have been involved in many bilateral meetings with United Kingdom Ministers. I am grateful to my team in the Scottish Office who often pave the way, and who provide me with munitions of war in terms of the arguments.
    Under the new system, as now, those bilateral meetings will take place and a common United Kingdom position will emerge. If it does not, the matter will probably go to a Committee made up of relevant United Kingdom Ministers and Scottish Executive Ministers, who will hopefully find common ground. Politics is about making things work, and we are all part of the United Kingdom until and if ever another view is expressed by the electorate in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, that is common ground between us.
    The United Kingdom is an amalgam of interests, as is Scotland. There is a common interest in reaching the right view in the way that I have described. I do not think that that approach will be unworkable or difficult. If hon. Members do not agree with that, it is a vote of no confidence in the United Kingdom. I can understand such a view from the nationalists, because that is their raison d'être: their only reason for existence is to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. However, I am surprised that

    935
    the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) takes such a gloomy view of the way in which the United Kingdom will work in the future, and of the partnership approach.
    Mr. Ancram: I am seriously trying to understand whether the Secretary of State's proposals will work. It is in our interest to ensure that whatever is put in place works. What concerns me about such negotiation is that there will be two sets of civil servants. At the moment, they come under a common civil service answerable to one Government. They are able to share all information, whether it is confidential or not. When there are two sets of civil servants answering to two different Administrations, will it be possible for both sets to see the same information, whatever its confidentiality? To whom will they owe their loyalty? Such nuts and bolts issues must be sorted out if this proposal is to work.
    Mr. Dewar: The home civil service remains a united service. Civil servants work for their ministerial teams. When the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Scottish Office, his civil servants serviced him and were able to discuss matters of common interest across the departmental range. There is no reason why that arrangement should not continue.
    I shall tell hon. Members a secret. On occasions, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office have had different points of view and have had to discuss the matter and reach a common conclusion. The United Kingdom is the signatory body, so it is essential to have a common position that we can all back and for which we can all argue. The Scottish Ministers will go back and report to the Scottish Parliament, to which they are accountable, and the United Kingdom Ministers will be accountable to the House. That is sensible.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Dewar: No, I must watch the time.
    In new clause 13, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) suggests that the provision that a Scottish Minister may attend meetings in Brussels should be changed so that he is entitled as of right to attend. That is not the spirit in which these matters will be conducted.
    Mrs. Ewing: No.
    Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady says no. Should the Welsh assembly have the same right? Matters will become extremely complicated and difficult. If the hon. and learned Gentleman assumes that, without that right, the Scottish Minister would have been excluded, I think that he assumes some very depressing prospects for the whole adventure on which we are embarked.
    We certainly had no intention of hiding today's announcement about representation in Brussels. Clearly, what happens is ultimately a matter for the Scottish Parliament, and, in a sense, I cannot lay down the law for that Parliament. All that we can do is offer it a menu of
    936
    opportunity. I personally can make clear my belief that Scottish representation in Brussels would be valuable, and that it would be a fairly high priority for the Parliament.
    We made the announcement today because we knew that I would mention the matter in my speech, and that it would be a subject for discussion here. It is a modest start. I regard the two representatives who have been sent as an advance party—some might even describe them as a picket—whose task will be to reconnoitre and make recommendations. Their host will be UKREP, and they will be on UKREP premises, but they will not be part of UKREP. I believe that we have four people seconded to UKREP at present, and of course I want that arrangement to continue. The Scottish representative office in Brussels will be there to complement and work with UKREP, but not to replace it. As UKREP speaks for the United Kingdom as a whole, I think it particularly important for staff to be seconded from the Executive of the Scottish Parliament.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Dewar: Very briefly.
    Mrs. Ewing: May I ask the Secretary of State, very briefly, whether those people will be involved in COREPER—the Committee of Permanent Representatives—which plays such an effective role in the Council of Ministers and in looking at directives?
    Mr. Dewar: I would certainly expect them to be involved in it, but who is involved in what meetings will be a matter for UKREP. The people concerned will be in UKREP, and I hope that we shall be able to maintain those relations, which are important to us.
    In case the hon. Lady is about to jump up and ask why we do not introduce a statutory law binding UKREP to an arrangement whereby, every time five people leave the building, one must be a Scot, let me say that that would bring us into the realms of the fanciful.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Dewar: No, I am about to finish my speech. I am not being discourteous to my hon. Friend. I nearly always give way to him, but on this occasion I have only two minutes left.
    We have heard a great deal about total dissatisfaction with what is or is not in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Devizes quoted what had been said by fishing bodies. I accept that we shall have to talk to those bodies and take our case to them, and I think that we will be successful in that. Let me, however, remind the right hon. Gentleman of a letter from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, dated 26 January, which the union made public. According to that letter,
    "it has been suggested that the position of Scottish Ministers' participation in the Council of Ministers is necessarily weakened. This Union does not agree with this criticism and believes that the Bill as presently formed will fulfil its intended purpose … The Union attaches great importance to the representation of Scottish agricultural interests in the institutions of the European Union. We believe that the Bill, when enacted, will allow Scottish Ministers to represent distinctive Scottish interests as is appropriate for a component part of a member state."

    937
    The letter goes on to look forward to the days when there will be representation and a representative office in Brussels.
    I quoted from the letter not because I think that the National Farmers Union of Scotland is the end of the argument, but because it is operating as the voice of Scotland in a particularly sensitive area, often identified as one in which we are particularly weak in terms of the European argument. Perhaps Opposition Front Benchers and others who doubt our good intentions, or the workability of what we are trying to do, will have some regard for that fact and those opinions.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 59, line 45, at end insert—
    '(c) dealings directly related to international agreements affecting devolved matters'. — [Mrs. Ewing.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made: —
    The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 285.

    Division No. 234]

    [5.45 pm

    AYES

    Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

    Swinney, John

    (Perth)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Mr. Alasdair Morgan and

    Salmond, Alex

    Mr. Andrew Welsh.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Ainger, Nick

    Casale, Roger

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Caton, Martin

    Alexander, Douglas

    Chidgey, David

    Allen, Graham

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Clapham, Michael

    Ashton, Joe

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Baker, Norman

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Ballard, Mrs Jackie

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Banks, Tony

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Beard, Nigel

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clelland, David

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Clwyd, Ann

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Coaker, Vernon

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Betts, Clive

    Coleman, Iain

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Connarty, Michael

    Boateng, Paul

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cousins, Jim

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Cranston, Ross

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Crausby, David

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    (Dunfermline E)

    Cummings, John

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Browne, Desmond

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Darvill, Keith

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Burstow, Paul

    Davidson, Ian

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Byers, Stephen

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Dawson, Hilton

    Cabom, Richard

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Denham, John

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Cann, Jamie

    Donohoe, Brian H

    938

    Doran, Frank

    Leslie, Christopher

    Dowd, Jim

    Levitt, Tom

    Drew, David

    Love, Andrew

    Drown, Ms Julia

    McAllion, John

    Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Edwards, Huw

    McCabe, Steve

    Efford, Clive

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Etherington, Bill

    McCartney, Ian (MakerHeld)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McFall, John

    Fitzsimons, Loma

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Flint, Caroline

    McIsaac, Shona

    Flynn, Paul

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Follett, Barbara

    McLeish, Henry

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Foulkes, George

    McWalter, Tony

    Fyfe, Maria

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Galbraith, Sam

    Mandelson, Peter

    Galloway, George

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Martlew, Eric

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Goggins, Paul

    Meale, Alan

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Merron, Gillian

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Michael, Alun

    Gorrie, Donald

    Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

    Grant, Bernie

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Milburn, Alan

    Grocott, Bruce

    Miller, Andrew

    Grogan, John

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Hancock, Mike

    Morley, Elliot

    Hanson, David

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mudie, George

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Heppell, John

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Norris, Dan

    Hill, Keith

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Osbome, Ms Sandra

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Hoey, Kate

    Pearson, Ian

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Pendry, Tom

    Hope, Phil

    Pickthall, Colin

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Pike, Peter L

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Pound, Stephen

    Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Hurst, Alan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hutton, John

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Purchase, Ken

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jamieson, David

    Radice, Giles

    Jenkins, Brian

    Rapson, Syd

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Raynsford, Nick

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Rendel, David

    Jones, Helen (Wanington N)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Rooker, Jeff

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Roy, Frank

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Ruane, Chris

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Kidney, David

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Sanders, Adrian

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Sawford, Phil

    939

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Touhig, Don

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Truswell, Paul

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Tyler, Paul

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Vaz, Keith

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wallace, James

    Soley, Clive

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Spellar, John

    Watts, David

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Webb, Steve

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    White, Brian

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Stevenson, George

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    (Swansea W)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Wills, Michael

    Stringer, Graham

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wise, Audrey

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Woolas, Phil

    (Dewsbury)

    Wray, James

    Taylor, David (NWLeics)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mr. Greg Pope and

    Todd, Mark

    Ms Bridget Prentice.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being two hours and ten minutes after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question necessary to be disposed of at that hour, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [this day].
    Amendment made: No. 523, in page 60, leave out line 16 and insert—
    '() the exercise of civil defence functions by any person otherwise than as a member of any force or organisation referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to (d) or any other force or organisation reserved by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(a)'.[Mr. McFall.]
    Dr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 407, in page 60, line 39, leave out 'and non-domestic rates)' and insert
    ') but not locally raised business or non-domestic rates or any local sales or local tourist industry tax.'.
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 11—Subsidiarity—
    '.—In the relations between the Scottish Parliament and Executive and local government in Scotland, the principle of subsidiarity shall apply, and all acts of the Parliament shall be construed in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.'.
    New clause 18—Restriction on tax levying power of the Parliament—
    '.—The Parliament shall not have the power to levy any tax other than as provided for in section 69.'.
    New clause 25—Transfer of Powers to Islands Areas—

    '.—(1) It shall be competent for the Scottish Parliament to transfer to an islands authority administrative responsibility for all or part of each of the functions set out in Schedule (Functions which may be transferred to an Islands Authority) to this Act, in respect of the relevant islands area;

    (2) Following a request from an islands authority, the Scottish Executive and the islands authority shall publish a joint report on the implications of the transfer of any function or part thereof to the islands authority;

    940

    (3) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-section (2), the joint report shall define the extent of the responsibilities to be transferred, and shall set out the financial consequences of any such transfer;

    (4) The transferred responsibilities referred to in sub-section (3) above may include the power to make orders under the relevant primary legislation, and the responsibilities transferred may include any relevant powers or duties exercised by the Scottish Parliament, by any Joint Board, or by any other public body for which the Scottish Parliament is responsible;

    (5) The joint report referred to in sub-section (2) above shall be considered by both the Scottish Parliament and islands authority within three months of its publication, and thereafter shall be a referendum on the proposed transfer of responsibilities, in which all registered electors in the relevant islands area shall be entitled to vote;

    (6) In the event of a majority approval of the proposed transfer of responsibilities, such responsibilities shall be transferred to the islands authority on 1st April following the referendum, provided that at least six months shall have elapsed since the referendum;

    (7) Nothing in this section shall affect the existing powers and responsibilities of the islands authorities;

    (8) For the purpose of this section, "islands authority" means the Orkney Islands Council, Shetland Islands Council and Western Isles Council, and the term "relevant islands area" shall be construed accordingly.'.

    New schedule 2—'Functions which may be transferred to an Islands' Authority—

    1. The following functions may be transferred to an islands' authority under section (Transfer of powers to island areas).

    2. Those functions are:
    passenger and road transport; sea and air transport; police; fire services; water and sewerage; functions of SEPA; coast protection; inshore fisheries; powers of direction vested in the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Crown Estate Act 1961; liquor licensing; licensing under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982; functions of Historic Scotland; tourism, land use and planning; housing; further education; careers advice and guidance; sport and arts.'.

    Dr. Fox: The amendment and new clause 18 seek to restrict the Scottish Parliament's tax-raising powers to that which occurs in clause 69. This issue was central to the referendum campaign; many who voted yes did so because they thought that any tax-raising power would be limited to 3p on the standard rate of tax. They were encouraged in that belief during the campaign.
    In the referendum campaign and in the general election campaign, we warned about the danger of back-door taxation. What we said at the general election proved correct. Back-door taxation has occurred, not the least example of which was the raid on pensions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that will push council taxes in Scotland up by an extra 2 to 3 per cent. next year simply to pay for the extra cost to local government. Specifically, we said that we did not want the uniform business rate in Scotland to be abolished and that we did not want sales or tourist taxes, which have been proposed in several quarters.
    The temptation to raise extra finance will be great; calculated on the number of Scottish taxpayers, 3p on the standard rate will raise about £450 million. That sounds like a large amount until it is compared with the Scottish grant of £14 billion. As we approach the Scottish parliamentary elections, the usual promises are made and the spending auction continues.
    A great deal of expectation will be built up about what the Scottish Parliament can provide. The Liberal Democrats have proposed 1p on tax and say that the

    941
    money raised would go far, but even £450 million will not go far in terms of Scottish public expenditure, and there will be a temptation to raise expectations beyond those that can reasonably be met within the sum that is proposed in clause 69. I think that politicians will give in to that temptation.
    Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong—expectations have already been raised.
    Dr. Fox: Whatever starting point we take, we probably agree that expectations will be raised further between now and the parliamentary elections. I agree that they have already been raised: many of the debates in Committee have shown that expectations have already been raised unrealistically, but as we go through the campaign they will be raised further. I need only look at some of those sitting behind me to see the sort of promises auction—
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: There is no one behind the hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Fox: If the hon. Gentleman had looked up from his notes he would see who I mean. I think especially of the Scottish nationalists, who will promise far more than they can deliver, in the knowledge that that will destroy the cosy feelings that the Government believe they have built recently. The effect of spending this extra money—of raising extra taxation—is clear.
    The Government have converted to market economics—at least most of them have; I see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is not here at present. They understand that a low-cost, deregulated economy will lead to more jobs. If that is true, the converse is also true: more regulation and higher taxes and higher costs will lead to fewer jobs. It is that negative effect on the Scottish economy which we have to consider when examining potential extra tax raising.
    6 pm
    We cannot overlook the success of the uniform business rate—a great achievement which occurred under the Conservative Government. Before UBR was introduced, businesses in Scotland were taxed disproportionately in relation to businesses in England. They had a far heavier burden. They were pounded by socialist councils, especially in west and central Scotland, as easy targets to raise money for councils' public expenditure, but they now compete on a level playing field.
    One of the ways in which we can see the success of the change is by comparing current average earnings in Scotland with what they were at the end of the 1970s. At that time, they were 87 per cent. of the United Kingdom average; now, they have risen to about 98 per cent. of the UK average. Scotland has done extremely well. I do not need to stress again the success of inward investment in Scotland. That success and the equalisation of treatment in business rates cannot be a coincidence.
    As a direct result of UBR, Scottish businesses have paid £1.4 billion less in rates over the five years from 1990. If the rate poundage had risen in line with inflation since 1990, the poundage would now be over 110p, more than doubling current rates bills. On top of that, we had UBR transitional relief of some £72 million in 1995–96
    942
    and £65 million in 1996–97. I say that to show how far we have come in terms of protecting Scottish businesses from the effects of profligate local government.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: The hon. Gentleman talks of profligate local government. Were not the two most significant increases in local taxation in Scotland over the past five years caused by the poll tax and local authority reorganisation, both of which were imposed by the previous Government against the wishes of the people? They are clearly a significant factor in the fact that, in Scotland, local authorities now raise only 14 per cent. of their income and the Government are responsible for 86 per cent.
    Dr. Fox: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is arguing that local authorities should raise more money and impose higher taxes. Whatever her starting point, if she is arguing that they should raise extra money, council taxes will rise even further. As a result of the Budget that the Government have just produced, council taxes in Scotland will rise even further next year, simply to pay for the pensions theft that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has forced on local government: new Labour, new taxes. After each Budget, higher price tags are attached to local government.
    There is no point in the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) giving us the red herring of the poll tax given that so many of her—[Interruption.] During the referendum campaign, many Labour Members said, "You must vote yes in the referendum so that we never have another situation where a Westminster Government can impose a poll tax." As has already been admitted, the Bill gives the House exactly the same powers to impose a new system of local government finance in Scotland, so that line is a red herring, and the hon. Lady should not have mentioned it.
    One question that might legitimately be asked of the Conservative party is: as the Bill gives the Scottish Parliament only powers that are currently exercised by the Scottish Office, why should we not wish the Scottish Parliament to have extra tax-raising powers? The answer is that, at present, those powers are exercised within a unitary fiscal and political framework. As I have said, with devolution, there will be a build-up of expectations. We must ensure that the pressure valve is not a range of new back-door taxes on the Scottish people.
    Mr. John Swinney: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Parliament being given additional tax-raising powers. Does he not realise that—certainly from my reading of his amendment, I fear that this is the situation—if amendment No. 407 were accepted, the Scottish Parliament would be unable to lower business rates to try to provide a competitive advantage for Scottish business? That is a strange argument for the allegedly business-friendly Conservative party to advance.
    Dr. Fox: In having a seductive red herring, the hon. Gentleman now has one up on the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), who is sitting in front of him. We of course have never tried to have business rates lower in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. The whole point was to have a level playing field throughout the UK. That is what we sought then. I am an unashamed Unionist. I want

    943
    a level playing field to be maintained for businesses throughout the UK. That is exactly what we intended to have.
    The amendment is about keeping faith with the people who voted yes in the referendum campaign, believing that the tax-raising powers would be limited. Those who voted yes yes, or even no yes, thought that the only tax that could be raised would be 3p on income tax. The amendment and new clause 18 hold the Government to account. It is up to them to demonstrate that they told the truth during the referendum. I hope that they will accept amendment No. 407 and new clause 18, which are reasonable and protect Scottish taxpayers.
    Mr. Dalyell: Because we are time limited, I should like to make just one point. I plead with my hon. Friends to understand that many Scottish businesses are deeply concerned about the uniform business rate. The level playing field with England is a matter of considerable consequence to their prosperity and to employment in Scotland. I leave it at that because I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
    Mr. Wallace: Included in this group is new clause 25, on the government of the islands. The UBR, which was imposed by the last Conservative Government, put up business rates in the islands areas, so it was a mixed blessing.
    Business rates may remain exclusively the responsibility of Westminster, but, as I understood it, it was the Labour party's policy to return business rates to local authorities. It can do that here, with its majority of 179, much more readily than in a Scottish Parliament, where it is distinctly possible that it will not have a majority at all.
    If the Parliament acts as those of us who campaigned for it during the referendum hope it will, it will consult and take different views into account, not least those of business. I hope that it will be business friendly. If it is thought necessary to change the business rating system in Scotland, it is incumbent on the Parliament to take into account the views of business and to consult it. Any changes might, therefore, be much more business friendly than if this House, with a Government majority of 179, just pushed through a business non-friendly Bill.
    The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred to red herrings. Perhaps he has caught the biggest red herring as he tries to take away an opportunity for Scottish business and the Parliament to engage constructively on the best form of local taxation.
    New clause 11 relates to subsidiarity. It seeks to give a presumption of subsidiarity in any negotiations or dealings between the Scottish Parliament and Executive and local authorities in Scotland.
    The constitutional convention agreement, "Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right", says:
    "The Act will include a clause committing Scotland's Parliament to secure and maintain a strong and effective system of local government, and will embody the principle of subsidiarity so as to guarantee the important role of local government in service delivery."
    New clause 11 seeks to give some substance to that agreement, reached among the various parties to the constitutional convention.
    944
    It is important that we send the right signals to local government, to let it know that the Scottish Parliament does not exist to suck away its powers—as the House of Commons did under the 18 years of the Conservative Administration. Time and again, the Conservatives took powers from local government and centralised them. We must ensure that a Scottish Parliament has proper respect for the role of local government in our communities.
    Local government is probably the level of government that allows the greatest opportunity for people to participate and to influence decisions that affect them directly—individually and in their community life. It is important that the crucial role of local government is recognised, and that the Scottish Parliament does not unnecessarily encroach on, or infringe, its role.
    Although I welcome the fact that the Government have set up a commission to study the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government, I repeat that it is a matter of considerable dismay that it will have no powers to examine local government finance. A similar mistake was made in the 1970s, when local government was reformed in both England and Scotland, two or three years before the Layfield committee report on local government finance.
    One cannot consider the powers and role of local government without considering the way in which it raises its finance. The fact that, at the moment, there is such a high gearing in central Government grants to local authorities detracts from local democracy in many ways. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will reconsider the possibility of making local government finance part and parcel of the commission's remit.
    I shall now discuss the new clauses relating to the islands communities. In 1990, the original constitutional convention document said:
    "No detailed decisions have been reached but there is agreement that the unique place of the Islands warrants separate constitutional consideration in the detailed legislative proposals for the establishment of Scotland's Parliament".
    That was reflected in the final, agreed document of the constitutional convention, which recognised the geographical and historical circumstances of the islands and said that they warranted distinctive constitutional consideration.
    I welcome the fact that each of the islands areas—Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles—will have its own Member of the Scottish Parliament, but new clause 25 seeks to go further. Whereas it would be up to Parliament to decide to devolve further powers to the islands areas, new clause 25 would give an initiative to the islands area.
    If an islands authority felt that there was a sphere of competence in which it could exercise a function better and more in sympathy with local needs, it could go to the Scottish Parliament and say so. There would then be a requirement for a negotiation to proceed between the Scottish Parliament and the islands authority on a range of specific issues. I think especially of water and sewerage.
    As water and sewerage are self-contained within each island group, there is no earthly reason why the islands areas should be attached to the big quango of the North of Scotland water authority. I believe that there is good reason for that responsibility to be restored to the islands area. The authorities could negotiate the financial terms and so on with the Scottish Parliament, and then the matter would be resolved by a referendum.

    945
    Often, legislation that the House has passed for the best of reasons does not work in the islands areas because of unique local circumstances. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is not in the Chamber at the moment, but I remember that, when he was a Scottish Office housing Minister, he sympathetically allowed a subsequent amendment to legislation when, following the introduction of the right to buy, teachers' houses were being sold in some remote islands areas, with the result that, whenever there was a new teacher, the council had to build a new house. That was never the intention of the legislation, and an amendment was needed.
    Legislation on housing associations and the giving of contracts has meant that, in the Orkney housing association, the almost impossible situation has grown up where it is possible that the only supplier of certain office equipment in the islands is a board member related to an employee of the housing association. It is no good going to Shetland, because there is a relationship there with yet another employee. A measure that works sensibly in Glasgow or Edinburgh, and probably in most parts of mainland Scotland, does not work in the islands.
    Building material waste from one of the north isles of Orkney must be brought to the mainland of Orkney for disposal, if the law is to be followed properly. That does not make sense either. Sensitivity and common sense are needed. I believe that when the islands authorities believe they should have a competence to deal with these matters, it should be granted. There should be a mechanism in the Parliament to ensure that, just as we have an explanatory memorandum on the financial consequences of a Bill, or an explanatory memorandum on the impact on public manpower, or on business compliance, every piece of Scottish Parliament legislation is considered in the context of its implications for the islands areas. If, despite that process, an anomaly arises, there should be a fast track procedure for tackling and ending that anomaly.
    To be fair, the Secretary of State has visited Orkney twice. He will be in Shetland for the highlands and islands convention later in the year. Considerable sympathy has been expressed. We hope that it will be translated into legislative form, to give the reassurances that people in the islands areas seek.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: There has been a massive contrast between the very positive approach adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and the very negative Tory speech and Tory amendment and new clause that are now before the Committee. I strongly agree with the hon. and learned Member that there must be a co-operative, not competitive, relationship between the new Scottish Parliament and Scotland's local authorities.
    I shall be brief. The Tory amendment and new clause are yet another example of the Tories telling the Scottish Parliament and MSPs what they cannot do. Business rates, or any other source of taxation, would be for ever beyond the remit of the Scottish Parliament. The Tories believe that democratically elected Scottish representatives are not to be trusted. They want to deny the Scottish Parliament what every other European devolved Parliament takes for granted.
    946
    Yet again, the Tories are showing that they have no trust or confidence in Scotland and that they do not want Scottish democracy or fiscal autonomy. The Tories are truly the Scottish no-men, and the amendment and their new clause show that they are at it again.
    Under successive London Governments, Scottish business has suffered higher business rates than business in England and, from 1990 to 1995, that amounted to approximately 20 per cent. extra per year, or £1,200 million over-taxation. There has always been a certain hypocrisy about those Tory business leaders who oppose home rule for Scotland—because it may lead to higher tax for businesses—while supporting a Union under which Scottish businesses suffer from that debilitating London levy.
    We believe that Scottish businesses should be assisted, not unnecessarily hindered, by the taxation mechanism. The uniform business rate poundage in Scotland should be no higher than that in England, before or after independence. There should be no increase in the level of business rates beyond, let us say, a 5 per cent. annual maximum. Thus, Scottish businesses would pay their fair share towards local government services but retain their essential competitive edge.
    In exchange for making their contribution to local government, there should be a statutory right for local businesses to be consulted at each stage of the policy making process on matters that affect them.
    Dr. Fox: How on earth does one raise taxes on local businesses and yet maintain the competitive edge?
    Mr. Welsh: I just pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that we believe that business taxation could be kept to a minimum to give the Scots a competitive edge. He said that there should be one rate throughout the United Kingdom. We should like a beneficial rate in Scotland, to give our businesses that extra edge. We see a prosperous, expanding economy in Scotland, and our policies are designed to promote that. In rushing to be a Unionist, the hon. Gentleman has, in the past, crippled Scottish small businesses by the uncompetitive rates that were forced on them.
    We believe that valuation criteria should be revised so that the contribution made by smaller businesses is no longer disproportionately high in comparison to that of larger businesses. Many reforms should be introduced—reforms to local government finance and reforms to help small businesses.
    We believe not only that all businesses should make a fair contribution to local government finance, but that, equally, they must be guarded from any unnecessary or over-large tax rises. Scottish small businesses are at the heart of local communities across the length and breadth of Scotland. Our proposals would guarantee fairness and participation by businesses in our democratically elected Scots Parliament.
    The Tory amendment and new clause would offer Scotland nothing. They are negative, scaremongering and out of touch, and they should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.
    I should like a Scottish local government system to be developed in which local government has its own clearly defined powers, is properly financed and is answerable to its own electors. Local government should work in

    947
    partnership in providing low-cost, high-quality public services for the public good. The norm should be that maximum powers are devolved to the appropriate level. Such devolution should not be the exception, as it currently is in Scotland.
    I therefore support the principle behind the Liberal Democrats' new clause 11, which would devolve power to local government. The trend in Europe is clearly towards establishing subsidiarity. We should follow that trend and the principles enshrined in the European charter for local government.
    The Conservative amendment and new clause should be rejected.
    Mrs. McKenna: I shall speak to the Conservatives' amendment and new clause, which are yet another attack on Scottish local government. In their 18 years in office, the previous Government persistently made such attacks, most disgracefully denigrating local government—which should be a partner of national government and play its proper role in society. Local government is democratically and very soundly elected and should be respected as such. The principle of subsidiarity should apply not only to Scotland's Parliament but to local government so that it might play its proper role.
    Many hundreds of good councillors—who were respected in their communities and understood their role—were disgracefully attacked by the previous Government. Official Opposition spokesmen have said that they want a new relationship with local government and have come very close to apologising to those in local government for their actions in the past 18 years. However, such an apology has not characterised the tone of today's debate.
    Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Lady believe that the UBR should be maintained?
    Mrs. McKenna: I believe that the Scottish Parliament, with local government, should examine the issue of local government taxation and the uniform business rate. If it is appropriate to return the matter to local government, that decision should be made. I trust local government and the people. Unlike Conservative Members I trust democratically elected and accountable local government councillors to make that decision.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. McKenna: No; I have only a few minutes in which to speak.
    Conservative Members do not understand that we want a relationship and partnership with local government. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that the success of inward investment in Scotland was to do entirely with equalising the uniform business rate. That is not true. Scotland's successful inward investment rate is a result of partnerships between local government, other
    948
    public sector bodies, the private sector and the Government—all of whom work together and understand the local agenda and inward investment.
    Mrs. Laing rose
    Mr. Swinney: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. McKenna: No; I shall not take any more interventions.
    Those organisations work together very successfully—as they will in the Scottish Parliament. Local government will be respected, as will the business community. As a former local government leader, I know that such mutual respect is entirely possible. I worked under the old regime—before the poll tax—in which we levied the business rate, and we had a very good relationship with the business sector in our area. We never had any problems. Business respected our rights, as we respected its rights. The Scottish Parliament will allow development of a proper working relationship between all the organisations involved, whether they are public or private.
    It would do Conservative Members much credit if, just once, they would apologise to the people of Scotland for what they did to Scottish local government over the past 18 years. I oppose their amendment and new clause.
    Mr. McLeish: Before I deal with the specifics of the amendment, the new clauses and the new schedule, I should repeat a comment made by some of my hon. Friends: the Conservatives have learnt absolutely nothing about local government, the White Paper or the Bill. This Government have had the most constructive dialogue with business in Scotland of any Labour Government since the war: we have attempted to take business into our confidence, and very constructively to decide how we should move forward— [Interruption.] Conservative Members mimic, but they will have to deal with the reality: they are simply out of touch with the business community in Scotland.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, the business community in Scotland is apprehensive, which is important. However, it is better to be apprehensive on the basis of information than on the basis of ignorance—which has been demonstrated in this debate by Conservative Members.
    We promised in the White Paper that we would be consistent in saying what the Parliament would do on taxation. We made that promise on 1 May, in the White Paper, during the referendum and in this Bill, which will be an Act. We have been completely consistent—which is the way to build trust not only with the Scottish people but with the business community.
    Some of my hon. Friends have already asked when the Conservatives will start to take seriously the very large business of local government in Scotland, which spends billions of pounds of taxpayers' money and delivers some of the best-quality services in the United Kingdom. It is not asking much for that to be acknowledged. Although I would not go so far as to ask Conservative Members to support local government, such an acknowledgment would be beneficial to the House and to the Scottish Parliament.
    The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) argued that the power to change local taxation was an extra tax-raising power which was not mentioned in the

    949
    referendum campaign. Nothing could be further from the truth. The White Paper made it quite clear that local domestic and non-domestic taxation would be devolved matters, as is stated in the Bill.
    As for amendment No. 407, the Bill devolves to the Scottish Parliament and Executive responsibility for relations with local authorities in Scotland, and for their financing, both in terms of grant and in terms of local taxation. It would not be consistent with that principle to reserve local non-domestic taxation—either the existing system of non-domestic rates or potential changes to that system. However, the Government have no intention of introducing new taxes on Scottish business, through the back door, by use of that mechanism.
    New clause 18 brings us back to territory that has already been discussed at length. The Bill provides that the Scottish Parliament will have the power to vary the basic rate of income tax. The Parliament will have no other powers in national taxation, because taxes and excise duties are reserved matters. New clause l8 is simply not necessary.
    I therefore ask that amendment No. 407 be withdrawn and that new clause 18 not be pressed.
    The Government do not think that new clauses 11 and 25 are necessary. We are certain that local government will have a very important role to play after devolution. Our approach to local government was outlined in the White Paper, which stated that the Government did not expect the Scottish Parliament to accumulate a range of new functions at the centre that would be more appropriately and efficiently delivered by other bodies.
    An important idea that we have promoted in our debates is that we want there to be devolution from Westminster to Edinburgh—not for councils in Ayr, Fife or Glasgow to lose responsibilities. That important balance must be struck in any democracy. It is absolutely sound for us to express the idea not only in this place, but—when discussing local government—across the country.
    The White Paper affirmed our belief that decisions should be made as close as possible to the citizen—the principle of subsidiarity has been mentioned by Opposition Members—and that the people of Scotland will be best served by a Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive working closely with strong, democratically elected local government.
    People in local government are elected. A proud tradition in Scotland, and across the United Kingdom, is that those who want to perform public service should stand for election and be elected. We should therefore have more faith and confidence in what those in local government are doing for their own electorate.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the speculation in the press—although not, as far as I know, from any of my hon. Friends, let alone Ministers—will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no possibility of the police being taken out of the hands of local authorities and becoming directly accountable to the Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. McLeish: I am very pleased to able to say that there is no possibility whatever of that happening. The police do an excellent job in Scotland, along with the fire service. They are an essential part of the fabric of community safety. We are working closely with all
    950
    concerned, including the unions, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) and the fire service bosses to ensure that we have the best service possible. There is no intention of shifting in the way outlined by my hon. Friend.
    6.30 pm
    New clause 11 is an attempt by the hon. Member for Woodspring to entrench the position of local government. Although I share the Conservatives' wish to see local government thrive, I do not think that this is the way to achieve that aim. Such a provision suggests that we do not trust the Scottish Parliament to legislate properly. I know that that is not the import of the comments that have been made, but it all comes back to a question of balance—a question which we need to take seriously in our democracy.
    Of course, we have already acted in a number of ways to affirm the role of local government. In June, we signed the Council of Europe's charter for local self-government; six months later, we established the Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament to consider how strong local government can best work with the Parliament and its Executive.
    Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know that he is short of time. He will be standing for the Scottish Parliament. Will it be the Labour party's position in that Scottish Parliament to maintain the UBR?
    Mr. McLeish: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have heard me say that we are devolving responsibilities for the structure of local government, for local taxation and non-domestic taxation to the Scottish Parliament. It is a matter which can be discussed in this House and by the Scottish Parliament. At the moment, we have a system of local government finance which is working and which is delivering on services. It is vital that that is recognised and that it should continue.
    The commission may propose a concordat between local government and the Scottish Parliament for the Parliament to consider. A statement of intent by the Scottish Parliament is a more appropriate affirmation of the role of local government than something forced on it by this House.
    The Government cannot accept new clause 25 and new schedule 2, as they would tie the Parliament's hands, requiring it to transfer to an islands authority responsibility for a range of matters, subject only to a referendum in the relevant islands area. If the electors in the area supported the transfer, the Parliament would have no discretion to refuse, notwithstanding the consequences of the transfer for the islands, the Parliament or, indeed, other parts of Scotland.
    I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will want to recognise the special circumstances of the islands communities, and it will be open to it to confer functions in relation to devolved matters on to islands authorities. It would not, however, be appropriate for this House to prescribe to the Scottish Parliament how it should do these things. The Scottish Parliament will be much better placed than we are to decide how best to meet the needs of Scotland's island communities.
    The new electoral arrangements for the Scottish Parliament will ensure that the voice of the islands communities is properly heard. The proportional

    951
    representation system and separate constituency Members for both Orkney and Shetland will help to ensure that the views of the islands are properly represented in the Scottish Parliament.
    In the light of that explanation of the Government's position, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
    Dr. Fox: The purpose of the amendment, the new clauses and the new schedule was to flush out exactly what the Government's attitude in the Scottish Parliament would be towards the UBR. It is clear from the comments of the Minister and some of his colleagues that local business is to be soaked. The Labour party and even the Minister himself will not rule out abolition of the UBR. The simple question put to him was what would be the Labour party's position on the UBR in the Scottish Parliament. He is going to be a Minister and senior politician in that Parliament, yet we are unable to get an answer from him. Having managed to flush out the position—
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I heard the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman prescribe who is and is not going to be a Minister in the new Scottish Parliament. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to pick Ministers for the new Scottish Parliament, even if he is picking them from parties other than his own?
    The Chairman: That is not a point of order. It was a slip of the tongue.
    Dr. Fox: The comment from the leader of the Scottish National party is the kind of comment that I might expect from someone who has played the one card he has a little too early in the campaign.
    Having successfully flushed out the Government's hostility to local businesses, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
    Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 467, in page 60, leave out lines 41 to 44.
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 317, in clause 111, page 50, line 21, leave out 'of restitution' and insert 'arising from unjustified enrichment'.
    No. 318, in clause 111, page 50, line 23, leave out 'and'.
    No. 319, in clause 111, page 50, line 26, at end insert
    'and
    (e) Scottish International Private Law (Jurisdiction and choice of law)'.
    Mr. Jenkin: It may just be me—perhaps it is not—but I am getting heartily fed up with Ministers carping and lecturing us on our attitude towards devolution. The disappointment that the Scots are likely to feel as a result of the devolution programme is exemplified by this small but significant debate.
    952
    Amendment No. 467 deletes a reservation of part of Scottish private law to Westminster. It was a war cry of those in favour of devolution that nowhere else in the world was there a legal system that did not have its own Parliament. Given that war cry, one would have thought that a clear line would be drawn between the responsibilities of Westminster and the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament, and that everything to do with Scottish law would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament while everything not directly to do with Scottish law would be retained by Westminster. Clearly, that is not the case.
    There is to be a reservation of Scottish law and, what is more, of Scottish private law. The idea that private arrangements between individuals in Scotland have to be regulated by legislation passed through a United Kingdom Parliament, even when there is to be a Scottish Parliament with primary legislative powers, sticks out like a sore thumb. I perfectly understand why the reservation has to be made: life is so much more complicated than allowed for in the cheap rhetoric used by the Government when they were promoting the devolution programme.
    In this case, we question whether it should be the sole responsibility of Westminster to decide the levels of interest charged on taxes owed to the Exchequer. Scottish income tax, or the tartan tax, will be payable only by Scottish residents—or so we hope, although there is still some confusion about that—so the income of the Scottish Parliament will be dependent on how willing Scottish residents are to pay the tartan tax. We believe there is a case for allowing the Scottish Parliament, in order to secure its own income, to have a say over the penalty rates of interest to be charged if people are refusing to pay.
    Amendment No. 467 is no more than a probing amendment designed to prove that there is no consistency in what the Government were saying about Scotland's legal system and the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Life is much more complicated than that. When the Scottish people begin to experience the considerable difference between the rhetoric about and the reality of the Scottish Parliament, it will be for the Minister to explain to the gathering hordes of SNP voters, which his irresponsible policies are provoking, why they should not be disappointed that what he promised is not being delivered.
    Mr. Wallace: 1 shall speak to amendments Nos. 317 to 319. With regard to amendment No. 467, I have to say that although I always welcome converts to the fold of those who wish to extend devolution, I just wish that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) had chosen a better example with which to do it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a contract between two people, but paying interest to the Revenue or to Customs and Excise is not so much a contract as a statutory imposition. If the Scottish Parliament has no power to vary excise duties, I am not sure that it would necessarily be appropriate to give it the power to vary the interest on what it is not allowed to levy.
    I hope that the Minister will accept amendments Nos. 317 to 319, whose inspiration was the Law Society of Scotland. They would amend clause 111 which refers to obligations, including those "of restitution". Amendment No. 317 seeks to substitute for that the words, "arising from unjustified enrichment".

    953
    Scots private law neatly and properly follows the pattern established in the civic codes of Roman law of persons, obligations, property and actions. The law of obligations is said to include voluntary and conventional obligations, and obligations of restitution and reparation.
    I submit that obligations of restitution properly relate to a concept of unjustified enrichment. Without reading ad longum, paragraph 29.1 in the 10th edition of Gloag and Henderson, sets out a cogent legal reason as to why that should be the case.
    Amendment No. 319 would add a further category of Scots private law—that of private international law. Although the word "international" appears in the amendment, and that may be thought a reason for disqualification, Scots private international law and the jurisdiction and choice of law are very much matters for the Scottish courts. They are very much part of our private law determining a whole range of issues that belong to the body of Scots private law. I hope that, for the sake of completeness and because it is the proper thing to do, the Minister will accept these technical but nevertheless important amendments.
    Mr. Dalyell: The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has covered the point that I wish to raise about the Law Society of Scotland and I look forward to the Minister's response.
    Mr. McLeish: Although we were slightly critical of the previous group of amendments, I may have some better news about the present group.
    Amendments Nos. 317 to 319 deal with the definition of Scots private law contained in clause 111(3), the interpretation clause of the Bill. I understand that they were proposed by the Law Society of Scotland. They raise important, although clearly technical, questions about the words chosen to describe what is meant by the term "Scots private law" for the purposes of the Bill. Lord Gill, chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, has also made some helpful comments about this part of the Bill. I am willing to consider the issues further in the context of what is meant by Scots private law for the purposes of the Bill. If any amendments are required I shall introduce them on Report. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will not seek to press the amendments.
    The same applies to amendment No. 467, which seeks to delete the Scots private law provision in the part of schedule 5 which reserves fiscal, economic and monetary policy. The provision makes it clear that, despite the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in respect of Scots private law, which is conveyed by clause 28(4), the Parliament cannot legislate in relation to interest due on payments or refunds in respect of taxes or excise duties. The Scottish Parliament will, however, be able to legislate on interest and refunds arising from other payments or liabilities.
    We are considering whether the provision is required and whether we can rely on other provisions in the Bill to achieve the desired effect. If any amendments are required, I shall introduce them at a later stage. Again, having given the reassurance that we shall consider the
    954
    points that have been raised, I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Gorrie: I beg to move amendment No. 320, in schedule 5, page 61, line 3, at end insert —
    'Exception from reservation
    The issue of bank notes by Scottish banks.'.
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 468, in page 61, line 3, at end insert —'Exception from reservation —
    Scottish bank notes issued by the Scottish banks'.
    Mr. Gorrie: The amendment deals with the issue of bank notes by Scottish banks —and amendment No. 468 would have the same effect. The Conservatives are certainly following in the excellent tradition of Sir Walter Scott. One of his defects was that he was high Tory Unionist, but he led a strong campaign to save Scottish bank notes when there was a risk to them in about 1827. On this issue, the Tories are on the right lines.
    Mr. Jenkin: We were also on the right lines when we saved the Scottish pound note when the pound coin was introduced in the 1980s.
    Mr. Gorrie: The Minister may be able to assure us that there is no threat to Scottish bank notes, but the Bill and the explanatory document provided by the Scottish Office do not make that clear in that the reserved items are financial services, banking and deposit taking, all of which could cover bank notes.
    Scottish bank notes are a highly prized part of Scottish culture. They sometimes cause us problems elsewhere in the United Kingdom or abroad, but we greatly value the independence that they give us.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. John McAllion: If, as the hon. Gentleman's party suggests, Britain joins the single currency in 1999, how would he then save the Scottish bank note?
    Mr. Gorrie: I am not an expert in these matters, but I understand that, although one side of a European bank note or coin would have a standard European symbol denoting that it was worth one or 10 euros, countries could have their own symbols on the other side. So it would be quite possible to have a Scottish or English note worth a certain number of euros.
    We are keen for the Minister either to accept our amendment—which seems the easiest thing to do, although it is always hard for Ministers—or, if there is no threat to Scottish bank notes, to put such an assurance in black and white in the Bill. Scottish bank notes are a significant part of Scottish life and it would be very sad if in future there was a threat to them that the Scottish Parliament could not address.
    Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments falls into exactly the same category as the previous one, in that if there was one matter over which the Scottish Parliament would be expected to take control, it would be an issue of such symbolic importance as the Scottish bank note.
    I understand that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) is not correct about the issue of the euro, as Scottish bank notes are not themselves legal tender; they are merely promissory notes issued under the Bank Notes (Scotland) Act 1845 and the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928. They are backed by reserves in the banks concerned, but they are not themselves legal tender. For that reason, they could remain in circulation as promissory notes if they were reissued as euro notes in the event that we joined the single currency. Of course, the European central bank and the other member states would not recognise them as legal tender, but, as they do not have such recognition in England or, indeed, in Scotland, that would not be a problem. However, it would be interesting to hear on the record whether that is also the Government's view.
    The issue has symbolic importance. As the United Kingdom Parliament allowed Scottish notes to continue in issue long after the currency union between England and Scotland, it is extraordinary that they should not become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
    Of course, the Government must reserve legal tender as United Kingdom issue over anything to do directly with currency, but, as Scottish bank notes are technically not currency, I fail to understand, and ask the Minister to explain, why promissory notes could not become a matter for the Scottish Parliament, rather than the United Kingdom Government, to supervise.
    Mr. Swinney: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) about what would happen if the United Kingdom joined a single European currency. Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked the director of the European Monetary Institute about the status of Scottish bank notes in those circumstances. He was told that the Maastricht treaty made provision for existing banking practice in member states to be respected, as far as possible, as the single currency developed. That shows that even in the debate about the emergence of the single currency, there is a role for the continued use of Scottish bank notes, particularly given their distinctive position in Scottish financial history.
    The director of the EMI also told my hon. Friend that the previous Government had—not surprisingly—made no representations about the future of Scottish bank notes in those circumstances. Have the new Government made any such representations?
    I associate the Scottish National party with the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. That important and distinctive aspect of Scottish financial history should be respected and borne in mind as deliberations on a single European currency move forward.
    Various anachronistic issues arise from a detailed scrutiny of the reserved powers. That does not suggest a logical pattern. It is legitimate to argue that promissory notes issued by a Scottish clearing bank should retain their current status. The Scottish Parliament should be responsible for them.
    956
    This is an important debate, because it deals with the symbolism of the Scottish Parliament and some of the issues that it should address. I hope that the Minister will have something positive to say about the amendments, which have been proposed in a positive spirit across the different views of the Opposition parties.
    Mr. McAllion: I had not intended to intervene, but a mini-debate within the debate has been conjured up about the future of Scottish bank notes in the event of a single currency and whether the Scottish Parliament or the United Kingdom Parliament would be able to preserve those notes. I take the point of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) about the conversation that the leader of his party had with the director of the EMI. Is he suggesting that the Bank of Scotland tenner, the Royal Bank of Scotland tenner and the Clydesdale bank tenner—which we still have difficulty in getting recognised down here after 300 years of Union with England—will immediately be recognised throughout the 15 member states of the European Union?
    The United Kingdom joining a single European currency could be the death knell for the Scottish bank note. It is unrealistic to argue for the benefits of a single currency—not having to worry about exchange rates or changing money for every holiday—and also to expect £100 notes from the Clydesdale bank to be recognised in Germany as worth the same as the notes that they have. It would be interesting to hear the Government's position on that.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be the death knell not just for the bank note, but for any notion of independence?
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman makes the case for the Scottish National party effectively. We have been involved in a monetary union for 300 years. We have given up our independence, but we have not given up our nationhood. Some hon. Members have suggested that nationhood can be restored only through independence. I have always believed that Scotland is a nation. It has been a nation throughout my life—indeed, since 1707. Labour Members do not need to take lessons in nationhood from Conservative Members.
    Mr. McLeish: It might be useful if I give a brief background to the issue before dealing with the amendments.
    Mr. Jenkin: It says here.
    Mr. McLeish: I think that hon. Members want to hear the facts.
    Scottish banks are entitled to issue bank notes under the Bank Notes (Scotland) Act 1845, provided various conditions are met. The notes are not legal tender—even in Scotland—but they are accepted throughout the United Kingdom. The 1845 Act makes various provisions on the issue of bank notes in Scotland, including the regulation of the amount of bank notes that each bank is entitled to issue; requiring notes to be issued in denominations of whole pounds; limiting the amount of notes that banks may have in circulation; requiring weekly accounts of notes in circulation; requiring returns to be made and published; and allowing each bank to issue its own notes when authorised.

    957
    All those issues are to be reserved, as are matters relating to coinage. Currency standards are clearly integral to the United Kingdom economy and must remain reserved as set out in the White Paper.
    We reject the amendments. Macro-economic policy is to be reserved. That covers all matters necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of monetary and fiscal policy at a UK level, including the power to issue money. The bank notes issued by Scottish banks are an integral part of a UK monetary policy. We need to keep controls over them, including the central control over the amount of notes in circulation.
    That central control would be exercised by the European central bank if the UK participated in economic and monetary union. The Scottish banks would have to make a formal application to the European central bank for the right to issue notes. We understand that the Scottish banks have had initial talks with the Bank of England and the European Monetary Institute. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) will withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Gorrie: Will the Minister give us an assurance on the continuance of Scottish banknotes for the foreseeable future, in or outwith a single European currency?
    Mr. McLeish rose
    The Chairman: Order. I called the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) because I thought that he was going to wind up the debate, not for an intervention. The Minister had sat down.
    Mr. Gorrie: I was merely seeking an assurance that might give me assistance in conceding.
    Mr. McLeish: May I give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that will help him to concede? We sincerely hope that Scottish bank notes will continue. As I have said, discussions are under way with the EMI and the Bank of England on what will happen if we join a single currency.
    Scottish bank notes are currently in circulation. They are not only symbolic, but are important for transactions throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)? I hope that no Government will be foolish enough to believe that we ever need to join monetary union. The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked about the practicalities of issuing Scottish euro notes that were not legal tender. They would not be recognised anywhere else in the European Union. That means that they would become redundant.
    Mr. McLeish: The important question is whether the hon. Gentleman's comments are consistent with what the leader of his party has said.
    Central control would be exercised by the European central bank if the UK joined a single currency. I have already said that the Scottish banks are involved in discussions on that. The system works well in the United Kingdom. Why should it not work well in Europe?
    Mr. Gorrie: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7 pm
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 469, in schedule 5, page 61, leave out line 23.
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 470, in page 61, leave out lines 26 to 28.

    No. 471, in page 61, leave out lines 29 to 34.

    No. 7, in page 62, leave out lines 10 to 12.

    No. 472, in page 62, leave out lines 13 to 22.

    Government amendment No. 464.

    No. 22, in page 62, leave out lines 20 to 22.

    No. 473, in page 62, leave out lines 28 to 30.

    No. 17, in page 63, leave out lines 9 to 11.

    No. 489, in page 63, line 11, at end insert
    '(other than those lotteries organised on a local level).'.

    No. 474, in page 63, leave out lines 15 to 17.

    No. 18, in page 63, leave out lines 18 to 20.

    Mr. Hawkins: The amendments concern home affairs issues, in which I have always had an interest as a barrister, and do so now as a member of the Home Affairs Committee and as deputy chairman of the Conservative party home affairs committee. I am very glad to have this opportunity to probe the Government's intentions on these important issues. There are many amendments in the group, and I shall briefly take each in turn.
    Amendments Nos. 469 and 470 would give the Scottish Parliament the power to set policies on drug abuse and drug trafficking. We all know that, sadly, Scotland, like all other parts of the United Kingdom, suffers from a serious drug problem, especially in the inner cities and larger conurbations. Indeed, even in the world of cinema, that has been highlighted by films such as "Trainspotting". Members on both sides of the House share a concern about the extent of the drug problem, particularly as it affects young people. As somebody who has, over my years in practice at the Bar, prosecuted and defended in many drugs cases, I have always taken a particular interest in the subject. Conservative Members do not understand why, when the Scottish Parliament is to be responsible for all other areas of criminal justice and for health matters, it should not also be responsible for drugs matters.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the Tory amendments would allow the Scottish Parliament to decriminalise or legalise cannabis?
    Mr. Hawkins: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue, because I want particularly to talk about decriminalisation and what Conservative Members fear may happen. Surely if the Scottish Parliament does not have responsibility over drugs and drug trafficking, an element of confusion will arise over responsibility in criminal and legal matters, which it would be desirable to avoid.

    959
    Conservative Members have been accused by Ministers, other Labour Members and nationalist Members of tabling amendments to constrain the Scottish Parliament's ambit of operation. The allegation was made that we do not trust the Scottish Parliament to act maturely and responsibly. However, on these matters, the boot is very firmly on the other foot. The Government must answer this charge: why not trust the Scottish Parliament with such matters? Are the Government afraid that the Scottish Parliament will act irresponsibly on drugs matters? Turning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), do the Government fear that many left-wing Members of the Scottish Parliament—and, perhaps, Liberal Democrats—will be elected who will immediately call for the legalisation of soft drugs, as Labour and Liberal Democrat conference motions have done repeatedly in the past?
    Mr. McAllion: I am a bit alarmed by the drift of the hon. Gentleman's comments. He seems to be suggesting that I have taken cannabis or other soft drugs, which I most certainly have not, unlike some of his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Hawkins: I was not suggesting anything about the hon. Gentleman's conduct; it would not be appropriate for me to do so. I was merely drawing the Committee's attention to the fact that many of his hon. Friends and Liberal Democrats have called for the decriminalisation of soft drugs, which is of grave concern. I suggest that, in not trusting the Scottish Parliament with responsibility for such issues, the Government might be worried about the views of some of his hon. Friends. As Labour Members such as the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—before he became a Minister—and others have repeatedly called for decriminalisation, the Government do not want to trust the people, and certainly do not want to trust the Scottish Parliament.
    Amendment No. 471 is a probing amendment. We want the Government to justify why the Scottish Parliament should not have control over data protection issues. We want them to set out what they believe will be in the legislation that they are required to introduce by the end of the year in relation to the European Council directive on data protection. It is extraordinary that the Government want to reserve powers over legislation on a directive when we have not yet seen the legislation. That is truly a blank cheque. I hope that the Minister will respond in some detail on such important data protection issues, particularly concerning freedom of information and journalistic powers.
    Amendment No. 7 seeks to analyse why the Government will not trust the Scottish Parliament to deal with firearms issues. None of us in the House or the country will ever forget the terrible crime and tragedy of Dunblane. Given that the entire UK firearms law was rewritten in response to that terrible Scottish tragedy, it seems extraordinary that that issue, above all, should not be trusted to the Scottish Parliament. The issue is enormously emotive. What would have happened, for instance, had the Scottish Parliament existed when the Dunblane tragedy occurred and it had wanted to go further in tightening gun laws than those in the Westminster
    960
    Parliament were prepared to accept? The Government must justify their position. If the Scottish Parliament had existed at that time, Westminster would have been seen to be standing in the way of popular opinion in Scotland. Such a dispute on such an emotive issue would inevitably weaken the Union of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes time to reflect on what he has said. I have never heard such a load of absolute nonsense from someone who wants to be in government. It was clear that the UK Government had got it wrong and that the people of Scotland and the UK as a whole wanted them to go further. That is why the Snowdrop appeal received such tremendous support; that is why the Labour Government were able very quickly to pass legislation to ban the possession of all handguns.
    Mr. Hawkins: With great respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has genuinely misunderstood my point. My point is simply that there will be problems if a Scottish Parliament is not trusted—as it is not being—by Government Front Benchers with responsibility for firearms issues. That is a devolution issue.
    Mr. Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the tragedy of Dunblane, but we should never forget the tragedy of Hungerford, either. Firearms must remain a UK-wide issue.
    Mr. Hawkins: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says; of course none of us will forget Hungerford. He must understand that, despite having repeatedly attacked Conservatives for not trusting the Scottish Parliament, the Government have undergone a clear role reversal. We are probing the apparent lack of logic in that.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Government were to accept such an amendment, it would inevitably lead to the need for border controls and checks to ensure that there was not cross-border traffic in guns? Does he accept that that is the logical consequence of his crazy amendment? His idea would set a dangerous precedent.
    Mr. Hawkins: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is surely that the same position applies in relation to Northern Ireland. I ask him to reflect on that.
    Mr. McLeish: I should like to pursue the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. We believe that our position is a strong one; we want a strong UK gun policy—which is what we have. In tabling the amendment, the onus is on the hon. Gentleman to explain what benefits would accrue to the Scottish Parliament from completely different legislative control over guns.
    Mr. Hawkins: I am suggesting to the Minister that there would be a potential difficulty if the Scottish Parliament ever wished to go further than the United Kingdom Parliament, but did not have the powers.
    Mr. Swinney: It has become clear from our exchanges that there is unease at the lack of taste with which the example has been advanced. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logic of his argument—that the Scottish

    961
    Parliament must be free to create a legislative environment within which it is comfortable—is an argument for independence? That seems to be at odds with the virulently Unionist arguments made from the Tory Front Bench.
    Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman's comments emphasise some of the difficulties that may emerge if there are different views on highly emotive issues in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.
    Amendment No. 472 relates to a range of entertainment matters, including film classification. We do not understand why the Government are refusing to trust the Scottish Parliament with powers over these matters. The Government have already changed their minds on one aspect of schedule 5; they have tabled an amendment to remove the powers under the Hypnotism Act 1952 from the original list of reserved powers in the Bill.
    The Government have made great play of their wish to promote the Scottish film industry—something in which I have taken an interest since I visited the set and locations of "Rob Roy" near Mallaig. However, the Government could hardly send out a worse signal to potential overseas investors—as well as to the indigenous film industry—than to suggest that the Scottish Parliament will not be fit to make its own decisions on these matters.
    The Government are keen to promote cool Britannia. Apparently, they have no belief in cool Caledonia. We see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not deal with sections 12 to 14 of the Theatres Act 1968 or sections 1 to 16 of the Cinemas Act 1985, which make provision for licensing premises for public performances of plays or for films to be played. Are we back to the Prime Minister's original view that the Scottish Parliament will be like a parish council?
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some very successful films have been made recently in Scotland. What disadvantage did they suffer that they would not suffer were we to follow his suggestion?
    Mr. Hawkins: I have referred to two successful Scottish films. The fact that the Scottish Parliament will not have powers over classification or censorship is a matter of regret.
    Members of the Scottish Parliament will want to represent their constituents on issues relating to the classification, labelling and distribution of video recordings under the Video Recordings Act 1984. With all the concern about video nasties and the effect of violent videos on children, why are the Government seeking to reserve those powers and the powers over the classification of films for public exhibition? Why do the Government not trust Members of the Scottish Parliament to decide on those issues—especially as Scots law is different and there may be different views on how a controversial film such as "Crash" ought to be certificated? Will the Scottish Parliament necessarily always be prepared to accept the judgments of the British Board of Film Classification, even though it is now to be chaired by as distinguished a figure as Andreas Whittam Smith?
    Amendment No. 473 deals with the emotive subject of live animal experiments. We foresee concern among Members of the Scottish Parliament that they will not be
    962
    allowed to decide on the matter. The Government have argued that it is a strength of devolution to allow Scotland to set its own priorities. Why should that principle not apply to live animal experimentation? It is utterly illogical for the Scottish Parliament to be able to decide on such major emotive and legislative issues as capital punishment, but not on other issues of conscience such as live animal experiments. We need to probe that inconsistency in the Government's arguments.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the strongly held view of the Research Defence Society that there should be uniform rules throughout the United Kingdom, and that, if we are to keep our research together in universities, it makes complete sense to have a uniform policy?
    Mr. Hawkins: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am seeking to expose the inconsistency of his party's Front-Bench Members who say that we must trust the Scottish Parliament on some issues, but not on others.
    Amendment No. 474 deals with the crucial issue of extradition, where we foresee some problems in the Government's proposals. What would happen if a Scottish Parliament, with a nationalist majority, and the Lord Advocate sought the extradition of an individual, but the United Kingdom Government refused? What would happen when the person whose extradition was being sought was a UK citizen residing abroad, and the UK Government refused to apply for extradition because of their view of some wider political consequences? Those are serious matters, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give detailed responses.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Dalyell: I wish to raise briefly five issues—first, drugs. On 27 October, I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the following question:
    "What will be the demarcation between Edinburgh and Westminster in relation to the delicate issue of responsibility for drugs?"
    My right hon. Friend replied:
    "The White Paper, 'Scotland's Parliament' makes it clear that the criminal law in relation to drugs will be a reserved matter and will remain the responsibility of my Department. The Scottish Executive will inherit the current responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. Those responsibilities include drug misuse, health, treatment and education, as well as responsibility for the police and prosecution authorities' enforcement in Scotland of drug misuse legislation, which will be set by this House and Parliament." — [Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 574.]
    I put it to the Minister that, with the best will in the world, these are very blurred areas. Exactly how does one distinguish between the responsibilities set out as reserved powers by the Home Secretary and the powers —in terms of misuse, for example —which are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament?
    There will be endless cause for Members of the Scottish Parliament who are interested in drugs legislation —and, even more so, in drugs cases —to go on and on saying, "If only we had complete powers, we could be more effective." Every shortcoming —whether imagined or real —will be attributed to the fact that the Parliament needs more powers to deal with drugs. The members of the Scottish Parliament will say, "It is no good blaming us," until they get extra powers from Westminster.

    963
    I predict that, when the Minister is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, he may well be saying exactly these things in a few years' time. It is in the nature of politicians not to blame ourselves. My hon. Friend is human—he will say that he could do better if only the people in Westminster had not reserved those powers. That will be a matter of discord.
    Secondly, I want to discuss firearms. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson), but at an earlier stage, I had a lot to do with Thomas Hamilton, who came to my surgeries in Linlithgow. I will not go over the saga, except to say that, in the wake of Dunblane, there was tremendous pressure in Scotland to introduce firearms legislation more quickly, and in a different form, than was being done in England. Heaven forbid that Dunblane should ever be repeated—but, if it were, the same would happen again. There would be tremendous pressure for firearms legislation to be tailored to Scottish circumstances.
    I must therefore ask the Minister: is it realistic to reserve powers over firearms to this House? There will be possibly irresistible pressures in the wake of any future high-profile cases to give such powers over to the Scottish Parliament.
    I come, thirdly, to animal experimentation. I know a great deal about this, having argued the case of the Research Defence Society—not the most popular cause among a number of my hon. Friends. I know, for instance, that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) takes a very different view.
    Mr. Paul Flynn indicated assent
    Mr. Dalyell: Whatever view one takes, my hon. Friend and I might agree that it would not be very clever to set up a haven for animal experimentation in any part of the kingdom. Of course, animal rights groups will exert enormous pressure to achieve a position on animal experiments favourable to their point of view. I suspect that, in this area too, the pressures will become irresistible. I have close connections with the science departments at Edinburgh university. They are most concerned lest there be any break-up of the UK-wide experimentation regime. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
    Fourthly, on entertainment, I understand that there could be difficulties in relation to football. What would happen if the Scottish Parliament took a view different from the UK Government in relation to the Bosman ruling? That could easily happen; I have not just plucked it out of the air. It is one of the possible differences between English and Scottish football. The Minister, a distinguished member of East Fife and later of Leeds United, I think it was—
    Mr. McLeish in indicated assent
    Mr. Dalyell:—will undoubtedly have something to say about this subject, which concerns the game that he adorned and loved so much.
    Finally, we come to the matter of extradition. It may be within the recollection of the Minister that, shortly before the Bill was published, I secured an Adjournment
    964
    debate on a day when the House collapsed rather earlier than he had anticipated. Hence I made a rather longer speech than he had anticipated, about Lockerbie.
    Hon. Members will be thankful to hear that this is neither the time nor the place to rehearse all the arguments about Lockerbie encapsulated in my 14 Adjournment debates on the subject, but what would happen if a strong body of opinion in Scotland wanted an extradition treaty with Libya? Imagine that the Foreign Office in London was as intransigent as it has been, under both Governments, for the past 10 years, and would not contemplate such a treaty.
    Would not the Members of the Scottish Parliament, pressed by people who know rather more about Lockerbie than do their English colleagues, say it was high time we had an extradition treaty? [Interruption.] I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that, were I a Member of the Scottish Parliament—God knows, there is no chance of that, and I suspect that my hon. Friend is glad of it—I would be yapping away, day in, day out, demanding an extradition treaty. I would bore the pants off everyone to such an extent that, sooner or later, they would have to give in.
    I suspect that this whole debate about reserving powers is rather unreal; sooner rather than later, the Scottish Parliament will want those powers.
    Mr. Gorrie: My political career appears to be on a rapid upward curve, as I seem to have been appointed my party's spokesperson on hypnotism. I thought that that might be in recognition of my spellbinding speeches; more realistically, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) looked deep into my eyes and made cabalistic signs at me—so here I am.
    The Government seem to support our view on hypnotism, so we are clearly having some effect. It is, I confess, a subject I know absolutely nothing about. As we appear to be winning, however, I shall stop digging.
    The Conservatives have raised some valid points about the Video Recordings Act 1984 and the Cinemas Act 1985, which I also know nothing about. I hope that the Minister will explain the necessity for reserving some of these items to London; it seems strange, since he is also conceding other areas. Nevertheless, in parts of schedule 5, some control freak has got loose. It is time he was sent back where he came from.
    Why should betting, gaming and lotteries be controlled from Westminster, not Scotland? They are not cross-border issues. I suppose, if the Scots had lax betting laws, a few people from Berwick might head north, but I do not see it becoming a huge problem. I am far too mean to be a betting man, but many Scots do bet, and if the Scottish Parliament wanted different rules, I do not see why it should not have them.
    Likewise, I do not see why local church raffles or other do-gooding enterprises should be legislated for by Westminster—I just cannot understand it. It seems rather ludicrous.
    We have also tabled an amendment on the licensing of Scottish theatres. That, too, is an issue which the Scottish Parliament should know more about than civil servants and parliamentarians down here. Such licensing should be run by the Scottish Parliament.

    965
    Another of our amendments concerns lords lieutenant. I am a humble and very junior deputy lieutenant in Edinburgh. I once had the privilege of escorting a royal personage about, which was all very pleasant; but the selection of lords lieutenant should be left to a Scottish Administration, not to Ministers in London.
    I should like clarification from the Minister about the drugs issue. The notes on schedule 5 state:
    "The Scottish Parliament will, however, have competence in relation to other key matters which are relevant to the misuse of drugs, including education, health, social work, police and the criminal prosecution system."
    If the Scottish Parliament wants to help areas with severe social problems by bringing together the police, housing, education, employment and so on, and involving an active policy on controlling drugs, which might be different from the standard United Kingdom policy, I hope that the Scottish Parliament will be able to do that. I hope that, in taking positive action to deal with the drugs problem, the Parliament will not be constrained by the reservations in the Bill.
    Although we do not necessarily endorse the Conservative amendments, they have raised an important issue. We seek clarification on that and on the other issues, from hypnotism upwards, downwards and sideways.
    7.30 pm
    Mrs. Fyfe: Labour Members must be rather surprised to hear the arguments advanced by the official Opposition. Having spent years opposing Scottish devolution, they now confront us with umpteen ways in which they want to add to the devolved powers in the Bill. If they have had a change of heart, it is most welcome. We have heard extremely odd arguments from Conservatives, who never wanted us to have any devolved powers in the first place.
    When the White Paper was launched, I remember the Secretary of State for Scotland and others saying that there were grey areas in which there were valid arguments for reserved and for devolved powers in a particular case, and that a balance had to be struck somewhere, even if arguments about detail continued.
    As a general principle, it should surely be recognised that, on this small island, it might be sensible for certain powers to be reserved, because it is only a small country. After devolution, there will still be Scottish Members of Parliament representing seats in Scotland, who will come to the Westminster Parliament and take part in making those decisions. On an issue such as drugs, it might be extremely unwise to open up any division in law making between the two countries, in case it was of any advantage to those who deal in drugs.
    The same applies to firearms. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that, in the United States, each state can have separate firearms laws. The entire firearms legislation of the United States is a mess, and it would do well to follow the example that we set with prompt action after what happened to our children at Dunblane. We need to make sure that the law is tightened throughout Britain, not just in Scotland or in England alone.
    I was fascinated to read at the weekend that the Liberal Democrats had tabled an amendment making hypnotism a devolved matter for a Scottish Parliament. I am glad that they could find time to discuss a matter as vital as hypnotism, when they could not find time to discuss the
    966
    promise they made to the Labour party about equal representation for men and women in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps they should hypnotise their branches to persuade them of that.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Lady agree that perhaps the Liberal Democrats' discussions were constrained by the small number of people attending?
    Mrs. Fyfe: It is for the Liberal Democrats to say why such a small number attended. It does not seem to have occurred to them that, in taking the decision they took at the weekend, they were breaking a solemn promise that they made to the Labour party. Perhaps they were mesmerised, and forgot that they had done so.
    On betting, gaming and lotteries, my sympathies begin to move a little more towards the Conservatives. My constituency has the highest unemployment level in our whole country. There are no employers to create more jobs, so I can see Maryhill becoming the Reno of Scotland if the proposal goes ahead. That would find favour with me.
    The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who spoke from the Tory Front Bench, does not seem to realise that local authorities in Scotland have the power to decide whether a film will be shown. Some years ago, Glasgow city council—or district council, as it then was—made itself ridiculous in everyone's eyes by banning "The Life of Brian" from local cinemas. It was shown in Bearsden just over the boundary, so thousands of people flocked there to see the film.
    I take film censorship seriously, in the sense that we should all protect children and the vulnerable from exploitation in any art form, including films, but the amendments are unnecessary. If a local authority gets it wrong, it gets laughed out of it, and eventually common sense prevails. Its own voters tell the authority that it is talking nonsense, and things eventually change.
    I hope that the Opposition will realise that all this is useless time-wasting. We have serious matters to discuss, and far too little time tomorrow to discuss them.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate. I shall concentrate on the reserved powers relating to firearms. It was noteworthy that, when the matter was raised, it was immediately suggested that it was wrong for us to touch on it, as it was an emotional issue. That is precisely why it is a good example to examine.
    Before devolution, I recall from my law lectures, it was thought desirable that, as far as was compatible with practice, criminal law in Scotland and in England should gradually be brought together. That was always extolled as one of the great virtues of the Union. I remember reading learned texts on the subject by members of the Scottish judiciary, explaining that, in the long run, it was hoped that that compatibility would become greater, without affecting the distinct practices of law in each country.
    One consequence of the Bill is that a raft of subjects will no longer be treated in common in the House for Scottish and for English legislation. Labour Members express general satisfaction with that. Then why these particular reservations? The firearms reservations are a classic example.

    967
    First it was suggested that, if there were different firearms laws north and south of the border, there would have to be border checks. That is nonsense. In any given week, there are enough illegally held firearms passing between Manchester and Glasgow up the M6 without anyone worrying about it. The firearms legislation, especially the recent legislation, is all about regulating the law-abiding. If it is for regulating the law-abiding, why should there not be a separate possibility for legislation north and south of the border? Where is the logic? There is none.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should go down the American road, where every state has the right to bring in different laws for gun control? That would be absurd. Should he not thank God that we have one law on this entire island that bans the use of handguns by anyone?
    Mr. Grieve: There is no logic in placing firearms legislation on the reserved list. If responsibility for firearms were given to the Scottish Parliament, it might sensibly decide to co-ordinate its practice on firearms with the rest of the United Kingdom, but equally there might be reasons why it might not do so.
    I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. Last year, we debated an amendment to the firearms legislation on sporting pistols and. 22 pistols, which in my view was wholly illogical and wrong. Some Labour Members shared that view. In five or six years, especially as there might be pressure from the European Courts on the subject, Parliament might decide to alter the legislation to allow sports shooting with. 22 pistols to resume, but I can well imagine that that would cause the deepest disturbance, and that there might be much greater resistance in Scotland, which was more directly affected as a community by the Dunblane tragedy.
    How would we get around that problem at that stage? Should we simply ask for Parliament to legislate separately for Scotland and England on that issue? On what basis would we do that? The firearms issue is completely illogical. There is no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not regulate firearms in Scotland, allowing this Parliament to regulate for the rest of the United Kingdom. I wait to hear from the Minister the logical basis of his objections on that front.
    There is a similar situation with drugs legislation. As to the decriminalisation of drugs, I can think of no earthly reason why differences of view north and south of the border might not be reflected properly by different legislation. There are many other areas where the splitting of practice might not lead to wide differences over time, so why should drugs legislation be reserved? There is no logical basis for that decision.
    I am grateful that the regulation of the Hypnotism Act 1952 will be passed over to Scotland. Before the Minister simply says that he intends to agree to the amendment, perhaps he could explain why the Government thought Parliament should retain control of the Hypnotism Act. I look forward to hearing that explanation.
    There are logical reasons for dealing with certain laws in common. However, those reasons apply also to a range of issues that, as a consequence of this legislation, will no
    968
    longer be treated in common. Before these funny reservations are made, let us have a logical explanation of why they are there.
    Mr. Flynn: I am in the extraordinary position of congratulating Opposition Members, particularly on the first two amendments. The hon. Members who spoke in favour of the amendments are not people whom I normally associate with progressive policies. Perhaps the strange atmosphere—it was about one part oxygen to four parts noxious substances of indeterminate source—from last weekend's demonstration by some 25,000 people in Trafalgar square has wafted into this building and had a beneficial effect on the disposition of Opposition Members. I hope so.
    I turn to the core of the issue. Drug problems are not universal throughout the United Kingdom; they are often very local. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who moved the amendment, was wrong to suggest that only the left is preoccupied with reforming our drug laws. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior)—who represents the part of Norwich that is not represented by one of my hon. Friends—wrote a splendid article a fortnight ago demanding changes in the law. He confessed that, as a young man, he had experimented with an illegal soft drug. Many hon. Members made similar confessions in a poll—in fact, a majority of Members of Parliament confessed to using illegal soft drugs some time ago.
    The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) —a senior figure in the Conservative party—has advocated not only the decriminalisation of soft drugs but, in his book "Sappho's daughters", the legalisation of all drugs. Support for fundamental drug reform extends across the Chamber. I wish that more of those hon. Members who say over a cup of tea in the Tea Room that the present drug laws are not working and are making the situation far worse would make their views known in the Chamber.
    The precise point of the amendment is that laws in Scotland should be different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. All hon. Members can appreciate the difficulties that would arise if different laws governed the drugs of abuse that are used universally throughout the United Kingdom. That would certainly cause problems. However, I see an advantage in Scotland's taking a lead with regard to the present laws.
    The most useful and progressive document generated by Parliament in my 10 years as a Member of Parliament was produced by a Scottish Committee under the leadership of Mr. McKelvey, who sadly did not stand for re-election. That document went to the heart of the futility of our present drugs policy. It made some useful recommendations, which, if they had been transformed into law, would have reduced the number of drug addictions, deaths and other associated drug problems in this country.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government are resisting our amendments because they are afraid of the arguments that he is advancing?
    Mr. Flynn: I hope that the Government's views will change in the near future—although I understand their

    969
    resistance. I look forward to the Opposition's pressing the amendment—they might have some unexpected company in the Lobby if they do.
    My point is that there are local drug problems. The scourge of temazepam was a particularly Scottish problem. A number of young people in Scotland were seized with the totally unexpected habit of liquefying and injecting that medicine. It was a form of Russian roulette with only two chambers in the gun. It is the most dangerous form of drug abuse that one could imagine, and it was peculiar to Scotland.
    Mrs. Irene Adams: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but temazepam caused a problem in my constituency. It was also a particular problem in Newcastle and in Carlisle.
    Mr. Flynn: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Temazepam abuse caused only one death in south Wales—but that was one too many.
    The drug khat is used by the Yemeni and Somali communities in south Wales, but is almost unknown in most other parts of the United Kingdom. It is a fairly soft drug, and, if we were to deal with it in law, it would require local legislation rather than the great sledgehammer of national legislation. The potential for drug abuse—we are legislating for a long period—lies not in the present drugs of abuse but in future drugs. Ketamine is an anaesthetic which is abused in certain areas. A cough mixture—I will not mention its name—has also become a drug of abuse. People drink it in large quantities, and it is highly addictive.
    At least 100 medicinal drugs may be abused. Let us consider the damage caused by medicinal drugs. At least 10 times as many people are addicted to medicinal drugs—just under 250,000—as are addicted to illegal drugs. Paracetamol kills twice as many people every year as heroin. A range of other medicinal drugs may also be abused.
    The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is not a general debate on drugs. I should be grateful if the hon. Member could relate his remarks directly to the amendments that we are considering.
    Mr. Flynn: My point is that particular drugs may be abused in small areas in Scotland, and that such problems should be addressed by legislation that applies to Scotland rather than to the whole of the United Kingdom. If there is a drug problem in a Scottish city or town, the Scottish Parliament rather than the United Kingdom Parliament should take steps to address that problem.
    I commend the Opposition for the amendment. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to the present drugs policy in this country. It is worth noting that Emma Bonino was criticised by the United Nations but supported by Jacques Santer for advocating a policy very different from that pursued by the Government and the Opposition.
    970
    When we congratulate ourselves on the drugs policy in the United Kingdom, it is worth considering the assessment of the worst drug problems in Europe that was made last year by the Lisbon monitoring unit. It found that Britain is the third worst abuser of cocaine in Europe—
    The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member is doing exactly what I asked him not to do. I ask him to speak directly to the amendment.
    Mr. Flynn: I support amendments Nos. 469 and 470, because we require local solutions to drug problems. Many such problems do not lend themselves to national solutions, and would be best dealt with by a Scottish Parliament. Scotland could well take the lead in that area, and show the way to the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Laing: It is good to have the rare opportunity to hear an hon. Member on the Government Benches take a pragmatic approach and support amendments that were not tabled by the Government. By contrast, it is hard to believe that the Government can be so inconsistent and lacking in logic in their drafting of schedule 5. There is no logical theme running through this part of the Bill. It does not make sense to reserve certain aspects to this Parliament while others are devolved without explanation and without consistency. My hon. Friends have made this point well, so I shall not repeat the details.
    I thoroughly support the main principle of the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I did not want a Parliament in Scotland initially, but I am willing to back the decision of the Scottish people in last September's referendum. It is right that the people should speak and that Parliament should trust the people, but it is not right for the Government to set up a Parliament in Scotland and then not trust it.
    Mr. Swayne: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that there is a logic to this? Ministers on the Treasury Bench fear that the position taken by a Scottish Parliament, particularly with regard to some of the conscience issues that we have looked at, would significantly differ from that taken by this Parliament, and the tension that that would create will drive two nations apart.
    Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as usual. He and I and many of our hon. Friends have mentioned that tension many times during the Bill's consideration. The inherent conflict in the Bill will create a difference between one part of the United Kingdom and another and lead to separation. Why are the Government holding back on what they originally said when they introduced the Bill last summer? They said that their intention was to trust the Scottish people and the Parliament that they are setting up. Now they are doing exactly the opposite.
    I am in favour of the United Kingdom Government reserving powers to the United Kingdom Parliament, but if the Government want to keep some powers here and give some to the Scottish Parliament, there should be some logic in the way in which they do that. The Bill totally lacks logic. It makes me wonder why the Government are beginning to hold back. When they reached schedule 5, were they beginning to fear that what we had said all along would come true? Are they beginning to fear what many of my hon. Friends, and

    971
    former Members of the House, have said for many years—that devolution is a downhill, one-way street to an independent Scotland? Is that why they want to reserve extra powers to this Parliament?
    I could not blame the Government for being afraid if they had read this morning's Glasgow Herald—
    Mr. Dewar: It is The Herald.
    Mrs. Laing: The Secretary of State kindly corrects me. It is indeed now The Herald, but to me it will always be the Glasgow Herald. It used to be a fine newspaper when I learnt to read by reading it, but in those days it used to say things that even a child learning to read would have been happy to see, until today, when it told the truth—the truth that we have been telling throughout on this subject.
    Mr. Swayne: With respect to the truth that is being told, does my hon. Friend agree that the independence that is expected would be constrained rather more by allowing for anomalies and a difference between the laws that persist in this part of the Kingdom and Scotland, rather than by attempting to reserve some of these powers, particularly on conscience issues, which will create more friction and tension than perhaps would the lesser of two evils of allowing a separate legal system to exist?
    Mrs. Laing: Once again, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It must be recognised that sometimes the way in which one deals with tension and friction is to allow each part to go its own way. The Scottish legal system, which I have studied and in which I have practised, has survived perfectly well under the auspices of the United Kingdom Parliament for many hundreds of years. The very fact that the Scottish legal system and the legal system of England and Wales have worked in parallel perfectly happily for centuries is evidence that we do not need a devolved Parliament in Scotland, but if we are to have one, let us have one that works properly and one that we can trust. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
    I return to my main point, which is that The Herald—[Interruption.] quite rightly said this morning. I beg the pardon of hon. Members on the Government Benches. I am being inconsistent. If I called it the Glasgow Herald once, I should do so again. A statistic caught my eye first thing this morning: 61 per cent. of people in Scotland now believe that there will be a separate Scotland within the next 15 years. I do not agree with, and nor do I approve of, the sentimental way in which The Herald put it in semi-poetic fashion in this morning's edition, because sentimentality should not enter into the debate. We shall reserve our sentimentality for 25 January and the last day of November, for the rugby pitch and the football pitch, but not for the House, and not for proper consideration of these matters.
    Are the Government now waking up to the fact that we have been right all along: that, by introducing the Bill in this way, they are introducing conflicts and frictions, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, are likely to lead to the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United
    972
    Kingdom? Hon. Members on the Scottish National party Bench will be delighted with such a situation. They continue to push, naturally enough—
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is making a Second Reading point. Will she now relate her remarks to the amendments?
    Mrs. Laing: Certainly, Mr. Lord.
    I support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), because they attempt to introduce into the Bill logic and consistency, which are lacking. I am afraid that the lack of logic and consistency will lead to a separate Scotland. If the Bill has inherent conflicts within it, the devolution that comes from it will not work.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: I have listened with interest to the speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall respond directly to comments made by hon. Members on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches.
    The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) mentioned one opinion poll in The Herald as a reason for shaping the future of our democracy and for the Government to alter course, and cited 61 per cent. She says that she supports the retention of significant powers in this Parliament, but steadfastly refuses to support and recognise the outcome of the referendum last September. It is strange in the extreme that she places such political kudos on one opinion poll of 61 per cent., yet refuses to acknowledge and support the fact that 73 per cent. of the Scottish people voted yes in a referendum of the whole of Scotland. Instead, she supports spurious amendments this evening.
    Mrs. Laing: I said specifically that I respect the outcome of the referendum of the people of Scotland last September. I do not like it, but I respect it because it was a democratic decision of the people of Scotland. As they have decided that they want a devolved Parliament, it should be a Parliament that will work.
    8 pm
    Mr. Murphy: That was an interesting intervention, but it did not address the point that I was making. The amendments on which the hon. Lady has spoken with favour will not improve the opportunity and performance of the Scottish Parliament. That is not the intention behind the amendments. Instead, they threaten and would undermine. If implemented they would intentionally create friction when none is necessary.
    I wished earlier to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who said that he feels that his political career has recently been enhanced. He went on to clarify that remark, and I am glad that he did so. I thought that it was as a consequence of the Liberal Democrats' weekend conference that his political career had been enhanced by virtue of being a man in the Liberal Democrat party in Scotland. Perhaps we shall be able to return to that in the weeks and months ahead.
    The Conservative amendments before us seem strange to me. The Conservative party opposed the devolution of policy on health to Scotland, as it did on education and

    973
    housing. However, it seems now determined to give Scotland support in devolving powers on gambling, guns and drugs. It is a strange set of priorities. the Conservative oppose the devolution of real power—social justice and other important policy areas—while simultaneously arguing that policies on drugs, guns and gambling should be devolved to a Scottish Parliament. That in itself is strange.
    Mr. James Gray: The poll to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) referred showed a significant increase in support within Scotland for the Scottish National party. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the curious mixture of reserve powers in the Bill may be one of the reasons for the increase in Scottish nationalism? The SNP does not like powers being held in Westminster, and there lies the process that will continue in the years that lie ahead of us.
    Mr. Murphy: That is a spurious point. I do not know what lesson the hon. Gentleman wants to read into the Conservative party's rating in Scotland. I understand that the opinion poll rating of the Scottish Conservative party has decreased since the general election.
    Mr. Dewar: It is now 9 per cent.
    Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend informs me from a sedentary position that it has decreased to single figures.
    I shall move on to gambling. At 2 o'clock at Nottingham this afternoon there was an important pointer to our debate, when set against the 9 per cent. opinion poll rating for the Conservative party in Scotland. A horse called Blue Desert ran in the 2 o'clock. I have no idea how it performed. It is six hours since it started, so with a name such as Blue Desert, it is probably still running. Nevertheless, Blue Desert performed at Nottingham at 2 o'clock, and Scotland has been turned into a blue desert when it comes to Scottish representation for the Tory party.
    I did not intend to comment on gambling until in my in-depth reading of the newspapers today I noticed that at 4.20 pm tomorrow at Sandown a horse will be running by the name "Parliamentarian". The jockey is none other than a Mr. Jim Murphy. I have no idea what the odds are, but I am put off betting on it because in the same race a horse called "Sleazy" is running. I think that that is—
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman does not plan to take us through all the race cards of all the meetings. I ask him to address his remarks to the amendments that are before the Committee.
    Mr. Murphy: I am sorry, Mr. Lord. I have no intention of taking the Committee through all the race cards.
    The Conservative Opposition seem eager to devolve responsibility for gambling to the Scottish Parliament, and my right hon. and hon. Friends do not believe that that is necessary. Indeed, such devolution would be distinctly unhelpful.
    I apologise, Mr. Lord, for some of my comments, which reveal a misspent youth. Perhaps there is some misspent time still as a parliamentarian. However, Scottish punters—Scottish gamblers or betters—do not
    974
    want different odds. There is no great desire for devolution of gambling policy. Similarly, there is no great desire for devolution of gambling odds. My only experience would be on betting on French racing at the Prix de L'Arc de Triomphe, where there are different sets of odds. There is a cross-border betting set up. I find that deeply confusing, as do many of my punter colleagues. There is no need for different odds in Scotland, and that would be one of the results of devolution of gambling policy.
    If I bet on an outsider and it falls at the first fence, I want to know that I have wasted the same amount of money as any other punter in any other part of the United Kingdom.
    The same argument applies to the lottery and lottery policy. In our opinion, there is no need for a change in lottery policy. The Government are examining the administration of the lottery and legislation will be introduced on lottery funding. That being so, the wrecking amendments on the lottery are irrelevant.
    Mr. Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case that there should be no difference between the odds on winning in a horse race north or south of the border. Yet he is advocating a measure that may well result in a difference between the odds of living or dying in a hospital north or south of the border. How does the hon. Gentleman justify that distinction?
    Mr. Murphy: I did not think that the tone of the debate could get any lower. To connect gambling and the lottery with hospital places is perhaps to forget that the general election took place last year. We are trying to reduce the effects of odds within the health service.
    Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that at any race course two bookies are often to be found offering different odds? That has nothing to do with different countries. Of course, there might be a difference between north and south of the border. Equally, there is the difference between on-course and off-course betting.
    Mr. Murphy: I have been joined by someone else who participates in the great art of gambling at the race track. There is a difference in odds across 3 ft between two different bookies. There is no need for the devolution of gambling odds to a new Parliament. We already have that devolution in the market at the race course.
    I know that time is not an ally in our debate, but I wish to take up the spurious and often outrageous comments that are made by the Opposition on devolved powers for drugs and firearm policies. To reduce such important issues as crime and law and order to such spurious comments and amendments is demeaning to the debate.
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned firearms, but let us consider, for example, the carrying of knives. Does he agree that one consequence could be separate laws developing north and south of the border without any scrutiny by the Westminster Parliament? We know that knives can be very dangerous, and there could be completely different sets of laws. How and why should that position be distinguished from that on firearms?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman should welcome the tough action that the new Government have taken on knives. Tough action was avoided over many months and years before the present Government came to power.

    975
    The position remains the same, in that the Conservatives are saying, "Let us have different legislative powers, agendas and frameworks on drugs and guns." That is extremely unhelpful and dangerous. I am amazed by the way in which the argument has been advanced. I do not think that Conservative Members believe in what they have said this evening. It is a poor attempt to knock the Government.
    Inevitably, if the amendments were accepted, there would be cross-border checks. Inevitably also, there would be a move towards the idea of fortification of the border between Scotland and England in a way that the SNP, perhaps in an entirely different way, would see such fortification and separation. If the amendments are not about fortification of borders, they are about free movement of drugs and guns between different legislative frameworks and legislative areas, which would be dangerous.
    The highlighting by some hon. Members of what happened at Dunblane as a reason why Scotland is more vociferously opposed to handguns than any other part of the United Kingdom is deeply unhelpful. It takes one crazed man who possesses such guns to carry out such an atrocity. The disaster and murder at Dunblane could have happened at any school in the United Kingdom and to claim that it justifies tougher action or more powers for the Scottish Parliament is in no way helpful.
    Mrs. Laingrose —
    Mr. Murphy: I apologise for not giving way, but I am about to conclude my remarks.
    The disaster could have happened at any school anywhere in the United Kingdom, and we need tough legislative powers throughout the United Kingdom. Aspects of the debate—predominantly the speeches of my hon. Friends—have been interesting. But large segments—the speeches of Opposition Members—have been opportunistic, shallow in content and deeply demeaning to the Scotland Bill and to the Parliament that we shall have.
    Mr. Russell Brown: I do not want to go over issues that other hon. Members have raised, but I do want to discuss the amendments.
    I say to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that according to The Herald this time last year a lot of other hon. Members and I would not be Members of Parliament today. Conservative Members talked long and hard about the dangers of a Scottish Parliament and the breaking up of the United Kingdom during the general election campaign, during the referendum campaign and in the early stages of the consideration of the Bill, but there has been an almost complete turnaround this evening. Their amendments are nothing more than wrecking amendments.
    Conservative Members have also talked long and hard about the difficulties that a Scottish Parliament would cause people who live on the border. I represent a constituency on the border. A lot of what was said during the general election, during the referendum campaign and in recent weeks bears no resemblance to the real feelings of people in my constituency and others on the border.
    976
    I compliment my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on the way in which they spoke about firearms. This country—when I say that, I mean the United Kingdom—needs strong regulations that will control firearms across its length and breadth. We do not want Scotland to be a special case.
    Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that he and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) are eloquently making our point for us? They said that such matters should be national policies, which is precisely why we question the way in which the Bill has been prepared. The hon. Gentleman is clear about the fact that we must have a national policy for guns, so why will the Scottish Parliament decide knife policy? Are knives not just as dangerous? Would not the girl who defended small children in a school against a machete attack recently believe that there should be one law, north and south of the border?
    Mr. Brown: I support the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Gray: So do we.
    Mr. Brown: I am sorry, but Conservative amendments show that that is not the case.
    If hon. Members went out on to our streets to talk to the general public, they would find that the greatest fears, especially for parents, are drugs and the misuse of drugs. I compliment Dumfries and Galloway constabulary—my constituency constabulary. At the weekend, officers arrested suspects on the A74 who were carrying a considerable consignment of Ecstasy tablets. Dumfries and Galloway constabulary were vigilant at the weekend and in previous incidents when firearms and drugs were involved, and do a good job on behalf of the people of south Scotland. We do not wish to have a different law.
    Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman may not wish to have a different law, and there is no requirement that he should, but the elected representatives of the Scottish Parliament may take a different view. Conservative Members find it odd that, although he has put his faith in the Parliament, he is not prepared to trust their judgment in particular areas.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Brown: I am quite prepared to listen to Members of the Scottish Parliament when they have been elected. We are representing not individual ideas but the people back in the constituencies. Those of us who live on the border firmly believe that there is no need for different drugs and firearms laws.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood made it perfectly clear where he stands on betting and gaming, and I feel the same. I have noticed over many years that people take advantage of loopholes in the licensing laws—Scots cross the border to drink in England when it is appropriate, and vice versa. Having different laws on the border would leave them open to being bent and broken.

    977
    I emphasise that there has been a complete turnaround by Conservative Members—they have tabled wrecking, spoiling amendments, and I hope that we shall deal with them appropriately.
    Mr. McLeish: This has been one of the better Committee debates and I should like to preface my remarks with a discussion of how we arrived at judgments about important issues.
    I refute what has been said about lack of consistency. We thought seriously about which matters could be reserved to Westminster—those about which there was no dispute—in putting together the devolution package. Reserved matters are identified in the Bill. A powerful set of devolved matters will go to the Holyrood Parliament as a consequence. There is little debate about the wisdom of that. Most of them are not what some people have described as conscience issues, but they are major policies that have been promoted by successive Governments.
    Serious and sensitive questions surround some of the matters that have been mentioned this evening, which is why a balanced view must be taken of whether legislative competency should lie with Westminster or with Holyrood. The Government have made judgments, but it would be a pity if issues as serious as drugs and guns were used to make a party-political point. I shall be generous and suggest that no one was trying to do that.
    We are considering not only the welfare of Scots post devolution, but the welfare of the United Kingdom. We are not only providing a Parliament that will deal with sensitive issues, but reinforcing the integrity of the United Kingdom. This is a devolved settlement, not an independence or separatist settlement: neither is it a Unionist settlement, under which no powers would be devolved to Scotland.
    Against that background, I shall discuss some of the specific matters that were mentioned by Conservative Front Benchers. The Government reject amendments Nos. 469 and 470. The White Paper made clear our intention that the criminal law on drugs and drug trafficking and the regulation of drugs should be reserved. The existence of different systems of drug control in different jurisdictions inevitably gives rise to problems of controlling trafficking between those jurisdictions. We can at least limit the entry of illegal drugs through international border controls, but we could not reasonably expect any success in trying to maintain different regimes of drug control on either side of the open border between Scotland and England. We therefore do not accept that the subject matter of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and of the legislation relating to drug trafficking should be devolved.
    There should be common legislative competence throughout the United Kingdom and we should work to a common policy framework. However, within that framework and within the separate jurisdictions, we can interpret those policies and tailor the legislation according to the ideas that we are pursuing for Scotland.
    Mr. Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. McLeish: No.
    We are dealing with the process and not with the substantive issues. In view of our comments, I hope that the Opposition will not press those amendments. The drug menace north and south of the border is very real, so we
    978
    should focus our energy on tackling the problem. Having a settled basis for the competency at Westminster will allow us to do that and will avoid the problem of cross-border trafficking that I identified.
    Given the lack of time, I shall not be able to go into as much detail as the importance of the matter requires. The Government will resist amendment No. 471, which would remove the reservation of data protection. It is important for the United Kingdom, and especially for the business community, to have a uniform framework for the matters covered by the data protection reservation. We have maintained all along that it is right to have a level playing field. That would be upset if amendment No. 471 were accepted.
    The Government oppose amendment No. 7, because we feel that controls on firearms need to be uniform throughout Britain, as they have been since their inception after the first world war. Reservation of firearms legislation will still allow much of the work of firearms licensing to be done locally, and we expect the role of the Scottish police forces to be unchanged after devolution.
    I shall explain briefly how the system works at the moment. At present, the lead on firearms policy is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He and his ministerial colleagues have piloted through the House the recent legislation banning small calibre handguns, thus fulfilling our manifesto promise. The legislation takes due account of special Scottish circumstances. Indeed, the two Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1997 were initiated by the tragic events at Dunblane. The legislative code is sensitive to Scottish circumstances, but it applies throughout Britain. We would be equally sensitive to an event occurring in any part of the United Kingdom. Tragically, that incident occurred in Dunblane, but it could have happened anywhere. That is why it is important for firearms legislation to be consistent throughout the United Kingdom.
    Within the code, much of the work is done locally. The chief constable decides whether an individual is a fit and proper person to hold a certificate for a firearm, and police forces enforce the legislation. The Scottish Office is also involved. The Secretary of State is consulted in the framing of firearms legislation and he plays a part in the local licensing system; granting certificates for prohibited weapons in Scotland, licensing rifle clubs and granting certificates for museums to keep firearms as part of their collections. Current responsibility will pass from the Scottish Office to the Scottish Executive. That will increase consistency and is not inconsistent with the Government's approach to these difficulties.
    Mr. Gray: Why are knives treated differently?
    Mr. McLeish: I believe that we should take a much harder line with knives. It is a complex problem, partly because every knife is a potential weapon. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken about the need to tighten up the legislation substantially.
    Mr. Gray: Perhaps I did not make myself clear, because my previous intervention was a little abbreviated. If cross-border controls make it impossible to have different gun legislation in Scotland and in England, why is it possible to have different legislation on knives?

    979
    Offensive knives may be illegal in Scotland but legal in England. What is the difference between guns and knives under a devolved system?
    Mr. McLeish: Conservative Members should accept that we are dealing with an entirely different situation. I have made the point about policing, controls and the courts. Dealing with knives is difficult, but that does not mean that we should not do a great deal more. There is a substantial difference between discussing guns and gun laws and discussing knives. Both are important, but in the legislative context they are very different.
    Mr. Grieve: Is the Minister's position that, because of the leisure aspects of pistol shooting, it is treated differently from knives? In future, it may be possible for Scotland to take a weaker view on knives than is taken in England.
    Mr. McLeish: I referred earlier to the potential trivialisation of serious subjects.
    Mr. Ancram: Disgraceful.
    Mr. McLeish: The start of the debate did not augur well for the rest of the debate, because drug-related crime and guns were not treated with the seriousness that they deserve. Conservative Members should not play politics with such serious issues, especially in the aftermath of the catastrophic incident in one of our towns.
    Government amendment No. 464 seeks to remove from the list of reserved matters the subject matter of sections 12 to 14 of the Theatres Act 1968 and of the Hypnotism Act 1952. Those matters are presently dealt with on a Great Britain basis. We considered initially that it would be useful to retain those arrangements so that businesses involved and members of the public would have a common regulatory framework, but we decided to examine this matter further in the light of the Second Reading debate and of the amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). We have now concluded that those activities could be properly dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. We accordingly accept the amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, to which my right hon. Friend has added his name, and which I commend to the House.
    The Government cannot accept amendment No. 472, which would devolve legislative competence for all the entertainment matters reserved under head 2 of schedule 5. We do not agree that the argument that applies to hypnotism and theatres applies to the other issues. The classification of films for public exhibition has been carried out by the British Board of Film Classification since 1912. The board operates on a voluntary basis and has always operated on a UK basis without any difficulty, because audiences on both sides of the border have a shared appreciation of what is or is not acceptable for different age groups. There is also essentially a single market in films, which it is important to sustain for the health of the industry.
    Similarly, we remain persuaded that the provisions on the control of exhibitions of films by local authorities under the Cinemas Act 1985 should remain a reserve
    980
    matter. The local authorities' licensing powers form an essential part of the overall system of control of film exhibitions. The system works well: recommendations of the BBFC are generally accepted by local authorities.
    The classification of video recordings is dealt with separately, under the Video Recordings Act 1984. However, similar arguments apply to videos as apply to the classification of films, only more strongly. There are additional important differences in that videos are easily transported and that the purpose of classification is to regulate their sale—they are mostly viewed in the home—rather than to regulate public exhibition. Any divergence in regulation of videos on one side of the border would risk undermining, or being undermined by, the system on the other side.
    Amendment No. 473 deals with experiments on animals. The proposal is to devolve legislative responsibility for vivisection. The Government fail to see any case for fragmenting arrangements that clearly need to operate in a uniform way across Great Britain. Experimentation using live animals is a highly emotive subject. It involves fundamental ethical and moral issues that must be considered in the widest context. Differing approaches in law on either side of the border is not the best way of achieving the most acceptable common policy. That point was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
    The law impacts significantly on the scientific community, and, in this context as well, a common policy is essential. Professionals must operate within a common ethical framework, given the interrelated nature of scientific work and the high degree of mobility. That applies to both experimental activity and personnel in research. Certain other medical and ethical issues such as xenotransplantation are to be reserved, and I see no case for a different approach in relation to vivisection. I therefore urge the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) not to press his amendment to a Division.
    Amendment No. 17 seeks to devolve to the Scottish Parliament legislative responsibility for all forms of gambling; amendment No. 489 seeks to devolve legislative competence for lotteries organised at local level. Gambling is a huge money-spinner and a thriving commercial concern, especially gambling on the national lottery. That is why gambling is subject to various statutory controls. Those measures have always been applied successfully and uniformly throughout Great Britain, because all consumers should have the same level of protection. Those participating in smaller local lotteries should be given the same protections. Our policy does nothing more than ensure equality for operators and participants. It would not be sensible for the Bill to allow the national lottery to be split, or to allow for a separate Scottish lottery, which could only cause confusion and, in our view, unhelpful competition.
    8.30 pm
    In clause 59, the Bill provides for the Scottish Executive to assume certain executive functions in areas that are to be reserved. Under our proposals, Scottish Ministers will be able to make secondary legislation on gambling matters that impact directly on the local scene. We also propose that Scottish Ministers should be able to issue policy and financial directions to the Scottish Arts

    981
    Council and the Scottish Sports Council by executive devolution, in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes such directions now.
    Mr. Grieve: The Minister picked up the point about the Scottish Executive's ability to participate in devolved betting and gambling decision making.
    Under current drugs policy, a ministerial sub-committee of the Cabinet sits to make decisions on such matters. As I think the Minister will agree, a Scottish Office Minister sits on that sub-committee. What will happen to it after devolution?
    Mr. McLeish: The same co-operation will exist. In a sense, we are reserving the drugs issue to Westminster—but that does not imply an undermining of the current co-operation, consultation and joint action.
    I hope that hon. Members are persuaded that our proposals give the best possible protection to the public and ensure that the benefits that Scotland has derived from the lottery are sustained in future.
    Amendment No. 474 proposes, in effect, that legislative competence for extradition should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The present legal framework for extradition—the Extradition Act 1989—reflects the United Kingdom's obligations under multilateral agreements such as the Council of Europe convention on extradition, its extradition arrangements with the Commonwealth and its bilateral treaties with foreign states. In practice, however, the Scottish Office and the Crown Office are responsible for processing applications for extradition where the person concerned is resident in Scotland. The Scottish Executive will assume that responsibility after devolution, through executive devolution.
    In my view, it makes good sense to have a single legislative framework for the United Kingdom as a whole, while ensuring that in Scottish cases extradition requests from foreign states continue to be dealt with by the Scottish authorities, as they are now. That is what the Bill as it stands—combined with our proposals for executive devolution—will deliver. For all those reasons, I hope that the right hon. Member for Devizes will not press his amendment.
    Amendment No. 18 would devolve legislative responsibility for lieutenancy matters to the Scottish Parliament. I fail to see any case for that, as this is manifestly a United Kingdom issue. The modern statutory provisions for the ancient office of lord lieutenant are set out in the Lieutenancies Act 1997. The office has direct links with the Crown. Her Majesty alone can appoint a lord lieutenant or remove him from office, and it is she who determines the area that any lieutenancy in the United Kingdom should comprise. In view of that, I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendment.
    Our arrangements already provide for a degree of devolution. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland currently exercise certain functions in relation to lieutenancies. Under the present proposals, they will be transferred to the First Minister, and in that respect the current arrangements are unchanged.
    982
    Many of the issues that have been raised tonight will be transferred to the Scottish Executive. That is consistent. A United Kingdom level playing field on drugs and guns is essential and I therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
    Mr. Hawkins: I agree with the Minister that we have had an excellent debate, but rarely can probing amendments have exposed so clearly the inconsistency of Government proposals. I have observed the lack of logic. In earlier debates, Conservative Members were accused of wrecking by preventing additional powers from being given to the Scottish Parliament; now, when we have used probing tactics to find out why powers are not being taken by the Scottish Parliament, we have again been accused of wrecking.
    Labour Members have been all over the shop. As soon as I sat down, every probing question that I had asked was supported by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whose wisdom ought to be recognised.
    In the light of the success of the probing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 464, in page 62, leave out lines 16 and 17. —[Mr. McFall.]
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 502, in page 63, line 30, at end insert—
    '(c) regulation of business trusts in relation to land ownership and land use.'
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 490, in page 63, line 32, after 'individual', insert
    'or partnership under section 4(2) of the Partnership Act 1890'.
    Amendment No. 491, in page 64, line 40, after 'solicitors', insert
    'notaries public, estate agents, those holding rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience under section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990'.
    Amendment No. 492, in page 65, line 3, leave out 'Intellectual property' and insert
    'The subject matter of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Patents Act 1977, the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Plant Varieties Acts 1964 to I967.'.
    Amendment No. 460, in page 65, leave out lines 4 to 6.
    Amendment No. 493, in page 65, line 6, at end insert
    'The law of passing off and the law of breach of confidence.'.
    Amendment No. 494, in page 65, line 32, leave out from 'stamps' to third 'and' in line 34.
    Amendment No. 475, in page 65, leave out line 33.
    Government amendment No. 525.
    Amendment No. 478, in page 66, line 28, at end insert—
    '() The regulation of the design and erection of telecommunication masts and equipment'.
    Amendment No. 479, in page 67, leave out lines 6 to 8.
    Ms Cunningham: The amendment raises some of the issues that were raised in the earlier debate on the Crown Estate Commissioners, so I shall keep my remarks short.

    983
    The amendment attempts to add an exception to the reservation to deal with a problem that has already been highlighted by the Scottish Office's own land reform policy unit. As the Minister will be aware, the unit's recent document "Identifying the Problems" pointed out that any land reform legislation that sought to regulate or control the increasingly large number of business trusts and associations that are also landowners in Scotland would be faced with the insurmountable problem that such a move would
    "affect business legislation (which is a reserve matter and therefore not for the Scottish Parliament)".
    There are, of course, arguments about whether such a move would ultimately be advisable. The unit points to some of the technical difficulties, but I do not think that that removes the central concern—the same central concern that was raised in the debate about the Crown Estate Commissioners—that if the Scottish Parliament wanted to make such a move in its land reform legislation, that, too, would be outwith its powers.
    As was said earlier, there is cross-party agreement that land reform is one of the key tasks and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament, but, once again, it seems that our hands will be tied in that key area. The amendment would introduce some flexibility by allowing the Scottish Parliament to trespass on the reserve powers in the area of business associations in connection with the ownership of land. Otherwise, the Government will bring about circumstances in which a Scottish Minister may have to come cap in hand to the House of Commons to complete a Scottish Government's land reform policy.
    This is not a hypothetical situation. The Scottish Land Commission's recommendations include proposals that would require some alteration of the law affecting business trusts and associations—requirements, for example, for registration and monitoring of their activities in the estates that they manage. The commission travelled the length and breadth of Scotland taking evidence from a vast number of organisations and individuals, and its proposals were based very much on the practical needs of land reform in Scotland. I know that the commission also received far more radical proposals, which the Scottish Parliament could not even consider. I find that unacceptable, and I urge the Government to review the matter.
    A number of other amendments in the group raise similar concerns about restrictions in the Bill. The Scottish National party supports any measures that extend the range and scope of the Parliament's powers, but I urge the Government to view sympathetically the problem raised in the lead amendment. It is directed very much at the concern that we all have about future possibilities for land reform in Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: I have two questions, the first of which relates to amendment No. 491 and is about the Law Society. Is the Minister satisfied that the definition of legal profession in schedule 5 is complete and accurate? Why are notaries and the others who are mentioned omitted? My second question concerns industrial policy. On Thursday, I asked the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her letter to me of 8 December 1997, what were the principles on which the proposed concordat on inward investment would be founded. My right hon. Friend replied:
    984
    "The underlying principle is co-operation between all parts of the United Kingdom to allow effective negotiations to attract large inward investment projects. The proposed concordat on financial assistance will be an agreement between all parties seeking better co-ordination and co-operation, the sharing of best practice, and transparency." —[Official Report, 26 March 1998; Vol.309, c.219.]
    That is rather like motherhood and apple pie. What is the evidence that, in these difficult industrial negotiations, there will be the good will that is necessary for a concordat? Departments fight like Kilkenny cats because that is in the nature of the system, and it may not be possible for it to be otherwise when each area wants its share, or more than its share, of inward industrial investment. There is a serious question about how the concordat will work out.
    Mr. James Paice: I should like to speak to amendment No. 460, whose purpose is to retain plant breeders' rights as a reserve issue. However, I am tempted not to pursue the matter because the Bill does precisely what I want, although that is not the Government's intention. That is because the Bill proposes to exempt from reservation part I of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964. The problem is that part I does not exist because it was repealed by the Plant Varieties Act 1997 which received Royal Assent two weeks before the Scotland Bill was published. Therefore, the Bill proposes to exempt from reservation a measure that does not exist. For the purpose of debate, and on the assumption that the Government would have spotted their error, I should like to address the amendment's intent.
    The Government's proposals as outlined in the Bill would give the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate for authority over plant breeders' rights, and that would be a recipe for chaos throughout the United Kingdom. As I said, only last year Parliament passed the Plant Varieties Act. One of the effects of that was to address the long-standing and vexed issue of farm-saved seed and the issue of royalties to be paid by farmers who buy breeders' seed, sow it, harvest the seed crop and use it for growing commercial crops.
    An agreement after long drawn-out discussions between plant breeders and farmers' organisations from all over the United Kingdom was enshrined in that 1997 Act, which also enshrines in law our obligations under the UPOV convention. That is a French acronym for the international convention for protection of new varieties of plants. The legislation also enshrines the European Union's plant breeders' rights regime which was established in 1994.
    On Second Reading of the Plant Varieties Bill, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whom I am pleased to see in his place, asked the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about devolution. In his reply, the Minister stated that the controller of plant variety rights
    "will continue to represent the United Kingdom. This may or may not be a devolved matter, but it seems inconceivable that it would be in future. Basically, this is a United Kingdom issue." —[Official Report, 24 June 1997; Vol.296, c. 691.]
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Dalyell: I am deeply interested in this subject and played an active part in debates on the Plant Varieties Bill. When I spoke on devolution I was asked by a prominent Lobby correspondent as I went out whether

    985
    I thought that I was a protected or endangered species in relation to devolution and party discipline. The question was not answered. I shall leave that. I do not wish to be rude or offensive, but I am curious about the hon. Gentleman's brief. Where did it come from?
    Mr. Paice: There is nothing secretive about it: my brief is my own work. I am about to move to discussions that I had with the British Society of Plant Breeders, which represents all plant breeders and is located in my constituency—hence my interest, and the fact that I usually speak on agricultural matters from the Front Bench. I spoke about farm-saved seed and it is important to appreciate how much of plant breeders' royalties come from Scotland. The 1997 royalties for cereal crops amounted to £1.2 million and, under the arrangements, that went to plant breeders. That is the return for their intellectual property.
    Legislation to permit different royalty rates in Scotland and England could encourage the cross-border movement of seeds and encourage the smuggling of protected varieties. That is not an unrealistic scenario. The British Society of Plant Breeders and the Irish plant royalty office are aware of illicit movement of high value basic cereal seed between the United Kingdom and Ireland or between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland.
    Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend will remember that I also took part in that Second Reading debate last year, and I also remember the comments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Does my hon. Friend agree that if, as a result of lobbying by Scottish farmers, the Scottish Parliament took a certain view of royalty rates and took action to get round them, it could cause incredible problems for plant breeders in this country who supply products to Scotland?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right: that is precisely the point that I am trying to make. If the Scottish Parliament were given the proposed powers, Scotland, England and Wales could have different plant varieties legislation and different royalty systems. That would encourage smuggling of seeds, especially cereal seeds.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such matters should be organised on a European Union level to avoid smuggling throughout Europe? Does the hon. Gentleman support that?
    Mr. Paice: Not entirely, because the Plant Varieties Act enshrines the European plant breeders' rights regime. However, the issue of royalties on farm-saved seed is a purely UK issue and does not arise much in Europe where practices and cultures are different.
    The Plant Varieties Act protects the intellectual property of plant breeders from being exploited by others and provides for the return by some mechanism of royalties to those breeders. I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow is familiar with the issue of seed potatoes, in which Scotland is pre-eminent. It has particularly good climatic and disease-free conditions, which enable seed potatoes to be produced in Scotland. Again, there could be a problem if, in some way, the Scottish legislation were different from the English legislation.
    986
    Problems of administration could also arise. I have mentioned cross-border transit of seed. I emphasise that there is already a vast trade between England and Scotland both ways of different types of seed. Seed potatoes in particular come from Scotland to England, but cereal seed tends to go from England to Scotland, particularly in the last planting season, because Scotland had a particularly bad harvest last year and was not able to produce the quality of seed. I know for a fact that many farmers in Scotland were buying seed from English merchants because that was the only way in which they could obtain the quality of seed that they wanted.
    Mr. Dalyell: From memory—I am open to correction—I thought that there was a suggestion, if not an undertaking, that the people with whom the hon. Gentleman has properly been having discussions were going to raise these matters with St. Andrew's house, Scottish Office officials and indeed, if necessary, Scottish Office Ministers. Does he know whether they did so?
    Mr. Paice: I am not sure whether those people have raised the matter with St. Andrew's house, but the British Society of Plant Breeders has certainly raised it with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have copies of the correspondence here. I will not read them out because it would detain the House, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that correspondence has taken place at least with MAFF.
    There are several specific rules relating to plant health, particularly potatoes. If the Scottish Parliament decided that Scotland would no longer form part of the protected region in relation to potato health, again, there would be serious problems. As the British Society of Plant Breeders has said to me, any changes would be detrimental, with unwelcome ramifications for plant health within the UK as a unit.
    Given the problems that will clearly exist in relation to perfectly genuine cross-border trade between Scotland and England, it is almost inconceivable that any plant breeder would consider taking out rights for just Scotland, or indeed just England. The costs of doing it differently and taking out rights on a European basis would cost plant breeders a considerable amount of extra money. The net result of devolution would therefore be to wipe out or further to reduce the already reduced demand for UK rights.
    I therefore submit a genuine case that however well-meaning the intention to give the Scottish Parliament responsibility for plant breeders rights, it would cause untold problems for plant breeders, in the collection of royalties and, indeed, for farmers themselves, if we ended up, as we could, with different regimes north and south of the border. I have also consulted some Scottish seed merchants. I quote part of the response that I have received from a Mr. Harper, a director of seed merchants Dods of Haddington Ltd:
    "It would be totally unworkable were there to be a dual system of Royalties in Scotland and England. It would create an unworkable situation when we have strived so hard to get the Royalty situation to where it is today."
    It is only four months since we got the royalty situation to where it is today by passing the Plant Varieties Act with cross-party support. It would be a retrograde step if we enshrined in the Scotland Act measures that could break that agreement apart.
    Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on the extremely able way in which he spoke to his amendment. If there was ever a demonstration of why a Bill of this nature should be dealt with on the Floor of the House rather than in the cosy atmosphere of a Committee, his speech was it. He has a knowledgeable background in the Ministry of Agriculture, along with the experience of the British Society of Plant Breeders in his constituency. He has made a valuable point, and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it, particularly on the apparent anomaly in the Bill, which refers to a part of an Act that is no longer extant. It is natural that these mistakes can be made, and we hope that the Minister will be able to deal with it as gracefully as the point was made by my hon. Friend.
    The whole question of plant breeders' rights receives remarkably little explanation from the Government's notes on clauses, but the comments that are made are illuminating. Under the heading, "Exception from reservation," it says:
    "The Scottish Parliament is being given legislative competence to legislate about plant breeders' rights in view of the devolution of agricultural matters generally."
    We have already explored at length the inconsistency of devolving agriculture to the Scottish Parliament, when so much agricultural policy is actually a European Union obligation, and therefore reserved under another part of the Bill.
    It would seem from what my hon. Friend has said both about the international obligations appertaining to plant breeders' rights and the European Community plant breeding regime, which must also at least be an international obligation, if not an EC obligation, that this is de facto a reserve matter, and that the exception to reservation in the Bill is anomalous, just as it is anomalous and misleading to pretend that agriculture can be a truly devolved matter. So much agriculture is an EC obligation that will have to be negotiated with the EC on a UK basis, rather than on a bilateral basis with the Scottish Parliament.
    This debate opened with the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) moving amendment No. 502 on trusts relating to land ownership and land use. I note that she is not in her place at the moment. The way the Scottish nationalists talk about land reform, they make Scotland sound like a banana republic. It is as though they are dealing with some backward country, instead of a modern country, where far more people have gained property rights over the past 20 years or so, particularly with regard to home ownership—perhaps it has grown at a faster rate than in the rest of the UK. They sound as if they are planning some revolution to turn land ownership upside down in Scotland.
    Dr. Lynda Clark: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Is he seriously supporting the retention of the feudal system in Scotland, which we would seriously like to reform?
    Mr. Jenkin: To describe the system as feudal is to use an emotive term which is not appropriate to modern Britain.
    Dr. Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jenkin: No, I have given way to the hon. and learned Lady once already.
    988
    To complete the point, there may be scope for land reform in Scotland and to reform the law of property in Scotland—I would not pretend to be an expert on that—but to pretend that somehow Scotland is full of serfs who have no rights, which is what feudalism means to me, is wrong. I do not support feudalism, and it is not the official policy of the Conservative party, is wrong.
    That does seem to underline that we are dealing with an emotive portrayal of existing land tenure and property ownership in Scotland.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that Scotland does have a system of feudal tenure, and that, over the years, the House has found no time whatever to reform it, is a strong argument in favour of devolution?
    Mr. Jenkin: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think it is wrong to suggest that land ownership in Scotland represents some sort of mediaeval form of society. What we see in responsible land ownership in Scotland is models of shared access and co-operation between landowners and the public in parts of Scotland, which we should envy, not seek to tear up. That partnership is based on a constructive tension between landowners and the public.
    Mrs.Laing rose—
    Mr. Jenkin: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
    That partnership is beneficial to all concerned, and it is not necessarily sensible to talk about ripping up existing traditional structures just because they create some resentment.
    Ms Roseanna Cunninghamrose—
    Mrs. Laingrose—
    Mr. Jenkin: I give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Laing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) is wrong in the assertion he made a few moments ago, in that the House reformed the feudal system in Scotland some 25 years ago, when the concept of the redemption of feu duty was introduced?
    9 pm
    Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
    The Liberal Democrats have tabled many amendments, about which no doubt we shall hear later. I do not intend to mention the Government's technical amendment concerning package holidays and package tours. I wish to speak to our amendments Nos. 475, 478 and 479.
    Amendment No. 475 deals with the reservation of the regulation of estate agents. It emphasises yet another contrast between the way in which the project for devolution in Scotland was presented and the way that it is taking shape in the Bill. If ever there was a part of Scottish law that is distinctive and which should be, in principle, under the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, it is property law.

    989
    It seems that estate agents in Scotland, who conduct their business in a completely different legal regime from estate agents in the rest of the United Kingdom, should be responsible for their legislation to the Scottish Parliament, rather than to the United Kingdom Parliament. The Secretary of State and his pro-devolution friends repeatedly said, "Is it not extraordinary that Scotland should be the only country with its own legal system but without its own Parliament?" —yet here is an area of Scottish life that looms very large for a great many people, when they buy and sell houses, that is reserved to the UK Parliament.
    In amendment No. 478, we are dealing with the reservation concerning the design and erection of telecommunications masts and telecommunications equipment. I should like the Minister perhaps to confirm my guess that the only reason that the reservation is in the Act is because of the Telecommunications Act 1984, which gives the erection of telecommunication equipment a curious and special privileged position in planning law.
    On the principle that the Government want a comprehensive network of mobile telephones in this country, planning guidance has been issued in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, to enable the telecommunications companies to press for specific schemes to enable them to get their "footprints" of transmission areas to cover the country. The effect is that national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other special areas have been made vulnerable to the scarring of the landscape by such apparatus. I think it unlikely that the Scottish Parliament would not want to take control of such matters.
    All our amendments in the group are intended to give the Scottish Parliament more, not fewer, powers. In that regard, they are inconsistent with the caricature of our contributions that the Minister repeatedly sketches. Those amendments are not wrecking amendments; they are sensible contributions to the debate. We think that the Scottish Parliament should have power to regulate the con struction—[Interruption.]
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Members must not interject from a sedentary position, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would not respond.
    Mr. Jenkin: The whole purpose of the—
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jenkin: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ross: I apologise to you, Mr. Lord. I just found it remarkable that a member of the previous Government should argue in this debate that he wants more regulation on industry and business. This is absolutely incredible.
    Mr. Jenkin: When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I thought I was eliciting surprise that we were proposing that the Scottish Parliament should have more power. In fact, the regulatory powers are already there, in the Telecommunications Act 1984—perhaps to our cost, because those powers have been used by the telecommunications companies to force local authorities
    990
    to accept telecommunications masts in areas that would otherwise be considered completely inappropriate for commercial development.
    That has been a very controversial issue in England and Wales—including my constituency—and I am surprised that the Government do not want to give that controversial area to the Scottish Parliament. The subject of the degree of regulation is immaterial to the amendment.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman really is struggling. If he could hear himself, he would understand just how bad it sounds, coming from him in particular. If he really wanted to give powers to a Parliament that he opposes, he might not encounter too much disagreement. The remarkable thing is the fact that he wants another body, by whatever name, to start interfering with businesses and their ability to do, in an unregulated way, what the previous Government wanted them to do.
    Mr. Jenkin: The Telecommunications Act 1984 gave telecommunications companies special privileges to override the usual planning system. They got their special planning guidance notes issued, to give them a privileged position. I question, on environmental grounds, whether that has been wholly wise, especially in view of what has happened in one or two special areas in the United Kingdom—notably in my constituency, so I have some experience of the matter.
    During my time in the Scottish Office as parliamentary private secretary to the previous Secretary of State, Sir Michael Forsyth, the issue was sensitive in Scotland. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is not jumping up and welcoming the idea that the Scottish Parliament should have control of planning in Scotland with regard to telecommunications masts, as it will have control over planning with regard to everything else. I am simply looking for some consistency in the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Ernie Ross rose—
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making mischief, but, as I am enjoying it, I shall give way again.
    Mr. Ross: I am sure that, any second, the hon. Gentleman will pull out of his pocket the letter that he—when he was a parliamentary private secretary—gave to his Scottish Office Minister. I am sure that he will pull out such a missive; so let us see it.
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is wiser than he—or perhaps any other hon. Member—imagines. In his intervention, he has stumbled on the fact that Scotland already has a separate regime, and separate planning guidance on telecommunications masts. It is a Scottish Office matter. In the White Paper, the principle of the Government's devolution proposals is that Scottish Office matters should become matters for the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, I should expect the hon. Gentleman to be on my side in the matter. Perhaps the matter—to be consistent—should not be reserved.
    Amendment No. 479 deals with reservation of the power to designate assisted areas. Perhaps more than any other reservation, that one most graphically demonstrates the inconsistencies in the Government's devolution

    991
    scheme, which reserves some powers, but not others. We understand why such designation has been reserved, as it will deal with financial assistance that is applied on a United Kingdom basis. Nevertheless, supervision of industrial policy is a devolved responsibility, and—however much it has superficially been devolved to the Scottish Parliament—the key decisions on industrial policy in Scotland will be reserved.
    Amendment No. 479 is simply a probing amendment. We understand why there has to be a concordat on such matters, and why Scotland cannot be allowed to go its own way. Scotland has to be contained within an overall financial discipline.
    We also know the story behind those reservations, which began with pressure applied—in their north of England constituencies—on senior Ministers: the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister without Portfolio, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown). A lobby of northern councillors to the Prime Minister himself finally resulted in a telephone call to the President of the Board of Trade, who was told to examine the advantageous way in which Scotland has benefited from the current arrangements and subsidies for inward investment.
    No one denies that story, or that the devolution process has created an entirely new tension between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office. The tension will have to be resolved before devolution proceeds. Although it can be contained in a Government of collective responsibility, it will cause chaos if it becomes a matter of open dispute between Ministers in Scotland and Ministers in the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Godman: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that inward investment has a very long history in Scotland? IBM came to Greenock in 1950 thanks to the remarkable work done by the late Hector McNeil in persuading the president of that company to do so. Inward investment in Scotland is not a recent phenomenon, and it will not be harmed by establishing a Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I was deliberately not crowing about the previous Government's inward investment record—which was an extremely good one—as I wish not to antagonise Labour Members, but for them to listen to the point that I am making.
    I remember that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) participated in our debate in the House on 3 December 1997, when he asked the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry—who has responsibility for United Kingdom inward investment:
    "I seek from my hon. Friend an assurance that there will be no reduction in the role or the autonomy of Locate in Scotland."
    He did not receive an answer.
    I do not know why the hon. Member is now satisfied to say that everything is hunky-dory, after the Minister could give him absolutely no such assurance. He is leading his constituents into the bear trap of devolution, which will lessen Scotland's influence at Westminster, where the key decisions on inward investment in Scotland are bound to be made.
    Dr. Godman: Not for a moment did I say that things are hunky-dory; I said that there is a long history of
    992
    inward investment in Scotland. Moreover, I tell the hon. Gentleman that the biggest challenge to Locate in Scotland, and to the continuation of inward investment into Scotland, will come from the Irish Republic and elsewhere in the European Union. We have seen the effects of that challenge in decisions made by IBM and other companies in the electronics industry.
    As for my question to the Minister, which the hon. Gentleman quoted, I am now satisfied that Locate in Scotland will continue to bring investment not only to my constituency but to other constituencies in Scotland.
    Mr. Jenkin: I should be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would make the same intervention on the Minister, to discover whether he would receive a concrete assurance on that point. From her reply to that debate of 3 December 1997, it is quite clear that—because of the Prime Minister's intervention—the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry thinks that a new regime is entirely necessary. She told the House that day:
    "The President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), was asked by the Prime Minister to develop a system to address understandable concerns that public money might be used to finance wasteful upward bidding between different parts of the country." —[Official Report, 3 December 1997; Vol. 302, c.309–10.]
    This fear of wasteful upward bidding had never existed openly before. Whatever tensions may have existed were incorporated within Whitehall into the overall objective that the United Kingdom should win foreign investment. Now, there will have to be an open and explicit body of rules which will hobble Locate in Scotland in exactly the way the hon. Gentleman feared when he intervened in that debate.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Dalyell: May I clarify the matter by quoting from a letter of 8 December sent to me by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade? She said:
    "I would just re-emphasise that the UK-wide concordat that we are currently preparing will aim to ensure that financial assistance to industry remains within common UK guidelines and consultation arrangements. It is of fundamental concern that public money should not be used to finance competition between different parts of the country. The aim is that the concordat will be an agreement between all the relevant parties seeking better co-ordination and co-operation between all parties, the sharing of best practice, and transparency between the regions … I would just add that in the context of these arrangements the position of Locate in Scotland would be no different from all the other inward investment agencies throughout the UK and it will still have a key role in promoting Scotland."
    I am sure that that was written by my right hon. Friend in good faith.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The President of the Board of Trade says that Locate in Scotland will still have a "key role"— I think that I am quoting her correctly from the hon. Gentleman's reading of her letter—alongside all the other regional agencies in England, but it will be within a new UK framework. That framework has not existed before, and the other agencies are to be new competitors for Locate in Scotland.
    It grieves me deeply to have to quote the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), but, in the debate to which I referred, he cited an article in The Sunday Tribune, the Irish newspaper, of the Sunday before the

    993
    debate of 3 December. The headline was "IDA gains in curb on Scottish rival". The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde said that he thought Ireland would be the winner—so does the SNP. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan read out the article, which stated:
    "IDA Ireland is poised to gain a decisive upper hand over its main international competitor in the battle to attract foreign inward investment following an attempt by Margaret Beckett, the president of the British Board of Trade, to shackle the jobs agency of Scottish Enterprise, Locate in Scotland."
    The article also quoted Irish Government sources as saying:
    "the implications for Ireland will be monitored by industry experts."
    The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan added:
    "I bet they will." —[Official Report, 3 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 294.]
    However, the Government have said absolutely nothing to reassure us that that is not to be the case.
    In other words, the powers governing inward investment are to move from the Secretary of State and Whitehall to Edinburgh, so decision making will be taken out of the Whitehall loop, and direct negotiation with the Treasury will to be removed; Locate in Scotland is to be shackled in new UK rules via the concordat; and the squeeze on the Scottish spending programme is likely to be pursued. The combination of these facts means that Scotland is likely to be the loser.
    When the Minister is explaining and trying to justify the reservation of the designation of assisted areas, it is incumbent on him to explain how all that is not going to interfere with what has been an integral part of Scottish Office industrial policy.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan rose—
    Mr. Jenkin: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I am drawing my remarks to a close.
    The meat and drink of the Minister responsible for industry in Scotland has been the decisions about inward investment, which he had a free hand to deliver in direct negotiation with the companies concerned through Locate in Scotland and in negotiation with the Treasury. All those direct lines of communication will be obscured by the concordat, restrictions on money and unclear political lines. For Scotland's sake, I ask the Minister to make sure that the arrangements that have been made will not disadvantage Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Moore: I shall not detain the Committee long in speaking to amendments Nos. 490, 491 and 492. Amendment No. 490 seeks to extend the exclusion from reservation to Scottish partnerships. Unlike its English and Welsh equivalent, a Scottish partnership has its own legal personality that allows legal documents and other legal matters to be signed on behalf of the partnership as a whole. It is only right that the Scottish Parliament should have powers over changes in regulations and laws affecting such partnerships.
    Amendment No. 491 seeks to extend the exceptions from the reservation. There is widespread acknowledgement that regulation of anti-competitive practices in the legal profession is needed, but there is also concern that other professions should be included in that regulation. Notaries public and estate agents are the
    994
    two most obvious ones, but the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 makes provision for other professions such as accountants and surveyors to have rights of audience in court. We believe that they should also be subject to anti-competitive provisions.
    Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Moore: No. I am coming to the end of my remarks. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech in due course.
    Amendment No. 492 would sensibly bring some definition to the term "intellectual property". We are concerned that, without such a definition, there will be endless referrals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Although that might provide some entertaining sport—and some good fees—for lawyers, it could all be avoided by using the useful definitions in existing legislation such as the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Trade Marks Act 1994. We hope that the Government will respond sympathetically to our amendments.
    Dr. Godman: I shall be brief. I shall respond to some of the comments by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on inward investment and his prediction that Locate in Scotland may be harmed by the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.
    I am perfectly relaxed about Locate in Scotland being subjected to fair competition from other nations in the multinational state that we call the United Kingdom. In my view, Locate in Scotland will not be harmed by the Scottish Parliament. Among other things, it is able to persuade investors to come to Scotland on the long history that we have established in inward investment. It is fair to say that Conservative and Labour Administrations can claim credit for bringing some of those companies to Scotland.
    IBM employs more than 2,000 people in Spango valley in Greenock. It is one of our biggest local employers. National Semiconductors also employs more than 2,000 people. I have received no expressions of concern from those companies about the effects of the Bill. They operate in Scotland for very good reasons. It has a superb skills base and a history of developments in information technology. The amendments are wholly inappropriate and irrelevant to the Bill and to the way in which Locate in Scotland operates in other countries. The hon. Gentleman does the hard-working officers of Locate in Scotland no good with his sneering comments. They do first-class work in bringing employment to Scotland. If similar English organisations secure similar inward investment, good luck to them.
    Our main competitor for inward investment is the Irish Republic. Not long ago, Ireland secured an IBM helpline. I would have preferred that project to come to Greenock, but it went to Dublin, providing 700 jobs, largely for graduates. We are benefiting from 200 extra jobs in that sector created by IBM.
    The amendments should be tossed out. Locate in Scotland will continue to secure valuable employment for Scotland. I would like it to secure more research and development centres. It is beginning to achieve that,

    995
    but much more needs to be done. We should ignore the carping comments from the spokesman of one of the Opposition parties.
    Mr. Gorrie: I wish to supplement the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on amendment No. 494, which covers the conduct of estate agency business, auctions and mock auctions. On amendment No. 491, my hon. Friend talked about the relationship between estate agents and the legal profession. Many other professions have an impact on the legal profession.
    The Scottish Parliament's control over Scottish law and the Scottish legal profession should be extended to cover estate agents. It is reasonable for Scotland to have different regulations for the conduct of estate agency because of the different conveyancing system. I am not saying that the conduct of estate agents in Scotland would be better or worse under the Scottish Parliament, but it might want to do things differently. It is a mistake for the conduct of estate agency business to be a reserve matter.
    The Scottish Parliament might also want to take a different attitude to auctions and mock auctions. There is no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not control such issues. No great problems would be caused to other parts of the United Kingdom if there were slightly different rules governing auctions in Scotland. I am sure that the Scottish Parliament would continue to observe any international rules.
    On many niggling issues such as those and the matters that we raised earlier on betting and gaming, the Bill will prevent the Scottish Parliament from adopting slightly different regulations, which it might reasonably want to do. In due course, that will annoy people.
    The Conservatives may have a point in amendment No. 478. I am sure that, like me, more experienced Members of Parliament have had problems brought to their attention about the placing of telecommunications masts. If Members of the Scottish Parliament are not able to deal with that, there could be irritation. It is amazing that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), does not seem to accept that the feudal system is a major legal issue in Scotland, not just something from the history books.
    The Government should pay attention to some of the points that have been made, and strike out some of the unnecessarily prescriptive reservations.
    9.30 pm
    Mrs. Laing: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 475. Unusually, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie). As a Scots lawyer, I am always anxious to defend Scots law and the Scottish legal system. I credit it with a certain superiority, and I am sure that some Labour Members will agree.
    The Scottish conveyancing system is certainly very different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I allege that it is better—although we are not here to discuss that this evening. Estate agents in Scotland have always been closely aligned professionally with solicitors who practise conveyancing-much more so than in England, where estate agents have developed completely differently. Perhaps the Government have overlooked the
    996
    fact that some firms are solicitors and estate agents, and successfully practise both parts of the conveyancing profession. That is one of the reasons why I think that the system is better in Scotland.
    As matters of Scots law and the conduct of the Scottish legal system are to be dealt with by the new Scottish Parliament, it seems strange not to devolve regulations on estate agents to it. I make that not as a point of principle but as one of practicality. I hope that the Minister will accept it as such.
    Mr. McLeish: I shall speak first to Government amendment No. 525. It is simply a technical amendment to correct the title of regulations referred to under sub-paragraph (f) of the second reservation on consumer protection in section 6 of head 3.
    On amendment No. 490, I listened with interest to the argument of the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) for making an exception for Scottish partnerships under the Partnership Act 1890, but I cannot agree with it. The reservation of business associations is intended to include all business associations, including partnerships in the meaning of the Partnership Act and limited partnerships in the meaning of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there should not be competing regimes of business regulation north and south of the border.
    Although we believe that the matters should remain within the competence of the UK Parliament, hon. Members should remember that nothing will preclude it from legislating for special rules to apply to Scottish partnerships where it considers that that is appropriate. In view of those comments, I invite the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment to a vote.
    Amendment No. 502 is not acceptable, either. It would add a further exception from the reservation for an undefined category of business trusts in relation to land ownership and land use. There is no justification for the amendment, even in respect of the category of business with which the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) appears to be concerned. It is, however, intended that the Scottish Parliament should be able to legislate about the law of trusts as a matter of Scots private law and could, for example, legislate to require any trust owning any property in Scotland to disclose the identity of its trustees and beneficiaries. In view of those comments, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale for the explanation of amendment No. 491, which seeks to widen the definition of the legal profession for the purposes of the exception that is made to the reservation of competition policy. The legal profession is defined as advocates, solicitors and qualified conveyancers and executory practitioners. That seems to us an appropriate definition; it needs to be clearly limited to those who can be said to be part of that profession and subject to its professional rules and practices.
    Our concern is that the Scottish Parliament should be enabled to legislate for those rules and practices, while ensuring that United Kingdom legislation about competition should continue to apply.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the matter I raised about other notaries covered? Is the Law Society happy about it?
    Mr. McLeish: I will check that point.

    997
    The consumer protection section of schedule 5 states that the regulation of the conduct of estate agency business is a reserve matter. I shall return to that point later in dealing with other amendments in the group.
    Section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 has not yet been commenced. However, there is no provision in that section which would involve designating any new group as part of the legal profession. Rather, the provisions would allow non-lawyers to present a scheme for the approval of the Secretary of State and the Lord President of the Court of Session under which they would propose to train and regulate persons to exercise rights to conduct litigation on behalf of the public and rights of audience in the Supreme Court. There are no present plans to commence the provisions.
    For the reasons I have given, I believe that there is no need for the amendment, and I would ask the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale not to press it to a vote.
    We now come to the amendments dealing with intellectual property. Politics is always a learning experience, but I must say that plant breeders' rights is not one of my specialist, starter-for-10 subjects. We were keen that the Scottish Parliament should have general competence over all matters relating to agriculture and food. There was consistency in that approach.
    I recognise the point raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on consolidation enactment in 1997. Clearly, our references were to the 1964 Act. Without in any way conceding the points, I am willing to look at the technical issues arising from the consolidation which clearly have not been looked at.
    Mr. Paice: When I quoted the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) earlier, I did not realise that he would be joining us in the Chamber this evening. He would agree that the 1997 Act was not just a consolidation, but a complete rewriting of the laws on the protection of plant breeders' rights.
    Mr. McLeish: I am content to accept that. Agriculture Ministers are jointly responsible for UK plant breeders' rights. On the basis of my comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment. We will respond to him on that and other matters.
    Mr. Dalyell: Would it not be better to have a meeting between Scottish Office officials and the plant authorities to hammer out an important subject for my hon. Friend's constituency and mine in relation to seed potatoes and other matters?
    Mr. McLeish: I was asked about meetings that may have taken place or correspondence that had been exchanged. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire confirmed that a letter had gone to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am not sure whether that letter has been seen by my officials or whether any meeting has taken place. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will acknowledge that we will look into that.
    I appreciate that the motive of amendments Nos. 492 and 493 is to provide greater clarity, but I do not think that they achieve it. The reservation of intellectual property
    998
    embraces everything that is covered by the legislation and referred to in amendment No. 492. It also includes all other existing and future analogous rights and matters. That wide formulation would be limited by the amendments, and would result in any future analogous rights—such as that recently introduced for databases—falling outside the reservation. Amendment No. 493 would also devolve matters such as the law of passing off. I hope that my explanation will persuade the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) not to press the amendments.
    Amendment No. 475 seeks to remove the conduct of estate agency business from the list of reserved consumer protection matters. Amendment No. 494 seeks to go even further by deleting estate agency, auctions and mock auctions. The Government cannot accept either of the amendments. Why should there be different levels of protection for consumers in different parts of the UK? Why burden business with potentially introducing two different regimes of business regulation? In light of these explanations, I ask the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) not to press the amendments.
    I assume that the purpose behind amendment No. 478 is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will be able to regulate on telecommunications masts from the perspective of planning law. That will be achieved without the amendment because planning law in general will be devolved. Following that brief explanation, I hope the right hon. Member for Devizes will not press this amendment either.
    Amendment No. 479 would remove the reservation of the power to designate assisted areas and allow Scottish Ministers to adopt a different regime of assisted areas in Scotland. I do not believe that that would be the right course to adopt for Scotland or the UK.
    Assisted areas are those seen in the context of regional policy as deserving of a higher level of aid to promote their economic development. Certain distortions of the single market are allowed where they benefit assisted areas. Because there is market distortion from grants, it is important that designation is handled consistently across all areas. The European Commission has a role in enforcing the common market at Community level. The Commission sets a ceiling for the total population eligible in a given member state, and it expects to see evidence of a proper methodology used by member states to decide which areas qualify for additional help. Separate devolved powers to designate assisted areas could not achieve that. With that explanation, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
    Although the Bill reserves the designation of assisted areas, that will not detract from the devolved powers which the Scottish Parliament will enjoy over the provision of financial assistance to industry and the promotion of economic development generally.
    The Commission has asked all member states to make proposals for assisted areas, to operate from January 2000. The Government therefore intend later this year to conduct a review of the assisted areas map. We will consult interested parties in the late summer about the review. The President of the Board of Trade will designate assisted areas at the conclusion of the review. Scottish Office Ministers and officials will be closely involved throughout the review process.

    999
    The whole of the UK will be considered during any review of the assisted areas map. Implementation of the results of the review will be given effect under separate statutory provisions for Great Britain and Northern
    Ireland.
    Finally, Ministers are seeking simple and transparent arrangements, based on co-operation and partnership. We hope shortly to be in a position to publish the draft concordat. It will allow Locate in Scotland to maintain its excellent record of securing inward investment for Scotland. It will also give the assurance of value for money for the taxpayer, and fairness to all parts of the UK, while allowing effective negotiations to attract inward investment projects.
    We welcome the Trade and Industry Committee's helpful analysis in its report on the co-ordination of inward investment. The Committee endorsed the need for a concordat on financial assistance. Some of my hon. Friends have reinforced the point that Scotland has done exceptionally well at attracting inward investment. There is no doubt that it will continue to do so in the years that lie ahead.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I have listened with interest to what the Minister said about trusts in relation to possible land reform. We may come back to that on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 525, in page 65, line 43, leave out 'Holidays and' and insert 'Package Holidays and Package'. —[Mr. McLeish.]
    Mr. Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 476, in page 66, leave out lines 1 to 3.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 477, in page 66, leave out lines 10 to 13.
    Mr. Hayes: The amendments deal with the proposals to devolve responsibility for food safety, labelling and related liabilities. The amendments would reserve to Westminster control over those matters by reversing the exceptions proposed in the Bill. Schedule 5, paragraph 6, reserves to Westminster a range of responsibilities in respect of the sale and supply of goods and services to consumers, and the labelling thereof. A glance at the Bill reveals a whole range of such services. Extraordinarily enough, the exceptions to the reserve powers listed on page 66 include food, agriculture and horticultural products, fish and fish products, seeds, animal feedstuffs, fertilisers and pesticides—
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have spent the past three hours trying to extend the range of powers given to the Scottish Parliament on the basis, among others, that we should trust the Scottish people and their elected representatives to look after certain matters. Why cannot we be trusted to look after
    these?
    Mr. Hayes: We heard earlier that the Scottish Parliament was not to be trusted with guns or drugs. It is
    1000
    clear that some matters are suitable for devolution to the Scottish Parliament, and that others are suitable for reservation to the UK Parliament—that is implicit in schedule 5. To continue, a range of goods are listed, to be reserved to the UK Parliament. Those excepted are:
    "Food, agricultural and horticultural produce, fish and fish products, seeds, animal feeding stuffs, fertilisers and pesticides."
    In addition, all materials that come into contact with food in relation to food safety are particularly excepted.
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hayes: I shall make a little progress, if I may. This is my first time at the Dispatch Box, so I am slightly suspicious of the intervention from the hon. Gentleman, although I know him to be a man of infinite good will, decency and kindness. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he intervenes later.
    Could those exceptions be the result of the prevailing circumstances—the context—in relation to food safety? Food safety has been elevated to the top of the political agenda by a combination of growing public awareness, growing expectations and a series of high profile problems, not least the dreadful E. coli outbreak in Scotland.
    There has been little disagreement about the principal problem.
    Mr. Swinney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hayes: Yes, I will give way.
    Mr. Swinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for choosing me in preference to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Scottish Parliament would have an interest in lower standards of food safety than the rest of the United Kingdom. When I think of the first-class quality produce that comes out of my constituency, whether in the beef sector, the sheep sector, soft fruits, vegetables or other products, I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Scottish Parliament would have any less interest in promoting the finest standards of food quality and safety.
    Mr. Hayes: Following that intervention, hon. Members will understand why I did not give way to the previous attempt to intervene. Of course there is variability in food safety across the UK. That is one of the reasons why the Government are trying to introduce a more coherent and consistent UK-wide policy. On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument, Northern Ireland, which has a remarkably low incidence of food poisoning and few problems with food safety, would have no regulation at all, or at least less regulation than Scotland and England. The inconsistency to which he alludes is the very problem which the Government and experts have identified.
    The need for a more coherent and uniformly applied policy is recognised by professionals and politicians of all parties. The incoherent and inconsistent application of food safety policies is regarded as one of the chief causes of problems. The former Secretary of State for Scotland, then the right hon. Member for Stirling, Michael—now Sir Michael—Forsyth recognised this when he dealt on

    1001
    15 January 1997 with the interim report from Professor Pennington arising from the E. coli outbreak. The current Secretary of State also recognised the need for consistency and coherence when he dealt with the final recommendations of Professor Pennington and again in a written answer on 11 June.
    Much of the evidence that has been presented to the Select Committee on Agriculture, which is currently considering food safety, stresses the need for a consistent UK-wide approach. The desire for greater standardisation lies behind the Government's proposals for a UK-wide Food Standards Agency. I shall not get into a debate about whether that is a good or a bad thing—indeed, you would not let me, Mr. Lord—but one of the arguments in favour of a UK-wide Food Standards Agency has been the need for greater consistency and coherence.
    That is true of the White Paper and of what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said on the subject. On 14 January, he made the position clear. He said:
    "The agency's functions will include formulation of policy advice, preparation of draft legislation, negotiation in the European Union and other international bodies, research, surveillance, public information and the monitoring of food law enforcement.
    Its remit will extend across the whole food chain —"
    and clearly across the whole of the United Kingdom. Interestingly, the Minister went on to say:
    "The particular interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be fully covered. The Food Standards Agency will be responsible for advising Government on the United Kingdom policy framework on food standards and safety matters."—[Official Report, 14 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 352–53.]
    The Bill, as it stands, would undoubtedly create extraordinary and unacceptable tensions with the Food Standards Agency. It builds into the operations of the Scottish Parliament an enormous inconsistency compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is clear that the Bill's proposals contradict Government policy on food safety. It is clear also that the provision is contrary to the Government's rationale for the remainder of the Bill.
    The desire for greater standardisation coherence lies behind the Government's policy. The claim of inconsistency does not apply only to the earlier comments on guns and drugs. The Government are quite happy to see issues regarding non-food safety and non-food product labelling reserved to Westminster, and therefore to establish uniformity across the United Kingdom. However, the Government apparently apply different logic to food. Everything from hearing aids to package holidays and all sorts of other products are deemed so important as to be reserved to Westminster, but not food. Powers regarding E. coli, listeria and salmonella are not reserved to Westminster, and thus presumably are deemed less important.
    There is another inconsistency, which was referred to earlier in tonight's proceedings. I refer to Scotland's post-devolution relationship with Europe. What will happen if the European Union rules on an aspect of food safety with which the United Kingdom Government agree but the Scottish Parliament does not? The Scottish Parliament can do nothing. Clause 146 of the Maastricht treaty defines legal rights regarding national representation. Hon. Members will recall that, when we discussed this issue last week in respect of Wales, we were told that the House could delegate or send a representative from the Welsh assembly to do our bidding
    1002
    in Europe. However, that would not provide the necessary accountability. That delegate or representative would not be answerable or accountable to the House: we would not be able to question him or her in the normal way.
    It would make sense to deal with such matters through Westminster. These amendments will ensure that a common, coherent, standardised policy would apply throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Savidge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the worst disaster to hit this country in relation to food standards is BSE, and that evidence increasingly points to the fact that Conservative Ministers in the previous Government bear a colossal responsibility for that?
    Mr. Hayes: I do not wish to get into an extremely contentious debate about BSE. However, that does not negate my argument about the need for a consistent, coherent and uniform policy. I am pleased to see that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is in his place. Some of the Government's comments about BSE have reinforced their desire to ensure, through the better management of food safety policy, that such circumstances do not arise again. Clearly, they believe that the Food Standards Agency will play a role in that.
    Common, coherent standards must apply throughout the United Kingdom and they must be argued in Europe on behalf of all our people. That approach is consistent with wide-ranging advice from professionals, with the Government's food safety policy and consistent with the Bill as a whole. That is the approach we must take. I therefore urge hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 476 and 477.
    Mr. Dalyell: I know that time is limited. I simply wish to ask what advice the Government have received about this matter from Philip James and his distinguished colleagues at the Research Institute, Aberdeen.
    Mr. Paice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box—I am sure that he will make countless more—and on the way in which he handled the introduction to these amendments.
    The Minister made it clear that the Government are anxious to delegate agriculture to the Scottish Parliament. I respect that, but he will have a great deal of difficulty justifying the proposals to exempt from reservation the issues laid down in the amendment, because the single market operates in the whole of Europe as well as the United Kingdom.
    The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) unkindly suggested that my hon. Friend was suggesting in some way that Scotland would have lower standards, but that is not necessarily so. The fact is that when an issue is devolved, one country or another—the rest of the UK or Scotland—may change the legislation so that one or the other has different legislation. That does not necessarily imply that Scotland would choose the worst situation. Tremendous food products of the highest quality and standard come out of Scotland. I cannot therefore see how it can possibly be acceptable that there is different legislation for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

    1003
    I also draw the Minister's attention to pesticides, which is one of the items listed. Pesticides, as the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, knows perfectly well, are regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture through the pesticides safety directorate. There is an immense system of approvals for pesticides, and to try to replicate that for Scotland would be a huge waste of resources. I hope that the Minister will look at that, as I cannot for the life of me see the gain to Scotland of having control over something that is already highly effectively regulated throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Frank Roy: I shall be brief in my remarks on amendments Nos. 476 and 477. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) mentioned food safety and said that it had been elevated because of the E. coli outbreak. The E. coli outbreak took place in my constituency. In fact, two of my next-door neighbours lost their lives because of it. For that reason, I should like to think that every hon. Member takes this matter seriously.
    I remember November 1996 well, and the conflicting advice that consumers were given. They were told, "Don't eat the meat from the fridge, but it's okay to eat the meat from the freezer," and, "You can use this butcher shop, but you can't use that one." That all came about because of people's different opinions. I remember forming my own opinion that never again could we go through such a crisis and hear so many different bodies telling us what to do. It is essential that we have just one body on food safety in Scotland—the Food Standards Agency. Because so many people were telling us different things, even more people lost their lives.
    Mr. Hayes: I am following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and it seems that it is not far from my own. He is saying that it is important to have consistency and to have one body. My argument throughout has been that by devolving this to Scotland, the United Kingdom Government will be involved, as will the Scottish Parliament and the Food Standards Agency, in addition to the local authority responsibilities that already exist.
    Mr. Roy: I was speaking in the context of Scotland. We had people from all over the country telling us what to do, which is why I deliberately said that we should have only one body. That is why I am speaking against the amendment.
    Mr. Gray: I remind the House of Glastonbury, where E. coli occurred because of people rolling in the mud.
    Mr. Roy: I reiterate that we are talking about people's lives. This blight came to my constituency, and it can come to any constituency in the country. The only way to stop it is to have one idea on food standards. I ask the Conservatives to withdraw their amendment.
    10 pm
    Mr. McLeish: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that Professor James gave detailed support to the White paper proposals. In section
    1004
    7.1 he alludes to the fact that what is being proposed will reflect the constitutional architecture of the United Kingdom. In a sense, that reinforces the central propositions that I shall be advancing.
    The occupants of the Opposition Front Bench can pick and choose the issues on which they want to make political points. Unfortunately, government is rather more serious than that. We have been consistent, and there is coherence. At the same time, it is necessary to apply some common sense to the issues that we are discussing.
    Amendments Nos. 476 and 477 would seriously undermine the purpose of the Bill to devolve all matters relating to food safety, plant health and animal health. On that basis, the Government cannot support them. Through the amendments, the Opposition seek to include within the reservations of consumer protection and product standards matters relating to devolved areas of food safety, animal and plant health, fertilisers and pesticides.
    It is the Government's intention that the Scottish Parliament should be able to legislate on agriculture, fisheries and food on a field-to-fork basis. Consumer protection, product standard safety and labelling are essential aspects.
    Against that background, I cannot support the amendments, and I invite the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) to withdraw them. The Government have a plan for a Food Standards Agency, which will be a United Kingdom body. Food standards and safety will be devolved matters. The Scottish Parliament would therefore inherit responsibility for funding the agency's initiative in Scotland. Appropriate arrangements will be made for it to be accountable to the Parliament and for joint control by Scottish Ministers and the United Kingdom Government.
    Mr. Hayes: I see that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in his place, and I am sure that discussions will continue on these matters. Given the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 332, in page 67, line 8, at end insert—
    'SECTION 12A—INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
    Reservation
    The IndustrialDevelopment Advisory Board.'—[Mr. McFall.]
    Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 526, in page 67, line 22, leave out 'Regulation of the'.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 527 to 532.
    Mr. McLeish: The amendments would make a series of technical changes to head 4, which reserves matters relating to the energy supply industries. Most significantly, they bring into line the sections dealing with electricity, oil, gas and coal with that on nuclear energy, by including in the exceptions from the reservations express references to the subject matter of part I of the Environment Protection Act 1990. This will ensure that

    1005
    the Scottish Parliament has the competence to legislate on the environmental regulation of energy-producing processes onshore and in coastal waters.
    The amendments will delete a redundant reference to regulation at the beginning of the electricity section, and, for the sake of clarity, will split the reference to the liquefaction of natural gas to the conveyance, shipping and supply of gas.
    The amendments are necessary for the sake of clarity and to ensure that the reservations do not accidentally catch matters that the White paper stated would be devolved.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do the amendments have the approval of Dr. Robin Jeffrey of the Scottish nuclear industry, and have they been thoroughly discussed?
    Dr. Godman: You will not be surprised, Sir Alan, to hear that I am returning to the subject of fish in relation to what my hon. Friend the Minister is seeking to do by amending the schedule.
    Will my hon. Friend confirm that the treatment of pollution in controlled waters—that is territorial, coastal, inland and ground waters—is not reserved? If it is found by a Scottish Parliament that the United Kingdom-wide pollution measures for the oil and gas offshore industries are seen to be inadequate and that it could introduce measures to deal with pollution in these controlled waters, this will be an important issue for fishermen.
    My hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to answer me now, but what would be the Scottish Parliament's role in the dismantling of redundant oil and gas installations and pipeline networks in controlled waters? That important matter should also be addressed.
    Mr. McLeish: I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on his point.
    I restate my earlier comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman): the Scottish Parliament will have competence to legislate on the environmental regulation of energy-producing processes onshore and in coastal waters. I think that that is sufficient detail.
    Amendment agreed to.
    It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN put forthwith the Questions necessary to be disposed of at that hour, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [this day].
    Amendments made: No. 527, in page 67, line 23, at end insert—

  'Exception from reservation
  The subject-matter of Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.'.

  No. 528, in page 67, line 39, leave out 'and'.

  No. 529, in page 67, line 40, after first 'and', insert—
  '(h)'

  No. 530, in page 68, line 2, after 'of,insert
  '(a)'.

  No. 531, in page 68, line 3, at end insert
  'and

  () Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990'.

  1006

  No. 532, in page 68, line 10, at end insert—

  'The subject-matter of—

  () Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and

  ()'. —[Mr. McFall.]

  It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  To report progress and ask leave to sit again. —[Mr. McFall.]
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the agreement of the House, I will put together the four legal aid and advice motions.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
    That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
    That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
    That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be approved. —[Mr. McFall.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security Amendment (New Deal) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 9th March, be approved. —[Mr. McFall.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    AID TO SHIPBUILDING
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 11165/97, two draft Regulations on aid to shipbuilding, and 11167/97, a Commission Communication: Towards a new shipbuilding policy (as they relate to new rules on Community aids to shipbuilding); and approves the Government's support for the Commission's proposals to end operating aid for shipbuilding and to focus remaining aids on improving the competitiveness of the industry, as providing a good basis for reaching agreement and fully

    1007
    taking account of the UK's shipbuilding interests, subject to the Government being satisfied that the aid limits and monitoring provisions are sufficiently rigorous.

    BANANAS
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5357/98, a draft Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas and a draft Decision authorising the Commission to negotiate with countries having a substantial interest in the supply of bananas to the EU, and European Community Document No. 6150/98, a draft Regulation establishing a special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas; and supports the Government's position that these proposals together represent a serious attempt to meet the EU's international obligations under the WTO and the Lome Convention, that revised arrangements must take full account of the interests of those Caribbean countries which have traditionally supplied the UK with bananas and that aid to the Caribbean Commonwealth producers has an important part to play in assisting general adaptation to more competitive market conditions. —[Mr. McFall.]
    Question agreed to.

  Rail Services (London-West Country)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. McFall.]
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I am pleased to have the opportunity to put before the House an issue that is important not only to my constituents, but to millions of people across the west country. Train services between Bristol and London are of most concern to me, as the Member of Parliament for Northavon, but the issues that I shall discuss touch on the concerns of hon. Members from Devon and Cornwall, from south Wales, from Gloucestershire, from Herefordshire and from a range of areas where Great Western runs trains. There was speculation that we could have heard from hon. Members who represent each station along the line had the previous debate collapsed an hour earlier.
  I shall not go over old ground. The huge profits that the management of Great Western are set to make when the company is taken over by FirstGroup are a reflection of the poor deal that the British taxpayer gained from the previous Government when the franchises were first awarded; but that is history. My primary concern is to highlight for the Minister the grave dissatisfaction of people in the west at the quality of our rail services and to seek her assurance that the Government will do all they can to ensure that the service is improved in a practicable time scale.
  I stress that my purpose is not to criticise the many hard-working people at Great Western rail services. We encounter them on our train journeys. The vast majority work hard, are good natured and often bear with good humour the brunt of the complaints about poor service, which is often not their fault.
  I make a further promise: I undertake to refrain from sharing with hon. Members details of each delayed Great Western service that I have been on and the reasons for the delay, on the understanding that other hon. Members will show the same self-restraint.
  Rather than rely on anecdotal evidence, I shall give the hard facts of Great Western's performance since it was awarded the franchise in February 1996. The target set for punctuality was 90 per cent. Nine out of 10 trains should either be on time or within 10 minutes of the scheduled time. That was broadly in line with performance in the year before the franchise began. In the first year, Great Western narrowly exceeded that target with a punctuality performance of 90.5 per cent. In the year ended December 1997, 86.7 per cent. of trains ran on time. That was not up to the required standard, and, as a result of that poor performance, season ticket holders received a discount.
  The punctuality statistics exclude Sundays, bank holidays and the other days when rail services are poor, which suggests that the standard actually achieved in 1997 was very poor. Since then, performance has got worse. In the most recent four-week period, only 81.7 per cent. of trains were on time. That information was displayed this morning in Bristol Parkway station for all to see. That is the worst performance since the franchise began. In practical terms, it means that a daily commuter from Bristol to London can expect to be late twice a week. That is simply not acceptable.

  1009
  The poor levels of service are no aberration. Only once in the past 12 months has Great Western achieved its target for punctuality, and that was by only a fraction of 1 per cent. I fear that Great Western passengers can look forward to another discount on their season ticket this year, although I suspect that many of them would forgo that for a decent, reliable service.
  How does the poor level of service relate to the current takeover bid for Great Western by FirstGroup? The Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, John O'Brien, has the power to vary the terms of the franchise when a takeover bid is launched. Now is the perfect opportunity to secure for Great Western passengers the improvement in services that they want and which they have every right to expect—but there is good reason to believe that that opportunity has been missed.
  According to a helpful written answer from the Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), the franchising director was first told informally of Great Western's intention at the end of January. He was formally told on the evening of 3 March that, because of speculation in the press, FirstGroup wanted to announce its planned takeover the next day. The franchising director met FirstGroup on 4 March to discuss the franchises that it was seeking to acquire and the Great Eastern franchise, which it already held. Just two days later, on 6 March, the franchising director announced the deal whereby, in return for promises of service improvements on Great Western and Great Eastern, he would approve the takeover.
  That process raises a number of concerns that I should be grateful if the Minister would address. First, the speed with which the franchising director concluded an agreement with FirstGroup was surprising. Just three days from formal notification of its intention to seek a takeover, a complex £75 million deal was agreed. How did that happen? The charitable view is that the franchising director had been working on the bid since January and that when he was formally contacted on 3 March it was only a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. In that case, why did he not consult passengers?
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: This is a crucial point. Apart from the fact that real improvements should be secured—we could all mention the stations that we want upgraded and the services that we want improved—it cannot be right that the regulatory framework that was meant to represent the interests of consumers seems not to have involved proper consumer consultation. Not even the user representative groups were consulted, except when that was a statutory requirement. Certainly our user representative group was not consulted.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend is right.
  The counter argument may be that the bid was commercially sensitive. If a company is about to launch a takeover bid, there is clearly a limit to the extent to which the franchising director can chat to whoever he fancies to find out what people think. If he knew in January that a bid was to be made, he had time to make informal inquiries, without reference to a specific bid, to find out what passengers thought, but there is little evidence that that happened.
  1010
  The whole deal seems to have been put together in only three days. I feel that the franchising director must answer some questions in either case. Either he put together a complex £75 million deal in three days—which strikes me as undue haste—or he had been working on the deal since January, in which case there was inadequate consultation.
  A second and related issue concerns the detail of the deal agreed by the franchising director. The promises of more rolling stock and improved security are naturally welcome, but I understand that part of the deal involves improved first-class rail facilities at Swindon and Bristol Temple Meads. I have nothing against improved first-class rail facilities, but it is hard to believe that that is one of the priorities of a railway that has been starved of investment. Again, perhaps the haste with which the deal was concluded has meant that the travelling public have not received what they might have expected.
  alking of not receiving what one might have expected, hon. Members—particularly those representing constituencies in the west country—may have received a letter from the chairman of FirstGroup, whom I met recently. The letter, dated 6 March, begins:
  "As you may have seen in the press, FirstGroup plc has taken over Great Western Holdings".
  That will come as a shock to those who attended the FirstGroup extraordinary general meeting today.
  The letter goes on to list the conditions attached to the new bid, which include an order placed for 32 new vehicles. Initially I was terribly impressed by that, understanding a vehicle to mean a train. I have now discovered that a vehicle is a carriage. That means four new trains, which, for the benefit of the uninitiated, is rather less impressive. Extra trains are obviously welcome, but my second point is this: are these precisely the right priorities? We want extra trains, but do we really want the franchising director to press for improved first-class lounges? I have my doubts.
  A third key concern, which particularly affects those of us who represent west country constituents, is the scope of the franchising director's negotiations with FirstGroup. Apart from promises of improvements on Great Western, nearly half the £75 million deal relates not to Great Western but to Great Eastern and getting rid of slam-door trains on its routes.
  I have nothing against those who use Great Eastern services and would be delighted if they had trains whose doors did not slam, but the only franchises that were up for renegotiation were the Great Western and North Western franchises. Let me make a point of logic. The profit that FirstGroup expects to make from the deal will come exclusively from the pockets of Great Western travellers. It will gain nothing extra from Great Eastern travellers. I feel that Great Western travellers should gain the benefits of the renegotiation of the franchise. Similarly, when the Great Eastern franchise comes up for renegotiation, I shall expect Great Eastern passengers to benefit. Because half the benefit of the scheme went to Great Eastern passengers, passengers in my area have lost out.
  Finally, I am concerned about the penalty regime. I am glad that Great Western and its successor will face penalties for lateness and cancellations, but, according to calculations by Save Our Railways, if Great Western cancelled a train it would receive more money in subsidy than it lost in the fine. Perhaps we can infer from that that

  1011
  if it ran no trains at all it would make a handsome profit. I do not know whether that is literally true, but it makes me wonder whether the fine regime is as severe as it might be.
  I hope that the fears will prove groundless and that the new regime will be better, but I understand that at today's extraordinary general meeting of FirstGroup, one of the shareholders—a high street bank shareholder—voted against the takeover on the ground that there was no confidence in the management that FirstGroup was to put in place. That was a significant vote against the takeover.
  If the company's own shareholders have reservations about the managers who will come in, I—as one who represents people in the west country—am anxious about whether the promises will be fulfilled. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that considerable pressure will be put on the company to keep the new promises.
  Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman makes a good case. I represent a neighbouring constituency and my constituents share the misery. The other ingredient to be thrown into the pot is the relationship with Railtrack. To be fair to Great Western, the delays and problems are not all of its making; many are due to the complexity of the relationship between the train operating companies and Railtrack. I am not sure of the wisdom of the bizarre relationship and the method of paying fines, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that Railtrack must not get away scot free?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that the train operating companies must not be viewed in isolation. The House recently had an opportunity to discuss strategic rail issues and it is important to see matters in the round. I am sure that that is the Minister's approach.
  People in the west country want a rail service that is quick, efficient and reliable. In recent years, they have been denied such a service. Many are offended by the huge sums that Great Western management is about to receive. Their one consolation was that the takeover might provide an opportunity to secure real improvement for the travelling public. I hope that the Minister can assure me that in this and subsequent takeovers she and the Government will do all they can to ensure that that is the case.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate, although I am sure that he wishes—as do I, and the millions of passengers in the west country—that there was no need for a debate on the provision of rail services between London and the west country. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not the only hon. Member to have received complaints. He spoke about his bitter personal experience of using the rail services between London and the west country.
  The substantial profits that have been made by the directors of Great Western Holdings following the takeover by FirstGroup simply add insult to injury. They are another example of the privatised railways making
  1012
  individuals into millionaires at the expense of passengers and taxpayers. As the hon. Gentleman said, that has happened courtesy of the contracts that were awarded by the previous Government. Regrettably, there is nothing that we can do to stop that, but we can ensure that the passenger gets the maximum possible benefit from takeover deals.
  The new objectives, instructions and guidance that we issued to the franchising director last year require him to put the passenger first. Those have allowed the franchising director to negotiate a package of improvements that are worth more than £75 million not only for Great Western passengers—although I acknowledge that they are the hon. Gentleman's primary concern—but for Great Eastern and North West Trains passengers. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked the franchising director to ensure a significant passenger dividend in any future takeover of a train operating company.
  As part of the package, FirstGroup will provide new rolling stock at a cost of £32 million to be in service by June 2002. Season ticket holders who have borne the brunt of Great Western's performance problems will receive a week's free travel. There will be more bus-rail through ticketing on routes that serve Newport, Bridgend, Port Talbot, Neath, Chippenham, Weston-super-Mare, Trowbridge, Frome and Shepton Mallet.
  Since the franchising director announced on 6 March the package of passenger benefits that were provisionally agreed with FirstGroup, he has had further consultations and negotiations. As a result, additional benefits for passengers in the north-west and a new penalty regime in the event of late introduction of the new rolling stock have been secured. The franchising director has confirmed his approval of the change of control. I am sure that all hon. Members and their constituents will welcome the package of improvements. I do not ignore the hon. Gentleman's point that those promises must be kept.
  I have no know ledge of the January date to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He raised the issue of consultation with rail users, as did the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). By their nature, takeover deals are time limited and market sensitive, and I understand that the franchising director's negotiations on additional passenger benefits were conducted on a commercially confidential basis. An agreed outline package was announced on 6 March. The franchising director then entered into consultation with the passenger transport executives, which are co-signatories to the North West Trains franchise, before ratifying his approval of the change of control.
  Mr. Webb: The January date to which I referred was given by the Minister in a written answer to me as the point at which the franchising director was first given informal indication that FirstGroup might be expressing some interest. My point was that, given that he knew what might be coming, he had the chance to make informal inquiries of user groups without breaching commercial sensitivity.
  Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I misunderstood. He meant informal inquiries. I thought that he meant a formal application. However, I understand that this was the first takeover deal requiring consent, so, obviously, the procedures had not been tested before.

  1013
  The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of whether the franchising director had secured the best possible deal. The director has a statutory value-for-money obligation under the Railways Act 1993. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear when commenting on the change of ownership of Victory Railway Holdings Ltd., owner of the Thames Trains franchise, the Government want passengers to get the maximum benefit from buy-outs or takeovers. Such a passenger dividend has been secured by the franchising director in both the Great Western and Thames Trains cases.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that passenger benefits should not necessarily have been spread over North West Trains and Great Eastern as well as Great Western, but the franchising director has secured benefits to apply across all FirstGroup's franchise interests. That is consistent with the Government's view that there should be maximum benefit for passengers. All taxpayers, regardless of where they live, contribute to the almost £2 billion of subsidy that goes into our railways every year.
  The hon. Gentleman detailed the recent reports of poor performance by train operators and falling levels of customer satisfaction. We have always made it clear that we will not accept poor performance by train operators. Poor performers must take immediate steps not only to improve their services to satisfactory levels, but to ensure that those levels are maintained.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said that we were not to go over recent experiences of train delays, so I will not mention the fact that my train from Cornwall was half an hour late today. May I press on the Minister the point that was made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)? All the goodies that are now being offered by FirstGroup are way in the future. The problem is that the combination of inadequate rolling stock and inadequate maintenance of that line by Railtrack means that we will have continual delays and continual reduction in the quality of service in the next few years—long before we get the improvements that are being referred to.
  Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has somewhat pre-empted my next point. There are undoubtedly difficulties here. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I argue that Railtrack has a significant part to play. For example, the fleet of high-speed trains that Great Western runs has been regularly depleted by train failures. It was reduced further by the accident at Southall. The company has been plagued by infrastructure failures, operational difficulties, a freight train derailment and even animals on the line.
  The state of the track means regular closures of parts of the route for maintenance and improvement. Failed trains have held up other train operator services and contributed to their poor performance. Time and again, connections have been missed, yet taxpayers have paid nearly £60 million over the past year for that so-called service. Passengers have a right to expect something better. The Government intend that they shall get it.
  As part of the takeover deal, Great Western will be subject to an incentive payment regime, which will directly penalise it for poor performance. That will be the first time that such a regime has been applied to inter-city
  1014
  services. In future, £1,000 will be levied against Great Western each time a train is cancelled. It will also be fined £250 for every train that is more half an hour late or does not complete its journey. That is a strong incentive to provide the punctual and reliable service that passengers deserve. Although—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said—we are far from satisfied with Great Western's performance, I recognise that Railtrack's infrastructure problems and temporary speed restrictions have hampered its efforts to improve.
  Hon. Members will be familiar with the problem of engineering works. Stretches of the route between Bristol and London have been closed to allow work to be carried out, causing passengers to endure long bus journeys or diversions. There are more works to come this summer and next year, affecting passengers travelling to and from western England and Wales. I could wish that it were not so, but it is vital that the work be completed in a timely way.
  However, I expect operators to ensure that comprehensive and accurate information on the travel arrangements applying during those works is easily available to passengers, in good time. I look to the franchising director to ensure that that happens. I also expect Railtrack to plan works in a way that minimises disruption to passengers and reduces the need to close the railway.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Lady may have heard a murmur from the Liberal Democrat Benches when she mentioned fine levels. Can it possibly be appropriate that a cancelled inter-city train is fined only £1,000, and a long-delayed train only £250? Two MPs not travelling up from the west country will cost Great Western more in lost fares than the fine.
  Mr. Drew: Labour Members travel second class.
  Mr. Taylor: I think the hon. Gentleman does not have so far to travel.
  Ms Jackson: I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) has made, but, equally, he must be aware that one of the first things that the Deputy Prime Minister instituted when he took office was an examination of the existing powers of the present rail regulators. We are committed to the creation of a strategic rail authority; we are committed to even tighter regulation—and, indeed, reform—of the railways, but we require a legislative slot before such improvements can be made.
  I am worried about the growing number of emergency speed restrictions as a result of track condition, and I look to the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate to ensure that standards are maintained, and improved where necessary. I expect train operators to provide journeys that are both fast and reliable. Train operators must plan to deliver the maximum journey times specified in the passenger service requirement. Although train operators are able to increase some journeys by a few minutes to accommodate additional station stops or Railtrack-imposed speed restrictions, they cannot increase journey times significantly merely because they are unable to operate a reliable service.
  As far as I am aware, Great Western has not made representations to the franchising director asking him to relax journey times in the passenger service requirement.

  1015
  I would expect the franchising director to consider relaxing those requirements only where it is unavoidable, and then only after full consultation with the relevant rail users consultative committees and local authorities.
  Mr. David Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because she has given way several times. There is a specific problem with GWR, in that it is a feeder line for a number of other railway franchisees. Many people travel from my constituency, Newbury, to Reading on GWR and then need to take a Thames Trains train from there. If a GWR train is late—for the reasons that the hon. Lady has described or for some other reason—people miss their connections. Connections used to wait for the faster train; nowadays they leave without the passengers.
  Ms Jackson: I am starting to think that Liberal Democrat Members have already read my speech, because I am just about to come to missed connections. As the hon. Gentleman said, late running means that operators are faced with a difficult choice: whether to keep connecting services waiting for a late-running train or to let them go. Either way, that results in delays for passengers. The problem of missed connections is made worse if operators fail to communicate properly with one other, so that passengers alight from one train in time to see their connecting service leave.
  However, it is all very well insisting that, in those circumstances, operators must take decisions in the interests of passengers. I would much prefer that trains ran on time in the first place; if they did so, the issue of missed connections would not arise.
  Several routes in the west country suffer from severe overcrowding. Holiday routes in Devon and Cornwall can experience sudden peaks in passenger numbers during the season. Ever more rolling stock is beginning to be ordered. I am pleased that, at long last, rolling stock companies are beginning to see the commercial merit in ordering their own new trains on a speculative basis.
  Members of the Transport Sub-Committee and I wish there to be more rolling stock to respond to capacity pressures, wherever they arise. More short-term leasing opportunities between ROSCOs and train operators would make it easier for operators to procure additional staff on short-term contracts to deal with peaks in demand.
  1016
  The Government have made clear our intention to put railways at the heart of a truly integrated transport system. I welcome the integrated bus and rail schemes that Great Western has introduced. The addition of nine other schemes as part of the proposed takeover deal will make through journeys by bus and train an attractive option for more people in the west country, and will build on Great Western's plans for joint ticketing and information schemes with local bus operators.
  We are committed also to encouraging more people to cycle. A cycle-friendly railway will be good for the environment, encouraging people to travel by cycle and train and to leave the car at home. However, for that to happen, train operators must accommodate cyclists on trains and provide secure facilities for cycle storage at stations.
  The voluntary code of practice, "Providing for Cyclists", which I launched last year, offers helpful guidance to operators on what they should do to make cyclists' lives easier. I am pleased that some train operators have not quailed at the technical obstacles that make it difficult to carry cycles on trains. Great Western has already equipped its high-speed trains with additional cycle racks, which I know are proving popular. As part of the proposed takeover, FirstGroup has committed itself to investing £50,000 in new cycle facilities on both Great Western Railways and North West Trains. I look forward to other train operators following suit.
  Everyone acknowledges that the challenges facing the rail industry cannot be solved overnight. Clearly, in many instances, the passenger and the taxpayer are still not getting the best deal from the privatised railway, but the Government are determined to put that right. Passengers want regulation of the railways that is firm, fair and accountable—a railway with a public service ethos, not driven solely by the profit motive, which is fit for the 21st century.
  Our forthcoming White Paper will state our proposals for the railways. I believe that those proposals will be a major step in the right direction and will help to create a climate in which the railways can flourish as part of an integrated transport system, not only in the west country but across the United Kingdom.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will now extend legal aid to cover the cost of legal representation at appeal hearings for destitute asylum appellants ineligible for benefits on appeal against refusal of refugee status. [35906]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our proposed reforms of the legal aid scheme are designed to get legal aid expenditure under effective control and to ensure that it is directed to areas of greatest need. As part of the reform package, we will consider whether extending legal aid to cover representation at hearings before the immigration adjudicators and the Immigration Appeals Tribunal is the best way of meeting that need.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the announcement of the membership of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was made on 31 December 1997. [37163]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The membership of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was announced in a press notice on 30 December 1997 because I had appointed eight new members to the Commission.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of British-supplied equipment by the Indonesian Government during civil unrest in Surabaya, Indonesia, on 12 March. [36020]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are monitoring closely reports of recent incidents of unrest in Indonesia.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the(a) Ministers appointed to and (b) those Ministers' interests within the new Indonesian Cabinet. [35910]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have noted President Soeharto's appointments to the new Cabinet. We look forward to the new Government of Indonesia taking the appropriate action to solve the current economic difficulties.
  356

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the meeting between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, and the members of the Lockerbie relatives group on Monday 16 March; and what undertakings were given about the appointment of a person to co-ordinate relevant aspects of the circumstances surrounding the disaster, and investigations of how it happened. [36495]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State explained to the Lockerbie relatives the high priority which this Government attach to ending their ordeal by seeing justice done. She was grateful for the opportunity to hear their views. No new specific undertakings were given, but Baroness Symons has briefed the Foreign Secretary on the views of the relatives; he looks forward to addressing their concerns at a meeting on 8 April. The Prime Minister will be glad to meet them after the Foreign Secretary has reported to him.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan; [36664]

  (2) what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan. [36649]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all Departments in September last year a "Guide to Green Transport Plans". My Department has started to consider how to respond to its recommendations.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Serbian Government regarding the situation in Kosovo. [36774]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) on 9 March 1998,Official Report, column 550. Since then, the Minister of State my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), as Special Representative of the Presidency, called on Serbian President Milutinovic and FRY Foreign Minister Jovanovic on 11 March to urge Belgrade to meet the international community's concerns. He made clear to both of them that we expect President Milosevic to engage with the Kosovar Albanian leadership in a process of meaningful dialogue without preconditions. Contact Group Foreign Ministers reaffirmed this message when they met in Bonn on 25 March.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons he has made no representations to the Spanish Ambassador on the incident which took place on Thursday 13 March in which a Royal Gibraltar police launch was struck by a Spanish helicopter. [36782]
  357
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The British Ambassador in Madrid protested to the Director General for European and North American Affairs in the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs on 17 March over this incident. On 24 March, he handed over video and photographic evidence of dangerous flying by a Spanish coastguard helicopter during this incident.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Aer Lingus Crash
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that when the 30 year period following the crash of the Aer Lingus Viscount in the Irish Sea on 24 March 1968 has expired, all Government documents relating to this crash will be made public. [34810]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 March 1998]The Air Accidents Investigation Branch file relating to this accident was reviewed by the Department of Transport in September 1994. It was not selected by the Public Record Office for permanent preservation in the National Archive and was destroyed at that time.

  The Ministry of Defence has documentation relating to the search and rescue aspects in the immediate aftermath of the accident which will be made public in accordance with the 30 year rule.

  "Planning for the Communities of the Future"
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if an environmental appraisal, using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", has been undertaken to assess the environmental implications of the "Planning for the Communities of the Future" White Paper; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [35645]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The strategy outlined in the "Planning for the Communities of the Future" policy document was arrived at after a process conducted broadly along the lines outlined in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment". There is no single appraisal document as such. As the guidance notes,"the precise conduct of each appraisal will vary from case to case".

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the use of increased journey times in urban areas as a means of discouraging travelling by private cars. [35639]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Results from a study of motorists in a report entitled "Responses to Congestion" have been used as the basis for Guidance on Induced and Suppressed Traffic, published in February 1997, in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. A brief description of that study is given in Volume 12.2.2 Annexe C of the Manual. That advice recommends using predicted changes to travel times by car and public transport as standard inputs to well established mode choice models, where complex changes to behaviour are expected.
  358
  A more recent study of the effects on the volume of road traffic when roads were closed or their capacity restricted for a variety of purposes did not report the effect on journey times.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the next meeting of Green Ministers will take place. [35646]

  Mr. Meacher
  The meeting is currently being organised and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for the development of motorway service areas have been made since the 15 miles apart guidance was adopted; how many applications have been subject to a public inquiry; and how many of those were(a) approved and (b) refused. [36307]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The minimum spacing between motorway service areas (MSAs) was reduced from 30 miles to 15 in 1993. Since then, exactly 100 MSA planning applications have been referred to the Highways Agency by local planning authorities. 52 of them were subsequently the subject of public inquiries and, of those, 8 were granted planning permission and 44 refused.

  Local Authority Rents
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) of 14 November 1997,Official Report, columns 698–99, if he will recalculate the figures on the gross cost of reducing local authority rents taking into account the benefit and tax changes made in the Budget. [36356]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Not yet. My previous reply was based on calculations derived from LAMOD, the Department's model for estimating the public expenditure effects of a change in guideline rent policy for local authorities. The model uses a Housing Benefit Ready Reckoner, which will be updated in due course to reflect the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals for tax and benefit changes. We would not expect these changes to have a significant effect on the figures in my previous reply.

  Benson v Boyce (Private Hire Vehicles)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a decision on his consultative paper on the High Court judgment in the case of Benson v Boyce (Private Hire Vehicles); and if he will make a statement. [36419]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The results of the consultation process are under consideration. I hope to make an announcement shortly on how we intend to proceed.
  359

  Aggregates
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise the mineral planning guidance for the extraction of aggregates. [36436]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We propose to start the review of Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 (MPG6): Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, later this year.

  Sewers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the environmental health impacts of infiltration into public and private sewers; and if he will make a statement; [36203]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the environmental health impacts of the leakage of sewage into the ground from public and private sewers; and if he will make a statement. [36204]

  Angela Eagle
  I understand that experience within the water industry shows that the level of infiltration into sewers normally represents a very small proportion of the total flow a sewer can carry. Infiltration into sewers therefore has an insignificant bearing on such issues as sewage treatment, the operation of combined sewer overflows and flooding from sewers.

  My Department held a meeting with the Sewer Renovation Federation at the end of last year to discuss a number of issues, including claims that leakage from sewers might be causing problems. The conclusion of that meeting was that there was no evidence that leakage is causing significant health or pollution problems at present.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the number of premises incorrectly connecting surface water drainage to foul only sewers; who has responsibility for securing remedial action by property owners in such circumstances; and if he will make a statement; [36205]

  (2) what proportion of the public sewers in England and Wales are (a) combined foul and surface water, (b) foul water only and (c) surface water only; and if he will make a statement. [36202]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not held centrally on the numbers of foul and surface water sewers or the numbers of illegal connections involving such drainage systems. I understand that sewerage undertakers normally require separate foul and surface water drainage systems where new sewers are to be adopted on completion. Sewerage undertakers are responsible for taking action under provisions in the Water Industry Act 1991 against illegal connections.

  Drinking Water
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1997,Official Report, columns 349–50, if his Department classified those dwellings with water supplies with a lead concentration exceeding 50.ųg/litre, on the basis of information up to
  360
  1995, as being unfit for human habitation; what assessment he has made of the public health implications of such lead concentrations; and if he will make a statement. [36199]

  Angela Eagle
  The current housing fitness standard requires a dwelling to have an adequate piped supply of wholesome water but does not specify concentrations of contaminants that may render a dwelling unfit for human habitation.

  At sustained concentrations exceeding 50 ųg/l, drinking water is likely to be the major source of lead intake. But is unlikely to contribute significantly to those exceptionally high levels of intake of lead which result in clinical lead poisoning. I understand that the lower levels of exposure which are experienced are associated, in epidemiological studies, with small subclinical changes, including decrements in neuropsychological development in children and increased blood pressure in adults.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1997,Official Report, columns 349–50, how and where he proposes to test drinking water for compliance with the proposed EC Drinking Water Directive; when he expects this Directive will come into effect; if standards will apply when water enters a property; what will be the impact of the directive on his Department's assessment of the future fitness of dwellings; and if he will make a statement. [36201]

  Angela Eagle
  The proposal for a revised Drinking Water Directive is at the stage of the Council having agreed a Common Position, and is being considered by the European Parliament. After their Second Reading, it will come back to Council for consideration of any amendments. We hope that the Directive will be adopted this autumn. Under the present draft, Member States will have 5 years from adoption to meet the interim standard for lead of 25 ųg/1 and 15 years from adoption to meet the standard of 10 ųg/1.

  The present draft of the Directive requires sampling at the tap, but provides that Member States will generally have fulfilled their obligations if it can be established that non-compliance with a parametric value is due to the domestic distribution system. This is defined as the part of the supply system that is not the responsibility of the water supplier. The draft Directive requires treatment measures to reduce the risk of non-compliance due to the domestic distribution system, and that the property owner is advised of possible remedial action that they could take.

  It is too early to judge the impact of the Directive on the assessment of the future fitness of dwellings. We are currently reviewing the housing fitness standard. A consultation paper issued on 10 February 1998 invited comments on a number of proposals and options for change. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1997,Official Report, columns 349–50, if he will ensure that future English House Condition Surveys indicate that figures for unfitness from the survey do not take account of lead in water; and if he will make a statement. [36200]
  361
  Angela Eagle
  Surveyors do not take samples to establish the quality of water in a property in the English House Condition Survey and its figures for unfitness do not take account of lead in water. The main Report of the 1996 Survey will be published within the next two months and will make this clear.

  House Condition Survey
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects(a) the results of the 1996 English House Condition Survey and (b) the Energy Supplement to the 1996 English House Condition Survey will be published; and if he will make a statement. [36198]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The finding of the 1996 English House Condition Survey will be published as a detailed, priced report, together with a separate summary of findings available free of charge in mid May. We expect to publish detailed energy findings from the 1996 English House Condition Survey by Autumn 1998. However,

  Gross rent by tenure

  England 1996–97

  Gross weekly rent

  Under £30

  £30 under £40

  £40 under £50

  £50 under £60

  £60 under £70

  £70 under £80

  £80 under £90

  £90 under £100

  £100 under £120

  £120 or over

  Total (000)

  Local authority

  341

  1,362

  1,008

  464

  163

  80

  30

  21

  6

  7

  3,482

  Housing association

  69

  169

  265

  233

  147

  65

  27

  9

  12

  15

  1,010

  Privately rented

  245

  263

  204

  203

  255

  159

  171

  124

  153

  279

  2,056

  Gross rent by tenure and Government Office Region

  Gross weekly rent

  Under £50

  £50 under £100

  £100 or over

  Total (000)

  Rented from local authority

  London

  197

  381

  10

  588

  South-East

  203

  135

  1

  339

  South West

  201

  46

  0

  247

  Eastern

  222

  89

  1

  312

  East Midlands

  286

  15

  1

  301

  West Midlands

  397

  20

  0

  417

  Yorks and the Humber

  454

  26

  0

  480

  North East

  265

  9

  0

  273

  North West

  350

  28

  0

  378

  Merseyside

  138

  9

  0

  147

  Rented from housing association

  London

  71

  142

  19

  233

  South-East

  69

  102

  4

  175

  South West

  40

  41

  1

  82

  Eastern

  48

  53

  0

  101

  East Midlands

  37

  19

  0

  56

  West Midlands

  64

  44

  0

  108

  Yorks and the Humber

  33

  23

  2

  59

  North East

  37

  16

  0

  53

  North West

  74

  26

  1

  101

  Merseyside

  30

  13

  0

  43

  Privately rented

  London

  84

  128

  232

  445

  South-East

  109

  189

  102

  400

  South West

  91

  127

  29

  247

  Eastern

  63

  108

  24

  194

  East Midlands

  68

  60

  4

  132

  West Midlands

  76

  63

  10

  149

  362
  some information on heating facilities and thermal insulation will be included in the main report of this survey.

  Rents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tenants in England pay gross weekly rents in the ranges(a) £0 to £9.99, (b) £10 to £14.99, (c) £15 to £19.99, (d) £20 to £24.99, (e) £25 to £29.99, (f) £30 to £34.99, (g) £35 to £39.99, (h) £40 to £44.99, (i) £45 to £49.99, (j) £50 to £54.99, (k) £55 to £59.99, (l) £60 to £64.99, (m) £65 to £69.99, (n) £70 to £74.99, (o) £75 to £79.99, (p) £80 to £89.99, (q) £90 to £99.99, (r) £100 to £109.99, (s) £110 to £119.99, (t) £120 to £129.99 and (u) £130 or above, separately identifying figures for (i) local authority, (ii) housing association and (iii) private tenants and breaking (i) to (iii) down by standard region. [36318]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Estimates for 1996–97 from the Survey of English Housing are given below in as much detail as the sample sizes allow.
  363

  Gross rent by tenure and Government Office Region

  Gross weekly rent

  Under £50

  £50 under £100

  £100 or over

  Total (000)

  Yorks and the Humber

  77

  75

  6

  158

  North East

  40

  37

  3

  81

  North West

  67

  103

  17

  187

  Merseyside

  37

  23

  4

  63

  The figures are given to the nearest thousand but, like all estimates from sample surveys, they are subject to sampling variability. They are not necessarily accurate to the level of precision with which they are quoted. Private tenants in rent-free accommodation are not included in the tables.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to reply to the letter of 4 February from the hon. Member for Reigate on behalf of his constituent Mrs. A. M. Davidson. [36489]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.

  Canals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to promote the use of canals for transport in England. [36584]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is one of the issues we are looking at in our review of transport policy. We expect to publish a white paper in the Spring.

  Countryside Rights Association
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the Countryside Rights Association. [36575]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department has received no representations from the Countryside Rights Association.

  Rights of Way Review Committee
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which(a) organisations and (b) individuals will be represented on the Rights of Way Review Committee. [36574]

  Angela Eagle
  The Rights of Way Review Committee is currently reviewing its membership and has consulted existing and potential members. The results of this consultation will be considered at the Committee's next meeting in June.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria govern the membership of the Rights of Way Review Committee. [36573]

  Angela Eagle
  Membership is by invitation of the Committee.
  364
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the terms of reference of the Rights of Way Review Committee. [36576]

  Angela Eagle
  The Rights of Way Review Committee is an informal, non-statutory committee whose terms of reference are"to review matters relating to public rights of way in England and Wales with the aim of agreeing, by consensus, proposals for action".

  Water Resources
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what percentage of reservoir capacity is currently full in each water company area; and what was the figure(a) six and (b) 12 months ago; [37003]

  what is the current percentage level of maximum groundwater in each water company area; and what was the figure (a) six and (b)12 months ago; [37004]

  what assessment he has made of the likelihood of water shortages in 1998. [37005]

  Angela Eagle
  The Institute of Hydrology and the British Geological Survey publish jointly a monthly Hydrological summary for Great Britain. This contains full information on reservoir stocks and on groundwater levels at representative sites during the last 12 months. That for February 1998 states that reservoir stocks remain healthy, while groundwater levels are within the normal range throughout most of the country but remain very depressed in parts of the English lowlands.

  The Environment Agency keeps my Department informed on a weekly basis of the water resources position in England and Wales. We expect water companies to maintain supplies at all times and we do not currently envisage them having any general difficulty in doing that, although exceptionally low groundwater levels in some areas will require careful resource management. At the beginning of February, we commissioned the Environment Agency to prepare a more detailed report on prospects for water supplies this year, to be based on the resources position at 31 March. We expect to receive that report towards the end of April.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's percentage target for the reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases; and over what timescale this target applies. [36884]

  Angela Eagle
  The European Community agreed at Kyoto to a legally binding target of a 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels over the
  365
  period 2008–12. Reaching a decision on how to share out that target between Member States is a priority for Environment Council in June. Domestically our aim is to reduce emissions of CO2 by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010, as set out in our Manifesto. We intend to issue a consultation paper in the summer, focusing largely on how we can ensure we meet our legally binding target, but also considering how we can move beyond that towards our 20% aim.

  Bicycles (Trains)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with rail companies about reducing charges for carrying bicycles on trains. [36610]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Provision for the carriage of bicycles is an important issue which ministers have raised on a number of occasions with the train operating companies. Under their franchise agreements, train operators are required, so far as reasonably practicable and subject to the availability of appropriate space on their rolling stock, to ensure that facilities for the carriage of bicycles are made available, at reasonable charges (if any) to passengers wishing to use their services. The Objectives Instructions and Guidance (0IG), issued on behalf of the Secretary of State to the Franchising Director on 6 November 1997, require him to discuss with train operators who plan to order new rolling stock the provision of suitable space for accompanying bicycles on trains, and to encourage operators to provide suitable facilities for cyclists at the stations they manage.

  Ordnance Survey
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey Department and Executive Agency in the year 1998–99. [37059]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey in 1998–99:

  1. To recover at least 90% of the costs incurred by the Agency.

  2. To ensure that, by 31 March 1999, 98% of existing major detail is surveyed and available to customers in the National Topographic Database at any one time. The target will increase to 99% by the year 2002.

  3. In order to provide a quality service to customers, to dispatch products in response to orders as follows:

  95% of all Land-Line digital map units within 5 working days; and

  92% of small scale products within 5 working days.

  4. To increase by 5% the annual revenue earned per member of staff employed.

  These targets, some of which are being incrementally increased, are closely associated with the Corporate Aims of Ordnance Survey and demonstrate the Agency's continuing commitment to customers and to improved value for money for all its stakeholders.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the secretary of state for the Environment,Transport and the Regions if he will make 366
  a statement about the financial management and policy review of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. [36885]

  Angela Eagle
  As part of the Government's programme of regular five-yearly financial management and policy reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department has conducted a thorough review of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. The resulting report is published today, and a copy has been placed in the Library of each House. In accordance with the guidance on such reviews, we have assessed the extent to which the Commission and Executive's functions are necessary for the achievement of the Government's policies, and whether there is scope for privatising, contracting out or transferring all or part of its functions to another body.

  In carrying out the study, my Department has consulted widely with relevant organisations with an interest in the Commission and Executive's work, and held a public consultation. We are grateful for their contribution. The Review found that Government needs to take responsibility for setting health and safety standards and enforcing compliance with these standards. The public consultation endorsed the importance of the work of the Commission and Executive and the professionalism with which they carry it out. We considered HSC/E's approach to contracting out, looking in particular at their inspection and permissioning regimes, and concluded that it was not appropriate to ask them to change their current policy.

  The Review found scope for further work in spreading best practice in consistency of enforcement by local authorities, and for considering extension of the range of work for which the Executive charges to the assessment of safety cases and the costs of inspection of those sites and installations which submit safety cases. It also made a number of minor recommendations. Work on these is being taken forward.

  This Government attach great importance to maintaining and improving health and safety standards at the workplace. We fully support the vital work carried out by the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in setting and enforcing those standards and in underpinning employer's responsibilities to prevent accidents and ill-health at work. Because good standards of health and safety at the workplace are a higher priority for this Government, we have approved an extra £4.5 million for HSE's work in 1998/99. Funding for HSC/E's work in the longer term is being considered within the Comprehensive Spending Review for all the Department's activities. The creation of DETR has brought together a range of responsibilities for safety, particularly in the transport field, which will provide new opportunities to consider how best practice should be shared between the different modes. We are determined not to become complacent about health and safety, and will continue to work with the Commission to ensure that we are prepared for the health and safety challenges which will face us into the new millennium.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many visits to West Sussex have been made by(a) the Secretary of

  367
  State and (b) Ministers responsible for planning matters (i)between 1 May 1997 and 8 December 1997 and (ii)since 8 December 1997. [36786]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions visited the County on 19 November 1997. No visits have been made by Ministers responsible for planning.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answers of 9 March 1998,Official Report, column 23, and 18 March 1998, Official Report, column 610, if he will define (a) a Government programme and (b) a Government initiative. [36324]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]The hon. Member introduced the terms 'Government spending programme' and 'Government initiative' in his Questions and was answered accordingly. The answers of 9 and 18 March made clear that the Government's commitment to the principle of additionality means that we will not use the Lottery to support programmes or initiatives which should be funded from Government expenditure.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the National Lottery regulator in Scotland; [36133]

  (2) if he will list the (a)location of, (b)running costs of and (c)salary costs of the head office of the Lottery Regulator; what percentage of total staff are based (a)at head office, (ii) in London and (iii) in Scotland; and what percentage of salary and running costs are incurred in (A) London and (B) Scotland; [36134]

  (3) if he will list the (a)location, (b)running costs and (c) salary costs of the head office of the Office of the National Lottery; what percentage of total staff are based (i) at head office, (ii) in London and (iii) in Scotland; what percentage of salary and running costs are incurred in (A) London and (B) Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the office's responsibilities in Scotland. [36143]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 and 26 March 1998]The responsibilities of the Director General of the National Lottery are the same in all parts of the United Kingdom. He must exercise his functions in the manner he considers is most likely to secure that the National Lottery is run, and every lottery that forms part of it is promoted, with all due propriety, and that the interests of every participant in a Lottery that forms part of the National Lottery are protected; and, subject to the foregoing he must seek to secure that the amount the National Lottery raises for good causes is as great as possible. He must also comply with any directions he is issued by the Secretary of State under section 11 of the National Lottery etc Act 1993;

  The head office of the Office of the National Lottery (OFLOT) is located in central London. A further officer is located in Watford. OFLOT' s total running costs (excluding salaries) for the current financial year are
  368
  estimated at £880,000. The salary costs for the head office are estimated at £626,712, 96 per cent. of total salary costs; other salary costs relate to the office in Watford. 92 per cent. of staff are based at the head office in London. No staff are based in Scotland, although regulatory activities include visits to Scotland.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many Ministerial policy reviews have been initiated within his Department since 1 May 1997; and when they are expected to report. [36072]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In common with all other Government Departments, the Department for Culture Media and Sport has been undertaking a comprehensive spending review. This has looked at objectives, policies and spending priorities across all the Department's responsibilities.

  The Department has also conducted a number of individual reviews alongside the spending review. These were:

  a review of the National Lottery resulted in the publication last July of a White Paper, "The People's Lottery" and the subsequent introduction of the National Lottery Bill now before the House;

  a review of the arrangements for celebrating the Millennium;

  a review of film policy, the outcome of which was published on 25 March;

  a review of the list of nationally important sporting events which must be made available to generally available free-to-air terrestrial TV channels.

  Listed Sporting Events
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from(a) Mr. Rupert Murdoch and (b) News International in respect of the listed sporting events. [37018]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received no representations from Mr. Murdoch or News International on this subject. I consulted BSkyB, in which News International has 40% shareholding, along with other broadcasters and many other interested parties, on the criteria to be used in my current review of the list and on the events included on the list.

  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who appointed the review committee on listed events; and what(a) geographical and (b) other criteria were used in making the appointments. [36822]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I appointed the members of the Advisory Group on Listed Events. My main criterion in making the appointments was knowledge of the sporting, broadcasting and public policy issues involved in the review of the list. The members of the group, however, come from a variety of different backgrounds and from many different regions of the United Kingdom.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Broadcasting Standards(a) Council and (b) Commission; if he will list the

  369
  (i) location of, (ii) running costs of, (iii) salary costs of and (iv) number of staff based at the head offices of these bodies; what percentage of total staff are based (A) at head office, (B) London and (C) Scotland; and what percentage of salary and running costs are incurred in (1) Scotland and (2) London. [36132]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 26 March 1998,Official Report, column 223.

  Sport Governing Bodies
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1998,Official Report, column 322, how much was spent on administration of each of the sports organisations listed in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will separately identify the costs relating to the governing bodies. [33541]

  Mr. Banks
  This information is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The United Kingdom Sports Council has advised me that to obtain this information it would need specifically to examine the annual accounts of each of the 414 governing bodies, and to assess against an agreed definition of administration the total amount expended by each body on administration.

  Funding by the Sports Councils is for carefully targeted programmes, with agreed objectives. It may be used to contribute towards the administrative costs associated with these programmes but governing bodies are not required to identify separately the administrative costs in their grant agreements. Support is sometimes given for the appointment of key personnel at Chief Executive, Director of Finance, Coaching or Development level, and the administrative support staff for these officers, to ensure that a sport is well managed, particularly where it is in receipt of complementary funding from the National Lottery.

  Libraries
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money his Department has spent on the digitisation of educational material for libraries in each of the last three years. [36207]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  None. The management and development of the core public library service is the responsibility of local authorities. The Government have announced that the New Opportunities Fund, as part of its educational remit, will provide £50 million of Lottery money to support the digitisation of lifelong learning and educational material which is held to a great extent in public libraries. This will support the development of new IT-based services, additional to the existing core library services.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of his core Departmental staff; and if he will list the(a) percentage of and (b) number of core staff based in London and the total salary bill and running costs for core staff. [36126]
  370
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The 1998 annual report, the first for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will be published on 3 April. It will set out the activities and responsibilities of the Department and its staff. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The total number of core departmental staff is 370, of whom 368 (99.5%) are based in London. The estimated 1997–98 total paybill for core departmental staff is £10 million. The estimated 1997–98 gross running cost for the core department is £21 million.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Rwanda
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is currently giving to Rwanda; and if she will make a statement. [35747]

  Clare Short
  A £25 million support programme is being targeted at the rehabilitation priorities of the Government of Rwanda.

  Technical support is helping the Ministry of Finance to address the key objective of increasing revenue; support for the Ministry of Gender and Social Affairs is helping to tackle problems faced by the large number of female-headed households and support for the Ministry of Education is helping to strengthen their planning and resource allocation capacity. We are providing financial support for the Government's efforts to establish an unarmed community police force and to demobilise members of the armed forces. We are the largest bilateral donor in the area of human rights monitoring and protection in Rwanda.

  In addition to our rehabilitation support, we continue to respond to requests for humanitarian assistance and are providing financial support to NGO's involved in food security for vulnerable groups.

  We are working closely with the World bank and the IMF. We have financed technical inputs to expert teams advising the Government of Rwanda on longer term economic strategies and are liaising closely with the Government and the International Financial Institutions (IFI) on initiatives being considered to address debt.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects for the improved provision of(a) primary and (b) adult basic education in Bosnia and Herzegovina funded by her Department. [36313]

  Clare Short
  My Department has no projects dealing directly with primary or adult basic education in Bosnia. As a single donor it is not possible for us to tackle every sector. Our contributions in selected sectors have been very large, and other donors have focused on other sectors such as education. That said, we have made substantial contributions to education through our community micro-projects. This has included repair and refurbishment of many primary and secondary schools and provision of materials and school equipment over a wide area of Western Bosnia, in both entities.
  371
  Following consultation with the authorities in Bosnia, the focus of our activities for the forthcoming year will be refugee return and reconciliation, health system reform, media training, development of the small and medium sized enterprise sector, regional development, management training, and institutional development. We shall also conclude activities in inter-entity electricity transmission reconstruction. In addition we expect to provide advice and support to the Government of Republika Srpska and we are considering how we might help further with demining.

  China
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the programmes funded by her Department in China on(a) education, (b) health, (c) the environment and (d) economic and administrative reform, together with their costs for (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98. [36312]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is set out in the table. Figures for expenditure in 1997–98 are estimated. There are presently no projects in the health sector, but we are planning a mission to China to explore the possibilities for future involvement in this area.

  £

  1996–97 Outturn

  1997–98 Estimate

  Education

  English Language Examinations Reform

  —

  120,000

  Adult Education Project: Hubei

  —

  210,000

  English Language Teaching Project (a portfolio of small, country-wide ELT projects)

  1,095,052

  724,380

  Environmental Projects

  Yunnan Province Plan for the Environment

  550,799

  224,820

  Support Programme for the Urban Rehabilitation of Shanghai

  1,248,202

  660,717

  Shanghai Water Master Plan

  321,645

  244,415

  Training in Improvement of Crop Yields

  23,702

  16,506

  Fire Science Training

  21,894

  30,906

  North China Rural Water Project

  398,974

  315,000

  Guizhou and Shanxi Energy Efficiency Project

  400,882

  886,000

  Support for Research and Training in Environmental Pollution Control

  55,754

  269,387

  Environmental Health Programme in Tibet

  56,504

  33,000

  Transportation of Dangerous Cargoes

  —

  801

  Zhongshan Institutional Development Project (training for environmentalists)

  93,204

  82,502

  Study of Toxic Organic Pollutants

  95,309

  225,721

  Coastal Zones Environmental Enhancements

  221,855

  288,602

  Forestry Protection Training

  79,062

  7,061

  Ocean University of Qingdao (marine disposal techniques)

  86,760

  92,600

  Jiangsu environment Technical Support

  501,789

  350,000

  Practical Economics for Environmental Planning Management

  165,790

  227,000

  372

  £

  1996–97 Outturn

  1997–98 Estimate

  Support to the China Council for International Co-operation on Environment and Development

  23,445

  115,000

  Sichuan Urban Environment Project

  —

  653,318

  Nuclear Safety Standards

  7,689

  8,000

  Economic and Administration Reform

  Shanghai Municipal Finance Project (Phase II)

  644,307

  457,584

  Shanghai Municipal Finance Project (Phase III)

  —

  209,856

  Investment Training and Research

  157,884

  156,500

  Shenzhen University Management Development Programme

  97,882

  104,000

  South East University for Integrated Engineering

  75,940

  56,000

  Resettlement Workshops

  57,511

  44,000

  Training for Senior Civil Servants

  13,374

  109,500

  Guangdong Institute of Public Administration (staff development and training)

  52,147

  61,000

  National School of Administration (planning, decentralisation, and financial control)

  83,307

  147,176

  Young Lawyers Training

  237,526

  220,204

  Young Lawyers Training Phase II

  25,167

  17,785

  Support to Xinhua News Agency

  11,070

  15,854

  Investment Appraisal Phase II

  —

  15,000

  Support to the Chinese National Audit Office

  120,973

  130,000

  Yunnan Drugs Control Programme

  950,000

  25,000

  Anti-corruption Programme

  —

  35,000

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from non-Governmental organisations about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if she will make a statement. [36980]

  Clare Short
  There have been ongoing consultations with NGOs by Government Ministers and officials on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development met NGO representatives on Thursday 26 March to discuss the findings of the recently published report commissioned by the Department for International Development on the development implications of the MAI.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the OECD about the Multilateral Investment Agreement; and if she will make a statement. [36837]

  Clare Short
  The Government are engaged as a negotiating party in discussion of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), on which the Department of Trade and Industry leads. My Department is fully engaged in this process. The report commissioned by the Department for International Development on the development implications of the MAI, which has been placed in the libraries of both
  373
  Houses, will be made available to our negotiating partners. I will be making a response for the Government shortly.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from business sources about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if she will make a statement. [36836]

  Clare Short
  Consultation with business sources is part of the Government's ongoing process of consultations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) with all interested parties. The Business and Industry Advisory Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has also been regularly consulted during the negotiations. My Department's particular concern is that the interests of developing countries should be protected and, if possible, enhanced by the MAI.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact multilateral investment agreements will have on poorer developing countries; and how that impact will be reflected in her Department's policies. [37006]

  Clare Short
  I have placed copies of the report that my Department commissioned on the development implications of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in the Libraries of both Houses. We welcome the conclusion that accession to the MAI could offer substantial opportunities for developing countries. The report contains a number of specific recommendations. We are now studying these and other issues raised in the report urgently.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from the TUC about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if she will make a statement. [36838]

  Clare Short
  Consultation with the TUC is part of the Government's ongoing process of consultations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) with all interested parties. The Trade Union Advisory Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has also been regularly consulted during the negotiations. My Department's particular concern is that the interests of developing countries should be protected and, if possible, enhanced by the MAI.

  European Development Fund
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects the £1.08 billion committed by her Department to the European Development Fund will be disbursed; and if she will make a statement. [36843]

  Clare Short
  Disbursements from the eighth European Development Fund (EDF) can begin only after the ratification of the Mid-Term Review of the Lomé IV Convention by all EU Member States and at least two-thirds of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States. Two Member States have yet to complete ratification of the Mid-Term Review but it is estimated that EDF VIII will enter into force later this Summer.
  374
  I am very concerned by the delay in the ratification of the Mid-Term Review, which I hope can be completed as soon as possible.

  Least-developed Countries
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those countries which have acquired, or re-acquired LDC status as a result of currency parity changes in the last 12 months; and if she will indicate any resultant change in her Department's policy in respect of each country. [36842]

  Clare Short
  The UN, which is responsible, through its Committee on Development Planning, for maintaining and regularly reviewing the list of Least-developed Countries, takes a number of economic and other factors into account in determining whether countries warrant Least-developed Country status. The list of Least-developed Countries was last reviewed by the UN at the end of 1997. No countries were added to the list.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), 21 January 1998,Official Report, columns 568–71, and to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), 9 June 1997, Official Report, columns 302–10, when each of the Cabinet committees listed was formed. [33121]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 March 1998]Most of the committees were established shortly after the Government came to power, in May and June last year.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to establish a global database of information relating to millennium compliance; and if he will make a statement. [34507]

  The Prime Minister
  I do not believe it would be practical to develop a database covering the whole world. However, Action 2000 is working with the UK IT supply sector to develop a database of relevant information on operating systems, software, fixing tools and support services available in the UK. Action 2000 plans to make its information available to UK businesses through their publications material and web site.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to strengthen the central co-ordination of the Government's programme to tackle the millennium date change problem. [37150]

  The Prime Minister
  1 have established a central unit to co-ordinate the government's work on the Millennium date change problem. The unit will be located in the Cabinet Office and will report directly to the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  I have also broadened the terms of reference of the Ministerial Group on the Millennium Date Change (MISC4), chaired by the President of the Board of Trade,

  375
  to drive action across the whole of the public and private sectors, while continuing to give priority to preparing the national infrastructure for the Millennium date change. In parallel, I have also broadened the terms of reference of its Sub-Group (MISC4(P), chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to cover the whole of the public sector as well as Government Departments. This will provide a single focus for central Government and the wider public sector. Taken together, the changes will ensure that nothing is allowed to fall between the cracks.

  The membership of each group reflects their wider roles, and ensures action is effectively tied in with that of other countries.

  The revised terms of reference and membership are as follows:
  Ministerial Group on the Millennium Date change (MISC4)
  Composition

  President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Chair)

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Ministry of Defence

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  The Chairman of Action 2000 and the Prime Minister's Adviser on the Year 2000 problem are invited to attend.

  Terms of Reference
  The terms of reference are:
  "To drive action in the public and private sectors, including the national infrastructure, to prevent damage from the failure of electronic systems related to the Year 2000 date change".
  Ministerial Sub-Group on the Millennium Date Change (MISC4(P)
  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Chair)

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Ministry of Defence

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  376

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  The Prime Minister's Adviser on the Year 2000 problem is invited to attend.

  Terms of Reference
  The terms of reference are:
  "To drive action across central governmental Departments, Agencies and the wider public sector to prevent damage from the failure of electronic systems related to the Year 2000 date change".

  Defamation Proceedings
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if Ministers have to obtain agreement from him and from a law officer before issuing or threatening to issue proceedings for supposed defamatory allegations; [34865]

  (2) if he will list the dates since 1 May on which Ministers received his permission to issue defamation proceedings, and the names of those Ministers. [34866]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers are required under the Ministerial Code to consult the Law Officers before initiating defamation proceedings. There is no requirement for Ministers to seek my agreement before bringing such action.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Deputy Prime Minister consulted him and the law officers in advance of the letter dated 3 March by Davenport Lyons to the editor of Punch. [34864]

  The Prime Minister
  On 9 March, having received a reply to the letter of 3 March from the solicitors acting on behalf of Punch, my right honourable Friend the Deputy Prime Minister approached the Law Officers for advice before making any decision on whether or not to issue proceedings, as required by the Ministerial Code.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the official valuation of the accommodation and furnishings provided to each Minister at public expense. [34707]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]In line with the practice of successive Administrations, no separate valuation of individual offices or the residential areas of buildings or of the furnishings in either of them is held. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Bilderberg Group
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Prime Minister which members of his Government have attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group. [34298]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]None.
  377

  Environmental Appraisal
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance is issued to Government departments on the need to conduct an environmental appraisal in respect of proposed legislation. [35641]

  The Prime Minister
  Details of current and proposed guidance to Government Departments on environmental appraisal are set out in the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment gave to the hon. Member on 16 February 1998,Official Report, columns 459–60. This guidance applies to proposed legislation as it does to other proposals for policies or programmes.

  Iran
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he proposes to develop relations with Iran during the British Presidency of the EU; and if he proposes a Presidency visit to Tehran at political director level. [35852]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]We, and our EU partners, are encouraged by positive political developments in Iran. As holders of the EU Presidency, we have initiated a review of EU policy towards Iran. At the 23 February General Affairs Council, EU Foreign Ministers agreed that the EU should increase the level of political contact with Iran and, as a first step, decided to lift the ban on official bilateral Ministerial visits which had been agreed by the April 1997 General Affairs Council. The Council also affirmed the importance of maintaining vigilance in the EU's longstanding areas of concern.

  The EU is currently discussing how and at what level to enhance its political contacts with Iran, which may lead to some form of Presidency contact at senior official level.

  Policing (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Prime Minister if discussions with the Irish Republic's Taioseach and officials from both the Northern Ireland Office and Dublin's Department of Foreign Affairs and Justice have taken place concerning the establishment of an international commission on policing in Northern Ireland. [35656]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]No such discussions have taken place. The Government are looking forward to further discussion of policing issues, including the option of establishing an independent Commission, with the Northern Ireland parties in Strand One of the Talks.

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the specific functions of(a) Mr. Philip Bassett and (b) Mr. David Bradshaw within the Strategic Communications Unit. [35935]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 March 1998]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 14 January 1998,Official Report, columns 233–34.
  378

  British Beef
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that British beef is offered at all meals served in connection with meetings of the Council of Ministers during the remainder of the UK Presidency. [36319]

  The Prime Minister
  Menus for official functions hosted by Ministers are based on seasonal foods from the UK including beef. The final choice of a menu depends on the dietary requirements of the guests, the nature of the occasion, the preference of the host and on other menus being used during a particular visit.

  Beef was served most recently at the buffet supper given at York on 20 March by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for visiting EU Finance Ministers.

  Bloody Sunday
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1998,Official Report, columns 279–80, if he will instruct those Government departments which may still have papers relating to the events of Bloody Sunday to make them available to the Saville Inquiry and the representatives of the relatives of those killed and injured on that date. [36501]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]The Government will give the Inquiry the fullest possible co-operation in carrying out its work and wherever possible will make available to the Inquiry all relevant material. It will be for the Inquiry to decide whether or not material should be published or made available to the representatives of the relatives of those killed or injured on Bloody Sunday.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the newspaper proprietors who have received Government hospitality since 1 May 1997. [37038]

  The Prime Minister
  Such records are not held centrally and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rupert Murdoch
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received from Labour Members expressing concern about the extent of media ownership by Mr. Rupert Murdoch. [37047]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister who initiated the recent telephone conversation between him and the Italian Premier, Romano Prodi; and what factors led him to discuss the proposed takeover of Mediaset by Rupert Murdoch. [36500]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 25 March 1998,Official Report, column 494.

  Press Briefings (Anthrax)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a)press briefings and (b) other dissemination of information in respect of the threat of Iraqi use of anthrax originated

  379
  from his office; at what time and on what day this occurred; which newspapers were briefed; and if he will make a statement. [37019]

  The Prime Minister
  My official spokesman gave some comments to The Sun newspaper during the afternoon on Monday 23 March after they had approached my office with their story. After publication of The Sun, all media who inquired were given comments by the duty press officer. In addition, my official spokesman replied to questions at the 11 am briefing for Lobby journalists on Tuesday 24 March.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan; [36670]

  (2) what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the green transport plan. [36638]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all departments in December last year a "Guide to Green Transport Plans". My Department has started to consider how to respond to its recommendations.

CABINET OFFICE

  Broadcasters
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1998,Official Report, column 119, for what reason it is not his policy to say whether he has met (a) Mr. Rupert Murdoch and (b) representatives of News International since 1 January. [37033]

  Mr. Mandelson
  It is not a matter of policy, but of practicality. I meet representatives of broadcasters and other media organisations very regularly in the course of my ministerial duties. I have not met Rupert Murdoch in the course of those duties.

  Open Government
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what open Government measures he has taken. [37034]

  Mr. Mandelson
  In common with my Ministerial colleagues I carry out all my duties in accordance with the principles of openness with Parliament and the public that are laid down by the Prime Minister in the Ministerial Code.

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list his responsibilities in respect of the Strategic Communications Unit. [37039]
  380
  Mr. Mandelson
  The Strategic Communications Unit is based in Number 10 and answers to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, working through the Prime Minister's Chief Press Secretary. I have regular contact with the Unit in view of my responsibilities for the strategic implementation and presentation of Government policy.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will estimate the cost of the giant sculptures that will appear in the Millennium Dome. [31969]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The costs of individual zones within the Dome are still being finalised within the total budget for the Millennium Experience. The Corporate Plan of the New Millennium Experience Company, which is now being finalised, will contain budgets for the component parts of the Millennium Experience project covering the years 1997–98 (actual) and 1998–99 to 2000–01 (forecast).

SCOTLAND

  Damp Housing
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of houses affected by dampness in Scotland. [35898]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I refer my hon. Friend to the report of the 1996 Scottish House Condition Survey, a copy of which is in the Library. The Survey estimated that some 177,000 dwellings in Scotland were affected by dampness, representing 8 per cent. of the total occupied housing stock.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many community service orders were imposed in(a)Glasgow and (b) Scotland, in 1997. [35900]

  Mr. McLeish
  The number of persons given community service in 1996 by courts located in(a) Glasgow was 1,195 and (b) Scotland was 5,711. Information for 1997 is not yet available.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of vacant dwellings in Scotland. [35901]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I refer my hon. Friend to the report of the 1996 Scottish House Condition Survey, a copy of which is in the Library. The Survey estimated that there were some 109,000 vacant dwellings in Scotland, representing 5 per cent. of the total housing stock. Of these, 64,000 were estimated to be vacant temporarily while the property was being sold or re-let, 34,000 were estimated to be longer term vacant properties with the status of the remainder being unknown.
  381

  Inward Investment
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many manufacturing sector jobs Locate in Scotland has attracted in each of the years since it was established to the City of Glasgow council area. [36032]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of jobs associated with manufacturing projects attracted to the City of Glasgow Council area by Locate in Scotland is as follows:

  Year

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs

  1981–82

  176

  1,717

  1,893

  1982–83

  0

  0

  0

  1983–84

  0

  0

  0

  1984–85

  437

  169

  606

  1985–86

  403

  531

  934

  1986–87

  53

  352

  405

  1987–88

  346

  46

  392

  1988–89

  70

  0

  70

  1989–90

  451

  68

  519

  1990–91

  97

  530

  627

  1991–92

  101

  126

  227

  1992–93

  20

  181

  201

  1993–94

  459

  200

  659

  1994–95

  117

  211

  328

  1995–96

  94

  669

  763

  1996–97

  43

  55

  98

  Total

  2,867

  4,855

  7,722

  Notes

  1. The above figures relate only to projects handled by Locate in Scotland (LIS) and The Scottish Office. The figures are based on information provided by the companies themselves at the time of the investment decision and take no account of subsequent developments. A few projects may not have proceeded and others may have been reduced in scale as a result of changes in the commercial environment. Equally, however, some projects may have led to more investment and more jobs than originally anticipated; and the figures take no account of the substantial number of new jobs created indirectly in supplier companies. Experience over a number of years indicates that, on average, around two-thirds of planned direct jobs are created.

  Figures for years prior to 1991–92 relate to projects with a Glasgow postcode and may therefore include a few projects outwith the City of Glasgow Council area.

  World Cup
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tickets to Scotland's matches in World Cup 1998 have been obtained by his Department; and to whom these tickets have been distributed. [36804]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Tickets have yet to be allocated, but it is hoped that it will be possible to secure one for each of Scotland's World Cup matches in France.

  Autistic Children
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those councils which provide separate facilities for the secondary education of autistic children and in each case the number of(a) locations and (b) full-time teacher equivalents at each location. [36685]

  Mr. Wilson
  The annual School Census currently collects information on provision for special educational needs in a number of broad categories. Autistic pupils would be included under the category of "language of 382
  communication disorder". The format of the existing census form does not allow autism provision to be disaggregated.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff are employed within Scotland by his Department, or executive agencies responsible to his Department; and where those staff are located. [36214]

  Mr. Dewar
  The numbers of staff employed in The Scottish Office (including its Executive Agencies), together with details of their location, are shown in the table.

  Staff in the Scottish Office located within Scotland, by council area permanent and casual staff, position as at 1 March 1998

  FTE

  Council

  The Scottish Office (excl SPS)

  Scottish prison service

  Aberdeen City

  229.8

  159.5

  Aberdeenshire

  104.7

  273.0

  Angus

  18.9

  67.0

  Argyll & Bute

  37.8

  —

  Clackmannanshire

  —

  449.5

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  30.9

  —

  Dumfries & Galloway

  54.1

  194.0

  Dundee City

  46.7

  —

  East Dunbartonshire

  —

  163.5

  East Lothian

  25.0

  —

  Edinburgh, City of

  3,721.60

  717.5

  Falkirk

  3.0

  397.5

  Fife

  26.8

  —

  Glasgow, City of

  244.2

  576.5

  Highland

  161.4

  105.0

  Inverclyde

  68.9

  167.5

  Moray

  12.4

  —

  North Lanarkshire

  —

  620.0

  Orkney Islands

  33.8

  —

  Perth & Kinross

  67.9

  522.0

  Scottish Borders

  65.8

  —

  Shetland Islands

  21.6

  —

  South Ayrshire

  63.6

  —

  South Lanarkshire

  33.0

  78.5

  Stirling

  67.9

  227.0

  West Dunbartonshire

  2.9

  —

  West Lothian

  13.3

  14.0

  Total in Scotland

  5,156.0

  4,732.0

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost to public funds of local enterprise companies in Scotland in 1998. [36861]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise budgets for 1998–99 are £455.262 million and £77.992 million respectively. The allocation of local enterprise company budgets is an operational matter for the enterprise bodies. I will ask the Chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

  Pre-school Education
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the arrangements for funding pre-school education in school year 1998–99. [37185]
  383
  Mr. Wilson
  Universal provision of education in the pre-school year is a key part of our drive to raise standards in education, to tackle social exclusion from the earliest age, and to provide integrated early years services to support working parents. It is also a crucial component of the Government's national childcare strategy.

  Having considered the responses to the consultation paper on pre-school education which I issued last November, I now announce the detailed arrangements under which local authorities will lead the further expansion of pre-school education in the 1998–99 school session. Letters have been issued today to all local authorities and provider representative organisations explaining these arrangements in detail. The key points are as follows:
  £46.6 million will be distributed as grant under the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 among local authorities for the first two terms of the 1998–99 school session, on the basis of the participation of eligible children in provision.
  The latest GRO estimate of pre-school year children in 1998–99 stands at 61,371; and funding will be geared to cover this number of children. Estimated population figures for each authority, together with indicative grant figures, are today being issued to all authorities.
  Local authorities will be funded at an enhanced rate of grant of £1,140 over the school year 1998–99 for every eligible child occupying a part-time education place of at least 412½ hours over the year, whether in their own centres or in a centre with which they are in partnership.
  Local authorities and their prospective partners will be free to negotiate the price at which places will be purchased under partnership arrangements. The principles of 'best value', taking full account of quality as well as price, should obtain. As a guideline, and taking account of the need to ensure adequate remuneration for staff in partner centres, I suggest that a quality partnership place is unlikely to be obtained for less than £850 over the year, after allowing for the recharging of any quality support services. I intend to review in the autumn authorities' progress with partnerships.
  I am introducing simplified eligibility rules for pre-school grant for ease of local authority administration. Greater latitude will be given to local authorities in the configuration of education hours, so that they may respond more fully to the needs of children and their parents.
  I expect all authorities, and their partners, to strive to achieve fully loaded places of at least 412½ hours education by the end of the 1998–99 school session. Where places offer less education, grant will be proportionately reduced.
  In some rural areas the cost of provision can be prohibitively high. I am keen to ensure that children from rural areas should have access to the same opportunities as other children and I am therefore making an additional, one-year grant of £4 million available to 24 authorities with gaps in provision in rural areas to assist them to complete provision in their area. These resources will be used to create new provision, taking account of the needs and preferences of children and their parents and ensuring so far as possible that existing provision in registered voluntary and private centres is not displaced or replicated.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of businesses her Department anticipates will fail to be millennium compliant by 384
  2000; and what assessment she has made of the impact of single currency demands on programmers on millennium compliance. [27530]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 5 March 1998]: Action 2000 aims to ensure that all businesses realise the need to take action on millennium compliance in time. Enterprises working towards millennium compliance will, of course, need to take account of other information technology developments, including any relating to the launch of the single currency. The nature and extent of other work will vary very significantly between businesses and will depend on decisions taken by those businesses.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she appointed a Green Transport co-ordinator; and on what date the appointment took effect. [32475]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The Guide to Green Transport Plans circulated last September by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London encouraged Departments to appoint green transport co-ordinators. Since then the role of my green transport co-ordinator has been undertaken by one of my officials in Environment Directorate who is responsible for liaising with colleagues in other relevant Directorates.

  Home Shopping
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of(a) the impact of electronic home shopping on agency and direct sales, (b)the need for protection against unfair sales pressures in the homes of consumers in respect of home shopping and (c)future price movements in the home shopping market. [36317]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Consumers must be protected against unfair sales pressure, particularly in their homes. I consider that existing provisions could be improved, and plan to publish a consultation paper setting out proposals to strengthen the consumer protection provided by the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987. I shall also be consulting on the implementation of two EU Directives which provide protection for consumers using mail order, telephone sales, electronic commerce and other methods of distance selling. These are the Distance Selling Directive, which covers all organised methods of selling where the consumer and trader do not meet, up to and including the conclusion of the contract and has to be implemented by June 2000, and the Telecoms Protection Directive which protects consumers against unsolicited telephone calls and faxes and will be implemented this October.

  While my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not carried out any studies of future price movements in the home shopping market, the development of electronic commerce seems likely to be an important competitive element in retailing in the future.

  Joint Environmental Markets Unit
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the(a) running costs, (b) salary costs, (c)total Government assistance to and (d)location of the Joint Environmental Markets Unit. [36239]
  385
  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: During 1997/98 the budgets for JEMU were as follows:

  £

  Staff (shared by DTI/DETR)

  380,000

  Core sponsorship and export promotion

  200,000

  Technology Partnership Initiative

  250,000

  Publicity

  150,000

  Travel

  20,000

  Total

  1,000,000

  JEMU is located at 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9SS.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which companies were involved in Joint Environmental Markets Unit outward missions in 1996–97. [36238]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: Although the Joint Environmental Markets Unit did not itself organise any outward missions in 1996–97, the Unit supported environmental industry involvement in missions organised by the Overseas Trade Desks and others.

  Joint Export Promotion Directorate
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the(a) running costs and (b) salary costs in 1997–98 of the Joint Export Promotion Directorate. [362301

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: In 1997–98 the running costs and salary costs of the Joint Export Promotion Directorate (JEPD)—which is staffed by officials from my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—were £2,841,000 and £1,848,200 respectively.

  British Overseas Trade Board
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the members of the Area Advisory Groups of the British Overseas Trade Board. [36231]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of Employment Service Agency Standards Office staff are based in London; what percentage of(a) salary and (b)running costs are incurred in London; and what are the total (i) salary and (ii) running costs. [36232]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: 60 per cent. of Employment Agency Standards staff are based in Greater London. A running cost budget of £470,000 is allocated to the Inspectorate for 1997–98 of which £270,000 is for salaries. 68 per cent. of salary and running costs are incurred in London. Some staff within this area perform duties outside it whilst others based outside conduct work within. London costs include the national telephone helpline and certain expenditure, for example publicity, targeted across the country.
  386

  Export Development Counsellors
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the percentage of export development counsellors based in Scotland; and what are the running costs for this project for 1997–98. [36229]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The 8 Export Partnership Counsellors in Scotland represent just under 10 per cent. of the total number of export counsellors in England and Scotland. Running costs for Export Development Counsellors in England form part of the Local Competitiveness Budget for Business Links and are not separately identified. The running costs for the Export Partnership Counsellor project in Scotland in 1997/98 amount to £200,000.

  Newspaper Pricing
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what controls exist to prevent predatory pricing of newspapers. [37016]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Under current UK competition law, controls may be imposed on conduct which may amount to predatory pricing if there has been an investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973 or the Competition Act 1980, and the conduct has been found to be against the public interest. Both Acts apply to the newspaper industry.

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to receive the Annual report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. [37211]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The ACAS Report for 1997 is being laid before both Houses of Parliament today. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Non-custodial Sentencing
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what pilot schemes(a) have been implemented and (b) are proposed to improve the delivery of non-custodial sentencing. [35166]

  Ms Quin
  A Community Sentence Demonstration Project has been set up in Teesside and Shropshire. Several measures contained in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 relating to community sentences are being piloted for 18 months in Greater Manchester and Norfolk. They will be extended to additional Greater Manchester courts on 1 April.

  The Government have introduced provision for a drug treatment and testing order in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which we expect to be piloted in the autumn this year and under the Bill, we hope to begin piloting new orders including the reparation order and the action plan orders.

  We have also recently announced our decision, in principle, to extend the availability of electronic monitoring.
  387

  Rural Policing
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the funding of police forces in rural areas in 1998–99. [35174]

  Mr. Michael
  Following the announcement of the provisional police revenue settlement for 1998–99, we received eight representations about the funding of police work in rural areas. Six argued in favour of additional resources for rural forces and two against.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the proportion of resources devoted to policing in rural areas. [35184]

  Mr. Michael
  The allocation of resources to urban and rural areas within any police force area is an operational matter for the Chief Constable to decide in conformity with the policing plan agreed with the police authority.

  Human Rights (Jersey)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for safeguarding human rights in Jersey. [35175]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Human rights in Jersey are a matter for the Insular Authorities, though Her Majesty's Government has overall responsibility for ensuring that those Authorities comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, which the United Kingdom has signed on behalf of Jersey.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to relax the criteria for admission to the United Kingdom as a refugee in order to speed up the processing of applications by asylum seekers. [35157]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We shall continue to apply the criteria for recognition as a refugee which are set out in the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. We are considering a range of measures for speeding up the asylum process and will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of those applying for asylum in 1997 who have not complied with the terms of their temporary admission and whom the Immigration Service has been unable to trace. [36517]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 28 February 1998, approximately 1,290 persons who had applied for asylum in 1997, excluding dependants, were recorded as having breached the conditions of their temporary admission, temporary release or restriction order, or having lost contact with the Home Office.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the numbers of asylum seekers currently detained under Immigration Act powers by(a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) place of detention, (d) length of detention and (e) stage of application and immigration status at the time of detention. [36518]
  388
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information on those persons recorded as detained under Immigration Act powers as at 27 February 1998, and who had sought asylum at some stage, is given in tables 1 to 4.

  Regrettably, a reliable breakdown by location of detention could be obtained only at disproportionate cost through the examination of individual case records.

  Table 1: Number of people recorded as being detained1,2 on 27 February 1998 who had sought asylum at some stage, by gender and immigration status

  Gender

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  Male

  274

  411

  35

  720

  Female

  18

  11

  3

  32

  Total

  292

  422

  38

  752

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

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

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

  Stage of application

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  Awaiting initial decision

  127

  252

  6

  385

  Awaiting result of appeal

  123

  79

  15

  217

  Awaiting result of further challenge or documentation for removal3

  42

  91

  17

  150

  Total

  292

  422

  38

  752

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

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

  3 Includes those persons awaiting the result of a further appeal/other challenge or awaiting removal pending documentation.

  Table 3: Number of people recorded as being detained1,2 on 27 February 1998 who had sought asylum at some stage, by length of detention3 and immigration status

  Length

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  0–1 month1

  69

  169

  4

  242

  1–2 months

  46

  86

  1

  133

  2–6 months

  148

  127

  11

  286

  6–12 months

  21

  34

  15

  70

  12 months+

  8

  6

  7

  21

  Total

  292

  422

  38

  752

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

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

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

  389

  Table 4: Number of people recorded as being detained1,2 on 27 February 1998 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality and immigration status

  Nationality

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  India

  15

  84

  1

  100

  Nigeria

  49

  29

  8

  86

  Sri Lanka

  11

  61

  2

  74

  Pakistan

  19

  43

  2

  64

  Yugoslavia

  6

  36

  0

  42

  Algeria

  21

  13

  4

  38

  Albania

  9

  19

  0

  28

  Turkey

  11

  16

  0

  27

  China (Peoples Republic of)

  7

  15

  1

  23

  Ghana

  10

  5

  5

  20

  Kenya

  16

  2

  2

  20

  Bangladesh

  6

  10

  1

  17

  Angola

  10

  4

  0

  14

  Romania

  1

  11

  1

  13

  Russia

  3

  8

  1

  12

  Uganda

  8

  3

  0

  11

  Iran

  7

  0

  0

  7

  Iraq

  6

  1

  0

  7

  Poland

  3

  4

  0

  7

  Somalia

  4

  3

  0

  7

  Ivory Coast

  4

  2

  0

  6

  Cyprus

  5

  1

  0

  6

  Gambia

  3

  2

  1

  6

  Jamaica

  2

  2

  2

  6

  Zaire

  6

  0

  0

  6

  Columbia

  5

  0

  0

  5

  Sierra Leone

  3

  2

  0

  5

  South Africa

  2

  2

  1

  5

  Afghanistan

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Lithuania

  3

  1

  0

  4

  Morocco

  0

  3

  1

  4

  Sudan

  2

  2

  0

  4

  Bulgaria

  1

  2

  0

  3

  Cameroon

  3

  0

  0

  3

  Egypt

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Togo

  2

  1

  0

  3

  Ukraine (Ukranian SS)

  0

  3

  0

  3

  Czech Republic

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Ethiopia

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Equatorial Guinea

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Kazakhstan

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Liberia

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Libya

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Niger

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Slovakia

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Tanzania

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Thailand

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Tunisia

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Zimbabwe

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Other

  13

  11

  2

  26

  Nationality doubtful

  1

  8

  0

  9

  Total

  292

  422

  38

  752

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

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

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in countering drug abuse; and if he will make a statement. [35176]
  390
  Mr. George Howarth
  A new Treatment and Testing Order, included as one of the measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill, will give courts the power to require drug misusing offenders to undergo treatment. The new Order will be rigorously enforced and include the use of drug testing to enable the courts to monitor the progress of offenders at review hearings.

  In addition, Ministers are considering proposals from Keith Hellawell—the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator for a new anti-drugs strategy which will be launched in the next few weeks.

  Family Support Measures
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to introduce in support of the family. [35178]

  Mr. Michael
  The Ministerial Group on the Family, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is currently considering how best to increase the support available to families in a number of key areas, including improving the availability of parenting information and education and encouraging family-friendly employment policies.

  Vulnerable Witnesses
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce further measures to protect(a) child witnesses and (b) vulnerable adults in the court system. [35179]

  Mr. Michael
  As I informed my hon. Friend when I met her and a constituent on 10 March, we intend to give greater protection to child witnesses and vulnerable adults. Our inter-departmental review of their needs is nearing completion. It is wide-ranging and is covering procedures from the investigation to the trial and beyond.

  Prison Drug Tests
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the results of random drug test programmes in prisons. [35181]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Random mandatory drug test (MDT) results for April to December 1997 show a reduction from 19.9 per cent. to 17 per cent. testing positive for cannabis with a reduction from 5.4 per cent. to 4.1 per cent. positive for opiates. The Prison Service drug strategy review which incorporates research into MDT should provide a clearer picture on how these encouraging trends might be maintained.

  Young Offenders' Institutions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has in relation to young offenders' institutions in London and the south-east. [35182]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are currently reviewing the juvenile secure estate as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The Prison Service also hopes in the coming months to seek planning permission for a 600 place young offender institution in the London area to accommodate increased numbers and relieve pressure in existing institutions.
  391

  Police Recruitment (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what money he has made available for the recruitment of extra police constables in Essex in 1997–98. [35183]

  Mr. Michael
  For 1997/98, Essex Police received £1.1 million in what was described by the previous Government as funding for extra officers. In fact, Ministers have no direct control over police numbers. Legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994 left it to individual chief constables to determine the number of officers in their force.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure young persons are not held within the adult prison system. [35185]

  Ms Quin
  Provisional figures indicate there were 2,559 young people aged under 18 in prison custody on 31 January 1998. Two thousand, four hundred and fifty-three of these were young men, of whom all but 277 were held in prison establishments for young offenders, not in adult prisons. Of the 277 young men held in adult prisons, all but two were held in accommodation separate from adult prisoners. The Government are currently reviewing the secure estate for juveniles as part of their Comprehensive Spending Review.

  There are no young offender institutions for young women which are entirely separate from adult prisons. However, by April this year over 83 per cent. of young women in prison will be held in entirely separate accommodation, mother and baby units or in 'open' prison conditions.

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that support and guidance is given to the parents of young offenders. [35167]

  Mr. Michael
  As part of our radical reform of the youth justice system, we will introduce a parenting order to encourage parents to accept their responsibilities for their children's behaviour. It will allow courts to direct that parents exercise control over children and require parents to receive training and guidance.

  Prison Work
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he is undertaking to encourage businesses to utilise the prison work force. [35186]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service is keen to encourage businesses to use the work force available in prisons because this will improve prison industrial and commercial practices, and will enhance the rehabilitative function of work in prisons.

  It is developing prison industrial and commercial expertise by providing staff training on doing business in the private sector; and by helping prison workshops to attain BSI and ISO product and manufacturing quality accreditation.
  392
  It is seeking to develop the abilities of prisoners through the provision of a wide range of national vocational qualifications (NVQs) and construction industry training (last year prisoners were awarded 17,309 individual NVQ units and 1,800 full NVQs in 48 different skills; and 5.5 million vocational training and construction industry training places were provided); and through training for work through core educational curriculum.

  It is supporting prisons' efforts to market themselves to businesses through the efforts of a central sales and marketing team and by offering enterprise partnerships in a variety of industrial, commercial and agricultural activities. The Service has at present 12 such partnerships in, or about to come into, operation.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of people arrested by the police in the last year for which figures are available were addicted to heroin and other opiates. [35187]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information is not recorded in the format requested. We hope to publish within the next few weeks the results of research conducted for the Home Office by Cambridge University, of a study of drug use by samples of people arrested in various cities. The research shows a strong link between drug use, including heroin, and crime.

  Community Sentences
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to take to improve public confidence in community sentences. [35153]

  Mr. Straw
  The Crime and Disorder Bill contains proposals which will both increase the range of community sentences available to the courts and create a new framework for the effective supervision of community sentences for juvenile offenders. Confidence in community sentences will be further helped by implementing recommendations from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation about supervision programmes which are effective in reducing repeat offending and via the existing Community Sentence Demonstration Projects.

  Police Grant (Surrey)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to increase the police grant to Surrey. [35177]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government's proposals on the amount of police grant to be paid to Surrey Police Authority in 1998–99 were set out in the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1998–99 (HC 492) which was approved by this House on 4 February.

  Football Violence
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to prevent possible violent conduct by football supporters during the World Cup. [35180]
  393
  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched the United Kingdom Action Plan for the World Cup 1998 on 25 March, detailing the measures taken with police and football organisations and with French co-operation, to ensure that supporters with tickets enjoy a safe and secure World Cup.

  Ms Samar Alami and Mr. Jawad Botmeh
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the(a) convictions, (b) length of sentences, (c) categorisation and (d) prison conditions for (i) Ms Samar Alami and (ii) Mr. Jawad Botmeh. [35716]

  Ms Quin
  Reviews of the convictions or sentences of Ms Alami and Mr. Botmeh are matters for the courts as I understand they have lodged appeals against their sentences.

  Area

  Number of staff

  Unit

  Location

  Home Office (excluding the Agencies)1

  1

  Animals Inspectorate

  Argyll House, Dundee

  Animals Inspectorate

  Overgate House, Dundee

  Animals, Byelaws, Coroners Unit (ABCU)

  Argyll House, Dundee

  National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS)

  Osprey House, Paisley

  2292

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA)

  Tay House, Glasgow

  9

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Panel

  Tay House, Glasgow

  (CICAP)

  1

  Gaming Board

  Portcullis House, Glasgow

  3

  After Entry & Appeals Directorate (Immigration and

  Farnborough House,

  Nationality Department)

  Glasgow

  8

  Immigration Service Ports Directorate

  Aberdeen Airport

  8

  Immigration Service Ports Directorate

  Edinburgh Airport

  4

  Immigration Service Ports Directorate

  Glasgow

  33

  Immigration Service Ports Directorate

  Glasgow Airport

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  375

  United Kingdom Passport Agency, Glasgow

  Milton Street, Glasgow

  1The Prison Service, Forensic Science Service and Fire Service College have no staff employed in Scotland.

  2This figure includes 282 staff seconded from the Scottish Office pool of employees.

  Low Flying
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints were received by police forces relating to low-flying aircraft on 24 March 1997. [36403]

  Mr. Michael
  Information on complaints to the police of low-flying aircraft is not held centrally. I understand that on the evening of 24 March 1997, South Yorkshire Police received reports of a low-flying aircraft which was thought to have crashed. An investigation by the police and other authorities failed to find any trace of the aircraft.

  Polygraph Machines
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to extend the use of polygraph machines in criminal cases; [36422]

  (2) in how many cases polygraph machines have been used since 1992. [36423]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government have no plans to extend the use of polygraph machines in criminal cases. The admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings is a matter for the courts. In the case of Fennel v Property Maintenance Limited 1986 [The Times, 26 November 1986], it was held that as a matter of principle, evidence
  394
  Ms Alami and Mr. Botmeh are both category A prisoners and their security categorisation is subject to annual review by the Prison Service. They will next be reviewed in August.

  Both prisoners are held in normal prison conditions appropriate to their security category. As with all sentenced prisoners, they are subject to incentives and earned privileges schemes under which their access to additional facilities are earned or lost according to their behaviour in prison.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed in Scotland by his Department, or executive agencies responsible to his Department; and where those staff are located. [36217]

  Mr. Straw
  The numbers and locations of Home Office staff employed in Scotland are as follows:

  adduced by the administration of a mechanical test on a witness is not admissible in courts in England and Wales to show the veracity or otherwise of the witness.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase in real terms the budget for research into alternatives to animal testing. [36427]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have already increased the budget from £182,000 in 1997–98 to £259,000 in 1998–99—an increase of 42 per cent. No decisions about funding in future years have yet been taken.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the use of primates for research. [36498]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We will continue to ensure that primates are used in scientific procedures only where this is fully justified and where the purposes of the programme of work cannot be achieved by methods not involving animals or by methods involving animals of other species.

  Authority to use wild-caught primates will be given only where exceptional and specific justification can be established. Specific justification will also be required to use Old World (as opposed to New World) primates.
  395
  We announced in November that the use of Great Apes would not be authorised.

  Most primate use in the United Kingdom is for safety testing of pharmaceuticals, not for research. We are encouraging regulators to review the need to use animals in regulatory safety testing.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cosmetic experiments were carried out in the United Kingdom on behalf of foreign companies during 1996. [36425]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information is not collected.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will alter the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to allow publication of the names of companies commissioning cosmetic testing. [36426]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prevents the disclosure of information given in confidence. The Government have announced that they will be reviewing such statutory bars to decide whether they should remain or should be amended to bring them into line with the "substantial harm" and "public interest" tests proposed in the White Paper on Freedom of Information: "Your Right to Know" (Cm 3818). No decisions have yet been made concerning the 1986 Act.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many privately-run prisons there are in England and Wales; and if he will list them. [36580]

  Ms Quin
  There are seven privately-managed prisons in England and Wales:

  Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse, Fazakerley, Liverpool.

  Her Majesty's Prison Blakenhurst, Redditch, Worcestershire.

  Her Majesty's Prison Buckley Hall, Rochdale, Lancashire.

  Her Majesty's Prison Doncaster, South Yorkshire.

  Her Majesty's Prison Lowdham Grange, Nottinghamshire.

  Her Majesty's Prison Parc, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan.

  Her Majesty's Prison Wolds, Brough, North Humberside.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are followed for the collation of the NCIS UK drugs prices list. [36483]

  Mr. Michael
  The information in the Drug Prices Guide was collated from material supplied by dedicated points in 16 police forces in England, Wales and Scotland and by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. The guide is intended to provide information that can be used by law enforcement officers who need to give expert witness in court on drug prices. It also provides general intelligence on price trends. As various factors are likely to affect prices locally, it should be seen only as a rough guide.

  Blood Sports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his the answer of 24 March 1998,396
  Official Report, columns 118–19, if he will list the representations received by the Minister without Portfolio on blood sports and subsequently passed to him. [37036]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office has received in excess of 70,000 representations about hunting, both directly and via other Government offices, including the Office of Minister without Portfolio.

  Records of individual letters for each addressee have not been kept.

  Gaming Act
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to reform the Gaming Act 1968. [35295]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The present controls meet their primary purpose of keeping gaming crime-free, though the Government are aware of calls to modernise them. We have not ruled that out, but would need to consider the timing, scope and resource implications of such an exercise.

  Fraud
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to modify extradition treaties to cover persons who commit major white collar fraud. [35152]

  Mr. Michael
  Most of the extradition arrangements define "an extradition crime" by the length of the sentence served, and white-collar crime needs no special provision. The most obvious exception is the 1976 United Kingdom/United States Treaty, which still relies on a list of extradition crimes. Amendments are necessary to the 1989 Extradition Act and longer-term, to the Treaty itself.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases of TB have been identified in each of the last three years among(a) those seeking asylum in the UK and (b) those seeking permanent settlement in the UK; [36019]

  (2) what levels of TB immunisation have been identified in (a) those seeking asylum in the UK and (b) those seeking permanent settlement in the UK in each of the last three years. [36018]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not routinely collected in the form requested. However, at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, where the majority of asylum seekers and immigrants arrive, and where facilities for the x-ray screening of new entrants are available, the following number of cases of active tuberculosis (TB) have been identified.

  Year

  Asylum seekers

  Immigrants

  Total

  1995–96

  30

  4

  34

  1996–97

  18

  9

  27

  1997–98

  20

  25

  145

  1 Figures to mid-March only.

  397
  Immigrants from high prevalence areas for TB and asylum seekers are recognised as high risk groups for TB. We have a two pronged approach to prevention and control of TB in new immigrants to this country. The first is to screen those at highest risk at ports of entry, and the second is to offer more detailed screening, including skin testing, locally when they arrive at their destination. This second part of the procedure allows detection not only of active cases but also those who would benefit from the preventive measures such as chemoprophylaxis and those with negative skin tests to be protected by immunisation with Bacillus Calmette Guèrin. The Department and the Home Office are presently reviewing these procedures and looking at ways of improving screening for tuberculosis.

WALES

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the advantages of making the installation of smoke alarms compulsory in local authority homes in Wales. [35583]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I believe the installation of smoke alarms in houses can be a major factor in reducing the risk of death or injury from fire. All local authorities in Wales are committed to fitting smoke alarms in all their housing stock. To date, 18 authorities have achieved this fully.

  Of the remainder, two expect to complete by the end of the 1998–99 financial year; one by the end of 200–01; and one has a policy of installing smoke alarms during refurbishment works.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the future of acute and community NHS trusts in Wales. [37187]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  There are currently 25 NHS trusts in Wales providing acute, community and mental health services.

  I am announcing today proposals for a reduced number of NHS trusts in Wales and there will be consultation on these proposals later this year. I am writing to all hon. Members representing constituencies in Wales with a copy of my announcement and the related press release. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Northern Ireland All-party Talks
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, on his recent visit to the Northern Ireland All-Party Talks, he discussed the criteria and ground rules for a referendum on the outcome of the talks and the lessons which could be learned from the experience of the referendum in Wales in September 1997. [36785]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  No.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, on his recent visits to the Northern Ireland All-party Talks, he discussed(a) cross-border powers, (b) power-sharing, (c) weighted votes to protect minority interests and (d) parity of esteem for all traditions. [36784]
  398
  Mr. Ron Davies
  No. The purpose of my visit was to explain Welsh devolution.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will repay to Swansea the costs incurred by that city in bidding to be the location of the National Assembly for Wales. [36783]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  No.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 32, on the National Assembly, what consultations he has had with his departmental property management consultants concerning the continuation of the Crown & Co. contract for valuation, estates and property matters and as negotiating agents. [36793]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 733, on civil servants, what is the grade of the civil servant who was involved in both the acquisition of the lease on Crickhowell House and in the siting of the National Assembly; and if he will indicate how much of that civil servant's time was spent on the siting of the National Assembly compared with the other civil servants involved in the exercise. [36795]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  One Grade 7 Civil Servant has had some involvement with both matters. Together with more senior officials, he was involved in the process of acquiring the lease of Crickhowell House, particularly in respect of assessing the proposal submitted to the Welsh Office by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, and advising Ministers upon it. Decisions on such issues are made by Ministers, not Civil Servants. He did not play any part in the direct lease negotiations.

  This official, and a number of others, have spent most of their time recently dealing with issues related to the provision of accommodation for the Assembly.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 734, on Crickhowell House, when the defects period was originally set to expire; and if he will make a statement on previous negotiations to extend the defects liability. [36780]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The defects liability period would have lasted for 12 months from the date of occupation. Extension has been by mutual agreement and remains in operation.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 734, on Crickhowell House, if he has to refer prospective assignees or sub-lessees under the privity of contract provisions of the lease, for approval to the landlords before assignment or sub-letting; and, if an assignee or sub-lessee becomes insolvent or otherwise breaks the terms of the assignment or sub-lease, to whom the responsibility reverts. [36775]
  399
  Mr. Ron Davies
  The landlord's consent is required for assignments and certain sub-lettings but such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld. The Secretary of State retains responsibility to the landlord for default by assignees and sub-tenants.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 734, on Crickhowell House, if he will make a statement on the connection between the terms of his lease at Crickhowell House and the defects liability period; and what estimate he has made of the costs to his Department, if the defects liability period had expired (i) 12 months, (ii) 24 months, (iii) 36 months or (iv) 48 months after occupation of Crickhowell House. [36799]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The provisions for a defect liability period are described in the original leases. There is no relation between the rent payable and extension of the period. No such estimates have been made.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 734, on Crickhowell House, if he will list the principal reasons for the discussions between his Department and the landlords at Crickhowell House to extend the defects liability period beyond 31 March. [36798]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There has been no discussion of the defects liability period between the Department and the landlords of Crickhowell House. Responsibility for the management of the building is with the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. They have been in negotiation with the landlord concerning defects which have been in process of rectification since the building was occupied. The defects liability period has been extended to cover those defects still outstanding by mutual agreement between WHCSA and the landlord.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 734, on Crickhowell House, in what ways his privity of contract affects his ability to assign or sub-let the lease; if he will list the restrictions, contained in the lease, reducing his ability to sub-let to (a) other Government departments and (b) the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [36779]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Generally there are no restrictions other than that it would be necessary to obtain the landlord's consent where occupation is by the Departments of Social Security or Education and Employment or the private sector.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, columns 732–33, what the total cost to the reserves of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority of the void office space at Crickhowell House has been in each of the financial years since significant void space commenced; what steps have been taken to provide the resources to the authority to maintain reserves at an appropriate level for the authority; and if he will make a statement. [36794]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The building was fully occupied until 1995/96. Since then the cost of void space has been £120,000 for the year 1996/97 and estimated to be 400
  £1,005,000 for the year 1997/98. The Authority have been able to meet these costs from accumulated reserves without the need for any additional resource allocations.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, columns 733–34, on Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (1) how much of the £1.4 million has been committed to date; [36796]

  (2) if he will place a copy of the Scott Harbour rental agreement in the Library; what information he has on expenditure incurred under the Scott Harbour rental agreement; if the minimum rent guaranteed under the rental agreement includes a profit element; and what arrangements he has for policing the agreement in operation. [36797]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Details of the Scott Harbour rental agreement and related information are an operational matter for the Corporation and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply. A copy of his answer will be placed in the Library. Policing the rental agreement is a matter for the Corporation and its auditors. This is consistent with the Department's strategic approach to sponsorship of the Corporation.

  Out-of-town Developments
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to examine the impact of out of town shopping developments on town centres. [37035]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Retail development and the future of town centres are matters kept under review. Following consultation in 1997 revised planning policy guidance which will underline the Government's commitments to a thriving retail sector and to encouraging successful town centres is being prepared.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the nature and source of the statistical information used by his Department in preparing NUTS designations for Objective 1 European structural funding for Wales. [36875]

  Mr. Hain
  The Nomenclature of Units of Territorial Statistics (NUTS) was established by the statistical office of the European Commission (Eurostat) to provide a breakdown of territorial units for the production of regional statistics for the European Union. The criteria used in subdividing national territory into regions are set out in the Eurostat publication Regions, Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, a copy of which is in the Library.

  A revision of the UK NUTS classification started at the end of 1995 to take account of the use of Government Office Regions for the presentation of statistical information and of the Local Government Review which resulted in the creation of unitary authorities. In June 1996 the Office for National Statistics issued a consultation document which included more information on the criteria and other aspects of the revision. A copy of this document
  401
  Draft Proposals for the Nomenclature of Territorial Units (NUTS)is in the Library. The UK NUTS classification is currently being discussed by ONS and Eurostat.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in the European Structural Funds Review. [36874]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office is closely involved in all aspects of the Structural Funds Review. We participate fully in all policy formulation and will be represented on the UK delegation which will negotiate and agree the Structural Funds Regulations.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the timetable for preparation and submission of Welsh Office proposals relating to the European Structural Funds Review. [36876]

  Mr. Hain
  The draft Structural Funds Regulations for the period 2000–06 were published by the European Commission on 18 March. These will now be the subject of detailed negotiations with all 15 Member States before they are finally agreed. It is impossible at this stage to give any indication as to when the process will be completed. The Commission have proposed that the new map, which will result from criteria established in the Regulations, should be effective from 1 January 2000.

  Local Government
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the GDP figures for each of the new Welsh unitary authorities. [36877]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes GDP figures for Wales annually and for the former eight counties every two years. I understand that ONS are currently working to produce estimates of GDP for areas in Wales which are aggregations of Unitary Authorities but have no plans to produce estimates for individual Authority areas.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Voluntary Sector
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the voluntary sector on their involvement in the delivery of the New Deal. [35161]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have had a number of discussions with the Voluntary sector on their involvement in development and delivery of New Deal. We have taken care to ensure that they have been represented both in national consultations on the design of New Deal and in local partnerships, which have planned and are now setting in place delivery arrangements. We value their support and will continue to work closely with them as New Deal is launched nationally.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement 402
  on the total overpayments identified by the National Audit Office from his Department to training and enterprise councils, in each of the last five years. [36611]

  Dr. Howells
  The National Audit Office reported the following estimated overpayments to Training and Enterprise Councils in England in each of the last five years:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  14.9

  1993–94

  6.6

  1994–95

  7.9

  1995–96

  9.4

  1996–97

  14.6

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the cost to public funds of training and enterprise councils and chambers of commerce training and enterprise in England and Wales in each year of their existence. [36872]

  Dr. Howells
  The statutory accounts for the Training and Enterprise Councils and Chambers of Commerce Training and Enterprise in England and Wales show total income to be as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  437

  1991–92

  1,438

  1992–93

  1,544

  1993–94

  1,595

  1994–95

  1,563

  1995–96

  1,454

  1996–97

  1,608

  Autistic Children
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the 1997 European Directive on Autistic Children; what plans he has for its implementation; what is the estimated cost of its implementation; and if he will make a statement. [36686]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There is no Directive on Autistic Children. The European Written Declaration on the Rights of People with Autism was adopted by the European Parliament on 9 May 1996. This called on member states, through appropriate legislation, to enhance the right to accessible and appropriate education. Under the Education Act 1996 schools and local education authorities are under a duty to identify children with special educational needs, including those with autism, and to provide an appropriate education for the individual child which gives him or her access to a broad and balanced curriculum.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the need for separate secondary education facilities for autistic children; and what proposals he has to ensure that local education authorities provide that provision. [36687]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Some organisations with an interest in autism have argued that there is a need for more specialist provision at both the primary and secondary
  403
  phases. The Local Government Association has also discussed with the Department the issues facing local education authorities in providing for children with autism. The Department has consequently funded an urgent review of the research findings on educational programmes for children with autism, preparatory to research the Local Government Association will be commissioning on the comparative outcomes from these programmes. In the light of this work, we will consider what further guidance to offer on how best to meet the needs of children with a broad range of autistic disorders. We shall also be addressing this issue in the context of regional planning for SEN provision.

  Training
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many trainees he estimates will take part in(a) national traineeships and (b) modern apprenticeship schemes in 1998. [36862]

  Dr. Howells
  Plans for England in 1998–99 are for about 125,000 people to enter National Traineeships and other work-based training for young people at NVQ level 2.

  For Modern Apprenticeships, plans are for 72,500 young people to begin an apprenticeship in 1998–99; and for numbers to build up to an average of 136,000 in training.

  In addition, some Modern Apprenticeship opportunities will be supported through the European Social Fund.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the public money allocated for training and enterprise councils and to chambers of commerce training and enterprise in England and Wales will be spent on trainee allowances for people participating in training provided by an organisation other than the TEC or CCTE from which they receive their funding in the next 12 months. [36863]

  Dr. Howells
  The total budget for work-based training for adults in England for 1998–99 is £324.5 million of which £148.5 million (46 per cent.) is for trainee allowances.

  For Work-based Training For Young People, we do not separately identify an allowances element within the budget. TECs and CCTEs are responsible for ensuring the cost of allowances and training can be met within the total resources available to them, including employer contributions. In most cases employer placement providers meet the cost of allowances.

  Responsibility for training in Wales lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much he estimates would be raised by the introduction of a training levy equivalent to 2 per cent. of companies' pay roll in a 12 month period. [36864]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not collected by the Department and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  404

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many responses were received to the Department for Education and Employment consultation paper, "Legislation Regarding Discrimination on Grounds of Transsexualism in Employment"; how many responses were(a) in favour and (b) opposed to the proposals; and if he will make a statement. [36865]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Nearly three hundred responses have been received by the Department. The responses are from a range of individuals and groups, and contain a large number of views, not all of which concern matters within the responsibility of the Department. Analysis of the responses is now underway, and I shall make a further statement in the light of that analysis.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mrs. McGuire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available the latest report evaluated by his Department on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [37057]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  A further Report on BSE in Great Britain was placed in the Library of the House today.

  The report outlines the measures which have been taken to protect public health since June 1997, including the Government's announcements on the White Paper on proposals for a new Food Standards Agency and the Public Inquiry into BSE and nvCJD. It also outlines the measures which have been taken to protect public health during the period under report, including legislation on Beef Bones and Specified Risk Materials. It summarises the results of action to enforce existing public health measures, and outlines the action which has been taken to set up a cattle tracing system. An update on the number of cases of nvCJD is included.

  The Epidemiology section shows that the epidemic of BSE in the UK continues to decline. The number of clinically suspect cases of BSE reported in Great Britain has continued to fall and for the six months to 31 December 1997 was 36 per cent. less than for the same period in 1996 and 68 per cent. less than for the same period in 1995. A continued improvement is expected for the future. The section shows that almost two thirds of UK herds with adult breeding cattle have never had a case of BSE. Furthermore 84 per cent. of beef suckler herds have never had a case of BSE. Reported incidence also shows that herds with more than four cases of BSE account for nearly three quarters of all BSE cases, but represent only just over 10 per cent. of all herds.

  There is a section on the protection of animal health covering the controls on animal feed and the selective cull.

  The European perspective is reported in a section covering progress towards lifting the export ban, the European Parliament Temporary Committee of Inquiry and Commission proposals on Specified Risk Materials.
  405

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for exhibitions to promote British farm produce at agricultural shows. [33911]

  Mr. Rooker
  Over the next twelve months, the Department will be exhibiting at a number of venues across the country. Programmes are still to be finalised. When they are, I will write to my hon. Friend. A wide range of subjects will be covered, including the promotion of specialist and regional foods.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the food science research projects for which the Microbiology Group of the Central Science Laboratory bid in 1997–98 and which were deemed by the Independent Appraisal Panel to be of sufficient quality to merit his Department's funding. [36037]

  Mr. Rooker
  Eight projects on food microbiology submitted in 1997–98 by the Central Science Laboratory were deemed by the Independent Appraisal Panel to be of sufficient quality to merit Departmental funding. One of these was commissioned, namely "Preparation of validation samples for use in the evaluation of microbial methods for the examination of foods". The Department does not reveal details of the projects which are not funded for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which specialists from the commercial sector were appointed to advise his Department on how best to achieve a secure future for the Central Science Laboratory; and if he will publish their advice. [35962]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 24 March 1998]PA Consulting Group was commissioned, as part of the 1996 Prior Options review, to provide independent management consultancy advice on the future of the Central Science Laboratory. It would not be appropriate to publish this advice, which was provided on a confidential basis.

  Over-thirty-months Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proposals he has to lift the over thirty months scheme for cattle entering the food chain; [35946]

  (2) what representations he has received requesting the lifting of the over thirty months scheme for cattle entering the food chain; and if he will make a statement. [35945]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have no plans to lift the Over Thirty Months Scheme (OTMS) for cattle entering the food chain. We have received a number of representations about the OTMS, including some from producers requesting its full or partial removal.

  The OTMS is a public health measure which we could lift only once the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has advised that it would be safe to lift the ban on the sale of beef from over thirty month animals.
  406
  Furthermore, the effective operation of the OTMS is one of the conditions of the Florence Agreement for the lifting of the beef export ban.

  Badgers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of badger control methods conducted in Eire. [36430]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have carefully studied the published work relating to badger control in Ireland, and continue to liaise closely with colleagues there.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost of the proposed badger culling experiment, broken down to show each constituent element for(a) 1998 and (b) each subsequent year of the proposed experiment. [36431]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have indicated that we are disposed to accept the recommendations of the Krebs Report, subject to further consideration of public expenditure, legal and practical implications. We are currently considering the responses to the consultation exercise on the implementation of the recommendations and are awaiting the advice of the Expert Group on the design of the culling experiment. I am not able to estimate costs until we have decided how to proceed.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what records are maintained of the number of non-target species caught in snares set for badgers under his Department's tuberculosis control scheme. [36429]

  Mr. Rooker
  No animals from non-target species have been caught in snares set for badgers by the Department under the bovine tuberculosis control scheme.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library an organisational chart showing how different parts of the Food Standards Agency relate to each other. [36614]

  Mr. Rooker
  No decisions have yet been taken on the internal organisation of the Food Standards Agency, which cannot come into being until Parliament has approved the necessary legislation.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the current spending on food safety by his Department will be transferred to the proposed Food Standards Agency; and if he will list those areas of work which will be transferred to the Food Standards Agency. [36617]

  Mr. Rooker
  The intention is that the work currently carried out in the MAFF/DH Joint Food Safety and Standards Group and the associated research, together with the Meat Hygiene Service, should transfer to the Agency. Final decisions on the precise responsibilities of the Agency will be taken in the light of the response to consultation on the White Paper The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change (CM3830).
  407
  The White Paper indicated that where responsibility transfers to the Agency, the associated budgetary resources will also transfer. However the White paper also made clear that the Government intend to consult on proposals for new charges which would allow a greater proportion of the costs of food safety work to be passed from the taxpayer to the food industry. Decisions on the amount of funds to be transferred by the Department to the new Agency will be taken after this further consultation exercise.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to modify his original proposals on the Food Standards Agency before the draft legislation is published; [36615]

  (2) if he will publish a summary of his conclusions following the consultation exercise on the Food Standards Agency. [36616]

  Mr. Rooker
  Public consultation on the White Paper The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change closed in mid-March. Around 950 responses have been received and are currently being analysed. The Government will report in due course on its conclusions, which will be reflected in the draft legislation.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) which Acts of Parliament will require amendment to accommodate the Food Standards Agency; [36612]

  (2) which areas of the proposed Food Standards Agency will be defined in new (a) primary and (b) secondary legislation. [36613]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are currently considering what legislative provisions will be necessary to bring the proposed Food Standards Agency into being. A draft Bill will be published in due course for public consultation.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decisions were reached by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes at its meeting on 19 March in respect of(a) herbicide resistant GM cotton seed and (b) peeled and comminuted GM tomato products; and if he will make a statement. [36878]

  Mr. Rooker
  When the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) met on 19 March it considered that further information was required before it could complete its assessment of oil obtained from genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant cottonseed. The Committee was however satisfied as to the safety of peeled and comminuted GM tomato products and will be finalising its report to the EC Commission on these shortly. This will be published and a copy made available in the Library of the House.

  Dairy Industry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on farmers in North Staffordshire of the latest Milk Marque selling round; what estimate he has made of the impact of this round on milk prices in April; and if he will make a statement; [37044]
  408
  (2) what assessment he has made of the competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturing capacity for butter powder relative to other EU member states; and if he will make a statement; [37046]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's manufacturing capacity for butter powder. [37045]

  Mr. Rooker
  At the request of the Director General of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are currently examining the supply of raw milk in Great Britain. Issues such as these may be considered in the course of that inquiry.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the milk quota system. [370411

  Mr. Rooker
  The Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals in the dairy sector include: the extension of milk quotas for a further 6 years until 2006; a reduction of 15 per cent. in support prices over 4 years; the introduction of a direct payment or dairy cow premium; and an average 2 per cent. increase in milk quota at Community level.

  These proposals, which will be the subject of careful negotiation, would represent some improvement over current arrangements, but do not go far enough.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to assist the United Kingdom dairy industry in export markets. [37042]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary recently organised a cheese seminar attended by leading figures from the dairy industry to consider ways in which they could develop the United Kingdom's export potential.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much milk was(a) produced and (b) consumed in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [37043]

  Mr. Rooker
  The figures for 1997 are:

  United Kingdom milk production, supply and utilisation: 19971

  Million litres

  Gross production of milk from the dairy and beef herds2

  14,415

  Imports of raw milk3

  131

  Exports of raw milk3

  267

  Total supply

  14,280

  Utilisation by dairies for drinking milk4

  6,749

  Utilisation by dairies for manufacturing

  7,113

  Dairy wastage and stock change

  112

  Other uses5

  306

  Total domestic use

  14,280

  1 Provisional

  2 Includes 7 million litres of milk from the beef herd. Excludes suckled milk.

  3 Milk imported or exported as packaged drinking milk is excluded.

  4 Represents consumption of drinking milk in the UK, as little is imported or exported. In 1997 imports of packaged drinking milk were 89 million litres, exports were 80 million litres.

  5 Includes farmhouse consumption, milk fed to stock and on farm waste. Excludes suckled milk.

  409

  Agriculture Prices
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the average price obtained by farmers in the United Kingdom for(a) lamb, (b) beef and (c) milk for each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [37040]

  Mr. Rooker
  The table gives the prices requested. Sheep prices are for Great Britain, cattle and milk prices are for the United Kingdom.

  Annual average prices

  Year

  Finished cattle (p per kg liveweight) all clean cattle1

  Finished sheep (p per kg estimated dressed carcase weight)1

  Milk price (p per litre)2

  1990

  106.3

  174.5

  18.6

  1991

  106.9

  148.2

  19.5

  1992

  109.4

  182.1

  20.4

  1993

  127.9

  219.0

  21.9

  1994

  122.0

  236.9

  22.2

  1995

  122.8

  236.4

  25.0

  1996

  104.5

  283.1

  25.0

  1997

  95.4

  256.0

  22.0

  1 Based on prices collected weekly by the Meat and Livestock Commission.

  2 Until October 1994, data on milk prices were sourced from the Milk Marketing Boards.

  Source:

  From November 1994 for Great Britain and January 1995 for Northern Ireland, milk prices are derived from surveys conducted by MAFF, SOAEFD and DANI.

DEFENCE

  MOD Police
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 185, on Ministry of Defence Police, if he will ensure that sufficient information about transfers of personnel is published in the Force Orders to satisfy requirements of openness and scrutiny without disclosing details that are private to the individual officers. [35917]

  Dr. Reid
  This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency. I have asked the Chief Constable to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Walter Boreham to Mr. David Kidney, dated 30 March 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Ministry of Defence Police Force Orders, as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  I am satisfied that the publication in my weekly Force Orders of the names of officers posted, the Stations between which they are being moved and the dates of transfer, both respects the privacy of the individuals in personal matters and is open and subject to scrutiny.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the reforms to the police complaints and discipline procedures announced by the Secretary of State for the Home Office apply to the Ministry of Defence Police; and if he will make a statement. [36442]
  410
  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: The Ministry of Defence Police are a civilian police force, constituted under the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. Their officers have the same powers and privileges in the Defence environment as their Home Department colleagues in the community at large.

  The Ministry of Defence Police complaints and discipline procedures mirror those of Home Department Police Forces. I will consider the reforms announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 23 March 1998, Official Report, columns 21–37, and will discuss with the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police the introduction of any necessary parallel changes to the Ministry of Defence Police regulations.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requirement is placed on the MoD police in Scotland, who demand items during the course of investigations of the homes of personnel, to supply a receipt for those items which they have taken into custody. [35133]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 19 March 1998]: The Ministry of Defence Police is a civilian police force constituted under statute by the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. The Chief Constable is independent of Ministerial, Departmental and political influence in the exercise of his constabulary powers. In specific cases questions about procedural applications in the exercise of the constabulary responsibilities of the Ministry of Defence Police are a matter for the Chief Constable.

  In England and Wales, police procedures in respect of property taken from others in the course of an investigation are controlled by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Paragraph 6.8 of Code B of the Codes of Practice requires police, on request, to provide a list or description of the property within a reasonable time to the person who had control of it. Ministry of Defence Police use a 'best practice' policy and normally provide a list of property, so taken, at the time of seizure.

  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not apply within the Scottish legal system. There are no provisions or requirements within the Scottish legal system to provide a receipt to the owners of property taken into police possession. When operating in Scotland, Ministry of Defence Police are required to use the documentary systems and procedures adopted by all Scottish Police Forces. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for the Ministry of Defence Police to use the supporting forms which are used by them in England and Wales.

  Departmental Art Collection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 1998,Official Report, column 542, where the 17 missing works of art were found and what are their current locations; if he will list the locations of the 21 works of art otherwise accounted for; and how many works of art remain unaccounted for. [36157]
  411
  Mr. Spellar
  The following lists the works of art that have been found and those that have been otherwise accounted for.

  The following Government Art Collection works of art, which were lost while on loan to my Department, were found and returned to the Government Art Collection.

  GAC 1556 Encampment of English Forces, Portsmouth was found in Archway Block, Old Admiralty Building, Whitehall.

  GAC 11683 Rydal Water was found in First Avenue House, London.

  GAC 12881 Broadgate, Leicestershire

  GAC 12896 New Park, Surrey

  GAC 13707 Soho or King's Square were found in Main Building, Whitehall.

  GAC 5634 Still Life with Thrush

  GAC 5779 Platylobium

  GAC 5780 La Dillenne

  GAC 10898 Fishing Boats on Beach

  GAC 10899 Fishing Boats were found in 14 Kingston House North, London.

  The following works of art from my Department's collection were found and have since been allocated to new borrowers within my Department.

  MOD 4872 House in New Street.

  MOD 4873 Ruins of the Old Gun House were found in Main Building, Whitehall.

  MOD 4197 View of Attack on Gibraltar by Land and Sea was found in St. George's Court, London.

  MOD 10792 St. Michael's Mount was found in Victory Building, Portsmouth.

  MOD 4332 Vice Admiral Sir Thomas Hardy was found in Metropole Building, Whitehall.

  The following works of art from my Department's collection will remain in the locations where they were found until they are required elsewhere.

  MOD 4107 T Class Submarine at Periscope was found in Medway Building, Gosport.

  MOD 4276 Sir William Burnett was found in the Royal Navy Trophy Centre store.

  The following works of art had been listed as missing and were accounted for as part of the process of looking for missing works of art.

  GAC 4030 Scromerston

  GAC 4033 Dilston Hall

  GAC 4035 Langley Castle

  GAC 4053 Langley Castle were found to be in the possession of their owners, Greenwich Hospital.

  GAC 7959 Sir Charles Inigo Thomas had been returned to the lender's widow in 1985 and was listed as missing in error on the list of missing works provided to my Department by the Government Art Collection.

  MOD 4430 Seascape has been identified as a work in the collection of the Hydrographic Agency which should not have been included in the list of missing works.

  The following were included in the first issue of the memorandum on missing works in December 1994 but omitted from the second issue in September 1996 on the advice of the Government Art Collection.

  GAC L349 Cromer a/pb

  GAC 615 First Viscount Nelson

  GAC 8236 Lithograph VII 13/75

  GAC 8262 Two Horsemen

  412

  GAC 10980 Perspective View of the Admiralty Office

  GAC 3238 London from Greenwich

  GAC 789 Dover Castle

  GAC 4034 Dilston Hall

  GAC 8753 Admiralty House 1970

  GAC 14788 The Tower from the West

  GAC 12096 A Farmhouse near a River.

  The following have been removed from the list of missing works of art by my works of art staff, on the grounds that the works of art to which these records refer should not have been included on my Department's inventory.

  MOD 7606 Cartoon from the Sun

  MOD 4274 Roll of Honour RN Medical Officers and Nursing Staff 1914–1920

  MOD 4280 Crest Nil Illigitimi Carborundum

  MOD 4115 Hat and Figure.

  Since my reply to my hon. Friend's previous question, my works of art staff have removed one more record from the list of missing works, a print, MOD 4333 Admiral Dundas,which had been found in Metropole Building, Whitehall but was not positively identified until recently.

  166 of the 204 works of art listed in the memorandum issued in December 1994 remain unaccounted for.

  Future Infantry Soldier Technology
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in developing the future infantry soldier technology; at which of his Department's establishments work on this project has been carried out; when this work started; how many reports on the progress of this project have been written; what are the security classifications of each report; and how much money has so far been spent on this project. [35361]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 30 March 1998 I have been asked to reply to your question about the Future Infantry Soldier Technology as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  The Future Infantry System Technology (FIST) programme was established in Autumn 1994. DERA is highly focused to meeting the needs of its customer on what is a most demanding systems project. There are three main thrusts to the programme: research on technologies likely to benefit the individual soldier, development of the systems engineering approach to soldier modernisation, and operational analysis studies and trials to establish the operational requirement.
  The initial aim of the FIST programme was to demonstrate the potential of technology to enhance soldier effectiveness. Experimental hardware was designed and developed by a small team within the Guns Department at DERA Fort Halstead, with extramural support from Pilkington Optronics, to determine the feasibility of possible sub-systems. Test and trials of this early equipment, many highly successful, were undertaken during 1995 and in the summer and autumn of 1996.

  413
  A Technical Demonstrator (TD) programme, in place since April 1997, has built on the success of earlier hardware trials. This is a jointly funded programme between MOD and a UK consortium led by Pilkington Optronics. Separate from the TD, a systems engineering approach, identified as necessary by DERA/MOD to underpin cost effective procurement, has been adopted for the FIST research programme. A research strategy has been developed, linking study methodologies to trials and other analysis.
  The current FIST research programme covers operational modelling and field trials. The trials provide data for validation of the models being used to examine the operational need and identify capability deficiencies. Operational analysis supports the formulation of the Staff Target and will lead to cost effectiveness analysis to support the decisions of the Equipment Approval Committee. The FIST programme also includes work on human factors, which are particularly important in relation to the individual soldier's effectiveness on the battlefield.
  This overall approach, now well advanced, has put the UK into a leading position in NATO. Industry will now be best placed to offer a real alternative to the Land Warrior programme (US). In addition, the UK (including a representative from DERA) is playing a leading role in NATO Land Group 3 Working Group III on Soldier Modernisation, which aims to produce a NATO approach to the issue. DERA is also an active participant in other international groups.
  The cost of the FIST Technology Research Programme up to the end of FY96/97 was £1.9M. The cost for FY97/98, including the part funding of the TD, will be £3.3M. This cost is split between the Applied Research Programme (£2.3M) and the consortium (£1M). The operational analysis costs were £850K for trials for the period FY96/97 to FY97/98 and £1M for operational studies for the period FY94/95 to FY97/98.
  Direction and tasking for the project is given to DERA by the Director of Operational Requirements (Land) through the medium of the Applied Research Package. Within DERA the project is led and managed by the Guns Department at DERA Fort Halstead. Support on operational analysis, including trials, is provided at DERA Fort Halstead and DERA Farnborough. Human factors support is provided at Farnborough. External support is provided by the Defence Clothing and Textile Agency at Colchester. The military team advising the project is based at Warminster (Infantry Trials and Development Unit and Headquarters Infantry). The programme maintains essential external links with the Defence Clothing and Textile Agency, Headquarters Infantry and the Infantry Trials and Development Unit.
  Progress reports are issued on a quarterly basis, each report being classified UK RESTRICTED. Thirteen other reports have been issued on FIST—seven on the technical aspects, three on operational trials and three on operational analysis. All are classified UK RESTRICTED. Progress is also monitored by the Dismounted Close Combat Committee meetings, chaired by Director of Operational Requirements (Land) (two meetings per year) and previously the Research Strategy meeting which ran from 1995 until 1997, chaired by Director of Science (Land) (two meetings per year). Minutes of these meetings are classified UK RESTRICTED.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Departmental Employees (Scotland)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed in Scotland by his Department, or executive agencies responsible to his Department; and where those staff are located. [36216]
  414
  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Permanent UK based MoD civilian personnel deployed in Scotland—I January 19981

  Local Authority area

  Total

  Staff employed by agencies

  Other MoD staff

  All areas

  9,866

  2,414

  7,453

  Aberdeenshire

  82

  —

  82

  Angus

  121

  9

  112

  Argyll & Bute

  18

  16

  2

  Borders

  1

  —

  1

  City of Aberdeen

  96

  79

  17

  City of Dundee

  60

  36

  24

  City of Edinburgh

  362

  89

  273

  City of Glasgow

  1,836

  273

  1,563

  Dumbarton & Clydebank

  3,314

  683

  2,631

  Dumfries & Galloway

  69

  44

  25

  East Dumbarton

  6

  —

  6

  East Lothian

  154

  7

  147

  Falkirk

  3

  —

  3

  Fife

  1,224

  283

  940

  Highland

  77

  24

  53

  Inverclyde

  54

  16

  38

  Midlothian

  84

  70

  14

  Moray

  648

  28

  620

  North Ayrshire

  615

  51

  565

  North Lanarkshire

  2

  —

  2

  Orkney

  5

  5

  —

  Perthshire & Kinross

  440

  379

  61

  Renfrewshire

  25

  22

  3

  Shetland

  51

  13

  38

  South Ayrshire

  59

  18

  41

  South Lanarkshire

  7

  —

  7

  Stirling

  355

  261

  94

  West Lothian

  3

  —

  3

  Western Isles

  96

  9

  87

  1 Figures are given in terms of full time equivalence (FTE). This means that part time staff are counted as the proportion of full-time hours worked. Hence, totals may not equal the sum of the parts due to rounding. Casual staff are excluded from this table.

  Low Flying Training
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what complaints were received by the RAF concerning low-flying aircraft relating to 24 March 1997; [36407]

  if RAF/NATO military aircraft were engaged on an exercise over Northern England between 9.30 and 10.30 pm on 24 March 1997; [36404]

  for what reasons the RAF imposed an air exclusion zone around Howden reservoir on the morning of 25 March 1997; [36408]

  what reported sightings of UFOs were received from the (a)public and (b)police from the South Yorkshire/ Derbyshire area on 24 and 25 March 1997. [36402]

  Mr. Spellar
  A number of military aircraft were booked to carry out low flying training in northern England on the evening of 24 March 1997. The Ministry of Defence received 13 complaints about aircraft activity for that date from locations across the UK. No reported sightings of "UFOs" on 24 or 25 March 1997 were received by my Department. A Temporary Danger Area was established on 25 March, centred on Howden Reservoir, to allow an RAF Search and Rescue helicopter,
  415
  in response to a request for assistance from South Yorkshire Police, to carry out a search of the area without disturbance by other military aircraft. Such Danger Areas are routinely established for Search and Rescue operations.

  Beyond Visual Range Air-to-air Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many BVRAAM Eurofighter EF2000 will carry in its active air superiority role; [35364]

  (2) how many units of the beyond visual range air-to-air missiles (SR Air 1239) are to be purchased; and when it is expected to enter service. [35359]

  Mr. Spellar
  No decision has yet been taken on the quantity of Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missiles, BVRAAM, to be procured, or when they will enter service. These decisions will be informed by the outcome of the current project definition and risk reduction phase. It is planned that Eurofighter will carry up to 6 BVRAAM in a variety of configurations.

  Sonic Booms (Sheffield)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if an RAF/NATO aircraft was responsible for the two sonic booms above Sheffield detected by Edinburgh University Seismology Unit at 21.52 and 22.06 on 24 March 1997. [36405]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have no record of sonic events being generated by RAF or NATO aircraft for the evening of 24 March 1997.

  Private Schooling
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the private schools which educated service personnel's children at public cost and the number of such pupils and the cost per pupil at each school in the last year for which figures are available. [36693]

  Dr. Reid
  The names of boarding schools at which service children are educated at public expense are contained in the Ministry of Defence Admissible Schools List. The list includes both private schools and state maintained boarding schools, and a copy of the list was placed in the Library in November 1996. The list is currently being updated and a copy will be placed in the Library shortly. The average cost per pupil at each school is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, however the total cost to my Department of education allowances during financial year 1996–97, the last year for which figures are available, was £87.5m and the average number of children for who the allowance was claimed in the same year was 9,833. The overall average cost per pupil was £8,899.

  Cadet Forces
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the(a) cost and (b) strength of each university OTC in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage of OTC members took commissions in the (i) regular and (ii) territorial forces in that year; [36692]
  416
  (2) how many young people are currently involved in university cadet forces; what is the average numbers of cadet units per university OTC; what was the cost of (a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Air Force cadets in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage of last year's intake became members of the regular forces. [36696]

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

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13656]

  (2) when the Queen Victoria School became operational as a defence agency; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13336]

  (3) when Service Children's Education became operational as a defence agency; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13376]

  (4) when the Defence Postal and Courier Service became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13340]

  (5) what evaluation of the Defence Secondary Care Agency there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13652]

  (6) when the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment became operational as a defence agency; what targets it has been set; what evaluations of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13332]

  (7) when the Defence Transport and Movements Executive became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13658]

  (8) what targets have been set for the Defence Vetting Agency; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13338]

  (9) what evaluation of the Medical Supplies Agency there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13650]

  (10) when the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13653]
  417
  (11) what evaluation he has made of the Defence Analytical Services Agency; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13163]

  (12) when the RAF Personnel Management Agency became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13333]

  (13) when the (a) Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency, (b) Army Individual Training Organization, (c) Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency, (d) Army Base Repair Organization, (e) Army Personnel Centre and (f) Army Technical Support Authority became operational; what targets have been set for each; what evaluation of each body's work has taken place; when he expects further reviews to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13167]

  (14) when the Naval Bases and Supplies Agency became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13659]

  (15) when the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13339]

  (16) what evaluation of the Disposal Sales Agency there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13651]

  (17) what evaluation of the Defence Bills Agency his Department has made; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13164]

  (18) when the Defence Clothing and Textile Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13378]

  (19) what evaluation of the Ships Support Agency there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13330]

  (20) when the Defence Animal Centre became operational; what evaluation of its work his Department has made; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13165]

  (21) when the RAF Training Group Defence Agency became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13331]

  (22) when the Military Survey Defence Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13654]

  (23) when the Logistic Information Systems Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13655]
  418
  (24) when the RAF Logistics Support Services became operational as a defence agency; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13335]

  (25) when the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation of it to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13334]

  (26) when the (a) Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre, (b) Duke of York Royal Military School and (c) Hydrographic Centre of the Royal Navy became operational as defence agencies; what evaluation he has made of their work; when he expects further reviews to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13168]

  (27) what evaluation of the Defence Dental Agency there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13375]

  (28) when the Defence Estate Organisation became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13657]

  (29) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) of 10 July 1997, Official Report, columns 527–28, what evaluation of the Medical Training Organisation there has been; and when he expects further evaluation to take place; [13661]

  (30) when the Pay and Personnel Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13337]

  (31) when the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13515]

  (32) when the Naval Manning Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13649]

  (33) what targets have been set for the Defence Codification Agency; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement. [13377]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 November 1997, c. 311–16]I regret there were some minor errors in the original table, the correct version of which is reproduced below.

  The key targets for 1997–98 for 2 further Agencies, the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA) and the Defence Transport and Movements Executive (DTMX) have since been published and their information is included in the corrected table.
  419

  Agency

  Date of launch

  Date of evaluation1 (a) last (b) next due

  Key targets published in Official Report2 (a) date (b) column

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  1 April 1997

  (b) 2002

  (a) 20 February 1997 (b) 720–721

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  1 April 1993

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 10 February 1997 (b) 6–7

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency

  4 April 1995

  (b) 2000

  (a) 28 November 1997 (b) 3695

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency

  41 July 1997

  (b) 2002

  (c) 1 July 1997 (d) 72

  Army Personnel Centre

  2 December 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 2 December 1996 (b) 529–530

  Army Technical Support Agency

  16 October 1995

  (b) 2000

  (a) 18 March 1997 (b) 505–506

  Defence Animal Centre

  1 July 1993

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 31 July 1997 (b) 464

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  1 July 1992

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 1 July 1997 (b) 72/73

  Defence Bills Agency

  1 January 1996

  (b) 1998

  (a) 31 July 1997 (b) 465–66

  Defence Codification Agency

  17 June 1996

  (b) 1999

  (a) 6 November 1997 (b)3319

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency

  22 November 1994

  (b) 1999

  (a) 31 July 1997 (b) 464

  Defence Dental Agency

  1 March 1996

  (b)2001

  (a) 10 July 1997 (b) 529

  Defence Estate Organisation

  17 March 1997

  (b) 2002

  (a) 18 March 1997 (b) 514

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  54 April 1995

  (b) 2000

  6—

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre

  1 October 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 31 July 1997 (b) 462

  Defence Vetting Agency

  1 April 1997

  (b) 2002

  (a) 20 March 1997 (b) 857–858

  Defence Postal and Courier Service Agency

  1 July 1992

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 3 July 1997 (b) 257–258

  Defence Secondary Care Agency

  30 April 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 10 July 1997 (b) 529

  Defence Transport and Movements Executive

  4 April 1995

  (b) 2000

  (a) 28 November 1997 (b)3695

  Disposal Sales Agency

  3 October 1994

  (b) 1999

  (a) 30 July 1997 (b) 356

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  1 April 1992

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 30 July 1997 (b) 353–354

  Hydrographic Office

  51 April 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 25 November 1997 (b) 3500

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre

  19 April 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 31 July 1997 (b) 463–64

  Logistic Information Systems Agency

  21 November 1994

  (b) 1999

  (a) 3 July 1997 (b) 257

  Logistic Support Services

  9 December 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 9 December 1996 (b) 17–18

  Medical Supplies Agency

  29 February 1996

  (b) 1999

  (c) 10 July 1997 (d) 528

  Defence Medical Training Organisation

  1 April 1997

  (b) 2001

  (a) 10 July 1997 (b) 527–528

  Meteorological Office

  51 April 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 19 June 1997 (b) 265

  Military Survey

  2 April 1991

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 31 July 1997 (b) 463

  Ministry of Defence Police

  1 April 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 27 October 1997 (b) 662

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  1 April 1992

  (a) 1996

  (a) 22 July 1997 (b) 528–529

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency

  11 December 1996

  (b)2001

  (a) 28 October 1997 (b) 792–793

  Naval Manning Agency

  1 July 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 30 July 1997 (b) 354–355

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  1 April 1995

  (b) 2000

  (a) 30 July 1997 (b) 355–356

  Pay & Personnel Agency

  1 February 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 23 June 1997 (b) 354

  Queen Victoria School

  1 April 1992

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 30 July 1997 (b) 355

  RAF Maintenance Group

  2 April 1991

  (a) 1994

  (a) 31 July 1997 (b) 465

  RAF Personnel Management Agency

  1 February 1997

  (b) 2002

  (a) 30 January 1997 (b) 350–351

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  22 November 1994

  (b) 1999

  (a) 6 November 1997 (b) 3319

  RAF Training Group

  1 April 1994

  (b) 1999

  (c) 20 March 1997 (d) 859–860

  Service Children's Education

  1 April 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 30 July 1997 (b) 354

  Ships Support Agency

  11 December 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 31 July 1997 (b) 461–462

  Specialist Procurement Services

  1 June 1997

  (b) 2002

  (a) 3 June 1997 (b) 121–122

  1 Evaluation is taken to mean the periodic review of the Agency, which involves a performance evaluation, the re-visiting of the Prior Options process, and the re-issue of the Framework Document. Initial Policy was this should take place at not more than 3 year intervals, but this was later extended to 5 years, with some specified exceptions. As the process takes a period of some months, only the year in which the review is expected to take place is given. Where the first review is described as "ongoing" the second review would normally be expected to take place 5 years after the re-issue of the Framework Document.

  2 The Date and column at which the Key Targets for FY1997–98 were published in the Official Report. For the sake of clarity and completeness this information has been included for all the Department's Agencies, although the hon. Member's questions did not ask this in all cases.

  3 Not published at the time of the original answer.

  4 Formerly Army Individual Training Organisation.

  5 Date of Launch as a Trading Fund; all were previously Agencies.

  6 The 1997–98 Key Targets for this Agency have not yet been published in the Official Report.

  Note:

  Although the review for this agency was begun in 1994, and the Evaluation and prior options papers completed, the revised Framework document has still not been issued.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if those lone parents currently claiming the lone parent rates of(a) family premium, (b) child benefit, (c) housing benefit and (d) council tax benefit will be paid the increases in these benefits announced in the Budget. [37022]
  420
  Mr. Field
  Lone parents who are currently receiving the higher lone parent rates of family premium in Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, and the higher rate of Child Benefit, will continue to receive the higher rates. Those current lone parents with children under 11 who are receiving any of the income-related benefits will also receive the £2.50 increase in the under 11 child allowance rate.
  421
  The increases in the family premium and Child Benefit announced in the Budget will be paid to lone parents who are not already receiving the higher lone parent rates, and to all couples with children. The Government believe it is right to increase support for all families with children, and the measures we announced in the Budget will help tackle child poverty. The increase in the under 11 child allowance will protect vulnerable families with young children. These families can face particular difficulties as the need to balance the dual responsibilities of parenting and working can restrict their opportunities to maximise income from work.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the average initial(a) salary and (b) weekly earnings for those lone parents who have obtained employment through the New Deal for Lone Parents on taking up work in each of the control areas. [37023]

  Mr. Field
  The full, independent evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents, which will report in autumn 1999, will contain information on the average earnings of lone parents who have participated in the programme and found jobs.

  In the meantime, administrative data do not enable the calculation of robust average salaries or weekly earnings.

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Green Paper on Welfare Reform was delivered to the printers. [37021]

  Life awards of disability living allowance

  Care component

  Mobility component

  3 months ending

  All rates

  Higher

  Middle

  Lower

  All rates

  Higher

  Lower

  May 93

  23,200

  9,000

  4,700

  9,500

  27,900

  21,100

  6,800

  August 93

  20,200

  8,800

  4,100

  7,300

  23,900

  19,100

  4,800

  November 93

  18,500

  8,500

  3,700

  6,300

  21,900

  17,200

  4,700

  February 94

  20,100

  8,900

  4,100

  7,100

  25,800

  21,200

  4,600

  May 94

  23,400

  10,300

  5,300

  7,800

  29,600

  24,200

  5,400

  August 94

  24,100

  9,700

  5,500

  8,900

  30,700

  24,700

  6,000

  November 94

  23,700

  9,200

  4,800

  9,700

  29,100

  23,700

  5,400

  February 95

  25,200

  9,100

  6,500

  9,600

  31,600

  25,600

  6,000

  May 95

  28,100

  10,200

  6,800

  11,200

  33,300

  26,300

  7,000

  August 95

  27,800

  10,600

  6,600

  10,600

  33,900

  26,600

  7,200

  November 95

  34,700

  11,600

  8,400

  14,700

  40,800

  33,100

  7,700

  February 96

  29,300

  10,200

  7,500

  11,500

  32,700

  26,800

  5,900

  May 96

  30,100

  10,500

  7,100

  12,500

  33,500

  27,800

  5,800

  August 96

  27,600

  9,300

  6,000

  12,300

  31,500

  26,000

  5,500

  November 96

  30,500

  9,800

  7,000

  13,700

  33,200

  26,900

  6,300

  February 97

  24,000

  8,400

  5,200

  10,500

  24,500

  20,100

  4,400

  May 97

  22,300

  8,700

  4,700

  9,000

  24,000

  19,700

  4,300

  August 97

  22,700

  8,300

  4,800

  9,600

  24,300

  19,800

  4,500

  November 97

  21,200

  7,500

  4,400

  9,300

  22,500

  18,700

  3,700

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to awards made on initial claim.

  2. Owing to rounding the figures may not sum.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 536–38, what information is available about the numbers of life awards for (a) the
  422
  Mr. Field
  It was delivered to the printers on 24 March 1998.

  Social Security Appeals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 17 March 1998,Official Report, column 530, on social security appeals, what is the average waiting time from the date the appeal is lodged for an appeal to be dealt with by the ITS; and how many appeals have currently been waiting for more than three months to be heard. [36608]

  Mr. Denham
  The Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) report that the current average waiting-time for an appeal to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal to be dealt with is approximately 28 weeks.

  ITS advise that statistics are not currently available for the number of appeals that have been waiting for more than three months to be heard.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 536–38, how many life awards of disability living allowance were made in each quarter since May 1993 at the (a) higher, (b) middle, (c) lower rates of the care component and (d) higher and (e) lower rate of the mobility component. [36100]

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

  mobility component and (b) the care component of disability living allowance, in each quarter from April 1992 to February 1993; and how many awards were made in that period. [36099]
  423
  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Life awards of disability living allowance

  Care component

  April 92 to February 93

  All rates

  Higher

  Middle

  Lower

  5 months ending August 92

  53,800

  16,100

  9,900

  27,700

  3 months ending November 92

  35,200

  12,100

  9,200

  13,900

  3 months ending February 93

  26,800

  10,300

  6,500

  10,000

  Whole period

  115,800

  38,500

  25,700

  51,600

  Mobility

  April 92 to February 93

  All rates

  Higher

  Lower

  5 months ending August 92

  70,800

  45,700

  25,100

  3 months ending November 92

  48,800

  35,400

  13,400

  3 months ending February 93

  36,300

  26,800

  9,600

  Whole period

  156,000

  107,800

  48,200

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to awards made on initial claim, review or appeal.

  2. Owing to rounding the figures may not sum.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

  All awards of disability living allowance

  Care component

  April 92 to February 93

  All rates

  Higher

  Middle

  Lower

  5 months ending August 92

  83,000

  22,000

  22,300

  38,800

  3 months ending November 92

  61,000

  17,700

  19,800

  23,500

  3 months ending February 93

  47,900

  14,600

  15,300

  17,900

  Whole period

  191,800

  54,200

  57,400

  80,200

  Mobility

  April 92 to February 93

  All rates

  Higher

  Lower

  5 months ending August 92

  104,000

  72,500

  31,500

  3 months ending November 92

  78,800

  59,800

  19,000

  3 months ending February 93

  58,800

  44,700

  14,200

  Whole period

  241,700

  177,000

  64,700

  Notes:

  1. Figures related to awards made on initial claim, review or appeal

  2. Owing to rounding the figures may not sum.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability living allowance awards of(a) the lower rate of the mobility component and (b) the lower rate of the care component were made in each year since 1992. [36348]

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

  Initial awards of Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  Year

  Lower rate of mobility

  Lowest rate of care

  1992–932

  128,213

  128,297

  1993–942

  41,720

  56,239

  1994–95

  41,336

  61,014

  1995–96

  48,802

  66,738

  1996–97

  48,206

  71,861

  1997–983

  41,928

  58,221

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to awards made on initial claim.

  2. Includes top up claims.

  3. Figures relate to the 10 months ending 28 February 1998.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.
  424
  The figures provided above relate to initial claims to the benefit. Figures for all awards of these components of DLA, to include those where another component has already been awarded, are given below.

  Awards of lower rate mobility and lowest rate care components of DLA

  Year2

  Lower rate of mobility

  Lowest rate of care

  1992–933

  131,500

  137,500

  1993–943

  66,900

  87,400

  1994–95

  67,800

  90,600

  1995–96

  74,300

  100,300

  1996–97

  73,900

  101,700

  1997–984

  53,100

  68,900

  Notes:

  1. Rounded figures relate to awards of a component due to initial claims, renewal claims, reviews or appeals.

  2. Figures relate to the 12 months ending February 1998.

  3. Includes top up claims.

  4. Figures relate to the 9 months ending 30 November 1997.

  5. Figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards are currently being paid from(a) the Independent Living (Extension) Fund and (b) the Independent Living (1993) Fund. [36349]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of awards paid from the Independent Living (Extension) Fund is 10,647 and from the Independent Living (1993) Fund 4,012.

  Notes:
  1. These figures are correct as of 24 March 1998.
  2. Figures are for the UK.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of people in receipt of disability living allowance aged between 18 and 65 years have earnings from employment. [36347]

  Mr. Denham
  There are 1,344,000 Disability Living Allowance recipients aged between 18–65 years1. The proportion with earnings from employment2 is 9 per cent.

  Notes:
  This includes people from their 18th birthday up to but not including the 65th birthday.
  The figure is rounded to nearest 1,000.

  Source:
  15 per cent. data.
  2Family Resources Survey 1995/96.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many life awards of disability living allowance are currently in payment. [36350]

  Mr. Denham
  Out of a total of 1,956,000 awards of Disability Living Allowance in payment, 1,439,000 are life awards.

  Notes:
  1. The figures quoted relate to 30 November 1997.
  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  Source:
  Analytical Services Division 5 per cent. data.
  425

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the cost of aligning the employee national insurance contribution lower earnings limit with the income tax personal allowance set out in paragraph 3.31 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report. [36310]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 70.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect the changes announced in his Budget will have on the income of the National Insurance Fund for 1999–2000. [35922]

  Mr. Denham
  The proposed changes to employer's National Insurance contribution from April 1999 are revenue neutral for employers as a whole. The changes to employees' contributions will reduce contribution revenue to the National Insurance Fund by £1.2 billion in 1999–2000; a £1.4 billion full year effect.

  Source:
  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is her policy to maintain the contributory principle in the benefit system for the long term. [36022]

  Mr. Denham
  We are modernising National Insurance contributions to encourage employers to take on staff and to make work pay for employees. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a series of changes to promote these aims in the Budget on 17 March. Changes to the National Insurance scheme provide an opportunity to update the contributory principle. We will examine the link between paying contributions and earning entitlement to benefits with a view both to simplifying further the administration of the scheme for employers, and emphasising the link between work and earning benefit entitlement.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review her policy in respect of the Benefit Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement. [35550]

  Mr. Denham
  It is right to ensure that people who are in receipt of benefit are entitled to it and that they remain so. The Benefit Integrity Project is designed to help ensure that payments of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) are correct.

  Since taking office last year, we have made a number of improvements to the way in which the Project operates. Most recently, on 9 February, we introduced an extra safeguard to help ensure that we get decisions right and restore confidence.

  At a meeting with the Disability Benefits Consortium on 23 March, it was agreed that people aged 65 or over would no longer be involved in the Project. In addition,
  426
  we agreed to work together to look at ways of improving Project literature and staff training; and at extending the categories of people who need not be contacted directly as part of the Project.

  This demonstrates our determination to be fair and be seen to be fair; and our commitment to keeping under review the way in which the Project operates.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) under 25 years old, (b) in receipt of other benefits and (c) in total were in receipt of housing benefit broken down by (i) rent allowances and (ii) rent rebates in each of the past 10 years; and if she will estimate the equivalent figures for the next three years. [35706]

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

  Housing benefit recipients. May 1990 to May 1996—Great Britain

  Local authority tenants

  Private tenants (including housing associations)

  All cases

  May 1990

  Aged under 25 years old

  216

  241

  457

  In receipt of other benefits

  2,858

  892

  3,750

  All housing benefit recipients

  2,913

  1,066

  3,979

  May 1991

  Aged under 25 years old

  229

  187

  416

  In receipt of other benefits

  2,874

  1,027

  3,901

  All housing benefit recipients

  2,936

  1,084

  4,019

  May 1992

  Aged under 25 years old

  255

  215

  470

  In receipt of other benefits

  2,974

  1,237

  4,211

  All housing benefit recipients

  3,030

  1,289

  4,318

  May 1993

  Aged under 25 years old

  238

  268

  506

  In receipt of other benefits

  2,991

  1,424

  4,415

  All housing benefit recipients

  3,044

  1,478

  4,521

  May 1994

  Aged under 25 years old

  224

  290

  514

  In receipt of other benefits

  2,965

  1,569

  4,535

  All housing benefit recipients

  3,016

  1,634

  4,650

  May 1995

  Aged under 25 years old

  206

  302

  507

  In receipt of other benefits

  2,910

  1,694

  4,604

  All housing benefit recipients

  2,964

  1,769

  4,734

  May 1996

  Aged under 25 years old

  192

  299

  491

  In receipt of other benefits

  2,843

  1,795

  4,639

  All housing benefit recipients

  2,898

  1,878

  4,776

  Notes:

  1. Information is not available for years prior to 1990.

  2. Recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  3. The figures for under 25 years old include benefit units where the claimant and/or partner is aged under 25.

  Source

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, 1 per cent. annual sample inquiry taken at the end of May in each year shown.
  427

  Estimated numbers all housing benefit recipients 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 averages for year

  (000)

  Local authority tenants

  Private tenants (including housing associations)

  All cases

  1997–98

  2,791

  1,921

  4,712

  1998–99

  2,736

  1,997

  4,733

  1999–2000

  2,718

  2,098

  4,816

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are not available for under 25s or those in receipt of other benefits.

  2. Recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  Source:

  1997 Departmental Report—Revised Table 6.

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much her Department(a) has spent since 1 May and (b) is planning to spend on focus groups. [34970]

  Mr. Field
  The Department has commissioned £367,254 worth of focus group research since 1 May 1997 (including VAT) although not all this work is yet completed. Further such research will be conducted in future, but costs are not available until contracts are let.

  Group 4
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on procedures by which a contract for security services in her Department was awarded to Group 4; and what assessment she made of the application of TUPE regulations to this contract. [36024]

  Mr. Field
  Under the previous administration's market testing programme 1992–95, the Department awarded two contracts to Group 4 for accommodation and office services, including security services. In both instances, the terms and conditions of the TUPE regulations applied.

  From 1 April 1998, Group 4 will provide all security services to the Department under the PRIME contract. The PRIME contract, which will transfer the ownership and management of the Department's Estate, was awarded to PPM (Partnership Property Management), following a tender exercise in which they were fully evaluated in line with this Government's new strengthened criteria and concern for staff issues. In appointing Group 4 as their sub-contractor to deliver security services, PPM worked in close partnership with the Department to ensure our new criteria were fully met.

  Staff transferring to Group 4 will not only have their employment rights fully protected by the TUPE regulations but, by virtue of arrangements made with PPM, will also be entitled to join a new pension arrangement which has been certified by the Government Actuary as being comparable with the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the mortgage interest payment 428
  arrangements are for people claiming benefits and paying an endowment mortgage; and if she will make a statement. [36075]

  Mr. Field
  Income Support and income based Jobseeker's Allowance payable to home-buyers include help with the interest payable on mortgages. No help is provided for capital repayments or, in the case of interest-only mortgages, with the investment vehicles such as endowment policies. Help is calculated using the standard interest rate.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the number of pensioners who are entitled to income support but who do not take it up; and, of those, how many are(a) receiving either housing benefit or council tax benefit and (b) receiving neither housing benefit nor council tax benefit. [36023]

  Mr. Denham
  It is estimated that around 1 million pensioners are entitled to Income Support but do not take it up. Of these, it is estimated that:

  a) around 540,000 (54 per cent.) are receiving Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit or both;

  b) around 460,000 (46 per cent.) are receiving neither Housing Benefit nor Council Tax Benefit.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1995–96.

  Postage
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of postage for her Department in each of the last 12 months. [36781]

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

  Total postage cost for each of the last 12 months

  £

  Total

  March 97

  11,073,491.66

  April 97

  4,110,712.35

  May 97

  6,539,872.96

  June 97

  5,812,208.36

  July 97

  6,324,068.40

  August 97

  579,897.75

  September 97

  11,086,529.97

  October 97

  6,646,988.28

  November 97

  5,921,549.93

  December 97

  5,881,278.02

  January 98

  6,157,441.48

  February 98

  7,858,027.01

  Total

  77,992,066.17

  Note:

  The apparent unevenness of expenditure between August and September 97 is due to the timing of payments rather than any significant change in consumption.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many letters the Benefits Agency and the DSS have received from members of the public about the winter fuel payments scheme; [36511]
  429
  (2) how many calls the Winter Fuel Payments Telephone Hotline has received to the latest available date; [36513]

  (3) if she will provide a breakdown of the nature of the calls received by the Winter Fuel Payments Hotline. [36514]

  Mr. Denham
  Winter Fuel payments are one of a number of initiatives the Government have taken to help vulnerable people, especially the elderly, keep warm in the winter. A total of £400 million has been committed for this winter and next, to help pensioners with fuel bills to pay. This is the first time any Government have provided additional help with heating costs to all pensioners receiving a retirement pension or one of a number of other qualifying benefits.

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

  So far, within the Department's Headquarters, around 400 letters have been received direct from members of the public and a further 150 from hon. Members regarding the scheme.

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 27 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary questions asking how many letters the Benefits Agency (BA) and the DSS have received from members of the public about the winter fuel payments; how many calls the Winter Fuel Payments Telephone Hotline has received to the latest available date; and if she will provide a breakdown of the nature of the calls received by the Winter Fuel Payments Hotline.
  The making of almost 10 million winter fuel payments to over seven million pensioner households before the end of March 1998 has been a challenging task for the Benefits Agency. This will have been achieved whilst maintaining normal benefit business.
  Around one and a half million of the poorest pensioners, those receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, received their payment of £50 during January. Other eligible pensioners are entitled to a payment of £20 or £10. Where they live alone, are the only eligible pensioner in a household, or are of no fixed abode, they are entitled to £20; otherwise, they are entitled to £10.
  The information requested relating to the number of letters received by the BA from members of the public about Winter Fuel Payments is not available at present. We are currently compiling statistics on the number of enquiries received about Winter Fuel Payments, in addition to the statistics collated by the Winter Fuel Helpline. As the payments exercise is still ongoing, it is anticipated that the information will be available some time after the end of April. I will provide the number of enquiries received once the information is available.
  Between 5 January and 20 March 1998 the Winter Fuel Payment Helpline has received a total of 136,284 customer calls. Of these calls 116,273 relate to payment queries, 4,486 relate to non-payment queries and there have been 15,525 miscellaneous queries which relate to all other aspects of winter fuel help.
  I hope you find this reply is helpful.
  430

  Housing Benefit (Fraud and Error)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are(a) the known costs to the social security housing benefit account of (i) established fraud, (ii) suspected fraud, (iii) claimant error and (iv) official error over the last five years and (b) the projected costs in these categories for the current year; and if she will make a statement. [35093]

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

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Housing Benefit: Fraud

  Note 1

  18.5

  38.0

  43.2

  Housing Benefit: Claimant error

  37.3

  42.7

  49.5

  47.2

  Housing Benefit: "Other"

  5.7

  5.5

  Note 1

  Note 1

  Housing Benefit: Local Authority error (no costs met by Department of Social Security after 31/3/93)

  3.4

  0

  0

  0

  Housing Benefit: Departmental error (recovered amount only is shown)

  0.3

  0.3

  1.3

  0.3

  Notes

  1. Included in "Housing Benefit Claimant Error".

  2. Except where otherwise annotated, the figures in the table show the costs to the Department of Social Security of Housing Benefit payments made incorrectly by local authorities in Great Britain because of established fraud or error. The level of subsidy paid by the Department varies according to the category of incorrect payment.

  3. Local authority audited final subsidy claims for the financial year 1996/97 are not yet available.

  Source

  Local authority audited final subsidy claims.

  The first Housing Benefit review, in 1995, estimated the overall cost of incorrectness in housing benefit to be around £1 billion: this estimate includes confirmed and suspected fraud, as well as claimant and official error. The Department is currently conducting a further review to update that estimate.

HEALTH

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many proposals for the closure of community hospitals have been referred to him since 1 May 1997; how many he has refused; and in which locations. [34444]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: Four community hospitals in Cornwall have been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hospitals concerned are located in Saltash, Fowey, St. Ives and Poltair. No decision has yet been taken on the future of these hospitals.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make a decision on plans put forward by the Cornwall Health Authority to close community hospitals in Cornwall; what powers he has to vary or reject proposals put forward by health authorities to close community hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [36516]
  431
  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be taking a decision shortly on the proposals for service changes put forward by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is for the provision of practical help to those who suffer from ME; [35874]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated relating to the diagnosis and treatment of ME; and if he will carry out further research into this illness; [35876]

  (3) what training programmes (a) have been carried out and (b) are planned to assist doctors in the diagnosis and treatment of ME. [35875]

  Ms Jowell
  Unfortunately, the causes of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) are not understood, nor is there a generally agreed method of treatment. Treatment to relieve the various symptoms is, therefore, a matter for individual doctors to decide in consultation with their patients. The National Health Service provides a wide range of services to which sufferers from CFS/ME have access, and such patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties. Patients can discuss the options available to them with their general practitioner, and they may also request an assessment of their needs by local authority social services departments.

  The training of doctors is a matter for the medical schools in collaboration with the General Medical Council's Education Committee, the relevant Medical Royal Colleges (MRC) and, in the case of general practice, the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice. All of these have a vested interest in ensuring that doctors are equipped to deal with the problems they will encounter in practice—both in hospital and in general practice. It is not however practicable or desirable for the Government to prescribe the exact training that any individual doctor will receive.

  A number of research projects into ME/CFS have been carried out or are currently underway. These are:
  "The role of noradrenaline in the neuropsychological pathogenesis of the chronic fatigue syndrome (ME)", funded by the MRC and costing £37,000, is being undertaken by Dr. R. K. Morriss at the University of Manchester.
  "Rehabilitation in the chronic fatigue syndrome (ME)—a controlled trial of cognitive-behavioural therapy", now completed and funded by the Department for £59,034.
  "Should General Practitioners manage chronic fatigue syndrome (ME)? A controlled trial", an ongoing research project funded by the NHS Research and Development Programme for £64,433.

  The Department has also funded a £65,000 project which considered whether a particular type of psychological treatment was effective in reducing
  432
  disability in CFS/ME patients and a £60,000 project which is looking at whether general practitioners are best placed to manage CFS/ME patients.

  In addition, the NHS Standing Group on Health Technology has recently identified the latest series of priority areas for which it anticipates commissioning primary research or systematic reviews. One of the topics identified is Management Strategies for chronic fatigue syndrome/ME.

  Wheelchair Vouchers
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many wheelchair vouchers have been issued using the sums distributed to health authorities since April 1996; and what the target number of wheelchair vouchers for the four year programme is. [359201

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of vouchers issued for wheelchair services from April 1997 to March 1998 is forecast to be 1,238, with 418 issued between April 1997 to December 1997. This information was not available before April 1997 because the voucher scheme has been phased in since 1996. No targets have been set for the uptake of vouchers over the four year period. Our objective is to extend choice to service users and uptake will therefore depend on how many wheelchair users choose the vouchers option.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many disabled people currently receive direct payments from their local authority, by local authority area. [36353]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department has carried out a survey of all English local authorities to monitor the implementation of the Direct Payments Act during its first year. Officials are analysing the responses to the survey. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library when it is available.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what levels of immunisation against TB have been achieved in each of the last three years. [36017]

  Ms Jowell
  The number of Bacillus Calmett Guèrin vaccinations is given in the table:

  000

  Year

  Number of BCG vaccinations

  1994–95

  1317

  1995–96

  576

  1996–97

  483

  1 The school BCG programme for 1994–95 was delayed as a result of the measles/rubella immunisation campaign.

  Source:

  KC 50

  Department of Health: Statistics Division SD2B.
  433
  BCG immunisation is given to school children between the ages of 10 and 14 years as part of the schools programme and at birth to children at higher risk from tuberculosis as part of the selective neonatal programme and opportunistically. It is not, therefore, possible to give an exact figure for the percentage of children immunised.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) TB and (b) drug resistant TB have been reported in the UK in each of the last three years. [36014]

  Ms Jowell
  The numbers of notifications of tuberculosis (TB) in the United Kingdom are published in the Annual Abstract of Statistics. Data on TB that is resistant to one or more of the antibiotics normally used to treat TB (drug resistant TB) and on multi-drug resistant TB, i.e. TB that is resistant to isoniazid and rifampicin, the two most effective drugs for treating TB, are collated by the Public Health Laboratory Service on behalf of the United Kingdom Mycobacterial Resistance Network. Information for the years 1994 to 1997 is given in the table.

  Tuberculosis (all forms)—Notifications Annual totals by Region, England and Wales, 1988–1997

  Health region

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  19971

  Anglia and Oxford

  268

  264

  261

  268

  270

  284

  256

  278

  333

  319

  North Thames

  1,304

  1,444

  1,310

  1,525

  1,743

  1,650

  1,759

  1,797

  1,802

  1,986

  North West

  715

  683

  743

  662

  763

  787

  654

  630

  581

  615

  Northern and Yorkshire

  625

  662

  642

  725

  659

  721

  584

  641

  614

  617

  South and West

  296

  266

  228

  227

  247

  275

  273

  278

  266

  282

  South Thames

  552

  569

  642

  596

  625

  698

  694

  642

  707

  751

  Trent

  529

  492

  452

  448

  421

  518

  459

  506

  535

  484

  West Midlands

  671

  843

  732

  819

  869

  788

  730

  654

  655

  610

  England

  4,960

  5,223

  5,010

  5,270

  5,597

  5,721

  5,409

  5,426

  5,493

  5,664

  1 Provisional figures; it is usual for final figures to be lower than provisional figures.

  Source:

  Notifications of Infectious Diseases database, held within Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre

  Notifications of TB in England and Wales fell from 49,358 cases in 1950 to their lowest level of 5,085 in 1987. There was a small increase in cases in the early 1990s, but figures have now levelled out. This success is against a worldwide resurgence in TB which is having a small but important impact on trends in the United Kingdom. The UK has an excellent record of TB control and we are determined this should remain the case.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to make students pay the full cost of vaccinations required for overseas visits. [35893]

  Ms Jowell
  Currently some vaccines against infectious disease are provided free for travellers as a matter of public health policy, others are not. Broadly speaking, those vaccines provided free offer protection against diseases which might be spread on return to the United Kingdom. Immunisation in these cases benefits not only the recipient but also the community at large, since each individual immunisation contributes to the general control of disease. We recognise that inconsistencies and ambiguities have arisen over the years in the arrangements for travel vaccines and the way they are interpreted and are seeking to resolve these anomalies as part of an
  434

  UK notifications

  Laboratory isolates

  Year

  TB1

  TB resistant to one or more anti-TB drugs2

  Multi-drug resistant TB

  1994

  6,228

  206

  43

  1995

  6,174

  212

  49

  1996

  6,238

  241

  60

  1997

  36,430

  not available yet

  not available yet

  1 Annual Abstract of Statistics.

  2 Includes multi-drug resistant cases.

  3 Provisional; it is usual for the final figure to be lower than the provisional figure.

  Sources:

  Scottish Health Service Health Service Common Services Agency; Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland); Office for National Statistics and Public Health Laboratory Service.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of tuberculosis have been recorded in each regional health authority in each of the last 10 years. [36169]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is in the table.

  ongoing, internal review. It would be wrong to pre-empt any recommendations the review might make but it will take into consideration data from a number of sources and bear in mind advice we receive from a wide cross-section of interest groups, including the views expressed by student unions.

  Alcohol Consumption
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the evidence submitted to the Sensible Drinking Review has been published. [36195]

  Ms Jowell
  No. Details of the persons and organisations who submitted written evidence to the review, as well as those of the experts who gave oral evidence to the Inter-Departmental Working Group, can be found in the report "Sensible Drinking", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations were involved in the consultation process for unit labelling of alcoholic products; and if he will separately identify those involved in the format and design of the labels. [36206]
  435
  Ms Jowell
  The announcement in October 1997 by some of the United Kingdom's largest drinks companies that they would be introducing a voluntary scheme of unit labelling on their packaged products explicitly to support the Government's Sensible Drinking message was an initiative taken by the companies themselves. The companies involved in the scheme are: Seagram, Allied Domecq, Whitbread, Diageo and Bacardi-Martini.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of children in the care of local authorities who have been refused as patients by general practitioners. [36308]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Child Minders
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered child minders there are at the present time. [36138]

  Mr. Boateng
  There were 102,600 registered child minders in England at 31 March 1996 (the latest date for which figures are available). It is intended to publish figures for 1997 in May this year.

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are employed in Scotland by his Department, or executive agencies responsible to his Department; and where those staff are located. [36627]

  Ms Jowell
  No staff of the Department or its agencies are employed in Scotland.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement in the role of the section within the Department of Health which deals with the independent health sector. [36469]

  Mr. Milburn
  This section acts as a liaison point between the Department and the independent health sector. It holds information on the sector and provides briefing to Ministers when required. It has responsibility for matters relating to the registration and inspection of independent hospitals and clinics.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the expenditure on acute care in the private sector in each of the last three years. [36465]

  Mr. Milburn
  "Laing's Review of Private Healthcare 1997" estimates that the value of the private acute healthcare market in the United Kingdom was £2,009 million in 1994, £2,153 million in 1995 and £2,350 million in 1996.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on encouraging more people to take out private medical insurance. [36476]
  436
  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to encourage more people to take out private medical insurance.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current total number of man-months of patient waiting time on NHS waiting lists. [36606]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: On 31 December 1997 1,262,000 patients were awaiting admission to National Health Service hospitals in England with an average waiting time of 4.6 months. This implies an estimated total of 5,802,000 months waited by patients.

  Health Service Budget
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the percentage change in the real budget for the National Health Service in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [36371]

  Mr. Milburn
  The real growth in National Health Service total net spending is estimated to be 2.2 per cent. in 1997–98 and 2.3 per cent. in 1998–99.

  Northern and Yorkshire NHS Executive
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct the Regional Director of the Northern and Yorkshire NHS Executive to respond to the letters of 11 September and 9 January by the hon. Member for Wakefield on behalf of a constituent. [36981]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Regional Office are unable to trace the original correspondence and have contacted my hon. Friend's office to resolve the matter.

  Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Professor Phillip Jones's membership of COMA. [36982]

  Ms Jowell
  Professor Philip James of the Rowett Institute, Aberdeen was appointed as a member of Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy on 31 December 1989. His term of appointment is due to end on 31 December 1998.

TREASURY

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his environmental assessments of Budget measures which were not included in Table 5.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". [36048]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Table 5.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" incorporates an assessment of the environmental impact of the Budget measures, where these have been identified as significant. The non-inclusion of a measure will generally reflect the fact that the environmental impact is considered to be small.
  437

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the methods by which working families tax credit will be assessed, indicating who will carry out each stage of this task; what estimate he has made of(a) how long this will take in each case and (b) how much extra cost will fall on the employer in each case. [35891]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: The detailed design of the Working Families Tax Credit—and plans for its implementation—will be developed in the next few months. Those involving payment through the wage packet will be the subject of consultations with organisations representing employers and other appropriate bodies. A regulatory assessment will be published when detailed administrative arrangements have been settled.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what methods he will employ to maximise take-up of the working families tax credit; and what level of take-up he is aiming to achieve once the system is established. [35770]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: We will seek to ensure that as many families as are entitled receive the credit and we are considering how best to achieve this.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the working families tax credit will make any distinction between married and cohabiting couples. [35769]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: When the Working Families Tax Credit is introduced in October 1999, it will build on Family Credit which does not currently distinguish between married and unmarried couples.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his estimate of the extra expenditure which will stem from the working families tax credit takes account of the consequential reductions in applications for housing benefit and council tax benefits; and if he will make a statement. [35936]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 March 1998]: Estimates of the Exchequer cost of the new Working Families Tax Credit appeared in line 1 of table C.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (HC 620). These represent the net cost of replacing Family Credit with the WFTC. They therefore take into account consequential changes to entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if couples will be able to opt to receive child care tax credits paid direct by the Inland Revenue to the non-employed mother. [36358]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The child care tax credit will be one of the elements comprising the Working Families Tax Credit, and couples will be able to choose which of them is to receive the WFTC.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how payments made by the Inland Revenue under the working families tax credit scheme will be classified for public accounting purposes; how they will be classified for the purpose of calculating the PSBR 438
  and the control total; and if he will make a statement on the rationale and analysis behind the proposed classification. [36247]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The treatment of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) in the national accounts is for the ONS who will be able to classify it once details are settled.

  For the purposes of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (FSBR), in calculating General Government Expenditure and Receipts the scoring of the WFTC has been assumed to follow that of MIRAS, a scheme similar in some key aspects bearing on classification. Under this treatment, tax credit payments in excess of an individual's income tax liability are treated as part of General Government Expenditure. Regardless of their classification in the national accounts, WFTC payments will count to the PSBR.

  The Control Total treatment of the WFTC has yet to be decided and the FSBR treatment should not be taken as an indication of future Control Total treatment. The projections of the Control Total in the FSBR implicitly include WFTC up to the level of the family credit expenditure that it replaces.

  In Table B8 of the FSBR, WFTC is classified as an income tax credit and is deducted from gross income tax receipts in calculating net taxes and social security contributions. A corrected version of this table was published in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 27 March 1998, Official Report, column 348.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the child care tax credit will be accounted for as(a) tax forgone or (b) public expenditure. [36309]

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the amount paid by the Inland Revenue to couples who opt to receive working families tax credit paid direct to the non-employed mother will be classified in the public accounts as(a) public expenditure and (b) negative taxation. [36365]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: All payments of Working Families Tax Credits (WFTC) have been classified as income tax credits in Table B8 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (FSBR), and deducted from gross income tax receipts in calculating net taxes and social security contributions.

  The treatment of the WFTC in the national accounts is for the ONS who will be able to classify it once details are settled.

  For the purposes of the FSBR, in calculating General Government Expenditure and Receipts the scoring of the WFTC has been assumed to follow that of MIRAS, a scheme similar in some key aspects bearing on classification. Under this treatment, tax credit payments in excess of an individual's income tax liability are treated as part of General Government Expenditure. Most payments to couples who opt to receive WFTC paid direct to the non-employed mother are likely to be treated in this way.
  439
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate in each year to 2001–02 the total value of payments of working family tax credits and child care tax credits which will be classified as negative taxation in the public accounts. [36368]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: Payments of Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) are classified in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (FSBR) as income tax credits and are deducted from gross income tax receipts in calculating net taxes and social security contributions. Unfortunately, the figures for income tax credits were shown incorrectly in table B8 published in the FSBR. A corrected version was shown in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 27 March 1998 Official Report, column 348. The sums included for WFTC in the income tax credits line in the corrected version are (£ billion):

  Year

  £ billion

  Up to 1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  2.0

  2000–2001

  5.0

  2001–2002

  5.6

  The treatment of the WFTC in the national accounts is for the ONS, who will be able to classify it once details are settled.

  For the purposes of the FSBR, the national accounts scoring of the WFTC has been assumed to follow that of MIRAS, a scheme similar in some key aspects bearing on classification. Under this treatment, tax credit payments in excess of an individual's income tax liability are treated as part of General Government Expenditure. The FSBR projections assume that around 80 per cent. of WFTC will score in this way.

  The childcare tax credit is an integral part of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and so has been included in the numbers above.

  Earnings Top-up
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the earnings top-up system operating in particular areas of low income will be reviewed in consequence of the introduction of the working families tax credit. [35937]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 24 March 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  Earnings Top-up is a pilot scheme running in eight areas. It is aimed at helping people without dependent children enter and remain in work. The pilots were introduced in October 1996 and are due to conclude in October 1999.

  The pilots will be evaluated and a decision on the future of Earnings Top-up will be taken in the light of the evaluation evidence and the circumstances of the time.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional cost to public funds of implementing the public sector pay awards in 440
  full in April in each of (a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998, (i) in the NHS alone and (ii) across all public services affected. [36625]

  Mr. Darling
  For groups covered by the pay review bodies, the information is as follows.

  £ million

  Additional cost of implementing in full

  Year

  NHS

  Total

  1996

  37

  149

  1997

  115

  263

  1998

  205

  413

  Earnings
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people earn over £450 per week and what proportion this represents of the United Kingdom workforce; and what proportion of those earning over £450 per week earn(a) under £500, (b) under £550, (c) under £600, (d) under £650, (e) under £700, (f) under £750, (g) under £800 and (h) over £800. [36361]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. lain Duncan-Smith, dated 30 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on weekly earnings.
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey 1997, is contained in the attached table.

  Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay-period was unaffected by absence—Great Britain—April 1997

  Gross weekly earnings, per cent. earning

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  Greater than £450

  23.3

  1.1

  18.3

  Less than £500

  27.0

  29.4

  27.0

  Less than £550

  45.9

  51.1

  46.0

  Less than £600

  49.4

  63.6

  59.4

  Less than £650

  68.1

  72.3

  68.2

  Less than £700

  75.0

  77.4

  75.0

  Less than £750

  79.8

  80.8

  79.9

  Less than £800

  83.4

  83.1

  83.4

  Greater than/equal to £800

  16.6

  16.9

  16.6

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many possible rates of capital gains tax will apply following the changes proposed in the Budget. [36322]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: As at present, there will be three possible rates of capital gains tax: 20 per cent., 23 per cent. and 40 per cent.
  441

  Child Care (Grandparents)
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make grandparents looking after grandchildren subject to the same tax treatment as child minders. [36752]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All people providing child-minding services for payment are liable to income tax on the profits from that activity. Thus grandparents who are paid to look after their grandchildren will be taxable on their profits in the same way as other childminders.

  Public Opinion Research
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the contracts for public opinion research his Department has awarded since 10 February indicating(a) the name of the firms, (b) the purposes, (c) the cost and value, (d) the duration and (e) the names of other firms which bid for each contract. [36714]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: Since 10 February contracts have been awarded to Fishburn Hedges to advise on presentational aspects of the individual savings account, and to Ogilvy & Mather for similar work on the Working Families Tax Credit. The cost of both projects was approximately £40,000 each. The contracts were let on 26 February following a competitive tender and all work was completed by March 16. The names of companies who bid unsuccessfully for the contracts are covered by commercial confidentiality.

  Savings Ratio
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on consumer spending of a 2 per cent. fall in the savings ratio. [36713]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: A 2 percentage point fall in the saving ratio would imply that consumer spending would rise around 2 per cent. more than personal disposable income over the period during which the fall in the saving ratio occurred.

  Contingency Reserve
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the planned size of the contingency reserve in 1997–98 and 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [36452]

  Mr. Darling
  The latest figures for the Reserve were published on Budget day in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", table B 18: Control Total by Department.

  New Development (Brownfield Land)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which measures in the Budget were intended to promote the Government's policy to encourage 60 per cent. of new development to take place on brownfield land. [36787]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government's approach to reducing the need for development to spread into the countryside was set out in the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 23 February 1998,Official Report, columns 21–25. The use of economic instruments in planning policy is being explored as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.
  442

  Christian Aid Jubilee 2000 Campaign
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of administering the Christian Aid Jubilee 2000 campaign. [36379]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The cost to date of dealing with the Christian Aid Postcard Campaign has been around £6,000.

  EU Budget Rebates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from other member states of the European Union concerning the current system of budget rebates for the United Kingdom and the date when the current period of that arrangement expires. [37212]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend has not received any formal representations on this subject from any other Member State, though we understand that a number of other countries have asked the Commission to propose a rebate system which would also apply to them.

  The UK's abatement remains in force indefinitely. The unanimous agreement of Member States including the UK would be required to amend the legislation governing our abatement. As the Government have frequently made clear, the UK abatement remains fully justified. We cannot see circumstances in which it would not continue to be warranted in its present form.

  Fuel Tax (Charities)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the fuel tax rebate to charitable organisations offering door-to-door transport services to people with extra mobility needs, operating under section 19 licences. [36592]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no current plans to extend the scope of Fuel Duty Rebate beyond registered local bus services.

  Mail Order Sales
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for 1997 the gross(a) total United Kingdom mail order sales, (b) United Kingdom mail order sales split between agency sales and direct sales and (c) United Kingdom electronic home shopping market sales, expressing the gross figures in each case as a percentage of total non-food sales. [36304]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Kidney, dated 30 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on mail order sales in the United Kingdom.
  The latest information available, from the annual inquiry into retail trades, is for 1996 and shows that in the United Kingdom, the total retail turnover generated by mail order sales was £7,700 million. This represents 7% of total non-food sales.
  There is no equivalent information on the mail order split between agency sales and direct sales or on electronic home shopping sales.

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

Single Market: Business Opportunities
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to encourage British enterprises of all sizes to exploit more fully the new opportunities arising from the single European market.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that United Kingdom enterprises make the most of the opportunities offered by the single market. After all, eight of our top 10 markets are in the single market. To assist business, in the past few days my noble friend the Minister for Trade announced the launch of the Export Explorer service, offered through Business Links and trade associations in association with the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office commercial sections. This should assist businesses to export.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that piece of information. However, will my noble friend tell the House exactly how such visits associated with the Export Explorer service will help firms to export? Bearing in mind the complexities and difficulties of exporting, is he happy that the level of support and assistance that SMEs receive from the scheme will be sufficient to increase substantially exports from this country?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the scheme seeks to give new exporters the opportunity to visit markets. Research
2
undertaken after we came to power indicated that many companies were nervous of going abroad. The Export Explorer service offers a visit to one of the more accessible markets—Ireland, the Benelux countries or the Nordic markets—or a support visit to one of the key international trade fairs in Germany, France, Italy or Spain. The service is to be delivered mainly by Business Links or trade associations by means of support from an experienced exporter, a sector expert, a tailored market or sector report, and general help while overseas. I am convinced that this is of assistance to companies. Further means of assisting companies will be announced in the next few months.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on an Answer which was so clear that he could not have done better if he had had prior notice of the Question. Are not the benefits which he outlined those which one would expect from any sophisticated regional trading bloc? Can the noble Lord give the House any indication why those wholly admirable objectives are achieved in, to give one example, NAFTA, with far, far less cost in terms of fraud and bureaucracy?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure of the relevance of the last sentence. The cost is quite small. It is £90 per company for the service; and firms pay for their own travel and accommodation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for the past five years there has been a single market in plants—in which I declare an interest. Is he aware that the export of plants has increased dramatically over that period? What use can the horticultural industry make of the measures he outlined?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that there has been so much success in the plants industry. However, the measures are designed to help first time exporters to gain experience of the market: to encourage them to go to a market, to analyse it, if necessary to exhibit at an exhibition, and, generally, to get into the way of exporting.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is there not a severe danger in encouraging businessmen to visit the European Union at this time—since, if they do so, they will find that the major problem for their exports is, "3 deutschmarks 8 pfennigs to the pound"? What do the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government cannot do much about the exchange rate. What the Government can do is encourage companies to be more competitive. Price is not the only aspect of selling one's product. The Government encourage companies to be more competitive by improving their productivity, sales techniques and management, and by doing all the things that make up the mix of running a business.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House the Government's views on the necessity for removing a whole series of petty regulations that have been imposed by the Commission, via the bureaucrats of the United Kingdom, which have borne very heavily—and still bear heavily—on British business? When will the promise that was made by the former Prime Minister on returning from Maastricht— namely, to embark upon a scheme of mass deregulation of unnecessary rules imposed—be honoured by this Government?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the DTI's Action Single Market unit exists to help UK businesses when they encounter trade barriers or other factors that inhibit trade. The Government are committed to reducing regulations, but where those regulations inhibit trade that department of the DTI is specially committed to doing that.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I recognise that English is the international language of business. However, will the noble Lord agree that it is extremely valuable for exporters to be able to speak the language of the country with which they wish to do business?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the accent to the British computer industry, given the Prime Minister's recent announcement on millennium bug funding, and ensure that British experts are in the European Union doing their very best to help conquer the millennium bug, since English is the international computer language?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are certainly intending to do so. It formed part of the Prime Minister's statement. The computer industry is a global business. As the noble Baroness says, English is the international language of cyber trade. That is why it is so important.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention that through the national minimum wage they will make British companies more competitive?
Lord Haskel: Yes, my Lords.

Breast Cancer Screening Programme
2.44 p.m.
Lord Sudeley Lord Sudeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review without further delay their decision (Cm 3007) not to implement the recommendation in paragraph 96 of the House of Commons Health Committee's Third Report on Breast Cancer Services (Session 1994–95) that the upper age limit for inclusion in the call and recall system be extended to 69 to include those women most at risk.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Breast Cancer Services to which his question refers was received in 1995 by the previous administration.
This Government are firmly committed to providing a high-quality breast screening programme. Screening for women aged 65 and over is now available on request, and we are taking a range of steps to ensure that this service is widely publicised. I am glad to say that figures published last week show that the number of older women taking this up has risen from 39,000 in 1995 to 57,000 last year.
We are funding pilot schemes to evaluate the impact of extending the routine recall screening programme to include women aged 65 to 69. The first of these studies will be completed next year, and the others by the year after. The Government will base any changes to policy on the evidence emerging from the pilot studies. We must also ensure that any decision to extend the breast screening programme in this way does not jeopardise the existing programme.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I congratulate her, given that half of the 30,000 women suffering from breast cancer are over 65 and given the problem that arose under the previous administration: the two pilot schemes in the Wakefield and South Thames area were a stalling measure owing to the funding involved. Secondly, given that the Gallup poll for Age Concern showed that most women over 65 are unaware of the risks to which they are exposed, why have no government leaflets been published—I congratulate the Minister if that is the case—to warn older women of the risks involved? Perhaps I may ask the Minister two or three questions. Is she aware that there is a higher detection rate for women suffering from cancer who are over 65? Secondly, is it not the case that

5
the incidence of breast cancer increases with age? Is the Minister further aware that, in the case of older women, cancer is equally aggressive?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's congratulations to the Government on their efforts to extend people's understanding of this very important service. I agree that it is extremely important that older women should come forward if they have any concerns. The number of women getting breast cancer each year peaks in the 60 to 64 age group; but that does not mean that the suffering of those in an older age group who get breast cancer is any the less. That is why we intend to make sure that the older age group are aware and, if necessary, extend the recall programme to them.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are grateful to the Government for making increased finance available, as announced in the Budget, to deal with this problem? It is still a very serious problem and, as I understand it, has slightly increased. The Government ought to be commended for making increased finance so quickly available.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I believe he refers to the £10 million that we made available last year for breast cancer services almost immediately after being elected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health announced the week before last that further money would be available to reduce waiting lists, and cancer will be given high priority in that area.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that most of the mammographic X-ray equipment installed in the 1989–90 period to meet the Forrest plans is now reaching the end of its design life? Is she further aware that radiologists are now finding that X-ray film is reaching the limits of resolution, and that digital imaging is now needed to reduce the diagnostic uncertainties which lead to false negatives and false positives? Does she accept that there is a need to raise throughput? Will the Minister therefore agree that the time has now come for investment in an advanced equipment replacement programme to improve the National Health Service breast screening programme and help to reduce waiting times? Could some of the £10 million of extra money recently put into the services be made available?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government are extremely aware of the concern felt about the need for high quality breast screening services. We announced last November an overhaul of breast screening precisely to enhance the existing quality control. That obviously includes a review of the machinery used, but we felt it was equally important to review the standards of screening of individuals within the service, and that is now being undertaken.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Professor Fentiman of Guy's Hospital has estimated that the lives of up to 2,000 older women could be saved each year if that age group were routinely invited for screening? In the light of that, can the Minister say what kind of results from the pilot study would be conclusive enough to ensure that women of up to age 69 are included in routine screening or will the decision be determined by resources alone?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that the decision will not be determined by resources alone. We are concerned to balance the needs of care and screening for women in all age groups. At the moment, the research project to which I referred, which is considering the necessity for screening those in the 65 to 69 age group, is also looking, for example, at whether there is a case to be made for lowering the age at which women are screened to 40 or for closing up the gap between screenings for individuals to fewer than three years. All these matters will be considered. They will obviously need to be looked at in terms of cost-effectiveness, but resources will not be the single determinant.

Animal Feed: Declaration of Ingredients
2.51 p.m.
Viscount Gage Viscount Gage asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to make the declaration of ingredients in animal feed mandatory.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the declaration of compound feed ingredients, either by specific ingredient or category of ingredient, has been an EC requirement since 1991. The Commission is currently considering whether to remove the category option altogether, a proposal which the Government would support. This change would require amendments to a directive at Council level. Pending this development, we welcome the moves already being made by feed compounders towards listing ingredients and away from listing categories. In 90 per cent. of compound feeds the ingredients are declared in full.
Viscount Gage: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. It is satisfactory that so much progress has been made since the late 1980s, when the listing of ingredients in animal feedstuffs was extremely vague and mainly done by groups. The Minister said that in 90 per cent. of cases listing is now done ingredient by ingredient. That still leaves 10 per cent. Can the Minister tell us when he expects the new directive from Brussels which will make the individual listing of ingredients mandatory? Will that listing include a declaration of whether the feedstuffs have been genetically modified? If there is not an early decision by Brussels, do the Government have any plans for making that mandatory?
Lord Carter: My Lords, regarding how soon we can expect the directive, the proposal is unlikely to emerge before the end of July. As a draft Council directive, it will not be agreed until next year. In the meantime, on the majority of feeds the ingredients are declared in full.
Regarding the disclosure of GM ingredients, any such labelling will be subject to separate rules—to use the jargon—on novel feed materials. This is a controversial area and will take some time to resolve. The Government will therefore consider whether to press for earlier labelling of animal feed once it is clear what rules will apply to GMOs and indeed all novel foods.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report by the expert group led by Professor Lamming which recommended the setting up of an advisory committee on animal feedstuffs? Can he say what happened following that recommendation of the committee?
Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend is correct that a committee chaired by Professor Lamming reported to the previous government in July 1992. Its main recommendation was that an independent animal feedstuffs advisory committee should be established to take an overview of all feedstuffs issues in relation to human and animal health. The government response accepted the recommendation, but they then decided that it should not be implemented, I imagine because of their attitude at the time to deregulation. I understand that Professor Lamming pressed the previous government again in June 1996, but there was still no response. I am pleased to say that we have accepted the recommendation and the committee is now in the process of appointment.
Sadly, the decision of the previous government not to implement the Lamming recommendation undoubtedly contributed to the feeding of infected meal after it was banned, with the result we all know of the incidence and severity of the BSE outbreak.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the previous government should have responded to my Parliamentary Questions and pressure in 1987 and 1988, which came from farmers themselves, requiring declaration of ingredients in animal feedstuffs to be mandatory on labelling, and that the fact that they did not do so was a tragic error which may have had bad consequences for human health?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. For a long time the agricultural industry pressed for the full declaration of ingredients. This was resisted by manufacturers at the time, and the Government, with their view about deregulation, agreed with them. Sadly, it was the BSE crisis which led to the change within the past two years—which we had been told by the industry and manufacturers was not possible—so that on 90 per cent. of feedstuffs the ingredients are now declared in full.

Respite Care
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley Baroness Pitkeathley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plan to introduce a right to short-term respite care breaks for disabled people and carers.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government are not planning to bring in legislation to introduce such a right. We nonetheless recognise the great importance attached to respite care for carers and those for whom they care and we are committed to ensuring that local authorities also recognise this. We expect that good practice will best be achieved by the effective implementation of the carers Act, in which my noble friend played such a significant role when it passed through Parliament two years ago. The local availability and quality of short-term breaks are currently being assessed in a study by the Social Services Inspectorate. That report should be available later this year and we shall take any necessary action on the basis of it.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Many of us look forward with great anticipation to the SSI report. However, is the Minister aware of the great concern among disabled people and their carers about the restrictions in local authority budgets which are leading to cuts in the respite care and short-term breaks that are available? Is she further aware of the effect that that has on carers who wish to remain in paid employment, many of whom, sadly, have the experience of Joyce? Because respite care for her mother is now available for only two days a week instead of four, she has had to give up her paid employment and become dependent on state benefits, perhaps building up poverty for herself in the future. Can the Minister give us an assurance that her department is concerned about this aspect of the issue?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we are aware that there are pressures on local authority budgets and that in some instances this has led to the kind of cuts described by my noble friend. I hope she was encouraged by the fact that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget that the tax allowance that had previously been available only to men with children whose wives were incapacitated was being extended to mothers with dependent children and incapacitated husbands. This removes an anomaly in the tax situation, and we hope it will enable more carers to return to work.
There are also the questions raised by the new deal for the disabled detailed in the Green Paper last week. We hope that the reforms we propose will enable disabled people to have a better deal, with proper rights and opportunities to work, which should as a result allow those who care for them to have the same rights and opportunities.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in view of the increasing length of hospital waiting lists, will the

9
Minister particularly address the need for respite for carers of people waiting, often for long periods, for admission to hospital?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is a helpful suggestion. One of the advantages that we found of providing additional money during the winter for support for people living in the community to try to prevent unnecessary acute hospital admissions was that many people were able to be supported at home and to come out of hospital more quickly because their carers had better support in their home circumstances, which was obviously better for everybody.
Lord Rix: My Lords, does the Minister mean that, even if the short-term breaks project recommends legislation such as the Disabled persons and Carers (Short-Term Breaks) Bill presently being considered in another place to implement full caring in the community for carers and disabled people, it will not be forthcoming?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I cannot predict either the results of the project to which the noble Lord refers or the outcome of the Government's response to it. We will take seriously any suggestions made in the report but, as the noble Lord will be aware, the pressures on the legislative timetable at the moment are extreme.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, have the Government any idea of the additional cost to the National Health Service and social services due to the breakdown in the health of carers, who sometimes work extremely long hours? If not, do the Government intend to undertake any research into the matter?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I imagine that that will be part of the review of the working of the carers recognition Act. The Social Services Inspectorate is looking at the whole rounded picture. It will also be relevant to the long-term care charter, on which my honourable friend who has departmental responsibility for that area is working at the moment. On the other side of the coin, it has been estimated that providing short-term breaks on a completely legally-based rights system, as suggested in the Question, could cost anything between £300 million and £900 million a year.
Lord Addington: My Lords, while the review is taking place, can it be borne in mind that, if carers are allowed to maintain their role as carers for longer periods due to relief from the physical and mental stress for both themselves and those for whom they are caring, we may save money in the long run by introducing a properly funded and enacted system which will allow that caring to go on in the community?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I entirely support the noble Lord's position. As I said in my initial response to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, we all recognise the enormous importance of short-term breaks for those who care for people with long-term disabilities and for those who suffer from the disabilities. We must
10
ensure that good practice is conducted throughout the country. That is why it is important that the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act is fully implemented with all the resources necessary at the local level.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that estimates of the numbers of young carers—that is to say, young people and children under the age of 18 who are caring for disabled adults—vary between 15,000 and 50,000? Does my noble friend agree that the main reason for that lack of knowledge is that, though the carers Act 1995 to which she refers entitles all carers to assessment, few local authorities have taken the trouble to find out how many young carers there are in their community?
Does the Minister acknowledge also that in January of this year Mr. Justice McCullough held that the London Borough of Newham unlawfully failed to assess the needs of young carers in Newham? Will she therefore ensure that all local authorities undertake within the next 12 months to conduct a systematic study of the number of young carers in their communities and to publish the results? In the light of that, will the Minister reconsider whether, if local authorities continue to ignore the Act, legislative action will be taken?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving that extremely useful example of where the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act does not seem to be being properly implemented at local level. He will be aware that the problems of young people, particularly school-age children who are acting as carers, are something of which we are acutely aware and where we see specific needs. He will be aware also that those children and young people are covered by the carers Act. But I am grateful to him for drawing that example to my attention. I shall certainly look into it if he writes to me, although again I cannot guarantee any legislative result arising from the inquiry.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether she has received representations on this important subject from the British Medical Association? If so, what response did she make?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have not received any deputation or correspondence from the British Medical Association. I will inquire whether my honourable friend Mr. Boateng, who has departmental responsibility for this area, received any. If so, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the Answer my noble friend's noble friend gave to the previous Question and the specific distress that carers of sufferers of new variant CJD experience—bearing in mind that the diagnosis cannot be made until after death—what case will the carers have to take legal action against the animal feed compounders and the individual Ministers who previously made the decision that feed compounders should not necessarily be required to list all the ingredients in the animal foodstuffs?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend is extremely ingenious in eliding those two questions. However, his question is not relevant to the Question on the Order Paper regarding carers. In all questions of no-fault compensation and compensation where negligence can be proved, as he will be aware, the answers are extremely complicated and legally involved in relation to the National Health Service. I am willing to pursue the matter with him outside the Chamber if he so wishes.

Animal Health (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.
Pesticides Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.

Bank of England Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 15 [Publication of minutes of meetings]:
Lord Barnettmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) The Bank shall publish at the same time forecasts of all macro-economic variables considered by the Monetary Policy Committee as background to their deliberations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston apologises that he is unable to be present today and I am happy to move this amendment of behalf of us both.
Amendment No. 1 is straightforward and I look forward to hearing that my noble friend will be able to accept it. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that the Bank provides us—that is, the House of Lords as well as everybody else—with all the necessary statistics and forecasts on which the Monetary Policy Committee makes its decisions. It is vital for us to know them because, if we do not know the basis of the decisions of the Monetary Policy Committee, if we do not know what its assumptions are about the outlook of the principal economic variants, we will not be able to interpret, for example, its minutes. It is crucial therefore that we have that information.
It would be equally impossible to check whether the committee sought to comply with the requirements to support the Government's economic policy which are written into the Bill, albeit regrettably coming second after inflation—about which my noble friend and I tabled an amendment in Committee and the Minister felt unable to accept. I regret that and perhaps he will now have second thoughts in that regard. I look forward to hearing from him on that point also.
It is important that the implications for the exchange rate—though that will not be necessary once we are members of the European Central Bank, which I hope
12
will not be too far ahead—and employment are understood. I put that in only to upset my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. It is not very relevant. My noble friend knows that I love him dearly and that I always try to give him something to deal with.
It is important to ensure that when the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee collect regional, sectoral and other information for the purposes of formulating monetary policy they are able to let us know what their assessments and assumptions are. Without that information, we will not be able to conclude in this House, in another place and elsewhere whether the decisions taken are reasonably correct. That is another reason why it is important that the amendment should be accepted.
Furthermore, it is important that the Monetary Policy Committee sets out in ways which do not confuse or mislead financial markets precisely what is the background to their policy decisions. Transparency is crucial. There is a serious problem between independence and transparency. I speak as one who supports the idea of giving the Bank of England and its Monetary Policy Committee the power to decide on interest rates. However, it is equally important that there should be transparency and accountability to both Houses of Parliament and to the public at large. The amendment seeks to enable this House to come to a clear conclusion on the reasons behind the decisions of the Monetary Policy Committee on interest rates.
It is vital that we in your Lordships' House and not just the Treasury Select Committee of another place should have a say in this matter. I want to make it clear to my noble friend the Minister that, whatever he is able to tell us today, my noble friend Lord Peston and I intend to press the matter further and that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House should be able to consider the issue and look at the whole reasoning behind the decisions of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee.
I have the honour to chair a sub-committee of the European Communities Select Committee. However, as I am sure my noble friend will know, that committee is extremely busy with many other issues and certainly would never have time to look closely at what the Monetary Policy Committee and the Governor of the Bank of England are doing. I know that it is not for my noble friend to say whether there should be such a Select Committee. However, my noble friend Lord Peston and I intend to ask the Leader of the House to set up such a committee. I hope your Lordships will agree that what we are proposing is not unreasonable. I hope particularly that we will not be told that we cannot have such a committee because of administrative reasons or a shortage of Hansard reporters or of committee rooms. That would be intolerable and I am sure my noble friend would not put that forward as an excuse for not having such a Select Committee. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who is a former Chairman of Committees, nodding in agreement.
I know that my noble friend the Minister will not be able to tell us today that he is willing to recommend the setting up of such a committee. However, whatever he

13
says and whatever anyone else says, my noble friend and I have every intention of pressing this matter strongly. It is crucial both for the present monetary committee and eventually for the European Central Bank that there should be a Select Committee of your Lordships' House that is able to give proper consideration to what those bodies are doing. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has been kind enough to mention his anxiety that I ought to be convinced of the wisdom of the remarks he has made. I have to tell your Lordships that, for reasons I will not go into this afternoon but which will become known in due course, I have been excluded from all committees connected with the European Community. I shall not go into the reasons—possibly the anniversary of the occasion would be appropriate for that.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord would he only too anxious to help the Government on this because he is seeking a concession. If the noble Lord had enlarged his speech just a little—he is always very brief—by a list of what he considers to be the economic variables, that would have been helpful. The noble Lord is skilled in these matters both professionally and as a former member of the Council of Ministers. He is well aware of the nature and extent of the economic variables which he has dealt with in general terms. I wonder whether, possibly a little later in the debate, he will consider acquainting the House and the Government as to the economic variables he has in mind. Will he also take into account the possibility of all the economic variables not relating to the same period, being available in accelerated or de-accelerated form, and state what other characteristics he considers ought to be taken into account by all reasonable people to whom these matters should be explained in quite simple terms so that the House as well as the Government may be able to arrive at some reasonable consideration of these matters?
Will he also answer the question—when he complies with my request as I am sure he will he able to do—whether at the same time these various variables have reacted against one another, particularly where they do not relate to identical periods? In other words, I should like him to inform the House as to the extent to which he and possibly the Government are committed to the new science of econometrics, which pays increasing reference to what is called the government model, presumably being the computer model. If the noble Lord can clarify the position a little, it would be for the material use not only of myself, who is not important in these matters, but of the House as a whole.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I wish to lend my support to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that there should be a committee of this House to examine the performance of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. As noble Lords will know, the Treasury Committee in another place is charged with that responsibility. It will also be charged with the responsibility of examining the performance of the Financial Services Authority. Taken together, those are
14
very heavy responsibilities indeed. It would be entirely appropriate for the work of the Treasury Committee in another place to be supplemented by an appropriate committee of your Lordships' House or perhaps by the formation of a joint committee of both Houses. Given the new position of the Bank of England as defined in the Bill, and given the new independent regulator who will have extraordinary powers over the whole financial industry in this country, Parliament will have a heavy responsibility of review and assessment of the activities of the Bank and the FSA. A committee of this House or, as I would prefer, a joint committee would be appropriate to consider such heavy new responsibilities.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it gives me some pleasure not only to follow the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, but also to agree with everything that he said about the need for a committee of this House, or perhaps a joint committee, to examine the policies of the Monetary Policy Committee and how it reaches its decisions. As we know from previous Sittings on this Bill and from the way in which the MPC has behaved to date, decisions of that committee are extremely important and many people will be affected by them. I referred at Question Time to the exchange rate. Anybody who is involved in selling abroad will be most interested to learn the basis on which the MPC makes its decisions in any given month. Therefore, it is important that the MPC should publish the forecasts that it has used when reaching its conclusions, so that the outside world can have confidence in its decisions.
That is why I think that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is sensible, and that is why I support it, as I support the point made not only by him but also by his noble friend Lord Eatwell about the need for this House to have a committee to examine the MPC.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Barnett for raising this matter again. Clearly, it is of interest to the House and I am happy to be able to respond to it. I am also grateful to my noble friend for speaking to the amendment in a way in which I could understand. My noble friend Lord Peston occasionally places me out of my depth, so I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Barnett did not do that on this occasion.
The MPC is committed to providing the best and fullest possible explanation of its members' thinking. It has already progressed from publishing just an inflation fanchart to publishing a chart also for growth; and it has most recently added a further set of charts illustrating the implications if interest rates were to follow the course implied by market expectations.
The Bank does not have a single economic model which generates a single forecast, but forecasts play an important part in the MPC's decisions, and when members hold differing views the Bank may provide forecasts based on different assumptions to reflect the range of views. I am reminded at this point of Casey Stengel, the manager of the New York Yankees, who uttered a word of warning about forecasts saying

15
that they were peculiarly difficult, particularly when relating to the future. That might be true in this instance also.
The MPC would expect to continue to vary or expand the range of its published forecasts where there was a clear value in doing so. However, it does not favour publishing point forecasts, but rather charts or tables which show clearly the inherent uncertainty of any economic forecast. That brings us back to Casey Stengel. Also, given the number of possible forecasts, the MPC would be trying the patience of its audience if it was to attempt to publish in the inflation report all the possible outcomes of each set of assumptions.
Nevertheless, it has no wish to withhold the details of its forecast where these would be helpful to promoting understanding of the way it is approaching its task, and it is committed to the following. First, it is planning to publish its suite of economic models, and it hopes to do this later this year: outside forecasters and others will then be able to assess these and to use them. Secondly, it expects to indicate further in the text of the report the main implications for employment, the balance of payments and other variables of the different forecasts that it illustrates in the report. Finally, of course, the MPC will be prepared to consider reasonable requests from the relevant parliamentary committee to make available, in fanchart form, details of the MPC's forecasts that are not published in the inflation report.
I can confirm that the Bank is keen to have the widest possible scrutiny of the proceedings of the MPC, including all forms of parliamentary scrutiny. As the House will know, it is not for me to decide whether there should be a special committee of your Lordships' House or a joint committee, but I am sure that the Select Committee on Liaison and the powers that be will have noted that noble Lords on both sides of the House have requested such a committee and noted also what I have said about the Bank and the Treasury welcoming the widest possible scrutiny. In the light of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his reply. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bruce has been kept off Select Committees. I do not have the faintest idea why, except that it is just possible that his views are reasonably well known. It is not my job, however, to put my noble friend on or off a committee, so I cannot really reply to that point. I would always be happy to see my noble friend—I cannot say that I would always be happy to "hear" him because sometimes I hear him just a little too often and just a little too loudly. However, at least I know his views, whether or not he serves on a Select Committee.
I am obliged for the support of my noble friend Lord Eatwell and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, with regard to my point about the need for a Select Committee of this House or a joint committee. I noted, and was pleased to hear, my noble friend on the Front Bench expressing his "sort-or support which I am sure that the Select Committee on
16
Liaison and the Lord Privy Seal will note with great interest. I look forward in due course to such a committee being established.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McIntosh for what he said. I appreciate—I have always appreciated—the fact that the Bank of England will always supply the maximum amount of information possible. I have never had any doubts about that. Indeed, what my noble friend has said today goes a long way towards replying to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I have no doubt that with the information and the variables which he set out, it will be possible for a Select Committee of this House, or a joint committee, or another place, to consider the matter fully. I note that my noble friend does not always quite understand economists—or at least one economist. I do not believe that for a minute. I am sure that my noble friend fully understands economists and all that they have to say, whether that be my noble friend Lord Peston or anyone else. My noble friend Lord McIntosh is too bright not to understand these matters.
I was interested in the view of forecasting given by the New York Yankees. I wish that my noble friend could forecast what will happen to Manchester United this season as that might be even more interesting. I very much appreciate the point about forecasting and the future. It is not always easy to know the forecast for tonight's weather, let alone that for weeks, months or years ahead, yet we sometimes seem to rely on forecasts given on the economy by all kinds of strange people.
Having said that, I am happy with the reply given by my noble friend and with what he said about the kind of reports that the Bank of England would be willing to commit itself to supplying. I know that my noble friend Lord Sefton, who spoke in Committee, would be happy to see regional reports also on how the Bank's policies will affect different parts of the country. Given what my noble friend Lord McIntosh has said and the commitments given by the Bank, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Eatwellmoved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
LISTED MONEY MARKET INSTITUTIONS: INCLUSION ON THE LIST
(". In section 43 of the Financial Services Act 1986, after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) The Authority shall have rules and practices to secure that a person included on the list referred to in this section is fit and proper to he included on that list.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. Noble Lords may be aware that I am an independent member of the board of the Securities and Futures Authority. Although much of what I have to say this afternoon is motivated by my experiences in that position, my remarks are made, and my amendments have been tabled, in a purely personal capacity.
I first moved similar amendments in Committee and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McIntosh for discussing them with me since then. I am also grateful

17
to Mr. Howard Davies and his staff at the Financial Services Authority for giving up some of their valuable time to discuss the amendments with me. I remain convinced of the importance of the issues raised in these amendments. While not repeating the whole case made at Committee stage, I shall make a brief and, I hope, convincing case for the Government's urgent consideration of these issues.
The case rests upon the need to minimise risks to the integrity of financial supervision between N1, the date at which the supervisory functions of the Bank of England are transferred by this Bill to the new Financial Services Authority, and N2, the date at which the statutory responsibilities of the other regulatory authorities, notably the present self-regulatory organisations (SROs), are also transferred to the FSA. It is currently estimated that about two years will elapse between N1 and N2.
However, at N1 not only the supervisory staff of the Bank of England but virtually all of the staff of the SROs will be transferred to the FSA. Their services will then he contracted back to the SROs in order to enable them to maintain their statutory regulatory duties under the Financial Services Act until such time as the new financial services reform Bill becomes operative in a couple of years' time.
Therefore, the staff of the Financial Services Authority will be responsible for virtually all financial regulation as of 1st June this year. Prior to the implementation of the new Finance Bill they will be performing their duties under different statutory frameworks and according to a number of different rule books. As I pointed out in Committee, in some important instances this will result in the same people regulating exactly the same kinds of businesses but in quite different ways. This lack of coherence is particularly acute in the case of those firms listed as exempt under Section 43 of the Financial Services Act and whose investment business has therefore typically been regulated up to now by the Bank of England and not the Securities and Futures Authority which, under the Act, has the main responsibility for regulating such business.
As a result of the Bill before us and the working agreement between the new Financial Services Authority and the FSA, these Section 43 firms will be regulated by the same people as unlisted firms which are currently the responsibility of the SFA but according to quite different rule books. Therefore, the same people will regulate the same kind of investment business but according to different rule books; the difference being due entirely to the history of which firms in the past had been regulated by the Bank of England and which by the SFA. I believe that that situation is not only incoherent but confusing and even dangerous. It is exactly the kind of regulatory incoherence that can be exploited by wrong-doers. Moreover and perhaps more importantly, as we have seen in the Far East in recent months, financial storms can appear out of a clear blue sky. If between N1 and N2 a major business crisis were to be associated with incoherence in the regulation of investment business the reputation of the new system which the Government rightly seek to introduce could be placed in jeopardy.
18
My amendments are an attempt to enhance regulatory coherence among listed and unlisted firms with respect to all investment business during the period between N1 and N2. The amendments achieve that goal by the simple device of ensuring that the listing of all institutions under Section 43 follows criteria that are more in line with the registration procedures used to regulate firms conducting identical investment business which are currently regulated by the SFA. Accordingly, the investment business conducted by listed firms will be regulated in a manner more akin to the regulation of investment business by unlisted firms. The criteria that I propose essentially replace the informal procedures used up to now by the Bank of England. Those informal procedures may have been appropriate for a regulatory authority which was also responsible for the conduct of monetary policy and the maintenance of liquidity, but they are totally inappropriate to the new Financial Services Authority.
I accept that in no way can these three amendments result in the complete harmonisation of regulatory rules and procedures for all investment business. That would require a new and highly complex financial services Bill. But I believe that the two areas covered in my amendments—the criteria by which firms and individuals are deemed fit and proper and the enforcement of conduct of business rules—go to the heart of the matter. The incorporation of these amendments will remove a large amount of ambiguity and incoherence which is the inevitable product of the gap between N1 and N2.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. These amendments require that clear rules be formulated for establishing that institutions, and most importantly the individuals comprising those institutions, are fit and proper to conduct investment business. They achieve coherence in the characterisation of what is fit and proper by requiring that rules which stem from what used to be called the SIB principles should be applied by all investment business regulated by FSA employees. Under Section 43 of the Financial Services Act there are at present no specific criteria that govern how companies are listed. The Bank of England procedure is fundamentally informal. Amendment No. 50 replaces that informality by requiring that in order to be listed all institutions conducting investment business shall be deemed fit and proper to conduct such business according to the specific rules and practices of the new Financial Services Authority.
Amendment No. 4 is the most important of all. The amendment requires that to be included in the list each institution must satisfy itself that its employees are fit and proper persons to carry out their designated functions and that for such positions as the authority designates persons appointed are approved by the authority. We seek to ensure that individuals are fit and proper—fit in terms of having acquired the appropriate qualifications. Again, the procedures of the Bank of England are essentially informal. Certainly, the Bank requires that all senior management of listed firms should be fit and proper, but exactly how fitness and propriety are defined is not embodied in a set of formal rules. In particular, the Bank of England requires that only senior management, not traders, should be licensed

19
as fit and proper, whereas the Security and Futures Authority requires that such persons conducting investment business should be listed and regulated as fit persons. The value of this is that in the enforcement activities of the regulator subtle differences can be drawn between the activities of firms and the activities of individuals employed by those firms. That is an important part of the regulatory process which the Bank of England at present does not pursue.
Amendment No. 3 requires the authority to ensure that listed firms obey conduct of business rules appropriate to the kind of investor with whom they are dealing and the costs involved. I believe it is vital that Bank of England informality be replaced with modern rules. As far as concerns the conduct of the Bank of England, it seeks to regulate business by means of its code of conduct set out in the so-called Grey Book. But the terms of the code are not rules. The code defines best practice but the rules demand a minimum satisfactory performance. Conduct of business regulation is the fundamental protection which the supervisory system offers to individuals. In a modern regulatory system surely it is imperative that what is appropriate should be embodied in clear rules and that those rules are attuned to the characteristics of the counterparty. It would be a nonsense if the investment business conducted by listed firms was subject to a best practice code while identical investment business conducted by unlisted firms was subject to clearly defined conduct of business rules. This amendment ensures that conduct of business regulation is formal, clear and coherent rather than informal, unclear and incoherent.
These three amendments replace the informality of Bank of England procedures with the more formal rules required of a modern regulator. They will ensure that coherent rules and practices define which firms and which individuals are fit and proper. They will also ensure that all business, not just some, is conducted according to a clearly defined set of rules so that the same SFA staff regulate the same kind of business in the same way. I quite understand that the development of a coherent structure is an important part of the very hard work that the SFA will be carrying out between N1 and N2. If the Government believe that these amendments are premature I understand that position, although I disagree with it.
In those circumstances, I should be grateful if my noble friend would at least provide some comfort by answering three questions. First, do the Government intend that in future individual registrations should be the rule in what were previously listed firms? As I said earlier, I regard that as the most important element in establishing an effective modern financial regulatory system. Secondly, do the Government intend that in future the conduct of business rules should apply to all firms, whether previously listed or unlisted; and, thirdly, what steps do the Government expect the FSA to take to achieve maximum coherence in the regulation of investment business between N1 and N2? I beg to move.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, will the noble Lord elaborate in respect of subsection (2D) of his amendment which provides:
"A condition of the kind referred to in subsection (2C)(a) or (b) above may make different provision for different cases"?
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the important point with respect to subsection (2D), which refers to the fitness and propriety of individuals, is that the particular regulations of fitness and propriety may be different, for example, for a senior executive officer from those required for a trader on the desk. It provides the flexibility for the authority to define appropriate fitness requirements for people at different positions within an investment organisation.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter again. I appreciate that it was not possible for him to do so on Report. I recognise his expertise as a director of the FSA, and his proper concern, which we share, to ensure that the highest regulatory standards are established from the outset.
As I explained in Committee, the Bill merely transfers the existing regime for supervising money market institutions from the Bank to the FSA. More general reform of the regulatory system, is, and has always planned to be, in a second Bill.
First, I shall set out, as far as I can, what the powers of the FSA will be under the second Bill, and then I shall talk about the transitional arrangements about which my noble friend asked me. In case there is any confusion, I should say that the second Bill will, of course, be a financial services Bill and not a finance Bill.
The Government's aim is to make the FSA a more effective regulator with the necessary statutory powers, drawing on the best of each of the existing systems. There has been much support for the less-prescriptive approach to regulation which has been adopted hitherto for these wholesale market institutions. I appreciate that my noble friend does not share that view, but it is a view that is widely held.
The Government recognise the importance of the wholesale-retail split. We intend that the FSA should have the scope to adopt both code-based and rule-based systems for players in different markets. Code-based rules can be more effective, and less easy to circumvent, than detailed prescriptive rules. That depends upon the type of business the firms are doing and the sort of counterparties with which they are dealing.
The important point is to ensure that the FSA has the powers to make appropriate rules in respect of all the businesses that it authorises. I can assure the House that it will have. It is important that its rule-making and supervision are subject to statutory objectives to protect investors, depositors and policy-holders, and to maintain confidence in the integrity of the markets. Again, I can assure the House that that will be the case. A statutory objective to ensure that the requirements it imposes are proportionate to the benefits that they bring in terms of

21
meeting those other objectives, is also necessary, and again I can assure the House that it will be. Those powers and objectives will apply equally to authorised firms whether or not they were listed under Section 43.
I can also assure my noble friend that we are considering what powers the FSA ought to have to discipline individuals holding key positions in authorised firms—he made a particular and legitimate point about that—bearing in mind, the objectives that I have mentioned. Again, the FSA's powers will apply equally to authorised firms which were listed and those which were not. I hope that those assurances meet my noble friend's concerns about the future regime.
The answer in respect of my noble friend's two final questions is yes: do the Government intend that in future individual registrations should be the rule in what were previously listed firms? Yes. Do the Government intend that in future conduct of business rules should apply to all firms whether previously listed or not? Again, the answer is yes.
I turn now to the transition period. My noble friend talked about the need for the FSA to achieve maximum coherence during the transition period. Again, I can assure him that the FSA is adopting an approach that maximises continuity and ensures a carefully managed integration of the different regimes. The current rules book will continue.
SFA staff that come across to the FSA will continue to act on behalf of the SFA in applying the SFA rules to SFA firms for the time being. Equally, in the wholesale markets supervisors from the Bank will continue to supervise the Section 43 firms, and will do so according to the same rules. From the start, it will be the same firms being regulated or supervised, under the same rules, and by the same supervisors.
In the meantime, we do not accept that the wholesale markets regime established by the Bank under Section 43 of the Financial Services Act is inadequate. If there are any difficulties, of course the FSA can bring forward changes to the listing conditions.
The important point that the House should recognise is that we should not make ad hoc changes to the wholesale markets regime through this Bill which may not fit in with the final regime under the second Bill. It would send the wrong message to those markets. It would involve potential costs to business in implementing two different sets of changes, especially coming on top of preparing the euro and resolving the year-2000 millennium bug problem. It is important that we should not chop and change and undermine the attractiveness of London as an international financial centre.
My noble friend used strong words. He talked about ambiguity and incoherence. I hope that in my exposition of our policy I have reassured him, at least to some extent.
In Amendment No. 2 my noble friend proposes to introduce an explicit fit-and-proper test for wholesale market firms. Most of the Section 43 firms are banks or members of the SFA, so they are already subject to a fit-and-proper test. Indeed, the vast majority of
22
Section 43 firms is subject to a fit-and-proper test by the Bank. My noble friend would not be adding all that much by the implementation of Amendment No. 2.
My noble friend spoke next to Amendment No. 4. He proposes a power for the FSA to introduce a statutory system of regulation for individuals in capacities that the FSA may determine. That reflects contractual powers which are already used by two of the three existing self-regulating organisations, including the FSA, and a similar regime is in the process of being introduced by the third.
Finally, in Amendment No. 3 my noble friend talks about an explicit rule-making power. The FSA will have powers to make rules or establish principles for the conduct of business along the lines of the existing code. In exercising that power, the FSA will, in all cases, be informed by the overall statutory objectives we are to introduce, including the protection of consumers and the duty to ensure that the costs imposed by regulation are proportionate to its benefits.
My noble friend's third final question relates to what steps the Government expect the FSA to take to achieve maximum coherence in the regulation of investment business between the passage of this Bill and the next financial services Bill. Perhaps my answer has been set out—and I apologise—at too great length, but I hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. He reiterated the Government's devotion to the notion that there is a black and white split between wholesale business and retail business and that their regulatory procedures should be different. The Government should take great care over that proposition. There is a significant grey area between wholesale and retail businesses. When Baring failed, a number of ordinary individuals were not paid their salaries and could not pay their mortgages during that week. Individuals were affected by what happened in wholesale markets on the other side of the world. It is enormously important to realise that behind all wholesale business there are individuals who will be affected by the nature of its conduct.
I am given considerable comfort by the fact that the FSA appears to be taking a more flexible view than that taken by my noble friend. It has not, for example, organised the Financial Services Authority in a manner which takes note of that split. The organisation of the FSA is along functional lines and does not divide wholesale and retail businesses. I hope that the differences in the nuances between wholesale and retail businesses will be recognised by the Government.
I am greatly reassured by my noble friend's confident "yes" that individual registration will become a characteristic of previously listed and unlisted firms in the financial services Bill. I am sure that the entire industry will take considerable comfort from that.
I focused in particular on the transition period between N1 and N2. My noble friend made an important point in arguing that the rule books of the Bank of England and the FSA would be run by different people

23
at the FSA between N1 and N2. I had not understood that. I had believed that the organisation of the FSA was such that the same people would regulate investment business according to the different rules. If there are to be separate persons I believe the coherence of regulation during that period will be greater than I had previously feared. I am grateful to my noble friend for that new piece of information.
Finally, he suggested that my amendments appeared to be ad hoc and would result in firms chopping and changing the regulatory procedures to which they were subject. I was a little puzzled when he then said that Amendment No. 2 did not add much. If it did not add much how could it lead to considerable chopping and changing? However, given that that is nitpicking and given the reassurances and additional information which my noble friend has provided today, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Board of Banking Supervision]:
Lord Eatwellmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 20, leave out (", who shall chair the Board,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. It was moved in a slightly different form in Committee and I am grateful to my noble friend for discussions which have taken place since then.
The objective of the amendment is to ensure that one of the lessons learnt during the Baring affair is not forgotten; namely, that supervisory authorities should be subject to assessment and examination by an authority which is not only independent but seen to be independent. We discussed that issue in respect of Amendment No. 1 in that, under the new Bill, the Treasury Committee in another place will be charged with the responsibility of overseeing the activities of the Financial Services Authority.
Noble Lords will remember that the investigation into the conduct of the supervisory authorities of the Bank of England with respect to the Baring affair was conducted by the Board of Banking Supervision, to which Clause 28 refers. The Board of Banking Supervision has not only the investigatory role, which was thrust upon it at that time, but, under the Banking Act 1987, it has the statutory duty to advise the Governor of the Bank in the exercise of his or her supervisory functions. Under the Banking Act the board is chaired by the Governor.
Noble Lords will recognise that that structure—a committee chaired by the chief executive of the Financial Services Authority replacing the Governor—is contained in Clause 28. Therefore, the executive head of the institution responsible for supervision is deemed the appropriate person to chair the committee responsible for investigating whether that supervision is conducted in a satisfactory manner and advising the organisation on the conduct of its activities.
24
My amendment seeks to change the provision for chairing the Board of Banking Supervision. Noble Lords may remember that at the time of the publication of the report of the Board of Banking Supervision into the Baring affair the value of the report was called into question in your Lordships' House, in another place and in the financial press when it was revealed that the conclusions had been drafted at meetings of the board chaired by the Governor and by Mr. Quinn, who was at that time the executive director of the Bank of England responsible for supervision.
No one has suggested—and I am certainly not suggesting—any impropriety in the operation of the Board of Banking Supervision or on the part of the Governor and Mr. Quinn. But what was correctly suggested at the time was that the report of the Board of Banking Supervision should not only be independent but it should be seen to be independent by virtue of having been prepared under an independent chairman.
I am sure that the Government are totally in agreement with that sentiment. In the new era of regulatory openness and institutional transparency, it is totally unacceptable for an individual with the authority of a chief executive to chair the body designed to advise and monitor the institution for which he or she is responsible. Amendment No. 5 removes that embarrassment. Amendment No. 6 requires that the chairman of the Board of Banking Supervision be elected from among the independent members of the board.
As I said in Committee, I am sure that the drafting of Clause 28 was a slip on the part of the Government. My simple amendments prevent the new FSA inheriting unfortunate and embarrassing practices from the Bank of England. I understand that the Board of Banking Supervision will not survive N2, but I believe that it is appropriate to send a signal to the markets and to all those involved in the financial services industry that in the new regulatory apparatus openness and independence will be the key characteristics defining the supervisory activity and the monitoring of that activity. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in some ways, although not entirely, the amendment parallels one which I tabled to Clause 3, which referred to the sub-committee of the Court of the Bank of England. At an earlier stage, I suggested that the members of the court should appoint their own chairman to the sub-committee, but the Government were absolutely determined that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may designate one of the members as chairman. I believed that that was wrong and I still believe that is wrong, but the Government got their way.
Today's amendment is similar, although I suspect more important and I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I remember the Friday afternoon when we in your Lordships' House spent some considerable time discussing the affairs of Baring. I can certainly say that the noble Lord made the point which he has just made fairly forcibly in my direction because I had to answer for it at that stage.

25
It seems to me that if the Board of Banking Supervision is to be seen as independent, it should not have a chairman of the authority as the chairman of the board. I believe that the noble Lord has made an eminent case that one of the six independent members should be the chairman and that the independent members should make the decision as to which of their number it should be.
After all, rather like the court, the six independent members will not be picked off the street at random. They will be appointed jointly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the chairman of the authority. Therefore, quite clearly they will have the confidence of both of those gentlemen as people of some substance and considerable knowledge in that field. On that basis, I believe that it is right and proper that the six independent members should decide for themselves which of their number should be chairman. I have some pleasure in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for explaining the motivation behind the amendment. I should say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that I do not follow him in his analogy with the amendment to which the House disagreed at an earlier stage.
I should explain that the board was set up originally to advise the Bank rather than to discharge any executive functions. Therefore, under those circumstances, we believed that it was proper for it to be chaired by the Governor. It has not been our approach in this Bill, as has become clear, to change the banking supervision regime in the course of transferring it to the FSA, although we have proposed to increase slightly the Board of Banking Supervision's independence by reducing the number of executive members from three to two.
However, in Committee I undertook to consult on those amendments. We have consulted Howard Davies, the chairman of the FSA, and through him the non-executive members of the board. Having done so and having confirmed that they are content with that change in their role, I am happy to accept my noble friend's amendment.
In accepting it, I wish to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Eatwell confirmed: that this does not imply any criticism of the past conduct of the board or of any of its members or, indeed, of the Governor and other executives who sat on the board. I wish to reiterate the point which my noble friend made that we do not propose to retain the board in its current form when we bring forward our further legislative proposals. That would not be in keeping with the wider responsibilities of the FSA. But the FSA has consulted on the form of practitioner input in the longer term. On that basis, the amendments have our support.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for accepting the amendments. Perhaps I might add to his remarks concerning the Governor and Mr. Quinn. Of course, the purpose of the amendments
26
does not suggest any lack of confidence in the abilities of Mr. Howard Davies, chief executive of the FSA, who is doing a truly excellent job. The amendments seek merely to establish a clear independent framework for the Board of Banking Supervision between N1 and N2.
I am grateful also for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, who rejected exactly those propositions at the time at which I advanced them; namely, at the time of the Barings affair. But there is of course more rejoicing in heaven for one sinner that repenteth, and I am delighted to hear of his repentance on this matter. Having said that, I am extremely grateful to the Government for supporting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Eatwellmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 12, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) The independent members shall elect one of their number to chair the Board.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Monetary Policy Committee]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 23, line 8, at end insert ("or
( ) he has been the Governor or a Deputy Governor of the Bank").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. I suppose that it would be too much for me to expect that the success rate of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, might carry over to at least one of these two amendments.
We have been over this ground before and I have tabled the amendment in this way partly because I placed the amendments wrongly the first time and the Minister was able to have some sport at my expense because of that, but also because of something he said on Report on 23rd March.
I shall go over the ground quickly because I do not suppose that there are many noble Lords who have not been present during other stages of the Bill. Essentially, the Monetary Policy Committee will have nine members. I described five of them as the home team. They are people from the Bank —the Governor, two deputy governors, as there will be two in the future and two people who are employed by the Bank in senior executive positions. Then there will be four others who are appointed by the Chancellor and they will come from outside. They will bring their outside expertise—at present it is three from universities and one from commerce—to meetings of the Monetary Policy Committee. Your Lordships will know that the meetings of that committee are extremely important as regards the economic life of this country and for everyone who lives in it, whether they be mortgage holders, in employment, seeking employment or running businesses, especially in the export business, given the high value of the pound at present.
What bothered me rather when I looked at this matter was that there did not seem to be any way in which the hands of a future Chancellor might be tied as to who he

27
could appoint as the away team. I was concerned in particular by the fact that two of the four current away team members—and I mean it as no reflection on them—had been in the past senior officials. One was at the Bank. Professor Goodhart was the chief adviser to the Bank in 1980. One was at the Treasury. Sir Alan Budd has been the Chief Economic Adviser at the Treasury since 1991. Therefore, two out of the four members have had some fairly high powered, in-house experience of the home team. In the case of one that is not so long ago and somewhat longer ago in the case of the other.
That is why I questioned whether in this part of the schedule as a disqualification for appointment we should suggest that no senior employee of the Bank or the Treasury could re-emerge as one of the four non-Bank members of the Monetary Policy Committee. I have slightly refined that to mention Treasury officials at Grade 3 or above or:
"office of equivalent rank in the Bank".
That is my general point.
However, the first amendment comes from an exchange which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had with me on Report. At that time I asked whether there was any reason why the Chancellor could not appoint a former governor or deputy governor of the Bank as one of the away team. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that,
"there is no formal exclusion for a former governor or deputy governor".—[Official Report, 23/3/98; col. 1016.]
Therefore, it was not just a case of thinking that the teams were home and away. It was almost the school versus the old boys. Although I do not suppose that the present Chancellor would act in that way, one cannot guarantee the actions of future chancellors. He might decide that a previous Governor was a safe pair of hands. Noble Lords who have served in government will recognise the minute, "AB was the Governor some years ago. The Chancellor will remember he was a perfectly sound man and can be relied upon on all occasions. We suggest that now he has a nice job at a university as a part-time professor, he is eligible to become one of the four wise men who will help the Monetary Policy Committee". The Chancellor may think that that is a good idea and will sign his initial at the top and off the minute will go.
I do not suggest that a future Chancellor would try to pack the committee with previous Governors, deputy governors and senior employees. Perhaps the Minister can give an assurance on the record that that certainly would not be the Government's intention and that in writing into the Bill that four members of the Monetary Policy Committee should not be employees of the Bank of England, they have absolutely no intention of the positions being taken by former Governors and deputy governors.
In a way, I am less concerned, although I am still concerned about senior employees of the Treasury and senior employees of the Bank being on the MPC as part of an "away team". Indeed, I was extremely concerned when the Minister raised the doubt in my mind about former governors or deputy governors. I hope therefore
28
that the Minister can give me some assurance, at least as regards my first amendment, at this Third Reading stage.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as always, I followed the noble Lord's argument with great interest. I also noted the opportunity that it gave him to refer, once again, to the high exchange rate. I thought that he was going to tell my noble friend the Minister how he would reduce that rate, but I was not too disappointed because I did not really expect him to do so. However, perhaps the noble Lord can tell us why he has restricted the disqualification in Amendment No. 8 to,
"a Treasury official at Grade 3"?
Why did he not specify Grade 2 or Grade 4; or, indeed, why not specialist Treasury advisers, like perhaps my noble friend Lord Eatwell? Can the noble Lord tell the House why he decided on this particular disqualification level? In other words, why did he stop at that point?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall try to answer the noble Lord. This refers back to the Committee stage and something that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said about the more broadly-based amendment that I tabled at the time. The noble Lord pointed out to me that, in the course of their careers, many people spend a year or two at various levels in the Bank—but less so in the Treasury—and that it would not be very fair to exclude them. I picked Grade 3 and above, because in the departments in which I served, including the Treasury for which I was a spokesman, Grade 3 and above are the senior, serious players at the top of the scale. I am just asking whether it would be right for them and their equivalents at the Bank of England to end up as the "away team" members of the MPC.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of what I said in Committee. We have sympathy with the view that one does not want the MPC to be too full of home players, as opposed to away players. However, in my mind at least, I believe that there is a slightly different definition as regards the group of people whose membership of the MPC one wants to limit. The phrase that comes to my mind is not so much "home and away" but rather the concept of the "charmed circle", which goes slightly beyond former employees of either the Bank or the Treasury.
It seems to us that on the MPC we should seek to achieve a rather broader membership than the normal group, comprising not just officials but also advisers and chums of officials who one might suggest to Ministers for the committee and who might equally be seen as a well-known safe pair of hands. Instead of the two amendments that have been tabled today—although we would also welcome an assurance from the Minister as requested by the noble Lord—it seems to us that there are two better methods to achieve that aim. First, there is the proposition that we sought to put forward earlier in our debates; namely, that the nations and the regions of the UK should be better represented on the MPC; and, secondly, we believe that there should be confirmation hearings of members of the MPC so that

29
no Chancellor of the Exchequer would run the risk of being seen to fill the MPC with chums, whether officials or otherwise. Therefore, although we have some sympathy with the thinking behind the amendments, we doubt whether they represent the best way to achieve the noble Lord's aim.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I admire the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for coming back with a third version of what he made clear in Committee he wanted to do. His amendment in Committee was profoundly defective in the sense that it would have excluded him, as a former Minister, from membership of the MPC. His amendment on Report was defective in the sense that it proposed a power to remove a member of the MPC rather than restricting the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or anyone else, to make appointments to the MPC.
It is with great sadness that I have to tell the noble Lord that his amendments on Third Reading are also profoundly defective. They are defective because Schedule 3 to which they relate refers not only to what he calls the "away team" but also to the home team. If the noble Lord looks again at Schedule 3, he will see that it refers back to Clause 13(2)(b) and (c)—(b) being the home team and (c) being the away team, as he would call them. Therefore, the effect would be that no person who has held office of the equivalent rank to Grade 3 in the Bank could be one of the two members appointed by the Governor of the Bank of England after consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am afraid that it would not work in that way.
The amendments also would not work because, as the noble Lord will have realised from our previous debates on the Bill, this legislation establishes the statutory basis for the MPC for the first time. Therefore, the appointments to the committee are not simply carried over automatically from the existing appointments to the non-statutory committee: they are being made for the first time. In that case, Alan Budd and Charles Goodhart, would be excluded under the noble Lord's amendments. When I challenged the noble Lord on that point on Report, and said that these were anti-Budd and anti-Goodhart amendments, he denied the charge. However, it is as true now as it was then. Therefore, the amendments simply could not go into the Bill as presently drafted and there is little opportunity left to discuss them.
The noble Lord's intent is of course the same as it was on Report; namely, that the Chancellor of Exchequer should not appoint former senior Bank or Treasury officials to the MPC. I am afraid that my answer is the same. As I said last week, there is no basis for excluding former Treasury or Bank officials from the MPC. The important point is that such appointments should be made on merit. Clause 13(4) requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint those he is satisfied have the relevant knowledge and experience in such matters. There is no justification for further narrowing the field as regards potential candidates.
30
The Government firmly believe that positions on the MPC should be filled by the best people for the job. That judgment must be made on the basis of their current knowledge and experience. If we go down the route of excluding particular types of people, the credibility of the MPC will suffer. The noble Lord's proposal would not enhance confidence in that committee; indeed, even if the amendments had been correctly drafted, they would in fact do the opposite. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for what I might call his "generalised" support of the principle that I am trying to achieve by way of this amendment and, indeed, the principle that I was trying to put forward with my previous amendments. I am rather sorry that the noble Lord's generalised support did not extend to particular support as regards making one of the members of the MPC a person who would be nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the advice of the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. However, as that is still in the legislation—and I very much trust that the other place will not try to overturn it—at least one of the members of the MPC is unlikely to come from the magic circle.
I have to say that I am not very pleased with the Minister's response. I take his point about paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 13(2), but I was really only looking at paragraph (c). It still seems to me that the Minister does not appreciate the kind of reaction which would occur if a future Chancellor of the Exchequer were to appoint someone who had been a very senior figure—indeed, right up to the level of the Governor of the Bank of England—to the MPC. If any future Chancellor of the Exchequer were to do so, I believe that there would be some degree of attack on the whole principle as regards whether or not the "four members" now under discussion were actually independent people drawn from outside.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way because it enables me to make clear a confusion which I may have introduced when I said that the Monetary Policy Committee has to be reappointed when the Bill receives Royal Assent. I should make it clear that the Chancellor has said that he will appoint the existing four outside members. Therefore when the Monetary Policy Committee is formally constituted it will contain two ex-senior officials of the Bank and Treasury, but it will not contain any ex-governors or deputy governors.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suppose one has to be thankful for small mercies. As no doubt the noble Lord said to me on a number of occasions in the previous parliament, I am not considering what the present Chancellor will do; I am considering what future Chancellors can do. I cannot believe that the Minister thinks the number of people for these four posts will be drawn from such a limited field that future Chancellors will need to consider also former governors or former deputy governors, and that if we exclude governors and

31
deputy governors we shall narrow the field of selection for a future Chancellor. That does not say much for the economists, business and commercial people in this country from whom I am sure the Chancellor could draw a pretty long list of nominees. However, clearly I shall not make much progress. If the Minister and I are around when a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the future says that he is not bound by anything and that he will appoint a former governor to the Bank, I shall look forward to discussing with him the fuss that will arise when one of the "away team" is just an ex-player from the "home team". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
It has never been my belief that there should be substantive retrospective debate on the Question that this Bill do now pass. We do enough chewing of the cud as it is without reviving Second Reading speeches or things that we forgot to say in Committee, at Report or on Third Reading. I shall confine my remarks to thanking those who have taken part in the proceedings on this Bill at all stages. I have benefited enormously from the behind-the-scenes support of my noble friend Lord Haskel and also from the active participation of my noble friends Lord Peston, Lord Barnett and Lord Eatwell with, in the second XI, so to speak, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Macclesfield, Lord Montague of Oxford and Lord Sefton.
I have been grateful, as always, for the constructive opposition. I think that should apply to the Liberals, but it applies also to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and the noble Earl, Lord Home. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, also took an active part, as did, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Boardman and Lord Stewartby, from the Back Benches. I am grateful to all of them. From the Liberal Democrat Benches the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Taverne, made a positive contribution to our considerations. Above all, I am grateful to the Bank of England Bill team in the Treasury, led by Stephen Pickford. I am grateful also to all of his colleagues for the support that they have given during the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall say just a few words. I have absolutely no intention of repeating my Second Reading speech even if I could remember it. Nothing used to irritate me more than when people at this Dispatch Box repeated Second Reading speeches at this stage.
I am grateful to those who advised my noble friend Lord Home and myself on certain aspects of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Home for help with the second part of the Bill. We certainly explored some of the details of the first and second parts in Committee. We were grateful to the Minister and his
32
team for some of the detailed replies that we received although I cannot say I was grateful for all of them. That certainly would not hold true as regards this afternoon. However, I was grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which he replied to us.
I am grateful to a number of my noble friends who took part at the Committee stage in the Moses Room—some of whom are present this afternoon—and at the Report stage and today's stage. Rather a select number of noble Lords took part in discussions on the Bill. Perhaps it is one of the defects of the Moses Room stage that what I might call the "passing trade" misses out on a Bill. I shall reflect on that in future. At Report stage we heard interesting comments from people who were not present in the Moses Room. It is a pity they were not present at the Committee stage. I am grateful to all my noble friends who have taken part and to other noble Lords for making this a brief but interesting Bill.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in thanking the Minister and his team for the way in which they have handled the Bill. As regards the discussions in the Moses Room, I shall long remember the seminar on the concept of price stability. It was not a debate on amendments; it was a seminar. We were all engaged in that discussion for a long time. I believe that it enlightened all of us. I am sure that students of economics will no longer need to read the textbooks of the noble Lord. Lord Peston, but will read the relevant part of the Committee stage of the Bill to discover the various definitions of price stability.
We on these Benches have a particularly partisan reason for being pleased that this legislation is heading for the statute book. We approve of it in principle. However, it also means that a well-known vote winner will no longer appear in Liberal Democrat economic policy; namely, the independence of the Bank of England. Those of my colleagues who have pounded the streets for many years advocating that independence will be grateful that this measure has now been so successfully dealt with.
We all recognise that in some respects the Bill is a transitional measure and that in due time we shall discuss the European monetary committee in another guise in terms of the European central bank when we discuss the euro. I look forward to those discussions. I hope they will be undertaken with the same generosity of spirit which has characterised our consideration of this Bill.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I shall mention two fundamental aspects of the Bill. I shall not make a Second Reading speech. I very much regret two provisions. First, the Bill passes control of the monetary policy of this country from the Chancellor to the Bank of England. I believe that the Government will regret that as the years pass, and no doubt they regret it now. Secondly, I regret that they have removed the supervisory role from the Bank of England which it has held for a long time. It has made mistakes but nevertheless it has acquired great experience in that role.

33
I think both those steps are fundamental mistakes and I personally regret them. Subject to that, I wish the Bill well.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Social Security Bill
4.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Transfer of functions to Secretary of State]:
Lord Evans of Parksidemoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("are hereby") and insert ("shall from the relevant date be").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 5. I have no doubt that elements of this Bill will cause son-le controversy and arouse some discussion, and probably some division. However, I trust that the amendments that I move today will not be the subject of division or argument, or even much debate.
Part I of the Bill is about decisions and repeals. Under Clause 1 decisions about benefit claims, child support assessments and the discretionary social fund which are currently made by adjudication officers, child support officers and social fund officers respectively will pass to the Secretary of State. Clause 9 covers decisions already exercised by the Secretary of State. There is considerable support for creating a status of single decision in all these areas. In the past there has been some confusion about who was and who was not making decisions.
The thrust of the amendments is that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament on the standards of decision-making. The arguments for the amendments that I have tabled were made in another place both at Committee and at Report stages. I hope that those who supported the principle on those occasions will support it now.
As drafted. Clause 1 creates the status of single decision-maker and abolishes the current distinction between the Secretary of State's largely administrative decisions and the decisions by independent adjudication officers which are made at arm's length and can have a great impact on individuals and groups of individuals. Such decisions can be the subject of an appeal to a tribunal.
The decisions previously made by these officers were the subject of annual reports. In the interests of open government, under this Bill it is essential that Parliament
34
is kept fully informed of what has happened and what decisions have been made for which the Secretary of State is answerable. We appreciate that the Secretary of State will not be sitting in her office continually looking at such issues and arriving at decisions on them. Decisions will of course be made by senior officers on her behalf. But, nevertheless, she is answerable to Parliament for those decisions.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the functions that would he transferred to her under Clause 1—decisions on social security benefits, Social Fund payments and child support assessments. The duty to report would commence from the date on which the new functions are transferred to the Secretary of State under Clause 1. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 take the scheme of the Bill for transferring these functions and link it to the duty to report. Under Amendment No. 5 each 12-month period would run from the anniversary of that date and the report would be laid before each House of Parliament in the month in which it was published. The amendments would provide a means for Parliament to monitor the effect on the standard of decision-making in the proposals in Clause 1.
I lay the amendments before the Committee to improve and strengthen the Bill and not as a criticism of the Government's current drafting. I am not a parliamentary draftsman; I recognise that there is a danger that amendments of this nature may be flawed. If they are, I trust that that will not be a reason for not accepting them and that my noble friend will accept the principle of the amendments. I heartily commend them to the House. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have put my name to these amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Evans of Parkside. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept them.
As my noble friend rightly says, in putting down these amendments we are not being critical of the general thrust of the Bill but seeking to improve it. Many Members of the Committee will have received a substantial briefing from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on the whole of the Bill. I noticed in the material I received from it this morning that it is in favour of what is proposed in these amendments. That is important because it has the job of handling claims at grass-roots level on behalf of people who often have little support unless they get it from the local CAB.
Evidence suggests that the present quality of initial decision-making within a number of the agencies—the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service and the Child Support Agency—is unacceptably low. The CAB believes that if there is the change that we have suggested, with the Secretary of State having the responsibility to report to Parliament, and thus introducing some element of parliamentary accountability, that will have the effect of generally improving decision-making throughout the service. That could save a lot of time and trouble over appeals etc, at later stages in the claim.

35
I hope that my noble friend will feel that these amendments are intended to be helpful to ensure that the Bill is a good one and that the people who will be affected by it will have the additional support and protection of a system with a high degree of parliamentary accountability. I support the amendment.
Lord Higgins: It will be convenient to link discussion of Amendment No. 4 with the two amendments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. These are variations on what is essentially the same point.
As we begin on what may be a rather long and tortuous journey through the Bill because the order of the clauses is somewhat confusing, perhaps I might make one or two general remarks. The comments by the Minister last week were helpful in pointing out the way in which the amendments have now been grouped.
The Bill was referred to earlier as the Peter Lilley Memorial Bill. I have increasing doubts about that. Certainly in some of the later stages of the Bill there are elements which were not in the Bill envisaged by the previous government. In many ways those elements will turn out to be highly objectionable.
The first part of this Bill is technical in nature. We would not wish in any way to be partisan about this—nor indeed would any Member of the Committee—but we are anxious that the Bill is drafted in the best possible way so that it is of the greatest help to those affected by social security decisions.
I am pleased to have the assistance of my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns, who has served on many tribunals of this kind and has considerable experience. My experience is limited to the way decisions are reached at grass-roots level and the distress which may be caused if they are not correctly arrived at at the initial stage. We shall turn to the question of appeals etc, later. But it is important that we get matters right at the earlier stages.
Amendment No. 4 states:
"'relevant bodies and organisations' means such bodies and organisations as are prescribed by regulations".
In recent weeks there has been a great deal of discussion as to the extent to which the use of regulations is appropriate. In the context of this amendment it is entirely appropriate that one should be able to adjust without any great trouble—certainly not by primary legislation—the names of particular organisations which may reasonably consider the reports we are advocating in our amendment. However, there are many other provisions in the Bill which are dealt with by regulations and where the use of this power is open to objection.
From time to time I may have promoted measures which involve legislation by regulation. But one cannot amend regulations. The Bill refers to regulations but we have no chance at the first stage—the Government must surely be aware of what they have in mind—to amend those provisions. If we put the provision in primary legislation, we are able to amend it subsequently. But Parliament has a responsibility to consider the issue in
36
the earlier stages of the Bill when it can be amended. The House—in particular the Opposition—cannot do so at later stages.
I am reinforced in this view by convention. I understand that in this House we do not normally vote against regulations, although I believe that the Liberal Democrat Party has adopted a different view. Nonetheless, the case for not legislating by regulation is all the stronger if the House is not able to vote against such regulations.
Having said that, we recognise and support the need for streamlining the procedures. The problem with the clause is that in effect the Secretary of State will become judge and jury in the matter rather than some other independent body. For that reason, the noble Lord who moved the amendment and I believe that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to report in writing annually to Parliament on the standards of adjudication. While we have drafted another amendment somewhat differently, we divide this amendment, as the Bill is divided, between child support, the jobseeker's allowance and other social security benefits.
Our strong view is that there is a case for such reports. I do not know how the Minister will reply to the debate. I do not believe that it would be adequate for such reports to be included in the general reports of the agencies concerned. They need to be free-standing. The general reports of the agencies cover a huge range of different subjects. I fear that the report would become lost if it were merely included in an agency's normal annual report.
The report should be differentiated for the reason mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. The CAB has made representations. It has put forward some frightening figures. They can be borne out by one's own experience of the extent to which the system has failed at the initial stage. We must all hope that when we finally agree on the new arrangements, they lead to better decision taking. However, the figures quoted in the representations of the chief adjudication officer's annual report for 1996–97, to which the noble Baroness referred, indicate that, of the 45 per cent. of income support cases examined, 40 per cent. result either in incorrect amounts being paid or the amounts are in doubt. The adjudication deficiency rate in family credit was 37 per cent., with payments either incorrect or in doubt in 35 per cent. of cases. In child support, the adjudication decision in 57 per cent. of cases was deficient. A number of statistics are cited which are worrying. Instead of the individual having the right decision at the first stage—whether favourable or unfavourable—the lengthy process of appeal, and so on, has to be gone through.
It is clearly appropriate to seek to achieve a provision to ensure that the new arrangements work properly. It has been pointed out that, for example, the National Audit Office already carries out some degree of supervision. But that is a very narrow field and not adequate in this context. I hope that in the light of this debate we can agree that we should have an annual report of this kind, and that it should be a specific report.

37
Perhaps we may turn to a number of detailed points at later stages of the debate. However, finally at this stage, perhaps I may make this point. We are putting forward the idea of an annual report which can be scrutinised by Parliament. But we should consider, perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, whether, if the level of decision taking is as bad as the figures to which and the noble Baroness referred indicate, there should be some form of sanction on those making the decisions. I do not refer to mere parliamentary debate. Saying how bad the situation has been would not be adequate. It is a point that we should consider later. In the meantime, I hope that the Government will consider carefully and sympathetically what seems an overwhelming case for having a report of this kind. I hope that either in the form proposed by the noble Lord, or that suggested in the amendment, the measure will be acceptable to the Government.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: The amendments appear to be driving at much the same point. I am encouraged to think that the Minister will not have "resist" at the top of her brief because there is a government amendment on much the same lines. If I am wrong and I am to be disappointed, no doubt the noble Baroness will say so when she replies.
Before dealing with the amendment, perhaps I may say a brief word about the order in which the clauses are being debated. I am not getting at the Minister. The order is probably the best that can possibly be achieved in the light of the way in which the Bill is drafted. But anyone who spent time over the weekend, as no doubt many of us have, trying to make head or tail of the amendments, have found it very difficult to make a proper assessment while jumping from one part of the Bill to another. As a Minister at the old Department of Health and Social Security, I was used to these Bills being complex. Social security Bills always are complex. But it is more difficult when clauses are not taken in sequence. This Bill has been drafted in the interests of the department rather than of Parliament. I hope that the point will be taken on board.
The main problem with which we are dealing is the poor quality of initial decisions. If all the initial decisions were right, there would be little cause for appeal and therefore the system would not be gummed up, as it is. These poor initial decisions mean that those individuals who feel that they have not been accorded the right level of benefit are anxious. They have to wait for decisions eventually to be made. So there are very human factors involved when the initial decisions are incorrect.
There are a number of strong reasons for one or other of the amendments. First, I understand that the annual reports of the chief adjudication officer, and of the chief child support officer, will disappear. Therefore there is a need for something to be put in their place. My preference would be for the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Higgins.
Another important point—I am sure that the Minister understands it well—is that it is of great importance that decisions should be seen to be independent and free
38
from political interference. It is a matter that has always been stressed. It might appear on the face of it, unless some safeguards are made, that Clause I would to some degree undermine the very long and honourable tradition operated by the Department of Health and Social Security, and now the Department of Social Security.
I am not very keen on annual reports. They often mean civil servants having to devote a great deal of time to preparing them rather than getting on with the main job in hand in their department. Furthermore, annual reports very often gather dust; they are read by very few people. However, in this instance there is a strong case for an annual report. After all, we are dealing with very substantial sums of money—something like £100 billion a year—of benefits paid out and, of course, money which has to be paid in by the taxpayer and national insurance contributor. We are dealing with well over half of government expenditure. So in a sense it is of a very different order to many other items of public expenditure.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able, if not to accept the precise wording of these amendments, at least to recognise that for the principle of Clause 1 to be acceptable, there should be an effective report to Parliament on an annual basis.
Lord Goodhart: Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 require the Secretary of State to make and publish annual reports on standards in decision-making. That is a proposal that we on these Benches support, certainly so far as these amendments go. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, that annual reports serve no useful purpose: they serve a very valuable purpose. Even if they are not widely read, they are there, and the need to make and publish the annual report concentrates the mind of any Secretary of State.
However, the proposals in these amendments lack any element of independent monitoring. It is proposed that the Secretary of State should report on the performance of her own department and officials. For that reason, we on these Benches prefer our own version in Amendment No. 3, which I shall move shortly.
Amendment No. 39, to be moved by the noble Baroness on behalf of the Government, is much more limited. It gives the president the duty of making a report which is based only on the decisions that go to appeal. That is not a proper cross-section of the cases that come before the department. It is as important to monitor the cases which do not go to appeal as it is to monitor those which do. In those circumstances, while we do not seek to oppose Amendment No. 39, we feel unable to give it any positive support.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In speaking to these amendments, it is right to begin by stating that, by the proposals in the Bill on decision-making appeals, we want to change the current complex system so that it is easier for customers and staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, rightly said, we want to get more decisions right first time. Then, when matters go

39
wrong, we want to be able to put them right more quickly. We want to use the system to help more people and not just passively pay the money.
The proposals in the Bill on decision-making and appeals are designed to provide the framework needed for a new, active modern delivery system for social security. However, in achieving such a system, we will also take care to ensure that the fundamental basis of current arrangements will be maintained. Decisions will continue to be taken on the basis of the facts of the case and the application of the law. There will continue to be an independent right of appeal, as there is now. The proposals are about flexibility and achievability, not about reducing rights.
Before I go on to comment on the particular amendments, perhaps I may first express my appreciation that so many of the amendments both from the Official Opposition and from the Liberal Front Bench were tabled early enough to give us a generous amount of time to examine them. That is much appreciated. I wish to express my thanks for that.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, raised a point about the confusing order of the Bill. That concern was expressed by the House when I had to move this as a formal amendment. I tried to explain why; namely, that the topics were to some extent at odds with the issues—in other words, there were two ways of organising the matter. I will certainly do my best to ensure that we are not faced with such a confusing order in future. I take that reprimand.
In this group of amendments we are discussing some very important issues about the way the effectiveness of the new system of decision-making proposed in the Bill will be monitored and reported on to Parliament and the public.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5, moved by my noble friends Lord Evans of Parkside and Lady Turner of Camden. I thank my noble friends for tabling the amendments. They are similar to ones previously tabled in Committee and on Report in another place.
Speakers to those earlier amendments in the other place argued that it was imperative that detailed reports were provided on the success or otherwise of the transfer of decision-making functions to the Secretary of State, and on the quality of decision-making under the new arrangements.
It has always been the intention to do just that, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Keith Bradley, made clear during those earlier debates. We will continue to monitor the quality of decision-making, and the Secretary of State and agency chief executives will issue annual reports on quality standards and the operation of the system.
We had previously taken the view that there was no need for reporting arrangements to be set out on the face of the Bill. However, it is now clear that noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber would welcome a requirement to report to be included on the face of the Bill. We have reflected on this matter and I am happy
40
to give that commitment—namely, that the requirement to have an annual report from the Secretary of State be included on the face of the Bill.
I am therefore pleased to accept in principle the amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Evans of Parkside and Lady Turner of Camden, together with support given by noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber, including the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Dean of Harptree. With the permission of your Lordships, however, we should like to consider further the precise drafting of the amendment, and table a government amendment on Report. In drawing up that amendment, I will of course take full account of your Lordships' views.
It may be helpful at this point if I describe in a little more detail our proposals for monitoring and reporting on the quality of decision-making, so that your Lordships can see how comprehensive our plans are. The Bill introduces a new decision-making system which streamlines the current processes; it is our clear aim that the quality of decisions should improve. As noble Lords have cited, there is some need for improvement to be made. We will monitor the new system to ensure that we achieve improvements in quality, and we will report fully on our efforts to Parliament and to the public.
First, there will be systems in place locally to double-check a sample of first-instance decisions. There will also be central quality assurance teams within the agencies who will be fully independent of local checkers—who will, as it were, check the checkers—and who will report on the standards of the monitoring process to agency chief executives. Those teams will also take a broader view on the standard of decision-making agency-wide.
Monitoring criteria will be important for both local and central checking teams and will be fully agreed with the National Audit Office. That is therefore a further safeguard.
Agencies will set up standards committees which will include external representatives. Those standards committees will consider the results of checking by quality control teams and will prompt any remedial action.
Finally, agencies will have clear performance and quality standards to achieve and will be held firmly to account by the Secretary of State.
I should like to make it clear to the House that it has always been our intention that there should be comprehensive reporting arrangements. In addition to the reports from the Secretary of State—which will, as I say, be on the face of the Bill—and by agency chief executives, there will be the report made annually by the president of the appeals tribunals to the Secretary of State, in accordance with the provisions in Schedule 1, paragraph 9 of the Bill. This will include a section on the quality of decisions made in agencies in cases which subsequently go to appeal, as is made clear in government Amendment No. 39, to which I shall turn shortly.

41
The National Audit Office, the Government's independent watchdog, will also be fully involved. We are discussing with it how its role might be enhanced, particularly in the early stages of the new scheme. It will, where necessary, publish reports or bring matters to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee.
With annual reports from the agency chief executives, an annual report from the Secretary of State on the face of the Bill, annual reports by the president of the appeal tribunals and regular reports by the National Audit Office, I believe there are many assurances in place and that together these will amount to a comprehensive monitoring and reporting structure.
I hope that the firm commitments I have made about monitoring and my proposal to bring forward a government amendment at Report stage on annual reports on quality standards demonstrate that we are determined to improve quality and that we take our accountability to this House and to the public very seriously indeed.
With those assurances and my commitment to return to the House with a government amendment which meets the principle raised, I trust that my noble friend Lord Evans will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
My proposal to return with an amendment at Report will, I trust, meet the concerns which prompted the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to table the first paragraph of their amendment.
The second paragraph of the amendment is designed to probe our intentions with regard to consultation with outside bodies and other organisations on the monitoring criteria to be employed in preparing reports on quality standards. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant outside bodies. As I said a moment ago when outlining our detailed proposals, in setting up monitoring criteria we do intend to consult with relevant bodies. Monitoring criteria will be agreed with the National Audit Office; and the remit of the agency standards committees will be to advise on all aspects of monitoring, including the criteria to be employed. We shall also discuss monitoring arrangements with welfare rights groups. I do not believe that there is need for this commitment to be on the face of the Bill, with lists of bodies set out in regulations.
I believe that the point was made for me by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. We cannot amend regulations, and there is not just a convention but an undertaking—at least, from the official Opposition—not to vote against regulations. Such regulations would have to be displaced by new regulations every time we wished to discuss an issue with a new group which might have come into being since the previous amendments and regulations had been laid. Given the difficulties, I hope that the undertaking we have given to consult—while not wishing to tie our hands to a specified list which cannot be amended because it is through regulations—will enable the Opposition to decide not to proceed with their amendment. The first part is met in the substantive amendment moved by my noble friend and the second part would take us into the area of difficulties explored by the noble Lord. Lord Higgins.
42
I now turn to the government amendment in this group, Amendment No. 39. This amendment puts on the face of the Bill a requirement for the president of appeal tribunals to make a written annual report to the Secretary of State on the standard of appealable Secretary of State decisions coming before the tribunal. It also provides that the Secretary of State shall publish the report. This report will be in addition to, and will complement, the annual report that the Secretary of State will make on quality standards, which is the subject of the amendment we have just discussed.
During the Second Reading debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked why there was no provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on appeals and standards of decision making in the agencies. I subsequently wrote to the noble Baroness suggesting that paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Bill provides for the president of appeal tribunals to supply the Secretary of State with such reports and information as she may require on the functioning of appeal tribunals. This would include information on the quality of those agency decisions seen by tribunals. However, I agreed to consider whether it might be helpful to specify this on the face of the Bill. With this amendment we are responding to the concerns raised at Second Reading.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. For the record, does she appreciate that the presidents of the ITS publish an annual report each year?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. I believe that that is why the Liberal Democrat Front Bench was not persuaded that this was the earth-moving amendment that Members of the Committee might otherwise have believed it to be.
I have outlined the ways in which we intend to ensure thorough monitoring and reporting. We see reports from the presidents of appeal tribunals as a valuable contribution to ensuring that high standards are met. The amendment specifies, on the face of the Bill, in response to a request from the official Opposition, that the president should report on the standards of agency decisions in cases going to tribunals and that the report should be published. That has always been our intention; it continues present practice; and the amendment puts the matter beyond any possible doubt.
We are delighted to respond to Amendment No. 1 and its related amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Evans and Lady Turner, which have been warmly supported in the Chamber. I hope that, with the reassurances and explanations on other amendments, together with Amendment No. 39 which meets concerns raised at Second Reading by the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench, noble Lords will be happy not to pursue their amendments.
Lord Higgins: I was brought up in the House of Commons where, in matters of procedure, the late lain Macleod made the memorable remark, when commenting on a government concession to the opposition, that one should never shoot Santa Claus.

43
Apart from it being unseasonable in any case I certainly would not wish to do that. What one should do, however, is look very carefully at the wording on the wrapping paper. We shall study what the Minister said. Certainly, it seems a very significant move which we would welcome. We shall wish, in particular, to consider between now and Report stage the point she made about consultation with outside bodies. As she said, our amendment was more specific.
Perhaps I may make a final point, given the forthcoming attitude of the noble Baroness. Last week we had a Statement on the Government's proposals for reform of the welfare system and in particular a number of success measures. There was some dispute between the noble Baroness and myself as to the extent to which those could be quantified in particular cases. Will she consider adding to the proposals in the Green Paper the suggestion of quantifying as a success measure the kind of statistic referred to by the noble Baroness who supported this amendment and to which I myself referred? It might be a good idea to adopt the process which the Government have suggested in terms of success measures but to have a quantitative measure against which we could judge the reports which the Minister has kindly said she intends shall be produced by the Secretary of State and the heads of agencies.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a very interesting point. It will not have escaped the noble Lord that, as the Green Paper has already been published, I can hardly add to it at this late stage. I shall consider whether it might be appropriate for the annual reports to have benchmark targets to be aimed at. However, I know from some areas of my experience—for example, in disability benefits—that because of the length of time between the first decision and an appeal, during which time someone may have become physically much worse, a decision on appeal may overturn the decision made at the first tier of decision-making and yet both decisions may be right. The fact that the appeal went against the department in favour of the complainant should not mean that there is an easy read-across to suggest that there was therefore a faulty decision at the point of the adjudication officer's judgment. The issue is clearly more black and white where one is dealing with, say, income support or JSA where a decision may have been faulty. It is not always the case that, when an appeal decision is substituted for an AO's decision, the AO's decision was necessarily wrong. The decision may have been correct at the time and other considerations may come into play.
I shall reflect on the point. There is no intention by government to back away from setting ourselves challenging targets by which we seek to improve the quality of the original decision-making and to measure that improvement.
Lord Evans of Parkside: At the outset of what may be a long voyage to examine this important Social Security Bill, which will affect hundreds of thousands of families in this country in a variety of ways, I am pleased to find considerable support for the broad
44
principle of the amendment tabled by my noble friend and myself. In my experience over many years in the other place I was taught never to look a gift horse in the mouth when the Minister was offering a concession. I therefore thank the Minister for her assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
ADJUDICATION STANDARDS COMMISSIONER
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an Adjudication Standards Commissioner.
(2) The Adjudication Standards Commissioner shall keep under review the exercise by the Secretary of State of the functions transferred to him by paragraph (a) of section I above and in particular the accuracy of decisions made by him or on his behalf under sections 9, 10 and 11 below, and the time within Which such decisions are made.
(3) The Adjudication Standards Commissioner shall report annually to the Secretary of State in the light of the review referred to in subsection (2) above and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of his report before Parliament.
(4) The Adjudication Standards Commissioner shall issue guidance on the law relevant to decisions referred to in subsection (2) above.
(5) The guidance referred to in subsection (4) above shall he available to any person who requests it.
(6) The Adjudication Standards Commissioner shall ensure that officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State in the discharge of his functions under section I above receive suitable training.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Russell and others as well as myself. As everybody knows, the Bill is based on Conservative proposals being implemented by a Labour Government. Not surprisingly therefore it has the broad support of both the Government and the official Opposition Front Benches. However, if I may say so, it is none the better for that. As the presidents of the Independent Tribunal Services for Great Britain and Northern Ireland said in their joint comments on the Bill,
"a Bill which enjoys such hi-partisan support paradoxically needs to be challenged more strenuously in order to test its effects".
I do not in any way belittle the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on behalf of the official Opposition; the great majority of them are well thought out and will be supported by us. Also, I welcome and support the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and other noble Lords. However, the burden of challenging the details of this Bill rests mainly on these Benches and with a Bill as complicated and technical as this one, that burden is a heavy one.
Public criticism of this Bill mainly concentrated on Clauses 70—the abolition of the higher rate for lone parent child benefit—and 72 on the reduction in the period of backdating. In this Committee stage those clauses are a long way down the road. Today we start with Part I which creates major changes in the system

45
of decisions and appeals. Cumulatively, it is fair to say that those changes are at least as important as those in Clauses 70 and 72.
The Government's stated aim is to produce a less complex, more accurate and cost-effective system for making and changing decisions. That is a proposition with which I agree—and one might say: who would not? But in fact many of the proposals seem to us to be unsatisfactory. Some are simply unlikely to achieve the Government's aims; some achieve one aim at undue cost to another; for example, cost-effectiveness may be achieved to the detriment of accuracy. That is illustrated by the proposals on appeal procedures. Some proposals may achieve the aims stated by the Government, but at the cost of other aims which are not included in the list but which everybody recognises as valid. That includes transparency and fairness. A claimant whose claim is refused is entitled to an explanation that he or she can understand and to feel that that claim has been treated and looked at fairly, either at first tier or on appeal.
We are concerned with the proposed removal of the independent oversight of the first-tier decision-making process. We want to ensure that the claimant is given a proper explanation and decision; that at all levels of decision-making all proper factors are taken into account by the decision-maker, whether or not those factors are raised by the claimant; and we want to see a proper complaints procedure.
We are concerned with many of the alterations to the tribunal procedure such as the shortening of the period for appeals, the ending of the requirement for three-person tribunals and the ending of the requirement that one member of the tribunal be legally qualified. We are concerned with enshrining in statute the current practice that an appellant will not be given an oral hearing before the tribunal without a specific request.
The Government propose in Clause 1 to abolish the statutory offices of the adjudication officer or the child support officer. That is an extremely important change. There are arguments with some force in its favour and we do not object to that proposal. We accept it as a proper decision that the Secretary of State, through the agencies which administer benefits or child support, should he directly responsible for first-tier decisions. But the Bill, in removing the statutory offices of adjudication officer or child support officer, abolishes the offices necessarily of chief adjudication officer or chief child support officer. The responsibilities of those officers are transferred to the Secretary of State. In practice, those responsibilities will fall on the chief executive of the agencies which administer benefits or child support.
That increases the importance of having an independent monitoring officer who is not under the control of the Secretary of State or the chief executive. There can be no doubt that adjudication standards are now unacceptably low. The chief adjudication officer's report for 1996–97 found that there were adjudication deficiencies in 45 per cent. of income support cases examined and 37 per cent. of family credit cases. In 40 per cent. of income support cases and 35 per cent. of family credit cases examined, the amount paid was
46
incorrect or doubtfully correct. The chief child support officer reported deficiencies in 57 per cent. of child support cases examined.
It is possible that bringing first-tier decisions in-house will itself improve those standards. We hope so. It is essential to get first-tier decisions right as far as possible. Reviews and appeals cost money, take time and—an important factor—increase the stress on claimants. However, we believe it is wrong to transfer to the agencies both the responsibility for adjudication and for monitoring that adjudication.
The reports of the chief adjudication officer and the chief child support officer have done a great deal to reveal the weaknesses of the existing systems. They also reported on matters such as the effectiveness of the management arrangements for adjudication, on training and on access to advice for adjudication. We believe it is essential that there should be independent monitoring. There is an obvious risk in the agencies monitoring their own standards of adjudication. That was pointed out by the Council on Tribunals in its annual report for 1996–97.
Amendment No. 3 requires the Secretary of State to appoint an adjudication standards commissioner. That commissioner will hold a statutory office independent of the agencies. The adjudication standards commissioner will be concerned to see that decisions are accurate and timely; will be available, as the chief adjudication officer is now, to give guidance on the law and to oversee the training of adjudicators. To quote again from the comments of the presidents of the Independent Tribunal Service:
"once the Chief Adjudication Officer … ceases to exist, there will he no independent means of assessing consistency and reliability of decision-making. If such a system is not established, and it is left to the Chief Executives of the relevant agencies, we fear that it may not achieve the priority it deserves when competing for funds in a pressured business environment. The absence of such a system may actually threaten achievable efficiency at first-tier level".
That is a very powerful criticism and the amendment is intended to meet it.
We warmly welcome the undertakings and explanations given by the Government but their proposals still lack the essential element that the report and standards should be made by someone outside the structure of the Department of Social Security. The noble Baroness referred to annual reports by chief executives, the Secretary of State, the president of the appeal tribunals and the Audit Office. But the first two of those are in-house reports and the last two do not report in either case on the whole picture. We believe that there should be a single officer who can do so. That is why we propose Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: I listened with great care to the points made by the noble Lord in proposing the amendment. As I understand it, the basic object of this part of the Bill is to streamline the proceedings. There is always a trade-off between, on the one hand, streamlining and, on the other hand, achieving an effective system. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the clause, it could not reasonably be regarded as streamlining. What the

47
amendment seeks to do is to introduce an additional tier of decision-taking for assessment of the standard of adjudication.
Having said that, certainly there are points here of considerable importance. In particular there may be some argument on the lines which have been mentioned. If I understand the position correctly, the arrangements announced in the Budget, about which the noble Baroness has written to some of us, will transfer the procedures in some cases from the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue. So one of the points with which we are concerned and to which this amendment would be relevant is the extent to which the Inland Revenue can go ahead correctly. I may have misunderstood the precise point here; if so, I am happy to be corrected. I am not sure whether the Inland Revenue, in its new role as envisaged in the Chancellor's Budget, will come within this process.
I am somewhat surprised by the wording of the amendment. It states:
"The Adjudication Standards Commissioner shall report annually to the Secretary of State in the light of the review referred to in subsection (2) above and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of his report before Parliament".
That is straightforward enough. However, subsection (4) goes on to state:
"The Adjudication Standards Commissioner shall issue guidance on the law relevant to decisions".
I can understand it if the commissioner issued guidance on the law in relation to the reports which had been produced and said that this or that was appropriate in the legal context. But subsection (5) states:
"The guidance referred to in subsection (4) above shall be available to any person who requests it".
My experience with the Child Support Agency at grass roots level suggests that very often someone will be disputing fiercely the decision made in a child support case. If he is suddenly able to go to the adjudication standards commissioner and get legal advice, that, I am sure, would be welcomed by some of my former constituents. But it seems to me to open up an enormous range of problems and probably very considerable expense. Presumably it means that the adjudication commissioner will have to be a lawyer, as I do not see how else he will be able to give legal advice,
"to any person who requests it".
So I hope that in the course of the debate the exact point of this provision will be clarified. It may be that I have totally misunderstood what the noble Lord has in mind.
Overall, my feeling is that the amendment does not introduce sanctions of the kind to which I referred in relation to a previous amendment and it does not seem to take the matter very much further forward. It may well be that, despite the suggestions made by the noble Baroness in response to an earlier amendment, we are making progress and that we may need to make further progress. However, it does not seem to me that this amendment takes us very much further forward.
Earl Russell: I assure the Minister that I am not going to shoot Santa Claus. What she said about
48
bringing in a new amendment was extremely welcome, especially since this is the second sack of unexpected gifts she has brought to us within a week. However, what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said about reading the wrapping paper is also extremely relevant. I have never forgotten the day on which I discovered that both my mother and Father Christmas used wrapping paper that came from W. H. Smith. So, with that remark in mind, I should like to scrutinise these issues a little further.
In this country we do not have separation of powers. The Woolsack, even in the absence of its distinguished occupant, is sufficient testimony to that. But one element of the doctrine of separation of powers which we have always had, and to which we have rightly given very great importance, is the independence of the judiciary. Adjudication is, of its essence, a judicial function. The outward form of Clause 1, directing that the Secretary of State, who is an executive officer, shall be responsible for adjudication, bears an outward appearance of threatening to infringe that principle. We are assured that that is not so. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness at Second Reading. The understanding, as I see it, is that the administration rests with the Secretary of State but the judicial responsibility rests elsewhere. That is why it is crucial that the word "independent" in my noble friend's speech should be somewhere in the amendment which the Minister brings back to us on Report.
There is a strong case which executives have always made for influence on the judicial process. The Star Chamber was not actually an inefficient court. On many occasions it did do justice. There was a powerful case to be made for it, roughly along the lines of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. However, because it allowed an executive presence in judicial decisions, a very few bad decisions in a distinguished record discredited the whole court. One can see why that should have been so.
The Secretary of State here is standing at the very top of a slippery slope. When you are standing at the top of a slippery slope, it is generally considered wise to be roped and belayed. That is why the presence of an independent adjudication standards commissioner who can issue guidance on the law is important. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that this is not so very different from the law reports in The Times, which are available to everyone who wants them and which do not cause very profound administrative problems and have even in the past caused considerable amusement.
This is not such a very startling proposal and it may save us from a good deal of difficulty with the courts later. In fact, a great deal of the Bill is likely to cause problems with the courts not only in this country through judicial review but under the European Convention on Human Rights and through the European Court of Justice. I hope that the Government will think extremely carefully all the way through the passage of this Bill about the way in which the courts may take some of its provisions and that they will not lead the courts into temptation. Taking on board some of the proposals of the amendment in a welcome

49
undertaking to come back with a further amendment on Report would be one way in which the Government could do something to meet us. I hope that the Minister will consider it.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for tabling this amendment, as it gives me the opportunity to explain how we will ensure that decision-making under the new system is of the highest quality. Our proposals will ensure that there are proper arrangements for training decision-makers; for producing clear guidance; for monitoring decisions made under the new arrangements; and for reporting on the quality of decision-making.
Before I continue with the rest of the answer, perhaps I may say as an aside that no decision has yet been made in response to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for information about the Contributions Agency. No decision has yet been made about the implications of moving the agency over to the Inland Revenue, but later this afternoon my noble friend Lord Haskel will be making a statement on that, which may help to address some of the questions.
This new clause seeks to introduce a statutory office-holder—an adjudication standards commissioner. The office-holder would keep the new decision-making process under review and report on the operation of the scheme; issue published guidance on decision-making; and ensure that decision-makers receive suitable training. We aim to ensure that the public have confidence in the integrity and quality of the decision-making system. It may be helpful if I say a little more on the arrangements that we have in hand to meet that aim.
We are all agreed that decisions must be taken fairly and impartially in accordance with the facts and the law. We believe that the best way of ensuring high quality decisions is for agency chief executives to be accountable to the Secretary of State for the decision-making system, and for the individual decisions generated in their agency. Whilst the Secretary of State will remain accountable and responsible for all decisions made on her behalf, I believe that effective decision-making can only be achieved if agency chief executives are given autonomy for all components of the decision-making system.
Agencies have given considerable thought as to how they are to meet their new responsibilities. Decision-makers, first and foremost, need access to accurate guidance that reflects the law. There can be no question of this guidance being written in such a way as to favour administrative convenience. Chief executives will look for impartial advice to the department's professional legal advisers who are experts in administrative and social security law. Agencies will draft guidance based on that legal advice. Agencies will publish the legal guidance together with operational guidance. It will, as now, be available to anyone who wants to see it.
50
Agency chief executives will also be responsible for monitoring and general oversight of the system. They will have clear performance and quality standards to achieve.
We are absolutely committed to ensuring that these internal arrangements provide for quality decisions. There is no question of the quality or integrity of decisions being influenced by operational or financial considerations. The decision-making system and associated monitoring structures will be devised and operated in consultation with outside bodies, and the results will be published for all to see.
There will also be external monitoring of the decision-making system. The Government's external auditor, the National Audit Office, will continue to audit the department's accounts. This will include checking the accuracy of decisions. Decision-making could also, if appropriate, feature as an NAO value for money study. We are talking to the National Audit Office about how its role could be enhanced, particularly in the early stages of running the new system. The president of appeal tribunals will report on the quality of decisions made by agencies for those cases which subsequently go to appeal; and we will be placing this requirement on the face of the Bill.
This new clause seeks to give an adjudication standards commissioner the responsibility for ensuring that decision-makers receive suitable training. I have to say that it would be administratively difficult, in practice, for an independent adjudication standards commissioner, with no direct responsibility for management within the agencies, to adopt such a role, but even if the noble Lords' intention is that their role should be advisory, I still do not believe it is necessary. We already recognise that decision-makers need to be supported by quality training. Agency line managers will have responsibility for both identifying and meeting training needs; and central quality support teams will have a role in commenting on the overall quality of training. We therefore see no need for a separate check of training arrangements.
The new clause also proposes that the adjudication standards commissioner should report annually to the Secretary of State. My honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Bradley, has already given assurances in another place that we will publish information on quality standards, and I am happy to reaffirm this. However, we do not believe that it is necessary for details such as reporting arrangements to appear on the face of the Bill.
We are committed to giving customers accurate, speedy decisions. We will put in place comprehensive training and guidance and will monitor and report on the quality of decisions. We have an impressive battery of measures which will command public confidence. I hope that with these assurances the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I do not think that the Minister has met the force of the argument, which is not just mine but that of the president of the tribunals, that the present

51
arrangements lack an adequate independent element of monitoring. However, in the circumstances, perhaps the best thing that I can do is to wait and see the form of the amendments which the Minister will be tabling later on the subject of the reporting obligations of the Secretary of State and other persons. Therefore, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Use of computers]:
Baroness Anelay of St. Johnsmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 21, leave out from ("made") to end of line 4 on page 2 and insert—

("(a) by an officer of his acting under his authority employing for the purposes of relevant calculations a computer for the operation of which such an officer is responsible: and

(b) in the case of a decision, determination or assessment that may be made or a certificate that may he issued by a person providing services to the Secretary of State, by such a person employing for the purposes of relevant calculations a computer for the operation of which such a person is responsible.").

The noble Baroness said: Clause 2 introduces new powers about how decisions on social security benefits and other business areas are to be made. It allows decisions to be taken not only by officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, but also by computers for which such officers are responsible. It also allows for decisions made by a private sector service provider to be similarly made by computers.
The amendment seeks to remove from the clause the phrase that relates to the making of a decision by a computer and introduces a phrase which allows a computer to be used by persons who are themselves responsible for the decisions taken.
Clause 2, as currently drafted, raises questions of both practice and principle with regard to the use of computers. I am decidedly not trying to be a stick-in-the-mud; nor am I afraid of technical innovation—far from it, I am most glad to exploit all the advantages offered by IT at every turn. Particularly now that we are in opposition, for however short a time that may be, one is very much aware of the need to be able to get at all sources of information. I am one of those Members of this House whose first job when they arrive here is to turn to the Internet, particularly to "Farmers' Weekly Interactive", and to discover, in my guise as spokesman on agriculture, what I ought to know on any particular day. I have no fears about using IT and, as I have said, I am most glad to exploit it.
I believe that we can use information technology effectively in streamlining the welfare system, but that we must do so with caution. If the use of computers can release staff to concentrate their efforts on improving the service to the public, that should be encouraged, but only if we then fully understand—perhaps one should say "compute"—the risks we may be taking along the Way.
When I served as a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to visit local offices during the years
52
in which information technology was introduced to the service on a rolling programme, benefit by benefit. I pay tribute to the staff who made so many adjustments over such a relatively short period. There was much training and heartache because of problems with both hardware and software. They moved from the paper processing of every single change made by the stroke of a pen to the use of screens. My visit to the local office in Toxteth took place on the very day that it went live on the Social Fund computation and the whole system crashed. I hope that it had nothing to do with my visit! We were lucky that the staff were able to cope by reverting to pens and making their own calculations.
I am reminded of a recent visit to Northern Ireland when one of those whose responsibility it was to manage the system commented that to manage it was difficult because the staff simply would not be able to perform the tasks now performed by officers using the screens. Such is the advance that staff in the local DSS offices and benefit agencies have had to achieve in a short time.
I am aware that today the Prime Minister makes speeches about the problems that we may face here and around the world with the arrival of the millennium bug. Press reports have said that he will be referring to potential problems about the payment of benefit in the year 2000 and that that may be disrupted. All of us have read predictions about what may happen at that stage.
Can the noble Baroness provide an assurance that the provisions of Clause 2 will not be enacted until all DSS, and the relevant agency, computers, including all those with which they may be networked—for example, on housing benefit interchange of information—are guaranteed to be millennium compliant and will not fall sick of the millennium bug at the appropriate time?
Clause 2 also raises serious questions of principle. Should a wedge be driven between the concepts of decision and responsibility? One of the achievements of English law is to find means of dealing with decision and responsibility in such a way as always to be able to identify one with the other. Where a decision is made, there the responsibility lies.
The computer can in some extended sense make a decision. We are all aware of that from the number of leaflets that pour through the door reminding us that we may wish to renew a subscription to a particular newspaper or magazine. Certainly, decisions can he made as to when to trip in reminders, but it is only when the computer is correctly programmed that it can carry out a series of calculations or issue forms or reminders at pre-programmed points. A computer cannot be held responsible in layman's terms in a legal sense.
Have the Government fully taken into account the impact that the divorce of decision from responsibility could have on English law? I was interested to read the comments of Mr. Tony Lynes in his paper The End of Independent Adjudication. He says that it may appear unreasonable to object to computer-made decisions. He goes on to ask:
"after all, what could be more independent than a computer?".

53
I notice that the Minister laughs. I agree with her scepticism on this matter. I am glad to see that she exhibits such scepticism. He goes on to say:
"But, of course, someone has to give the computer its instructions".
If I give my computer instructions, when it goes wrong I know that it is my mistake. Who is responsible for programming the computer, and what redress does anyone have if the programme itself is wrong?
Clause 2 does not answer that question but merely provides that an officer of the Secretary of State must be responsible for the operation of the computer, whatever that may mean. How far will the computer's responsibilities extend? Under Clause 10 the Secretary of State may revise her own decisions. Does this mean that one computer will be able to revise the decision of another or even of the same computer? What are the implications of allowing a computer to revise a decision on its own initiative? Where is all of this leading us? Could a future social security Bill provide for appeals to be heard by computer? All of these questions deserve serious consideration in the course of this Bill and will need to be resolved at some stage.
My amendment would not militate against the greater use of computers; far from it. I do not wish it to do so. It specifically permits and encourages such use but seeks to do so in such a way that we do not have to lose either the concept or the reality of having a person involved in the decision who can be held to be responsible for that decision. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I intend to be brief. We fully support the amendment which raises an important matter of principle. We agree with the noble Baroness that computers should be treated as a tool of decision-making and not as the decision-maker itself. I also read and was persuaded by the article written by Tony Lynes to which the noble Baroness has referred. I am very happy to support the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Clause 2 introduces new provisions for how decisions on social security benefits and other business areas may be made. It allows decisions to be made not only by officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State but also by computers for which such officers are responsible. Furthermore, where decisions are to be made by a private sector service provider, these may similarly be made by computers.
It is important to consider the provision in this clause in context. Currently, automated decision-making in the private sector is not unlawful; indeed, it is commonplace in the financial sector where it was pioneered by credit reference agencies. However, in relation to this department the law requires that social security and child support decisions are made by particular officers or by the Secretary of State or by officers acting on her behalf. This has the practical effect of excluding automated decision-making by computer unless the decisions are approved by officials. Hence the need for this clause which removes the anomaly by stating explicitly that decisions may be made by computer.
54
The question is: which decisions? Clearly, there are some kinds of decisions which are not suitable to be made by a computer process. I can reassure the Committee that decisions which require the exercise of discretion or judgment will continue to be made by the department's trained staff. Examples of decisions requiring the exercise of discretion may be where there is a question whether for benefit purposes a couple are living together as husband and wife, or whether a claimant has deprived himself or herself of capital, or whether a 16 or 17 year-old would suffer hardship if refused benefit.
However, there are significant benefits to be gained for customers and staff from greater automation where computers can be programmed to apply a series of tests to factual data in order to produce a consistent result: in other words, the clause enables us to make the best use of new technology. At present staff working in the various agencies have access to central computer systems via terminals on their desks. Staff make decisions and input information to the computer. However, modern computer systems are capable of using information already held and once programmed with the rules are capable of applying those rules automatically without the need for human intervention. They cannot make discretionary decisions: they will he made by staff.
I give some examples where computers will appropriately make a decision. I take the field of child benefit. At present, for most child benefit and one-parent benefit applications, information is input to the computer. The system calculates awards and generates payments. The computer produces a schedule listing all of the awards that have been calculated over a given period of time and the adjudication officer signs to authorise all the awards on the schedule. While in theory the adjudication officer is deemed to be making a decision on each individual case, the reality is that there is no individual consideration in the vast majority of cases, of which there are nearly I million every year. The computer system calculates and awards benefit without any human consideration.
Making provision in the Bill for automated decision-making will legitimise what happens at present. They will be able to calculate and award benefit in such straightforward cases without the need for human intervention.
Clearly the initial factual data need to be accurately complete, and checks will be made to ensure that. With greater support from IT, agency staff will he able to concentrate on ensuring that all the necessary information and evidence which the claimant has supplied is collated and checked. That will lead to improvements in speed and quality, and should allow staff to refocus their efforts on overall customer services.
Where decisions are made by an automated decision-making process, they will still be made in accordance with the facts and the law, and the customer's appeal rights will not be affected. The Secretary of State and departmental accounting officers will continue to be accountable to Parliament for all

55
decisions made on their behalf, including those made by a computer. It is people, not machines or processes, which have responsibility and accountability for outputs and outcomes. Neither agency staff nor Ministers will hide behind any excuse which suggests that it was the computer's fault, and has nothing to do with them.
I understand the concerns that lie behind the amendment and that it is novel for this Committee to be asked to endorse the specific use of technical equipment which we all take for granted in many other spheres of activity. However, I am sure that, on reflection, the Committee will appreciate the extent to which the amendment would inhibit the agencies in their objective of improving service delivery. It would substantially hinder our programme to modernise social security by retaining unnecessary breaks in our business processes.
The amendment would mean a missed opportunity. It would prevent us from taking the organisation forward to a new level of efficiency and customer service. I can assure the noble Baroness that the system will not be brought into use until it is millennium compliant. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: The only part of that answer by which I was somewhat reassured was the very last part. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that the provisions of the clause will not be introduced until the equipment is proved to be millennium compliant.
I hope that the DSS and the agencies will lead the way, because I am aware that other government departments are having difficulty in meeting the requirements. The Department of Health medical services have already said that there could be severe breakdown problems for their services in 2000.
I am grateful to the Minister for defining the different areas in which computers will be used to make decisions and other areas where those decisions will be left to the officers. I shall obviously wish to read carefully her remarks in Hansard to see how far her answers meet my concerns. She was almost beginning to persuade me but I was somewhat wary when she referred to the success rate of the private sector with reference to credit reference agencies. I have had long service with the CAB and I have seen some of the heart-breaking, heart-rending results of the misapplication of information through those agencies. So I was a little put off at that stage from my initial welcome for what she said. As I said, I shall of course read most carefully in Hansard what she said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Use of information]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dean of Harptree: Before we part with Clause 3, will the Minister clarify some points? The clause relates to the use of information. As I understand
56
it, information held by the department in relation to its social security, child support or war pensions functions can be used for other purposes. Will the Minister tell the Committee what those other purposes might be? I realise that the Minister probably cannot answer that question off the cuff, but I wonder what those other purposes might be.
May I also have an assurance that the clause would relate only to functions within the department, and that it would not stretch, for example, to the Inland Revenue? I realise that those are detailed points of which the Minister has had no notice. If she cannot answer off the cuff, perhaps she would be good enough to write.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If I mislead the noble Lord, I shall of course write to him, and the official spokesmen. However, my understanding is that this builds on the provisions of the previous Social Security Act which was brought forward by the Opposition when they were in government, which allows for data matching to ensure that information is not fraudulent or erroneous. It is data matching which would allow us successfully, I hope, to increase our efforts to combat fraud, which we all want to see.
The question of the Inland Revenue may be one to which we should want to return on some future occasion when we may be introducing legislation associated with the CSA, when obviously such questions will be discussed. My understanding is that at the moment the provision applies, on the one hand, within the DSS, and the DSS and local authorities on the other. If I have any additional information to give to the noble Lord, I shall of course write to him.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Decisions by Secretary of State]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall provide an explanation in writing, or other medium if that is more appropriate, of a decision which he makes under subsection (1) to any person who is directly affected by it, including a claimant for a relevant benefit.
(1B) For the avoidance of doubt. the explanations provided under subsection (1A) shall be sufficiently full to enable a person affected by it to decide whether to apply for a review under section 10, 11 or 38 below, or make an appeal under section 13 below.").
The noble Earl said: The purport of the amendment is to require that reasons shall be given for judicial decisions. The giving of intelligible reasons is a vital part of the doing of justice. There was once a judge who had the same facts before him at an interval of 20 years. Counsel, who was aware of that, had unwisely advised his client that he was certain of success. Of course he lost the case. Counsel, white in the face and stammering, said, "But these facts have been before you before, my Lord". The judge said, "I know, but they do not appear to me now as they appeared to appear to me then".
If the judge did not have good reasons for that change of opinion, he is likely to have attracted a considerable amount of interest in the Court of Appeal. The giving of reasons is of course essential for discovering whether there is any ground for the laying of an appeal. It is therefore essential to the controlling of judicial power.

57
It is also of course essential in making the thing intelligible to the claimant, because if the claimant does not understand what is going on, as is sadly too often the case, it encourages precisely that atmosphere of passivity in the face of an omnipotent welfare system, which the Green Paper expressed the Government's desire to bring to an end. That is a laudable ambition, but making the judicial processes intelligible to those who are subject to them is an essential part of doing that.
I have a great deal of material here that I am sorry not to have been able to introduce on the previous amendment, but one cannot really say the same things twice, because of course reasons for decisions are often conveyed in the form of a computer-generated letter. That letter is itself often extremely hard to understand and extremely short on information.
I have a few examples. One is of someone who was told four different levels of benefit over a period of four months. The communication said only:
"This is to do with other money which you have coming in".
That is a statement not of sufficient precision to be particularly verifiable. The local CAB tried to work out what was going on and was told by a Benefits Agency official that one of the items was probably due to someone pressing the wrong key in the office—that is the computer again—and that she did not have enough information to verify the rest.
In another case someone was told that they could not have a jobseeker's allowance because:
"the law says we cannot pay you".
That is a case of we are here, because we are here, because we are here. I cannot see how that decision could have been verified, checked, or examined on the information available.
Perhaps I may give another example that is equally confusing. The letter states:
"I am sorry to tell you that we cannot pay you jobseeker's allowance from 3/10/97. This is because there is a change in the contribution information that we used to assess your claim. We have used the tax years ending 5th April 1992 and 5th April 1993 to assess your claim".
I do not know whether the Minister got to the bottom of that—she possibly did—but I doubt that many other people did. The purpose of the letter was to inform the contributor that his entitlement to contributory jobseeker's allowance had run out and that he was going on to income-jobseeker's allowance. However, there is nothing in the letter from which that could have been deduced by the claimant or anyone else. Therefore, as a reason, it falls short.
My final example is the computer-generated letter. It relates to someone being told that she had been overpaid £295.80 but was also entitled to arrears of £373.50. The letter stated:
"We will owe you £77.70".
But the computer ran and the letter continued:
"Please pay hack the £295.80 as soon as you can. If we do not hear from you within 28 days we may begin civil proceedings".
Computers really do need controlling. If I had received that letter I should have been in some doubt about what to do with it. We need proper, intelligible reasons both
58
for the citizen's rights of the claimants and for the judicial accountability at appeal of those who made the decisions. This is a vital part of the controlling of power. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I support the amendment which also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Higgins. I do not wish to pre-empt what may be said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. The amendment seeks to establish a minimum standard which all notifications of decisions must reach. It requires that the explanations must be comprehensive enough to enable the claimant to decide whether to apply for a review or to appeal. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave us prime examples of where things can go wrong. I shall take a leaf out of his book and will not seek to repeat all that has been said. I merely endorse his comments.
It seems right that on grounds of natural justice someone who is refused benefit should then be entitled to know exactly why it has been refused. It sounds exactly like the kind of amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, would have supported when she was on these Benches. Indeed, I heard the noble Baroness say just that on many occasions. I am sure that it is fair to quote exactly what a Minister said, as a noble Lord or noble Baroness would quote Members on these Benches, too.
When the matter was debated in Committee in another place, the Minister claimed that the Government will specify in regulations that claimants must he notified fully and properly of decisions regarding their claims and that regulations will specify how that should be done. The Minister in another place acknowledged that the Government have an extra duty with regard to that because the Bill imposes on claimants a much greater responsibility to provide evidence and information before their claims will be processed and before the date from which benefit may be paid is to he established. That is exactly the point I am making. The Bill requires extra diligence on the part of the claimant; extra diligence which I do not oppose. However, that extra diligence is specified on the face of the Bill. Why should we then not put on the face of the Bill the quid pro quo; the extra diligence of the Government in explaining decisions to the claimants?
In Committee in another place, my honourable friend Mr. Burns pointed out the great difference between primary and secondary legislation. Today, my noble friend Lord Higgins referred to that matter. We need to keep it at the forefront of our minds when determining whether to relegate certain decision to secondary legislation. Secondary legislation by its very nature cannot properly be scrutinised by either House. Indeed, in another place some secondary legislation may be taken on the Floor of the House, hut, as noble Lords will be aware, as a proportion of the number of statutory instruments taken in any one year that is minimal. We in this House may discuss such matters, but there are some self-imposed inhibitions on these Benches as to what we do about them in regard to voting.

59
I hope that the Minister will not tell us that the best way forward is simply to plough ahead with regulations on this matter because that would be contrary to what every Opposition spokesman from the noble Baroness's party has been telling the country and this House for the past 18 years. My views on the matter have been consistent. When I was a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee, when my party was in Government I expressed concern about the use of regulations. I do so now and I shall continue to do so.
The report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee makes it clear that the large number of delegated powers in the Bill means that we should approach it with caution. In paragraph 1, the committee points out that:
"The Bill constitutes an overhauling of much of the social security system, and the consequence is that arrangements which are well known and seen as fair will come to an end. For this reason, it is important to consider in some detail the regulation-making powers which will result in new and as yet untested arrangements".
I hope that the Minister will be able to reaffirm the fact that she recognises the difference between primary and secondary legislation, as clearly as she did in Opposition, and that she will accept the amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I would not presume to embellish a case which has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I venture to support it. There are three reasons why there is much to be said for having to give reasons. First, as a discipline, it assists those who have to take the decision. If you have to give reasons why you are doing something you have to think your way through the problem. You have to ensure that the conclusions follow from the premises and that the whole thing hangs together.
Furthermore, it is extremely good discipline to find yourself explaining an issue in a way which can be followed by those who do not necessarily share your technical knowledge. For 26 years in another place, I tried to test everything that I did by asking myself the question, "Can I explain this at ten o'clock on a Saturday evening in Rowley Labour Club?". Frequently I would have to do so and if I could not I thought about it again. That is the first reason why I believe that the amendment will improve the quality of decisions if we require those who make them to explain them.
Secondly, reasons help the claimant to understand what is happening. If the decision is right it is much better that the claimant should know clearly that it is right and why, if only because that may prevent many totally unmeritorious appeals. One of the difficulties which the ITS must cope with relates to appeals which have no prospect of success, but which are brought because the right decision has not been explained to the claimant. If the decision is wrong the claimant and those advising him will be able to see the reasoning. They will be able to see that the argument is wrong and point to where it is wrong. That will save them and everyone else a great deal of time and enable them clearly to present a letter of appeal and the case.
60
Thirdly, it is a great advantage for those who finally have to adjudicate on the appeal. Those who adjudicate frequently have the papers beforehand, although not invariably these days, and that is a matter which we may debate on some other occasion. But if you have the papers before the hearing of an appeal and you have before you set out clearly the reasons for the decision, you can see whether it seems persuasive. You will obviously have to hear the arguments. Someone may point out something that you have overlooked. But you may say, "That looks right to me", or you may say, "No, they have gone wrong here and I can put my finger on precisely where they have gone wrong". That will save an enormous amount of time at the hearing.
As I understand it, the whole purpose of the Bill is to try to save time and resources at the appeal hearings. Therefore I hope that when my noble friend replies she will at least agree with the principle behind the amendment and that those who take decisions should give clear and comprehensive reasons for those decisions. I hope that she will go on to say—although I see that it is a separate argument—that that should appear on the face of the Bill.
Those of us who have been in government know that when you are in government you tend to be rather more resistant to things appearing on the face of Bills and prefer to reserve them to secondary legislation than is the case when you are on the Back Benches or Opposition Benches. However, I hope my noble friend is persuaded also in that regard.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): This amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide an explanation, in writing or by some other means, of a decision to any person directly affected by it. It also requires the explanation to be sufficiently full to enable the recipient to decide whether to apply for a revision, supersession, or Social Fund review, or an appeal.
I agree entirely with the comments made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell when he set out the three reasons behind this amendment. It is important to improve the quality of decisions. It is important—indeed, essential—that claimants understand decisions. I accept that it is a clear advantage to those who are charged with the burden of adjudicating on appeals.
It will be apparent from what I have just said that, while I understand and sympathise with the thinking behind the amendment, I hope that I can explain why I do not believe that this is the right way forward. In other words, there is not an objection to the concept behind the amendment but rather an objection to the means of achieving it. It is the last point made by my noble and learned friend which I address as to whether it should be on the face of the Bill or dealt with in regulations.
Clause 13(5) of the Bill requires that persons with a right of appeal be given such notice of their decision and right of appeal as prescribed in regulations. It is our intention to use the regulation-making power in that

61
subsection to ensure that customers are notified fully and properly of decisions on their claim. If we have not made that sufficiently clear up to now then I accept that that was remiss of us, but that issue has never been in doubt. Of course, customers must understand why decisions have been taken and what their responsibilities are. We want them to be able to play a more active role in future. So our side of the equation is that we must do more to ensure that the way in which we notify customers is clear and informative.
I pause there to comment on the examples given by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is accepted that we have been inadequate on occasions in the past and it is accepted that improvements are essential, particularly if this new regime is to achieve its objective. There is no doubt that there is definite room for improvement, and single-status decision-makers and outcome decisions provide the opportunity for those improvements.
Outcome decisions will place the onus on clients to dispute an aspect or aspects of a decision which they believe to be wrong. However, to enable them to do that they must have better, clearer explanations of decisions. The explanation which they receive will make it clear what factors were considered in reaching the decision, thereby enabling them to identify whether there is truly something which would justify taking further action.
As I said, it is essential that we notify customers in a clear and informative way of the decision which has been taken. We must also tailor the way in which we explain matters to the needs of particular customers.
We shall need to give explanations in a permanent medium and the majority will continue to receive explanations in writing. But there may be issues, for example about non-Braille reading blind people, where another medium would be more appropriate. As we look to the future we shall wish to make greater use of new technology in all our communications.
By offering an improved service and improving the structure and content of our written notices, we shall aim to help customers to be better able to exercise their choices; to seek a revision of a decision from the agency; or to pursue an appeal to an independent tribunal.
As I have said, I accept that there is room for improvement, as the noble Earl has clearly illustrated. But we believe that all those provisions are more appropriate to secondary legislation. Perhaps I might take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about why there are such wide-ranging regulation-making powers in the Bill. The aim of the proposals is to introduce further flexibility in handling social security matters. That would be limited if the detailed proposals were set out in primary legislation. The regulation-making proposals have been scrutinised by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and it has commented on them. My noble friend Lady Hollis will deal later with some aspects of those comments.
In drafting the new legislation, we have tried to strike a balance by setting out a framework of rights and responsibilities in the Bill and leaving the detail to secondary legislation and guidance so that the
62
department is in a position to respond to change over time and to incorporate lessons gained from practical experience. I hope that I have explained the position to the noble Earl, the noble Baroness and my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. With those explanations, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for a great deal of what he said. I am grateful to him for what he said about Braille and I am grateful to him in particular for his admission that things have been going wrong. There rests between us only the final point touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in a speech which I thought had very great force; that is, the question of the face of the Bill.
I wonder quite how well every person who works in a benefit office knows every regulation which comes out of the Department of Social Security. I am sure that there are not many who do. I wonder also whether the method of regulation-making which tends to go for a process of total enumeration and always forgets some categories is precisely the right vehicle for an obligation which should be expressed in general terms and be capable of being applied to situations which have not been foreseen.
But since I shall be returning to the regulation-making power and its limitations on Amendment No. 9, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment now and return to the issue of regulations on Amendment No. 9 and no doubt on many other occasions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 29, after ("138(1)(a)") insert ("or (2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment simply ensures that the current rights of appeal against decisions about cold weather payments and winter fuel payments are maintained. Unfortunately, reference to those payments was omitted from the list of relevant benefits in Clause 9. Indeed, that may be an illustration to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is not only in regulations that omissions are made. Clause 13 uses the list to define which decisions may be appealed. Without the amendment, appeal rights would be lost for these payments. The amendment will correct that error and preserve the appeal rights. I trust that Members of the Committee will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
DECISIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE: SUPPLEMENTARY
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in such manner as is prescribed, inform with sufficient particularity a person wishing to make a claim for a relevant benefit what information and evidence is required to support the claim.
(2) Where the Secretary of State makes a decision awarding a relevant benefit, the claimant shall he entitled to payment from no later than the date when the claim for it was made.
(3) For the purpose of subsections (1) and (2) above, "relevant benefit" has the same meaning as in section 9 above.").

63
The noble Earl said: I promised to return to the issue of regulations. The amendment now before the Committee says that the Secretary of State must tell any person who is making a claim what information and evidence is required to support such a claim. It also stipulates that when the Secretary of State,
"makes a decision awarding a relevant benefit".
the payment should begin from a date,
"no later than the date when the claim for it was made".
The amendment would reverse the onus of proof regulations which came into force in October 1997. The effect of those regulations was that, if evidence was supplied within one month, the claimant got the benefit from the date of the claim. However, if the evidence took longer to come in than one month, the benefit started from the date when the evidence was submitted. It was held that the purpose of this was to give claimants an incentive to submit information rapidly.
The point about benefits is that if a person has no other means of support—and normally that applies to a claimant for means-tested benefit—he or she needs that money urgently and instantly. People do not need any further incentive to submit a claim urgently. In those regulations, which this amendment would revoke, it was recognised that there were certain cases in which this requirement would apply unjustly. So the regulations attempted, by the usual regulation method of total enumeration, to list all the cases in which exemption from the requirement to supply information within one month would be justified. There was an exemption for those who had a physical, mental, learning or communication difficulty in cases where it was not reasonably practical for someone else to assist them. However, the list left out a possibility which is quite likely to arise: namely, that people in such a situation might not know that they require assistance. I have in mind, for example, the person who did not put in a claim for a very long time because she was in a mental hospital, under another name and in another part of the country. How could she possibly have known that she required assistance? Indeed, that is an actual case which comes from the CAB in Richmond.
The list also leaves out, for example, ordinary illness. It leaves out undiagnosed depression, which is one of the commonest reasons for people who should have done something not doing anything about it. Above all, it leaves out the one thing that the department always claims for itself when it is taking powers by regulation—the final category of, "some other reason why". I have never known a regulation from the Department of Social Security regarding taking powers which it did not specify at the end of the reasons why it might use such powers, the phrase: "some other reason why".
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the department can take powers which it may need for, "some other reason why", claimants may be entitled to make a late claim for, "some other reason why". For example, someone may have been staying with relatives at the other end of the country; or, indeed, there may
64
have been a strike in the local post office. I have received practically no post for a week now for that very reason. That is why it is on my mind.
I believe that a general entitlement would be rather better than this attempt to enumerate every possible reason in regulations and, necessarily, missing a great many of them. That is why regulations are always capped by regulations and by other regulations on top of them. Therefore, Ministers become, as I once put it, "piddlers" as garages would say: always topping up the radiator with a little bit of water. One cannot possibly enumerate all the cases. As one cannot do so, regulation is often not the best method. So I believe that a general entitlement would work a great deal better. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: The proposed new clause seeks to place new statutory obligations on the Secretary of State to inform claimants of evidence requirements and to award benefit from the date when benefit was claimed, regardless of when supporting evidence is provided. However, before addressing the amendment, I hope that I am not seen as a "piddler"; indeed, I have never been described as one until today. Like the noble Earl. Lord Russell, we do not want people to lose benefit to which they are entitled. However, we believe that customers should have clear responsibility for making claims and providing basic information in support of them. They should be able to understand what is expected of them and the implications of their failure to do what is necessary. We believe that the best way to achieve this is through agency communications and procedures, not through regulations.
Perhaps I may pause here and deal with one of the points made by the noble Earl about people who are suffering from incapacity and who are, therefore, unable to provide the necessary information. The measures that we propose will not penalise those who cannot provide the necessary information—for example, because they have physical or learning difficulties or because the information is unavailable. The claim forms have been simplified and clarified so as to ensure that those who are able to help themselves do so.
We do ensure that customers know what is expected of them. Income support and jobseeker's allowance claim forms have been revised to show what evidence is required and when it should be provided. These changes are important to clarify roles and responsibilities for clients and staff alike. Claim forms for other benefits already request the required information, and we will be looking to improve these forms further to reflect the changes made to the income support and jobseeker's allowance claim forms. There are exemptions in the current regulations, as referred to by the noble Earl, to protect vulnerable groups. In particular, certain people who have genuine difficulty in obtaining information are not required to do so. That will continue under the new arrangements.
I believe it is right that people play an active role in enabling their benefit to be correctly determined. But, importantly, without the right evidence it is simply not possible to reach proper decisions and put the right

65
payments into effect. It is more helpful to make customers aware of what is needed of them so that they can get their entitlement paid promptly.
I turn to the drafting of the amendment now before the Committee. Subsection (2) of the amendment could lead to anomalies. There are many circumstances in which we encourage people to apply for benefits early. For example, retirement pension can be claimed up to three months before retirement age is reached, although it is not paid until the date of retirement. If this amendment were adopted and the date of claim were always the date of payment, we might find that payment of benefit is allowed where there is no entitlement. Similarly, claims are often made in advance by people who have left work and have received wages in lieu of notice, so that benefit can be paid promptly when the period covered by their wages ends.
Under this amendment benefit would appear to be payable at once, although there would be no entitlement. If this amendment were passed, the only practical solution would be to stop taking claims early, which could in turn result in delaying payments to customers and cause potential hardship. I am sure that that is the last thing the Committee would wish. There are already provisions to ensure that people receive benefit from the appropriate date of their entitlement. I assure the Committee that we shall not disturb those in any way. I invite the noble Earl—with such assurances that he takes from these comments—to withdraw the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Had I been minded to press this amendment his comments on the proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment and its drafting would have persuaded me not to do so. Nevertheless I think there is a case here to be considered. I was, of course, aware of the exceptions that he outlined. However, the difficulty with these exceptions for vulnerable people is that they must be claimed, which means of course that it is precisely those people who most need to do so who are least likely to be able to claim an exception. Let us consider, for example, a schizophrenic who fails to take his or her medicine. It is almost impossible to persuade such a person to do anything whatsoever.
Let us consider also the case to which I referred of undiagnosed mental illness, especially depression, and the possibility of other serious impediments which are not mentioned. For example, there is no mention of having to attend funerals perhaps in other parts of the country or even in other countries. There will be many more reasons for late claims than any regulation can possibly allow for. Putting the burden on the claimant to make a claim who is already vulnerable and already in difficulties, will mean that those who are least entitled to the exception are most likely to get it. I wonder whether that is quite just or particularly effective. I hope the Government may think further about this. For the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Revision of decisions]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 6. line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) When considering whether to make a decision under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consider any issue which appears to him to be relevant to the claim, so however that he shall not revise the decision in question so as to terminate an award of benefit or reduce its amount unless he is satisfied that it was given in ignorance of, or was based on a mistake as to, some material fact, or was erroneous in point of law.
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), "relevant benefit" has the same meaning as in section 9 above.").
The noble Lord said: At present Clause 10(2) provides that in making a decision to revise an earlier decision,
"the Secretary of State need not consider any issue that is not raised by the application".
We have tabled this amendment to seek to remove that exemption for the Secretary of State—or, in practice of course, the adjudicator—to make sure that the adjudicator is bound to take into account any relevant issues whether or not they are raised on the application. It is surely a basic principle that decisions should be correct as far as possible. If there is an application for revision of an earlier decision, surely it should be the duty of the adjudicator to take into account any issue which he or she thinks is relevant.
I recognise that there may be some problems if the adjudicator is a computer. Nevertheless it is surely not beyond the ability of computer programmers nowadays to programme the computer to identify circumstances where relevant issues that might be raised on the application have not been raised, and therefore alert the computer's "minder" to the need to look into further aspects of the case. There is a principle of civil law that an appellate court is not bound to consider a point of law raised for the first time on appeal, but has a discretion whether or not to do so. But this of course is not an appeal; it is a revision of the original decision. In those circumstances all the circumstances which gave rise to the original decision, or which might indicate that it is wrong, should surely be considered. It is wrong to apply to the adjudication procedures the strict rules governing appeals in civil actions where both parties are likely to be represented.
Applicants are unlikely to know much about social security law. They will certainly know less than the adjudicator, whether or not the adjudicator is a computer. No doubt if there is a serious relevant issue of which the adjudicator is aware, the adjudicator will raise it. But why should the adjudicator not be bound to do so? Why should it simply be left to the adjudicator's discretion, recognising, of course, that the adjudicator cannot raise an issue of which he or she is not aware?
The amendment also proposes that, first, a downward revision of the original award should be possible only where the earlier decision is plainly incorrect; that is, based on a wrong view of the facts or law, and, secondly, that it should not be possible to revise a decision downwards just on the exercise of a discretion where the revising adjudicator disagrees with the original adjudicator's exercise of that discretion. It is entirely wrong that in such cases there should be any

67
question of the recovery of an over-payment made on the basis of the original decision. This might arise unless there is a regulation to prevent that happening.
In those circumstances I hope that the Minister will explain why it is thought necessary that the adjudicator should be given the power not to take into account relevant issues simply on the grounds that they are not raised on the application. For my part I find it extremely difficult to see why there should not be such a duty. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: I welcome the opportunity presented by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in setting down this amendment as it enables me to explain our thinking in an area where the Government's intentions are clearly causing concern, not only to the noble Lord. I am aware that other members of the public have expressed similar concerns about this matter.
As the noble Lord has pointed out, the amendment would do two things. First, it would reintroduce, in statute, the concept of formal grounds for revision where an award was to be terminated or reduced. It would also move away from concentration on that part of a decision which is disputed or which appears to be wrong to the position where undisputed aspects of a decision must be revisited.
The amendment goes to the heart of our proposals on improving customer services. Services which simplify complicated, bureaucratic processes, which reduce delays and which cut out waste are central to the Government's welfare proposals and result in more efficient, customer focused services. Clause 10 is a key component of those proposals. It is about revising decisions which appear to be wrong. I think we would all agree that this should be a simple, easily understood process. Yet current law requires customers to seek review by means of an application in writing to an adjudication officer, stating the grounds of the application. That is neither simple nor easily understood. Customers are constrained by a complex legal framework set out in statute and with rules which differ from benefit to benefit and from agency to agency.
In future our approach will achieve two things. First, it will make the claimants' task easier. They will need only to say in their own terms what it is they do not like about a decision. They will not have to translate their objection into one of the more formal grounds. Members of the Committee with experience of these matters will agree that the requirement to set out grounds for a review can cause problems at present. For example, when does a change of medical opinion amount to a relevant change of circumstances? Sometimes it is not easy for the expert to interpret these matters and it is certainly not easy for the average claimant.
Secondly, our approach makes the best use of limited resources. By focusing on the issue that is being queried cases will be dealt with more efficiently. When a claimant writes in to query a decision, agency staff will not have to look at every aspect of a claim. Their time will be better spent by focusing on the issue that has been raised and moving quickly on to the next case.
68
In the long run, the time saved should lead to a more comprehensive and better service for all claimants.
When reconsidering a decision under this clause it is entirely reasonable that there should be no obligation for the decision-maker to consider the entire matter afresh. Customers should play an active part in identifying and voicing their concerns. This will enable decision-makers to focus on the issues raised by the customer and place the responsibility for reporting changes and disputing decisions firmly with customers. I stress that there is nothing in our proposals to prevent the investigation and correction of errors which have not been raised by the claimant.
Dealing with the point raised by the noble Lord, it could be argued that every aspect of the decision was relevant. It would be a waste of time and effort to re-address every single aspect of a decision, even where there was no question of it being likely to change.
Clause 10(2) allows the decision-maker to take a wider look at any decision where he or she thinks it is appropriate. In other words, decision-makers will be free to reconsider any aspect of the application, whether or not it is raised by the customer, if they believe there are other errors. It would be unreasonable to ignore a clear error solely because it had not been raised by the customer—this would simply create problems for the future—but what we do not want is an automatic opening up of every aspect of the dispute in every case. Your Lordships would find that equally imprudent.
In the second part of the amendment the noble Lord appears to want the more straightforward approach to revising decisions to be used only when it results in an increase in benefit—not where the benefit is reduced or terminated. I fully appreciate the noble Lord's concerns. Changing benefit awards—whether upwards or downwards—must not be done at the whim of decision-makers; there must be good reasons. Customers and other users of the benefit system would quickly lose confidence in it if decisions were seen to be taken in an arbitrary manner.
That will not be the case. As now, all decisions will continue to be made on the basis of the facts and the law. Regulations will contain the grounds for a decision to be changed, and detailed guidance, which will be published, will include examples to help agency staff, claimants and their advisers alike.
Customers can be assured that before any decision is revised there will have been a thorough examination of all the relevant issues. Constraints against "whimsical" or arbitrary decisions will continue to be an integral part of the legal framework for revising decisions. Our approach simply allows that process to be easier for claimants and staff alike to understand.
I hope with this explanation that the noble Lord will understand why the amendment cannot be accepted and I would invite him to withdraw it.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation.

69
We do not oppose Clause 10 and give a warm welcome to any proposal for simplification. In particular, we are pleased to hear that the claimants will be entitled to have a decision revised simply on the basis of saying that they do not like that decision.
The noble Lord then went on to say that "customers"—an expression which I do not like—should focus their own application. That is inconsistent with the idea that they only have to say that they do not like the decision. Another problem is that the claimant or customer might be unable to focus the application without help, which is difficult to obtain.
I do not intend to press the matter further this evening and I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I am not altogether happy with the answer of the noble and learned Lord. We do not propose that there should be anything in the nature of a total re-investigation every time there is a revision. It should be the duty of the adjudicator not simply to take an application at face value but to think as far as possible whether there are issues which are likely to arise and have not been raised. We are only asking that the adjudicator considers an issue which appears to him to be relevant to the claim. So he must be aware of the issue and must think it relevant. If those two conditions are satisfied, there is a case for saying that the adjudicator "must" and not merely "may" take those things into account.
I shall read in Hansard what the noble and learned Lord has said. For the time being, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 23, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Where an application has been made under subsection (1), for the purpose of any rule as to the time allowed for bringing an appeal, the decision in question shall he treated as made on the date it is revised or the date the Secretary of State notifies the claimant of his refusal to revise.").
The noble Lord said: Here again we are looking at a matter under Clause 10. Subsection (5) says:
"Where a decision is revised under this section, for the purpose of any rule as to the time allowed for bringing an appeal, the decision shall be regarded as made on the date on which it is so revised".
So far so good, but that leaves a lacuna because what is to happen if the decision is that the original decision is not to be revised? We seek to clarify when the time limit for appeal starts running where the original decision is not revised.
The time limit should run from the date of the Secretary of State's decision on the application to revise, whether the decision is to revise or not to revise. In another place the Government said that this was unnecessary because, if a decision was not revised, a claimant would still have one month to appeal from the date of that decision. It is not clear that that is in fact the effect of Clause 10(5) as it stands. As a lawyer, I would expect a judge to hold that subsection (5) does not apply where the original decision is not revised and that the time in those cases runs from the original decision. That point needs clarification.
70
The time should run also from the date of notification, not from the date of the decision. The regulations should provide for a presumption, in the usual way that notification has been received on the next working day after posting if the notification is sent by post. That is a technical matter.
I hope that the point about the running of time for an appeal, or where there is an application for revision which is rejected, can be clarified.
Lord Hardie: As the noble Lord has said, he is rightly concerned about the claimant's right of appeal once the Secretary of State has dealt with an application for a decision to be revised.
There are three possible situations. The first is where the Secretary of State actually refuses to act on the application because she considers that it is without foundation—that is, that the reasons provided are such that there is no question of the decision being revised. A ludicrous example would be where someone applied for extra benefit for their pet cat or budgerigar. Clearly this is meaningless in benefit terms and the applicant should not expect to receive consideration. This refusal to act on the customer's application will not be a decision under Clause 10(1). Therefore it will not carry a right of appeal under Clause 13(1). Of course, I can reassure the Committee that the claimant will still have the right of appeal against the original decision. Some claimants may have less time in which to appeal because of the time that has to be taken to notify them of the Secretary of State's refusal to act on their application. We intend to make provision in regulations to allow such claimants a reasonable time to lodge an appeal.
The second situation is where the Secretary of State acts on the application but does not change the award. This would happen where the claimant raises a point of substance which requires the Secretary of State to reconsider her decision, but it transpires that it does not affect the amount of the award. This action would generate a new outcome decision, and the claimant would have a month to dispute or appeal against the new decision. For example, a claimant may notify the agency of the birth of a child. This would result in an increase in income support. At the same time, the claimant's part-time earnings increase, which would result in a reduction in income support. If those changes cancel each other out, the net result would be that the benefit remains the same. But there would have been two changes of circumstances which would have required the Secretary of State to reconsider and revise her decision.
The third situation is where the Secretary of State acts on the application and changes the award. Again, this would generate a new outcome decision with a new dispute period with a fresh month in which to lodge an appeal.
The amendment seeks to ensure that where a decision is reconsidered but the award is not changed, the customer not only retains a right of appeal but has the time to exercise that right. As I hope that I have explained, this will be the case.

71
More importantly in terms of the amendment, this is already catered for on the face of the Bill by Clauses 10(5) and 13(6). With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment by virtue of it being unnecessary.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I still have some difficulty with the provision. Clause 10(5) states,
"Where a decision is revised … the decision shall he regarded as made on the date on which it is so revised".
Clause 13(1), the appeal section, states:
"This section applies to any decision of the Secretary of State … (whether as originally made or as revised under section 10 above)".
It is clear that, where the matter is considered again but the decision is taken not to alter the original decision, the relevant decision against which the appeal is to be made is the original decision because it has not been revised under Section 10.
I accept that the matter could be covered in regulations. However, I am not clear whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is giving an undertaking to do so or whether the matter has not yet been considered. I wonder whether I can ask for his response.
Lord Hardie: As I said earlier, we intend to make provision in regulations to allow claimants a reasonable time to appeal if the period has been delayed by virtue of the application to the Secretary of State and the notification has caused further delay.
Lord Goodhart: I accept that it is an appropriate matter for regulations. On the basis of that statement, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Decisions superseding earlier decisions]:
Lord Haskelmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (3A)").
The noble Lord said: Before I move the group of amendments and the new clause concerning directors' liability for national insurance, I think that it would be helpful to give the Committee some information about how the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement in his Budget on changes to the national insurance regime could affect this Bill.
Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have been consulted about this and have agreed that I should clarify matters in advance of more detailed discussion on those aspects of the Bill which might be affected. I beg the indulgence of noble Lords.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of significant changes in national insurance as part of his strategy to reduce the barriers to lower paid employment and further to align the tax and contributions regimes so as to streamline administration, and thereby help businesses.
72
Some of these changes require primary legislation, and must be brought forward urgently so as to allow time for them to be implemented by April 1999. We therefore propose to bring forward new clauses to this Bill in the following two areas only: first, alteration of the structure of some of the earnings bands and rates used to calculate national insurance contributions. Essentially, the new clauses will provide for three changes: first, the abolition of employees' national insurance contributions on earnings up to the lower earnings limit—the so called entry fee for employees; secondly, the abolition of employers' contributions on earnings up to the single person's tax allowance—the employers' entry fee; and, thirdly, the replacement of multiple "earnings bands" and contribution rates for employers' contributions with a new single rate payable on all earnings above the single person's tax allowance. The present system of contracted out rebates will be maintained.
While these measures will simplify national insurance, the legislative changes themselves are more complex. It will unfortunately not be possible to bring forward amendments until Report stage. There will be an opportunity for full consideration of the changes at that stage. I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to learn that these changes command widespread support from business. Secondly, we will also introduce a new clause to mirror in national insurance, changes to the income tax treatment of shares which are subject to the risk of forfeiture or that are convertible.
It is essential that we should take action now to ensure that the tax and contributions regimes are consistent in their treatment of different types of earnings. The income tax change will be introduced in another place through the Finance Bill and will take effect from 6th April. We therefore need to take this opportunity to ensure that our national insurance changes can be made within a similar timescale. To keep to a minimum the period over which income tax and national insurance positions are out of step, the clause will apply to shares awarded from the date that the clause is tabled for Report.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer also announced that, in line with the Taylor recommendations, administration of national insurance carried out by the Contributions Agency would be transferred to the Inland Revenue from April 1999.
There are two key areas of this Bill which are potentially affected by this: the arrangements for appeals against national insurance decisions; and the new penalties and distraints regime for the Contributions Agency. Noble Lords will be aware that there are amendments relating to the appeals arrangements for national insurance which my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will be speaking about later on in this Committee. I do not wish to open that debate now; but I can advise noble Lords that we will be considering carefully the implications of the planned transfer of responsibilities for appeal arrangements on contributions issues. Much complex detail needs to be considered. We do not therefore propose to bring forward any amendments to appeals arrangements in this Bill as a consequence of the planned transfer, but we will be

73
looking carefully at the options. The Government will bring forward legislation in due course to make necessary changes flowing from the transfer of responsibilities to the Inland Revenue, and conclusions on the appeals arrangements will be reflected as necessary in that legislation. That will give Parliament the necessary time to scrutinise the implications in appropriate depth.
Similar considerations and a similar approach will apply to the measures on penalties and distraint for national insurance which also form part of the current Bill, and where some adjustments to the legislative structure are likely to be needed to support administration of these arrangements within a single organisation.
I mention now an issue on which we might need to return to the House. To ensure continuity of service to contributors and employers, some preparatory expenditure may need to be incurred in advance of Royal Assent of the transfer legislation itself. It is possible that the Government may need some additional powers to permit that. We are addressing the issue urgently and, if it seems that a further amendment to the current Bill is necessary, we will bring it forward at a later stage. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that announcement. I hope that noble Lords will find it helpful.
I should now like to return to the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend—
7 p.m.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. We are already engaged on a Bill of which a number of clauses are being taken in a very complex sequence. That in itself presents some difficulties. The noble Lord's statement is in one sense helpful. I must confess that I am suffering some culture shock. There is little doubt that in another place it would have been out of order to make the announcement at this point; but clearly in this House we have a more flexible arrangement, which is perhaps a great advantage. However, I suggest to the noble Lord that it might be better if we discuss the points that he has made up to now without mixing them up with the amendment to which he is speaking, which is concerned with the responsibilities of company directors and, with great respect, has absolutely nothing to do with what he has said up to now. It would be slightly less confusing—I will not say disorderly—if we were to comment on what he has now said before going on to debate the amendments themselves. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider whether that would be a better way of doing things.
Lord Haskel: Certainly, if noble Lords would like to make any points regarding what I have just said, we could take them now.
Lord Higgins: If we could proceed in that way. I think it would be for the general convenience of the Committee.
74
Perhaps I may therefore refer to a number of points arising from the noble Lord's remarks. I am not quite clear to what extent the changes that he now proposes as a result of the Chancellor's Budget will require an amendment to the Long Title—as I understand it, it is possible to make such an amendment in this Chamber. These matters would seem to be somewhat outwith the title as it stands.
As I understand it, the noble Lord proposes to make some further changes involving amendment of the financial resolutions that will appear in another place. In Committee in the other place those were made available. Is the noble Lord saying that these changes in the financial resolutions will eventually appear, I suppose, when the Bill returns to another place, on the basis of the amendments that have been made?
The confusion arises since, to a considerable extent, the Government now propose to introduce into the Bill a number of changes which might be regarded as budgetary matters. They may not, strictly speaking, be budgetary matters—although almost everyone now regards national insurance contributions as a tax, technically speaking that is not the case.
That said, it would seem that the Government propose to introduce at a later stage a number of amendments which are fairly wide of the Bill as it stands, but do not propose to introduce corresponding amendments in relation to the appeals procedure; they are apparently to be introduced in some other legislation. Will the Minister say whether that will be primary legislation or by order? By what means will these repercussions from the Budget changes, which have been announced, be subsequently introduced? They are not to be introduced in this Bill, although they affect appeals. I think I got that right; it is a little complicated.
It may well be that a number of people outside have studied carefully the changes made in the Budget and are producing highly sophisticated and complicated suggestions; and it might be to the general good that they are accepted. However, they were not expecting to have the measures introduced along with this Bill immediately after Easter. Have the Government already put out a press release about these matters which will at least alert the outside interests, some of which may be affected quite significantly and may have sensible suggestions to make with regard to the way in which the proposals might be implemented—under this Bill or otherwise? If the Government have not issued such a press release, are they considering whether to do so?
The Committee will appreciate that I am saying all of this straight off the top of my head, apart from a brief letter which the noble Baroness courteously sent me. However, I had not quite realised what the Government were going to say this afternoon. As I say, I am suffering slightly from culture shock, but will endeavour to adjust myself to the circumstances.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may express my sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in relation to the culture shock that he is experiencing, both as a recent Member of the other place and as a former Treasury Minister. But there is a clear procedural distinction

75
between taxation and national insurance. I think it is understood that national insurance, right back to 1911, is treated in this Chamber just like any other legislation. I should have thought, subject to correction, that it is therefore within the words of the Long Title:
"to make further provision with respect to social security".
I take the noble Lord's point about a press release, and hope that that may be done. My noble friend Lord Thurso, for example, might well have wished to be present had he known that this matter was coming forward. While I thank the Minister and her department for their great care in keeping us notified as to what was being done, inevitably they could not send that notification to every Member of this place, any more than I was able to send it to every Member on my Benches. Therefore, a press release might be useful.
The procedure obviously is confusing, though I believe it to be for the convenience of the Committee. Because this House is sovereign over its own procedure, it can do things, if there is general agreement, that it is for the convenience of the House that it should. I believe that it is, but I have listened extremely carefully and taken note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Lord Higgins: Of course I understand the distinction that the noble Earl makes between taxation and national insurance contributions, although I was making the point that that distinction is becoming increasingly blurred. We also have to take into account the fact that the Inland Revenue will now be involved in supervising the collection of contributions.
Earl Russell: That is a point of substance, on which I hope we may collectively take advice.
Lord Goodhart: Perhaps I might add to what my noble friend Lord Russell said but from a substantive rather than a procedural position. We do not welcome everything in the Budget, but we strongly welcome the proposals for changing national insurance contributions. Indeed, they move in the direction of proposals which we have made in the past. We shall therefore support them when they are introduced into the Bill at a later stage.
I have not had a chance to consider in any detail the income tax treatment of shares liable to forfeiture, but I suspect that we shall also support that proposal.
As far as concerns contribution appeals, this matter is raised by the amendments in my name, Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 30, 42 and 52 which have been grouped together for discussion later this evening. It may be convenient to discuss those matters at that time because they will clearly be extremely relevant to those amendments.
Lord Haskel: I thank Members of the Committee for their comments. This is an unusual procedure. We are trying to carry this out in a way which gives noble Lords the maximum amount of warning. These matters can be discussed at Report and Third Reading when the appropriate amendments are brought forward.
76
The press release was part of the Budget package and this proposal was announced in that press release. It may be helpful to identify that part of the Budget package which is relevant.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Lord. What he says is absolutely right, but I do not believe that it was said in the press release that the proposal would be incorporated in this Bill. Perhaps it did; if so, I am unaware of it. It is the shortness of notice which is the problem. Outside interests will suddenly find in a couple of weeks' time that this has appeared in legislation. I fear that this may not receive much publicity unless some formal statement is made to alert people to what is happening.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: We shall look into the question of a formal statement. Some of these points will go out for consultation. The fact that consultation takes place alerts outside interests to what is happening.
As the noble Lord said, some amendments regarding appeals are down for consideration later this evening and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will discuss the matter at that time.
The noble Lord asked whether we expect primary legislation. We are exploring what is needed. Although it was said in the Budget Statement that the Government wish to align tax and national insurance collections as far as possible in order to reduce the load on employers and to reduce administration costs, the detail of how that will be done is currently being worked out. When that is done, the appropriate amendments will be brought forward. The Inland Revenue will be involved in the collection, and that changes the position. They will take over full responsibility from April 1999.
No change is required in the Long Title of the Bill, which takes care of these amendments.
Most of the issues raised by Members of the Committee will be discussed when these points are brought forward at Report or Third Reading. Noble Lords may benefit from reading the Statement in Hansard, because it was rather complex.
Perhaps I may move on to speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 15, 55 and 100. Amendment No. 100 introduces a new clause on directors' liability for national insurance contributions. Amendments Nos. 12, 15 and 55 are consequential to the introduction of the new clause.
The Government are determined to act against the problems caused by directors and others who abuse the national insurance system. Clause 61 introduces one measure in the new penalty regime to be operated by the Contributions Agency, a new criminal offence of fraudulent evasion of national insurance with a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment. This will be used only in the most serious cases, where tens of thousands of pounds of national insurance contributions have been deliberately misappropriated. But this alone is not enough.
The National Insurance Fund loses about £150 million per year when companies go into insolvency with national insurance debts. A good portion of these are related to the

77
so-called phoenix set-ups, where one company is put into insolvency only for a replacement company to rise from the ashes almost immediately. A recent analysis by the Contributions Agency of company directors who have been associated with three or more insolvent companies identified some 850 individuals. The loss to the National Insurance Fund as a direct result of the actions of these 850 directors alone is at least £26 million. The end result is that employees may have problems claiming their benefits. Contributions which have been collected from employees' pay have to be credited and benefits paid out on the strength of contributions which the fund never receives. The Government propose to take action to make culpable directors personally liable for national insurance debts where the failure of their company to pay is due to serious negligence or fraud on their part.
Let me offer an example of the type of rogue we are determined to pursue. "A" Ltd. was a one-man company which invested in land and buildings. Its director had other companies, as well as running a farm in a self-employed capacity. Funds appeared to circulate between the businesses on loan. On successfully completing a property deal, "A" Ltd. had sufficient funds to vote this director £1 million as remuneration. He took £600,000 out of the company immediately and in the company's records reflected a provision of £400,000 for tax and national insurance contributions. This amount was never paid over to the collector. The money was apparently used for other purposes. "A" Ltd. then went into creditors' voluntary liquidation and there were no funds available to pay any dividend to the creditors. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this is the kind of abuse which must be dealt with.
This is how the measure will work. Where a company owes a national insurance debt which it fails to pay in full, and the failure to pay is due to the negligent or fraudulent behaviour of any or all of the directors, it will be possible for the debt to be transferred to those directors personally.
A small, specialised, highly trained body of staff will fully investigate the facts. They will decide whether negligence or fraud is involved and, if so, which of the directors are culpable. A decision as to the degree of culpability in each case will be made.
The total debt, which includes any associated penalty and interest, will be apportioned between the culpable directors in proportion to their degree of culpability without taking account of each individual's ability to pay. Thus no "innocent" director will be pursued simply because he has not disposed of his assets.
There will be a full right of appeal both against the decision that a director has behaved negligently or fraudulently and whether the apportionment was reasonable. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 100. As it is a new clause and quite complicated, my noble friend Lady Hollis arranged for an additional note to be made available from today in the Printed Paper Office.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 15 prevent a decision to transfer a debt to a director under the new Section 120A from being "supersedable" under Clause 11. By "supersedable" I mean a decision which replaces a
78
previous decision. Superseding is not appropriate as it operates in a different way from the review provisions of Clause 10. The review provisions operate to replace the earlier decision in its entirety from the date of that earlier decision whereas the superseding provisions are designed to take account of a change in circumstances so that the later decision supersedes the earlier one from a given date rather than replaces it in total from the date it was originally made. In superseding there is the possibility of two valid decisions existing side by side. That is not appropriate in these cases.
I hope that both this Committee and legitimate businesses will welcome a measure aimed at dealing with the unscrupulous minority of directors who abuse their positions and ignore their responsibilities. This measure poses no threat to honest, hard-working businessmen. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: I can well understand the Government's motivation in this respect having had a number of individual cases in my earlier incarnation of people being defrauded by double-glazing companies and finding that, somehow or other, the companies had arisen from the ashes and, though their double glazing was not provided, the individuals engaged in selling it had again set up in business.
I am also well aware of the problems which may arise if a specific company engages in the practices described by the noble Lord and the employees find that, though they paid the national insurance contributions to the employer, the employer has not passed them on to the National Insurance Fund. In cases of the kind that I have pursued, the department has been quite good at immediately ensuring that the individual who paid the contributions received credit for them. I do not know therefore that in practice it is a tremendous problem.
The question is whether the director concerned should pay for the contributions which he collected and did not remit. It would be rather optimistic in such cases to suppose that the funds which the Government propose to collect under these amendments will necessarily he sufficient to pay the contributions which were not remitted. I shall return to that point in a moment.
Having said that, one cannot but have a slight sense of unease in regard to these measures since the principle of limited liability is extremely important and it would seem in these circumstances to be overridden. Therefore, those who set up a limited liability company may suddenly find that they are liable for national insurance contributions, even though the company formally ceases to exist. I do not know how many other similar cases there are where limited liability is overridden by legislation. However, this gives one a slightly odd feeling, even though one can well understand the motivation behind it.
Clearly, these are pretty draconian powers which the Government are proposing to take, even though the provision substitutes civil for criminal liability in some cases and in other cases introduces a Draconian criminal liability. I accept that it has been going on a long while and I therefore make an entirely non-partisan point.

79
Why have those directors not been disqualified, all 850 of them, if they are known to be engaging in this practice?
The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to some of us in this regard. Apparently it is to be decided by a small, specialised, highly trained body of Contributions Agency staff liaising with the Inland Revenue over whether negligence or fraudulence is involved and, if so, which of the directors is culpable. A decision will be made on the degree of culpability in each case. That seems an extraordinarily onerous task to place upon the officials concerned. It may be that we should have a preliminary run over the amendment at this stage and return to it at Report stage.
It seems an extremely unusual exercise which the Government are proposing to undertake. We are told that there will be a full right of appeal against the decision, but I am not at all clear to whom the directors involved will appeal. It also seems that these measures are only to be imposed if someone makes a habit of it, if I may put it that way. Some directors certainly do make a habit of it. Am I to understand that there will be less stringent measures imposed on a first offence? I say that with great hesitation because I am not a lawyer, as the Committee will know. I therefore venture into this territory with many other more expert Members of the Committee. However, these are relevant questions which at this stage we should at least probe.
Lord Goodhart: I am a lawyer and I have some experience in this area. I am absolutely in support of the principle behind the amendment and strongly opposed to the way in which it is suggested it should be carried out. There is no doubt that serious abuses are being practised by these phoenix companies. Directors set up a company; run it for a certain time; take all the receipts they can obtain (they are not profits; the company usually ends up going bust); do not pay their debts; and in particular do not pay their liability for national insurance or PAYE. In those cases I have no reason whatever to disagree with the idea that those directors should be made personally liable. It is a gross abuse. Those who practise in the companies courts, as I have done to some extent, see it happening time and again and it is absolutely right that stern measures should be taken to stop it.
However, when we come to the way in which it is proposed to enact the provision, I have equally strong objections. What is taking place is a form of abuse which is well known in company law and described as either "wrongful trading" or "fraudulent trading"; that is, people who incur liabilities on behalf of their company when they know there is no reasonable prospect whatever of those liabilities being paid. One might have thought that the right course, as with other forms of wrongful or fraudulent trading, would be to send those cases, in the usual way, to be dealt with by the companies court. But what is proposed here is something completely different; namely under Clause 9, use of the adjudication procedure so that the decision will be taken initially not by the court but by some official within the Department of Social Security. The
80
route of appeal—and this is perhaps even more extraordinary—will be not to the companies court. which is accustomed to dealing with problems of this kind and gets them day in and day out, but to the appeals tribunal. Such cases will be miles away from any other kind of case that the appeals tribunals deal with. This is completely the wrong route for dealing with such cases.
Therefore, while I am entirely in favour of the principle of hitting these directors hard, we need to do it in the right way by sending cases to a court which has experience in dealing with problems of this kind and not to a tribunal which has no experience whatever and whose ordinary cases are miles away from anything of this kind. While I do not oppose the principle, if the amendment is accepted today we feel strongly that it will be necessary to come back at Report stage to make a further amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Haskel: I thank noble Lords for their comments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the purpose is only to investigate one liability and not the liability of the directors as a whole in the way they ran the business if the business went into bankruptcy. It is only the question of whether they handed over the national insurance contributions. That is a matter which the adjudication procedure could handle.
Lord Goodhart: With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think you can separate the two. It is a single picture. The directors who run these companies do not pay their debts. Some of them may be national insurance, some will be PAYE, and some with be debts to private creditors. It is all part of the same picture. One cannot separate them out in that way.
Lord Haskel: These are national insurance offences concerning the non-payment of contributions. For instance, Customs and Excise have exercised a similar power in regard to penalties for VAT debts for some years. It could be modelled on much the same kind of procedure.
I thank noble Lords for their general support of the principle even though there is some disagreement as to the way in which it will be carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked which directors are culpable. The investigation of each director's responsibility and knowledge will be carried out so that only those shown to have acted knowingly and deliberately will be penalised. As far as concerns being able to collect money, I say to the noble Lord that one can only collect what is available. If they have spent it all or have got rid of it, one can only collect what is there.
Disqualification of directors is really a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry under company law. But disqualified directors can still work in companies and conceivably still be involved in some kind of national insurance fraud. The exact form of appeal arrangements will need to be looked at in the light of the transfer of the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue.

81
The principle of limited liability, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is not really intended to protect fraudsters and those who are seriously negligent in carrying out their responsibilities. I am sure the noble Lord agrees that people who carry out fraud should not he able to hide behind limited liability. I think I have dealt with all the points. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Arts in Education
7.35 p.m.
Lord Toperose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to support the arts in education, and in particular whether they plan to offer appropriate financial support to drama students so that the future of theatre arts in Britain may be secured.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am raising this issue tonight to give the Government an opportunity both to clarify some of the confusions that have arisen in recent weeks over their policy towards the arts in schools and to give the House a progress report on the work they are doing to develop a permanent solution to the problem of funding drama, dance and stage management students.
I begin by expressing my gratitude to all those noble Lords who are to speak this evening and are thus assisting me in raising the profile of this issue, which has very serious implications for the future of theatre arts in this country.
The first problem I wish to raise centres on how we are to strike an effective balance in our national curriculum between "the three Rs" and the enriching and inspirational elements like art, music and drama. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Arts, Mr. Mark Fisher, gave an impromptu speech the other night at a reception by the Performers' Alliance and confessed that confusion had arisen because, in the same week as the Government wanted to be seen to be encouraging arts education in schools, the Secretary of State had announced that schools will not be required to follow the programmes of study for arts subjects at key stages 1 and 2. There was a widespread public impression that the Government were happy that schools ditch arts subjects. At the same time, the Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead, appeared to say that you could not practise or appreciate art or music unless you could read or add up. Later he said that this was not what he meant, but so much of this is about perceptions, and at times the Government seem to have tied themselves up in their own "spin".
82
We are concerned that in schools, especially in inner city or very small rural schools, where the arts have only a tentative foothold, the Secretary of State's announcement will be a signal to sideline them altogether. We are especially anxious about the role of the arts in the training of teachers. Even when an institution has a specialist interest in the arts, for example, it is usual for a complete music course to be taught in a total of nine to 11 hours over three years, and for dance and drama to be just minor parts of PE and English. It is no great surprise, therefore, and an even greater anxiety for the long term, that the number of arts graduates applying for PGCE courses is getting smaller every year.
The Secretary of State's announcement may well have had an unintended effect on funding within schools as resources are moved towards literacy and numeracy. The estimated average spend per student for subjects like art and design is just £2.70 per year. Instrumental music teaching has all but disappeared in some parts of the country.
On these Benches we have no doubt that the integrated teaching of art, music and drama feeds and enhances the teaching of literacy and numeracy. I hope the Minister will be able to come forward tonight with some practical proposals for ensuring that our schools do have a rich and balanced curriculum which will enable those with artistic talent to flourish and those who perhaps have rather less talent at least to enjoy and appreciate the arts.
I should now like to move to a more sharply focused issue, that of the funding of drama students in this country and how we can secure the long term future of theatre arts in Britain. Your Lordships will be aware that young people go to university to do academic degrees in drama and that their universities receive HEFCE funding. Those students will be entitled to means-tested help towards their payment of the £1,000 contribution to tuition fees. They will get 75 per cent. of their tuition fees paid outright by their LEA and they will have access to a subsidised student loan to help with their maintenance. However, such students may never set foot on the professional stage or on a film set.
Contrast that with the deal that we give to those students whose burning desire is to dedicate their lives to acting on stage, on television or on film. Under the Arts Council of England's interim funding scheme, we insist that students at independent drama schools, on three-year courses, persuade their LEAs to come up with a discretionary grant of £1,250. If the student lives in a cash-strapped local authority area where they can no longer afford discretionary awards, that student gets no help because, without the £1,250 "trigger", the interim funding scheme cannot pay out. What that means in practice is that, last year, only 227 of the 400 places granted to independent drama schools were taken up. The remainder of those places were taken by students who are, at this moment, battling to raise funds privately.
I have been appalled by the stories of hardship endured by young students whose struggles to fund themselves have been as horrifying as they have been

83
heroic. It is commonplace for students to do paid work during the evening at weekends; some students have to defer entry to drama school for two years to raise the fees (which are typically running at £7,000 a year). Others have staged amateur productions, run car-boot sales and raffles, and used great imagination and enterprise to set up sponsored walks and so forth. Many keen students write hundreds of begging letters to the rich and famous.
The Development Director at LAMDA, Dominic Tickell, gives the example of one of its students, who wrote to 2,000 actors and actresses to request help in the months before he was due to start. He received enough money to help him to pay his first-year fees, but his money ran out. His health seriously deteriorated due to poor diet. By the time the drama school got him to a doctor, he was found to be suffering from malnutrition.
This is against a background where the young drama students in question work from 8.45 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. and beyond on a five-day week for 33 weeks of the year on intensive courses requiring great physical and mental activity and athlete levels of fitness. I would seriously question how many university undergraduates work that hard, and that intensively.
Before I leave these issues of hardship, perhaps I may quote from a letter written by Christopher Fettes, principal of the Drama Centre London, who says:
"A high proportion of the students at this school survive on a hand to mouth existence owing to the generosity of a very limited number of private beneficiaries who try to ensure that they receive at least one hot meal daily and are able to help them meet basic expenses for rent, lighting, heating and transport … Quite simply, their wretched condition is a national scandal".
I have every confidence that our deep anxieties over this situation are shared on the government Benches. We want to see dance, drama and stage management students at independent drama schools put on the same footing as university undergraduates. We are not talking of huge sums here: for example, in 1997–98 there were just 2,263 students on courses accredited by the National Council for Drama Training.
The Arts Council of England has recently published its guidelines for the final year of the interim funding scheme. May we plead with the Government to lower the level of LEA "trigger" (perhaps to the £300 level set by the Arts Council for Wales) so that more students this year can access IFS funds? Perhaps the Government could look at ways of funding drama students from within the industry itself. Michael Cashman of Equity has suggested a levy on the pre-tax profits of television companies.
Finally—here I am talking not about students, but about actors, dancers and stage managers who have qualified—perhaps I may express some concern about the impact of welfare-to-work on young actors who may be pushed into inappropriate work which stops them using their expensive training. We are talking of very little money, but it is money that would have a huge effect on the future of the theatre in Britain.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for initiating this important debate.
Britain has a well-deserved international reputation for creativity in the arts which the current Labour Administration have been quick to harness, both for their own interests and as a tool to promote Britain to the rest of the world. They are quite right to do so: the brilliance of Britain's designers, musicians, actors, artists and architects, both young and old, is inspiring and exciting. We want more of them, not fewer, and that is precisely why some of the proposals to the structure of the national curriculum worry me, because I think they will stifle creativity at children's most formative ages rather than encouraging and giving it free rein.
The arts form an essential part of a broad and balanced education, giving children subtle insights, making them aware of the achievements and evolution of their own and other cultures. History, English and geography are all part of this process. Study in the arts gives children the opportunity not only to become practitioners, but even more important, for those who have no practical talent, to enjoy and understand as spectators. Of all these subjects, the only one to be included as a core subject after the age of 14 is English.
At the moment art is compulsory part of the curriculum up to the age of 14. After that it is optional. This is, I think, regrettable, because it gives already stretched schools licence to concentrate on the core subjects to the exclusion of others: indeed it could lead to the considerable reduction, if not the actual removal, of arts subjects in a number of schools. This can only be at the expense of those pupils who are drawn more to the arts than the sciences. However much provision for maths and sciences there may be—and the desire to raise the standard in Britain is understandable—there will still be people who have no aptitude or sympathy for numbers and technical problems. They should be allowed to stretch themselves too.
Far more serious is the fact that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is currently seeking to ease the requirements for history, geography, art, music and physical education in key stages 1 and 2—that is, for children from the age of five to 11. This would result in those subjects only being covered within a broad curriculum, perhaps by teachers who have no particular skills or training in these fields, whereas at present usefully detailed programmes of study must be followed.
Furthermore, there is an intense pressure even on primary schools to perform well in league tables. These tables only reflect pupils' competence in English, maths and science, in tests taken at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 (at the end of key stages 1. 2 and 3). Anxious to be seen in a good light, schools will understandably neglect subjects that have no effect on their standing—in other words, the arts. A survey by the Royal Society of Arts in 1995 revealed that primary school pupils spend 50 per cent. less time on art than 10 years ago and that half the teachers of craft, design and technology in all schools are unqualified in the subject they teach. Surely

85
continuing in this direction is harmful to children rather than beneficial. We want to increase creativity, not stifle it.
Ministers have pointed out that modifying the requirements of the non-core subjects at key stages 1 and 2 will enable teachers to meet literacy and numeracy targets, and that such a move is not intended to devalue the arts, or indeed history and geography. However, this is exactly the effect such a measure will have. In addition, although literacy and numeracy are desirable and necessary, concentrating chiefly on increased ability in these areas is unlikely to improve artistic abilities, which are also an important part of a student's education. Quite the reverse; schools with good arts provision tend to have higher achieving pupils in the core subjects.
Evidence is patchy, but there is an increasing impression that participation in the arts actually improves students' performance and behaviour across the board. Kenneth Robinson, Professor of Arts Education at Warwick University has stated:
"The arts are essential in realising the potential of individuals. They can give children sonic idea of success and confidence, both of which are vitamins for achievements".
In music this is known as "the Mozart effect", and has been substantiated by research. It shows that children who are given instrumental music tuition also perform well in other subjects, particularly in mathematics. The arts in general play an important role in helping to develop creative and innovating skills. These are exactly the qualities that new and expanding industries seek.
Many arts educators further believe that it is important to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in the primary years. Insisting that higher level English, maths and science must be attained at the expense of other subjects takes away pupils' chances to fulfil their potential in these spheres. Arts teaching in schools encourages a broader exposure to higher culture. It is a sad fact that while pupils at independent schools are likely to have access to costly music lessons, theatre and concert visits, children whose parents cannot afford such out-of-school activities suffer most. For them, the teaching of art subjects within the school is often their only access to them.
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is shortly to advise the Secretary of State for Education on the scope of the national curriculum review. I urge him to include within the curriculum provision for pupils in art, design and the expressive arts. As the Government have recognised, the arts are not minority concerns. More people go to art galleries than to football matches. The British art market is an important financial concern. Last year's turnover was £2.2 billion while the music industry is currently valued at £1.6 billion. It would take a wilful person to ignore their importance in maintaining Britain's place among the nations.
Quite apart from money, the arts if introduced to people at school will enrich every area they encounter whatever their ability and age and continue to give pleasure, one hopes, for the rest of their lives. There is also difficulty in tertiary education. The study of fine and applied arts in further education also has special
86
requirements, which the scrapping of discretionary awards for foundation courses by a majority of local education authorities in recent years has failed to recognise. Only 2 per cent. of students wishing to take art or design degrees get in straight from school. The rest attend a foundation course where they try out a range of disciplines, choosing one in which to specialise for their degree courses. Few of these disciplines will have been encountered before—even more so now that there is less emphasis on craft-based skills in schools.
This change in support for foundation students will encourage many students to go straight on to a degree course from school without discovering in advance whether or not they have a real aptitude for that particular discipline. It will also prohibit many less well-off families from pursuing a career in the arts. The London Institute which includes the capital's five major art colleges has found financial hardship to be a major factor in the decision by students from poorer families to withdraw from both foundation and degree courses.
It is harder all round for art students not to incur large debts which the very nature of their profession ensures they have little chance of paying off. Unlike the lawyer, banker or doctor, most arts graduates will never earn a regular salary. A recent survey by the Institute for Employment Studies of arts and conservation students found that one in three graduates in art and design were self-employed against a national average of less than 1 per cent. in the general graduate population. The report also discovered that making a living from the arts labour market was particularly hard for newcomers. Only 17 per cent. of graduates earn more than £15,000 a year and the majority are in the £10,000 to £15,000 band.
I am sure it is inadvertent, but by downplaying the role of the arts in schools the present Government have been discouraging the study of art and the importance of creativity at both school and tertiary level. I therefore beg them to examine the effect such schemes will have in the long term.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the first two speeches this evening, although I had some difficulty in keeping up with the previous speaker. I look forward to reading his speech in Hansard tomorrow and hope that the reporters did not have similar difficulty. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I widen the field and make particular reference to music. I am aware that many students and organisations involved in the teaching of arts looked forward to the new Labour Government.
In his preface to the Labour Party's Strategy for a Cultural Policy the Prime Minister said,
"the arts and cultural industries help define who we are as a nation. They enrich our quality of life and create a thriving society. They have enormous economic benefits and bring enjoyment to millions and for far too long arts and culture have stood outside the mainstream, their potential unrecognised in Government. It has to change and under Labour it will".
It has changed, but not in the way expected. The Secretary of State for Education has announced that arts and music will no longer have an official place in the

87
primary school curriculum. As both previous speakers have said, this decision has been justified to make more time for improvements in numeracy and literacy, but authoritative studies has shown that involving students in music increases their overall ability. The booklet produced by the Music Education Council, Music Industries Association and National Music Council The fourth 'R'—the Case for Music in the School Curriculum—I remind the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that there are four Rs, the fourth being rhythm—highlights research from several countries which shows that young people who are taught music in schools have increased memory and reasoning capacity, improvements in participatory and time management skills and, importantly, eloquence. This change in emphasis which downgrades music and other arts subjects in the primary curriculum will mirror the same disastrous effect which is now being revealed as a result of the decimation of the Instrumental Teaching Services and Theatre in Education.
I am sure that the Minister will remind us of the initiatives whereby musical instruments and tuition are now being funded from the lottery, but experts do not believe that these will compensate for the excellent local authority schemes and free lessons which existed 15 to 20 years ago. Actors and dancers have fared no better. A mandatory grant system should have been put in place for those wishing to study these subjects rather than make them rely on the discretion of the local authority.
The attempt to provide financial assistance with funds from the lottery linked to local authority discretionary payments will not encourage authorities who do not already make discretionary grants to do so now. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that a permanent replacement for the interim funding scheme for dance and drama students can be introduced so that many talented young people will not be deterred from entering drama school. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said, another deterrent to arts education is the replacement of grants for higher education and performance studies by £1,000 per year tuition fees and maintenance payments that will need to be repaid by way of loans. This will be particularly difficult for young musicians who have to buy expensive instruments. Unless the Government can come up with a solution to these problems, actors, dancers and musicians who all work in an insecure and low-paid profession, will have additional burdens placed upon them which may well deter many from entering the arts.
Finally, I should like to make a few comments on one particular aspect of music; namely, jazz. I declare an interest in that I am a mediocre performer. I intended to produce my trumpet this evening but the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, informed me that props were not allowed. I am also joint-chairman of the Parliamentary Jazz Appreciation Group. Many music students study and perform jazz. The jazz policy of the Arts Council of Great Britain published in November 1996 recognised the importance of jazz and its inadequate profile in the UK:
"In the last 30 years, many British Jazz musicians have established themselves as original voices within the global evolution of jazz. Their work is well documented and the stature of their
88
achievements acknowledged by their colleagues and audiences abroad. However, there has been insufficient opportunity in this country for this important contribution to world music to he fully recognised by audiences and for the work to be adequately profiled in Britain".
I bring this to the Minister's attention as it is only rarely possible in debates in this House to draw the Government's attention to the wealth of talent that this country has with its established and young jazz musicians. The parliamentary group has often brought the inadequacies of the Licensing Act 1964, which discriminates against the performance of live music, to the attention of Ministers. Currently on licensed premises, a landlord can provide wall-to-wall TV and reproduce any amount of recorded sound at any given level of decibels but he or she cannot employ more than two live performers. To give an example of the inequality of current legislation and to show the absurdity of it, if Robbie Williams and Louise were to perform on licensed premises without an entertainment licence the vast numbers of people who might attend would probably infringe fire, health and safety regulations and cause a local nuisance, but it would he legal. If a jazz quartet were to play in the same place to a modest audience the landlord would be in breach of the Licensing Act. That has been brought to the attention of the Home Office on many occasions, with the response that it hopes to be in a position to issue a paper in the near future.
That has a connection with music in education, for students need to perform and to have places to perform. I hope that the Minister will bring the problem to the attention of her right honourable friends so that the Act may be modernised. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for introducing our debate, the Musicians' Union for its notes on the subject, and apologise for my slight deviation to jazz. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, because of my background, no doubt noble Lords believe that I will concentrate on entry into the theatre through the conventional, but hard-pressed route, of drama college. I have a confession to make: I never went to drama college. I developed a love of the theatre through plays at school, through amateur work with my mother, who ran the local dramatic society, and then through having to fill in 10 months' deferred service from aircrew training in 1942. It was not difficult to get a job and an Equity card, for in those days young actors were in great demand and the only ones available were too young for military service, unfit for military service or what was euphemistically known as temperamentally unsuited for military service.
I am happy to say that I was too young for military service, so when that great barnstorming actor-manager, Donald Wolfit, was playing at the New Theatre in my home town of Hull, I knocked on his door, acquainted him of my availability, was taken on stage to declaim my audition piece, which was Robert Service's North Country poem, Bessie's Boil which I had recited for my mother at a troop concert the previous Sunday at the Floral Hall, Hornsea. The description of such a large,

89
inflamed swelling on Bessie's nether regions assured me of a job in "Hamlet", "King Lear", "Twelfth Night" and "Midsummer Night's Dream". No, I cannot claim any special relationship with drama colleges.
I can, however, remind your Lordships that we produce many of the finest actors in the world, and very few have the privilege of such an easy entry into an overcrowded profession as I. They have to be proficient in every aspect of theatre arts—speech, movement, song, dance, classic and modern plays, tragedy, comedy, farce—as well as being proficient in front of cameras, both cinematic and televisual.
Managers, producers, directors—both in the theatre and cinema—expect the highest levels of competence in all aspects of an actor's armoury, and that can only be provided by first-class training. Furthermore, the desire for,
"a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage",
to become that "poor player" (in wealth not in talent, I hasten to add) is often engendered at school and how sad it is—nay, tragic—that our young are often now denied the joys of drama classes and visits to see work in progress or the finished product upon the stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, stressed, Theatre in Education is an invaluable service. It can be used to deal with special needs such as languages. It can raise awareness about social issues such as drugs abuse, racism and violence, with results that traditional forms of teaching could never match and, through lack of funding, it is in danger of collapse.
Already 15 counties have no TIE company. Means must be found to enable all local authorities to provide a universal TIE service. The Government's stress on -Education, Education, Education," is laudable—if somewhat repetitive (obeying the comedic rule of three)—but the Government must remember that education draws more widely than simple literacy and numeracy. In fact, drama education can transcend most facets of the "three R's".
I am assured by British Actors' Equity (of which I am now, in my "last scene of all", a Life Member) that the Minister is in fact—and I quote—
"doing something about dance and drama training."
I am sure that your Lordships would like to know exactly what that is, when the Minister replies. I hope that the Minister can assure your Lordships that the Government are heeding the advice of the Dearing Report and about to implement a workable, durable and all-embracing replacement for the interim funding scheme, and that any such scheme will leave all dance and drama students on accredited courses at least as well off as students at the music conservatoires. It would pay dividends.
According to my information, supplied by the National Council for Drama Training, music students are entitled to mandatory funding from LEAs while drama and dance students are not. That is clearly a grossly unfair anomaly, arising from the decline in discretionary funding as a result of local authority spending restrictions. Furthermore, central government funding for the music courses reflects the low student-staff ratio that is required for intensive music
90
tuition; drama and dance do not require that. Indeed, one of my happiest experiences in the theatre during the past few years was seeing a second-year student production of "Chorus Line" performed by the Guildford School of Acting. At least three dozen aspiring young artistes sang and danced their hearts out with huge enthusiasm and daunting talent. And the staff involved to create this joyous occasion? Exactly four: one director, one choreographer, one musical director, one stage manager—a ratio which no music conservatoire could possibly match.
I can envisage a cynical member of your Lordships' House—should there be such in a House which generally shows that cynicism is not a feature of maturity—wondering why I should want to encourage young actors and dancers when so many of those who have done their aspiring are unemployed. My point is that unless we promote training, those who make it to the stage may tend to be those with money or with luck, and not necessarily those with talent.
That leads me to my final point. One of the discoveries of recent years has been the acting, dancing and singing talent of people with disabilities, including people with learning disabilities. In the excellent debate on the arts instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on 18th March, your Lordships may recall the noble Lord, Lord Renton, making this point when he was good enough to say something on this issue in my enforced absence. Some of your Lordships may have seen the excellent work of one or other of the groups of people with disabilities or pan-disabled and non-disabled actors. A number of them have performed in our major auditoria. It is even harder for this group to get started and I am glad to say that Mencap's Dilston College in Northumberland has ambitious plans for what we hope will be the first regional theatre and arts centre, then a national and international centre—and learning base—accessible to all disabled people, to non-disabled people and the local community as a whole. I shall be taking the liberty of providing the Minister with further details in due course.
It is good that being on the stage and both getting—and giving—pleasure is no longer restricted to those physically able to make their exits and their entrances with consummate ease. I hope that the lack of funds, at present bedevilling the theatre and its adherents, will not limit the opportunity to those who possess personal resources, luck or physical and mental dexterity. If given the opportunity, many men, and women, until recently considered beyond the pale will, in their time, play many parts.
My Lords,
"perchance you wonder at this show;
But wonder on, till truth make all things plain".
8.7 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, that is a hard speech to follow. So, if I may, I shall switch away to my noble friend Lady Thomas who reminded me that last week we saw the finals of the BBC's young musician of the year awards in which five brilliant young musicians showed their skills and their talent which had been nurtured when music was an integral

91
part of the education system. I shall not repeat the same kind of irritable speech I made on 18th March. But can we expect in years to come the same quality of musicians if we just rest on our laurels and go the disastrous way, as seems to be happening, of taking music out of the primary school curriculum?
I turn now to drama about which I know a little more. I have no business at all in an education debate because I am hardly educated. I was well educated until the war. I was five at the outbreak of war. I was only well educated because I went to a school where the teacher was new and I was the only pupil. I was then dragged around without any schooling for several years by my dear mother who was charming and affectionate but had rather strange ideas about education. After the war, because my behaviour was crude and she thought it was about time that we conformed, I was sent to a prim middle-class—if I may use that unfashionable term—preparatory school for boys where I had to catch up on five years of lost work. I became temperamentally unsuited to school, rather like the soldiers mentioned by my noble friend.
The one person who came to my rescue was an excellent English master found to have been temperamentally unsuited to armed service. He taught us by reading the novels of John Buchan. As a result I have long been an admirer of John Buchan and many other authors, too. He made me an avid reader. I moved up in the school and had another English teacher who was keen on drama and wrote excellent children's plays. As I had been dragged around by my mother so as not to notice too much of what was going on—a lot of it I did not want to see—I read a great deal and listened to plays on the BBC. I was educated mainly by books, magazines, comics and the BBC.
My involvement in drama enabled me to overcome all my anti-social habits because immediately I found something that I could do. I could speak relatively clearly, I was not clumsy; I did not knock anything over; and I had the great satisfaction of putting in the shade certain boys who were academically better. I have no wish to boast, but they were very bad indeed.
That experience straightened me out. I managed to pass the normal entrance examination to a public school and live through that dreadful period, again clinging to the raft of drama. It helped again, except that my tutor in the school insisted that in the evenings new boys read plays out loud. I had no problems reading out loud; but the trouble was that the plays were always those of Galsworthy. Galsworthy is a dramatist I hate, but I have realised in recent years—I did not see television at the time—that like many second-rate dramatists his plays make good television material. It is rather like poor books making good films.
Having struggled through that experience, I found myself in the Army. As a matter of fact, I was not temperamentally unsuited to National Service. No drama, of course—although there was enough going on around me—but I nevertheless became stage struck. I was attracted to theatre and drama, and eventually found myself working as a junior in the
92
office of a theatrical agent. I was hired mainly to look after the film side of the business. A company of actors would be looking for work and were out to meet casting directors and watch films being made. However, during the dark days of the winter I had to cover the drama schools.
The drama schools are interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, will correct me, but, in terms of the theatre, drama students do not show their talent until later. I never wanted to be an actor because my mother would not have permitted me back through the front door. She was the daughter of an actor and could not bear them. At school acting is an escape. It allows one to communicate and develop social skills which have not previously been encouraged. What transports you from that stage to the drama school? When I was covering the drama schools, selection was based on a feeling that would-be students were enthusiastic, physically strong, had a good memory and were not completely mad. Many of the great actors who have emerged from that time were completely mad and some at that time did not complete the course. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, many of the greatest actors did not go to drama school. I suggest that they were temperamentally unsuited!
It is no accident that many dyslexic children are drawn to the theatre. They can use the skills which compensate for their lack of reading skills. We should not ignore children who have had a difficult time. My childhood was not so difficult; many children have very difficult times. Drama is excellent for them and for our weaker brethren, particularly from inner city areas, and I hope that the Government will encourage it. When preparing for this speech, I spoke to a teacher who recently began teaching drama in an inner city school. He started with the younger children and said that the older ones who had missed the lessons ask, "Why couldn't we have done that? It would have taught us so much and would have been helpful in going out into the world and getting jobs."
I see that my time is up. I apologise for being somewhat anecdotal and reminiscing. So much was said by my noble friend, and I have enjoyed the debate very much.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have greatly enjoyed the debate so far, certainly the idiosyncratic education of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the self-effacement of my noble friend Lord Colwyn who described himself as a mediocre jazz player. I do not know whether anyone in the House has heard my noble friend play, but I would not describe him as mediocre.
First, I apologise for omitting to put my name on the speakers' list until today. I had thought that it was down and I admit that I am culpable. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for introducing this important and timely debate. I was proud and privileged to be a new Member of this House when the national curriculum was introduced. I remember

93
the intensive debate about its prescription and the number of subjects which should be included. From the outset, I considered that the inclusion of music, art and drama, which fell within another subject, was most important. I have no difficulty defending that decision. Many practical activities are important; for instance, painting, drawing, sculpting, pottery, design, working with many different materials, understanding texture and textiles, drama through the English curriculum, experience of acting, stage management and stage drama production, the appreciation of art and music and an awareness and knowledge of museums and galleries.
The arguments which the Minister has used since the disapplication of the national curriculum in these areas are not strong. The subjects will continue to be taught, as the Government expect, but if the obligation to do so is removed there is no guarantee of that. More importantly, less imaginative schools will meet their obligations to the letter under the literacy and numeracy programmes, but will not use art, music and drama to enliven their teaching. That will be the saddest thing of all because the most vulnerable children in those schools will be disappointed. I find the disapplication of those subjects most disappointing.
No one who has spoken tonight will argue with the importance of reading and writing. I am on record as saying almost too many times—I am not sure that one can say it too many times—that reading is the cornerstone of all learning. Literacy and numeracy are helped by using art, drama and music as educational vehicles to improve achievement and attainment in those subjects.
Ministers underestimate how such skills can be addressed through such practical subjects. That point was made so well by other noble Lords tonight. Drama helps with confidence building, the development of speech and its use in reading with comprehension, expression and so much more. Music helps with co-ordination, computation, team work and basic arithmetic. The therapeutic effect of music and drama, particularly on less able children and adults and those with disabilities and, more importantly, on disturbed young people and adults, is well established.
When replying to a question last week, the noble Baroness dismissed transport costs as not being very significant for schools in rural areas. Those schools which make visits to the theatre or museums or galleries have a very real difficulty in meeting transport costs. The equivalent of 20p or so on every gallon of petrol is an aspect of finance which they cannot ignore.
I want to refer to another aspect which has not been mentioned so far in the debate today; that is, money for the arts and heritage from the national lottery. That will reduce as a result of changes to the lottery introduced by the National Lottery Bill. As we know, funds are to be diverted to health, education and the environment from the five originally stated causes. We know that that will cause real anxiety not just in the voluntary sector but for bodies within the
94
arts and heritage which are expecting that money to flow to them as one-fifth of each of the allocations of the national lottery monies.
In its manifesto, the Labour party pledged:
"Labour has already proposed a new millennium commission to commence after"
and this is important,
"the closure of the Millennium Exhibition, to provide direct support for a range of education, environment and public health projects, including those directed at children's play, currently excluded from lottery benefit".
Not only has the principle of additionality been breached but the pre-emption of funds which will now take place ahead of the millennium fund being wound up, by creating a sixth fund, will cause grave anxieties. Many of those bodies which are out there working with young people, particularly with less able people, children with disabilities and some working with adults in the community, will lose out as a result of losing that proportion of money which will go towards the sixth new cause.
As an interloper in the debate, I shall not abuse the indulgence of the House by speaking for too long. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, Mentioned in some detail his concern about students who wish to go on to study art, drama and music. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say on policy and proposals to assist students who wish to study dance and/or drama.
8.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for initiating what has been a most enjoyable debate. It has been marked by high-speed delivery but also, I admit, by admirably clear enunciation. It has raised a number of important issues about the arts in education and future support for dance and drama students. I, too, may have to go quite quickly in order to cover what I wish to say in the short time available to me. But I am very grateful for the very well-informed contributions to the debate although I, too, am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, was not able to play his trumpet in the Chamber.
None of us taking part in the debate needs reminding of the great importance of the arts to our lives, to our culture and to our prosperity. Exposure to the richness, creativity and diversity of the arts helps to shape our individual and national characteristics. I believe in that passionately. One side of my family is full of theatre people. Indeed, my mother, unlike that of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was an actress. I have been personally involved for many years in dance, especially in classical ballet.
The Government places great importance on the role of the arts in education. That is demonstrated in our provision and plans for education at every stage. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I do not believe there is any confusion about it. The diversity of the arts, and the need to cater for the special interests and talents of individuals of all ages provides both a challenge and an opportunity for those responsible for education. The Government's response has been to

95
make provision for people to pursue the arts within mainstream education and through a range of specialist provision. We are committed to providing an education which gives an appreciation and understanding of the arts to all as part of compulsory education. That is absolutely as it should be.
In our manifesto we undertook,
"to review the scale and quality of all courses which serve our cultural industries and to identify ways in which existing budgets can be spent more effectively to achieve higher quality, better targeted training".
Acting decisively on that commitment we have set up the Creative Industries Task Force and the National Advisory Committee for Creative and Cultural Education, agreed a review of performing arts in higher education, planned a National Endowment for Science and the Arts (NESTA) and made a public commitment to long term government funding to replace the interim funding scheme for dance and drama students. I will return to some of these.
First, I would like to outline the arrangements for the arts in schools. As noble Lords will know, art and music are compulsory national curriculum subjects for all pupils between the ages of 5 and 14. The Secretary of State announced in January that in order to allow primary schools to provide the necessary focus on literacy and numeracy in the vital early years—and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady B latch, in that regard—the detailed statutory requirements of six subjects, including music and art, would be lifted. But I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, schools must still teach all national curriculum subjects and requirements to teach art and music in secondary schools remain unchanged. After Easter, the QCA will be issuing guidance to primary schools on how to ensure abroad and balanced curriculum.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that because we are committed to creativity in our schools, the Secretary of State has asked the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, chaired by Professor Ken Robertson, to make recommendations on how we might identify, encourage and nurture creativity in our young people. The committee will be taking a close look at the arts in schools as part of its work.
For exceptionally talented children of school age, we shall go on maintaining the music and ballet scheme at specialist independent schools. The five music schools and three ballet schools currently participating in the scheme provide intensive specialist training alongside a broad and balanced academic curriculum. Those schemes have produced some of our most outstanding performers.
Our colleges and universities face the challenge of meeting the learning needs of students who will go into the performing arts and entertainment industries. The range and nature of employment in the arts is diverse. It includes working environments as different as the Globe Theatre, night clubs, cruise liners, holiday camps, music publishers and the Royal Ballet. As with all competitive sectors the standards necessary for success are high.
96
In 1996–97 FE colleges reported: art, design and the performing arts and media studies as the third largest of the FEFC's ten programme areas; 15 per cent. growth in enrolments in art and design; over 6,500 students on national diploma courses in performing arts; just over 1,000 on popular music courses including, I expect, some jazz; and almost 1,500 on the first diploma in performing arts. In total, over 9,000 students, mainly full-time, were enrolled for arts courses.
The new GNVQ in the performing arts and entertainment industries is currently being piloted and there are 822 students enrolled in schools and colleges. There are nearly 6,500 students doing GCE A-levels in drama, music or dance in schools and colleges.
I turn next to higher education, there are a number of dance and drama courses which qualify for public funding in our universities. There are also a limited number of specifically designated courses at private dance and drama schools. All are eligible for fee and maintenance support through the mandatory awards system. And over £18 million is allocated by the funding council in teaching funds to the specialist institutions providing dance and drama courses in England as well as to the music conservatoires. This funding will support the education of over 2,800 students next year. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was a little hard on students studying these courses, many of whom will not become performers. Of course some of them will, but others will become teachers of either dance or drama in secondary schools or elsewhere.
The particular contribution made by specialist institutions has been recognised by the panel chaired by Sir Stewart Sutherland, whose recommendations resulted in additional funding for those specialist schools where there is evidence of higher costs being incurred. The HEFCE has also recently published a review of the music conservatoires under an advisory group chaired by Sir John Tooley. Again, the valuable contribution made by them to both the higher education sector and the country as a whole was acknowledged in the report.
Before turning to future funding for drama students, I want to mention briefly the work of the Creative Industries Task Force. This interdepartmental body has been working to identify ways of maximising the economic impact of British goods and services in the creative sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Freyburg, suggested, this is an increasingly important sector in the British economy. Among the initial areas that it is considering are how to encourage the teaching of creativity in primary and secondary schools; how to go about training creative people in business management: and how to encourage businesses to invest in training, for craft skills.
I turn now to the Government's plans to support drama students. We recognise the importance of education and training for dance, drama and stage management and are pleased to be supporting the interim funding scheme which was introduced by the Arts Council of England last year. This set out to provide assistance with tuition fees for students in dance, drama or stage management courses at

97
independent schools approved under the scheme. It will be available for eligible students not only in this academic year but also in the next two. I am aware that local authority expenditure on discretionary awards has been declining and that there are vast differences in the availability of support between authorities. All students, not just drama and dance students, have been affected by the situation. That is why we are planning to replace that scheme by new and more effective arrangements, about which we will be able to say more later when Councillor Lane has completed his report.
I return now to the interim scheme. During its first year it is supporting some 580 students with the cost of their fees and 232 of those students are studying drama. The scheme is supported by 66 per cent. of local authorities, including some which have not previously supported awards in this area. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that we are also responding to the Dearing recommendation that permanent arrangements for the equitable support of dance, drama and stage management students should be provided to replace the interim scheme when it expires. We have initiated the work that is necessary to take this forward. I am most grateful to both the dance and drama sectors for their co-operation and support.
My department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are now working with the sector, the funding councils and others to replace the Interim Funding Scheme. A new permanent scheme will target the most promising students with potential to become performers or to make a significant contribution in other ways to the performing arts—for example, as directors. We will ensure that these students are able to complete their courses irrespective of their family financial circumstances and we will build on the progress and understanding gained from the Interim Funding Scheme in developing new arrangements.
The Government hope to he able to announce the new arrangements this summer, with a view to implementing them in 1999. We are determined that students with talent in these very important art forms should receive the support that they deserve. The last thing we want is for them to live in wretched conditions.

Social Security Bill
8.34 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 11.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("subsection (3) and section 36(3)") and insert ("section 36(3) below, in the circumstances set out in subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. Under Clause 11(3) the circumstances in which a decision can be superseded are entirely a matter for regulations. We believe that that is too wide and our amendments would restrict the power to supersede a decision to grounds upon which a decision call be reviewed under existing law.
98
The decision of the Secretary of State could be superseded on any ground under our Amendment No. 14, as set out in subsection (3)(a). A decision of the appeal tribunal or of social security commissioners could, however, only be superseded on the grounds in paragraphs (i) to (iv) of our amendment: that is, they could not be superseded on the grounds of being erroneous in law, the reason being that the tribunal and the commissioners are higher authorities on a question of law than the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State cannot take the view that their decisions on the law are erroneous.
In Committee in another place the Government said that the grounds set out in our amendments are those which they intend to use, but that they wanted to keep some flexibility to enable them to add to those grounds in the future by statutory instrument. The power of the Secretary of State to supersede an earlier decision is very important. We believe that the parameters for that should he set by primary legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise to express my support for Amendment No. 13 and to speak also to Amendment No. 14. These amendments have also been tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Higgins. Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State power to make a decision which supersedes one made under Clauses 9 and 10, as has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—that is, other than discretionary Social Fund decisions or one made by an appeal tribunal or a commissioner. I notice that the 10th report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, to which I referred earlier, states in paragraph 10:
"These powers may seem wide, but the explanatory memorandum (paragraph 52) explains that they will he used for only two limited purposes. Provided that the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking to this effect, the Committee therefore considers that the negative procedure is appropriate".
Of course, I respect the committee's recommendation. I would ask the Minister today to give such an undertaking to this Chamber as a very minimum response to the amendment.
I support the principle which underlies this amendment and Amendment No. 14. It is surely a fundamental principle of liberal democracy—and I use the word "liberal" in its broadest sense at this stage. I believe that the party sitting to my right does not have a monopoly of belief in the value of liberal democracy at any stage. As I said, I believe that it is a principle of liberal democracy that decisions should be made and unmade predictably. In this case subsection (3) will govern whether the unmaking of decisions can be predicted because it explicitly states that there are no restrictions on the circumstances under which the Secretary of State may unmake a decision, apart from constraints that may be imposed by regulation.
The Bill lays down explicit power that any regulation may be made at any time. When we combine the general intent of the clause with subsection (3), the subject of this amendment, the Secretary of State is given wide power to unmake decisions, thereby necessarily introducing a significant element of unpredictability into

99
the Bill without any constraint on that unpredictability other than a vague gesture towards regulations which may encapsulate constraints.
The amendment seeks only to place some constraints on the way and the basis on which, decisions may be unmade. It therefore seeks to reintroduce at least some element of predictability into decision making. I certainly see the merit in that. I hope that the Minister who responds will also see merit in that. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My noble friend Lord Goodhart drew attention to the Minister's claim to what he described generously as flexibility. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said correctly that this introduces a large element of unpredictability into the operation of Clause 11(3). The Minister in another place said that he wanted to keep the flexibility in case,
"further opportunities to modernise the process arise. There may in future be a need to be more precise".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee B, 30/10/97; col. 91.]
This is a classic case of the principle "or else some other reason why" which, as I mentioned in relation to Amendment No. 9, means not being allowed to the claimant. It is also an example of the Secretary of State taking power to do whatever he likes. It is therefore a classic example of what has become known as the Cambises clause after Cambises, King of Persia, who was said to have a law to say that he did whatever he liked. Far too often the Secretary of State does that. I am not sure that Cambises is a good precedent to follow in English law.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hardie: These amendments raise again the issue of primary as opposed to secondary legislation which we discussed earlier this evening. For the benefit of the Committee I should explain that it is our intention that the powers in this clause to supersede decisions will be used when an error in the original decision has not been identified within the dispute period of one month, or when there is a relevant change of circumstances.
We intend to provide in regulations that a decision may be superseded where there was ignorance of, or a mistake as to a material fact, or an error of law in the original decision, or there has been a relevant change of circumstances (or one is anticipated), or a decision falls to be reconsidered under the relevant sections of the Jobseekers Act.
It will be apparent to anyone who studies the provisions of the proposed new Subsection (3) of the amendment that the regulations will cover the points mentioned in that subsection. The real issue here is whether those reasons should be contained in primary or secondary legislation. We believe that there are good reasons why secondary legislation is more appropriate. The department wishes to be in a position to respond over time to issues which will inevitably arise as the new arrangements for decision-making and appeals are implemented. In that regard I think I am saying no more and no less than the Minister said in another place. For example, there may be a need in the future to make the
100
wording of the regulations more precise, to maintain the spirit behind the provision, or to close loopholes which emerge. Or it may be that particular kinds of decisions require specific sets of rules defining matters in more detail. There is a risk that if we were required to seek parliamentary time to amend primary legislation, we would not be able effectively to incorporate lessons learnt from practical, operational experience.
I address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with regard to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The Committee will recall that at the beginning of my reply I indicated that it was our intention that the powers to supersede decisions would be used in the two circumstances mentioned by the committee. However, I am not able to give explicit assurance that the powers will be used only for those two purposes for the reasons that I have explained; namely, that the new legal structure for decision making and appeals contains substantial changes and, as time progresses, lessons will be learnt. It would be more appropriate to have the flexibility of regulations rather than require to amend primary legislation. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I would have preferred to see the matter dealt with by primary legislation rather than being left to secondary legislation. However, it is not a matter I wish to press further. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Haskelmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert—
("(3A) Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply in the case of a decision of the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(c) of section 9 above where the relevant enactment within the meaning of that section is section 121C or 121D of the Administration Act (liability of directors etc. for company's contributions).").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
INDEPENDENT CASE EXAMINER
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that any complaint concerning an officer acting on his behalf under sections 9, 10 and 11 above is properly investigated and the results of the investigation notified to the complainant.
(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent case examiner to consider the complaint of any complainant not satisfied with the result of the investigation into his complaint by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above.
(3) The independent case examiner shall publish each year a report on complaints investigated, their outcome and his recommendations to prevent the recurrence of such complaints.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to set up an independent case examiner for complainants to address if they are not satisfied with an internal complaints procedure. It is an extremely modest

101
amendment. It relies on the principle of the Citizen's Charter. I am a little surprised to find myself doing that. It is a real measure of my modesty. The principle is a well-publicised and easy to use complaints procedure with independent review wherever possible. That already exists in the Contributions Agency and in the Child Support Agency. It would do something to relieve discontent which builds up from time to time. It would also do something to relieve pressure on existing organisations. In particular it would relieve some of the pressure on the ombudsman.
During the period from May to October 1997 the ombudsman investigated 194 cases involving 20 government departments. Some 121 of those involved the Department of Social Security. I imagine that a large proportion of those were child support cases. The Inland Revenue, which came second, was quite a long way behind. The figures measure the complexity of the business involved rather than any administrative failing in the department. But they do indicate considerable pressure. A measure of this kind might also relieve pressure on Ministers who may receive as a result rather fewer letters than they do at present. I see from the Minister's expression that he does not believe that. Perhaps that cynicism is justified. Perhaps if the measure would not result in Ministers receiving fewer letters, they may not receive a steadily increasing number of letters as they might otherwise have done. Perhaps the Minister finds that a little more persuasive.
The measure might also relieve pressure on MPs' surgeries. It seems that social security complaints take up a large part of the time of those surgeries. It might well he in the interests of justice and because it could involve expert mediation and knowledge of where to go and which button to press, it could succeed in resolving some grievances. Therefore it may do a modest amount of good. There have been worse reasons for putting forward amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am disarmed by the approach that, the more modest the amendment, the more likely it is to be accepted by the Government. I wonder whether the more trivial it is, perhaps the less significant it is. It may reassure the noble Earl that the substance, if not the form, of his wording is well taken into account.
The amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to ensure that complaints, including complaints about agency staff, are investigated. The way to do that, the noble Lord suggests, is to set up a single independent case examiner.
We all agree that complaints must be fully investigated and appropriate action taken. There should be some kind of external review mechanism to ensure that that happens.
Two of the DSS agencies, the Contributions Agency and the Child Support Agency, have adopted the independent case examiner route referred to in the
102
amendment, which perhaps puts a question mark over the noble Earl's belief that the ombudsman is the appropriate safety valve for the Child Support Agency.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister. I obtained my belief from reading the ombudsman's report on the Child Support Agency. Clearly I am in good company.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is clear that one does not obviate the other or make it redundant.
The Benefits Agency has taken a different route and I shall explain how this has come about. The BA wants its staff to resolve complaints as quickly and as simply as possible. It encourages customers—no, it encourages claimants—to make a complaint at the initial point of contact in the first instance. If the claimant is still dissatisfied after his case has been through the agency's normal internal complaints procedure, he can take his case to the local independent complaints panels. These panels were set up in July 1997 for each of the agency's units, following a successful pilot in Newcastle. The pilot was found to be an unbureaucratic, speedy and effective way of addressing the concerns of claimants.
The Citizens' Charter Complaints Task Force was set up in 1993 with a two-year remit to look at how public services handle complaints and to make recommendations. One of its aims was to uncover good practice in public service organisations.
The task force asked officials from the Benefits Agency to make a presentation about the Newcastle pilot. The task force fully supported the approach, which was tied in with a customer-oriented approach to service generally. This approach has brought about many service improvements since the BA was launched and has resulted in the agency being awarded a total of 51 Chartermarks. It does not say out of how many, but 51 must be better than two.
The task force recommended that all public services should have an external review mechanism appropriate to its own circumstances and its existing complaints handling arrangements. The Benefits Agency wished to implement this recommendation by extending its pilot scheme, and the task force fully supported this.
The system now operates throughout the agency. Each local panel sets its own terms of reference and is entirely independent of the agency. The Benefits Agency merely provides administrative support. The full facts of the case are made available to the panel, and the agency provides additional information as required. The panels are made up of volunteers from local organisations who are knowledgeable about providing a service; for example, members of welfare rights groups, hospitals, libraries, schools and GP surgeries. By working with representatives of local groups in this way, the agency receives objective advice from people with a wide range of experience.
Panels can recommend new local procedures for areas of improvement. Managers are able to consider recommendations quickly and implement them wherever possible. The recommendations a panel might make are wide-ranging. For example, it might suggest that the office handle certain cases more sensitively;

103
revise certain procedures, consider whether compensation payments would apply in a particular case; try to alter waiting room arrangements; consider improvements for service to particular groups such as pensioners, people with young children or the blind. It might also highlight a training need, particularly if a problem kept recurring.
The local complaints panels are a recent initiative and the Benefits Agency is monitoring their operation carefully. It will publish its findings and information on the improvements resulting from recommendations made by local panels in the agency's annual report and accounts for 1997–98. A full review of the effectiveness of the independent local tier will commence in April 1998 and will include consultation with claimants and panel members.
We want to encourage local ownership of service standards by Benefits Agency districts and local communities. This amendment would involve creating a centralised, more remote and more expensive system which would take many months on average to deal with each complaint. On the other hand, we anticipate local panels will consider each complaint and deal with it within two months.
The arrangements I have described are right for the Benefits Agency and tailored to local circumstances. I hope that in the light of my explanation, in particular of how this approach fits in with the views of the Citizens' Charter Task Force, that the noble Earl will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Higgins: May I make an impassioned appeal at this stage of the proceedings? I do not expect the noble Baroness to reply immediately, but perhaps she and the Lord Advocate will take it into account.
I hope that we can avoid the use of this horrid word "customers". These people are not customers; they have no choice. Customers have choices where they go. These people are human beings, they are not customers. They are people about whom we are concerned to ensure that they get their proper benefits. I hope that the bureaucracy will take this into account and avoid it in future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. It is even worse than being told when you are a passenger on a train that you are a customer, as though you have a choice about which train you go on. It is even worse in the NHS. Many of us prefer the old-fashioned term "patient" to that of "customer". It may be that the Citizens' Charter has produced a vocabulary with which we have to be consistent, but I share the noble Lord's preference for the old vocabulary.
Earl Russell: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I am grateful for what he said. I noticed with great pleasure that when the noble Baroness used the word "customer" she instantly corrected it before the noble Lord spoke.
104
I congratulate the Minister on her debating skills. She scored every point she could from the hand she had to play. The way she instantly responded to the implications of the Child Support Agency by arguing that, first, an independent case examiner does not relieve the pressure on the ombudsman and, secondly, that the ombudsman and the examiner are not mutually exclusive alternatives was extremely well done.
The Minister went into a revolving door. The trouble with the Child Support Agency is that it illustrates the danger of decisions made by computer. The Minister said that she wished it did. That is exactly what you get when you try to use a formula and you feed it into a computer. As my late noble friend Lady Seear used to say, "Garbage in, garbage out".
Much more substantial was the point she made about the new procedure set up by the Benefits Agency. It is too early to start passing judgment finally on a procedure set up in July 1997. I wish that procedure well. I note what the Minister has said about it, and in the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Regulations with respect to decisions]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I move Amendment No. 17 and speak also to Amendment No. 155. This group of amendments is wholly technical. The effect is to move the provisions currently to be found in subsection (2) of Clause 12 of this Bill into subsection (5) of Section 16 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996. Amendment No. 17 deletes the relevant provision from Clause 12, while Amendment No. 155 effectively inserts the substance of that provision into subsection (5) of Section 16 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996.
The provision in question is a straightforward re-enactment of Section 58(4) of the Administration Act. The provision puts beyond doubt that the regulation-making power in Section 16 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 on decisions extends to the total or partial recoupment of jobseekers allowance or unemployment benefit from compensation payments employers are due to pay in consequence of the findings of industrial tribunals.
I can reassure the Committee that the amendments do not substantially affect the policy. The draftsman has simply taken the opportunity to tidy up the drafting of the primary legislation.
With those assurances, I hope that the Committee will accept that the amendments are purely technical, as well as being highly technical, and will therefore feel able to support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Matters arising as respects decisions]:
9 p.m.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 12, line 45, at end insert—
("(1A) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) above shall in particular authorise the Secretary of State to make a payment on account of a relevant benefit pending any decision referred to in that subsection and shall require him when he is considering whether to make such a payment to take account of the hardship that any person is likely to suffer if a payment is not made.
(1B) In making the provision referred to in subsection (1A) regulations shall not circumscribe the circumstances in which a payment on account may be made (other than that a decision referred to in subsection (1A) above is pending) but they may make provision requiring a claimant to agree to repay the payment in prescribed circumstances as a condition for making the payment.
(IC) In making such provision, regulations shall provide that, where the Secretary of State declines to make a payment on account, a claimant may appeal to an appeal tribunal against the refusal and that such an appeal shall in prescribed circumstances he determined expeditiously,").
The noble Earl said: The effect of the amendment would be to give the Minister the right to allow payments on account pending appeal where severe hardship might result if that were not done. Its effect would be to restore the law to what it was before 5th February 1996. Both the Minister and I, having been involved in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, will, I think, remember other significance in that date. This may not possibly be coincidental.
We have had recently a considerable number of regulations under which people can be denied benefit entirely. That in itself is one injustice. But to deny people benefit entirely, and then to find, when there was an appeal, that you did not have the legal entitlement to do so, is a double injustice. In those original asylum regulations—I am sure that the Minister and I remember them extremely well—there was a provision to pay the benefit after appeal if they were subsequently found to be entitled. But this is in danger of becoming somewhat like a posthumous VC. One is not in any position to enjoy it. Where there is a total disentitlement to benefit, the only options really are starvation or going underground in some illicit capacity. Therefore it can he important to have an entitlement to benefit pending the final resolution of whether one has a right to it.
We shall return to the issue in debates on Clauses 25, 26 and 27, where we shall be getting a large number of cases held up pending resolution of the test case. To do that without giving people the right to have anything to live on in the interim can be a very harsh measure indeed. This is a benefit of the doubt amendment; and where life itself may be at stake I should have thought that the benefit of the doubt is not too much to ask. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment would provide for regulations to be made authorising the Secretary of State to make interim payments, taking account of any hardship that might otherwise result, where a decision of the Secretary of State, an appeal tribunal or a commissioner is pending. The amendment provides for such payments to be recoverable and gives a right of appeal against a refusal to make an award.
106
Our intention is that current provision for interim payments in Regulation 2 of the Payments on Account, Overpayment and Recoupment Regulations (made under Section 5 of the Administration Act) will remain in force under the new decision-making and appeals arrangements. Payments on account, or interim payments as they are otherwise known, can be paid before a final decision on benefit entitlement has been reached where the Secretary of State has reason to believe that there is, or may be, entitlement to the benefit in question.
These payments are recoverable either from benefit, if eventually awarded, or from other income if benefit is not awarded. They are intended to provide an immediate source of income where entitlement is possible but there is a delay in making a claim in accordance with the claims and payments regulations, making a decision or making the right payment, for administrative or practical reasons—for example, in a case where the department believes that there is clear entitlement to benefit, but there is no time to go through the formal claims process because it is Friday afternoon and the claimant is in urgent need.
There are currently no appeal rights against a refusal to make an interim payment, and we do not propose to introduce them. This is because it is almost always the case that the initial question is resolved well before an appeal against the refusal to award an interim payment could be heard. And, of course, the customer has the usual right of appeal against the decision on full benefit entitlement, when that is taken.
Interim payments were only ever intended to be made, as an emergency measure, where proper benefit entitlement could not be established under the normal statutory provisions because of administrative difficulties.
It has never been the intention that interim payments should be made where a claim has been properly determined, but is under appeal. This would be to circumvent the normal rules on benefit entitlement as established by legislation approved by Parliament. It would mean making payments to customers who have no entitlement to benefit under the statutory provisions. The Secretary of State would make payments to the very people who she has already decided are not entitled.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has argued that any interim payment could be recovered. However, in practice it would be extremely difficult to recover any payments made, especially where the eventual outcome was that there was no entitlement to benefit. We would be in the position of having made payments to claimants many of whom turn out to have no statutory entitlement to benefit. In such circumstances, the chances of ever recovering the amounts paid out would be minimal. The practicalities and the administrative costs of attempting to pursue such overpayments and the recovery of them in these cases would be prohibitive.
I hope that I have been able to explain that there is already adequate provision for the making of interim payments where administrative difficulties prevent a

107
final decision being made. I therefore hope, in view of this explanation, that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I cannot help feeling that was a rather self-satisfied reply. The department, like the servant in the open testimonial, is saying that it has carried out its duties entirely to its own satisfaction.
Before deciding whether we need to come back to this at another stage, I should like to probe some of the words which the Minister has used as taken from the existing regulations. The noble Baroness said that benefit is payable only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is or may be an entitlement. Everything seems to me to hang on the interpretation of the words "or may be". According to a strict and narrow interpretation—I suspect that that is the one the department is using—the Secretary of State would under those words require to have good ground for believing that there may be a legal entitlement. There would have to be a strong degree of probability.
However, according to the other interpretation, which relies on possibility rather than probability, the mere fact that the case has gone to appeal—and judgments on appeal are well known to be capable of going either way—would indicate that, just because the judgment is uncertain, therefore there may be an entitlement. That would be rather more plausible.
We must accept that if there are to be appeals there must be rules for what is done pending those appeals and that those rules, since we do not know what the result of the appeal will be, are bound to involve the possibility of injustice to one side or the other. Whichever side is given the benefit of the doubt, it may be that the judgment will go against it.
I take the Minister's point about the difficulty of recovery. However, that seems to me to be saying that recovery will he perfectly possible where the payment on account was not necessary; but where it was necessary, and where in fact the person would otherwise have starved, recovery will he extremely difficult. It therefore seems to me to be a provision that would catch the guilty and spare the comparatively innocent.
It is a question of which risk we are prepared to take. The Minister knows, as well as I do, that when people have been unjustly denied benefit, sometimes over quite a period of time, there has been a multiplication of further hardships—such as, very often, eviction from their house. That leads to difficulty in finding further employment. It therefore leads to a loss of future revenue for the Treasury, which loses, just like everyone else. Since somebody has to lose whichever way we handle the question of payment of benefit pending appeal, the body that takes the risk should properly be the one that is better able to bear it. When I ask which is better able to bear a financial loss—Her Majesty's Treasury or an individual claimant with no other visible means of support—the answer does not appear that difficult.
It is the basic function of social security to make sure that people are not cast into utter destitution. That is in the public interest, since, if they are, they tend to
108
become unemployable in future. It deprives the Government of potentially useful tax-paying subjects. In the light of that, I cannot help wondering whether we have really got this one the wrong way round, and whether it really ought to be the Government who are taking the risk during the period when the case goes to appeal. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The thrust of the noble Earl's response was to ask what "may be" might mean. To put it negatively to start with, I do not believe it was ever intended that, because a claimant had recourse to appeal, that equates to "may be" in legislative terms. We have had arguments in this Chamber over many years about the payment of benefit while pursuing appeals. The implication of the noble Earl's position would be that anyone who went to appeal thereby produced a "may be" case and therefore an entitlement to interim payments of benefit. The read-across implication of that for the DSS would be huge. It would mean that. in every benefit area, anyone would be encouraged to go to appeal in the knowledge that, if the appeal was some six or nine months away, the benefit would continue to be paid under a "may be" criterion for the whole of that six to nine months and until the appeal was disposed of either way, even though the Secretary of State had previously assured herself at the time when she made the original judgment that she was satisfied that the claim was ill-founded. So, to put it negatively, it would not be expected to apply to that.
On the contrary, "may be" is meant in this instance to be an enabling power allowing the Secretary of State to act where no claim has been made but where it might be impracticable for one to be made immediately; where such a claim has been made but it cannot be immediately determined; or where an award has been made but it is impracticable to pay the whole immediately. In other words, it is a discretion on administrative grounds, not an issue about the payment of benefit, almost like a hardship payment, while an appeal is being pursued, with implications for the rest of social security legislation.
Earl Russell: The Minister has given almost exactly the answer I expected. I understand the case that she makes. It is perfectly true. I think the case that I am making is perfectly true also. What we need to consider is which of those cases is more important. That is something that we might better do at our leisure, and quietly. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Lord Chancellor's panel for appointment to appeal tribunals]:
Lord Archer of Sandwellmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 25, after ("shall') insert ("after consultation with the President").

109
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss Amendment No. 20. I set down these amendments partly as a crusader, partly as a seeker after truth. I should at the outset make a declaration which I omitted to make in the course of my former intervention—namely, that I am privileged to be chairman of the Council on Tribunals, which has expressed views on a range of matters relating to the Bill. I hope that, in the interests of promoting expedition and avoiding tedium, Members of the Committee will accept that declaration as applying throughout the Committee stage.
In fact, these amendments were suggested not by the Council on Tribunals but by His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte, the former president of the ITS, in the memorandum which has already been referred to this evening and which he circulated in December. In that memorandum he referred to the proposal that the Lord Chancellor should appoint members to the panel for appeal tribunals. Of course, we all agree that normally appointments to judicial office should be by the Lord Chancellor and certainly not by, for example, the Secretary of State, who in effect will be a party to many of the disputes. However, Judge Bassingthwaighte expressed concern at the logistical problems which that may raise.
In the last reporting year there were 178 appointments in England, Wales and Scotland and 60 part-time chairmen. I assume that not all existing members and chairmen will be automatic appointments to the new panels since part of the purpose of the exercise is to produce a different range of expertise.
Recruiting and appointing the required number of members may well be a formidable operation. It is not likely that all potential candidates will be known to the Lord Chancellor and his officials; it seems probable that they will have to consult. Who will be consulted? Not, I hope, the Secretary of State or her officials. In appointing a judge, one does not consult one of the parties to the litigation which he will have to decide. Judge Bassingthwaighte suggested that it would be sensible to consult the president, who would be in the best position to know the numbers and the range of expertise required. He, in turn, would consult with his administrators, but it would be wrong in both principle and practice to short-circuit that process by consulting directly and only with the administrators.
If it is said, "Of course, the Lord Chancellor will consult the president; you do not need to write it into the we shall all have a feeling of déjá vu and we shall return the usual answer, "If it is to be done in any event, why not say so in the Bill?"
The present arrangement, which seems to work quite well, is that the Lord Chancellor appoints the chairman, who will now be legally qualified, and other members are appointed by the president. I assume that the change is explained by the fact that all members will now be expected to have a specific expertise. That is the subject of Amendment No. 20, to which I shall speak in a moment. If there is a reason for omitting a role for the president from the text of the Bill, it would be
110
enlightening to be told what that reason is. There is clearly no principle of keeping consultation requirements off the face of the Bill. That brings me to Amendment No. 20.
On the face of it, the provision in Clause 6(2) is surprising. As the Bill stands, the Lord Chancellor is not required to consult anyone before appointing members, whatever the expertise in respect of which they are appointed, with one exception. Before appointing a medical practitioner, he is required to consult the Chief Medical Officer. I suggest that that is puzzling, for two reasons. First, while I understand that the Lord Chancellor has no medical expertise and therefore may not know who is and who is not a good doctor, there is no similar requirement in respect of those appointed for their skills in accountancy or for their actuarial skills. I assume that the Lord Chancellor will take advice from whomever he considers necessary; there is nothing to prevent him doing so. Perhaps it would be better to write that into the Bill. A moment ago I complained that one possible consultation requirement was not written into the Bill. But, of all potential consultees, why select just one, a medical officer? That is the first reason why it is surprising.
There is a second and more worrying reason. The Government's Chief Medical Officer can hardly be described as independent. Surely he is an official of the DoH, the very department whose decisions are being challenged? At present, when consultants are appointed to MATs there is consultation with the president of the appropriate Royal college. If the candidate is not a consultant but a general practitioner, there must be a number of doctors familiar with his abilities. But how can my noble and learned friend justify consultation with the Government's own Chief Medical Officer?
I say at once that I have not had the pleasure of meeting the Chief Medical Officer. I have no reason to believe that he is less than completely fair. But that is not what independence is about. There should be no input from a potentially interested party, not even a potential conflict of interests. I therefore raise two questions with my noble and learned friend and look forward with curiosity, if not with anxiety, to his answers. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I support Amendment No. 19 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and my noble friend Lord Higgins, and Amendment No. 20.
The noble and learned Lord began by making a declaration of interest with regard to his long experience in the world of tribunals as chairman of the Council on Tribunals. Indeed, I have respected his work over the past few years. Perhaps therefore I should add my declaration of interest—I am tempted to say past interest. I was a lay member of tribunals from 1982 until August 1996 when I had a direct interest. I now have a personal interest but do not benefit from any of the results of the Bill unless, as a member of the public, I make a claim at some stage and appeal against the decision.

111
I should like to identify myself with all the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and with the underlying spirit of his amendment. He is a crusader and seeker after truth. He carefully and clearly put forward the arguments which Judge Bassingthwaighte presented to us in a memorandum circulated before Second Reading.
Within my definition, these are modest amendments in that they are practical, useful and certainly not damaging to the rest of the Bill. I hope therefore that when the noble and learned Lord replies he will indicate that both of these commonsense amendments will be accepted.
Lord Hardie: I regret to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer for proposing Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 because this gives me the opportunity to explain how the appointments process will work in practice.
At present, the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with me, as Lord Advocate, appoints the chairmen of all tribunal jurisdictions within the Independent Tribunal Service. Tribunal members are currently appointed by the president, but he has no formal role in the appointment of the chairmen, who are all legally qualified. The Lord Chancellor, as a matter of good practice, involves the president closely in the appointments process and the president, or another member of the ITS judiciary, almost invariably sits on the relevant interview panel. In addition, in appropriate cases, the Lord Chancellor also consults other members of the judiciary on the suitability of candidates for those offices. As my noble and learned friend observed, the Lord Chancellor may consult anyone he wishes, prior to making an appointment.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor believes that the independence of panel members is most effectively guaranteed if the power of appointment is vested in him alone, as it is under the existing legislation for chairmen.
It is important to bear in mind that in the new system, confidence will depend on people having confidence in the independence of the chairmen and of the panel members. The starting point, then, is to have all of them appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It is also the position in respect of other judicial appointments to tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible that he has the power of appointment vested in him alone. We share the Lord Chancellor's view and have therefore made provision in Clause 6 for all appointments to the panel to be made by him.
The effect of Amendment No. 19 would be to create a statutory requirement for the Lord Chancellor to consult the president before setting up the panel of persons who will act as members of, and experts to, appeal tribunals. Clearly, the president, as judicial head of appeal tribunals, will have an interest in ensuring that the panel comprises sufficient numbers of persons with the right expertise from whom he may draw properly constituted and equipped appeal tribunals. As I said, it
112
is the current practice of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to involve the president closely in the selection process, and he will continue to do so.
However, the Lord Chancellor considers that it would be inappropriate for a requirement for consultation with the president to be on the face of the Bill. Why restrict it to the president? It would also be out of step with other jurisdictions for which the Lord Chancellor has appointment responsibilities and would dilute the responsibility which he holds as a Minister and for which he is answerable to Parliament. I share that view.
In relation to Amendment No. 20, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and I are also both in agreement that the appointment of medical practitioners to the panel is a special case. That is why Clause 6 requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the Chief Medical Officer with respect to medical expertise. If I may pause and take up a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, the Chief Medical Officer is employed by the Department of Health and not by the department which is a party to the cases before the appeal tribunals.
Furthermore, why should medics be in a different position from members of other professions? Other professions—for example, accountants and solicitors—tend to have standard qualifications and belong to a small number of professional bodies. Medical practitioners, on the other hand, have a wide range of medical qualifications and experience. Some specialise in general practice while others specialise in particular discrete areas of medicine. The Chief Medical Officers have access to information on all types of medical practitioners and are best placed to advise the Lord Chancellor on suitable appointments, bearing in mind that different expertise will be required for different types of tribunal.
The Lord Chancellor will need to appoint general practitioners to deal with straightforward medical appeals but he will also require a wide range of specialists and consultants who have specific expertise in particular areas. For example, vaccine damage appeals will require the expertise of medical practitioners with experience of the effects of vaccines on childhood conditions. Industrial injuries cases, which raise a medical issue in relation to a prescribed disease, will require the expertise of a medical practitioner with knowledge of the particular condition. It is appropriate that the Chief Medical Officer should be the person to give guidance to the Lord Chancellor on the appropriate person to appoint to the pool of candidates from whom the president would select a panel member.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene for a moment. I have some difficulty in understanding why the medical officer should be the person with the expertise in selecting doctors. He is clearly a doctor like any other but not, one should have thought, one who has particular expertise in saying that this or that other doctor happens to be the right person for the job.
Lord Hardie: I was going to come on to the position of the Chief Medical Officer. In doing so, I fear that

113
Amendment No. 20 could have an adverse effect on the quality of medical practitioners appointed to the panel. Decisions depend on expert medical knowledge and skills and it is essential that the quality assurance process begins with the recruitment and appointment of doctors. The Chief Medical Officer will be able to consult the medical Royal Colleges and other bodies as appropriate and will play a valuable role in advising the Lord Chancellor on the suitability and availability of all types of medical practitioner from all medical disciplines.
To answer directly the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, if I were looking for an individual on whom one could focus as someone with access to all aspects of the medical profession and with the ability to consult appropriate bodies, it seems to us that the Chief Medical Officer would be the appropriate individual. It may be that the noble Lord has another office-holder in mind. If that point were to be raised at a later date, we would obviously consider it, but it seemed to us that the Chief Medical Officer was the obvious candidate for the consultation process.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is content with the arrangements in Clause 6. In the light of this explanation, I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that clear exposition. I sought after truth and I think that I have been partly successful. Perhaps I may begin by making it clear that on one principle my noble and learned friend and I are totally at one. I wholly agree that the appropriate authority to appoint members is my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, coupled with my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I apologise for my earlier oversight in that regard. Of course it is much better that they should make the appointments rather than some other Minister. My council has been saying that for quite a long time.
However, my noble and learned friend said, "In practice, we do consult the president. It would be extraordinary not to consult him". That raises the question which more than one of us in this debate has ventured to pose, "Why not say so on the face of the Bill?" I understand that the answer to that is to say, "Why single out one person to be consulted? Why not include everybody you want to consult if you are going to do that?". I should have thought that the president was in a peculiar position. He is probably in a better position to carry out precisely the function which my noble and learned friend assigned a moment ago to the Chief Medical Officer—that is, to know who else to consult and to be at the hub of the wheel of consultation.
My noble and learned friend said two things which have set me thinking. First, I accept my noble and learned friend's correction that the Chief Medical Officer is employed by the Department of Health, not the Department of Social Security. I was clearly wrong about that and my noble and learned friend's answer has given me a degree of reassurance.
114
Secondly, I accept, I think, that the medical profession is wider and less compact, and that information about it is less readily available than is the case with some other professions, such as accountancy. In the light of that, I should like to reflect further on this.
However, I share the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about why the Chief Medical Officer should be the person selected to conduct the consultation process. If he is to be at the hub of the wheel of consultation, one wonders why the president of the Royal College of Surgeons could not be at least an equally suitable candidate.
It may be that there is not very much between us and that we shall be able to consider whether there is an alternative candidate. For the moment, however, I am content to reflect on these matters and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert ("and, in the case of persons holding office as Commissioners for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts, with the presiding Special Commissioner designated under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. This is the first of a group of amendments which is intended to ensure that national insurance contribution appeals are dealt with by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax and not social security appeals tribunals. This amendment stands on a somewhat different footing from other amendments which my noble friend Lord Russell and I have moved or will move this evening. In this case the impetus has come not from my party but from a body known as the Tax Law Review Committee. That is a body of which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and I are members. It is a powerful body on which all three parties are represented. Its president is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon and its members include judges, former senior staff members of the Inland Revenue, tax experts, businessmen and accountants.
The Government have recognised that the present way of dealing with contribution questions is unsatisfactory. Currently, the Secretary of State has the sole power to decide contribution questions under Section 17 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. She has delegated that power to a body known as the Office for Determination of Contribution Questions. From the decision of that body there is a right of appeal to the High Court, but not beyond it, only on questions of law. There have been very few appeals, and the absence of an appeal beyond the High Court means that the higher courts have been unable to develop the law.
This Bill introduces for the first time a proper appeals system for contribution questions, and to that extent it is extremely welcome. It does so by means of Clause 13 and Part II of Schedule 3. Those provisions refer contribution questions to the social security appeal tribunal set up under Part I of the Bill. The Tax Law Review Committee believes, as do I, that this is the

115
wrong forum and that these matters should be dealt with by a tax tribunal. Undoubtedly, as the appeal system for tax questions now stands the appropriate tribunal is the Special Commissioners of Income Tax.
It has become increasingly clear that national insurance contributions are not in fact insurance contributions but a tax. Employers' national insurance contributions are a form of payroll tax; employees' national insurance contributions are a form of hypothecated income tax. The integration of national insurance contributions and income tax has been going on for years. It is many years since national insurance contributions ceased to be collected by means of the weekly stamp and started to be collected through the PAYE system. In this year's Budget three further stages of integration were introduced. First, it was announced that the starting point for national insurance contributions would be raised to the same point as the single personal allowance for income tax. Secondly, various national insurance contribution avoidance schemes through payment of employees in hay, bismuth or other tradeable commodities were to be eliminated by application of a stricter income tax definition of what constituted earnings. Thirdly, the Contributions Agency is to be transferred from the Department of Social Security to the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue statement published on Budget day said that the advantages of the transfer of the Contributions Agency included making it easier to align the tax and national insurance contribution rules.
The same issues often arise in relation to contributions as to income tax, in particular the question whether someone is employed or self-employed. This is a crucial question for income tax because it decides whether the earner of this income is taxable under Schedule D or Schedule E and whether the earnings are subject to PAYE. It is also crucial for national insurance contributions because this question decides whether there is an employer who pays employers' national insurance contributions and what kind of NICs the earner pays. It makes no sense whatever for these very similar questions to be decided by different tribunals. NIC avoidance schemes are very similar to tax avoidance schemes, and it makes obvious sense for NIC schemes to be dealt with by tribunals with experience of tax schemes. The process of alignment of income tax and NICs has now plainly reached the point where it is clear that contribution issues should be dealt with by the same tribunal as tax issues.
In this group of five amendments, there are two sub-groups which offer alternative solutions. Amendments Nos. 42 and 52 transfer contribution appeals straight into the tax appeal system. I believe that to be the simplest and best of the two solutions.
The other sub-group (Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 30) provides that on contributions appeals the chairman of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal, or its sole member if there is only one member, is to be a special commissioner. That is less satisfactory, if only because it leads to an appeal lying from a special commissioner, who is an expert, to a social security commissioner, who is not.
116
We have had an earlier statement from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and I have received a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, a copy of which she has placed in the Library. I find the statement and the letter helpful in undertaking that the Government have this matter in hand. I understand why they think that it is appropriate to deal with legislation at a later stage rather than in the Bill.
However, I have still thought it desirable to move the amendment in order to place the matter on record and to obtain the Government's formal answer on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: I shall respond to Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 30, 42 and 52 as a group, because I appreciate that the noble Lord is raising a question of principle at this stage, as his last remarks made clear.
However, before responding to the amendments, perhaps I may put on record my appreciation of the Tax Law Review Committee's Report on appeals procedures on national insurance disputes. The report, which was published on 18th February, reflects the calibre of the committee's expertise, of which the noble Lord is a valued member.
As the Committee will be aware the situation regarding the future handling of national insurance contributions appeals is now rather different from what it was when the arrangements described in this Bill were first decided.
As has been said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that the administration of national insurance through the Contributions Agency, which is currently an executive agency of the Department of Social Security, will be transferred to the Inland Revenue.
The related national insurance contributions policy functions will also be transferred once decisions on the future of contributory benefits have been reached as part of the wider work on welfare reform.
The transfer will require a lot of hard work to ensure a smooth transition. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that, so soon after the Budget Statement, I am not able to give details of how the national insurance scheme will fit into the Inland Revenue's work, or of how contributions appeals will be handled. However, I can give the assurances that, in formulating their plans, the Government will give due and proper consideration to the Tax Law Review Committee's Report.
As my noble friend Lord Haskel has already explained, we do not intend to pre-empt Parliament by making amendments to this Bill to reflect the transfer, in advance of Parliament's agreement that the transfer should take place. Nor, indeed, are we in a position to make wholesale changes to appeals provisions so quickly after the announcement. It seems to us far more logical that the necessary changes should be made as part of the legislation which will enact the transfer, giving both the Government and Parliament time to scrutinise the implications in appropriate depth.
I therefore must ask the Committee to agree that the arrangements on the face of this Bill should stand, but with the firm undertaking that they will be quickly

117
reviewed and revised in the light of the proposed transfer; and that the revised arrangements will draw on the considerations that have been so ably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the Tax Law Review Committee. In the light of these assurances I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful for the statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. That statement, together with that made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the letter which I received from the noble Baroness, go further than I had expected when I tabled the amendment. I understand the reasons why the Government wish to defer the matter to a later date. I fully accept that it would not be appropriate to proceed with these issues in this Bill. I hope that in due course we shall see the legislation enacted in the form which the Tax Law Review Committee has proposed. In that hope, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert ("and
(c) in relation to Scotland, the Chief Medical Officer of the Scottish Office.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 33, 34, 38, 40, 41 and 137.
This group of government amendments makes changes to the provisions for the appointment of persons to the panels to act as members of appeal tribunals. Clauses 6 and 7 currently provide for the appointment of separate panels by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate respectively. I intend to oppose the Question that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill. Taken together, these amendments will result in the appointment by the Lord Chancellor (under Clause 6) of a single panel of persons for the whole of Great Britain.
The amendments have become necessary following the introduction of the Scotland Bill, which interacts with the way in which Clause 7 in its current form is intended to operate. Under the terms of the Scotland Bill, the Lord Advocate will remain as head of the Systems of Criminal Prosecution and Deaths Investigation in Scotland. He will also be the Law Officer to the Scottish Executive. Most of his other ministerial policy functions, including those relating to tribunals, will be transferred to the Scottish Ministers. With the exception of the Lord Advocate's retained functions and any conferred specifically on the First Minister, it will be for the latter to determine the allocation of ministerial responsibilities in his team. That does not preclude the possibility that the Lord Advocate, as a Minister in the Scottish Executive, might have similar functions to those he exercises at present in relation to tribunals. But it will not be clear who would be the Minister responsible for these functions in Scotland until after Scottish devolution has
118
taken place. In my view, it would not be right to retain the present Clause 7 in the knowledge that the functions it lays on the Lord Advocate would be removed through another Bill currently before Parliament.
To ensure that there are clear arrangements in place, the Government now propose that there should be a single panel and that the Lord Chancellor should retain the appointment function for the whole of Great Britain until after devolution. However, it would still he the position that the Lord Chancellor would consult the Lord Advocate in making appointments to the panel. At that stage, the UK Government may consider transferring to a Scottish Minister the function of making appointments to a panel in relation to Scotland. This would be achieved through provisions in the Scotland Bill for the further transfer of functions. Such transfers would be by Order in Council and would be subject to the affirmative procedure in both the United Kingdom and the Scottish Parliaments. Before bringing an order forward, the UK Government would want to satisfy themselves as to the arrangements which would be made for handling this function. In particular we would have regard to the distribution of responsibility within the Scottish Executive for relevant judicial appointments matters.
We believe that this course offers clarity about the responsibility for the appointment of panel members across the initial period of establishment of a Scottish Executive. I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: I presume from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said that it is proposed that we should discuss the deletion of Clause 7 together with these amendments. That seemed to be what he was saying. Perhaps I may comment on the amendments and on Clause 7 at this stage of the proceedings.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, was somewhat premature a little earlier when he apologised for overlooking the role of the Lord Advocate because, as I understand it, if we accept these amendments, the Lord Advocate will not have the responsibilities which are attributed to him.
At all events, I wonder whether I may seek to clarify the situation with regard to the question of timing. As I understand it, the Government are proposing to bring forward further amendments on Report. Is that correct? The letter which we received from the noble Baroness seemed to indicate that there were later amendments to come and I am not clear whether that is so or whether these are the amendments which the Government have in mind.
Be that as it may, perhaps I may seek to establish exactly what is the sequence of events. As I understand it, the Government thought that it would be wrong to go ahead with Clause 7 given that the Scotland Bill is also going through Parliament. But are we to understand that, under the transitional arrangement, the Lord Chancellor will have sole responsibility, albeit in consultation, for the appointments but then subsequently, an order by affirmative resolution will be taken to reverse the

119
situation? It is a somewhat confused picture. I am not even clear under which piece of legislation—the Bill now before us or the Scotland Bill— those resolutions, subject to affirmative resolution, will be made. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will answer those matters and we can then take the matter from there.
Lord Hardie: It is not the Government's intention to bring forward any more amendments in relation to this matter on Report. There may be other amendments which deal with different aspects on Report but none to deal with this issue.
As regards the effect of this, if Clause 7 is deleted, then the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right that the Lord Chancellor will have sole responsibility for making the appointments, albeit in consultation and one of the consultees will be the Lord Advocate.
The affirmative resolution will be made by both the UK and Scottish Parliaments. Therefore, it will be under the Scottish legislation and not under this legislation. And, yes, the intention is that once the Scottish Parliament is established and the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament, of the executive, has decided which of his Ministers should have responsibility for that particular function, that will then be known to the United Kingdom Government. They will then consider whether those arrangements are appropriate and will bring forward the necessary affirmative resolution.
As I indicated, the fact that that transitional arrangement is being entered into will not preclude the First Minister from appointing the Lord Advocate to deal with that matter in Scotland. But the whole point of devolution is devolving to the First Minister all ministerial functions other than those dealt with specifically in the Scottish Bill. It would be inappropriate to fetter the discretion of the First Minister in the allocation of ministerial functions. That would be a matter for the Scottish executive.
Lord Higgins: I am tempted to use what I believe is a quotation from Sir Walter Scott:
"O what a tangled web we weave",
but I have forgotten the first half of it. However, be that as it may, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clarifying the position. I was misled by the letter that the noble Baroness was kind enough to send me, which indicated that it was proposed to vote against Clause 7 at this stage, but that the amendments would be tabled at a subsequent stage. I also now understand why it is that the question that I might otherwise have posed—namely, why cannot we do the whole thing now?—is precluded by the fact that the people who will make such decisions still need to be able to exercise their options once the Scotland Bill is put through. I am a great deal clearer on the situation than I was 10 minutes ago.
Earl Russell: Where there is politics there must be change; where there is change there must be transition; and, where there is transition, it must be managed. As
120
far as we on these Benches can see, this transition is being managed in as sensible a way as possible. We are happy with the proposed arrangements.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Lord Advocate's panel for appointment to appeal tribunals]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hardie: I have indicated that, for the reasons already explained, I would oppose the Question that Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill.
On Question, clause negatived.
Clause 8 [Constitution of appeal tribunals]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert ("one, two or three members drawn by the President from the panel constituted under section 6 above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I have to advise the Committee that I am unable to call Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 because Amendment No. 24, which pre-empts them, has been agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johnsmoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) Where an appeal tribunal has one member, that person shall

(a) have a 5 year general qualification (construed in accordance with section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); or

(b) be an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least 5 years' standing.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment provides that, if a tribunal is constituted of only one person, that person should be legally qualified with five years' experience. If I had had the chance, I should have lent support to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in their amendment which relates to the retention of legally qualified chairmen, regardless of the number on the tribunal. I am sure that we are all considering the same objective.
I believe that the present structure of a three-person tribunal which is chaired by a legally qualified person works well over all. Having been a little pre-empted by not being able to discuss Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 this evening, I rather suspect that we may return to the matter in some form or another on Report. There is a serious risk that the model of the so-called flexible tribunal arrangements proposed under the Bill will alter the balance of fairness between the appellants and the Secretary of State.
Members of this Chamber have received several excellent briefings on the clause from national CAB, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Legal Action Group,

121
the Law Society, and others. I thank all of them for those briefings and declare an interest here as president of my local CAB branch in Woking. All those briefings refer to the academic research carried out in the 1970s by Professor Kathleen Bell. That research was very critical of the standards achieved by non-lawyer chairmen. It was such research that led to the 1984 Act, under which all social security tribunals were chaired by a lawyer.
While others may reach for the text of that research by Professor Bell I delve into my memory to recollect what I observed at tribunals at that time. In case my memory was faulty I consulted the notes I made at the time too. That was at a stage in my life when I had returned to Brunel as a bit of an "oldie" aged 30, although I have to say that these days that seems rather young. I returned to take a further degree. For six months I observed the proceedings of my local supplementary benefit appeal tribunal. I observed how the system of lay chairmen was working, or not working. As a result of studying that process and making proposals I was invited in the following terms—"If you think you know better, come and do it"—to become a member of the tribunal. That practical experience of 14 years serving on the tribunals and having observed lay chairmen in operation confirms my view that three-member tribunals with a legally qualified chairman is vital to the fairness of the system.
Social security law is notoriously complex. We certainly had a flavour of that earlier today. If we must have only one person on a tribunal—that would be the outcome of the Bill in its present form—it seems an odd use of language to describe a tribunal as one person. If that is the case, surely that one person ought to be legally qualified. There are detailed regulations to consider and a large body of case law. I had some practical experience of being tangled up in that when I was "volunteered" to set up the tribunal advisory service for the Surrey and West Sussex CABs in the early 1980s. As a layman I certainly struggled with social security law. I have done so with a greater or lesser degree of success ever since.
Over half the people who attend tribunals are unrepresented. That emerges from the social security statistics of 1997. By definition, many of those people are disadvantaged by poverty and ill health. Some people who appeal have literacy problems or do not speak English as their first language. Appellants who have been successful in their own form of work or their own professions and have no literacy problems can still be at a real disadvantage when they enter the world of social security law. The very fact that they may never have been unemployed before means that when they have their first contact with the somewhat arcane world and the intricacies of social security law and regulations they can experience a culture shock. That may be exacerbated by the shock they may feel at being unemployed for the first time in their lives. For the first time they may perceive themselves in their own terms as having failed. They may simply be unable to cope with the experience. At this stage chairmen play a crucial role in ensuring that the appellants are able to put
122
the relevant facts of the case fully and that the rules—of which the appellant may be unaware through no fault of his or her own—are applied correctly.
On countless occasions I have seen submissions put forward by the Benefits Agency in which the statement has been made, "The relevant law is available in the local office or at your local citizens advice bureau". It is, but for some people who live in a rural area access to that is next to impossible. For those who can gain access to the document, explanation and understanding may be attempted but may still not be appreciated by the appellant. Surely the tribunal should be able to rely upon submissions made on behalf of the Secretary of State as being the authoritative guide to law. The Minister may say that the explanation is given in the case papers. However, when the explanation is given correctly in the case papers, on occasion it has been less than clear to people who are not aware of the law. I hesitate to use the word "gobbledegook" but it may appear that way to some people.
Earlier we were given details of the findings of the chief adjudication officer that 43 per cent. of income support appeal submissions which were examined were fundamentally flawed mainly as a result of a submission supporting an incorrect decision or because it failed effectively to argue the case. That was stated in the annual report of the chief adjudication officer for 1997.
Of course I applaud the Government's objective underlying their approach to this Bill that one should get decisions right the first time. Of course that is the right approach. That is exactly what the DSS and the agency staff have been making valiant efforts to do so far. When I have visited local offices they have shown me the targets they have been trying to meet. They have made good efforts to achieve them but, in the imperfect world we live in, there will continue to be errors.
The fact that chairmen are now legally qualified underpins the independence and impartiality of tribunal hearings and gives confidence that the law will be properly examined on those occasions. There are lawyers who are excellent chairmen, who combine the ability to chair a meeting fairly and impartially. Where there is more than one person, they make sure that the lay members bring out evidence and are inquisitorial. There are good people who combine being a good chairman with being an excellent lawyer and are able to explain the law well, but there are some lawyers who could do better. I am married to a lawyer, who of course is excellent. Whatever the quality of the lawyer, the legal qualification ensures that the person has the advantage of training and experience in judicial matters, in considering and weighing evidence, establishing the facts, identifying the relevant law to be applied in the case and making a decision based fully on the facts and the law.
As a lay magistrate, I have had to make decisions about the law, but not on the law. Lay magistrates are carefully advised by qualified justices' clerks, and it is they who interpret the law upon which justice is then applied.
In the special circumstances of the complex world of social security law and the vulnerability of the people who come as appellants to those tribunals, it is vital that

123
where there is just one person sitting as the tribunal to hear cases that person should have a legal qualification and five years experience. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, on Amendment No. 27. Somewhat to my surprise, and to the surprise of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I was deprived of the opportunity of moving Amendment No. 25. That is a matter which I will come back to on Report.
Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 28 are linked, although not formally grouped, as amendments concerning the size and composition of tribunals. The effect of Amendment No. 25 would have been to reserve the right to a three-person tribunal. The effect of Amendment No. 27 is that, assuming a single member tribunal is possible, that member should be legally qualified. The effect of Amendment No. 28 is to ensure that the chairman of a three-member tribunal is legally qualified. Amendment No. 28 has not been formally grouped with Amendment No. 27, but they are two sides of the same coin and it would be convenient if I spoke to that now rather than moving it separately as the next amendment.
The argument for changing the appeal system is largely based on the desire to reduce delays and costs. These are admirable objectives. There is a need to improve the decision-making system at lower levels before we reduce the safeguards for appellants under the present system. That improvement has not yet been achieved and might not be achieved for some time to come.
Under the Bill, the effective decision on the size and make up of any tribunal, although nominally taken by the president, will have to be delegated to administrators appointed by the Secretary of State. It will be they who will decide whether an appeal is fit for decision by a single member tribunal on the grounds that it is either straightforward and therefore simple, or meritless. However, cases seeming straightforward and meritless at first sight may not be so, and if a single member sees the complications after the administrator has decided that a single member tribunal is appropriate, the case may have to be redesignated and brought back before a full tribunal. That involves further delay.
If a single member is appointed who has the wrong expertise for the case, he or she may not realise the complications and may therefore deal with the appeal in an improper way. Alternatively, he or she may realise that he or she does not have the right expertise and again have to ask for it be redesignated and brought back before a member of the tribunal who has that expertise.
The cost of social security appeals is not great. In 1996 the average cost per appeal was £88. Therefore the savings from sending a few of those cases to single member tribunals would not be great.
Having a three-member tribunal is a safeguard for a claimant because it improves the chance that the case will be properly heard. We all know of cases where something which looks to one member at first sight as perfectly straightforward turns out, when two other minds are addressed to it, to have genuine issues and
124
complications that need to be more fully considered. The three-member tribunal is, I believe, an important safeguard to claimants. It believe that it is wrong to deprive claimants of that safeguard.
However, if it is important that the three-member tribunal should be retained, it is even more important that the chair, or sole member as the case may be, is legally qualified. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, told us, legally qualified chairs were introduced in 1984 as a result of the earlier research by Professor Kathleen Bell showing the low standards of tribunals with non-legally qualified chairs. We now propose to go back to the old discredited system.
Social security law is complex. It involves massive and detailed regulations and a great deal of case law. Over half the people who attend tribunals are unrepresented. Some have literacy problems or problems with the English language. It is essential for chairs to ensure that the hearing is handled properly and the rules applied correctly. The tribunal cannot rely on submissions on behalf of the Secretary of State to state the law correctly. The legal qualification of a chairman makes it more likely that a tribunal will consider the evidence properly, identify the relevant facts, reach proper conclusions on those facts, identify the law to be applied in the case and will apply that law correctly. If single member tribunals are allowed, the reasons why the chairman should be legally qualified apply equally to the sole member of a single member tribunal.
The administrator's decision that the case is to be treated as straightforward or meritless needs to be checked. The member needs to be able to recognise a legal point. It is much less likely that this will happen if the case is decided by an unqualified single member tribunal.
In their comments which have been quoted several times today, the presidents of the Independent Tribunal Services said:
"We are not therefore comfortable with the proposition that a single decision maker conducting an oral hearing alone should not be a lawyer or be legally trained. The demands of conducting and recording the proceedings and decisions of a tribunal in such a sensitive jurisdiction are such that it is argued that it may simply be too great a demand to place on such a person. Further, where the tribunal is made up of more than one person, the chairman will invariably require legal training because of the additional procedural skills involved".
Those comments come from two people of enormous experience in this field in an extremely well-argued paper. All I can do is endorse them, as I endorse the earlier remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I still find myself in the breathless condition of an aspiring show-jumper who has just had his horse whipped from under him. Perhaps it would not be out of order to comment in one sentence: I believe that the ITS is a good system. It is a pity that we may be deprived of the opportunity to see how it would function if it were allowed to function without undue pressure, after the reform of the system of first instance

125
decisions, and so that it would not be choked by so many of the mistakes which are now made at first instance.
I wholly agree with the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for retaining three-member tribunals—although I suspect that, since I am not moving his amendment, it would be out of order for me to say so.
The importance of a legal expertise is one which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, pointed out, has occasioned great anxiety to a whole range of people and a very large number of experienced and wise NGOs. It is also a matter on which the Council on Tribunals has been pressing the department, as will be apparent to anyone who read our last annual report.
I understand that there are some cases which require an expertise which does not consist of a legal training. Of course some cases require a medical or actuarial expertise. In a three-member tribunal there would be no difficulty in accommodating that. However, that does not render a legal expertise unnecessary. The functions were described by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—identifying the issue to be decided; ruling on the relevance of a particular piece of evidence; spotting where there is no evidence of some essential factor; extracting information from a witness while putting him or her at their ease; affording everyone an opportunity to address the arguments; and analysing the issues and the evidence at the conclusion of the hearing. Those skills in themselves constitute an expertise. If I may say so, it is an expertise which is most frequently found among lawyers. As the noble Baroness said, it is not found exclusively among lawyers. It is not found among all lawyers. But if we had the statistics, and if there were a way of defining the necessary terms, I believe it is most frequently found among lawyers.
I am the last to denigrate the importance of training. However, I do not believe that training is always a substitute for experience in exercising those skills. It may augment it. I do not believe it will replace it.
If dispensing with a legal qualification is led by budgetary considerations—and that may be an unworthy thought on my part—I wonder how many judicial reviews will take place before it becomes clear that it was a poor economy. I hope that my noble and learned friend will find it possible to reflect further on this issue.
Earl Russell: I had fortunately intended, before we discovered a pre-emption which I should have foreseen, to say that there is a continual read-across between the arguments for a lawyer and chairman, and for three-member panels. In a perfect world, those arguments are entirely complementary; they go with each other. In the world of the second best, they are mutually exclusive.
If I should develop arguments against the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in moving her amendment, it is not because I disagree with anything she said; I think she put her case extremely well and extremely persuasively. But her amendment envisages a second-best, single-person tribunal. If we are to have a
126
single-person tribunal, it must be conducted by a lawyer because no one else is capable of the range. If we accept the noble Baroness's amendment, we shall lose the skill of a medical member, who will be extremely important in many types of appeal. For example, I do not look forward to an appeal on incapacity benefit with no medical member on the panel.
If we are to have a choice of different types of panel, this will give an importance to the sift of appeals which it has not had before. This is something to which Judge Bassingthwaighte has drawn attention. When all appeals go to fairly similar types of panel, with three members including at least one lawyer, it may not be a disaster if the wrong selection is made because it can be recovered from. But where only one member conducts the panel, the selection of the wrong type of person may fatally pre-empt the outcome of the appeal.
I know that it is thought that it may be obvious on the papers what the case will be like, but I am reminded of a story told in this Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a few weeks ago in the debate on legal aid. He remembered a case immediately after he qualified when someone came into his office who wanted to sue for damages because he had been run over while walking along the pavement. The noble Lord said that the words res ipsa loquitur rose unbidden to his mind. He said that for the only time in his career he assured a client that he was certain of success. He never did it again because he discovered immediately proceedings commenced that the driver of the car which had run over his client had had a heart attack shortly before the collision and therefore could not be held responsible for what he did. That goes to show that decisions made at the stage of sift of the papers may be very wrong indeed, that therefore a selection of a panel made on the strength of those reflections on the papers may be equally disastrously wrong and that that may well pre-empt the result of the case.
That brings me to the other point made by Judge Bassingthwaighte about the importance of the fair-trial provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am not aware of any case law on whether the fair-trial provisions as understood in convention law necessarily require the presence of a lawyer, but I do not think that it would be a good idea for this country to have that issue decided for the first time. When I lived in New York my lawyer there once advised me, "Never be a lawyer's interesting case". I believe that that is also good advice for Her Majesty's Government. Therefore I too very much hope that the whole of this issue will be looked at again with some care.
Lord Borrie: Like others, I too feel deprived at not being able to discuss the earlier amendment relating to three-person tribunals, but we must at this stage make do. While it is surely gratifying to any lawyer to hear the words that have been spoken on various sides of this House as to how important it is that legal qualification should be available for the chairmanship of a tribunal and, if it be a one-person tribunal, that that person be a lawyer, I believe that that is all a little too rigid and inflexible. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that she thought it odd to have a tribunal with only one

127
person upon it. But surely we all realise that, on appeal from social security appeal tribunals, the appeal goes to a single social security commissioner.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I was attempting—obviously failing dramatically—to make the point that the word "tribunal" from its classical root refers to three people. I know that we commonly use it to refer to one, but I am afraid that my joke fell as flat as a pancake.
Lord Borrie: I am delighted with that explanation. However, one should not feel that it is only appropriate for adjudications to be performed by at least three people. The desire on the part of the Government, which I accept, to get away from the rigidity of a three-person tribunal is not in any way due to a feeling that a three-person tribunal is in some way bad or should not be the norm. I believe everybody will accept that a three-person tribunal with a lawyer chairman should be the norm; that most cases should go to such tribunals. There is a legal complexity in this field of law which suggests that that is the best kind of tribunal.
We have heard referred to more than once the excellent research done by Professor Kathleen Bell, indicating how poor were some of the decisions at supplementary benefit tribunals when they did not have a lawyer as chairman. But there was a certain rigidity in the views expressed which made me want to intervene.
One of the most popular forms of adjudication at the present time, and one which has been much praised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his examination of civil justice, is the system of arbitrators and ombudsmen who sit typically alone in order to determine complaints of various kinds. I remind the Committee that some of the existing ombudsmen, including the first one on a statutory basis—namely, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—are not lawyers. Indeed, in one of the fields in the private sector most close to social security—namely, insurance—while the present ombudsman is a lawyer (though he was never a practising lawyer; he was a professor of law), the Legal Services Ombudsman is, by statute, specifically not to be a lawyer.
I draw attention to those examples by way of indicating what does not seem to have been mentioned so far and I feel should be mentioned; that is, that good chairmanship, impartiality and fairness are not exclusive attributes of lawyers; they are perfectly capable of being displayed by others. I feel therefore that some of the contributions were a little extreme. Indeed, some of the briefing which I—probably because I spoke in the Second Reading debate—and no doubt other Members of the Committee received went a bit overboard.
Perhaps the Government can reassure me that the three-person tribunal with a lawyer chairman towards which over the years we have moved in this field and in industrial tribunals and so forth is to be the norm, but that for purposes of flexibility and because some cases are straightforward, there can be, for instance, a medical practitioner or an expert in disability sitting alone. One should not insist that in every single case there should
128
be a three-person tribunal, or a lawyer chairman or, if the single-person tribunal is allowed to exist, that it must always be a lawyer who sits.
I find a certain rigidity present in the provision and therefore, despite the respect with which I hold all those who have put their name to the amendment from all parts of the Chamber, they are a little more extreme than I would wish.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I wish to make a brief point. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to having received briefings. I should point out that on this occasion I have received briefings in support of the legally qualified chairman or member from the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Legal Action Group, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Law Society. While one might well say that the Law Society "would say that, wouldn't it?", I do not think one would take the same attitude towards the CABs or the Child Poverty Action Group; or even to the Legal Action Group, which, after all, is regarded by many mainstream lawyers as something of a pain in the neck.
Lord Borrie: There is no dispute between us. I have received briefing of the very kind the noble Lord has mentioned from all those bodies. I hold them in respect as I hold noble Lords in respect. I feel a little lonely in this regard but I feel that they, like some of your Lordships, have been a little extreme is saying that there is only one possible way to deal with appeals—there must be three persons and there must be a lawyer chairman.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is, as always, absolutely fascinating to listen to and what he says calls for a great deal of thought. But I wonder whether the cases he has advanced are on all fours with the one we are discussing here. He dwelt for some time on the ombudsman. He is right about the ombudsman's functions and how he discharges them. But the ombudsman is not exactly a judicial officer. He does not try cases and give a judgment. The ombudsman is a conciliator and a negotiator. He is, if I may so put it, part of the usual channels of administration. We know perfectly well that that is a great skill and a valuable one. But it is not exactly the same skill that leads to judgment in a case, which is what one has in a tribunal.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, touched on the parallel of what happens in the insurance industry. But that does not quite match—indeed, very few things exactly match—the extraordinary range of topics which come to be discussed within a social security appeal tribunal, because that tribunal is dealing both with law and with fact. The facts with which it is dealing may be of a quite extraordinarily wide range. An industrial injury dispute or a habitual residence dispute may involve totally different types of expertise. I take the noble Lord's point about there being a single commissioner. But the commissioner is concerned normally with establishing law. It is the peculiar combination of the need to establish both the law and the facts which means that

129
the range of skills needed here is so extraordinarily wide; and that is why I am rather doubtful whether one person ever can have all of them.
Lord Hardie: I start by apologising to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer for unwittingly unsaddling him from his horse. I would also make a similar apology to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, if I knew what particular games or sports he indulges in. I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on her judgment in choosing a lawyer for a husband. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie for his intervention.
I should perhaps declare an interest. As noble Lords will be aware, I am a lawyer, and I have never been in receipt of so many compliments about my profession as I have heard in the past 35 minutes. I have taken it to mean Scottish lawyers as well.
There may well be a misunderstanding on the part of noble Lords as to what is being proposed and the reasons for it. The reasons have already been referred to. Appeals currently take, on average, more than six months to resolve and some take a year or even longer. I think all noble Lords will accept that that is quite unacceptable. An enormous variety of cases come before tribunals under the current system. The effect of that is that fairly straightforward cases have to wait their turn in the queue and require to wait longer than one might reasonably expect for a decision.
The aim of the Government and of these provisions is to match the types of appeal to the right type of appeal tribunal. Perhaps I may continue to use the word "tribunal", even in the context of single-person hearings, for the sake of simplicity and consistency in Hansard. If we match the types of cases to the right type of tribunal, cases can he resolved more quickly. The proposals will enable the expertise of members to be targeted more effectively on those appeals which need it. That means improved waiting times for all appellants.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships some examples and thus reassure the Committee that every appeal will receive appropriate consideration. A three-person tribunal comprising experts in law, medicine and the needs of disabled persons will be required for an appeal against a decision on the disability living allowance relating to the mobility or care components of the benefit. A tribunal of two people—a legally qualified member and a member with knowledge or experience of employment opportunities—might hear an appeal against a decision on a job-seeker's agreement. A case where the only issue in dispute is whether a particular disease has been diagnosed could be heard by a medical practitioner with knowledge of the condition sitting alone. An appeal which is solely about whether a claimant satisfies—
Earl Russell: With respect, how would it be known in advance that that would be the only issue that would arise? We should remember the fate of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Hardie: I take on board what the noble Earl says, but I shall explain later that there will be detailed regulations setting out the types of cases which will go
130
to a three-person tribunal, which I expect will be the majority of cases: the types of cases that will go to a two-person tribunal; and the types of cases that will go to a one-person tribunal. I shall also indicate that, to meet the concern of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, we shall bring forward an amendment to make regulations under Clause 8 subject to the affirmative procedure so that your Lordships will have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals on which types of appeal will go to the different types of tribunal. Your Lordships and Parliament can thus be satisfied that all appeals will be dealt with by people with appropriate expertise.
Our aim and the object of the regulations will be to secure that people are dealt with not only expeditiously, but also, and more importantly, that they are dealt with by an appropriate tribunal comprising people or an individual with the appropriate skills to determine that type of case.
Having discussed this matter in some detail prior to this week, I understand that the regulations will err on the side of caution, so that if there is any doubt about whether a case should be heard by one person or two persons, it will be heard by two persons; and if there is any doubt about whether it should be heard by two or three persons, it will be heard by three persons. That is how the regulations will be formulated. Again, I expect that in a three-person tribunal it is likely—although I cannot say absolutely—that the chairman will be legally qualified.
In the context of an individual hearing a case, it is my position and that of the Government that it does not necessarily follow that that person should be legally qualified. There may be matters which can more appropriately be determined by an individual who does not have a legal qualification but who has been given appropriate training to enable him or her to determine the issues which he or she will face.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. There are other examples of individuals who are not legally qualified and who make decisions on important issues involving questions of law and fact. I do not believe that it is necessary to have a legally qualified chairman in cases where there is only one person. Having said that, I am aware of the strength of feeling expressed, this evening. In view of the concerns expressed I shall reflect further on whether the individual should be legally qualified. In case there is any doubt, I do not undertake to table an amendment at a later stage. It is very much like the indication that my noble friend Lord Williams, the Solicitor-General and I gave at various stages of the Crime and Disorder Bill. While we shall think about it, there is no commitment on our part to table an amendment on this issue at a later stage.
As to the "three persons" issue, the Committee has heard the Government's position. The regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure, will be laid before Parliament and will be subject to scrutiny. Noble Lords will have an opportunity to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place when the regulations are debated.

131
In the light of those explanations, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, not to move Amendment No. 28, which are the only two that the Committee has been discussing.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his full reply. I appear to be the only participant in the debate to restrict myself to my own amendment. That is not a criticism of others but an expression of thanks. The noble Baroness says that if I do not do that, who else should? I rather regret the fact that I was so self-disciplined, but I am relieved that other noble Lords did not feel so constrained. Although we were somewhat pre-empted unexpectedly by not being able to deal with the previous two amendments concerning the value of three-person tribunals, nonetheless those arguments have in part been rehearsed. I am pleased that I held my fire as to that. I believe that, despite the speech of the noble and learned Lord, there are serious issues to be considered with regard to three-person tribunals to which noble Lords may wish to return or approach at Report stage, since the Committee has not had a chance to deal with those matters effectively today.
The noble and learned Lord said that regulations would spell out ways in which tribunals of fewer than three people could tackle certain cases and that it would be possible to match cases to the expertise on tribunals. But I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that that in itself required a degree of pre-sifting—in other words, pre-judgment—by the tribunal service as to what the core issues of an appeal might be.
Later noble Lords will have the opportunity to discuss an amendment relating to the inquisitorial nature of the tribunal. If it is the Government's intent that tribunals should cease to have a full inquisitorial function, naturally I accept the argument of the noble and learned Lord that it is easier to match tribunals to cases. However, I hope to be able to persuade the Government to retain some of the inquisitorial nature of the tribunal. It performs a very valuable function.
The noble and learned Lord also said that if a person sitting alone was not legally qualified he or she would nevertheless be legally trained in order to deal with the particular issues.
In this case, such a person would not have recourse, on the spot, to detailed, legal back-up. As the Committee will be aware, the clerk who services an appeal tribunal is a person who pays the expenses, and carries out the functions for which I was grateful, such as making the tea and providing biscuits out of the allowances from the ITS. The clerk's function is not to provide legal advice.
When the changes were made to the tribunal structure in 1984 the grade of the civil servant, as it then was, who provided the service of clerking the tribunal was downgraded. It has remained at a lower grade. That layman would not have recourse to an intimate knowledge of social security law, which I still believe
132
he or she would need whether deciding on incapacity benefit, vaccine cases or income support. I remain very worried about these issues.
Despite the noble Lord, or noble and learned Lord, I should say,—I seem to have some mental block about lawyers, having admitted earlier to being married to one—doing so much to try to reassure me, I am afraid that he has failed to do so. But at this hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Goodharthad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert ("but no person shall be appointed chairman of a tribunal unless he has a 5 year general qualification or he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least 5 years' standing").
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move the amendment, but it is a matter which it is likely that we shall bring back on Report.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("any casting vote") and insert ("a casting vote if the votes are equally divided").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall talk also to Amendment No. 65. The amendments enable tribunals to reach clear decisions even if the votes of the members of the tribunals are equally divided.
Amendment No. 29 makes it clear that unless regulations prescribe otherwise, the chairman of an appeal tribunal shall have a casting vote where the votes of the members of the tribunal are equally divided.
The provisions of Clause 8(1)(b) allow for tribunals to be constituted of one, two or three members. Where a tribunal consists of more than one member the tribunal decision will be taken by a majority of votes. However, as currently drafted the chairman might be thought to have a casting vote regardless of whether votes are equally divided or not. It is intended that the casting vote will be appropriate only if the votes are equally divided.
It is possible that a tribunal consisting of two members will disagree. In that case it is only sensible to allow for a casting vote in order that a decision can be made.
Amendment No. 65 will allow a casting vote to be made by the presiding social security commissioner where there is an equal division in votes. Cases will usually be considered by a single commissioner. However, if the chief commissioner considers that a case involves a question of law of special difficulty he may direct that the case be heard by a tribunal of three or more. Decisions will be made according to the vote of the majority, if the commissioners are not unanimous. Occasionally a tribunal may consist of an even number of commissioners. If unusually they disagree on a decision it is only right that a presiding commissioner shall have a casting vote to enable a clear decision to be reached.

133
These amendments allow appeal or commissioner tribunals to reach a decision where the members of the tribunals are equally divided. Without the amendment it would not be clear how such cases should be decided; therefore I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I am afraid that I have to criticise Amendment No. 29, because there is a serious technical problem. It is that in a two-member tribunal the chairman can always secure that the decision goes the way that he or she wants it to. One may well find a situation where the second member of the tribunal will say, "Well, what on earth am I doing here?", because the chairmen can always decide it in the way that they want to.
That circumstance reminds me of what President Lincoln once said when he put a proposal to his cabinet which unanimously rejected it. He took a vote and he said at the end:
"The ayes one: the noes 10. The ayes have it".
In a less extreme way the principle is the same here, because the second member of the tribunal can play no possible part in the taking of the decision. Surely, in those circumstances the only proper course is to do what is done in a two-member Court of Appeal. In the great majority of cases before a two-member tribunal, the two members will be able to agree. But where the only two members of a tribunal disagree, surely the proper course is to adjourn the case and bring it forward again before a three-member tribunal. That may involve an element of delay, but it is the only fair and proper way of dealing with the situation.
The same problem does not arise with Amendment No. 65 because a tribunal of several social security commissioners is brought together to decide a question of particular difficulty. The minimum size of such a tribunal is three. It follows that the minimum size for an even numbered tribunal is four. In those circumstances, the chairman is not in a position to decide the case exactly as he likes against the opposition of all the other members of the tribunal. I accept that a casting vote would be a proper way of proceeding.
However, Amendment No. 29 is not appropriate. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment tonight, take it away and think about it, and return at the Report stage with another proposal.
Lord Hardie: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, observed, in practically all cases of two-member tribunals there will be agreement, just as there is in the court. I do not share his pessimism about the feeling of the second member who is outvoted. One would anticipate that before a division of opinion there would have been a full discussion of views as between the two members. One must assume that the members, having been chosen in the way we have described, are not unprincipled and will be acting in good faith, expressing genuine views based on their own assessment of the evidence before them.
In the context of assuring that cases are determined properly and reasonably expeditiously, it is my view that it is appropriate to give to the chairman of a
134
two-member tribunal a casting vote to use on the extremely rare occasions when there is likely to be a division of opinion. In those circumstances—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may not apply to many cases. It is probable that the two members of the tribunal will agree in the majority of cases. In that case, there is no problem. Inevitably, however, there will be cases when the two disagree. We have all encountered courts and tribunals consisting of two members where there has been a disagreement. The point which the noble Lord makes is that when that happens, however infrequently, there should be some provision to deal with it. If not, the second member of the tribunal has no part in the decision-making process. It would not be difficult to make appropriate provision in those few cases.
Lord Hardie: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his intervention. In that situation, the chairman of the tribunal, like any other chairman, will be in a position of authority—
Lord Goodhart: A dictatorship.
Lord Hardie: With respect, it is not a dictatorship because, prior to the point of voting, the members of the tribunal will have discussed the case fully and each will have tried to persuade the other of the correctness of his views. I do not see that that is any different from any other situation where there are two people who must make a decision, or an even number of people who must make a decision.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. But as I tried to point out, that is exactly the situation which may arise if we have, in the English legal system, a two-member Court of Appeal or a two-member Divisional Court. In that case, the senior member of the court does not have a casting vote. When a difference arises—and it arises only rarely and usually in relation to an important issue—the matter is adjourned so that it can be brought back before a three-member tribunal. That is surely the appropriate way of dealing with the matter.
Lord Hardie: I am not persuaded by the arguments advanced by the noble Lord and my noble and learned friend. However, having said that, I appreciate the strength of feeling and I shall reflect on the matter. But that will be in the same spirit as the reflection which I mentioned earlier. There is no guarantee that we shall not return on Report with an identical amendment. Therefore, I shall withdraw Amendment No. 29 at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwellmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment to provide not that there may be regulations but that there will be regulations. Clause 8 deals with the constitution of appeal tribunals, as we have just been reminding ourselves. Therefore, we might expect to find there specific guidance as to how they are to be comprised and as to their procedures and, in the light of the debates which have just taken place, who is to allocate a specific tribunal for a particular case.
It has been mentioned already in our debates, and it was certainly mentioned by Judge Bassingthwaighte in his memorandum, that there is a danger of a reference to the European Commission on Human Rights in this regard on the ground that the tribunal is constituted not by law but by the administrative decision of a government employee.
My noble friend Lady Hollis was kind and courteous enough to write to me to indicate some of the department's thinking on this question. I am grateful to her for setting out the proposals so clearly, although I am rather troubled by the number of detailed questions which are apparently still under consideration.
It seems that there will be rules indicating which categories of appeal will be allocated respectively to single-member, two-member and three-member tribunals and which cases may be allocated to a single member without legal expertise. Apparently those rules are still in the process of being worked out. I understand that. But two matters have already emerged. The first, as I understand it—and I believe it was rather inconsistent with something which my noble and learned friend said in one of our earlier debates—is that, if what is said in the letter is correct, something over half the total of appeals are likely to be heard by two-member tribunals. If I have misunderstood that, then of course, I shall be corrected. My noble friend is busily shaking her head. I am quite willing to be corrected.
11 p.m.
Lord Hardie: It is my understanding that about three-quarters of the hearings will be by three-member tribunals.
Earl Russell: If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for intervening, perhaps I may ask for some clarification in that respect. The noble and learned Lord has just mentioned "three-quarters". Does that mean that there is a quota system regardless of the content of the appeals? If so, that might cause concern.
Lord Hardie: There is no quota system. I was merely giving an estimate of what I understand from my noble friend would be the position.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I was simply quoting from my noble friend's letter which says:
"Our initial work indicates that more than half of all appeals are likely to be heard by two-person tribunals, with around a quarter falling to one-person and three-person tribunals respectively".
I am not trying to make a debating point. If that is a mistake, I am perfectly willing to be corrected. However, that is what the letter says. If that is the position, I would find it slightly worrying. Perhaps that can be sorted out at a later stage.
I said that two matters appeared to have emerged out of the situation. I have indicated the first, but the second refers to the composition of the tribunal in any specific case. The letter says that that will come from a database operated by administrative staff. That, in itself, raises some further questions. How senior will the staff be and how tightly will the criteria be drawn? I understand that those criteria, and the other matters referred to in the subsection, are likely to be embodied in regulations. I believe that my noble and learned friend confirmed a few moments ago that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I see that he is nodding his head in agreement; that certainly gives me a high degree of reassurance.
If my noble and learned friend can assure us in that respect, it would go some way towards alleviating our anxieties. But there remains the dominating question; namely, if there are to be regulations dealing with such matters, why not write rather more of the detail into the Bill? If it is intended that those regulations "shall" happen, why provide that they "may"? Many people have deep anxieties about this whole subject. I believe that some of those anxieties are well founded at present. However, where those people do not need to worry, why not make it clear? I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I should like to support the amendment moved so ably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. Indeed, as he asked at the end of his remarks, if there are to be regulations—and we have been told that there "shall" be—why should that not be spelt out on the face of the Bill? If the amendment were rejected and if Members of the Committee were to accept that regulations "may" be made, there would be a danger that we could fall into a limbo land of administrative convenience, whereby it could be more convenient not to make regulations which would make the allocation of cases more clearly open to review and to objection by others. To me, that would be a matter of great concern. The issues which the noble and learned Lord says must be laid down in regulations are all at the core of our concerns as regards the way in which the tribunals shall be run in the future.
Lord Goodhart: I, too, support the amendment. It seems absolutely clear that regulations under subsection (3) will have to be made. We really cannot have a tribunal system which does not have regulations as to the procedure to be followed on appeals. In those circumstances, I cannot see any possible reason why

137
they should not be spelt out in the very simple way suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
Lord Hardie: Before I respond to the amendment, perhaps I should correct something that I indicated earlier in relation to tribunals when I referred to three-quarters, one half, and so on. There seems to be some confusion about the percentages. I prefer to write formally to noble Lords so there is no doubt at all about the situation.
I can assure the Committee that it has always been the Government's intention to make regulations to provide for the matters referred to; namely, the composition of appeal tribunals; the procedure to be followed on proceedings before appeal tribunals; and the procedure to be followed for allocating cases among differently constituted tribunals. It may be helpful if I explain what we have in mind. First, the regulations detailing tribunal composition are to be made so that those operating the new, unified tribunal arrangements are clear about the appropriate use of medical, legal or other expertise.
Secondly, the regulations will outline the procedure which takes place on an appeal or an application before an appeal tribunal and will be supplemented by detailed guidance. Thirdly, the regulations will ensure that similar cases are allocated consistently to similar types of tribunals. Administrators responsible for arranging an appeal hearing will be able to seek legal advice if there is any doubt as to the appropriate constitution of a tribunal. These regulations will of necessity contain sufficient detail to provide appeal arrangements which are both fair and consistent. As I said earlier, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer what the regulation making powers in the clause will be used for. However, I appreciate his concern that their use should be made more explicit on the face of the Bill. We cannot, however, accept this amendment as it stands because there are consequential changes which will be required to achieve the desired effect. For example, the power to make procedure regulations, now set out in Clause 8(3)(b), may be better situated in Schedule 5 with others of that type. But I am happy to take this matter away and look at how we can amend the Bill at Report to meet my noble and learned friend's concerns. In those circumstances I invite my noble and learned friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: It is a pleasure doing business with my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Archer of Sandwellmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations shall make provision for the procedure to he followed in requiring and providing expert assistance under subsection (4) above.").
138
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment addresses a specific example of the general unease which I endeavoured to discuss a few moments ago. Subsection (4) provides that,
"the tribunal may require one or more experts"
to assist it on a matter of special difficulty.
There is nothing new about a court or tribunal receiving assistance from an expert in the subject matter on which it has to adjudicate. There are many ways of doing that. One or more of the parties may call an expert witness who can give evidence and be cross-examined; or the court or tribunal may call an expert witness of its own motion, and again, the witness may give evidence and then be asked questions by all those concerned; or the expert may be appointed as an assessor to advise the tribunal on matters on which it feels the need for advice; or the expert may be a member of the tribunal. We know that under the proposals we are discussing a person may be appointed to a specific tribunal because he or she has a specific expertise. But subsection (4) gives no indication at all as to how the expert assistance is to be supplied.
From indications we have had, it appears that the expert will be a member of the panel, although not a member of the tribunal sitting for a specific case. That raises all kinds of questions. Will the expert advise the tribunal in the absence of the parties, as a magistrates' clerk may sometimes tender advice to magistrates, or will his view be expressed openly where it can be amplified or challenged? Must he wait until he is asked for an opinion, or can he offer unsolicited advice? May he be cross-examined by the parties? I am bound to say I have rarely seen a more laid-back provision or one which answered fewer questions. I hope that my noble and learned friend can offer us some guidance on all these queries in the generous spirit in which he replied to the former amendment.
No doubt my noble and learned friend has seen the letter on the subject written by Judge Bassingthwaighte to the department on 10th November last year, and appended to the memorandum where he suggests that one way of doing it would be that the tribunal should have power to ask an expert for a report, which would be disclosed to the parties, and the expert would be required to attend only if there is a challenge. When we have the guidance it would be strange to leave it there. Surely those who have to implement the provision will not be left to consult Hansard as to what is intended. Surely it will be in the regulations. If so, why should it not be in the Bill? I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I rise to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
I sat as a lay member of a social security appeal tribunal hearing appeals with regard to incapacity benefit, and when I read the Bill I wondered whether the Government intend that this expert he in the same position as currently is the case for a doctor medical expert who may attend at an incapacity benefit hearing.
That situation was unsatisfactory because the presence of the medical expert seemed to lead both the tribunal and the appellant to expect too much of him

139
and his function was not fully explained to either party. The appellants seemed to assume that because a doctor was present they might be subject to medical examination, which was patently not the case; they expected they might be able to put questions to the medical expert on their own behalf to get information or an explanation of something which was in the papers or something which was being asked of them at the hearing. The medical expert was not allowed to do that. So some frustration built up at the hearing and got in the way of a proper examination of the evidence.
As to the tribunal, the members of the tribunal felt inhibited as to what the full role of that expert might be. The expert was not allowed to join in the questioning aspect of the tribunal; he was there almost as a Black's medical dictionary—a resource—if only the tribunal knew which questions to ask. One of the difficulties was that the tribunal did not ask the right questions and sometimes, in contravention of the guidance, the medical expert attending would assist the tribunal—quite wrongly but very helpfully—by telling it which questions it ought to ask or by giving the answer without the question being mentioned.
We should not have to get round that kind of improper situation. Is that the kind of situation that the Government intend to build into the tribunal service system with this Bill or will there be a different way of using the expert which would be of greater benefit to both the appellant and the tribunal?
Lord Hardie: Amendment No. 32 seeks to put on the face of the Bill a further regulation-making power which will set out not only the procedure to be followed by appeal tribunals in seeking advice from experts but also the manner in which those experts will provide that assistance. That latter part will address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer has explained the reasons for believing this additional regulation-making power to be both useful and necessary for the effective management of tribunal hearings and I am sympathetic to his argument. The Government's intention was to use the powers contained in subsection (3)(b) of Clause 8 and in Schedule 5 to make provisions of the sort that the noble and learned Lord has in mind. In the light of the argument he has advanced, I would like to look again at the merits of the change he has proposed. Although we believe that this amendment will impact on only a very small number of appeals, I should like to reflect further whether this amendment is a sensible addition to our regulation-making powers.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment in the light of my assurance to give the matter further consideration. I shall write to him when we have had an opportunity to reflect further and will copy the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I shall place a copy in the Library. If we consider that an amendment along the lines suggested by my noble and learned
140
friend would be appropriate, we shall bring forward an amendment at Report stage. In the light of that, I ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: This is becoming addictive! I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for that generous response. I am also most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 4, line 39, leave out from ("In") to ("who") in line 40 and insert ("subsection (4) above "expert- means a member of the panel constituted under section 6 above").
Page 5, leave out line I.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Appeal tribunals: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Archer of Sandwellmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 54, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("President").
The noble and learned Lord said: With Amendment No. 36 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discuss Amendment No. 37. These amendments are to one paragraph in a schedule but they raise a fundamental issue which extends to all courts and tribunals. I do not pretend that there is any easy answer.
What is to be the relationship between the judiciary and the administrators? I accept that administrators are not just there to do what the judges tell them to do. At the senior level, an administrator is likely to be the accounting officer for the use of public resources. It is he who may be summoned to appear before the Public Accounts Committee. If he were answerable in the first instance to the president, it is the president who could be summoned to the Public Accounts Committee. Not all heads of tribunal systems would relish that. I have heard different presidents express different personal preferences as to the relationship which they would like to have with their senior administrators. But clearly the president is responsible for decisions affecting the quality of justice. It is for him to say, "I don't think that the tribunal can give proper attention to a case if we have more than four cases in a day's list". But that may well have implications for resources. Who is to have the last word?
My noble friend may recollect that at Second Reading I recommended that she read a report by the Council on Tribunals in 1996 on tribunals, their organisation and independence, in which some of these problems are discussed. I do not know whether my noble friend or my noble and learned friend have had an opportunity to read that report. If not, I shall happily provide them with a free copy. At the moment, they do not seem to have any clear recollection of whether they have read it, but there may be other explanations for that.

141
One of the questions which this raises is whether the president is to appoint his own staff, whether they are to be answerable to him or whether they are to be independent of him. Of course, much may depend on the personal relationship of those concerned and on their common sense. From what I know of those concerned, that affords one great reassurance.
I do not propose to press the matter to a Division tonight, but I should like to have some indication of the Government's thinking and to be assured that they have some thinking. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: This is becoming addictive as well—I rise again to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. The Chief Whip invokes the fact that the Government ought to be able to join in criticising their own Bill. I hope that this will not be the last time that the Chief Whip would like the Government to do just that. I have great respect for the experience and views, naturally of the Chief Whip and certainly of the noble and learned Lord, the chairman of the Council on Tribunals. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response on these particular amendments.
During the course of debate, the noble and learned Lord referred to a report prepared by his own in-house organisation. It is a report which the Conservative government did not have the chance to read at the time when they originally drafted this Bill. I hope that, with hindsight, we might be able to take advantage of the noble and learned Lord's wisdom, given that at the time we were not able to do so.
The effect of this amendment is to give the president of tribunals the power to appoint such officers and staff as he or she thinks fit for the president and for appeal tribunals.
I note the points made by the Child Poverty Action Group in its briefing to noble Lords; namely, that, as the Bill stands, the transfer of responsibility from the president to the Secretary of State introduces a potential conflict of interest. The Secretary of State makes first tier decisions and is also responsible for the administration of appeals against them.
The report, Tribunals, their Organisation and Independence, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, lists some of the preconditions for tribunal independence, including the freedom to take judicial decisions uninfluenced by resource or other external considerations; proper administrative support in terms of hearing clerks and support staff; legal and other textbooks; adequate and appropriate hearing accommodation and premises which are not connected with one or other of the parties.
I can give a practical example from my own experience that premises should be,
"impartial, unthreatening and accessible to all people, including those with disabilities"—
not like the old town hall at Aldershot, where I sat for several years as a member of a social security appeal tribunal hearing incapacity benefit appeals, when the only way of getting into the tribunal room was by climbing two flights of very rickety stairs. On other
142
occasions the tribunal had to sit in premises that were part of the magistrates' court—not premises that were particularly suitable for that kind of tribunal.
The report of the Council on Tribunals concludes—and I promise that I am not quoting from it simply to prove that I have actually read it—that,
"The independence and integrity of a tribunal system is best served if somebody from the judicial side of the tribunal is given a specific role in meeting some or all of those preconditions which the report lays down".
The point has been made by the Child Poverty Action Group that the president will no longer, as a result of this Bill, have a specific role in ensuring that administrative systems are adequate to support judicial independence. The question is posed: will the removal of this responsibility therefore undermine the independence of the appeals system? I believe that it will. I hope that, in replying, the Minister will be able to reassure us and accept this amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I rise to support the amendment, to which I have my name. At this time of night I wish to do very little except to say that I strongly support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, who has far more experience than I of the role of tribunals of this kind. The points that he has made are absolutely right. He has very fairly explained, not only the advantages of having the president as the person with the power to make the appointments, but also the complications so far as accounting is concerned which would arise from that.
Nevertheless, it seems to me entirely right that the staff to service the president and appeals tribunals should not be appointed by the Secretary of State from whose department these appeals are being heard. As to whether it is right for the appointment to be made by the president, there are perhaps alternatives. One possibility may be that appointments should be made by the Lord Chancellor who, after all, is the person responsible for appointing the president and members of the tribunal. Be that as it may, I do not believe that the present situation as set out in the first schedule is correct. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will re-examine that and consider a solution whereby the staffing of the tribunal would not be the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Earl Russell: This amendment may be small but it raises issues of great importance. The first is that of judicial independence. Since it is contrary to the principles of natural justice to be judge and party in one's own cause, if the Government do not get that issue right great expense will be involved in judicial reviews. The second issue is the great difficulty of separating administrative and judicial functions in the way that is intended. In her phrase about administrative systems sufficient to support judicial independence, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, hit the nail absolutely on the head. The Government must give thought to that matter: they will be in trouble if they do not.
Lord Hardie: I am sorry that I require to break the habit of this evening and say that I regret that I am unable to accept my noble friend's suggestions. These amendments seek to transfer from my right honourable

143
friend the Secretary of State to the president of appeal tribunals the responsibility for appointing officers and staff for himself and for the tribunals.
I can assure Members of the Committee that we are committed to preserving the independence of the president of appeal tribunals and of the decisions they make. The provisions in Clauses 5 and 6 for the president and all panel members to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor reinforce that commitment.
The current system of a judge as president with responsibility for administrative as well as judicial functions is unique to the Independent Tribunal Service. This contributes one element of independence, but it has other implications. Because the president is a member of the judiciary, he cannot be held accountable for the efficiency of the administration of appeals because of the constitutional separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
Under the new system the president will be the judicial head of appeal tribunals. He will be responsible for approving panel members for their expertise and suitability to deal with particular types of appeal. His responsibilities will also extend to arranging the training of all panel members, in consultation with the chief medical officers and the Secretary of State, as appropriate.
The Secretary of State will take on responsibility for the administration of appeals. She intends to set and publish demanding targets for administration and to report on the results. We have also announced our decision in principle to set up a new executive agency to deal solely with the administration of appeals on a day-to-day basis. This will enable the Secretary of State to set objectives and targets for the service. The chief executive will be required to report regularly to Ministers to ensure the efficient running of the service. Importantly, the chief executive may be appointed accounting officer, directly responsible to Parliament for the public money spent on administration and the efficiency of the service provided. That is an important development which could not be achieved if the president of the tribunal service maintained his present dual role.
This separation of administration and judicial functions happens in other appeal systems. For example, pensions appeal tribunals are administered by the Court Service, an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department; and industrial tribunals and employment appeal tribunals are administered by the Employment Tribunals Service, an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry. We believe that that is the best way to meet our objectives for improving services and accountability of performance. Agency status will enable the service to operate at arm's length from Ministers. It will provide scope for greater accountability in terms of expenditure and performance, and a better service for claimants.
Clearly the Secretary of State will wish to take views from the president of the numbers and types of administrators needed to provide a proper support service. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in quoting from the report. However, it is essential that the Secretary of State retains the power to appoint administrative staff. It is she and not the president who is
144
responsible for the appeal service as a whole, and it is she who is accountable for the standards of administration and public money spent. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer will therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My noble and learned friend so nearly scored a hat trick! The amendment was moved at least partly in an interrogative mood, and I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who indicated that the curiosity was not confined to me alone.
I am grateful also to my noble and learned friend for the information which he gave us. However, I am bound to say that what troubles me is that there was so little indication in his reply that the Government have really reflected on these difficult questions. They seem to think that it is all quite simple and that there are no difficult issues involved. My noble and learned friend did not seize the opportunity to assure us that he had read the report to which I referred at Second Reading and which I invited him to read. Perhaps before we reach Report stage he will find an opportunity of reading it, and I repeat my offer to supply him with a free copy.
At this time of the evening I cannot do more than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 38 to 41:
Page 55, line 6, leave out ("panels") and insert ("panel constituted under section 6 above").
Page 55, line 15, at end insert—
(" . Each year the President shall make to the Secretary of State a written report, based on the cases coming before appeal tribunals, on the standards achieved by the Secretary of State in the making of decisions against which an appeal lies to an appeal tribunal: and the Secretary of State shall publish the report.").
Page 55, line 20, leave out ("panels") and insert ("panel constituted under section 6 above").
Page 55, leave out lines 42 to 44.
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 38 to 41 en bloc. They have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Appeal to appeal tribunal]:
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
House resumed.

Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with an amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before midnight.

  ICRC: Support
  ICRC: Support
  UNHCR: Support
  UNHCR: Support
  Peru: Population Control Programme
  Peru: Population Control Programme
  UN Population Fund
  UN Population Fund
  Northern Ireland: Immigration Detainees
  Northern Ireland: Immigration Detainees
  European Court of Justice: Jurisdiction
  European Court of Justice: Jurisdiction
  Fruit Machines
  Fruit Machines
  Firearms Surrender Compensation Scheme
  Firearms Surrender Compensation Scheme
  Firefighters
  Firefighters
  Fire Station Closures
  Fire Station Closures
  Prison Service: Quantum Project
  Prison Service: Quantum Project
  Asylum Applications Lodged before 1 April 1993
  Asylum Applications Lodged before 1 April 1993
  Mr. Mohammed Riaz and Mr. Quayyum Raja
  Mr. Mohammed Riaz and Mr. Quayyum Raja
  Prisons: Taxation of Visiting Ministers' Fees
  Prisons: Taxation of Visiting Ministers' Fees
  HM Prison Weare: Ministers
  HM Prison Weare: Ministers
  Juvenile Prostitution
  Juvenile Prostitution
  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Airfields Environment Trust: Grant Application
  Airfields Environment Trust: Grant Application
  Education Action Zones
  Education Action Zones
  "powerhouse::uk" Exhibition
  "powerhouse::uk" Exhibition
  Smoking Controls in the Civil Service
  Smoking Controls in the Civil Service