Sitting of 12 May 1998

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

    Nigeria
    Fiona Mactaggart: What actions he is taking to help Nigerians establish democracy in their country. [40490]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We are pressing the Nigerian regime to respect human rights and restore a credible and democratically elected civilian Government. We have measures in place against the regime and, with our European Union and Commonwealth partners, we are keeping the situation under close review. At the same time, we are supporting activities that promote human rights and democracy in Nigeria and strengthen its civil society.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's policy to promote democracy in Nigeria and other countries in the region, including Sierra Leone? Will he confirm that it is no part of the Government's policy to countenance any breach of the United Nations arms embargo?
    Mr. Lloyd: Our policy in Nigeria, and more widely in the region, is to promote democracy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday that the United Kingdom and the United Nations were trying to help the democratic regime of Sierra Leone against an illegal military coup. He also stated, quite clearly, that no one should breach a UN embargo.
    It may help the House if I quote briefly from a letter sent to the Prime Minister by President Tejan Kabbah, who said:
    "I recall during the Commonwealth meeting in Edinburgh, Mr Tony Lloyd remarking that while the British Government would continue to give diplomatic and other support to my Government, it could not provide it with lethal materials or weapons. As far as I was concerned the matter was closed".
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is it the Minister's assessment that the arms supplied to the Nigerian-led military observers group of the Economic Community of West African States—ECOMOG—which was working to
    136
    restore democracy in Sierra Leone at the specific urging of section 18 of Security Council resolution 1132, could possibly also have been supplied in breach of that resolution?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question. There is a real question about whether arms that go from anywhere into Sierra Leone are in breach of UN embargoes. I assure the House that the British Government, who were at the forefront of the UN move to establish an arms embargo in the first place, will also be at the forefront in ensuring that the legal position is rectified to allow the Government of Sierra Leone to conduct their business properly.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the essential ingredients of democracy is the rule of law? My constituent, Mr. Mark Davey, a welder in the oil industry, was murdered in Nigeria last month while he slept in a so-called secure compound. Since then, the Foreign Office has received no response from the Nigerian Government to requests for a copy of the police report and for the matter to be investigated by police at the highest level. Does my hon. Friend agree with me, and with my constituent's family, that that is unacceptable? Will he press the Nigerian Government at the highest level? Will he also try to enlist the support of the oil companies that employ people in Nigeria, as there are issues concerning the safety of British citizens working in the industry, as well as an obvious need to bring the murderers to justice?
    Mr. Lloyd: The whole House will join my hon. Friend in commiserating with the family of Mr. Mark Davey. The high commissioner has not yet received any response, or a copy of the police report on Mr. Davey's murder. He has been asked to arrange a visit to the Nigerian Foreign Affairs Ministry to press for news on progress in the case. I shall certainly ensure that we continue to press the matter from both London and the high commission until we reach an acceptable conclusion.
    Mr. David Faber: On 1 April, the Minister met representatives of non-governmental organisations to discuss democracy and human rights in Nigeria and Sierra Leone. On 19 March, he met the Foreign Secretary's special representative, Mr. John Flynn. Was Sandline International mentioned at either of those meetings?
    Mr. Lloyd: The best thing that I can say is that while many allegations have appeared recently, the hon. Gentleman should reflect on what I have already told the House today. I say again that no Minister had prior knowledge of or gave prior approval to any breach of the arms embargo. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is to establish an inquiry that will examine every aspect of the case. Unlike the previous Government in the case of Matrix Churchill, there will be no cover-up by this Government.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Is my hon. Friend aware of the harrowing case of Elizabeth Siah-Vandi, the 14-year-old daughter of a constituent of mine who is in hiding following the beheading of her uncle by the despotic regime of Johnny Paul Koroma in Sierra Leone? Does he agree that the removal of that regime has been

    137
    welcomed by human rights campaigners? What steps does he propose to ensure that Elizabeth is reunited with her family?
    Mr. Lloyd: I cannot comment on the specifics of an individual case, except to promise my hon. Friend that I shall look into it. I make the point solidly: the British Government worked hard for the restoration of democratic government in Sierra Leone because of the outrages committed by the junta. That is different from the arms-to-Iraq scandal, when the previous Government supplied arms to a regime engaged in torture and repression of its own people. That is the difference.

    South-East Asia (Karen People)
    Jackie Ballard: What discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of the Karen people in south-east Asia. [40491]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): In the course of their normal diplomatic business, officials in Rangoon, Bangkok and London have met Karens. Most recently, in March, our ambassador at Bangkok and officials from London visited camps sheltering Karen and other refugees on the Thai-Burma border.
    Jackie Ballard: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he ensure that the United Kingdom uses its presidency of the European Union to press for sanctions against the Burmese regime while it continues to repress pro-democracy groups and the Karenni people?
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady knows that the United Kingdom has in its presidency reconfirmed the common EU position on Burma, which expresses our strong condemnation of the Burmese regime's violation of human rights. I assure her that we will continue to work hard to help the humanitarian position of refugees, particularly the Karen refugees. She will be pleased to know that during the last financial year the United Kingdom devoted more than £250,000 to that purpose.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister's Department, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, issue a reassuring statement to the Karen people of Myanmar, and to the peoples of all the states neighbouring India, about the grave potential consequences of the detonation of three nuclear devices in a test programme by the Indians yesterday and the risk of an arms race and nuclear proliferation in the region?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am sure that all hon. Members condemn the nuclear explosions detonated by the Indian Government yesterday. They will add to regional instability and are a source of concern for others in the region. We urge the Indian Government to sign up to the non-proliferation and test ban treaties. We also urge restraint on Pakistan so that it is not persuaded into an arms race that would be even worse for the stability of the region.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What plans he has to visit Cyprus to discuss a settlement between the communities; and if he will make a statement. [40492]
    Mr. Andrew Love: What support the Government are giving to efforts to recommence the United Nations-sponsored negotiations in Cyprus. [40505]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We fully support the current UN efforts to achieve the resumption of negotiations on a comprehensive political settlement in Cyprus. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the UN Secretary-General on 3 April to reiterate that message.
    My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Cyprus, but we continue to maintain close contact with leaders of both communities in Cyprus with the aim of getting the UN negotiations resumed.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Following the recent visit to the island by Mr. Holbrooke, I urge the Minister not to allow any retreat from the proposals for a federal solution and I ask him to continue to urge the Americans to keep up their pressure on the Turkish Government.
    Mr. Fatchett: We shall certainly continue to work with all our allies toward the objectives set out by the hon. Gentleman. We strongly support a bi-zonal, bi-communal solution to the problems of Cyprus as that is the only way to make progress. Whatever contribution we, the United States and the United Nations can make toward that objective will clearly be welcome.
    Mr. Love: May I add my voice and those of my Cypriot constituents to those expressing concern at Mr. Denktash's decision to impose conditions that effectively block further negotiations toward a settlement? Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government are taking every action, both in Cyprus and in Athens and Ankara, to ensure that the parties are brought to the negotiating table as soon as possible?
    Mr. Fatchett: Like all other disputes of this sort, the Cyprus problem lends itself only to negotiation and to a resolution via the diplomatic process. There is no other way in which there can be a just and lasting settlement to the problems of Cyprus. Such a settlement is in the interest not only of Greek Cypriots, but of Turkish Cypriots. We shall continue to remind Mr. Denktash of his responsibility to the peace process and to his own people.
    Mr. Mike Hancock: May I use this opportunity to congratulate David Madden, the high commissioner in Cyprus, and his staff on the work they have done to support the bi-communal activities of the Cypriot people? May I also seek an assurance from the Minister that we will make every effort to bring the two communities together and exert pressure on Mr. Denktash? The real solution to the Cyprus problem, when one accepts that both communities want a solution, is that pressure needs to be exercised through Ankara.

    139
    Until the British and American Governments are prepared to tackle that issue front-on, the situation in Cyprus will continue not to be solvable.
    Madam Speaker: I did not hear a question in that, but I am sure that the Minister will respond to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mr. Fatchett: I shall do my best to help the House by finding a question. I shall then set up my own question and answer it.
    I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's congratulations and best wishes to our high commissioner—I am sure that they are well deserved. He is right in saying that there is a need for movement on both sides, including Turkey, if we are to come up with a satisfactory solution. I emphasise the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love); the only way to achieve that is through negotiation and diplomatic activity and I assure hon. Members that we will spare nothing in our diplomatic efforts.
    Ms Joan Ryan: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is to visit Turkey in the near future. Will the Minister comment on whether he will urge the Government of Turkey to press Mr. Denktash and his regime to take a far more positive approach to a just solution for Cyprus in line with the United Nations resolutions?
    Mr. Fatchett: I find it surprising that Conservative Members can find nothing else to do but laugh when we are dealing with such difficult and sensitive issues, especially given the suffering endured by the people of Cyprus over the past 20 years or more.
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will indeed urge the Turkish Government to become involved in a solution to the problems of Cyprus, which would be in the interests of Turkey and of the Turkish Cypriots. We hope that that approach will enable us to make progress in the near future.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Part of the increasing tension is undoubtedly due to the purchase of £600 million-worth of anti-aircraft missiles by the Cypriot Government. In our presidency of the EU, what pressure does the Minister think we can bring to bear to ensure that that additional military hardware does not further exacerbate the situation in Cyprus?
    Mr. Fatchett: I realise, from the serious nature of the hon. Gentleman's question, why he has risen to the status of vice-chairman of the Conservative party. He is taking the issues seriously and he is right to say that the introduction of the S-300 missiles later this year will add to the tension. We have said that that is unwelcome and it is not in the interests of the people of Cyprus. We will urge caution and negotiation, as I have already said and will continue to say. The hon. Gentleman is right to ask for that restraint and continued negotiation.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Ms Julie Morgan: If he will make a statement on the talks held in London on 4 May on the middle east peace process. [40493]
    Mr. John Butterfill: If he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [40495]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The UK was pleased to host the peace process meetings held in London last week. I met the US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, on the eve of those talks, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I repeatedly met Madeleine Albright and the two parties to the talks over the two days of meetings.
    Throughout those meetings we urged on both parties our view that the American proposals represent the best chance of breaking the deadlock. We welcomed President Arafat's acceptance of them. We regret that Prime Minister Netanyahu was unable to accept the American package, but we hope that further progress can be made when he meets Madeleine Albright tomorrow in Washington.
    We fully recognise the importance of security to the Israeli people, but we also believe that their security will be best served by a just and fair peace settlement.
    Ms Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major problems is the resistance and inflexibility of Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli Government regarding the peace talks that have been proposed? Will he continue to work with the US Government to encourage Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli Government to accept those proposals?
    Mr. Cook: We will maintain very close contacts with the United States and I, in particular, will maintain close contact with Madeleine Albright. I pay tribute to her strong, firm leadership of the talks last week.
    Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly said that he would like to go to final stages talks. The United States' strategy offered him the opportunity to do so, but those talks can commence only when we resolve the interim issues, and it is a matter of regret that he has been unable to accept what we regard as a fair and reasonable offer to settle interim issues so that we can get on with the final stages talks.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will the Foreign Secretary join me in congratulating The Times on publishing on Saturday probably the most balanced and detailed analysis of the problems in the peace process? Will he confirm that there are genuine difficulties relating, for example, to giving up the early warning systems on the Sumerian heights, to the flight path into Tel Aviv airport and to the aquifers that supply Jerusalem, but that genuine progress was made in narrowing the gap between the parties in the discussions held in London? Does he share my optimism that all those problems can be resolved with good will on both sides?
    Mr. Cook: I must confess that that article in The Times did not catch my eye on Saturday. Of course there are genuine problems, and nobody should take lightly Israel's

    141
    important concerns about security, but those issues are much more likely to be resolved in the context of progress in the peace process.
    In response to the hon. Gentleman's points about outstanding issues, I can tell him that Britain and Europe stand willing to help to resolve the issues relating to economic progress in Gaza, particularly the airport, the industrial park and the sea port. One of the great tragedies of the peace process is that it has been accompanied by a drop of one third in Palestinians' standard of living. It is vital that we restore to the ordinary families of Gaza a belief that the peace process will bring progress to them too.
    Mr. Jimmy Hood: I do not share the optimism that has been voiced. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the evidence seems to show that Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Denktash have one feature in common: neither has any intention of reaching a peace settlement?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend expresses a point of view. It is important for both Europe and the United States that we continue to take at their word the Government of Israel when they say that they wish to restore the peace process. After all, Mr. Netanyahu was elected on a commitment not to end the peace process but to achieve peace with security. There will be no security without peace and no peace unless we manage to get the peace process back on track.
    Mr. Michael Howard: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Israeli Government cite security concerns as their reason for refusing to withdraw from territory on the west bank. What action have the United Kingdom Government taken to reinforce the ability of the Palestinians to deal with terrorist activity emanating from their territory in association, liaison and co-operation with the Government of the state of Israel?
    Mr. Cook: I am delighted to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Europe and Britain have been at the forefront of working with the Palestine National Authority to enhance its capacity to deal with security. That is why when I was in Gaza we announced a permanent joint security committee, which is being supported by a British expert who has real expertise in security and intelligence matters. We are providing practical and real help to enable the Palestine National Authority to get on top of the security problem. I regret that the Government of Israel declined our invitation to join that committee. I hope that they will reconsider their decision in the future.

    Lisbon Expo
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: What plans he has to visit the Lisbon Expo; and if he will make a statement. [40494]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary very much hopes to visit Expo 98 in Lisbon and the United Kingdom pavilion. The Expo offers us an important opportunity to highlight British achievements in ocean technology, research and
    142
    management. The United Kingdom pavilion will project an innovative and creative Britain in a lively and entertaining way. I am pleased to announce that I shall visit the United Kingdom pavilion on Thursday this week, ahead of the opening of Expo 98.
    Mrs. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he ensure that, at the Lisbon Expo, the British Council encourages as many Portuguese students as possible to study at universities in this country? Is he aware that a new university is to open this year in my constituency, and we would very much welcome them?
    Mr. Fatchett: The British Council will play an important role in the Expo and in Britain's display there. The British Council is an extremely important asset to Britain, not just in Portugal but in other parts of the world, as it sells British higher education, the English language and British culture in the roundest possible sense. I am sure that the university in Peterborough will be a tremendous success.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Portugal is our oldest ally and a good friend—a relationship that will no doubt be reinforced by the excellent British contribution at the Lisbon Expo? That relationship subsisted during the Salazar regime. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that demonstrates that friendship between nations is best exemplified by trade and relationships between peoples rather than by some cant about an ethical foreign policy?
    Mr. Fatchett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. There is no doubt that Portugal and the United Kingdom are long-standing allies—indeed, Portugal is our longest-standing ally in Europe. Relationships depend upon much more than trade. In the case of Portugal, we have a range of shared democratic values that are crucial to the relationship between our two countries.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What consultations he has held with (a) Israel, (b) the Palestine National Authority and (c) Arab states concerning securing peace in the middle east. [40496]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister met both the Israeli Prime Minister and President Arafat last week in London.
    Mrs. Ellman: Does my hon. Friend welcome Israel's commitment to implementing United Nations Security Council resolution 425, which calls for Israel's withdrawal from the occupied areas of Lebanon? Does he agree that, in order to make that meaningful, both Syria and Lebanon must ensure that the civilians on Israel's northern borders do not suffer further attacks?
    Mr. Fatchett: The Israeli Government have offered to accept conditionally United Nations Security Council resolution 425, which is unconditional in demanding Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon. My hon. Friend's point is that we must have progress on the

    143
    Syrian-Lebanese track, and it is important that we have a comprehensive peace settlement covering the whole region. That is why she is right to stress the need to build security in south Lebanon through a comprehensive agreement with both Syria and Lebanon.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that one of the problems of bringing about peace in the middle east is the fact that not one responsible Arab leader trusts the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu? Would not Mr. Netanyahu contribute towards the peace if he stopped building those odious settlements on Palestinian land, thus depriving Palestinians of their land and the ability to make a living and to live in peace?
    Mr. Fatchett: We have condemned the building of settlements and any action that pre-empts the final status negotiations. The hon. Gentleman probably does his cause no good by using such strong and intemperate language. We do not choose our negotiating partners, but we must ensure that those negotiations are a success. We are looking for progress on the middle east peace process. That is in the interests of Palestinian, Israeli, Syrian and Lebanese alike, and we shall continue to work towards that just objective.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that, as the Prime Minister said, although the talks last week produced no breakthrough, they did not break down? Does he further agree that neither in Oslo nor later in Hebron in 1997 were any percentages detailed for territorial redeployment? That was to be implemented by Israel; it was not to be an issue for discussion with the Palestinians.
    Mr. Fatchett: As the hon. Gentleman knows intimately, the value of continuing discussion is that it can often lead to a successful outcome in negotiations. We are seeing that in Northern Ireland, and I hope that we shall also see it in the middle east. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister helped to keep those talks going. If we can take the talks on to Washington successfully, that will be in the interests of everyone in the region.

    Burma
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: If he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Burma. [40497]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We are deeply concerned about the political, economic and human rights situation in Burma. We are exerting pressure on the Burmese to engage in substantive dialogue with political leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi. We have used our EU presidency to renew EU measures against Burma. We also drafted the tough resolution on Burma for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights agreed in April. We continue to provide humanitarian assistance to Burmese refugees.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has he seen recent reports that the economic sanctions against Burma are beginning to bite? Will he ensure that
    144
    Japan and other Association of South East Asian countries implement them to make sure that the international community does not open any dialogue with the Burmese junta until the junta has opened negotiations with the democratic forces in that country?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to say that the only way towards progress for Burma is through a political solution that recognises democratic rights and human rights. We are encouraged by the fact that some members of ASEAN are engaging much more constructively and openly in their discussions on Burma. We see that as progress. The way in which they are using their influence on the regime in Rangoon could be a positive source for the future. We shall continue to work for a democratic Burma because, again, through the restoration of democracy and human rights, we have the best chance of moving Burma forward and making progress.

    Human Rights Annual Report
    Ann Clwyd: What representations he has received on his recently published annual report on human rights. [40498]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): The report has been generally welcomed by non-governmental organisations and others. I have received no formal representations.
    Ann Clwyd: On behalf of the parliamentary human rights group, may I say that we welcome the publication of the report? It is an important innovation in British foreign policy and we hope that it will stimulate discussion of such important issues in Parliament and elsewhere. Will my hon. Friend expand on the section of the report that discusses the setting up of a permanent international criminal court? Will he confirm that people such as Saddam Hussein, who are guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, will never escape justice?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on the human rights report; her welcome very much mirrors that of others. The Government are determined to make progress on the international criminal court at the Rome conference in June. We strongly believe that the crime of genocide and the other crimes against humanity committed by Saddam Hussein cannot escape that international process. We would support a proper judicial process to bring Saddam Hussein to book to show that the world is united in condemnation of the horrors that he has inflicted on his people.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the Minister agree that the human rights situation in Nigeria should have been highlighted in the report? General Abacha, the leading member of the junta, licensed five political parties to contest the coming presidential election and, lo and behold, he is the only candidate of all five political parties. Surely that is a case of democracy and human rights being denied throughout Nigeria, which should be condemned.
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that the Government are in the forefront of those

    145
    criticising Nigeria for its continued abuse of the rights of its own people, arbitrary detentions, repression of basic freedoms and erosion of democracy. There is no doubt that the EU got it right when it said that the transition programme to democracy was now fundamentally flawed.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the basic human rights is the right to life, health and basic subsistence, and that millions of people throughout the world, particularly children, are deprived of that basic right because of the burden of international debt? Does he further accept that millions of people throughout Britain, particularly in the Churches, support the Jubilee 2000 demand for debt forgiveness to mark the millennium?
    Mr. Lloyd: I well understand my hon. Friend's point. We recognise the strength of feeling in Britain which that campaign demonstrates. The United Kingdom believes that, globally, individuals have the right to development. For example, negotiations on the right to development at the Commission on Human Rights were enhanced by the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU. We strongly believe that we can make progress internationally and that Britain is playing a moral role at home.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Britain is still training military personnel from Indonesia and sending arms to that country, which is not famous for respecting human rights. When will the Government start practising what they preach?
    Mr. Lloyd: The overnment certainly do practise what they preach, in remarkable and stark contrast to the previous Government. The same export licence criteria apply to the Indonesian Government as to any other country. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced a change to the former United Kingdom military training and assistance scheme when he introduced ASSIST, which places an emphasis on human rights training and respect for civilian and democratic government. That is the direction in which this Government are going; that is not the direction in which the previous Government sought to go.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: All hon. Members support the concept of human rights. Surely one of the major challenges facing us is the need to support those who work in difficult circumstances in many parts of the world to achieve basic human rights. Will the Minister, therefore, tell us whether he has any information about the fate of the president of the Turkish human rights association who, I understand, was shot six times today in his office and whose condition is critical?
    Mr. Lloyd: I cannot help the hon. Lady with the specific details because I do not know them. The House and the world will view that development with alarm and concern. It is incumbent on the Turkish authorities to discover who committed the crime and to ensure that they are brought to justice.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: May I thank my hon. Friend for the publication of the first human rights report in the 19 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, which is a welcome change in respect of the Foreign
    146
    Office? The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has investigated human rights, and everyone who gave evidence welcomed the fact that we should have an annual report and be able to discuss with the Foreign Office how we could improve this country's ethical foreign and human rights policy.
    Mr. Lloyd: A primary purpose of the report is to bring new openness to the way in which the Government conduct their affairs in respect of human rights. It is a matter of recorded fact that Conservative Members have made no pressure for that sort of openness and a matter of practical fact that, for the most part, they have never engaged in debate on human rights. My hon. Friend represents the body of opinion that wants proper and credible debate on the issue, and wants to make sure that the British Government can hold their head up in the world, as the present Government can on those issues.

    Israel
    Mr. Stephen Day: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with the Government of Israel. [40500]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We enjoy excellent relations with Israel.
    Mr. Day: Can the Minister assure the House that the traditionally excellent relationship between the United Kingdom and the state of Israel has been repaired following the disastrous consequences of the Foreign Secretary's visit to Israel recently?
    Mr. Fatchett: During the lifetime of the Government, we have enjoyed an excellent relationship with the state of Israel and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Roger Stott: I regret to admonish my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will reconsider his remarks to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who asked about settlements and the Israeli Government's position. The hon. Gentleman represented the view of the House of Commons. Will my hon. Friend reconsider his words about intransigence? Most hon. Members believe as the hon. Gentleman believes.
    Mr. Fatchett: There is no difference between my position, that of my hon. Friend and, indeed, that of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). There is no question about the Government's policy: we have said constantly that we oppose the building of settlements and that we will take no steps that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. I said to the hon. Gentleman that we do not have the right to choose the parties with whom we negotiate. We have to negotiate with them, whatever we may think of them in personal terms. We have to make the best of the process and of the negotiations, because, as my hon. Friend knows, the only way in which to make progress is through a satisfactory solution. That will come through negotiation and diplomatic activity.

    EU (Subsidiarity)
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on progress in respect of subsidiarity within the European Union. [40502]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Since Maastricht, subsidiarity has been important in ensuring that the Community acts only where results can be achieved better by action at European level. The subsidiarity protocol of the Amsterdam treaty, for the first time, sets out in the treaty the procedures that should be used in applying the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality to European Union legislation.
    Mr. Bercow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware from his close reading of the text that the subsidiarity protocol of the Amsterdam treaty requires the maintenance, in full, of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance? Given that he has accepted that pitiful state of affairs, does he expect a single European Union power to be repatriated to the United Kingdom in the lifetime of this Parliament, or has he thrown in the towel and once again let down the people of Britain?
    Mr. Cook: I am aware that those words are in the protocol. They are in the protocol because they are the words that the Conservative Government accepted at Maastricht. For once, the hon. Gentleman is unfair to the previous Administration. As a result of the negotiations at Maastricht, 12 different regulations were dropped and fewer regulations have been introduced in every year since then. It would have been nice if the Conservative party when in government had applied subsidiarity in practice. It is this Government who are now implementing subsidiarity, not just between us and Brussels, but between London, Whitehall and Scotland, London and Wales, and London and the rest of Britain.
    Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I do not take points of order during questions. If the hon. Gentleman wants an Adjournment debate, he should know how to deal with that.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Amsterdam treaty specifically enshrines the principle of subsidiarity for the first time, and forces on the European Commission a duty to consult widely and to justify action at a European as opposed to a national level? We need such progress in Europe, rather than the incessant criticism that we get from the Conservative party, which makes none of those points and constantly attempts to obscure the truth.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The protocol makes it clear that for Community legislation now to be proposed, it must be shown that matters can be achieved better at Community level than at national level. It must also be shown that such legislation will produce clear benefits that could not be secured at national level. That is now written into the treaty for the first time. It is something that the Conservative Government did not achieve at Maastricht, and it is a clear advance for the principle of subsidiarity.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Foreign Secretary reconsider his answer to my hon.
    148
    Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about whether the preservation of the acquis was in the Maastricht treaty as opposed to the Amsterdam treaty? Does he accept that his answer to my hon. Friend was entirely incorrect? I fear that that is another example of the right hon. Gentleman not reading the material that is put before him.
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what I said was entirely consistent with what I was told two hours ago. Conservative Members complain that we are not briefed, and then they complain when we are briefed. Those are, indeed, the words that were accepted by the previous Government at Maastricht, so it is a bit rich for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to complain to us now.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [40504]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The situation in Kosovo continues to be a matter of deepening concern. Fatalities in Kosovo are now an almost daily occurrence, and the authorities in Belgrade must accept major responsibility for the failure to start a political process, which is vital if we are to stop the violence.
    Last Friday, at the meeting of the G8 Foreign Ministers, it was agreed by those present that we should proceed to impose the investment ban recommended by the last meeting of the contact group. During our presidency of the European Union, I have repeatedly made it clear to Belgrade that we want a closer working relationship with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There could, however, be no question of us accepting the Federal Republic as part of the family of modern Europe unless Belgrade stops its present repression and starts to respect the principles of human rights.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Given my right hon. Friend's extremely worrying reply, will he assure the House that he will use his presidency to do all he can to implement the decision to send a mediator to Kosovo? Does he agree that it would be wrong for Europe to sit back and wait for the Americans to take the lead? We would be making exactly the same mistake as we made in Bosnia, with knobs on.
    Mr. Cook: There can be no question of Europe sitting back and allowing America to take the lead. I hope that Richard Holbrooke's current mission in Belgrade is a success. On the question of a facilitator, I have recently written to President Milosevic urging him to accept the role for Felipe Gonzalez. We shall continue to press on him Mr. Gonzalez's role as special representative of the European Union and of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. In the meantime, although Belgrade refuses to accept outside facilitation, it is important for us to maintain the pressure, which is why we agreed to the ban on new investment within the Federal Republic.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Is the Foreign Secretary now able to tell us more than he was able to tell

    149
    the House on 30 April in response to questions by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), first, about the extent and effectiveness of the monitors who were deployed by the European monitoring mission within Kosovo and secondly, whether any further action has been considered or taken to strengthen the UN forces that are stationed on the Kosovo-Macedonia border? Can he reassure the House that he is receiving and reading comprehensive and up-to-date briefings from his officials on this situation, so that he can take timely and well-informed decisions on matters which, after all, affect the lives of many people?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman asks about the European Union monitors. Five such monitors are currently attached to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. As much as possible, they have given continuous provision within Kosovo, and their monitoring reports have been well received by the international community and have kept us up to date. Yes, I should like to see more monitors there, but to achieve that, we should have to get an agreement from Belgrade, and at present, such agreement has not been forthcoming. The provision of UNPREDEP, the UN preventive deployment force, on the Macedonian border is a clear commitment, and we have repeatedly confirmed to the contact group that there will be an extension of the mandate. Quite what the balance of forces will be—whether it will be a UN or a NATO force—remains under negotiation. However, for the first time, we shall be holding a partnership for peace exercise in Macedonia this autumn in which British troops will participate.

    Israel
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: If he will make a statement on the Prime Minister's recent visit to Israel and the progress of the subsequent talks. [40506]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office(Mr. Derek Fatchett): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a successful visit to Israel on 19 to 21 April. As a result of his meetings with regional leaders, the United Kingdom was able to facilitate the talks on the peace process, which were held in London on 3 to 5 May.
    Mr. Lewis: Notwithstanding the virtue or otherwise of regularly winning the Eurovision song contest or the short-term difficulties that currently face the peace process, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the state of Israel on its 50th anniversary for its economic and social progress, and for the fact that it remains the only democracy in the middle east?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am happy to pay tribute to the successes of the state of Israel to which my hon. Friend refers. The best birthday present for the people and the state of Israel would be a comprehensive and lasting peace for the region. I hope that all political leaders in Israel and in the region share that common goal and will work towards that objective.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: As it took a visit by the Prime Minister to the middle east and Israel to clear up the mess that was left behind after the Foreign
    150
    Secretary's visit, does the Foreign Office have any plans for the Prime Minister to follow the Foreign Secretary on his forthcoming visit to Turkey as well?
    Mr. Fatchett: As the hon. Gentleman says, the visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was extremely successful. It succeeded in bringing the parties together in London, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with that result. Instead of smirking, it is about time that he invested something in the peace process, which is a great deal more important.

    Manufacturing Exports
    Mr. Barry Jones: If he will make a statement on the means by which his Department assists UK manufacturing industry's exports. [40510]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): On 25 March I, together with colleagues from the Department of Trade and Industry, launched a new package of measures that is based on the recommendations of the export forum to help exporters. We have also launched the ambassadors for British business scheme and a programme of short-term attachments of business people to our overseas posts. Those projects are helping to make the Foreign Office more businesslike and to focus on the needs of our customers. The new schemes are in addition to the wide range of assistance that is provided to British companies by our global network of 217 commercial posts in 140 markets.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Will he please continue to use the full resources of his Department to assist the British aerospace industry abroad?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am happy to give that commitment to my hon. Friend. He has been a true champion of the industry during his years in the House of Commons, and his constituents know the valuable role that he has played in that respect. That is why his majority has increased at every successive election.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Minister will be aware that General Motors was thinking of withdrawing its investment from Vauxhall in Luton. Is he aware that Vauxhall cited as one of the reasons the high value of the pound?
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman establishes his question on a false assumption and hypothesis, so I will not answer it. Vauxhall is still with us. We look forward to it staying with us because it is an important inward investor in Britain and has a good reputation.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend ensure not just that resources are moved around in our efforts to increase British exports, including British manufacturing exports, but that there is a real percentage increase in the resources that are devoted to that important task? Does he agree that if British Airways flew throughout the world using not only Boeing jets powered

    151
    by Rolls-Royce engines, but the airbus, which has a larger percentage of British-manufactured components, we should have a good ambassador for British products?
    Mr. Fatchett: The export forum report recommended that we should concentrate our additional resources for export promotion on a number of priority markets. We aim to do that, and to ensure we have a more driven commercial response to the needs of those particular markets and the companies that operate in them, so my hon. Friend can be assured that additional resources, as and when they become available, will be used in that way. He is right, of course, to talk about the successes of the British aerospace industry. Rolls-Royce and the airbus are fine examples of British technology and British engineering.

    Defence Staff Attachments
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the attachment of Ministry of Defence staff to embassies. [40511]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not discussed that matter directly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but our two Departments remain in close contact on all aspects of such attachments.
    Mr. Soames: In the past few weeks, hon. Members will have seen the importance of steady, sensible military advice to the Foreign Office. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that more officials from the Foreign Office do attachments to departments in the Ministry of Defence, and that more service men and women in the MOD go to the Foreign Office? Does he agree that that is one of the most important ways in which to encourage the vital understanding that should exist between those two Departments and that, although there are some moves to that end, there should be many more?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is no doubt about the valuable role that service attaches play throughout the world. The co-ordination between the two Departments responsible—the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence—is close because they both recognise that that is important. In the context of the hon. Gentleman's original, perhaps less charitable, point, I thought that he might have taken the opportunity to congratulate the defence adviser who was based in Accra, but attached non-residentially to Sierra Leone, who was decorated for his valiant service at the time of the evacuation of British people and others whom Britain helped. That would have been a fitting tribute to that important role and perhaps more fitting to the tone of the later question.

    Algeria
    Mr. Andy King: If he will make a statement on UK relations with Algeria. [40514]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): The UK maintains a broad-based dialogue with Algeria, at both political and
    152
    senior official levels. We remain deeply concerned about the continuing violence there and believe that dialogue offers the best chance of contributing to an improvement in the situation. As we hold the presidency of the European Union, we co-ordinate our position on Algeria with our partners, who share our commitment to dialogue. As part of that process, earlier this year, I led an EU mission to Algeria.
    Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the price of victory and the power struggle in Algeria is being paid for with the bodies of innocent women and children?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am sure that every hon. Member shares the view, expressed by my hon. Friend, that every loss of life is one too many. Algeria has suffered great human loss in the past few months and years, and we need to ensure that it is brought to an end. If the United Kingdom and the European Union can contribute to the political dialogue to achieve that objective, we shall do so.
    We should also like there to be, internally, much greater openness, transparency and respect for human rights in Algeria, which is why both the European Union and the United Kingdom have been trying to persuade the Algerian Government that there is a need for the Algerians to invite in United Nations special rapporteurs. I am sure that it would be in the interests of us all, including the Algerians, to ensure that there is such openness, and that we have a full record of what happens internally within Algeria.

    Turkey
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What assessment he has made of the progress of the Turkish economy in recent years and its attractiveness to UK investors and exporters. [40516]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): In recent years, Turkey has become a key market for British companies. In 1997, two-way trade between the United Kingdom and Turkey reached a new record of £2.8 billion. British exports to Turkey alone amounted to £1.76 billion, which was an increase of 13 per cent. on 1996. However, there is still potential to increase bilateral trade further. To that end, on 25 June, my noble Friend the Minister for Trade, Lord Clinton-Davis, will launch a target market campaign to promote the opportunities that the Turkish market offers.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the Turkish CBI and—during its recent visit—the Anglo-Turkish Business Council have confirmed that the investment climate for British firms in Turkey is increasingly attractive? Does he also agree that trade and investment are but one part of an important bilateral relationship, and that the value of that relationship is such that it makes the Luxembourg decision look ever more disappointing?
    Mr. Fatchett: We seek a full and rounded relationship with Turkey, involving both trade and a political dialogue. As part of building that relationship, we have made it clear that we should like Turkey to be engaged in the European process and involved in future discussions on European Union enlargement.

Sierra Leone
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Howard(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the supply of armaments to Sierra Leone in the light of the Prime Minister's statements on the outcome of events there.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): As I reminded the House last week, President Kabbah, the democratically elected leader of Sierra Leone, was deposed in a military coup in 1997. Britain continued to recognise President Kabbah as the legitimate Head of Government of Sierra Leone, and Britain played a leading part at the United Nations in drafting the Security Council resolution calling for the peaceful restoration of constitutional government.
The peaceful restoration of President Kabbah remained the sole policy of Her Majesty's Government. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister demonstrated our continuing support for President Kabbah by inviting him to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. If hon. Members are not interested in hearing the statement, there are other areas of the House to accommodate them.
Mr. Cook: I appointed John Flynn to act as special representative on Sierra Leone, to co-ordinate international support for the restoration of the elected Government.
Earlier this year, President Kabbah was restored to power. As I said on Sunday, that was a positive outcome and represented the restoration of the legitimate and democratic Government, in place of a military regime. The outcome has certainly been welcomed as positive by the people of Sierra Leone, who were freed from a brutal and savage military regime. As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), saw when he himself visited Sierra Leone, it was a regime which punished those who opposed it by taking off their arms and their legs.
President Kabbah yesterday wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, acknowledging this Government's position in supporting his democratically elected Government, and expressing his profound gratitude to this Government for their "principled and ethical position". My right hon. Friend was therefore absolutely right yesterday to draw attention to the fact that, in Sierra Leone, the legitimate and elected Government have been restored to power and a brutal military regime has been thrown out. Sierra Leone is no Iraq. In Iraq, a brutal dictator is still in power and still producing artillery shells on machine tools that were exported to him with the full connivance of the Conservative party.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also said yesterday:
"nobody should be involved deliberately in breaking a UN arms embargo".
As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom has a special responsibility to uphold UN resolutions. If we condone a breach of one resolution,
154
we undermine the authority of other resolutions, such as those requiring Iraq to abandon its programmes of weapons of mass destruction.
We have therefore taken seriously the allegations that there may have been a breach of the arms embargo on Sierra Leone by a British firm. That is why the Foreign Office took the initiative in referring those allegations to Customs and Excise. The Foreign Office is fully and openly co-operating with that investigation. We want the public to know the truth—[Interruption.] Oh, yes; we want the truth—Conservative Members will not like it when they get the truth—and that is why I have ordered an investigation to commence as soon as Customs and Excise will agree, in order to bring all the facts out into the open.
As I said in the House last week, I am constrained as to how much I can say during the customs investigation, but I cannot allow wild allegations to continue to be made against the Foreign Office and its officials—[HON. MEMBERS: "You!"]—or to be recycled as proven fact by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and his colleagues. I therefore say to the House that, in all the papers on this affair, I have found no evidence that officials in the Africa department were involved in any kind of conspiracy with Sandline or gave any prior approval to a breach of the arms embargo. The investigation that I have ordered will establish the truth, but in the meantime, I have more faith in my officials than I have in Sandline.
I note that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said in a letter to me that he is astonished that I did not clear my diary before Sunday. Perhaps I should remind him that, on Friday and Saturday, I hosted the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers in which we co-ordinated our positions on Kosovo, the middle east, nuclear proliferation and many other issues. It is a remarkable testimony to the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got this issue out of all proportion that he imagines that Foreign Ministers of the seven largest economies in the world would be entirely understanding if I cleared them from my diary in order to answer his increasingly repetitive questions.
I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to stop talking of allegations against Foreign Office officials as if they were proven fact, and to wait for the full, considered report that the Government have promised—in stark contrast to the repeated cover-ups of the Government of which he was a member.
Mr. Howard: What I said to the right hon. Gentleman in my letter was that it was astonishing that he had not briefed himself fully on these events before Sunday. It is not surprising that, in his loneliness on the Front Bench, with no Cabinet colleague to support him apart from the Leader of the House, he should prefer to talk about Iraq rather than about Sierra Leone.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Government's position on Sierra Leone is increasingly looking like a shambles? What he described as "very serious" last Wednesday became nothing more than an "overblown hoo-hah" yesterday. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Prime Minister's intervention yesterday makes a laughing stock of him, and a complete mockery of any pretensions he may have to an ethical foreign policy? Will he confirm what he told the House last week—that there

155
was no Government policy or UN support for military intervention to restore President Kabbah, and that the Government and the UN wanted him restored through diplomatic negotiations, not military intervention?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the specific questions about his knowledge of these events which I sent him earlier today? What instructions did he give his private office to bring information to his attention? When was his private office informed of the involvement of Sandline International in operations in Sierra Leone, of plans for military intervention and of the Customs and Excise investigation? When did he himself first know of these matters?
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the position of the Minister of State? Can he confirm the report in The Sunday Times on 10 May that the searches carried out by Customs and Excise on the offices of Sandline International and the former house of Lieutenant-Colonel Spicer were delayed at the request of the private office of the Minister of State? Can he confirm that the reason for that request was so that the Minister of State could be briefed before the searches were carried out? Can he confirm that the Minister of State was, in fact, briefed before the search was carried out?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in the search for truth—about which he was so eloquent a few moments ago—the independent inquiry he has promised will be carried out by a judge and will take place in public, so that all the evidence can be reported, and so that there can be no question of a cover-up or a whitewash? Finally, is not the bottom line this: if, as is alleged, the Foreign Office knew of Sandline's involvement as early as December, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his Ministers knew of it until the end of April, does that not suggest that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is wholly out of ministerial control, and that the right hon. Gentleman is utterly failing to discharge the duties he is paid to carry out?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has again recycled the wild allegations I see in the press. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because the answers should be heard. There was no request to Customs and Excise from the private office of the Minister of State. I am bound to say that I would regard it as wholly improper if Customs and Excise were to hold up an investigation at a ministerial request. That is precisely why we have repeatedly made it clear that we will not do anything to prejudice that investigation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman owes my hon. Friend the Minister of State an apology for recycling that allegation.
On the question of knowledge, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me seven different questions in writing about when I knew. I will answer. The first document that I saw about a breach of the arms embargo—[HON. MEMBERS: "Saw?"] Well, we will come back to that in a moment.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have had enough from some Opposition Back Benchers. The Foreign Secretary will be allowed silence in which to answer.
Mr. Cook: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The first document that I received on any breach of the arms embargo or a shipment of arms was on 28 April, when I saw the letter. Since the right hon. and learned
156
Gentleman asked the same question in multiple different ways, I have to say to him that the reason I say that is that no other paper on the matter had been put in a red box for me, a file for me, a folder for me, on top of my desk or on any other part of office furniture he cares to name.
Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised in the House whether there were any changed instructions on what should go in the red box, let me say that the only instruction we have been able to trace is an instruction from my private secretary which confirms to the Foreign Office:
"The Secretary of State welcomes a fair amount of detail in the background note."
I am receiving full briefing from the Foreign Office. I strongly resent the suggestion that there has been any briefing on the matter that has not been read by me or by the Minister of State.
It is a bit rich for the House to be lectured on the proper management of a Department of State by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who made an art form out of the distinction between policy and operational matters, and who lost 13 court cases because he refused to listen to officials.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Would not the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and his former Cabinet colleagues be a little more credible if they came to this matter with clean hands? Should not he, as a lawyer, know that a fundamental principle of the law is to hear both sides—certainly not to pour scorn on officials, who cannot answer for themselves at this time?
Will my right hon. Friend take on board at least the concern that there is a real danger of excessive delay? As he well knows, prosecuting authorities, such as customs, can take an inordinate time. The Foreign Office investigation, which is very welcome, may not start until the customs investigation is near its end, so there could be a sub judice problem if prosecutions are recommended. Will he say when he expects the customs investigation to conclude, and decisions on prosecutions to be made?
Mr. Cook: It would be deeply improper for me to say to the House when customs will conclude an investigation. The important public policy issue, which will be of concern to both sides of the House, is that customs should complete the investigation thoroughly and assess clearly and fairly whether there is a case to answer—it would be wrong if that process were to be hurried because of any political consideration.
I assure the House that we intend to proceed to that investigation, which will be conducted by someone from outside the Foreign Office, the moment we receive the clearance from customs. I also assure my hon. Friend that we are determined that that investigation—which is for us to set up—will be established and carried out quickly, with a full report to the House as soon as possible.
That is important to the officials who have been repeatedly maligned in the press over the past few days. [Interruption.] No, I say to Opposition Members who are shouting that, as I repeatedly said in the House last Wednesday and have said every day over the weekend, what they read in the papers are allegations by Sandline's lawyers. I understand what Sandline's lawyers are doing:

157
they are doing their job, which is to put the best possible colour on their client's case. That does not make their allegations true. From the papers that I have seen while Sandline has been peddling its allegations, I can say that many of them will turn out not to be true.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted, as I am sure my colleagues are, that the investigation will take place. However, we take the view, which I hope the Secretary of State will share, that the investigation should take place now, irrespective of the time the customs investigation takes, as the two are trying to discover two different things. I am sure that he would agree that it is in the best interests of the nation and the House that, so that the issue is not continually clouded and murky, the investigation that he has instigated should take place immediately, and, if necessary, run in tandem with the customs investigation. Anything short of that will be recognised as prevarication, and will not be reconcilable with the Government's ambition for open government.
The right hon. Gentleman says that no Minister in his Department had any involvement prior to his being told of the matter. Will he confirm this afternoon that that applies to the whole Cabinet, including the Prime Minister? Will he also say who approved the use of HMS Cornwall as part of the Sandline operation?
Mr. Cook: I have no personal interest in delaying the start of the investigation: on the contrary, I would welcome its starting as soon as possible. I cannot act as the hon. Gentleman suggests, precisely because many of those who would give evidence to the investigation are giving evidence to the present customs investigation, so it is impossible to launch the second without cutting across the first. I do not believe that the House would want me to take any step that would prejudice an investigation that may or may not lead to criminal charges.
The statements that I have made about no ministerial approval, contact or discussion apply across the Government, and not only in the Foreign Office.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman made his point about HMS Cornwall in good faith, but the House must understand that that is another of the allegations from Sandline's lawyers.
Mr. Hancock: What about the photograph?
Mr. Cook: I shall come back to the photograph in one minute.
The reality is that HMS Cornwall docked in Sierra Leone on 1 March, after most of the fighting was over and the military junta had been removed. It did not go there to take part in any Sandline activity. Indeed, President Kabbah himself, in his letter to the Prime Minister, said:
"I assure you most emphatically that at no time did my Government utilise mercenaries provided by Sandline."
HMS Cornwall went there to provide humanitarian relief, and it did a fantastic job, of which the House should be proud. To carry out that emergency supply up country, it had of course to fly its helicopter, and, as we would all expect its captain to be prudent about the lives of his
158
service men, it had to have consultations with the local west African forces about where it was safe to fly. That is why the colonel of those west African forces—not a Sandline mercenary—repeatedly flew in that helicopter to the dock beside the ship.
The helicopter was on contract from Sandline, but that does not mean that HMS Cornwall was assisting Sandline in any mercenary activity; on the contrary, it shows that, in this case, the west African forces were helping Britain with humanitarian relief of which we should be proud, not ashamed.
Mr. David Winnick: The House is entitled to a full explanation, and we look forward to the inquiry, but should we not be grateful that, in one instance in Africa, an elected Government who were overthrown have been restored to office? Surely that is right and proper.
Does my right hon. Friend consider it appropriate to be lectured by Conservative Members who, right up to the very day of the Falklands invasion, actively encouraged the sale of arms to the junta in Argentina, as confirmed in a parliamentary answer that I received on 20 April 1982? We hear talk of hypocrisy, but what greater hypocrisy could there be than to be lectured on arms dealing by Conservative Members?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his own point. There is a parallel that is even nearer to us in time: the way in which Ministers in the previous Government decided in secret to relax restrictions on the sale of arms to Saddam Hussein. The moment they were found out, they established an elaborate cover-up and, rather than admitting what they had done, were willing to see innocent people go to prison.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that those of us who worked for many years—four and a half, in my case—as Ministers in the Foreign Office know full well that officials are meticulous in keeping written records of their dealings, and that they ensure that their superiors, both official and ministerial, are kept fully informed in writing?
Were the following documents, or classes of document, received in any ministerial private office, and, if so, were they made available to Ministers: the reporting telegrams from Sierra Leone or any adjoining African country regarding Sandline's involvement in the coup; any documents regarding the Customs and Excise investigation into the Foreign Office; the correspondence with Lord Avebury; the record of meetings between Foreign Office officials and Sandline; and intelligence reports—that is, reports from Government communications headquarters or the Secret Intelligence Service—regarding Sandline's involvement?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked a series of highly detailed questions. I accept that they are perfectly proper, but they require full and considered investigation. As general guidance, however, let me say, first, that it would be quite improper if we were passed papers from Customs and Excise, which is not our ministerial responsibility. As we referred the investigation to Customs and Excise, and have fully and openly co-operated with it, I would not expect such papers

159
to be passed to me, for approval or otherwise. Secondly, the Avebury letter was addressed not to a Minister, but to an official, who replied to it. It was not sent up to Ministers until we subsequently received it from Sandline's lawyers.
As for intelligence, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that there are limits to how far I can go; but, as he raises the point, and as someone has—without, I believe, regard to due process—released something to The Times, the House is entitled to know that at no stage over the past months was any intelligence passed to Ministers or officials that suggested a breach of the arms embargo.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that no Labour Member needs lectures in ethics from the Tories?
The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, met this morning, and agreed to ask the Minister of State for a memorandum detailing exactly how he misled the Committee last Tuesday. We also agreed to ask the Foreign Office for copies of all telegrams between the Foreign Office and Sierra Leone since this affair began. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there are issues of substance here, as it can be no part of an ethical foreign policy to connive at the use of mercenaries and gun runners and the types of strategy that have subjected Africa to so much misery down the years?
Mr. Cook: Let me remind my hon. Friend what I said just now when I read the letter from President Kabbah. If anyone is in a position to know whether Sandline was active in Sierra Leone on his behalf, it is President Kabbah himself, and he made it quite clear that there was no mercenary involvement in the restoration of his Government.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State himself established that he had not given full information to the Select Committee. It was he who drew that to my attention, and it was he who requested me to include that passage in my statement to the House last week. He did so, and was right to do so, precisely because he wanted the record put right at the first available opportunity. He will, of course, respond with the full memorandum to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred.
In respect of the request for telegrams, I must say that they are restricted in circulation. I fully understand what prompted my hon. Friend to ask her question, but, if we worked on the principle that telegrams might subsequently be published, we would receive much less information than we do at present—[Interruption.] Any hon. Member who has served in the Foreign Office, or seen the telegrams, will fully understand why they contain matter that might be embarrassing to Her Majesty's Government or others if it were made publicly available.
I can assure the Select Committee that we will give it the fullest possible co-operation. I look forward to discussing with it the report of the investigation, once it has been held.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Why did the Minister of State not verify in the middle of April whether the Foreign Secretary knew what was happening?
Mr. Cook: The Minister of State saw a number of papers—three or four—all of which indicated that a
160
customs inquiry was proceeding, and said with robust confidence that there had been no official approval of Sandline's activities. There was therefore no ground for apprehension or concern on the part of the Minister of State. It was not until the lawyers' letter of 24 April that either of us was fully aware of the allegations being made by Sandline. I am confident that, with the passage of time and investigation, those allegations will be seen to be quite different from what actually happened.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: My right hon. Friend referred several times to reviewing the papers. From his review, has he satisfied himself at least that no official gave any encouragement to Sandline's activities?
Mr. Cook: First, it is indeed the case that Sandline, before President Kabbah was deposed in the original coup, was a company—[Interruption.]—if the hon. Gentleman will allow me—it was a company which had extensive interests in Sierra Leone. It was indeed known among officials that Sandline had a continuing relationship with President Kabbah, and had an interest in Sierra Leone. After all, a sister company is managing the diamond mines there. It is a big player in that context in Sierra Leone. I see nothing improper in officials having dialogue with it.
In answer to my hon. Friend's question, having looked through the papers in front of me, I give a quite firm and categorical answer. No official in the Africa department did anything to condone or encourage any breach of the arms embargo.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is a record kept of the alleged meetings between officials of the Foreign Secretary's Department and other Departments and the arms exporters? Will the public be told what those meetings were about? Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a worry if officials had such discussions about exports without telling him? Does he accept that this is not the first occasion on which the Foreign Office has had discussions about the export of arms to other countries in breach of sanctions, and has covered itself by giving a warning letter that on no account must it be done?
Mr. Cook: Of course, if there were meetings of officials of the Foreign Office and officials of other Ministries, there would be records of those meetings. That is in the nature of the civil service. If there are such records, they can become part of the investigation, but I have to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his line of inquiry.
The fact is that no licence was given for export of arms to Sierra Leone by Sandline or by anybody else. I therefore at the present time do not know, and have never heard of, a meeting to discuss an application for an export of arms by Sandline to Sierra Leone or anyone else; quite the reverse. Far from the implication of the hon. Member's question, the evidence that I have in front of me suggests that officials at no stage condoned or encouraged the export of arms to Sierra Leone.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding all his protestations in defence of his officials at the Foreign Office, some of us, especially me, cynic though I may be, do not accept,

161
and never will, that, in the course of what I described last week as the Opposition trying to make a seven-course dinner of a pan of boiling water, some of the high-flying diplomats challenged by him when he assumed office, having worked for the tawdry Government who are now in opposition, did not take it upon themselves to take action to undermine him and anyone else? I happen to believe that. It has happened in the past.
Fortunately, my right hon. Friend was able today to show that he is a master of his brief, as he did when he read the Scott report in three hours a few years ago and flattened the Government of the day. That is unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the "man of the night", as he was aptly described by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald (Miss Widdecombe). My right hon. Friend today gave him enough rope, and he has hung himself.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's remarks on the officials of the Foreign Office were noted in the Foreign Office, not to universal approbation. While I entirely understand his point, I have never at any stage while I have been Secretary of State detected resistance to a policy, or any act of conspiracy against it, at any level within the Foreign Office. I think that officials have been treated unfairly over the past weekend. [HON. MEMBERS: "By you."] No, not by me. I have never at any stage recycled the allegations as proven fact. I have repeatedly said that they were allegations that should be taken seriously, but, in fairness to those officials, I do think that the Opposition should stop rushing to judgment, and await the forthcoming full and considered investigation.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is most unusual for the Foreign Office to ask for an inquiry by Customs and Excise, a Department that does not report to him; that to ask for such an inquiry to be made without the instruction of a Minister is nearly beyond belief; and that then to suggest that the inquiry will not be referred to a Minister until six weeks later seems even more a matter of imagination? Does he actually suggest that the inquiry would not and should not have been referred to a Minister before it was instituted?
Mr. Cook: I said to the House last week that I do think that the Minister of State, when he was coming to address a debate in the House on 12 March, should have been informed of the inquiry, and I do not resile from what I said then. However, I depart from the right hon. Member on his central thesis. Customs is the statutory body responsible for investigating breaches of export orders, so it is entirely proper that customs should have been made the investigator of any alleged breach.
As to consulting Ministers before doing it, on that I have to say that I think officials acted entirely properly in what they did. The moment they suspected that a breach might have occurred, they were under a duty as citizens, never mind as civil servants, to draw it to the attention of the appropriate criminal investigation organisation.
It would have been quite improper to ask Ministers' opinion as to whether a suspected breach should be referred—to have asked for a political decision before referring the matter onward. That is why I am actually
162
very pleased that the Foreign Office is able to say, "We initiated this investigation—we did not attempt a cover-up, and we have since co-operated fully and openly with customs." That is what I would have expected of my officials.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I said on BBC Radio Scotland yesterday that the Labour party does not need lessons in ethical conduct from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) or the odd job lot behind him—members of what we in Scotland now call the English rural party. I reminded my listeners of the Pergau dam affair and the Iraqi arms affair, neither of which led to the resignations of any Conservative so-called hon. Gentlemen. That is the point of this affair, and of this private notice question.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give us open access to the report and a full debate on it when it is published; and that he does not put the same constraints on examination of the report as were put on him in respect of the Scott report.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to give the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe an undertaking that he will have more than three hours in which to read the report before we debate it. I can also give my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) an assurance that we shall of course publish the report, and I fully expect that the House will wish to discuss it when it is available. As to his later remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred earlier to the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), in which, the House will recall, the right hon. Lady detailed three occasions on which the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe misled this House knowingly.
Mr. Roger Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) the undertakings he sought? Will the inquiry be conducted by a judge, and will it be conducted in public?
Mr. Cook: At the present time, we are still identifying who may head it up, but I can give an absolute assurance that it will be somebody with impeccable legal qualifications, because those will be required. Secondly, I have been repeatedly pressed by the House to produce an investigation that will report to the House at an early date. I have told the House that we shall be seeking to make sure that the procedures for that are consistent with speed, so that the House can have the facts, and officials can have the truth out in the open.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Last week, I spent two days in west Africa at a conference about good governance and human rights, at which there were Members of Parliament and officials of five African nations and several Latin American nations. Representatives of many donor nations, including the United States and France, also attended. Not one delegate mentioned to me British policy on Sierra Leone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people at that conference in Africa had the issue much better in proportion than Opposition Members do?
Mr. Cook: The people of Sierra Leone have found rather incomprehensible much of what they have read in

163
British newspapers and heard from the British Parliament in the past few days. As far as they are concerned, they have restored their legitimate and elected Government and seen the back of a brutal and repressive military regime, which is an entirely positive outcome for them. Of course, if there are allegations of a breach and allegations against officials, it is important that the facts should be out in the open. We have nothing to hide, and we want to have the truth out in the open. In Africa, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and elsewhere, the disproportionate attention given to this issue is regarded with incredulity.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Foreign Secretary told us earlier that it would be wholly improper if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office caused the Customs and Excise investigation to be delayed. On 29 April, the day after the Foreign Secretary became aware of the letter from Sandline International's solicitor, Customs and Excise delayed indefinitely an arranged interview with Colonel Spicer under caution, pending further investigations. Was that a coincidence?
Mr. Cook: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to suggest, but I know that he does not have the guts to say it baldly and directly—he comes at it from a tangent. If he repeats outside the House any suggestion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members will be quiet, I will answer. If he repeats outside the House any suggestion that I have improperly—[Interruption.] Please. If hon. Members have finished, I will continue. If the hon. Gentleman repeats outside the House any suggestion that I have improperly intervened in the customs investigation, I will sue, because it is totally untrue.
Mr. Ernie Ross: As one of two hon. Members who visited HMS Cornwall when she returned from her patrol in that area and were briefed by the commander and the crew, I can tell my right hon. Friend that they were absolutely overjoyed at the work that they could do in rebuilding clinics and taking aid to the people of Sierra Leone. They were proud that they were able to take part in that exercise. I support my right hon. Friend in ensuring that he maintains his present position of supporting his officials and Foreign Office Ministers, so that people outside the House can see the difference between the Government and the Conservative party, whether in government or opposition.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I particularly underline the fact that the House ought to express its appreciation of what was done by HMS Cornwall and all those who served on her at that time.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) asked about the pictures that were taken. They were taken in the third week of March, long after the Customs and Excise investigation had commenced. HMS Cornwall has done nothing improper in this matter, and much of which the House can be proud.
Mr. Tim Collins: Does the Foreign Secretary have absolute confidence in the Minister of State, who has been looking extremely miserable this afternoon? Does he agree that, if the Minister of State is forced to resign over this matter, his own position will also be untenable?
Mr. Cook: Of course I have full confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who, like everybody else in
164
this matter, has had to put up with wild allegations being reported as fact. If my hon. Friend is looking in any way unenthusiastic about this exchange, I can only put it down to the fact that he is frustrated at being unable to answer the questions himself, to put right his name, and to make it perfectly plain that there is nothing to hide among Ministers or officials.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather sad that our dwindling Opposition are reduced to recycling press releases from the lawyers of a company suspected of criminal activity? Does he accept that, despite the further sneering attack on his ethical foreign policy by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), my constituents, who take an interest in foreign policy, are very enthusiastic about the attempt to achieve such a policy? They realise that it will lead to controversy and that it will be difficult, but they honour the Government for trying it, and they recognise that the previous Government pursued an unethical foreign policy.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Another point that Opposition Members keep refusing to face is that, in many parts of the world, our support for values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy has gained Britain respect. As the Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic put it to me, "If your entire history is about being the victim of foreign policy realpolitik, you respect a Government who are prepared to follow foreign policy on the basis of principle."
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): What was the earliest date at which the planned military intervention in Sierra Leone was known in the Foreign Office, and at what official or ministerial level?
Mr. Cook: Sixth February, and it was known to all those who received the telegrams.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Is it not clear that Conservative Members' strategy, both now and in recent days, is to draw similarities between this issue and the arms to Iraq affair and, in the process, try to gain sustenance for the impression that all politicians are as bad as they are? Not one proven fact has been advanced today to justify the lurid allegations that the Opposition have made.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, when it comes to arms sales, there will be allegations of this sort from time to time? In terms of good government, it is crucial that there be openness, and that the Government are willing and able to submit to independent scrutiny in order to get at the facts. That is what we are doing, and it is what the Conservative party singularly failed to do on arms to Iraq.
Mr. Cook: There are three main differences between the arms to Iraq affair and this matter. The first is that the arms to Iraq affair began with a policy decision taken by Ministers in secret to relax the guidelines. Secondly, it was followed through by ministerial decisions to authorise licences for the export of the machine tools. Thirdly, that was followed by an elaborate cover-up rather than a release of the facts—which went to the extent of even suppressing documents from a court case.

165
There could not be a starker contrast with our conduct of this issue: there has been no policy change, no ministerial approval and no attempt at a cover-up. We are anxious that the public should know the full facts that we know, which are very different from the facts being peddled to the public.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he initials all the papers he sees?
Mr. Cook: I can confirm that what happens with all papers I see is that I tick them if they are put there for noting. If they are put there for approval, I write "OK" on them. No papers are returned to my office without writing on them of any character. I have read some really weird and absurd claims in the press in the past two or three days. I do go through my red boxes, I do read what is in my red boxes, and I do tick all those that I have read. That is understood by my officials. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, at no stage, in any of those boxes or files, were there any data on a breach of the arms embargo before 28 April.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who have, through our cities, particular relations with Sierra Leone—as my city of Hull does with Freetown—were grateful and glad when democracy was restored to that country? The harrowing tales that we heard from that unhappy country during the period of despotic tyranny caused great concern, and the non-governmental organisations and other organisations involved were grateful that democratic government was restored to Sierra Leone.
Has my right hon. Friend noticed that four words have not been used at all in the cross-examination of him today, which I think merit some consideration? Those words are "public interest immunity certificates". What on earth has happened to them?
Mr. Cook: I must admit that I am rather enjoying the cross-examination, because, the more it goes on, the more empty the Opposition's case becomes. My hon. Friend draws attention to one reason why Opposition Members cannot get off the back foot: it is because their back foot is so mired in the mud of the last Government. As I said to the House last week, one of my first reactions when I heard of the lawyers' letter was to make it plain that I was not prepared to sign any public interest immunity certificate in this matter. I want the full facts to be out, and I want any court case to be fair.
Mr. Howard: The Foreign Secretary has today been dancing to his master's voice. What was "very serious and grave" last week is now apparently "receiving disproportionate attention". He failed to answer the questions of which I had given him notice earlier today. Will he now tell the House who was on the distribution list of the document received on 6 February, to which he referred in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for
166
Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and will he finally answer the question that he has scrupulously avoided: will the inquiry that he has promised be carried out by a High Court judge and in public, following the precedent set by his own Government with the Phillips inquiry?
Mr. Cook: The documents of 6 February were telegrams, and those telegrams would be widely circulated. [Interruption.] Of course they would be. Telegrams are always widely circulated. They detailed the intervention in Sierra Leone by the military observers group of the Economic Community of West African States—ECOMOG—and the overthrow of the military junta there. As President Kabbah has pointed out, that was a military intervention by the west African forces; it was not a military intervention by any mercenary force.
I have some sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has been looking forward to this event throughout the past two days. Every radio broadcast today promised that there would be an hour on the rack for me here this afternoon. I must say that this has been quite a pleasant interlude from the work that I have to do at the Foreign Office. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do it again, I shall be happy to come back and repeat it.
Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I seem to be getting points of order from hon. Members who are rather frustrated, so I hope that they are genuine points of order. I shall start with Mr. Winnick's.
Mr. Winnick: We have freedom of expression in the House, which is fortunate for all of us, but you, Madam Speaker, like your predecessors, have always said that we should be careful how we exercise that freedom of speech. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) implied the gravest form of misconduct by the Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend responded by saying that, if those accusations had been made outside the House, he would sue. Is there not an obligation on the hon. Member for Reigate to reflect on what he said, and, if he considers that it was inappropriate, to apologise?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Madam Speaker: Order. As I feared, these are not matters for me. The point of order seems to be an extension of the statement and questions on it. I see that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is rising. He may wish to say something.
Mr. Blunt: I will be happy to put the question in a detailed form outside the House, if that is what the Foreign Secretary wishes.
Mr. Bayley: On a related point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have dealt with the matter.

Points of Order
4.22 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order arising out of Foreign Office questions, Madam Speaker. I suggested during questions to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), that General Motors had considered withdrawing its support for Vauxhall in Luton, and that one reason given was the high value of the pound. The Minister said that my question was based on a false hypothesis, and he therefore would not answer it.
As many Labour Members know, what I said to the Minister about the withdrawal of support by General Motors was correct. I have the briefing paper from Vauxhall, which states that one of the reasons is the high value of the pound. I suggest that inadvertently the Minister misled the House.
Madam Speaker: That is an interesting situation and one that concerns the hon. Member's constituency. He might like to apply to me for an Adjournment debate, in which he can develop that theme and get a full response from the Minister concerned.
Sir Peter Emery: It has always been the tradition in procedure that interventions after a statement are put in the interrogative, as a question. We seem to be sliding away from that, with statements being made, not put in the interrogative, and often not even with a question at the end. Will you, Madam Speaker, reinforce the fact that hon. Members have been here long enough to learn that, according to the tradition of the House, questions must be questions, not just statements?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. He will know, as do many other hon. Members, that I often call Members to order because of the comments they make. It happens too in the case of hon. Members who are leading on an issue for their party. May I suggest—I think that it is a good suggestion—that the party Whips should give seminars to some of their Back Benchers and take them through some of our procedures? If I had the time, there is nothing that I should like more than to put on my mortarboard and give hon. Members lessons in how to proceed in the Chamber.

Rural and Community Hospitals
4.24 pm
Mr. David Prior: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish procedures to place restrictions on the closure of rural and community hospitals.
I represent a rural constituency with many elderly, retired people. Public transport is not readily available, and the general hospital is a good 40 miles away for many people. There are five community hospitals in north Norfolk, a pattern reflected across the United Kingdom.
Over the years, many community hospitals have been chopped and changed, many have closed, others have been threatened with closure and then reprieved, and wards have been closed. The fortunes of those hospitals have yo-yoed with the annual financial settlement. There has been no long-term security or strategic plan.
In funding terms, community hospitals have been the Cinderella of the health service, relying on financial support from countless leagues of friends, appeal committees and supporters. They have been squeezed by the high-profile and expensive march of new technology in acute hospitals. The sword of Damocles has always hovered above them.
That is no way to run such a vital local service; no way to treat dedicated nurses and frail, and sometimes terminally ill, patients. The public have no confidence in the impartiality or correctness of the decision-making process. Matters have reached such a stage that one chairman of a cottage hospital told me that, if the health authority spent money on a hospital, it was a sure sign that it would try to close it in a year or two. Another said that a consultation was a cosmetic exercise—a case of, "We've written the minutes, now let's have the meeting."
There have been many debates in the House about community hospitals, usually prompted by a particular closure. Today is an opportunity to look at community hospitals in a less emotional setting.
The United Kingdom has 457 community hospitals. Many are approaching their centenary, and many of the war memorial hospitals had their origins in the great war. No two hospitals are the same; they have evolved to meet local patient needs. Most commonly, they allow patients to recover from traumatic surgery and to receive medical treatment near their homes. There is clear evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that people recover more quickly in small, friendly local hospitals.
Perhaps most important, especially in an area such as north Norfolk, local hospitals have developed a special expertise in treating elderly people. That has led to a growing requirement to provide respite and palliative care for the terminally ill. The increasing number of older people, especially those who are frail or who have mental health needs, require a service sensitive to their needs and preferences. Evidence shows that older people are less likely to be disoriented if cared for at home or close to home, particularly by staff with whom they are already familiar and by their local GP.
The fact that community hospitals are so well supported by the community means that literally thousands of volunteers provide help. Taking time to listen and to talk to ill, old and sometimes lonely people can make a huge difference. During the next 10 years, the Government predict an increase of about 100,000 people over the age

169
of 85, many of whom will need the services of their local hospitals and their community pharmacists. That massive local support, part of the moral capital of the NHS, will evaporate if the hospitals are closed.
By contrast, the big acute hospitals are organised primarily for major surgery. They employ highly specialised people, and are hugely expensive. It is essential to move patients out as quickly as possible. The community hospital is the logical halfway house between acute hospitals and home. They can also be used to manage winter pressures and the pressures of rising emergency admissions.
To summarise, community hospitals meet essential patient and clinical needs. They have massive public support, and fulfil a vital role between the large district hospitals and care at home. So it was that I welcomed a number of statements in the Government's White Paper called "The New NHS". They commit themselves to real, not synthetic, consultation, and to three, five, even 10-year funding agreements to give greater stability to NHS trusts. They also commit themselves to allowing local doctors and nurses, who best understand patient needs, to shape local services.
The Government specifically commit themselves to community hospitals in the White Paper, which states:
"Too often in the past, Community Hospitals have been sidelined."
Those are fine words, but, as they say in Norfolk, "Fine words butter no parsnips." Community hospitals from Cornwall to Wales, from the midlands to East Anglia, are under threat. Community hospital associations believe that at least 16 are threatened with closure. To bridge the gap between political rhetoric and platitudes and what is happening on the ground, I bring the Bill before the House. It is not fair to raise expectations without providing the wherewithal to achieve them.
The broad objective of my Bill is to make it much harder to close community hospitals, by introducing safeguards. First, there should be a presumption, albeit rebuttable, in favour of community hospitals remaining open. For the health authority, there must be a clear burden of proof to show that there is no longer patient or clinical need for the hospital. It would not be sufficient justification to suggest a lack of short-term financial resource.
Secondly, the obligation on the health authority to consult openly and seriously should be entrenched. Consultation must include not only community health councils, but everyone directly involved in primary health care, including doctors, nurses, health visitors and the like, as well as the public.
Thirdly, an independent panel should review the decision of the health authority and the assumptions and the reasoning behind the proposed closure. Specifically, it would consider bed utilisation and management objectively, and satisfy the public that the figures had not been cooked and bed occupation artificially lowered to support the case for closure. It would not take into account short-term financial considerations. An independent panel would restore public confidence in the decision-making process.
170
A proposed closure would have to have the seal of approval from the Secretary of State. In practice, he would overrule the independent body only if there were an overriding political imperative. However, the decision should have democratic legitimacy.
Those measures would make it more difficult, but not impossible, to close community hospitals. Some will close in response to changing patient needs, demography or technology, but at least those measures would make closure more acceptable to the public, and better understood. The Government would have to make available funds to support the health authority's strategic plan. No hospital should close because of a short-term funding gap.
The Bill puts down a marker to the Government. Community hospitals are a vital part of the health service. They have widespread public support and must be given a long-term future. There must be no more closures until proper safeguards have been put in place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Prior, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Keith Simpson, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Damian Green, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. John Bercow and Mr. Shaun Woodward.

Rural and Community Hospitals
  RURAL AND COMMUNITY HOSPITALS
  Mr. David Prior accordingly presented a Bill to establish procedures to place restrictions on the closure of rural and community hospitals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 186].

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the further Report [11th May] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. McFall.]
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. McFall.]
Following is the report of the Business Committee [11 May]:
That the Resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 5th May be varied so that—

(a) the second and third days allotted under the Order (13th January) to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below, and

(b) each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order, as amended on 30th April) on the expiry of the allotted period (calculated from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill) specified in the third column of the Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Allotted period

Second day

New Clause 2 and New Clause 4

45 minutes

New Clause 12 and New Clause 15

1 hour 30 minutes

New Clause 17

2 hours

New Clause 18

2 hours 30 minutes

Orders of the Day

  Scotland Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Committee), further considered.

  Scotland Bill
    New clause 2

      CORRUPTION OR MALADMINISTRATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      '.—(1) The Parliament shall make provision for the investigation of relevant complaints made to its members in respect of instances of corruption or maladministration in a Scottish Unitary or Island Authority.

      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a complaint is a relevant complaint if it is a complaint which, if it were made of a local authority in England or Wales, could be investigated by the Audit Commission.

      (3) "Scottish Unitary Authority" and "Scottish Island Authority" mean local authorities established under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.'.—[Dr. Fox.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.34 pm
      Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 2 would provide scrutiny and accountability in the Scottish Parliament. The debate that we have had in the past hour shows why proper scrutiny and accountability are required. The new clause relates to corruption and maladministration in local government, which should concern all those involved in local government in Scotland. There has been a litany of accusations of maladministration in parts of local government in Scotland, and we have tabled the new clause because of the failure of internal scrutiny.
      It is not long since the Secretary of State and his colleagues arrived in Paisley to deal with allegations of scandal and corruption and the other problems afflicting the local Labour party. The headlines in the compliant Scottish press at the time referred to them as sleaze busters. We were told that they were going to sort the problems out once and for all, and that no stone would be left unturned. Now—a considerable time later—one inquiry has been completed and then ditched, and a separate inquiry is having to be held for which the House will have no locus, because it has not been set up by us although the matter is of great concern to us.
      The failure of internal regulation in Paisley is a good example of why the Scottish Parliament should have some powers over local government in Scotland. The relationship between local government in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament will be extremely important.
      Inquiries have been held into local government maladministration. The Labour party attempted such an inquiry in Glasgow. It was something of a kangaroo court and the charges were never made public. It ultimately collapsed because Millbank could not understand Scottish law, or at least that was the excuse. It was a complete farce and did party politics no good. If we want politics to be held in high regard, we must ensure that everything is above board. After the low turnout at the local government elections in England last week, all the political parties were talking about the need to explain the importance of local government and to foster a spirit of

      173
      civic responsibility. Any inquiry into the behaviour of those who take part in local government should be fair and public. Those are important aspects of natural justice.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am puzzled. The hon. Gentleman asserts—it is only an assertion—that the Scottish Parliament should have some powers over local government. What powers? In particular, what powers does he think Holyrood should have that Westminster at present does not have?
      Dr. Fox: The new clause refers to complaints that, if they occurred in England, would be investigated by the Audit Commission. That is what the clause seeks to introduce for Scotland. There have been a number of scandals and allegations involving local government in Scotland that have given rise to great public disquiet. The Labour Opposition of the time told us that the Monklands problem was an isolated example. Glasgow was another isolated example, as were Govan and Paisley. When we join up the dots it becomes a large isolated example, because it involves the whole of the west of Scotland. We should be concerned about that.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Gentleman did not mention Tory-controlled Westminster council. Is he proposing that the Scottish Parliament should have investigatory powers similar to those in England and Wales that exposed the disgusting scandal of Tory-controlled Westminster council?
      Dr. Fox: The new clause would give powers to the equivalent of the Audit Commission, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it. He will, of course, be aware that the remit of the Bill does not extend to Westminster council, so I shall ignore his remarks.
      What occurred in Paisley shows best of all why these powers are needed. The Government may find it inconvenient that I bring up this party political subject, but questions remain unanswered. Such events have a negative impact on places such as Paisley. It is wrong for Paisley to get a bad name because of the Labour party's failure to deal with allegations. The people of Paisley dislike the way in which the town has become synonymous with problems in the conduct of local government. That is unfair, and there should be a clear mechanism of scrutiny. We still do not know what is going on in Paisley. The Government have not come up with a clear method of dealing with the allegations about the way that local government in Paisley was conducted. An hon. Member who was respected and liked in all parts of the House committed suicide and another hon. Member has been under suspension by his party for some time and is not representing his constituents in the House. There is no reassurance for the general public, and we need a mechanism that will reassure them. Matters must be above board so that those in local government know that they will be dealt with fairly. There must be proper public scrutiny.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I should perhaps declare an interest. My wife is a councillor in the west of Scotland and she is a remarkably honourable woman. I have to say that because she is bigger than me.
      174
      The new clause is disgraceful. It plainly shows that Scotland is slipping away from the grasp of the Conservative party, what I call the English rural party. The United Kingdom as a unitary state is slipping away from it, and the new clause is an absurd attempt to bring some order to what should be done in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asked about Westminster council and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that that had nothing to do with Scotland. He was right in the context of the Bill, but we must not forget the face of corruption.
      I suppose that at a moment like this I should murmur de mortuis nil nisi bonum in respect of the late Reginald Maudling, Mr. Poulson and Mr. Pottinger. I am tempted to repeat that for the benefit of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who is not a Latin scholar. Those three gentlemen and, I seem to recall, a Labour Member and Labour representatives from the north-east of England were involved in scandalous affairs. Corruption was a feature of much of Conservative public life.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, as local government is a devolved matter under the Bill, there is nothing in it to preclude a Scottish Parliament from investigating local authorities that are suspected of corruption? Irrespective of which party forms the Administration, I am sure that the new Parliament will be quick to do that.
      Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair intervention. Of course his party will not command a majority in the new Parliament. It will be up to Members of the Scottish Parliament to engage in negotiations with representatives of local authorities to develop some kind of system to tackle corruption in councils. That applies to all parties, although Scottish councils are not led by Conservatives and perhaps never will be unless there is some system of proportional representation for local government. Even then Conservative control is unlikely. It is right to seek to drive corruption, cronyism and nepotism from our councils. That applies to Conservative councils here in the deep south, where the Westminster scandal is still fresh in our minds, as much as it applies to the occasional Labour councillor who goes adrift.
      The hon. Member for Woodspring spoke about Paisley, but I could not figure out what he was talking about. He referred to the late Gordon McMaster, who was an hon. Member and a good friend of mine. He was utterly innocent of any charge, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would concede. He also referred to a neighbouring constituency but he made little reference to the council whose headquarters are in Paisley and whose meetings were recently described rather graphically by a senior police officer as somewhat lively—livelier than some Paisley pubs on a Saturday night. I place the blame for that unbecoming conduct fairly and squarely on the Scottish National party. It has nothing to do with Labour, with Councillor Hugh Henry and the fine people who sit behind him, but the independents and some of the SNP councillors leave a little to be desired.
      Dr. Fox: The belief that everybody but members of the Labour party is responsible for the problems in local government in Paisley leaves a credibility gap. The hon.

      175
      Gentleman described the new clause as deplorable. It seeks only to give to Scotland the same power of scrutiny as is held by the Audit Commission in England. Why should the people of Scotland have less power than people in England to scrutinise local government?
      4.45 pm
      Dr. Godman: I agree with the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan). If there are to be regulations about the authority of our Edinburgh Parliament to scrutinise and perhaps discipline errant councillors, it must be based on genuine consultation in Scotland, not consultation in this place. It must take account of consultations not just with local authorities but with community councils. They were not mentioned by the hon. Member for Woodspring. How many community councils are there in Paisley or in Inverclyde and elsewhere? Consultations should involve representatives of the Edinburgh Parliament and civic society. What about business and trade union interests and those of voluntary organisations which have to work closely with local authorities? They should all be engaged in negotiations about the formulation of such powers.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow a few moments ago when he suggested that the problems in Renfrew council related to conduct at council meetings. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman might recall FCB Securities and the allegations about the activities of council-originated companies that were made by a Labour Member. Does the hon. Gentleman concede that there is a great deal more to Renfrew politics than the conduct at a few council meetings?
      Dr. Godman: I readily concede that point, which the hon. Gentleman makes in a fair-minded way. In formulating policies to help needy communities, Strathclyde regional council in some cases gave too much unfettered authority to groups that had been set up throughout the region, and problems were created. That council did a fair job of looking after people in need, especially in my constituency and in Glasgow and Paisley. However, mistakes were made, and I am perfectly happy to accept the suggestion by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale that a Scottish Parliament, after genuine consultation with civic society, could come up with a system to regulate the conduct of councillors. The overwhelming majority of such representatives have integrity. They play a fair game and are dead straight and honourable, and they should not have the new clause imposed upon them. Such measures must come from Edinburgh.
      Change is needed in our local authorities. I advocate proportional representation, and I have long argued for it. There is to be electoral reform for the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland assembly—if we get the result that we all hope for in about 10 days. Local government should be based on proportional representation. This may not make me very popular with a certain councillor whom I meet occasionally, but in Glasgow we have a massive number of Labour councillors and a very small opposition. That is not right. The same holds for south of the border. The Conservative party used to have massive majorities down
      176
      here in the deep south and that is wrong. Speaking as a democratic socialist, I believe that that is wrong. We need electoral reform.
      I prefer the additional member system. That is the fairest system of proportional representation, but we should not have councils where those in power occupy 70 seats and those in opposition occupy fewer than a dozen seats. That is not right. It will not happen in our Parliament. We will even have—we may have—four or five Conservative representatives in that Parliament, if they are lucky.
      Subsection (1) of the new clause states:
      "The Parliament shall make provision".
      I might have been a little happier with it if it had said "may make provision". That has to be done by the people of Scotland and their representatives. The hon. Member for Woodspring equates this with the Audit Commission, not with Parliament. Again, that is unacceptable.
      If we are going to talk about elected representatives determining these things north of the border, should we not talk about elected representatives south of the border having the same power? Again, why Scotland? Why not Northern Ireland? Why not Wales? The hon. Member for Woodspring is going to say, "Of course, we are debating the Scotland Bill," but he does not make even a passing reference to the scandals that overtook Westminster and indeed other Conservative oligarchies down here. That is why I am so opposed to the new clause.
      By all means, let us have change in local government. Let us demand the highest standards of conduct from our representatives at all levels, including at the level of this multinational state Parliament, but let us not focus just on local authority representatives, with them not having any say in the sort of system that is developed.
      Mr. Salmond: As usual, that was for the most part a fair-minded speech from the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). I follow that by making a few points briefly.
      I am suspicious of clauses, arguments or indeed recent proposals from the Secretary of State for Scotland saying that the solution to manifest problems in local government is to impose structures from above. I am not against having a sleaze buster or some form of administration, overseeing authority or commission—most people are not against that—but that is not the way in which we should be examining these particular problems. We should be examining democratic structures in councils, so that those are healthy and enable a vibrant democratic exchange to take place in councils where it does not take place at present.
      As some hon. Members will know, I come from West Lothian. I am a Lithgae lad. I am a black bitch, which confirms the thoughts of a few Labour Members and what they think about me. Among other things, West Lothian council—I see the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in his place—has benefited from the substantial number of changes in administration that it has had over the past 20 years or so. I believe—and I am trying to be fair-minded about this, although I am not saying that I would not prefer the Scottish National party to be in administration all the time—that both Labour and the SNP have keen kept on their toes in that council because they have had a substantial opposition force, which was ready and able to take over at the next election if the electorate so decided.

      177
      We should consider that structure and that model in examining councils throughout Scotland. That is why the reference by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde to proportional representation is more important than this new clause, the Government's sleaze buster or any other factor. We should provide methods of ensuring a vibrant democratic opposition and a balance of forces within councils, so that some of the malpractice that we have undoubtedly seen in certain Scottish Labour councils does not become the norm rather than the exception.
      It would be useful if we also examined this matter in terms of moving to full-time councillors. The Conservative party often argues that there is a risk in Scotland of people becoming overgoverned. I was looking at some figures recently. Scotland has fewer elected representatives per head of population, even allowing for the 129 who are going into the new Parliament, than any other country in western Europe. Incidentally, we have substantially fewer than England because of the new single-tier structure in Scottish local authorities. It is not a case of cutting the number of councillors in Scotland. There is a substantial case for having decent remuneration for the councillors we do have in a simple form, relying on a salary as opposed to augmented expenses.
      That would be fairer and more democratic. It would allow a wider pool of people to move into Scottish local authorities and, again, would be a generic way in which to tackle these problems, instead of assuming that the solution is to prescribe and to impose from above.
      I was interested to read in The Herald last week that the Labour party was appointing a sleaze finder to scrutinise—I see the Minister of State laughing—the work of the SNP throughout Scotland, so that Labour could fling some mud at the SNP, instead of all the mud being thrown at the Labour party. The SNP is by no means perfect—I would never make that claim—and no party is, but it would take a fair amount of brass neck for anyone in the Labour party hierarchy to believe that that might be a fruitful area of exchange in the run-up to the Scottish parliamentary elections. It might find that more ammunition was coming in its direction than in that of the SNP.
      The serious point that I want to make is this. I hope that the debate that we conduct over the next year looks at democratic structures, instead of negative allegations between political parties. We would do the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government a substantial service if the argument about cleaning up Scottish local government in certain councils—not the majority; corruption is not the norm—concentrated far more on how to achieve vibrant, democratic structures. As we are introducing a vibrant, democratic structure for the nation, we should be thinking of introducing the same thing in local authorities throughout Scotland.
      Mr. Dalyell: I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that it should be local government that sorts itself out and that it should not be sorted out from any Parliament, either Holyrood or Westminster, but I am astonished at some of the other things that have been said. I do not make a party point here. Incidentally, I leap to the defence of the late
      178
      Reginald Maudling. There were two sides to that story and I recall only that, for Scotland, he was one of the most helpful Chancellors of the Exchequer whom I ever went to.
      As a doctor, let alone a politician, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) should be extremely careful in his references to the late Gordon McMaster and suicide notes because the truth is that, as he will know—I will put it this way—Gordon McMaster, who was a friend of mine, as he was of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), said that he had been a fool when he was a lecturer in gardening at Langside college not to go along with the strict regulations on the handling of pesticides. As we know, pesticides are organophosphates and, as research is proving, organophosphates and organophosphate poisoning can do very odd things to the human mind, so we should be extremely careful about using that example.
      Dr. Fox: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that, with all due respect, is not the issue here. The issue is the failure of internal regulation within the Labour party in Scotland to come to conclusions as to what happened and the wider issues relating to Paisley.
      Mr. Dalyell: It was the hon. Gentleman who raised the subject and, frankly, I thought that to make that or any other point was uncalled for. Anyhow, what are we doing spending time on this when we should be discussing new clause 4, which deals with expenditure on reserved matters? If there is not time to deal with new clause 4, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would it be out of order for me at least to ask the Minister to give a Government explanation of the answer to—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Yes, it would be out of order for the hon. Gentleman to try to do that.
      Mr. Dalyell: For Parliament to spend this time talking about corruption rather than the vital issues in new clause 4 is an absolute disgrace.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I should like to make the point to the House that all of today's debate is programmed and carefully timed. It is up to hon. Members on both sides of the House to decide how they spend that time.
      Mr. Donald Gorrie: I support the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in their enthusiastic comments on proportional representation, which I think would make a very considerable contribution in sorting out corruption and misbehaviour in councils. I also agree with the intervention by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), who pointed out that the Scottish Parliament will have complete control over local government. New clause 2 is therefore unnecessary, as the Scottish Parliament will be able to do what it wishes in regulating local government without it.
      5 pm
      I should like to make only one point to the Minister: the approach taken in new clause 2—which is undoubtedly well intentioned—is wrong in suggesting

      179
      that the Scottish Parliament should have to establish its own inquiry into complaints made to it. I realise—from a small involvement, at second hand, in recent events in my own area—that a council may, as a council, establish an inquiry, which will be conducted by an official. Subsequently, the party involved in the inquiry may feel that it also must have an inquiry. The police may then feel that they, too, must conduct an inquiry. Ultimately, all the inquiries may become snarled up with one another. Therefore, if the Scottish Parliament is required to conduct yet another inquiry, the situation may become even worse.
      I think that, in collaboration with local government and police, the Scottish Parliament will have to establish a sensible method of investigating allegations of corruption, so that we do not have one inquiry after another. Unfortunately, so far, such a series of inquiries has led to nothing being done about the allegations that have been made in Scotland.
      I therefore plead that the Scottish Parliament does not replicate what others are doing, but co-operates with others to ensure that one thorough inquiry is conducted. After such an inquiry, action should be taken—rather than no action, as currently happens.
      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Although my speech will be very brief, I feel that I must very briefly mention the fact that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) delivered his entire speech and seemed not to be aware of the Government's proposals on local government corruption and maladministration. I realise that the issue is difficult for Conservative Members, as they have no hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland.
      In April, the Government issued a consultation paper entitled "A New Ethical Framework for Local Government in Scotland", which deals with precisely the type of matters with which we are all concerned. In the paper, the Government have gone further than the Nolan committee's recommendations, to make it absolutely clear that we are determined to take a very tough line on any maladministration or corruption in local government.
      In case Opposition Front Benchers are unaware of it, the Government are proposing that serious allegations of misconduct should be considered by a new national standards commission for Scotland, led by a Scottish standards commissioner. In his reply, the hon. Member for Woodspring should at least tell the House the Opposition's thoughts on that proposal, which seems to be the correct way of proceeding on a very important matter.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I should like to remind the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that we are debating the Scotland Bill, and that—although it is all very well for the Government to have proposals and to be considering them—we are considering mechanisms that may be included in the Bill. Therefore—in the absence in the Bill of the Government's proposals, which the hon. Gentleman described—it is perfectly proper for hon. Members to attempt to include such necessary provisions in the Bill.
      I differ from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in his analysis of this debate, as I believe that the matters with which we have been dealing are particularly important.
      180
      My analysis differs very significantly from those of the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), all of whom seemed to take the position that we should not find remedies to problems which clearly must be dealt with—Conservative Members have tabled new clause 2 to do so—but tackle what they regard as the fundamental institutional problem giving rise to the phenomenon of corruption that we have identified. The hon. Gentlemen think that if we work on the democratic and institutional structures, the problems will go away. As a solution, they have offered us a form of proportional representation, several forms of which they have discussed.
      Proportional representation would make the problem worse. It is highly likely that proportional representation will lead to semi-permanent coalitions that will entrench administrations—just as administrations have become entrenched in certain parts of the central belt.
      Mr. Dalyell: I had better speak on this for myself and not for my colleagues. If people are going to level charges of corruption at other men and women, the place to do it is a court of law. It is either put up—in a court of law—or shut up.
      Mr. Swayne: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the perception among newspapers and the public has been of a number of cases of what, in the previous Parliament, Labour Members themselves characterised as "sleaze". It is entirely proper for hon. Members—when considering a Bill that will hand to the Scottish Parliament responsibility for local government—to consider procedures to deal with that phenomenon. Such consideration prejudges nothing about cases that have been mentioned, and I have made absolutely no accusations about any specific council. However, it is entirely proper that the public mind should be put at rest by passing a provision, such as new clause 2, to deal with the matter.
      Mr. Salmond: What was the public perception of this place in the previous Parliament?
      Mr. Swayne: My suspicion—which was confirmed by my own knocking on doors—is that the public's perception of the reputation of this place remains considerably higher than their perception of the reputation of individual hon. Members. Many hon. Members would therefore do well to improve our conduct, so that we live up to the standard of the institution in which we take part.
      It is entirely proper for us to consider new clause 2, which is designed to include in the Bill a mechanism to investigate the allegations that have been drawn to our attention. The new clause would provide the Scottish Parliament with a powerful investigatory mechanism.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I feel as though I have to express my own thoughts—also, I suspect, the thoughts of many other hon. Members—in having to deal with a succession of totally specious and spurious amendments and new clauses, which have been tabled only to give the official Opposition an opportunity to score some political points. The amendments and new clauses—especially new clause 2—will add nothing to the Parliament's powers, but will merely give it yet another instruction, which is so

      181
      patronising. Although we want to give a Parliament to the Scottish people, we seem to feel that we have to tell them what they must do with that Parliament. We are saying, "Using these powers, you will do such-and-such; using those powers, you will do something else."
      The Conservative party is very fond of criticising the Government for running a nanny state and for constantly telling the public what to do. However, Conservative Members want the Westminster Parliament to be a nanny Parliament, always telling the Scottish Parliament what to do. The Scottish people will not stand for it.
      The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I agree with almost every hon. Member speaking in this debate on one point: we should take the issue seriously. I hope that there is no serious dispute between hon. Members, first, about the need for the highest standards of conduct at any level of government; secondly, on the matter of effective and efficient scrutiny; and, thirdly—I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—that we want open and transparent structures in both the Parliament and local government. The culture will have to change, and such structures will be the best way of ensuring that it does.
      I hope that hon. Members agree also that, in any forum, the best method of discipline is self-discipline. Those who participate in democratic life should always be aware of circumstances and of their obligations, not only to one another, but to the communities that they represent.
      The new clause adds nothing to the quality of what the Parliament will be able to do. It is narrow and unnecessary. The Bill places a duty on the Parliament to make provision for the investigation of relevant complaints of maladministration made to its Members. It does not place a duty on the Parliament to investigate complaints about maladministration or corruption in local government—but that does not preclude the Parliament from making provision about such matters.
      It is important to stress that we have in Scotland the Accounts Commission, which will investigate complaints of financial impropriety, and the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland, who will investigate complaints of maladministration. Criminal corruption will continue to be a matter for the police. The powers and duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the commissioner and the Accounts Commission will transfer to the Scottish Executive.
      By tabling new clause 2, the Conservatives are trying to impose a duty on the Scottish Parliament to make provision for the investigation of complaints of corruption or maladministration in a Scottish local authority. The Government do not think that that is necessary. Provision is already made for the investigation of complaints by the Accounts Commission or the local government ombudsman, depending on the nature of the complaint. In addition, the Government have just published proposals to strengthen further the ethical framework for local government, which has been alluded to in the debate.
      The new clause would have the perverse effect of requiring investigation only of the very limited subset of complaints about financial impropriety, which, in England and Wales, falls within the remit of the Audit
      182
      Commission. I hope that it comes as no surprise to Opposition Front Benchers that the Audit Commission does not operate in Scotland.
      Dr. Fox indicated assent.
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the Opposition know that. It is therefore interesting that their new clause makes no reference to the Accounts Commission and refers only to the Audit Commission, which is germane only to England and Wales.
      Dr. Fox: Obviously, the Minister did not either listen to my remarks or read the new clause, which states that a complaint is relevant
      "if it is a complaint which, if it were made of a local authority in England or Wales, could be investigated by the Audit Commission."
      It clearly draws a distinction between England and Wales and Scotland.
      Mr. McLeish: I rest my case. It is obvious that a new clause or an amendment to the Government of Wales Bill may have to be changed for the Scotland Bill. I think that hon. Members will agree that the issue of local government conduct stretches more widely than the narrow remit of the Audit Commission.
      Mr. Salmond: I think that I heard the Minister make a very serious allegation. Is he saying that the Conservative party is so short of people and researchers that it is economising by tabling the same amendment to different Bills? That surely cannot be so.
      Mr. McLeish: I will not entertain the hon. Gentleman on this issue any further. I shall just leave a little thought in hon. Members' minds.
      The Government are very serious about ensuring that there is a robust ethical framework for local government conduct. Following the Nolan committee's report on local government conduct in July 1997, we have been giving a great deal of thought to how to secure the highest standards of conduct in local government. We have published proposals that go much further even than Lord Nolan's committee recommended in ensuring swift and authoritative independent investigation of allegations of misconduct against councillors.
      We believe that a stronger ethical framework for local government is needed if the instances where local government conduct appears to fall short are not to undermine people's confidence in local democracy. Once we have consulted on our proposals, we intend to look for an opportunity to legislate to bring into effect a new ethical framework.
      In the meantime, we do not see a need for the specific measure proposed by Conservative Front Benchers. Nor do we believe that we should legislate piecemeal for the creation of a new ethical framework for local government. We think that the Bill gives the Parliament the desired flexibility to make arrangements for the investigation of complaints against other bodies. In view of that, I urge the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to withdraw the motion.
      Dr. Fox: The entire point of considering the Bill is to delineate the responsibilities that the Scottish Parliament

      183
      should and should not have. It is therefore quite legitimate for us to circumscribe its investigative powers in any one area. I therefore disagree with the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan).
      I am not entirely clear about the Government's objection to the new clause. The Minister began by saying that many of the powers of investigation into local government maladministration are sufficient, but then said that the Government had to introduce a new ethical code and new powers. I cannot see why, if the Government plan to go much further, they will not accept the new clause.
      The perception among voters in Scotland will be that the matter concerns the development of a cosy relationship and a lack of scrutiny. Those who read the Scottish press and follow local government events in Scotland will know that there is a great deal of disquiet among the public. Although some of it may not be correct, it deserves to be taken seriously—I agree with the Minister on that.
      I must disagree with the Minister that the provision is unnecessary and that it is not legitimate for the House to try to impose a responsibility on the Scottish Parliament to take the issue seriously at the soonest point. We should remember that the Secretary of State has told us that the Parliament should be up and running six months sooner than we expected—long before the Government's White Paper proposals are enshrined in legislation, even if they can cram them into their legislative programme at the earliest opportunity, which is likely to be three years down the road.
      For that reason, I have no intention of withdrawing the motion. We shall press it to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 323.

      Division No. 270]

      [5.14 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Amess, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Baldry, Tony

      Duncan, Alan

      Bercow, John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Faber, David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fallon, Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Boswell, Tim

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fraser, Christopher

      Brady, Graham

      Gale, Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      Garnier, Edward

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gibb, Nick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Burns, Simon

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Butterfill, John

      Green, Damian

      Cash, William

      Greenway, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clappison, James

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hammond, Philip

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hayes, John

      Collins, Tim

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Horam, John

      Cran, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      184

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Ruffley, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spring, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Steen, Anthony

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Streeter, Gary.

      Lidington, David

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Syms, Robert

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Luff, Peter

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tredinnick, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trend, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Maples, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Wells, Bowen

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whittingdale, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Norman, Archie

      Wilkinson, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Paterson, Owen

      Woodward, Shaun

      Pickles, Eric

      Yeo, Tim

      Prior, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Randall, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Robathan. Andrew

      Sir David Madel.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Burgon, Colin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Burstow, Paul

      Allan, Richard

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Allen, Graham

      Byers, Stephen

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caplin, Ivor

      Baker, Norman

      Casale, Roger

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Cawsey, Ian

      Barnes, Harry

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Chaytor, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Beard, Nigel

      Clapham, Michael

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clelland, David

      Benton, Joe

      Clwyd, Ann

      Best, Harold

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Betts, Clive

      Cohen, Harry

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coleman, Iain

      Blizzard, Bob

      Connarty, Michael

      Borrow, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Brake, Tom

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cotter, Brian

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Crausby, David

      Browne, Desmond

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Burden, Richard

      Cummings, John

      185

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Hutton, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Davidson, Ian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dobbin, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Doran, Frank

      Keetch, Paul

      Dowd, Jim

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Drew, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Khabra, Piara S

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kidney, David

      Efford, Clive

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Etherington, Bill

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Laxton, Bob

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzsimons, Loma

      Levitt, Tom

      Flint, Caroline

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Follett, Barbara

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Livsey, Richard

      Galbraith, Sam

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Galloway, George

      Lock, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Love, Andrew

      Gardiner, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McCabe, Steve

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McDonnell, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McFall,John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Goggins, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McLeish, Henry

      Gorrie, Donald

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McWalter, Tony

      Grocott, Bruce

      McWilliam, John

      Grogan, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hain, Peter

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Martlew, Eric

      Hanson, David

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Meale, Alan

      Harvey, Nick

      Michael, Alun

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Healey, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Milburn, Alan

      Heppell, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hill, Keith

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hoey, Kate

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mudie, George

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Mullin, Chris

      Hope, Phil

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Norris, Dan

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Oaten, Mark

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      186

      Olner, Bill

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stott, Roger

      Pearson, Ian

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pendry, Tom

      Stringer, Graham

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pike, Peter L

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pollard, Kerry

      Swinney, John

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pound, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Timms, Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Radice, Giles

      Todd, Mark

      Rammell, Bill

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Rapson, Syd

      Touhig, Don

      Raynsford, Nick

      Truswell, Paul

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rooney, Terry

      Tyler, Paul

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Vaz, Keith

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wallace, James

      Ruane, Chris

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Watts, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Welsh, Andrew

      Salmond, Alex

      White, Brian

      Salter, Martin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Willis, Phil

      Singh, Marsha

      Winnick, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wood, Mike

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wray, James

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

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Snape, Peter

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Soley, Clive

      Wyatt, Derek

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stevenson, George

      Mr. Kevin Hughes and

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Ms Bridget Prentice.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 12

      CONCORDATS
      '.—(1) Any concordat relating to—

      (a) the procedures to be followed when issues relating to devolved matters are to be discussed at meetings of the Council of Ministers or made the subject of discussions with or representations to the European Commission, or

      (b) the implementation of the provisions of Parts 3 and 4 of this Act and any other financial dealings between the Treasury and Ministers of the Crown and the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Executive

      shall not come into effect until it has been—

      (i) approved by the Parliament;

      (ii) approved by a resolution passed by the House of Commons;

      187

      (iii) signed by a member of the Scottish Executive, and

      (iv) signed by a Minister of the Crown.

      (2) In this section "concordat" means any agreement between a Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Executive regarding the consultation arrangements and common United Kingdom guidelines in respect of:—

      (a) any reserved matter under Schedule 5,

      (b) any devolved matter under section 29(4),

      (c) any transfer of ministerial functions under section 49,

      (d) any functions exercisable by agreement under section 51,

      (e) any shared power under section 52,

      (f) any cross—border public body under sections 83, 84 and 85, and

      (g) any agency arrangements under section 87.'. —[Mr. Ancram.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is not the first time we have addressed this issue. We had a lengthy general debate on concordats on 31 March, and I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments made then. The new clause—which I hope to introduce briefly—has been tabled in all seriousness, in an attempt to meet some of the points made during that debate.
      As the House knows, my concern about concordats is that they are designed, either intentionally or unintentionally, to avoid the legislative process. Like executive agreements in America, they are designed to avoid scrutiny; the scrutiny of this House. It is evident from the paper on concordats—which the Government most helpfully put in the Library—that they will not come before this House. They will be made public; there is no question of their being confidential unless there are reasons for confidentiality. However, they are informal agreements which will not be legally enforceable, and they will not be subject to the scrutiny of this House or of the Scottish Parliament. I mention the Scottish Parliament because, when I made the point during the last debate—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) is standing and holding a conversation. He and others must listen to the debate.
      Mr. Ancram: I realise that I do not come from the middle east, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) will listen to the case that I am making.
      I was accused of skewing the earlier debate on concordats when I said that concordats should come before this House and this Parliament. I was asked why they should not come before the Scottish Parliament. That was a valid point.
      It was also said that many of the concordats would relate to relatively unimportant issues, such as organisational matters concerning the relationships between Departments. However, the concordats will be of great importance in a number of areas, most obviously in the representation of Scotland at the Council of Ministers—indeed, although we are debating concordats in relation to the Scotland Bill, the same case could be made in relation to the devolution proposals for Wales.
      188
      When we debated the White Paper assurance that Ministers from the Scottish Executive could represent the interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom in the Council of Ministers, we were told that that would be organised by concordat—it did not need to be specified in the Bill. Indeed, I was given to understand that some of the concordats were being drafted—although obviously they cannot become effective until the Scottish Parliament and Executive are established. I questioned the wisdom of leaving a matter as crucial as Scotland's voice in Europe to informal arrangements, especially as the concordats will not be legally enforceable and as, according to the paper that was placed in the Library, they will usually be signed by officials.
      5.30 pm
      On Europe, and on resource and taxation matters covered by parts III and IV, agreements that are reached by what in law we might call back-letters but what in the Bill are called concordats—they are not specified, but are in the background—should be scrutinised by both the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments. Both Parliaments will have a strong interest in such matters, so I see no reason why they should not be able to scrutinise and approve the concordats—unless, that is, the UK and Scottish Administrations do not want them to be able to do so.
      I make no major point about this, but I have been concerned throughout our deliberations at the fact that many of the agreements will be signed by officials, not by Ministers. The affairs of the past few days have suggested that it is always better for Ministers to be aware of what their officials are discussing and agreeing. It is important that Ministers are involved in issues of such grave importance as the resourcing of Scotland after devolution, and Scotland's voice at the Council of Ministers.
      The new clause would ensure that any concordats relating to devolved matters that are raised at the Council of Ministers—or to matters that are raised under parts III of IV of the Bill—would not come into effect until the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons had approved them, and that they would have to be signed by a member of the Scottish Executive and a Minister of the Crown. I tabled the proposal with some anticipation and optimism. When I moved an equivalent but much more broadly based amendment, the Liberal Democrats made it clear that they would have found it acceptable—in relation to Wales, at least—if I had also specified the Welsh assembly, and I think that I was told the same in relation to the Scottish Parliament. I have genuinely tried to make the new clause constructive and important.
      Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman may be about to clarify this, but I want to ensure that I fully understand what he is saying. The list of consultation arrangements that could be defined as concordats under subsection (2) seems to cover more than matters discussed at the Council of Ministers or Treasury and tax-varying powers. Would the new clause apply to all concordats, or only to those relating to the Council of Ministers and taxation?
      Mr. Ancram: The latter. Subsection (2) simply defines what the concordats would need to contain to trigger the

      189
      provision. The same interest would not apply for issues raised before the Council of Ministers that did not relate to devolved matters. I have tried to ensure that the new clause would actively work in the interests not only of Scotland but of the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons. It would ensure that no major decisions were taken without being scrutinised by those who were elected to scrutinise them.
      Mr. Dalyell: Given the scarcity of time, may I put my contribution in the form of five questions? First, how will the concordats be enforced? Secondly, will they be justiciable in courts? Thirdly, how will they be litigated on—indeed, will it be possible to litigate on them? Fourthly, how will concordats on matters such as investment problems, which are only too real—these questions are not hypothetical—be sorted out? Fifthly, will not the whole process depend on amiability and amicability? One would like to assume that there will be amiability and amicability, but, alas, that is not always the case. Finally, I should like—before you bong me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to express regret that new clause 4, which deals with expenditure on reserved matters, was not discussed.
      Mr. John Swinney: I find myself in the altogether surprising position of having some sympathy with the new clause—no doubt the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will be equally surprised. Throughout consideration of the Bill, Scottish National party Members have expressed unease about concordats. In being asked to endorse the Bill, we are being asked to take at face value other documents—no one seems to be sure of their status—but are being offered no process through which to scrutinise them. I have seen drafts of concordats on inward investment and on agriculture and fisheries matters—such concordats are being developed in the corridors of power.
      Following our previous discussions about concordats, I tabled a number of parliamentary questions to various Departments. I discovered that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry have all discussed the need for concordats on matters that they would deal with in relation to Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. We have seen what purport to be draft copies of the concordats on inward investment and on agriculture, but what status will documents from any of the other Departments have?
      The memo on the agriculture concordat states:
      "From the MAFF perspective, the concordat is a chance to emphasise their lead UK role and to keep tabs on action by the Scottish Executive. From our perspective"—
      that is, the perspective of the Scottish Office—
      "it is a chance to keep open the access to the European policy process and to decisions which have to be made at UK level while limiting MAFF interference in Scottish Executive business."
      That memo, from a civil servant to a Minister, strikes at the nub of the question of how influential the Scottish Parliament will be in European deliberations. How far will Scottish Parliament lobbying and intervention on
      190
      agriculture—which is fundamental to my constituency—be compromised by the constraints applied by the concordats?
      We are being asked to approve certain arrangements in relation to Scottish representation in Europe that I do not find especially satisfactory and against which my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has argued, and now some doubts are being introduced about those arrangements and the nature of the concordats.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman was talking about the constraints of the concordats. What worries me about the concordats is that there are no constraints, in that they are not enforceable. Important rights between the Parliaments could be agreed by a concordat that turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on. That is why I want them to come before the House and the Scottish Parliament for approval.
      Mr. Swinney: I may say something of more comfort to the right hon. Gentleman later on about the status of the documents and the process of enforceability.
      I seek specific assurances on when the concordats are to come into force and what their status will be. A memo to Ministers from a Scottish Office civil servant on the timing of implementation says:
      "it is clear that concordats will not come fully into operation until the devolved administration is up and running. However, we"—
      presumably, the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—
      "see considerable advantage in getting the groundwork established well before then and, indeed, operating a period of shadow-running … We are therefore aiming with MAFF to get the concordat in more or less final form in order to allow a decent period of shadow-running."
      I find that rather bewildering. Here we are, 12 months before the elections to the Scottish Parliament—we have absolutely no idea who will form its Administration—and issues about the development of the concordat are running apace.
      The memo contradicts parliamentary answers that I have received, which I find disturbing. The Secretary of State for Defence replied to a written answer:
      "In most cases, these discussions are in their early stages in the light of the fact that such agreements cannot be finalised until the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are established. Parliament will be kept informed of progress on these matters."— [Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 245–46.]
      A civil servant argues that we can have shadow running with an imaginary Administration, because there is so much doubt about who will be in the driving seat, but Ministers say that the concordats will have no status until the Scottish Executive has signed up to them.
      Can we be confident that the powers to be granted to the Scottish Parliament and Executive will in no way be eroded by a Whitehall fix that gets the concordats in place at an early stage? Will there be shadow running, or can we have a guarantee that the development of the concordats will be left until the Scottish Parliament and Executive are up and running? I cannot imagine a Scottish Executive wanting to find that the boys from Whitehall have stitched up most of the details and left it with a fait accompli. That would be an appalling start to the Scottish Parliament's work. Some clarification is essential.

      191
      New clause 12 gives us some structure for the scrutiny of the concordats and would oblige both parties—the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons—to sign up to any concordat. We accept that there must be partnership consent, but it is absolutely unacceptable that, before the Scottish Executive is fully operational and able to make recommendations, it should be presented with a fait accompli.
      Mr. Wallace: Some form of concordat is undoubtedly necessary to ensure that there is smooth running and a good working relationship between Whitehall and the Scottish Parliament. The new clause highlights ways in which some aspects of the concordats could be more thoroughly rooted, rather than being mere gentlemen's and gentleladies' agreements.
      The new clause picks up on amendments tabled in Committee that did not find favour with the Government. The House will recall that we tabled amendments that would have formalised what the block grant should be, and anything that gives us a chance to debate the financial arrangements is probably better than the vagueness in the Bill.
      5.45 pm
      We were disappointed that the Government did not accept an amendment that would have given the Scottish Parliament rights to representation at discussions in the various European institutions and left the matter on the basis of good will. In so far as the new clause is designed to formalise such an arrangement, it is to be welcomed. Will the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) confirm that the new clause refers to general procedures and would not require the House and the Scottish Parliament to rush through a debate to give a stamp of approval every time there was to be a delegation to the Council of Ministers?
      Mr. Ancram: The new clause refers to
      "Any concordat relating to … the procedures to be followed when issues relating to devolved matters are raised at the Council of Ministers"
      as well as concordats relating to
      "the implementation of the provisions of Parts 3 and 4".
      That covers the economic provisions, and it is not so much procedure as implementation that is important.
      Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman confirms that the procedures would not impose a cumbersome duty, and that is welcome.
      Dr. Godman: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) warned against Members of the Scottish Parliament being stitched up by Whitehall, but is not there a danger of their being stitched up by Westminster? Surely it would be better for concordats to be agreed by representatives of the Government and of the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Wallace: It is intended that both institutions should have an opportunity—Whitehall through the House, and the Scottish Executive through the Scottish Parliament—to give consent. I take some comfort from the guidance note that states:
      192
      "Concordats cannot come into operation until the devolved administrations are operational. Drafts of concordats cannot be put forward for signature until after the Elections in 1999; and agreements reached now cannot be imposed on the devolved administrations."
      That is an important point of principle, subject to the one caveat that, as we all know, he or she who pens the first draft usually manages to influence the way in which matters develop.
      It will be incumbent on the Scottish Executive, whatever its complexion, to be strong-minded and examine all the concordats critically. I am sure that the vast majority will be acceptable, but I hope that the Executive and, ultimately, the Parliament, will have the will to insist on changes if it is felt that the best interests of Scotland are being compromised through an agreement that has already been struck.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am delighted to find myself agreeing, on this occasion, with the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney).
      We have had much discussion about concordats during our debates on the Bill. Let me pick up what was said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am sure that the Minister will accept that concordats came into being to regulate disputes and areas of possible conflict between Departments subject to single Cabinet responsibility. Officials could reach agreements, and the Ministers in charge of them could either carry the can, or smooth out disagreements at the appropriate level.
      That has not always worked. I remember being involved in a case in which it was clear that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England and its Scottish Office equivalent were at loggerheads. A Scottish trawler man was prosecuted in Grimsby, and it was advanced in his defence that he had been told that something authorised by the Department in Scotland had not been authorised by London. He was given an absolute discharge, having, as I recollect, proved his case. In that instance, a concordat had not operated successfully.
      I am sure that the Minister will agree that concordats will be applied to a completely new situation and set of rules. We are, however, in an extraordinary position. The Government have introduced legislation which, on the one hand, emphasises such things as the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament in the areas devolved to it, and, on the other hand, when it comes down to the nitty gritty of concordats, appears blithely to assume that everything will go on as before. It is clear that it cannot.
      The hon. Member for North Tayside was right to say that, when the Scottish Parliament is up and running, nothing could be better calculated to sour the relationship between it and this Parliament—which we, as Conservatives, want to operate as smoothly as possible—than concordats that appear to be behind-the-door stitch-ups by a common civil service. I have grave doubts about whether the common civil service can survive the passage of the Bill, but the underlying assumption about the operation of the concordats is that it will.
      I welcome new clause 12, and hope that the Government will consider it seriously. Here, for once, is a point on which all Opposition parties appear to be united. There is considerable merit and force in the new clause. Unless the operation of the agreements is seen to be transparent—and that can happen only if they are

      193
      brought before the Scottish Parliament and the House for approval—there will be a fertile area for conspiracy theorists. I must say that, in some contexts, I am beginning to think that the conspiracy theorists may have a point.
      The Achilles' heel of the Government's proposals is the idea—which may have been born of the notion that the same party would be in power in both Edinburgh and Westminster—that day-to-day government could be smoothly conducted through back-door agreements. That simply will not be possible, and we shall therefore have to live with the consequences of devolution. Agreements must be transparent, negotiated and argued about, and the best way in which to do that is to submit them for approval by both Houses.
      I welcome the new clause, and commend it to the House. I believe that it will have to be considerably widened, as there is no room for concordats in a framework of devolved government—all decisions will have to be made and approved by both Houses—but, leaving that to one side, the new clause is a step in the right direction, and is the only step that we can take, given that our previous criticisms have been rejected.
      Mr. McLeish: The proposals for the concordats appeared at paragraph 4.13 of the White Paper. We are talking about a good communications system between the Scottish Executive and its Departments and the United Kingdom Government. We want mutual understanding, and an appropriate exchange of information. We want advance notification, and joint working. That is simply about agreements. There is nothing sensational about having an agreement between the Parliaments on serious issues. Against that background—unfortunately, given the spirit in which the new clause was tabled—we must reject new clause 12.
      The new clause develops the theme introduced in Committee by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who wanted all concordats to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and to be logged in a public register. Now he wants certain concordats—relating to Europe and finance—to be approved by the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons. I can see that that represents a more balanced approach, but we cannot agree to the new clause.
      As I explained in Committee, the purpose of the proposed concordats is not to cover matters that should more properly be dealt with by legislation. There is no hidden agenda. We have published guidance for Departments explaining what concordats are intended to achieve, which is the promotion of effective communications, and joint working between the Scottish Executive and UK Departments. Among other things, the guidance makes it clear that the proposed concordats cannot come into force—and this touches on the point made by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney)—until the Scottish Executive has been established, and is in a position to agree to them.
      It is right that work on drafting such agreements should begin during the run-up to devolution, but there is no question of the Scottish Executive's being presented with a fait accompli. Guidance also makes it clear that the concordats are not intended to be legally binding, or to
      194
      create legal duties or liabilities for either party. I can give a categorical assurance that there will be no Whitehall fix. The concordats will not come into operation until the Scottish Executive and, of course, the UK Government have approved them.
      Mr. Dalyell: What bothers us is what will happen if there is no such understanding. Assuredly, sooner or later, there will be none, because there will be arguments about money. There will be tremendous pressure on the Scottish Executive and the Members of the Holyrood Parliament to secure more money for projects for education, health and housing, and for everything else that has been promised. I fear that talk about mutual understanding, which I agree is highly desirable, is whistling in the wind.
      Mr. McLeish: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I share neither his pessimism nor his cynicism about what may happen when the Parliament is established. These are working agreements, and there is nothing sensational about that. We want to ensure that, in creating a new institution of government in Scotland, we have a sensible working relationship between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. Nothing could be more reasonable than the achievement of that, and our efforts must clearly be directed towards it.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister has indicated that the concordats would not be legally binding. How would he answer the earlier point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about whether they would be judicially reviewable—not in a case taken by the Parliament, but perhaps in a case taken by an individual who felt prejudiced by, for example, a concordat on inward investment?
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks a good question. The concordats are not intended to be legally binding contracts, or to substitute for matters properly covered by the Bill. However, it is likely that they will be justiciable to an extent. For example, if the Scottish Executive did not follow the consultation procedure set out in a concordat, it could be judicially challenged on the ground that the concordat had created a legitimate expectation that the procedure would be followed.
      Mr. Swinney: I have listened carefully to the Minister's explanation, which has led me to conclude that there is no point in the concordats. The quotation that I gave earlier cast some uncertainty over the Scottish Parliament's access to Europe, and raised the determination of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to have greater access. Those substantial issues are covered in the Bill. The concordats will, I suspect, provide a further interpretation, which gives a totally different flavour to the Minister's comments.
      Mr. McLeish: It simply does not. We are talking not about different interpretations but about working agreements in relation to Europe and MAFF. There should be no sinister undertones suggesting that what is in the Bill and what has been discussed in the House will be undermined, distorted or interpreted differently. The concordats are simply working agreements, and. on that basis, it is sensible to operate them in the areas that we have identified.

      195
      The new clause would introduce a formal parliamentary procedure in relation to concordats that such non-statutory agreements do not merit. Concordats will be agreements covering joint working between the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government. They will not be treaties between the two Administrations, nor will they be a means of constraining the discretion of the United Kingdom or the Scottish Parliament. I hope that, in the light of this constructive but brief debate, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will see fit to withdraw the motion.
      6 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I am disappointed by that reply, which does not come to the nub of the matter. I did not table new clause 12 because I thought that it was the ideal way to deal with the matter: on finance and European representation, I sought, as did Liberal Democrat Members, to table amendments to the Bill to secure assurances and guarantees on those two important matters. The Minister told us then that, however important those matters were, everything would be all right because they would be dealt with by concordat: he did not say that we were talking about simple working arrangements sorting out sensible relationships between Departments. On enormously important issues, such as whether Scotland will have a proper voice in Europe on agriculture or fishing, we were told, "Don't worry, it's all going to be in concordats." Now we are told that the concordats are non-justiciable—
      Mr. McLeish indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ancram: Well, they are not legally enforceable. They will not come before this House or the Scottish Parliament, whose endorsement would give them weight. The Scottish public are being firmly and openly sold a pup. I tabled new clause 12 in good faith, having listened to the arguments that were advanced against my earlier amendments. I advanced it on a restricted basis—not to cover all concordats, as the Minister suggested at the end of his remarks—narrowing it to those two crucial areas. The Minister always claims to be a listening Minister and I should have thought that he would listen to the arguments advanced not only by me but by Members from other Opposition parties and accept new clause 12. His response is totally unsatisfactory and I ask my hon. Friends to support the new clause in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 278.

      Division No. 271]

      [6.1 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Allan, Richard

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Amess, David

      Brady, Graham

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Brake, Tom

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Beggs, Roy

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Burns, Simon

      Bercow, John

      Burstow, Paul

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Butterfill, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cash, William

      Boswell, Tim

      Chope, Christopher

      196

      Clappison, James

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Maples, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cotter, Brian

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Cran, James

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Norman, Archie

      Dafis, Cynog

      Ottaway, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Page, Richard

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Paice, James

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Paterson, Owen

      Day, Stephen

      Pickles, Eric

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Prior, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Randall, John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Rendel, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Robathan, Andrew

      Faber, David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fallon, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Flight, Howard

      Ruffley, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fraser, Christopher

      Salmond, Alex

      Gale, Roger

      Sanders, Adrian

      Garnier, Edward

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gibb, Nick

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

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gorrie, Donald

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Green, Damian

      Spring, Richard

      Greenway, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Steen, Anthony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Streeter, Gary

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hancock, Mike

      Swinney, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Syrns, Robert

      Hayes, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Heathooat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Horam, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tredinnick, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Viggers, Peter

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Wallace, James

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wardle, Charles

      Waterson, Nigel

      Keetch, Paul

      Wells, Bowen

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Welsh, Andrew

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Whittingdale, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Wilkinson, John

      Leigh, Edward

      Willetts, David

      Letwin, Oliver

      Willis, Phil

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lidington, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Woodward, Shaun

      Livsey, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Loughton, Tim

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Luff, Peter

      Sir David Madel and

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Mr. Oliver Heald.

      NOES

      197

      Ainger, Nick

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Etherington, Bill

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Fisher, Mark

      Ashton, Joe

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Flint, Caroline

      Barnes, Harry

      Flynn, Paul

      Barron, Kevin

      Follett, Barbara

      Bayley, Hugh

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Beard, Nigel

      Galbraith, Sam

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Galloway, George

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Gardiner, Barry

      Benton, Joe

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Best, Harold

      Gerrard, Neil

      Betts, Clive

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Blizzard, Bob

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Boateng, Paul

      Godsiff, Roger

      Borrow, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Browne, Desmond

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Grocott, Bruce

      Burden, Richard

      Grogan, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Hain, Peter

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Byers, Stephen

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Healey, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Casale, Roger

      Heppell, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hill, Keith

      Chaytor, David

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hoey, Kate

      Clapham, Michael

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hope, Phil

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hurst, Alan

      Cohen, Harry

      Hutton, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Corbett, Robin

      Jamieson, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jenkins, Brian

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Darvill, Keith

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kidney, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Dismore, Andrew

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Doran, Frank

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dowd, Jim

      Laxton, Bob

      Drew, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Levitt, Tom

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      198

      Linton, Martin

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Lock, David

      Salter, Martin

      Love, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McCabe, Steve

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Sheerman, Barry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McDonnell, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McFall, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Singh, Marsha

      McIsaac, Shona

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McLeish, Henry

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McWalter, Tony

      Snape, Peter

      McWilliam, John

      Soley, Clive

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stevenson, George

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Martlew, Eric

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Meale, Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Michael, Alun

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Milburn, Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Timms, Stephen

      Norris, Dan

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Todd, Mark

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Touhig, Don

      Olner, Bill

      Truswell, Paul

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pearson, Ian

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pendry, Tom

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Vaz, Keith

      Pickthall, Colin

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pike, Peter L

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pope, Greg

      Watts, David

      Pound, Stephen

      White, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Radice, Giles

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rammell, Bill

      Winnick, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wood, Mike

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Woolas, Phil

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Wray, James

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ruane, Chris

      Ms Bridget Prentice and

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 17

      CROSS—BORDER RESERVED BODIES
      '.—(1) For the purposes of this Act the bodies as defined in subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall be cross—border reserved bodies.

      199

      (2) Cross—border reserved bodies shall be public bodies, including regulatory bodies, whose responsibilities include reserved matters but whose remit covers Scotland.

      (3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such bodies shall include—

      (a) the BBC,

      (b) the Independent Television Commission,

      (c) the Radiocommunications Agency,

      (d) the Post Office,

      (e) the Commission for Racial Equality,

      (f) the Equal Opportunities Commission,

      (g) Governmental Departments, Ministers of the Crown, non-departmental public bodies and Departmental Agencies.

      (4) The Parliament shall have the power to summon witnesses and require the production of documents from cross-border reserved bodies.'.—[Ms Roseanna Cunningham.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 41 to 45, 152 to 158, 160 to 180, 202, 233, 249, 206, 214 and 220.
      Ms Cunningham: I am conscious that there is little time for the debate on the new clause, so I shall try to be as brief as possible.
      New clause 17 is an attempt to get around the vexed question of accountability of bodies that deal in reserved matters, but are nevertheless of fundamental importance to Scotland. Effectively, we are proposing a new category of cross-border reserved bodies, which would exist alongside cross-border public bodies as defined in the Bill. The new category would comprise public bodies, including regulatory bodies, whose responsibilities include reserved matters, but whose remit covers Scotland; we have listed them in the new clause.
      The Government amendments make two fundamental changes to the cross-border public bodies by changing the definition and widening the category to include Government Departments and officials already included in new clause 17. Rather than specify and modify the bodies by subordinate legislation, the Government now plan to achieve that by Order in Council. In practical terms, it may make no difference, but I hope that that will not be a mechanism whereby the relevant Westminster Departments can hide behind the Queen's authority—something I am known for being unhappy about.
      6.15 pm
      Our new clause would give the Scottish Parliament the power to summon witnesses and require evidence, rather than being able only to invite them. The underlying principles are fourfold. First, the new clause is about openness and accountability. We may not be permitted to legislate for bodies such as the BBC or the Post Office, but it is essential that we can scrutinise them and call them to account in matters that directly affect Scotland.
      In recent weeks, we have witnessed an example in the shape of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the catalogue of errors at Dounreay. Would a Scottish Parliament have had the power to summon Roy Nelson to
      200
      give evidence? As I read the Bill—the Minister may wish to comment—we might have been able to summon Mr. Nelson to answer questions in respect of environmental issues, which would cover the underestimation of radioactive emissions, but we could not have called him to answer questions about the security issues arising from Chief Constable Tony Pointer's resignation, or about industrial issues, such as the plans for the use or disposal of the Georgian waste.
      I can only imagine the rancour that would result. Frequently throughout our debates on the Scottish Parliament, hon. Members on both sides have stated that it is important for us to minimise the likelihood of such rancour, but if we do not build in a system such as is proposed in new clause 17, there will be a greater likelihood of such clashes occurring.
      The other example, which I have used earlier in our proceedings on the Bill, is that of the "Panorama" interview of John Major broadcast during the 1995 Scottish elections. As far as I can see, John Birt would not have been required to answer to the Scottish Parliament. The Minister may argue that Mr. Birt might have agreed to come and speak to us, but there would have been nothing a Scottish Parliament could do had he refused to do so. Such issues are bound to arise and, sooner or later, we shall have a great deal of angry debate and frustration being expressed because of the Parliament's inability to call to account people or bodies that have an important role to play in Scottish life.
      The Scottish Parliament has been billed as a Parliament with teeth, but so far, they look more like milk teeth than real teeth and we ought to try to beef them up a bit where possible. That is the second major principle underlying the new clause. Thirdly, there is the issue of pulling rank, in that the Bill appears to put people like John Birt above the reach of the Scottish Parliament. I fear that that will lead to a belittling of the Parliament from the outset and give rise to many of the grievances and arguments that everybody has said they do not want.
      Finally—I make this point in all sincerity—this Bill is about devolution, not independence. What I am proposing would not be appropriate if we were discussing a constitution for independence, but we are discussing devolution, and it ought to be perfectly possible and logical to set up procedures such as those outlined in new clause 17. There need be no problem with those procedures and I hope that the Government intend seriously to consider them.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The arguments that have been deployed reveal some of the problems that are bound to result from the illogical way in which the reserved powers are set out in the Bill. If equal opportunities law is separated from equal opportunities policy, policy on misuse of drugs is separated from policy on crime in general, or issues such as abortion and euthanasia—which obviously have much in common—are separated, there will be areas of dispute.
      I remember that in our earlier debates, the official Opposition and the Scottish National party argued that there was no logic in broadcasting not being a matter that could be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. There were also arguments about who could be summoned by the Scottish Parliament. The SNP argued for a wider group of bodies than those that deal simply with devolved

      201
      matters. The debate on new clause 17 harks back to the two themes of the reserved powers and their illogicality, and the problem of who can be held accountable to the Scottish Parliament.
      The solution in the new clause—whereby certain public bodies are designated cross-border reserved bodies—simply to allow witnesses to be summoned and asked to produce documents for the Scottish Parliament is a good wheeze. I congratulate the Scottish National party on its ingenuity. However, the Opposition do not accept the new clause because it is too wide and would cause difficulties. It is for the Government to explain how the Bill can be a source of settled law for the people of Scotland when there are already so many internal disputes. The fuzzy boundary between the powers is bound to be exploited by the Scottish National party, and it is time that the Government came up with a better solution.
      The Government amendments rename cross-border public bodies as authorities and widen that term by including non-statutory bodies, offices, office holders and Government Departments. They provide for subordinate legislation under clauses 84 and 85 to be introduced by Order in Council. They contrast those authorities with the Scottish public authorities, which are local authorities, and define Scottish public authorities in clause 111.
      Three questions arise from the Government amendments. First, the extension of the definition of cross-border public bodies to include non-statutory bodies, office holders, Government Departments and so on clearly aims to include certain authorities that were not previously included. Who are the main contenders to be included in the new category, and why?
      Secondly, the Minister has provided that the subordinate legislation under clauses 84 and 85 should be made by Order in Council, with procedure here and in Edinburgh. Can he reassure the House that that will be dealt with by affirmative procedure and, if not, will he explain why not? Clearly, such legislation is important because it would modify a range of laws.
      Thirdly, a Scottish Parliament will be able to legislate in respect of a Scottish public authority such as a council, which has a mixture of reserved and non-reserved functions. For example, management of housing benefit would be reserved, but is dealt with by local authorities in Scotland. What will be the restrictions on the Parliament's ability to legislate? Will it be able to interfere with the operation of the reserved functions?
      For example, what safeguards are there against a change being made by the Parliament that would have adverse side-effects on the administration of housing benefit? Is there any way in which such a law could be prevented? Should it be prevented? What is the Minister's view on that issue? Clause 33 contains a mechanism, which is known as the governor general clause, by which the Secretary of State can intervene, but that would not be consistent with the position that I have described. I look forward to the Minister's answers.
      Mr. Dalyell: The smile on the face of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) revealed what I had suspected: this is not quite as artless a new clause as has been made out.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Perhaps she is happy.
      Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps she is happy—she has plenty to be happy about in the Bill.
      202
      I suspect that the new clause could be subtitled "the haul John Birt up to Holyrood and give him a thorough pasting on a rack" clause. From the assent of the hon. Members for Moray and for Perth (Ms Cunningham), I suspect that I am nearer the truth than the House might think. I ask my hon. Friends, is not the new clause and the thought behind it a device to create friction?
      Mr. Gorrie: I strongly support the new clause in the name of Scottish National party Members. It is an attempt to deal with some of the issues, including broadcasting, equal opportunities and racial equality, on which other hon. Members and I tabled amendments in Committee. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seems to have a new doctrine that gloom must pervade all Members of the House at all times. Although we must all make our own judgment, I think that he is mistaken and that the new clause is a genuine attempt to produce a reasonable modus operandi which would reduce friction. For that reason, I am happy to support it.
      I have read the numerous Government amendments and not seen anything sinister in them, but that may be my fault, and I look forward to the Minister explaining them.
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) has made an excellent judgment on the Government amendments, and I am sure that it will hold for the last few minutes of the debate.
      I shall deal specifically with new clause 17 in the name of the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham). We have reserved bodies, devolved bodies and cross-border public bodies. The new clause would create a new category of cross-border reserved bodies. The Government's policy on the power of the Scottish Parliament to summon witnesses and documents from bodies operating in Scotland with responsibilities only in reserved areas was clearly set out in the White Paper. We recognise the importance of those bodies in the economic and social life of Scotland. For that reason, the Parliament will be able to invite such bodies to give evidence. I know that that is not acceptable to the Scottish nationalists.
      Rightly, bodies that are active in devolved areas could be held to account by the Scottish Parliament for their activities in those areas. However, it would wrong for the Parliament to be able to hold bodies to account for their activities in reserved areas because the direct line of responsibility and accountability lies at Westminster.
      Mr. Heald: If the Scots people are dissatisfied with broadcasting in Scotland, why should they not be able to force the person in charge of it to come before the Parliament?
      Mr. McLeish: We have discussed that matter in some detail previously. We are trying to make a judgment about reserved and devolved areas, and I think that we have arrived at a balanced settlement. In light of my comments—which have been unbelievably brief—I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.
      In addition, we propose that there should be devolution of functions under clause 59 in some cases. For example, Scottish Ministers will be consulted about the appointment of one member of some bodies, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission

      203
      for Racial Equality, the Independent Television Commission—to which the new clause refers—and the Radio Authority. Those bodies will make their annual reports available to Scottish Ministers so that they can present them to the Scottish Parliament. Arrangements will also be made so that Scottish Ministers are consulted about advice to Her Majesty regarding the appointment of the BBC national governor for Scotland. I am afraid that it is difficult to go into much detail in the time available.
      6.30 pm
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Perhaps the Minister will answer one question: what does he think will be the reaction of the Scottish Parliament or Scotland at large when the first refusal to an invitation is received—which is what will happen?
      Mr. McLeish: I live in a realpolitik and I understand the import of the hon. Lady's comments. This settlement is about devolution. It reserves matters to Westminster where the legislative competence will lie and it devolves matters to Scotland where the legislative competence will lie. Through myriad complex organisations, we are attempting to introduce a settlement that will endure and that looks logical not only to Scots and Members of the Scottish Parliament, but to those in England, in Wales and at Westminster. It is a question of balance. That is why I hope that, despite the difficulties, we have arrived at a fair settlement.
      The Scottish Parliament will be able to discuss reserved matters and make its views known in many areas. I expect that if the Scottish Parliament issues an invitation in a constructive manner, many people will want to respond beyond the issue of the devolved areas where the Parliament will have a statutory right to demand attendance.
      Because of the brevity of the discussion, I shall write to all hon. Members who have raised points and I shall answer the three questions posed by the official Opposition. I apologise that I have not had time to go into the detail of the Government's amendments, but they are mainly technical amendments which will improve the Bill and do nothing more than that.
      Ms Cunningham: I am sorry to hear the Minister's reply, which I think that he will live to regret. I shall not press the matter to a vote this evening, but I think that it will come back to haunt him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 18

      CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
      '.—(1) There shall be a Constitutional Court in the United Kingdom.

      (2) Questions on the vires or legislative competence of any Bill or provision of a Bill under this Act shall be referred to the Constitutional Court for a decision.

      (3) The Constitutional Court shall consist of fourteen members, six elected by the House of Commons, six elected by the Scottish Parliament, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate.

      (4) No member of the Constitutional Court shall sit and act as a member of the court in proceedings under this Act unless he—

      (a) holds or has held high judicial office;

      204

      (b) has been a member of the Scottish or English bar for a period of ten years;

      (c) has been a registered solicitor in Scotland or England for a period of fifteen years;

      (d) is or has been a professor of law or legal studies in the United Kingdom for a period of ten years.

      (5) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—

      (a) confer on the Constitutional Court in relation to proceedings under this Act such powers as Her Majesty considers necessary or expedient; and

      (b) make rules for regulating the procedure in relation to proceedings under this Act before the Constitutional Court.

      (6) In this section "proceedings under this Act" means proceedings on a question referred to the Constitutional Court under section 32 or proceedings under Schedule 6.'. —[Salmond.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Salmond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 75, in clause 31, page 15, line 29, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 97, in page 15, line 31, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 98, in page 15, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert—
      '"Constitutional Court" means the body established under section (Constitutional Court).'.
      No. 99, in clause 32, page 15, line 41, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 100, in clause 34, page 16, line 45, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 78, in schedule 6, page 79, line 40, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 79, in page 79, line 43, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 81, in page 80, line 3, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 82, in page 80, line 10, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 83, in page 80, line 11, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 101, in page 81, line 5, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 87, in page 81, line 9, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 88, in page 81, line 10, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 90, in page 81, line 40, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 102, in page 82, line 4, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 91, in page 82, line 5, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 93, in page 82, line 10, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 103, in page 82, line 16, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.

      205
      No. 95, in page 82, line 19, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
      No. 76, in clause 94, page 42, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
      No. 117, in page 42, line 33, at end insert—
      '(d) provide such resources to the Judicial Committee as Her Majesty considers necessary or expedient.'.
      No. 122, in schedule 7, page 88, line 1, after 'counsel', insert 'or a solicitor'.
      No. 123, in page 88, line 7, after 'counsel', insert 'or a solicitor'.
      Mr. Salmond: That is quite a mouthful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. New clause 18 allows us to debate briefly a matter to which we did not do justice in Committee. I welcome the opportunity to explore that in a little more detail now.
      We are considering what will happen in the event of a dispute between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments and resolving what may or may not be vires or extra vires in terms of what the Scottish Parliament wants to do. New clause 18 proposes replacing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which has authority in the Bill as the body that adjudicates on disputes and vires matters for the Parliament, and creating a constitutional court comprising 14 members: six elected by the Scottish Parliament and six elected by Westminster with a Lord Advocate and a Lord Chancellor. The members of the court will be senior judges or advocates of 10 years' standing, solicitors of 15 years' standing or professors of law or legal studies in the United Kingdom of 10 years' standing.
      According to subsection (4), prospective members do not have to have all four qualifications—just one of the four will suffice. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for pointing that out to me. I am not sure whether a Bill in respect of that legal advice can be expected or whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is protecting his position in case he wishes to serve on that constitutional court. Whatever the reason, I am grateful to him for drawing it to my attention. We must debate this important matter.
      We have chosen a model based on the German constitutional court, which has been exported recently to Spain and Mexico. We propose that, like the German model, the court's membership should be widely drawn from legal and academic experts. The key points in this discussion are the deficiencies which I see in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
      Hon. Members may or may not be aware that the Judicial Committee consists of more than 100 people—only two of whom are women. The average age of members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is 67. Of the judges on the committee, there are more from New Zealand—14—than from Scotland, which has nine. In addition, because of the way in which the committee is formed, there are several obvious political appointees. Eleven committee members are former Tory Ministers from the Governments of Lady Thatcher and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Only four members of the Judicial Committee are current Labour Ministers, and the vast majority of members are from England.
      Mr. Desmond Browne: The hon. Gentleman's analysis of the membership of the
      206
      Judicial Committee is very interesting, but does he have one jot of evidence to suggest that that has influenced the decisions of that body at any time?
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is on very dangerous ground. For example, only two out of more than 100 Judicial Committee members are women. We hope to achieve more gender equality in the Scottish Parliament than is evident in this place. It is particularly important to recognise that only two women serve on the Judicial Committee—and the hon. Gentleman would do well to appreciate that fact. It is not good enough to say that it does not matter that there is a huge gender imbalance on the Committee, an imbalance in terms of the nationalities and backgrounds of members, or that the average age of members is 67. In the normal course of events, those aspects would affect members' outlook on the various disputes that they were asked to resolve. Furthermore, I do not think that a committee that is so dramatically unrepresentative of the legal profession—never mind of society as a whole—is best placed to judge important political disputes between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.
      I must be fair to the Minister, who has written to me in some detail about this matter. I shall share with the House some arguments that he has advanced.
      Mr. Heald: I have read new clause 18, which talks about decisions regarding vires and legislative competence. They are not political issues, but issues of law. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously advocating establishing a political court?
      Mr. Salmond: I have said that the requirements for serving on the court would be judicial office or judicial qualifications. A body that adjudicates on political disputes must be seen to be fair and balanced in terms of its background and the way in which it reflects both sides of the argument. If it is not, many people will believe that the body has predetermined notions about what judgments should be arrived at. If the House will allow me to reveal who the Minister says might hear such matters, we might make some progress in examining possible flaws in the Bill.
      Mr. Browne rose—
      Mr. Salmond: I shall give the hon. Gentleman one more go, and then I must proceed as time is limited.
      Mr. Browne: I have one more question before we move from the terms of the new clause and the qualifications for membership of the constitutional court. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those who have been registered as solicitors in Scotland for 15 years, and possibly never practised, and those who have been members of the Scottish or English Bars for 10 years, and possibly never practised, will be qualified to sit on the court?
      Mr. Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that being the Leader of the House, which is one of the qualifications for being a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, is necessarily a good qualification for membership of that body? Our argument is that some legal qualifications—some background and

      207
      training in the law—might be a useful requirement. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council seems to be made up of people who were hangovers from the Governments of Lady Thatcher. I am not certain that that is a suitable panel to move into the new politics that we are trying to develop between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament.
      In his letter to me, the Minister stated:
      "The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will be composed of those members of the Privy Council, not over 75,"—
      that is important, as it rules out a substantial number of members of the Judicial Committee—
      "who hold or have held the Office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or high judicial office in the UK. This would include past and present judges of the Court of Session who are Privy Councillors. Membership of the JCPC for devolution hearings is therefore more restricted than for other hearings. For example, the present and former Lord Presidents of the Council will not be eligible to sit, nor will Commonwealth judges."
      Clearly, that does not deal with my points about gender inequality or the background of the judges.
      The Minister continued:
      "The actual composition of the JCPC to hear devolution cases will be decided by the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Normally we would expect the case to be heard by 5 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, although this may not always be possible. It is very unlikely that Scottish judges would not be represented on the panel for devolution cases. That is usually the case for Scottish civil law appeals which are referred to the House of Lords. However, members of the panel will not be chosen to represent national interests."
      If I can compress what the Minister told me in his letters, that means that, in key cases, Scots judges may not be involved in the decision and, if they are, they will certainly be in a minority. An understanding of Scots law does not seem to be a requirement for deciding the legitimacy of Acts of the Scottish Parliament. That, to me, is unacceptable.
      Our proposal would, in contrast, produce a more balanced court, which would include a wider range of expertise and understanding of Scots and constitutional law and be democratically appointed by both Parliaments. The composition of any panel of judges would be decided by the court as a whole. It is unlikely that all 14 judges would sit in judgment in any one case. The figure is likely to be five, as in the Government's proposal, but two or three of them would have some familiarity with the Scottish legal system. I am surprised that, as a member of that fine profession, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) does not seem to think that that would be a useful requirement.
      We are debating the way in which disputes between the two Parliaments can be arbitrated fairly. It is not good enough to pick an existing institution for whatever purpose, however it was formed and whatever elements it contains. The development of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been complex, like Topsy. We should examine the best practice elsewhere in Europe—the German constitutional court is an extremely useful example—and see how that can be transported to meet the requirements of fair arbitration between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.
      If hon. Members are uncomfortable with the notion that the Parliaments should have equal standing in nominating members of the court, that betrays an attitude that regards the Scottish Parliament as subservient and the
      208
      Westminster Parliament as its master—far better to move to a balanced situation, where both Parliaments enjoy equal and mutual respect in the resolution of disputes.
      Mr. Browne rose—
      Mr. Salmond: I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall not give way again, or his hon. Friends will get crowded out.
      Mr. McLeish indicated assent.
      Mr. Salmond: I saw the Minister nodding vigorously when I refused that intervention.
      This debate, and the attitude towards such a proposal, is a touchstone in determining whether hon. Members regard the Scottish Parliament as a real Parliament, entitled to real respect, or as akin to a subservient council, which this Parliament and its institutions could dispose of as they will.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Heald: Perhaps I should declare an interest, as I think that I would be technically qualified to be a member of the court proposed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Listening to his argument as it unrolled, one felt increasingly uneasy at what he was suggesting. He was proposing a court that was not a court, but a political body, with representatives fighting for each country. Such a body could be influenced by feelings of national pride.
      One of our proudest boasts about British courts is that they have not been partial. Our judges have been able to consider the law and make decisions uncluttered by concerns about politics, patriotism and so on. It would be a great pity if we set up a kangaroo political court to deal with the issues under discussion. It is in the interests of all the countries in the family of the United Kingdom that we should have the sort of courts that we have enjoyed in Scotland, England and Wales—courts that are impartial and on whose judgment one can rely.
      As a barrister, I practised in the courts in England and Wales for many years. I often did not like the decisions that judges made, but I never had the slightest doubt that they were doing their duty, concerned to reach a proper decision on the facts and the law.
      Mr. Salmond: First, is the spokesman for the official Opposition unaware that some members hold office on the Judicial Committee by virtue of political office? Secondly, would he describe the German constitutional court as a kangaroo court, given the system of nomination to it, which is similar to what we propose?
      Mr. Heald: The Lord Chancellor does not sit in court doing a political job; he does the job of a judge. To suggest that members of the court are acting in a political role is so far from the truth that it beggars belief.
      Many hon. Members want to speak in the debate, so I shall be brief. The Opposition proposed that the House of Lords Appellate Committee should be the arbiter in these matters. That would deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's complaints. For example, there would be

      209
      fewer members of the panel, there would not be judges from New Zealand, and there would be strong representation of the excellent Scottish judges we have.
      Mr. Dalyell: What we are discussing is an embryo, if not an actual, proto-constitutional court. If we are embarking on that road, there ought to be a statement at the Dispatch Box from the Prime Minister and no other Minister, because that is entirely new in British politics. The decisions taken by the court would, frankly, be political decisions. Do not tell me that there could be any meaningful argument without it being highly political. To set up a court to take quasi and actual political decisions requires a statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, outlining the Government's policy on these matters.
      I have one question to my hon. Friend the Minister. If there is a constitutional court, what is the Government's view of what would be decided by that court? We ought to hear the scope of any such body which, as I said, will be new in British politics. In the short time available, I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that question.
      Mr. Wallace: There is a case for a constitutional court. In the context of the many constitutional changes that are taking place, the country should have a constitutional court. However, the new clause is not some kind of touchstone, a virility symbol for the Scottish Parliament. A touchstone should be crafted somewhat better than new clause 18.
      There is not just the technical point of whether one has to qualify under all four headings. For example, the Lord Advocate should not be a member of the court. His role should be to plead before the court, not to be a member of it. There is also no provision for the composition of the court in any given case, and Scottish representation might still not necessarily be achieved.
      My biggest concern is that the new clause falls foul of the danger—to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred—that the system could develop like Topsy. A constitutional court will ultimately be needed because there will be questions of vires between the Welsh assembly and the House, between the Scottish Parliament and the House, and on human rights, freedom of information and Northern Ireland. If we are to go ahead, we should do so properly, not on the basis of just one dimension of the evolving constitutional argument.
      That was the thinking in the Scottish Constitutional Convention when we considered whether we should opt for a constitutional court or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The view was taken that a constitutional court, while ultimately being the desirable end point, could not be achieved in the context of the Scotland Bill. Therefore, the JCPC was chosen as the best of what was there.
      Is there any way of ensuring that, in any sitting of the JCPC, there is Scottish representation? It is a question not of justice being done, but of it being seen to be done. Lawyers here will no doubt accept that those who sit on the Judicial Committee will act judicially, but try to explain that if a decision went against the position taken
      210
      by the Scottish Parliament and the JCPC did not contain a single Scot. It would no doubt be legally right, but try to explain that to a sceptical population who would, no doubt, see some conspiracy there.
      Dr. Godman: On the last question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I remind him that the composition of the tribunal inquiring into Bloody Sunday has been broadly accepted by the families of the men and youths who were shot on that terrible day. The judge who will chair the tribunal is an English Law Lord and the other two jurists are from elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
      I think that I was the first in the House to ask the Secretary of State to give sympathetic consideration, with his ministerial colleagues, to the setting up of a constitutional court. New clause 18 states:
      "There shall be a Constitutional Court in the United Kingdom."
      It goes on to talk exclusively of Scotland and England. I know that I shall be reminded that we are debating the Scotland Bill, but I believe that there will be a massive vote in support of the yes campaign in the referendum in Northern Ireland on 22 May, and the House will shortly afterwards debate a Northern Ireland Bill. What then of the new clause which states:
      "There shall be a Constitutional Court in the United Kingdom."?
      Would that have to be amended to include judges from the Northern Ireland judiciary? If the clause had referred to a British constitutional court, that might be a different matter.
      Mr. Salmond: Let me put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. If the Minister tells me that he accepts the principle of a constitutional court, I shall be amenable to accelerating the time scale this evening.
      Dr. Godman: I am suggesting that the new clause should be withdrawn until we reach that Northern Ireland legislation concerning the setting up in Northern Ireland of an assembly which I hope will be more akin to the Scottish Parliament than to the Welsh assembly.
      Mr. McLeish: The Government recommend that the House reject new clause 18 proposed by the Scottish National party.
      Again, the issue should not be seen in the context of current parliamentary or Government circumstances at Westminster plus what we shall have at Holyrood. The nationalists try to pretend that we are moving towards some independence model. The basis of this settlement is devolution, not federalism, which is basically the model adopted, quite legitimately, by the SNP to frame some of its ideas. The measure is not about independence; it seeks to allow issues concerning vires to be resolved in the most constructive and effective way possible.
      It is dangerous to suggest that we introduce politics into the court; that we introduce a kind of Scotland-England issue into the court. At the end of the day, we need to consider the legality surrounding a particular issue, not to politicise everything. That may be the nationalists' wish, but it does not lead to good or sensible government.
      The Government reject new clause 18 and the consequential amendments. The new clause would create a constitutional court to replace the role currently

      211
      provided for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining questions concerning the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
      Before dealing in detail with the SNP's proposal for a constitutional court, I shall discuss the existing arrangements that are within the Bill's competence. The policy that the Bill reflects was summarised in chapter 4 of the White Paper. It recognised that, from time to time, the Scottish Executive and the UK Government would take different views of the Scottish Parliament's legislative powers. In most cases, we expect that they should be able to resolve such views quickly and amicably.
      The Government recognised that, at times, there would be disputes and that it would be necessary to have a mechanism to resolve such disputes. The Government consider that the JCPC would be the appropriate body ultimately to resolve such issues.
      The Government do not support the proposed creation of a constitutional court. It is not necessary to try to create a new structure. The JCPC already exists. It has vast experience of dealing with constitutional issues from the Commonwealth. It is ideally placed to resolve any disputes about vires.
      It is wrong to suggest, as hon. Members have, that issues will not be fairly considered and will be dominated by an English bias. The JCPC is an impartial body. I have no doubt that each case will be decided on its merits after careful consideration of the facts of the case. Of course, the decision of the JCPC will be final.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister confirm that it is possible under the arrangements that he is defending for a devolution case to be judged by the JCPC with no Scottish judge on that committee?
      Mr. McLeish: It is our intention that that will not happen. Our intention is to ensure that the JCPC considers issues on their merit. We are talking about issues of vires. We are not trying to introduce politics into every conceivable decision. The veiled threat from the nationalists this evening is: "Beware of the Scottish Parliament because, when we are members of that body, we will talk about cross-border public bodies and there will be trouble for the first person whom we invite who does not come." That has been stated.
      Because the constitutional court may have English judges, there is some suggestion that we cannot resolve matters as vires, that we have to politicise everything. That is a dangerous attitude. It is not constructive and it does not augur well for the good sensible government that Scotland requires from the first day the Scottish Members of Parliament are elected.
      Mr. Grieve: Does the Minister accept that I, as an English Member of Parliament, would not mind if five Scottish members of the JCPC determined such issues? That is completely irrelevant.
      7 pm
      Mr. McLeish: The point has been made. The Government have no doubt that each case will be decided on its merits after careful consideration.
      Clause 94 provides that, for this purpose, the JCPC will be composed of members who hold or have held the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or high judicial office in
      212
      the UK. That will include the judges of the Court of Session who are Privy Councillors. It is difficult to imagine how the members of any constitutional court could be better qualified.
      The Government's approach is based on the belief that such issues should be decided as a matter of law, not of politics. Involving this House and the Scottish Parliament in the election of members of a constitutional court would inevitably politicise the process and raise questions about the independence of the court' s members—would they be genuinely free to make up their minds, or would they be beholden to the body that elected them?
      The involvement of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate—members of their respective Administrations—could also politicise the process of dispute resolution. Indeed, the suggestion that the Lord Advocate should be a member of the court ignores the fact that, as Law Officer to the Scottish Executive, he would be responsible for instituting and defending proceedings for the determination of a devolution issue. Under the model in the new clause, there would be an initial conflict of interest. It is nonsensical to suggest that he could present the case for the Scottish Executive and then rule on it.
      I was interested in whom else the SNP considers appropriate to hear such cases. Although there are many eminent advocates, solicitors and law professors with considerable experience in the legal system, I admit that the combined judicial experience of the Judicial Committee would be difficult to equal. It is hard to escape that conclusion in terms of competence in law and legal issues.
      The Government believe that there should be a mechanism to ensure independent consideration of devolution issues. In the Judicial Committee, the Bill provides that. I urge the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Salmond: The Minister gave the game away. I asked him whether a case could be judged with no Scottish representative on the Judicial Committee. He replied that the Government intend to ensure that that does not happen. They can do that only by political direction on the composition of the body taking the case. He cannot have it both ways.
      Mr. McLeish: Grow up.
      Mr. Salmond: The Minister says that I should grow up, but let us examine the matter. Either the composition of the Judicial Committee would be such that it would be free to judge such cases with no concern for nationality, background or political influence or the Minister, because he has realised the sensitivity of the situation, wants at least one representative from a Scottish legal background to sit in judgment of such cases. He cannot have it both ways.
      I was incredibly surprised, but delighted in some ways, by the naivety of some hon. Members, who talked as if the judicial process were totally removed from politics. Many members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held political office and owe their appointment to politics. The Minister presents a political argument

      213
      against a constitutional court and for pure judicial principle in the existing arrangements. However, that does not sustain serious examination.
      I have much more sympathy with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who said that, although a constitutional court was necessary, we should perhaps not have such a court as this and should take into account the variety of developments that are taking place. We would have accepted the principle if the Minister had said, "That's exactly what we are going to do; we are going to think about it." However, he did not say that.
      The Minister has argued that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—an archaic, Topsy-like institution—can accommodate such disputes. That is not the case. Its composition does not stand up to serious examination, and in such circumstances my hon. Friends and I shall most certainly press the new clause to a vote.
      This is not an independence new clause; it cannot be.
      It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forth, with the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes 388.

      Division No. 272]

      [7.3 pm

      AYES

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Salmond, Alex

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Swinney, John

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Dafis, Cynog

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Mr. Alasdair Morgan and

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Mr. Andrew Welsh.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Boswell, Tim

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Allan, Richard

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ancram, Rt Hon Mich ael

      Brady, Graham

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Brake, Tom

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Browne, Desmond

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Baldry, Tony

      Burden, Richard

      Barnes, Harry

      Burgon, Colin

      Barron, Kevin

      Burns, Simon

      Bayley, Hugh

      Burstow, Paul

      Beard, Nigel

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Butterfill, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Byers, Stephen

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Caborn, Richard

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Benton, Joe

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Best, Harold

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Betts, Clive

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Canavan, Dennis

      Blizzard, Bob

      Caplin, Ivor

      Blunt, Crispin

      Casale, Roger

      Boateng, Paul

      Cash, William

      Borrow, David

      Cawsey, Ian

      214

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Chaytor, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clapham, Michael

      Goggins, Paul

      Clappison, James

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gorrie, Donald

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Greenway, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Grocott, Bruce

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Grogan, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hain, Peter

      Coleman, Iain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Collins, Tim

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hammond, Philip

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hancock, Mike

      Cotter, Brian

      Hanson, David

      Cran, James

      Hayes, John

      Crausby, David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Heald, Oliver

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Healey, John

      Cummings, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Heppell, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Darvill, Keith

      Hill, Keith

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hoey, Kate

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Day, Stephen

      Hope, Phil

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Horam, John

      Dismore, Andrew

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Dobbin, Jim

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Doran, Frank

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Drew, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Hurst, Alan

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hutton, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Etherington, Bill

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Faber, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Fallon, Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Jamieson, David

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Flint, Caroline

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Flynn, Paul

      Follett, Barbara

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Keetch, Paul

      Galbraith, Sam

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Gale, Roger

      Khabra, Piara S

      Galloway, George

      Kidney, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Gardiner, Barry

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Gibb, Nick

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      215

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laxton, Bob

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Letwin, Oliver

      Purchase, Ken

      Levitt, Tom

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Radice, Giles

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rammell, Bill

      Lidington, David

      Randall, John

      Linton, Martin

      Rapson, Syd

      Livingstone, Ken

      Raynsford, Nick

      Livsey, Richard

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Lock, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Loughton, Tim

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Love, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      McCabe, Steve

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Rooney, Terry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonnell, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      McFall, John

      Ruane, Chris

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ruffley, David

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McLeish, Henry

      St Aubyn, Nick

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Salter, Martin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sanders, Adrian

      MacShane, Denis

      Sawford, Phil

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      McWalter, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWilliam, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheerman, Barry

      Malins, Humfrey

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mandelson, Peter

      Singh, Marsha

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mates, Michael

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meale, Alan

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

      Michael, Alun

      Snape, Peter

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Spellar, John

      Milburn, Alan

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Miller, Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Moffatt, Laura

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stevenson, George

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Stott, Roger

      Mullin, Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Norris, Dan

      Stunell, Andrew

      Oaten, Mark

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Paterson, Owen

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pearson, Ian

      Timms, Stephen

      Pendry, Tom

      Tipping, Paddy

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Todd, Mark

      Pickles, Eric

      Touhig, Don

      Pickthall, Colin

      Trend, Michael

      Pike, Peter L

      Truswell, Paul

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tyler, Paul (Swansea W)

      216

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Vaz, Keith

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Viggers, Peter

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wallace, James

      Winnick, David

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Wardle, Charles

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Wood, Mike

      Woodward, Shaun

      Waterson, Nigel

      Woolas, Phil

      Watts, David

      Wray, James

      White, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Whittingdale, John

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilkinson, John

      Janet Anderson and

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 1

      CONSTITUENCIES, REGIONS AND REGIONAL MEMBERS
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 53, line 9, at end insert—
      '(1 A) The parliamentary constituencies to which paragraph 1(c) applies are those determined by the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995, or those Scottish Parliamentary constituencies determined following a report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland as determined by paragraph 3 of this Schedule, except a parliamentary constituency including either of those islands referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b).'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 62, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 17.
      No. 63, in page 53, leave out lines 18 to 37 and insert—
      'Redistribution of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies—

      3. (1) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall keep under review the representation in the Scottish Parliament and shall submit to the Scottish Executive a report either:

      (a) showing the constituencies into which they recommend that Scotland should be divided in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof) to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act) in so far as they apply to Scotland, or

      (b) stating that, in the opinion of the Commission, no alteration is required to be made in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (subject to paragraph 7 thereof).

      (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 81 of this Act, the rules in Schedule 2 of the 1986 Act as they apply to Scotland shall have effect in relation to the redistribution of the Parliamentary constituencies in paragraph 1(c).

      (3) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the provisions in sections 3, 5 and 6 of the 1986 Act shall, in so far as they apply to Scotland, have effect in relation to the reports and the workings of the Boundary Commission for Scotland's review of Parliamentary constituencies for the Scottish Parliament.

      (4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the provisions in section 4 of the 1986 Act shall have effect in relation to the draft of any Order in Council laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Executive for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland.

      (5) References to the Secretary of State in the 1986 Act shall, for the purposes of this paragraph, be construed as references to the Scottish Executive and references to "Parliament" in the 1986 Act shall be construed as references to the Scottish Parliament.

      217

      (6) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall submit its first report under this paragraph to the Scottish Executive no later than 30th June 2005.

      (7) In that report, the Commission shall also recommend any alteration in any of the regions which, in their opinion, is required to be made in order to give effect to the rules in paragraph 7.

      (8) If the Commission do not make any such recommendation under sub-paragraph (7), they shall in the report state that, in their opinion, no such alteration is required.

      (9) A report making a recommendation for an alteration in any region shall state the name by which the Commission recommend that the region should be known.'.

      No. 64, in page 53, leave out lines 38 to 43.
      No. 65, in page 53, line 46, leave out '3(2)' and insert '3(7)'.
      Mr. Wallace: The scheme proposed in the Bill is designed principally to take account of the fact that the Government have recognised the need to reduce the number of Scottish Members at Westminster following the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. It also provides for the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament to be reduced to reflect the Westminster constituencies under the first-past-the-post system, and for a pro rata reduction in the number of additional Members in the various regions.
      The purpose of the amendment and those associated with it is to retain for the Scottish Parliament the 73 constituencies that exist under the first-past-the-post system and the seven additional Members in each of the eight regions. To achieve that, it would establish a boundary commission for Scotland, whose remit would be to review the 73 Scottish parliamentary constituencies. There are obviously population movements within those constituencies, and it would be important to ensure that those electorates remained of a relatively similar size.
      Dr. Godman: In the current addition of The Scottish Review, the author of a paper argues that it is almost inevitable, over time, that the number of Scottish MPs in this House will be radically reduced, and that the number of MSPs in the Edinburgh Parliament is also likely to be reduced in the next decade or so.
      Mr. Wallace: I think that the hon. Gentleman refers to an article by Mr. John Curtice of Strathclyde university, on which I propose to comment.
      Our amendments would retain the separate seats for Orkney and Shetland that are set out in the Bill. I acknowledge the Government's delivery of a commitment at the Scottish Constitutional Convention. When a similar provision was moved in Committee, we said that 129 Members—a figure that was struck after some debate in the convention—were needed so that, after the appointment of Ministers, there were sufficient Members to ensure the establishment of committees.
      There is to be a range of committees, such as pre-legislative, departmental and regional. If there is time, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) will move an amendment on that topic. About 129 Members are required to fulfil all the Parliament's functions, and reducing the number to 104 or 105 would affect its workings.
      218
      As the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, the number of Members could be substantially reduced as a result of the boundary commission's proposal. The article by John Curtice is far too technical to convey to the House in a short speech, but it shows that the number would creep up because of electoral quotas. The article is entitled "Reinventing the Yo-Yo", and shows that the number of Members will come down and then go back up. It states:
      "Far from securing a permanent reduction in the size of the Scottish Parliament, the provisions are likely to result in a Parliament which after a once and for all cut is likely to start gradually increasing in size such that by the middle of the next century it could well have returned to its original size."
      We are trying to retain some stability because that is important for the working of the Parliament. Its stability would not be helped if, after three or four years, a quarter of its Members thought that a sword was hanging over them because seats were about to disappear. That would lead to tension and rivalries, and might distract Members of the Scottish Parliament from the work in hand. It would not be healthy for the Parliament.
      We do not know what will happen here in future. The Government have set up an electoral commission under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead to look at different systems of proportional representation. We hope that there will be such a system for elections to Westminster sooner rather than later, and that would have consequences for the Scottish Parliament if it continued to reflect the Westminster model.
      Dr. Godman: There may be a new assembly in Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Parliament and the two assemblies may have constituencies that are radically different in size. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman perfectly relaxed about that?
      Mr. Wallace: At the moment, some constituencies vary substantially in size. I am not sure what is envisaged in terms of Northern Ireland representation in the House following the establishment of an assembly. We may be about to embark on a substantial change in the way that the Westminster Parliament is elected.
      If an additional member system were adopted, there could not possibly be 659 constituencies, because a massive number of top-ups, additional Members, would make the House unwieldy. We need to examine different sizes of constituencies—hence the need for a separate system for Scotland to secure the sort of agreement that was reached at the constitutional convention and is enshrined in the Bill.
      Those of us who were in the convention foresaw that there might be changes. In our agreement, which was headed "Scotland's Parliament—Scotland's Right", we said:
      "The electoral system for Scotland's Parliament must have stability but it will, of course, be dependent on boundaries established for the Westminster and European Parliaments."
      The European Parliament boundaries have disappeared because of the move to proportional representation.
      The document continues:
      "These may be subject to alteration outwith the control of Scotland's Parliament and it will therefore be necessary to ensure that separate boundary reviews for the Parliament can be carried through with the purpose of maintaining the size of the Parliament

      219
      and the integrity of the corrective effect of the additional members. This function will be performed by the Boundary Commission for Scotland."
      That is precisely what the amendments seek to do—to retain a Parliament of 129 Members irrespective of a change in the number of Scottish Members at Westminster.
      When the matter was raised in Committee, the Minister said:
      "there are arguments on both sides, but we believe that the Bill strikes the right balance. I am mindful that he might not wish to press the amendments to a vote this evening; if that is the case, we shall have a chance to look further at the arguments involved."—[Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 456.]
      I am grateful to the Minister for looking further. I hope that my arguments in Committee and here will prove to be compelling.
      Mr. Dalyell: It may have occurred to Ministers by now that I am no friend of the legislation. However, even I am not so ill disposed as to wish to see a reduction in the number of Members in the Edinburgh Parliament. Imagine it: within a week of the election, Members would be eyeing one another and wondering what would happen five years hence. Understandably, people would begin to fight for position like Kilkenny cats, because they would know that, at the end of five years, a quarter of them would be axed.
      The ill feeling that such knowledge would create from the beginning, and the sickly personal relations that would follow, would be extremely undesirable. I hope that whatever number is chosen is kept up. If there is to be a Parliament, there should be 142 Members to start with, but that is all water under the bridge. The expectation of a reduction is a recipe for such sour ill will that it would be to the advantage of none of us in Scotland.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I have two comments. The first is the obvious one that would be made by any man or woman in the street: if 129 Members is reasonable for the Parliament next year, why would it be unreasonable in 10 or 20 years? Why on earth should we start to change the boundaries of a devolved Scottish Parliament simply because there is an argument for changing the Westminster constituencies?
      The second issue is more serious. There are two types of Member in the Scottish Parliament and the number of list Members, even under the present system, goes a fair way towards ensuring proportionality, although the precise amount that will be achieved will depend on the results. Nobody can predict how much proportionality will be realised. To some extent, the amount of disproportionality may be increased because there are to be eight regional lists rather than one national list.
      To achieve proportionality, it is necessary to have enough top-up seats to even out the imbalances. If the number of available top-up seats is reduced, there is a strong likelihood that proportionality will be diminished, even if first-past-the-post seats are also reduced. We will be back to a much more first-past-the-post system than is proposed in the legislation. Given that one of the main arguments of the people who introduced the legislation was that it did include a very high element of proportional representation, it seems strange that they now accept something that will almost inevitably reduce proportionality.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Reflecting on the comments of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), I think that we do well to remind the House that a degree of proportionality is not predictable under the hybrid additional member system that we are adopting for the Scottish Parliament. It remains to be seen how proportionally fair the electoral system is compared with a first-past-the-post system.
      I draw the House's attention to the comment by the Minister in reply to the previous debate on this subject in Committee, to which the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has alluded. The Minister said that the Bill "strikes the right balance". I compare that with the all too sensible analysis of what is likely to happen by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). What we have here is far short of the stability that the Scottish Parliament will look for and that Scottish people have a right to expect from the Parliament.
      I remind the House that, in Committee, we tabled an amendment to deal with this problem, which was logical in view of the Government's original intentions as expressed in the White Paper. The amendment would change the constituency boundaries before the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, so that the number of MSPs that the Scottish Parliament started with would be the same as the number that it continued with. The representation in the House would be reduced as soon as it was re-elected at a subsequent general election. As I say, what we are left with in the White Paper is just a mess, with 129 MSPs first being selected and then cut.
      These amendments give the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to decide whether to maintain the present number or to change the number of constituencies. The key question is: who is to decide the criteria for the Scottish boundary commission? Effectively, that commission will work for two masters. If the brief drawn up for it is analogous to that of the boundary commission that already exists, it will have to have regard to the Westminster constituencies as much as to local government boundaries. There will be confusion as to which is paramount: the Westminster constituencies or the Scottish parliamentary constituencies.
      In any case, the Minister, by announcing that the Government are looking to review this—I should be grateful if he would confirm that the Government do intend to table amendments in the other place—shows that this part of the White Paper is extremely ill thought out and ill considered. Whatever the Government now recommend, either here or in the other place, to set this matter straight, it will be a departure from the White Paper.
      Dr. Godman: I have some sympathy for a couple of the comments by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on the likely composition of the Edinburgh Parliament. I should not like to guess it. I do not at this moment have much idea at all. The question of proportionality is a different matter. I personally favour the sort of electoral system that we will have for that Parliament. I have always opposed the first-past-the-post system.
      The new system will, of course, be of some advantage to the party of the hon. Member for North Essex. As I have said many times, we have an absurd set of

      221
      circumstances concerning this place. About 500,000 Scots voted for Conservative candidates, yet neither the Scottish Conservative party nor those Scots are represented in this Parliament. For all its flaws and loose ends, the system proposed for the new Parliament is much better than the system we have for this place.
      I am not altogether arguing that the number of MSPs should in the near future be reduced. I am concerned just about the size of the constituencies represented by MSPs.
      I think, for example, if I might digress just for about 14 seconds, that the number of representatives proposed for the Northern Ireland assembly is too high. People say, "Yes, but we are talking there about special circumstances." However, I thought that the aim would be to bring that assembly as near as we could to the normal, everyday life of other assemblies and Parliaments elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It may be that, as the hon. Member for North Essex, who speaks on behalf of the official Opposition, says, it should be left to the Scottish Parliament to determine these matters—for example, how many Members should be in that place.
      I say to my hon. and very old Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell): I am not particularly concerned about the feelings of the Members of that assembly. I might be if I were one of them and facing the disappearance of my constituency, but I am never going to be in that position. The Parliament has been created for the better governance of Scotland, not to meet the needs, aspirations and concerns of those who will be in that Parliament.
      Mr. Dalyell: The better governance of Scotland is not going to be served if Members of the Parliament fight for position like ferrets in a sack, as they assuredly will.
      Dr. Godman: We have seen some of that fighting in parties in this place. It is epitomised by the chicken run and people squabbling over boundary changes. I have seen a little of that in Renfrewshire in recent years.
      I have some sympathy for the object of the amendments, but, at the same time, the hon. Member for North Essex is absolutely right: these matters must be left to the Members of Parliament in Scotland. At the same time, I caution against the idea that the figure we now have is in some way sacrosanct. Over time, the number of MSPs, or of representatives or deputies—whatever they are called—going into the Northern Ireland assembly, will change. There will be a change in the number of Scots Members in this place.
      As I have said, in a general sense, we are, in an unco-ordinated way, moving towards a federal system. I note that more and more Tory Members believe that—
      Mr. Jenkin: "Unco-ordinated" is the word.
      Dr. Godman: I think it is. We are moving along that road. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) shakes her head vehemently. I do not think that she wants Scotland to move in any way from the UK. I think that her heart is in a Scottish constituency somewhere, but that is another story.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the point that I was trying to make: the more we
      222
      reduce the overall number and the first-past-the-post and list Members pro rata, the less likely we are to achieve a proportional outcome in any given election?
      Dr. Godman: I agree, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman put his case intelligently and concisely. We do have problems relating to proportionality. There are problems with any system that we think of. God forgive us for thinking about the Knesset and the dreadful system of proportional representation there. I would not inflict the Irish system on a Scottish Parliament or on the assembly that is to be created in the six counties. However, the system proposed—even if the numbers are reduced—for all its loose ends, is much better than what we have in this place. Although there may be a reduction in the number of MSPs, it will still be a better and fairer system than the ridiculous, anachronistic system for electing hon. Members to this place.
      Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), not for the first time, exercised a degree of profound observation which has partly stolen my thunder. I agreed with many of his comments—in stark contrast to those of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
      I never cease to be amazed at the Liberal Democrats' ability to pursue facile policies. We heard another example of that ability today. I say that more in sorrow than in anger—no, to be absolutely frank, I say it more in anger than in sorrow. Nevertheless, we learned in the local government elections the electorate's opinion of the Liberal Democrats, who were given just the consolation prize of Liverpool.
      The important aspect about this group of amendments is that they would cause damage in three ways. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, they are uncertain and unclear about the boundary commission for Scotland's terms of reference. Who will determine the commission's remit, and what will that remit be?
      Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman please look at amendment No. 63, which states:
      "to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 … to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986"?
      Those are the rules that will apply.
      Mr. Hayes: I am delighted by that observation, as it shows that, occasionally, even the facile can have an eye for detail.
      Secondly, the inconsistency established by the potential—I accept that there is only a potential—of establishing in Scotland constituencies of a different size from those at Westminster, and the electorate's consequential confusion, will be a nightmare. If the Scottish Parliament—about which I certainly have reservations—is to have credibility, there must be some clarity and comprehensibility about it in the eyes of the electorate.
      The notion of different-sized constituencies for elections to Westminster and to the Scottish Parliament is nonsense. Can hon. Members imagine how that would affect political parties and political associations—which, regardless of party, are based on Westminster constituencies? All hon. Members will know that European elections already cause

      223
      sufficient difficulty. European elections, because of different-sized constituencies, cause confusion and complications not only for the Conservative party but for the Labour party, and probably even for the Liberal Democrats. Creating another size of constituency would cause an organisational nightmare.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might help me by defining the nature of the confusion that will be caused in the minds of the electorate. If I as an elector have one person as my MSP and someone else as my MP, and someone five miles down the road shares the same MP but has a different MSP, how will I be confused? What is the problem?
      Mr. Hayes: Surely the nature of the political process makes it important that people should know in which constituency they are electors and constituents. Electorally, we have had great difficulty at all levels, from local government upwards, in establishing in the minds of constituents and electors in which area they reside, who represents them and the functions performed by their representatives at the various tiers. Establishing those facts is a fundamental part of establishing a relationship between the elector and the elected, is it not?
      Mr. Tim Collins: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Will he reflect on the media's effect on that confusion? The newspapers that voters will read, and the television news that they will see, will refer variously either to an elector's MP or to his MSP, further aggravating the confusion that my hon. Friend has described.
      Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with his excellent illustration of the point that I was making.
      I am not surprised that Liberal Democrat Members are unimpressed by that argument, as their party believes in proportional representation—which would cause a break in the link between the elector and the elected, which is what it would mean. Proportional representation would end the appropriate sense of ownership that electors have for their representatives, and we representatives for our constituencies.
      History, and the electorate, will judge very harshly anyone involved in breaking that bond, which is one of the most valuable and important elements in our democratic system. In relation to the Scottish Parliament, this group of amendments goes down that road.
      If we are to have a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly, let us make them work well. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow said, it would be nonsense for us, as responsible Members of this Parliament, to get the project off in a fashion that doomed it right from the beginning. If we are to have a Scottish Parliament, let us establish a structure and system that gives it some credibility, and not indulge irrelevant, minority and fringe parties.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. McLeish: As the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) suggested, early in the Committee stage the Government responded to some of the very positive arguments that were made on the link
      224
      between Scottish parliamentary and United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies, and on the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament.
      The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) made a point on the list system. We are not dealing with an easy matter, as we are dealing not with a first-past-the-post system but with a system in which 73 MSPs will be elected on a first-past-the-post basis, and in which there will be 56 additional Members. The arguments are therefore very complex.
      Currently, the Government cannot accept amendment Nos. 61 to 65, which would seek to break the link between constituencies for the UK Parliament and constituencies for the Scottish Parliament. As I said earlier in the debate, hon. Members will recall that we considered similar amendments in Committee.
      In Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland made a strong and very reasoned case to retain the size of the Scottish Parliament at 129 members. I agreed then—the point has been confirmed in this debate—that the Government would reflect carefully on the issues that he raised.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have thought long and hard on those matters. We understand the arguments in favour of maintaining the Parliament's size, but we also believe that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members, and that there are good arguments for maintaining the linkage in constituencies. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has made a valid point. Projecting ahead, we must consider the possible realities of Scotland after the devolution settlement, and within the Scottish Parliament once its 129 Members are elected.
      In the White Paper, we explained that we believed that the Union's integrity would be strengthened by having common constituencies for the Scottish Parliament and for the United Kingdom Parliament, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland. Having constituencies that cover the same geographical area will help to encourage liaison between MPs and MSPs in ensuring that the interests of their common electorate are served properly in whichever Parliament is responsible for an issue. Good working relationships between Members of the Scottish Parliament and Westminster will be essential if devolution is to be a success. Contiguous boundaries would have gone some way in ensuring that success.
      Over time, the effect of this group of amendments could lead to different parliamentary constituencies for the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament, with overlapping boundaries leading—in some people's judgment—to confusion among the electorate. Although that point has been highlighted in the debate, I cannot agree with some of the latter comments on the electorate's confusion.
      I do not think that the electorate are as confused as some hon. Members think. Because hon. Members are concerned about boundaries, we assume that the electors also are concerned. However, electors in my constituency are a very sharp, bright bunch—which they demonstrate at every election, by voting in a very superior way.
      Mr. Hayes: The Minister was obviously referring to my speech. Does he not agree that, under our two-tier local government system, for example, there was massive confusion among the electorate about their various local

      225
      representatives in district councils, county councils and regional councils? It took 20 years to dissipate that confusion. Therefore, although I do not underestimate the electorate, surely the Minister will agree that changes in political structure can have a devastating effect on people's understanding of who represents them, and of which authorities do what.
      Mr. McLeish: I am sure that, after this debate, the hon. Gentleman and I could discuss the fact that change creates some confusion and some concern. However, we should not use the word "devastating".
      Since 1974, we have had a two-tier system of local government, introduced unitary authorities and created European electoral boundaries. We have Westminster parliamentary boundaries, and will soon have elections to the new Scottish Parliament. We should never underestimate the electorate, because the system has worked.
      Under two-tier local government, and now unitary authorities, excellent services have been and are provided. People are less concerned with maps and boundaries than they are with the quality of political contribution and of services. Yes, there is an issue, but we would do well to keep it in perspective.
      I am sure that, once the Scottish Parliament is established and its working practices are in place, it could operate effectively with fewer MSPs. Fewer Members would still be able to carry out the essential scrutiny of the Scottish Administration and the enactment of legislation.
      As this short debate has highlighted, there are clearly good arguments on both sides of the issue. For the reason that I have explained, there is a good argument for maintaining linkage in constituencies. We are still considering the matter, and we hope to reach a conclusion by the time that the Bill goes to another place.
      Mr. Dalyell: Here am I defending the interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament. It is very unfair to put them in the position of fighting like Kilkenny cats, squabbling like ferrets in a sack and having the sword of Damocles over them from the very beginning. To put it bluntly, we have the prospect of repeating what happened over Glasgow, Central 30 or 40 times over, writ large from the beginning. Is that fair on the people involved?
      Mr. McLeish: With the greatest respect, I do not want to embrace my hon. Friend's extravagant tones concerning ferrets and cats. I think that I have captured the essence of the argument. If we establish a Parliament of 129 Members, there is an expectation that they might want to continue. That is why addressing the realpolitik of the Parliament is part of the wider consideration.
      With those few remarks, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland will withdraw his amendment, and allow us to complete that consideration.
      Mr. Wallace: The debate has been useful, particularly the observations and the extended metaphors of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), which illustrated the kind of circumstance that would all too readily arise in the Scottish Parliament if a quarter of
      226
      its Members had a death sentence hanging over them. Of course, they would not know which quarter that would be, which would make the ferrets in the sack scramble even more.
      The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) made the important point that, although the Government have, to be fair, preserved the 73:56 ratio, the ratio tends to be less proportional when it is applied to fewer people.
      I note what the Minister has said. I am encouraged by his remarks—not least his opening comment that the Government could not accept the amendments at present. No doubt my hon. and noble Friends in another place will seek to table them again to ensure that we do not lose sight of the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      CANDIDATES
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 3, line 12, at end insert—
      '( ) A registered political party's regional list has effect in relation to the general election and any vacancy occurring among the regional members after that election and before the next general election'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 27.
      No. 10, in page 3, leave out lines 33 to 35.
      No. 109, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
      '[1A] A registered party's regional list must be displayed in a prominent position at each polling place for inspection by any voter.'.
      No. 3, in page 3, line 39, after 'may', insert
      '(subject to subsection (4) below)'.
      No. 11, in page 3, line 40, leave out 'a "regional', and insert 'an "additional member'.
      No. 12, in page 3, line 40, leave out from 'vote' to end of line 42.
      No. 66, in page 3, line 41, after '(a)', insert
      'a candidate who is a member of'.
      No. 13, in page 4, leave out lines 1 to 3.
      No. 4, in page 4, line 3, at end insert—
      '(4) Where an elector gives his vote under section 1(2) for a candidate representing a registered political party, he shall be deemed to have given his additional member vote under this section for the same registered political party and that vote shall be counted accordingly.'.
      No. 14, in clause 6, page 4, line 9, leave out 'regional'.
      No. 15, in page 4, line 9, leave out second 'the', and insert 'constituency candidates of that'.
      No. 67, in clause 7, page 4, line 28, leave out from 'order' to 'except' in line 29 and insert
      'of the number of votes cast for the candidates, with the candidate with the highest number of votes being elected first and so on'.
      Government amendment No. 28.

      227
      No. 17, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out from second 'the' to 'within' in line 5, and insert 'vacancy occurs'.
      Government amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
      No. 68, in clause 9, page 5, line 26, leave out from 'them' to end of line 27 and insert
      'received the greater number of votes.'.
      No. 16, in page 5, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
      '(7) A vacancy in the seat of a regional member shall not be filled if it occurs within the period of three months ending with the day on which the poll at the next general election would be held, disregarding section 2(5).'.
      No. 71, in clause 10, page 5, line 42, at end insert—
      '(1A) For the purposes of an election for membership of the Parliament section 1(c) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 shall have effect with "16" substituted for "18".'.
      No. 18, in page 5, line 44, after 'constituency', insert 'or regional'.
      No. 19, in page 5, line 44, leave out from 'member' to the end of line 1 on page 6.
      Government amendments Nos. 31 to 34.
      No. 69, in schedule 5, page 62, line 11, leave out 'except the franchise'.
      No. 70, in page 62, line 11, at end insert—
      'Section 1(c) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (the minimum voting age for elections to the Parliament)'.
      Mr. McLeish: In view of the number of amendments that other right hon. and hon. Members have tabled, I shall try fairly quickly to explain the purpose behind the Government amendments. At this stage, I shall not comment on the other amendments in the group, but with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will deal with them if I get an opportunity to wind up the debate.
      Amendment No. 26 makes provision for a party list to have effect in relation to a general election to the Parliament and to any vacancy occurring among regional Members after that election and before the next general election. That makes it quite clear that vacancies for regional Members will be filled from the list presented to the electorate at the general election.
      Amendment No. 27 makes it clear that a registered party's list of candidates for the purposes of the election of regional Members could contain only one name if the party so wishes.
      I turn to amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30. Amendment No. 28 effectively provides that, where a person on a party's list is returned as a Member, that person should be removed from that list so that he or she would not thereafter be available to fill a vacancy. That corrects a possible anomaly, whereby a Member loses his or her seat through failure to take the oath or by disqualification, but because his or her name is still on the party list, he or she would arguably be entitled to be returned to the Parliament again. If a Member refused to take the oath or was disqualified, he or she should not be considered by the returning officer, and under the amendment, could be removed from the list.
      Amendment No. 34 ensures that the order to be prepared under clause 11 can make detailed arrangements for what will happen if two regional parties or individual candidates get the same number of votes. It will also enable the order to regulate the filling of regional
      228
      vacancies. For example, it has been pointed out that, as the Bill stands, a candidate on a party's regional list who had subsequently resigned from the party could still be returned to fill a vacancy that subsequently arose. That would clearly be absurd.
      The House may be interested to learn that we have established a working group involving the four main parties in Scotland, electoral administrators and returning officers to consider the detailed arrangements for the elections. The group will be of assistance to the Scottish Office in preparing the order.
      Amendments Nos. 33 and 32 simply improve the drafting of the Bill. I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.
      Mr. Ancram: All the Government amendments seem to be moving in a sensible direction, so I shall not comment on them in depth, except to say that here we are again dealing with clause 4, which refers to enactments providing for the registration of political parties, yet we have still not seen the draft legislation. I have protested before about this; it is outrageous. Three Bills have gone through the House without our having seen the draft legislation. We were promised it at the end of March, then soon after Easter. Now, it is the middle of May, and we still have not got it. I register once again a strong protest about that.
      The main Conservative amendment, No. 4, relates to the question of split-ticket voting, to which I have referred before. Under the present system, it is possible, by registering a different party name from that under which candidates stand in direct elections, to enhance the number of seats won. I have given figures previously to indicate how that can be done. It is a way of manipulating the system against the spirit of proportionality, and is of considerable concern.
      For instance, if last May's figures for the Glasgow electoral region were replicated exactly under the additional member system, Labour would have won 10 seats on direct elections and two on the list system—a total of 12. The Scottish National party would have won three seats on the list—a total of three—and the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats would have won one each on the list.
      If a party splits its ticket and uses an alter ego party, such as the Co-operative party, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has mentioned, and candidates do not stand under Labour on the list system, a totally different picture emerges. Labour would win 10 seats on direct elections and six on the list under the Co-operative party banner. The SNP would win one list seat and the other two parties would win none.
      The Secretary of State shakes his head, but that analysis was done by a very senior political lecturer in Aberdeen on behalf—I understand—of the Labour party. It shows that there is a fault. Having tried other methods, we are simply trying in amendment No. 4 to get around the problem by having not two votes but one, so that the vote cast in direct elections for a candidate would count for that candidate's party on the indirect list. That would avoid party manipulation. I admit that it produces a result that would not allow for individual candidates on the

      229
      regional list, but I hope that the Government will consider it seriously as a way in which to get away from a very dangerous weakness in the system.
      Mr. Dalyell: If I am no friend of this Bill, I am an enemy of lists—partly for the reasons that were eloquently given in an earlier debate by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
      I must be one of the few who has seen lists in action. It was when I was exiled to the indirectly elected European Parliament and had friends in the Social Democratic party. They were good politicians and good people, but whenever it came to a crunch issue, their judgment was determined by the reaction back home of Herbert Wehner, who was then the all-powerful floor leader of the SDP. I thought that it was absolutely humiliating for Members of the European Parliament to say, as they did, "Yes, we would like to vote one way, but we cannot anger Herbert Wehner." I know why they could not anger him—he was extremely tough. However, he had absolute power as to where individuals would come on the list next time around.
      If there is to be a Scottish Parliament—it is possibly water under the bridge now—there should be 142 or 143 Members, giving gender balance. There should be two Members in each constituency—taking into account Orkney and Shetland—and we should leave it at that. Lists will create endless difficulty and a lot of rancour.
      8 pm
      Mr. Gorrie: We have tabled a number of amendments, covering two particular points. First, we propose to make the closed-list system an open-list system. Under the Bill, after putting an "X" for their first-past-the-post constituency Member, the voters would put an "X" against the name of the party they support.
      We propose that they should put the name of a candidate of the party that they support on the list. Candidates on that list would be elected in order of the number of votes they received from the electorate. The electorate would choose who got in from the party's list, rather than the party managers. We feel that that would be much more democratic, as a closed list gives too much appearance of manipulation by the party and leads to the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned.
      Secondly, we should consider having votes at 16, rather than 18. The age of voting has come down, and there was a time when women were considered suitable to vote only at 25. The age was moved to 21, and then to 18. There are some countries whose voting ages are less than 18. There is a greater rapidity of maturity among young people, many of whom show great interest in politics. The decisions of the Parliament will affect them greatly, and we should consider a voting age of 16. There is no doubt that our amendment will not be carried today, but it is a marker and we should pursue that issue. I hope that the Minister will consider both those matters favourably.
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman's argument about the greater maturity and understanding of young people is
      230
      extremely interesting. Given the different rates at which men and women mature—young women mature much faster than young men—and given the fact that young women do much better academically at a much earlier age, would his party go as far as—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is a time-limited debate, and we should not go down that route.
      Mr. McLeish: Unfortunately, I have one minute to deal with a number of outstanding amendments and I will have to write to individual Members to respond to the debate. I hope that the House will accept that proposition in good faith, rather than having me start and finish in roughly 30 seconds.
      Amendment agreed to.
      It being three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment made: No. 27, in page 3, line 13, at end insert
      '(but the list may include only one person)'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 7

      ALLOCATION OF SEATS TO REGIONAL MEMBERS
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 4, line 29, leave out from 'list' to end of line 30 and insert—
      '( ) For the purposes of this section and section 9, a person in a registered political party's regional list who is returned as a member of the Parliament shall be treated as ceasing to be in the list (even if his return is void)'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 9

      REGIONAL VACANCIES
      Amendments made: No. 29, in page 5, line 22, leave out 'was' and insert 'is'.
      No. 30, in page 5, line 22, leave out from 'list' to 'and' in line 23.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 11

      POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT ELECTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 31, in page 6, line 16, leave out 'and'.
      No. 32, in page 6, line 17, after 'where' insert 'the poll at'.
      No. 33, in page 6, line 18, leave out 'countermanded or abandoned' and insert
      'abandoned (or notice of it is countermanded)'.
      No. 34, in page 6, line 19, at end insert
      'and
      ( ) for modifying section 7(6) to ensure the allocation of the correct number of seats for the region.
      ( ) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(c) includes, in particular, provision modifying section 9(4) and (5)'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 14

      DISQUALIFICATION FROM MEMBERSHIP OF THE PARLIAMENT
      Amendments made: No. 35, in page 7, line 13, leave out 'holds an office' and insert 'is an office-holder'.
      No. 36, in page 7, line 15, leave out
      'A person who holds an office'
      and insert 'An office-holder'.
      No. 37, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'that office' and insert 'the office-holder'.
      No. 38, in page 7, line 18, at end insert—
      '( ) In this section "office—holder" includes employee or other post—holder.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 16

      EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION
      Amendment made: No. 128, in page 8, line 6, at end insert—
      '( ) Subsection (2) also has effect subject to section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (mental illness) and section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (sequestration etc); and where, in consequence of either of those sections, the seat of a disqualified member of the Parliament is not vacant he shall not cease to be a member of the Parliament until his seat becomes vacant but—

      (a) he shall not participate in any proceedings of the Parliament, and

      (b) any of his other rights and privileges as a member of the Parliament may be withdrawn by a resolution of the Parliament.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 20

      SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY CORPORATE BODY.
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 9, line 18, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 20 and insert
      'functions conferred on the corporation by virtue of this Act or any other enactment'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 49.
      Mr. McLeish: The Scottish parliamentary corporate body will oversee the administration of the Parliament. It will have a general duty to provide the Parliament with the property, staff and services it requires and it will have powers to appoint staff, to hold and acquire property on behalf of the Parliament and to enter into contracts, as well as representing it in legal matters. However, the Bill leaves scope for further statutory functions to be conferred on the body in the future both by the Scottish Parliament and by Westminster.
      Government amendment No. 39 is of a technical nature which makes it clear that further functions may be conferred on the SPCB only by virtue of an enactment, including Acts of the Scottish Parliament and instruments made under such Acts. This is in keeping with its position as a statutory body. It also leaves it to the Parliament to decide whether it should be possible to confer functions on the body by means of a resolution to make provision in an Act to that effect. This will not, however, affect the statutory functions to be carried out by the SPCB under clause 20(3).
      232
      Government amendment No. 49 is again a technical amendment which is intended to ensure that, in respect of salaries and pensions of Members of the Scottish Parliament and Executive, the Parliament still has the flexibility to make provision simply by conferring appropriate functions on the SPCB by resolution without having to pass an Act of the Scottish Parliament first.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am rather curious about this matter. I think I am right in saying that the present Clerk of the House of Commons and the Clerk Assistant were earmarked to go to Edinburgh last time around to form part of the core and basis of those who would work in the Scottish Parliament. If we are to have a Parliament, we will need a lot of people who are extremely skilled in the disciplines of clerkship. These people do not come out of thin air. What is the Government's thinking on the number of Clerks and others with expertise of this House who will have to go to Edinburgh? Last time around, it was the present Clerk and the Clerk Assistant, and doubtless others. These are people of the highest calibre in their professional field. We ought to know the Government's thinking.
      Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend raises important points of detail regarding the staffing of the Parliament. Suffice it to say that, at this stage, the matters are in hand. The discussions will ensure that we have the highest quality of staff, and will not lead to a two-tier situation in terms of standards. The clerking of the Parliament is vital. I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend to give the details of where we are in terms of his question.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 21

      STANDING ORDERS
      Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 10, line 5, at end insert—
      '(3) The standing orders shall include a requirement for every member elected to the Scottish Parliament to be requested to make the following affirmation:
      "I do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount".
      and no other affirmation or oath shall be required of members of the Scottish Parliament.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 125, in clause 79, page 36, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 37.
      Mr. Canavan: Clause 79 places a statutory obligation on all persons returned as Members of the Scottish Parliament to take the oath of allegiance, and forbids Members from taking part in any of the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament until such time as the Member takes that oath of allegiance. I assume that the oath of allegiance which is referred to in the Bill is the same as the one taken by Members of this House, who swear to be faithful and to bear true allegiance to the monarch, her heirs and successors.
      Standing Order No. 5 of this House states:

      233
      "Every person returned as a Member of this House may make and subscribe a solemn affirmation in the form prescribed by statute instead of taking an oath."
      In other words, if people have religious or other convictions whereby they feel that they cannot take the oath of allegiance, it is open to them to make an affirmation rather than to take that oath—although, of course, to make that affirmation is also solemnly to declare to be faithful and to bear true allegiance to the monarch, her heirs and successors.
      The amendment would ensure that there was no statutory requirement on any elected Member of the Scottish Parliament to take any oath or, indeed, to make any affirmation. It would include in the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament a request—I emphasise that—that all Members make an affirmation. The wording of that affirmation would be the same as that of the Claim of Right, acknowledging the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. That Claim of Right was signed by members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, including those Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of the House of Commons representing Scottish constituencies who took part in the convention's inaugural meeting in 1989. The sovereignty of the people is surely the basis of any genuine democracy.
      Mr. Jenkin: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Canavan: I am pleased to hear the shadow Minister saying, "Hear, hear." We are Members of the House because we were elected by the people. Therefore, our allegiance should be to the people rather than to any king or queen.
      Mr. Jenkin: When the President of the United States takes office, he swears an oath of allegiance not to the people, but to the constitution of the United States. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the United States is not a democracy because of that?
      Mr. Canavan: Unlike the United States, this country does not have a written constitution. In any case, the United States constitution acknowledges the sovereignty of the people.
      The Scottish Parliament will, I hope, be representative of the people of Scotland as a whole; it will represent the pluralist nature of Scottish society. It may include Members who are royalist and those who are republican; it may include Members who are atheist or agnostic and those who believe in God—in that category, there may be people of different beliefs. They will have in common the fact that they were elected by the people—therefore, they should have allegiance to the people. The amendment would not place a strict obligation on Members to subscribe to the Claim of Right. If, because of royalist or Unionist convictions, Members refused to affirm the Claim of Right, they would not be prevented from taking their seats—the amendment represents a request rather than an obligation.
      Nevertheless, I hope that all Members of the Scottish Parliament—and, indeed, all Members of the House of Commons—will acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best
      234
      suited to their needs. That was the basic democratic principle agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which did much of the preparatory work to the Bill and to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. It is, therefore, appropriate that all Members of the Scottish Parliament be requested to acknowledge that principle.
      Mr. Jenkin: The amendments go to the heart of the likely consequences of the Bill.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Ah!
      Mr. Jenkin: I hear the Secretary of State saying, "Ah!" in a knowing way, perhaps because I am giving him satisfaction by behaving—as he would think—predictably.
      Mr. Dewar indicated assent.
      Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman seems to agree. The constitutional effects of the Bill cannot be legislated for. However much we should like to think that the legal technicalities will determine the future politics of Scotland, that will not be the case—as is nowhere better illustrated than by the amendment, which refers to the Claim of Right.
      8.15 pm
      The Claim of Right—unsurprisingly, given its antecedents—reflects a mediaeval view of sovereignty. Sovereignty is not a question of deciding whether the rulers or the ruled are sovereign. The sovereignty of Parliament does not negate the sovereignty of the people; it reflects an agreement between people, collectively and individually, that their sovereignty is vested in our constitution, so that laws can be made and agreed to with the authority and consent of the people.
      Mr. Salmond: If that is the case, why are United Kingdom referendums consultative rather than binding?
      Mr. Jenkin: That is a matter for Parliament; Parliament could make a referendum result binding rather than consultative. In any sovereign state—whether a republic or a constitutional monarchy—the authority of the people is vested in the constitution, and the rules of that constitution are the supreme law of that state. People need rules to live together in harmony, and a set of rules is needed on how to make and interpret those rules. Whether a constitution is written or unwritten, the rules of the constitution are the supreme law of the state.
      Mr. Salmond: Would not it assist people if the rules in a constitution were written rather than—as in the United Kingdom—unwritten?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are drifting away from the amendment.
      Mr. Jenkin: I totally agree with your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is irrelevant whether a constitution is written or unwritten—a constitution is the supreme

      235
      authority of the land until it is overthrown by the people, in a revolution or through some other extra-constitutional event.
      In that respect, all constitutions are sovereign. We swear allegiance to the Queen in the same way as the President of the United States swears his oath of office to the constitution. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is right to say that the constitution of the United States explicitly acknowledges the sovereignty of the people, but the British constitution operates in such a way as implicity to acknowledge the sovereignty of the people, as the laws of this country are made in Parliament—they cannot be made without at least the indirect consent of the people.
      The Queen is at the heart of our constitution. Indeed, the question at the heart of the Bill is, "Who are the people?" The Claim of Right is inherently nationalist, not because it sets the people against the Westminster Parliament—that dualism does not exist—but because it sets the Scottish people against the peoples of the rest of the United Kingdom.
      It is interesting to note that the only individuals elected to this Parliament who refuse to swear an oath acknowledging the sovereignty of Her Majesty are Sinn Fein Members, who cannot take their seats. That exposes their real intention: up to now, they have wanted to overthrow the constitutional order in which they refuse to participate.
      The Bill assumes that the seats of those who refuse to take the oath of allegiance will fall vacant. That allows the dangerous possibility that those who refuse to swear allegiance to the democratic constitution of this Union, by swearing allegiance to the Queen, may be repeatedly unseated and re-elected. That is a flaw in the Bill. We should have a system whereby people who refuse to swear allegiance to Her Majesty are prevented from taking their seats, but those seats are not available to be contested unless they resign.
      The Secretary of State and his colleagues will tell us that the Claim of Right need not be a nationalistic claim, and that that is demonstrated by the fact that the Scottish people voted for a Scottish Parliament in a Unionist settlement. That is the premise on which all Unionists will seek to build in the future but, as the amendments demonstrate, that view is not universally held by those who are likely to take part in the Scottish Parliament.
      In the final analysis, although sovereignty can technically be legislated for, power flows where it will, and in a constitution in which sovereignty derives from the people, the process and flux of politics will determine whether the Scottish people will regard the continuing sovereignty of this Parliament as legitimate or whether the new legal supremacy of Parliament will become an empty shell. The amendments could make Parliament's sovereignty a supremacy that it dare not exercise in defiance of the Scottish Parliament.
      For the Union to continue to work—for Holyrood and Westminster to operate effectively together—the Scottish Parliament will need to acknowledge the sovereignty of this Parliament, which is reaffirmed by clause 27(7), but by signing the Claim of Right Ministers have created an expectation of something different. The logic of clause 27(7) is allegiance to the Crown but, by supping with nationalism and aiding and abetting its resentments, Ministers have given credibility to the suggestion that sovereignty permanently lies elsewhere.
      236
      If the Claim of Right was right for the Scottish Constitutional Convention when the Secretary of State signed it, why is it not right for the oath of allegiance in the Bill? The answer is that the Claim of Right is not compatible with this Parliament's sovereignty or with the Unionism that Ministers claim to espouse.
      Mr. Dalyell: I have the feeling that Ministers are not exuding gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for having tabled the amendment, because it means that they have to answer the question whether they believe in the Claim of Right, and that is a very direct question. As one who failed to sign the Claim of Right, I am entitled to ask that important question. I notice that the co-signatory to the amendment is the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the black bitch himself, who called me a scarecrow and, what is worse, an old scarecrow. This old scarecrow is entitled to ask precisely what is Her Majesty's Ministers' updated position on the Claim of Right.
      Mr. Salmond: I am sure that I called the hon. Gentleman a scaremonger, not a scarecrow, but I know that he never says anything that he does not believe to be true. Yesterday, I was called on by the Edinburgh Evening News to respond to his suggestion that there should be another referendum in Scotland and that the question should be: "Are you sure that you want to vote for a Scottish Parliament?" For the first time in my political career, I was speechless; but he knows that I respect his integrity. He was indeed the only Labour Member not to sign the Claim of Right, which is encapsulated in the splendid amendment.
      I am somewhat bemused by the line taken by the official Opposition. All my political life I have been taught and have believed that there is a tension between the concept of popular sovereignty—sovereignty of the people—and the uniquely British concept of the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) started his speech by saying that there was no such tension, and finished it by saying that there was a tension between the Claim of Right asserting popular sovereignty in Scotland and the concept of the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament.
      There has been a continuing thread through Scottish political thought that emphasises the sovereignty of the people, which is not necessarily in conflict with the monarchy. Many would argue that the declaration of Arbroath promulgated the concept of an elective monarchy. It said, and I paraphrase because I do not have it off by heart, that if good King Robert did not defend the rights and responsibilities of the community of the realm, we could get rid of him and have someone else as the monarch. Monarchy and popular sovereignty are not necessarily in conflict. The question is which has primacy.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and I believe that the sovereignty of the people should have primacy, so the oath of affirmation and the fundamental loyalty of the Members of the Scottish Parliament should be to the well-being of the Scottish people, from whom they derive whatever authority and responsibility they have.
      I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I am led to believe that they may do so by the answer that the Secretary of State gave me almost a year ago. He said:

      237
      "Even though the hon. Gentleman"—
      he was talking about me—
      "and I may have differences of interpretation, I hope that he will accept that I should be the last to challenge the sovereignty of the people or deny them the right to opt for any solution to the constitutional question that they wish."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 725.]
      That is a solid affirmation in support of the affirmation called for in the amendment.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, West is splendidly consistent and has argued robustly for many years for a particular position on the constitutional question. There are those in his party who tell me that the nearest that he will get to being a Member of the Scottish Parliament is the visitors' gallery. That would be a great pity for that Parliament. I hope that whoever determines such matters in his party will find the wisdom to allow him to stand. Having argued the cause for many years, he has the right to be there. Whatever happens to this splendid, small but critical amendment, we can be certain that he will affirm the values for which he has stood consistently in Scottish politics for many years. Would that others had his consistency of position on the sovereignty of the people of Scotland.
      Mr. Swayne: I have great difficulty even with the language of the amendment. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that the oath was to be voluntary. The amendment says:
      "every member elected to the Scottish Parliament to be requested to make the following affirmation",
      but that is preceded by the phrase,
      "The standing orders shall include a requirement for".
      There is merely a requirement that everyone should be asked to take the oath. However, the phrase that follows the oath reads:
      "and no other affirmation or oath shall be required of members of the Scottish Parliament."
      In other words, that oath is "required". There seems to be a contradiction between the two halves of the amendment.
      It strikes me as extraordinary that an oath should be required to be put to Members of the Scottish Parliament, but that they should not be required to take it. What is the purpose of an oath? It is similar to the purpose of a creed. If one goes to church and says the creed, one expresses one's identity and membership of that institution. If one cannot say the creed, one by definition excludes oneself from the Church.
      8.30 pm
      By specifying an oath for Members of the Scottish Parliament, we are asking them to subscribe to fundamental propositions inherent in the nature of that Parliament. If they cannot do that, they will disqualify themselves, just as hon. Members who refuse to take the oath in the House disqualify themselves from sitting here. They are unable to subscribe to the fundamental consensus that underpins this institution. I fail to see why that should be different in Scotland.
      I will go further. To put a proposition to Members of the Scottish Parliament that is fundamentally different from the one put to hon. Members here would be most
      238
      unsatisfactory. The Bill was put to us on the basis that we would remain a united kingdom. The Bill was supposed to protect the Union. As far as I am concerned, nothing could be more symbolic of the Union than the fact that the two Parliaments would remain united under the Crown, which would be symbolised by having Members of both Parliaments take the same oath.
      Giving Members of the Scottish Parliament a very different oath—whether or not it is voluntary—would be most regrettable, although I fear that it may merely be a recognition of the true state of affairs.
      Mr. Gorrie: The amendment raises two points. One is an issue that affects the House. Perfectly worthy citizens who hold republican views must, in effect, perjure themselves by swearing an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty. That strikes me as extraordinarily demeaning, and we should address it.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should not regard it as demeaning. It is not a religion to swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen; it is simply a recognition that that state of affairs has the broad consent of the population. The hon. Gentleman may wish to change that, but it is the framework within which to seek to pursue change. To swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen is not to declare that one is a royalist.
      Mr. Gorrie: With respect, I think that it is. Compelling people to swear things that they do not believe is not the sort of thing that we should do. It does not affect me, but I feel for those for whom it matters.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Has the hon. Gentleman reflected on why an oath is necessary at all? No elected councillor or Member of the European Parliament swears an oath, yet they seem perfectly capable of carrying out their functions. What difference does it make?
      Mr. Gorrie: I agree. I do not think that an oath is necessary. Either one behaves well, or one does not; no oath will make any difference.
      Some Conservative Members seem to feel that the amendment is an independence amendment. They feel that one can sign the Claim of Right only if one favours independence, but that is not true. The people have sovereign power; even the Conservative party accepts that, and numerous Conservatives have said over the years that if the Scottish people vote for independence, they will have independence. The concept of the sovereignty of the people is accepted, but the Conservatives seem to have extraordinary difficulty with devolution, which seems to be a sort of gastric block somewhere in their tubes. That is their problem, and they must deal with it.
      The Conservatives accept the sovereignty of the people. Those who signed the Claim of Right, and believe in it, feel that the Scottish people have clearly said that they want a Parliament of their own, but in the United Kingdom. If at some future date a majority say that they want an independent Parliament, that will doubtless happen, but for now the Claim of Right seems reasonable.
      Whether the best way in which to proceed is to have a requested oath, I do not know, but the motives behind it are admirable. I do not see why people should have to swear oaths, but if they do, an acknowledgement of the sovereign rights of the Scottish people is a good thing.
      Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Some hon. Members have suggested that the Government might

      239
      consider accepting the amendment. I sincerely hope that they do not, for three good reasons. First, the Government cannot accept, or even consider accepting, the amendment if they insist that their plans for devolution are designed to strengthen, not weaken, the Union.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Laing: I have hardly started, but I will stop and start again.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady may hardly have started, but she has made an important point. Is she aware that Ministers, including the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, have already signed such a declaration, in the Claim of Right? Why on earth should they refuse to accept it in the Bill?
      Mr. Collins: That is their problem.
      Mrs. Laing: That is indeed their problem, but I take the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I believe that it was irresponsible and short-sighted for any hon. Member to sign the so-called Claim of Right—except for members of his party, who really believe in republicanism and a separate Scotland. If, however, the Government insist, as they do, that their plans for devolution are intended to strengthen the Union, they cannot—no matter what they have signed, under whatever misapprehension—accept the amendment.
      Mr. Salmond: Perhaps I can tell the hon. Lady a little bit of history. The Scottish National party did not, in fact, sign the Claim of Right, although we believed in it; the question is whether those who did sign it believed in it.
      Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for enlightening us with that little bit of history, as he called it, but we are discussing the serious matter of what will actually be in the Bill. What may or may not have been signed in the past—and I know that we can go all the way back to the declaration of Arbroath and so on and so forth—is very interesting in its historical context, but it is not relevant to the future of Scotland. We are discussing that future, and what will actually be in the Bill.
      The amendment is ludicrous for three reasons. First, it would be a complete negation of the United Kingdom. I know that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would like that to happen, but I did not know that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) had aligned himself to such an extent with the Scottish National party. That is entirely up to him, of course, and I accept that he believes in his arguments. However, the rest of his party cannot possibly believe in them. Not only is the amendment a negation of the Union; it negates the position of Her Majesty the Queen as the sovereign in whom we, as an elected Parliament, vest our democratic and constitutional rights.
      Mr. Salmond: One last intervention. In her memoirs, "The Downing Street Years", Lady Thatcher said that if the Scottish people were to determine on independence, no English politician, certainly not herself, would gainsay
      240
      that decision. I paraphrase, but is that not an affirmation from the great Lady Thatcher of the right of sovereignty of the Scottish people?
      Mrs. Laing: I appreciate that that is a paraphrase and not exactly what she said, but it is close. I accept that, and, of course, I entirely agree with it. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is not what we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman strays from the point, and I am being too generous in accepting his interventions. Naturally, Lady Thatcher was right. I choose my words carefully. That is why I agree with her and that is why we are not in principle against devolution because it is the will of the Scottish people.
      The first reason why the amendment cannot be accepted is that it negates the sovereignty of Her Majesty the Queen, which we vest in her as an elected parliamentary body.
      Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is making a wonderful speech and demonstrating that there is another Conservative woman who is naturally always right. Will she focus on why it is beneficial to those who believe in democracy to vest sovereignty in the monarch? Dictators across the years, from Hitler to Stalin to Saddam Hussein, have all paid lip service to popular sovereignty. Only by having a sovereign above and outside politics can we ensure that we have smooth-running, democratic politics and no risk of dictatorship.
      Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend is right. It is because of the risk of dictatorship and other forms of republicanism that we are proud of our heritage and our constitution, which has at its head Her Majesty the Queen as the sovereign in Parliament. She is not the sovereign alone, but the sovereign in Parliament in making the laws of our country. My hon. Friend's other remarks are probably the nicest thing that anyone has ever said to me.
      Mr. Salmond: That will not get you anywhere these days.
      Mrs. Laing: That is all I am admitting to anyway.
      Secondly, the amendment is an atheist's charter. I respect the rights of anyone who wishes to be an atheist. It is up to each of us personally whether and how we believe in God, or which god we believe in. However, if the amendment were accepted, Members of the Scottish Parliament would have no choice but to make the affirmation. That is out of character with our democratic system. When Members come to this House, they are given the choice of swearing the oath of allegiance by almighty God or affirming. The amendment would mean that MSPs had no choice.
      When I took the oath of allegiance a year ago, I heard two new lady Members of the Labour party discussing whether to swear or affirm. One said that she would not swear because she did not believe in God, but the other said that she was not sure whether she would affirm or swear. It amazed me that someone could go so far in life as to become an elected Labour Member without knowing whether she believed in God. Presumably, she was waiting for her bleeper to tell her whether she was supposed to swear or affirm. She had been here for three days, but she had to wait for the "voice of Mr. Mandelson".

      241
      Thirdly, some MSPs would not be able to say the words in the amendment. I could not if I became an MSP, not that that is possible because I will not stand. The oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen is what binds the United Kingdom together. Members who support this amendment are merely showing, once and for all, that they are bent on the destruction of the United Kingdom.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. McLeish: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has finished, because, the more I listened to her, the more I might have been tempted to go astray on the amendment. I will resist that temptation.
      We have to return to the pragmatic decision before us on the two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), whose sincerity is never in doubt. I acknowledge the consistency with which he tabled certain amendments. The Government ask the House to resist amendments Nos. 106 and 125.
      Provision has already been made in the Bill for all Members of the Scottish Parliament to take the oath of allegiance provided for by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 or to make the corresponding affirmation. Members of the Executive will also be required to take the official oath under the 1868 Act and the oath of allegiance, where they have not already taken it as MSPs. That is in line with current practice at Westminster and recognises the relationship between the Parliament and Her Majesty, as has been noted in the debate.
      Hon. Members will agree that clause 79 does nothing contentious. It simply makes a similar provision for the taking of the oath for Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive as is required of Members of this House and Ministers, which is entirely appropriate.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister talks about what happens when new Members are elected to the House of Commons. Will he confirm that the practice here whereby the oath can be taken in English, Gaelic or Welsh will be extended to allow the oath to be taken in English or Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament? I was the only Member who took it in Gaelic after the last general election. I hope that the practice will apply to the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. McLeish: That is interesting. We have established a constitutional consultative steering group and done considerable work on identifying virtually every issue that we need to discuss, but I am not sure that that is on the agenda. I assure the hon. Lady that that will happen. We need that consistency. It is a valid point. I will find out whether the point is covered in the deliberations; if it is not, it will be.
      Mr. Dalyell: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend. For clarity's sake, does this not mean, to use his word "simply", that the Government, rightly or wrongly, have recanted on the Claim of Right?
      Mr. McLeish: Not at all. We have had a rich and heady mix of constitutional, governmental and parliamentary theory, but there is no inconsistency about the comments
      242
      of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the sovereignty of the people, to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) alluded. Nor is the signature of the Claim of Right inconsistent with the points that we are making this evening, in the context of Parliament and of taking the oath.
      Hon. Members would no doubt also agree that it is proper that MSPs and members of the Executive take an oath that is symbolic of the relationship between the Parliament, the Executive and Her Majesty.
      Mr. Jenkin: I asked the Minister two specific questions, neither of which he has troubled to answer. First, if it was right to sign the Claim of Right as a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, why is not the Claim of Right the right oath for a Member of the Scottish Parliament? The Minister has not squared that circle. Does he want to deal with that first before I come back on my second point?
      Mr. McLeish indicated dissent.
      Mr. Jenkin: I generally dislike long interventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      My second question refers to clause 79(3), which amendment No. 125 would delete and which states that, if an MSP has not taken the oath
      "within the period of two months beginning with the day on which he was returned, or such longer period … he shall cease to be a member of the Parliament (so that his seat is vacant)."
      Does the Minister understand what a crisis that provision would cause if it applied to this Parliament, with Sinn Fein Members refusing to take the oath and being re-elected again and again on a platform that was designed to undermine the constitution?
      Mr. McLeish: On the second point, we have no difficulties with that whatsoever. That is a pragmatic response to a question that, in our judgment, is not relevant.
      On the question of the Claim of Right, I alluded to that in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). We do not want to indulge in further political and constitutional theory, but I see no inconsistency between the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in response to comments often made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, nor do I see any inconsistency in relation to the constitutional convention. However, we are now dealing with the simple, consistent matter of taking an oath in the new Parliament, and I urge the House to reject the two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West.
      Mr. Canavan: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister is recommending rejection of my amendments, because he and I were original signatories of the Claim of Right back in 1989, at the inaugural meeting of the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the assembly hall of the Church of Scotland in The Mound in Edinburgh. I should have thought that, for reasons of consistency if nothing else, he would support my amendment No. 106. Indeed, the Secretary of State and all the Scottish Office Ministers were co-signatories of the

      243
      Claim of Right and I deliberately worded my amendment so that its wording was exactly the same as that of the declaration that we all signed nine years ago.
      Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps to be consistent with Government policy, MSPs should take both oaths of allegiance—to the Queen and to the Scottish people. I do not suggest that that is Opposition policy, but it might have tempted the Minister, as that appears to be his position.
      Mr. Canavan: Under the terms of my amendment, there would be a choice. I would not exclude people who, because of royalist or Unionist convictions, felt that the Claim of Right stuck in their craw. I cannot understand why it should stick in their craw if they are democrats, but, if it did and they refused to take the oath, I would not be in favour of excluding them. Conservative Members appeared to suggest that the practice in the House somehow gives Members of Parliament a choice, but the only choice is to come up after being elected and either take the oath or take the affirmation. If a Member of Parliament refuses both, he or she is not allowed to take part in the proceedings of the House and I should not like to see that replicated in the Scottish Parliament.
      The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) rightly referred to the possibility of a crisis—not a huge constitutional crisis, but a mini-crisis—if a Member or group of Members duly elected by their constituencies refused to take the oath. Clause 79(3) states that, if an MSP has not taken the oath
      "within the period of two months beginning with the day on which he was returned, or such longer period as the Parliament may have allowed before the end of that period, he shall cease to be a member of the Parliament (so that his seat is vacant)."
      In other words, he or she can then go back to the constituency that elected him or her and seek re-election through a by-election. There could be a whole group of people coming in and out of the Parliament whom the Parliament refused to allow to take their seats because they had not taken the oath. If my amendments were accepted, that would help to avoid such a crisis, so I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex and the rest of the Opposition Front-Bench team will support me.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is coming to the point that crystallises the wisdom of his amendment. Current procedures of the House have led to the state of affairs in which Ministers of the Crown cross their fingers when taking the oath. Under the arrangements in his amendments, it would be left to the Scottish people to decide the fate of anyone who refused to swear allegiance to, or to affirm, the sovereignty of the Scottish people. The hon. Gentleman's solution is a far more democratic solution and is greatly superior to the procedures of the House.
      Mr. Canavan: I agree. The democratic principles enshrined in the Claim of Right would have more universal appeal than the principles, if they can be called principles, in the proposed oath—assuming that the proposed oath is the same as the one that we are required to take when taking our seats in the House. I know some people of a republican persuasion who, when taking the oath or affirming, simply acknowledge that the Queen is the de facto Head of State, but who would like this
      244
      country to have a democratically elected Head of State, rather than a Head of State who has simply inherited that position from her parent.
      Some Members, especially new Members, who do not particularly believe in the monarchy might have some crisis of conscience over taking the oath or affirming. That would be avoided by doing away with the requirement completely. I realise that we are talking not about this place—although I would welcome such a development here as well—but about the Scottish Parliament and people taking their seats there.
      The criticism of my amendment included the point that it posed a threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom—I believe that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that. What is the United Kingdom? Is it, as its name suggests, simply the domain of a monarch? If so, is that really what people are defending when they defend the integrity of the United Kingdom? I should have thought that, if there is an argument for the defence of the United Kingdom, it would be in terms of the bonds of friendship and culture and the social and economic links between the different parts of the United Kingdom. I should not have thought that it was simply a matter of allegiance to the Head of State.
      Mrs. Laing: Is not the sovereign the symbolic point of focus for those ties and friendship? It is a united kingdom, with a sovereign at the top. That is why the oath of allegiance is the one oath that binds every person in the United Kingdom, symbolically, to the sovereign.
      Mr. Canavan: If the hon. Lady is saying that, if what is now called the United Kingdom developed into a republic, its integrity would somehow be demolished, that is rather a weak argument for the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Queen is also head of the Commonwealth, but it contains many countries that are republics and do not have the Queen as their Head of State.
      The hon. Member for North Essex said that the Claim of Right was inherently nationalist. It is not nationalist in a narrow-minded sense. I am sure that most, if not all, of those who subscribe to the Claim of Right for Scotland would also recognise the claim of right of other nations, including those that make up the United Kingdom, particularly Wales and England. There ought to be recognition of other nations' claims of right, as well as of that of the people of Scotland.
      I was disappointed to hear the shadow Minister saying that the Claim of Right is somehow mediaeval. I would say that the sovereignty of monarchs, rather than of the people, is a mediaeval concept. The sovereignty of the people is much more relevant to a modern, egalitarian democracy.
      Amendment negatived.

    Schedule 3

      STANDING ORDERS—FURTHER PROVISION
      9 pm
      Mr. Gorrie: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 57, line 39, after 'sub-committees', insert
      'other than regional committees and regional sub-committees.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 112, in page 57, line 40, at end insert—

      245
      '(2A) The standing orders shall include provision for ensuring that, in appointing members to regional committees and regional sub-committees, regard is to be had to the balance of parties in the Parliament representing that region.'.
      Mr. Gorrie: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Bill would not be misused to prevent the setting up of regional committees that did not fully represent the composition of the Parliament?
      It being four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 23

      POWER TO CALL FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 11, line 7, leave out 'statutory'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 137 to 145, 159, 183 to 186, 259, 262, 263 and 198 to 201.
      Government new clause 19—Agreed re-distribution of transferred functions.
      Government amendments Nos. 204, 205, 207, 215, 218 and 221.
      Mr. McLeish: With the tolerance and forbearance of the House, we shall proceed.
      This is a group of technical amendments to the clauses that are concerned with the transfer of ministerial functions to the Scottish Ministers. It will clarify which functions will transfer down under clause 49. It will clarify the functions that will transfer, including those conferred by prerogative instruments such as royal charters. It will also clarify how the functions of United Kingdom Ministers can be split so as to enable the split functions to transfer under clause 49, and will insert a new clause permitting functions to be transferred from Scottish to United Kingdom Ministers by agreement—for example, in relation to schedule 5—if there is any modification required following discussions. That, in essence, is what new clause 19 seeks to do.
      The intent of the amendments is fairly straightforward, and, with the agreement of the House, I shall go through the details as quickly as I can. I refer first to Government amendments Nos. 139, 159, 183, 198, 259, 204, 205 and 218.
      Government amendment No. 139 modifies clause 49—which is intended to transfer to the Scottish Ministers those ministerial functions that relate to devolved matters—so that it is clear that it transfers functions that are conferred by prerogative instruments, such as royal charters. Government amendments Nos. 159, 183 and 259 make related amendments to clauses 83, 96 and 100. Government amendment No. 198 amends clause 104 so that the appropriate references to the Ministers of the Crown in prerogative instruments shall be read as
      246
      references to the Scottish Ministers. In a sense, it is a tidying-up amendment. Government amendments Nos. 204, 205 and 218 provide a definition of prerogative instrument.
      Government amendments Nos. 138, 140 to 142, 144, 199 to 201 and 215 are centred around Government amendments Nos. 138 and 140 to 142 to clauses 49 and 50. Their essential purpose is to make it clear that executive functions will transfer if it would be within the Parliament's competence to pass laws enabling a Scottish Minister to exercise the relevant function. Government amendments Nos. 144, 199 to 201 and 215 make consequential technical amendments.
      Government amendment No. 143 amends clause 52, which sets out those powers in relation to devolved matters that, despite devolution, are to be exercisable by Ministers of the Crown as well as by the Scottish Ministers. The amendment adds a reference to ministerial powers conferred by Orders in Council implementing United Nations sanctions. That will enable appropriate arrangements to be made for the continuation of licensing of trade in goods and services under such orders.
      In most cases, it would make sense for the United Kingdom Government to continue to administer a unified regime of licensing covering both reserved and devolved matters. This amendment will enable that to happen by agreement. Future sanctions orders are not covered: they can make their own provision as to who exercises any licensing functions. I trust that the House will agree that this amendment is necessary as a practical solution to the continued administration of UN sanctions as part of our international obligations.
      Government amendment No. 137 inserts a definition of "statutory function" into clause 48. Government amendments Nos. 207 and 221 make consequential changes to clauses 111 and 112. Government amendment No. 145 alters clause 59 so that all forms of ministerial function, not just those conferred by statute, can be executively devolved or modified by Orders in Council under that clause.
      That will bring what is possible by executive devolution into line with the intended effect of clause 49 in transferring ministerial functions that relate to devolved matters to the Scottish Ministers. Government amendment No. 129 makes a consequential amendment to clause 23, so that Parliament's power of summons applies in relation to matters that are the subject of non-statutory executively devolved functions as well as statutory ones.
      Government amendments Nos. 184, 185 and 186 are technical amendments to the order-making powers in clause 97. Government amendments Nos. 184 and 185 make it clear that such subordinate legislation under that clause can split ministerial functions so that they are exercisable separately within devolved competence for the purpose of facilitating their transfer to the Scottish Ministers. At present, the clause merely mentions the splitting of functions so that they are separately exercisable in, or as regards, Scotland. Government amendment No. 186 deletes clause 97(3), which would be redundant as a result of the proposed amendments to clause 84.
      New clause 19, together with Government amendments Nos. 262 and 263, enables Her Majesty by Order in Council-subject to affirmative procedure in both Parliaments-to provide for functions exercisable by the

      247
      Scottish Ministers to be exercisable instead by a Minister of the Crown or concurrently with a Minister of the Crown, or by a Minister of the Crown only following consultation or agreement with the Scottish Ministers. The power would ensure that appropriate arrangements could be made for the transfer of functions to the UK Government in consequence of an extension of the list of reserved matters by an Order in Council under clause 29, or of an agreement to vary the functions that were exercisable by the Scottish Ministers under executive devolution.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: With regard to the Order in Council referred to in new clause 19, can the Minister tell the House whether it is to be made by the affirmative or the negative procedure?
      Mr. McLeish: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed my point; perhaps it was not distinct. The Order in Council will be subject to affirmative procedure in both Parliaments.
      Mr. Hogg: In both Parliaments?
      Mr. McLeish: In both Parliaments. We are seeking to improve the Bill by adding these technical amendments, which make the splitting of responsibilities clear. We must do that by agreement. If the power is required, it will be subject to affirmative procedure in both Houses, which is appropriate in the circumstances that I have outlined. It could also be used to enable UK Ministers to exercise certain functions on a UK-wide basis—for example, in the collection of certain statistics.
      These technical amendments are necessary to make adequate provision for the transfer and exercise of executive functions. The Bill is a major constitutional measure, and the amendments are intended to improve it. As a courtesy to hon. Members, I will be happy to furnish them with further details of each of the amendments, if that is required.
      Mr. Heald: In respect of amendment No. 159, which extends the requirements on cross-border public authorities concerning the laying of reports by including bodies that might be required to lay reports before this place under prerogative instrument, would the BBC, as a body under royal charter, be required to lay a report before the Scottish Parliament?
      Mr. McLeish: That particular amendment and clause would not have that effect, but we have arranged that the report of the BBC nationally will be placed before the Scottish Parliament. That has been done by agreement, in the context of the cross-border debates that we have had. That is a reserved function, which is covered by other parts of the Bill.
      Dr. Fox: During our consideration of the Bill, we have often accused various groups of tabling amendments for various reasons, but clearly the Government did not table this group of amendments to try to steal the headlines from the Foreign Secretary. It is not the most politically contentious group of amendments that we have considered.
      I am grateful to the civil servants who spoke to us in advance about the need to table a large number of amendments, but we must ask why there are so many.
      248
      I seek clarification from the Minister on one or two points, so that those mere mortals among us who do not have law degrees and those outside who pay attention to such matters can have the answers in plainer English.
      Amendment No. 138 removes the words
      "in or as regards Scotland"
      and replaces them with the words "within devolved competence". Why has that change been made? What is the difference? Is it simply drafting, or is a different meaning brought in by the change?
      With reference to amendment No. 141, what is the difference between clause 50(2) as it exists in the Bill, and subsections (2)(a) and (b) in the amendment? Again, there seems to be a slight difference that may not be accounted for by drafting.
      Can the Minister tell us what amendment No. 142 means in practice? The words
      "or purporting to be made by a member of the Scottish Executive is to be read, so far as possible, so as to be within the powers conferred by virtue of this Act"
      in clause 50 are to be replaced by the words
      "confirmed or approved, or purporting to be made, confirmed or approved".
      It would be helpful to the House to know what that change means. I have read the amendment four or five times, and I am none the wiser, so I shall be pleased if he can help us.
      On amendment No. 143, the Minister spoke of the need for measures to give effect to Security Council decisions, but how does that square with the reservation for foreign policy in schedule 5? If such a foreign policy decision is entirely reserved to the Westminster Parliament, why is the provision needed? If a particular aspect of foreign policy requires the agreement of the Scottish Parliament, what will happen if the Scottish Parliament does not agree? What will happen to Britain's international obligations?
      The Secretary of State told us, I think on Second Reading, that the reason for reserving foreign affairs to Westminster was that we could not afford a split in the responsibility; we could not afford ever to have a situation where the Scottish Parliament did not want to accept international responsibility. What would happen with regard to a Security Council order? If the Scottish Parliament decides that it does not like what the Westminster Government are going along with in terms of sanctions, would not that be a breach of our international obligations, and is that not incompatible with the worst case scenario that the Secretary of State set out at the beginning of the Bill's passage?
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is being a little ungenerous. He should know that, in this Government, even the Foreign Office does not follow British foreign policy.
      Dr. Fox: I shall not be drawn into the debate on the Foreign Office. It has had enough damage done to it for one day. A little kindness would be in order at this time of the evening.
      How will new clause 19 work? The Minister has outlined to us tonight three mechanisms by which an Order in Council may be made. It may be made

      249
      "by a Minister of the Crown instead of by the member of the Scottish Executive … by a Minister of the Crown concurrently with the member of the Scottish Executive, or … by a Minister of the Crown only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, a member of the Scottish Executive."
      Exactly who will be in charge of initiating which process is taken forward? At what level of Government will that decision be made? That seems crucial in maintaining the political balance between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, and maintaining the authority of Ministers of the Crown in relation to Ministers in the Scottish Executive. If that is not made clear at this point, there is plenty of room for misinterpretation later, for mischief making and for unnecessary tension.
      The Government have tabled new clause 19 as a means of clarifying one or two of the problems which they identified in the drafting of the Bill earlier. But new clause 19, lacking any specific indication of who will initiate the process, who will be responsible for it and who will oversee it, seems to lead toward ever greater confusion.
      The House would be grateful to the Minister if he could give us a far more detailed explanation of exactly how the mechanisms that will bring new clause 19 into play will work in practice. That is not clear from the amendments that have been tabled.
      Mr. Dalyell: At an earlier stage in the Bill, I raised the question of a Scottish Parliament and Lockerbie. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) acidly commented that at last I had found a reason for supporting the Scottish Parliament. With that introduction, I come to amendment No. 143 to clause 52, which states:
      "any Order in Council under section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 (measures to give effect to Security Council decisions)".
      My hon. Friend the Minister may recollect that, the night before he brought in the Bill, there was an Adjournment debate on Lockerbie. I think that he is fully cognisant of the problem, but, in terms of amendment No. 143, would Lockerbie, and all that goes with it, be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament or the Parliament in Edinburgh?
      Mr. Hogg: I want to follow on from the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on new clause 19. In particular, I am concerned with subsection (1)(a). I should be extremely grateful if the Minister could explain a little more clearly how that will work. It at least raises the possibility of a quite serious democratic deficit.
      As I understand new clause 19(1)(a), an Order in Council may provide for a Minister of the Crown to exercise any devolved functions performed by a member of the Scottish Executive. First, will the Order in Council, under the affirmative procedure, be discussed in the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, or in only one Parliament? An Order in Council in respect of a Minister of the Crown should be dealt with only at Westminster, not in the Scottish Parliament. I would welcome clarification of that matter.
      Secondly, and differently, as I understand new clause 19(1)(a), the power under the Order in Council could be general and continuing—not specific to the performance of an individual function, but enabling a Minister of the
      250
      Crown to perform for an extended period the functions usually performed by a member of the Scottish Executive. I would also welcome clarification of that matter.
      Lastly and most seriously, assuming that an Order in Council is made empowering a Minister of the Crown to perform the functions usually performed by a member of the Scottish Executive, the Minister of the Crown would not be accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and could give no account for his or her doings to it. Indeed, it is bizarre to suppose that a Minister of the Crown could give an account in this place, because we are, by reason of other measures, precluded from examining devolved business.
      If a Minister of the Crown were given powers under new clause 19(1)(a) in respect of business usually transacted by members of the Scottish Executive, to whom would he be accountable? Not to the Scottish Parliament, because he would not be available to it. Would he be accountable to us? We will have no authority over what happens in Scotland, however, so I strongly suspect that new clause 19(1)(a) will create a serious democratic deficit. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to tell us.
      Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with new clause 19 first, and try a further explanation. We are devising a structure that will allow Scottish Executive Ministers and Ministers of the Crown at Westminster to deal with devolved and reserved competencies in an orderly fashion. I make that clear to provide context for last question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
      New clause 19 will enable the transfer, with the agreement of both Parliaments, of functions exercisable by Scottish Ministers—
      Mr. Hogg: I referred to new clause 19(1)(a).
      Mr. McLeish: With respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for answers. I intend to give them.
      Mr. Hogg: The Minister is doing his best.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has not given way.
      Mr. Hogg: I think that the Minister was giving way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has not so far given way.
      Mr. McLeish: With the greatest respect, and accepting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's experience in the House, allow me to go through the points he made. I am keen to do so, because he asked a specific question about agreement in both Parliaments. We are talking about functions being handed down—[Interruption.] Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman care to listen?
      We are dealing with a simple process concerning reserved and devolved functions and Orders in Council, on which there must be agreement. Schedule 5 deals with reserved competencies. There can be adjustments, but they must be agreed by both Houses.

      251
      The next issue is where the Order in Council would be dealt with. First, there must be concurrent agreement on an Order in Council straddling reserved and devolved powers. Secondly, some Orders in Council will be dealt with entirely by the Scottish Parliament, because they relate to devolved competencies. Finally, Orders in Council relating to reserved matters are dealt with at Westminster. The position is not as complex as hon. Members are trying to make out. We are trying to give the clauses in the Bill some structure and to refine them so that there is little doubt, confusion and ambiguity about how orders will be dealt with as the process of devolution unfolds.
      Dr. Fox: Subsection (1) of new clause 19 states:
      "Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any functions exercisable by a member of the Scottish Executive to be exercisable—
      (a) by a Minister of the Crown instead of by the member of the Scottish Executive".
      Subsection (2) states that, where an order is made under subsection (1)(a), it may be
      "exercisable by the Minister of the Crown free from any such requirement"
      to consult. How is that different from what my right hon. and learned Friend suggested, which was that the new clause creates a democratic deficit as a means of bypassing the mechanism that the Minister has just outlined?
      Mr. McLeish: There is no case for any democratic deficit. The new clause is intended to help and to simplify the procedures involved.
      Dr. Fox indicated dissent.
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I assure him that that is the purpose of the new clause. We have no intention of bypassing any particular process. The Bill is designed so that the Westminster Government and the Scottish Executive will have simple processes that will be tried and understood. That is essential for devolution to work.
      Mr. Hogg: Let us assume that an Order in Council is made that grants the Minister of the Crown some authority under the Order in Council. Does the Minister concede that the Minister of the Crown cannot be accountable to the Scottish Parliament? To whom is the Minister of the Crown accountable for the exercise of the powers conferred on him under the Order in Council?
      Mr. McLeish: There will be a permanent transfer of Executive powers, and he will be responsible to Westminster. That is the terminology of the Bill, and it is straightforward.
      Mr. Grieve: I appreciate the Minister's comments. Looked at in one way, what he says must be correct. However, in view of the discussion that we have had about the limits on the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland—I assume that he would be exercising these powers—and the ability of the House to question it, if that unlikely turn of events were to happen, would it not be
      252
      impossible under the Standing Orders of the House, as they would then be, for us to question him about these matters?
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman said that the matter could be looked at from another perspective. I am explaining the issue from the perspective of the Bill. There may be a number of ways of looking at it, but this is a simple process. We are not trying to blur accountability: we are trying to make accountability transparent.
      The Westminster Parliament and Westminster Government and the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive will want that transparency. No interest would be served by building into the Bill clauses or amendments that do not have clear demarcations of accountability.
      Amendment No. 143 deals with issues involving United Nations sanctions. The Scottish Parliament will not be responsible for Foreign Office competence, which is a reserved matter. However, it will be involved in the implementation of international obligations, including those under the United Nations Act 1946. The Scottish Parliament would have competence in implementing UN sanctions on goods and services, including agricultural goods and services, and the Bill contains provisions that will enable it to deal with that matter straightforwardly and simply. Clearly, the Scottish Parliament would not have competence in implementing arms sanctions. Legislative competence for foreign affairs lies with Westminster.
      Dr. Fox: Again I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way. How does the example differ from European rules, which are also part of international treaty obligations and on which the Scottish Parliament will have no discretion on implementation?
      Mr. McLeish: We must implement both, because that is part of the arrangement and we have dealt with that issue. The sanctions issue is not unnecessarily complex. As the Bill stands, the implementation of international obligations such as those imposed by UN sanctions would be within legislative competence in so far as they relate to matters that are not reserved. Therefore, in the context of devolved matters, it would be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to set up its own regime for implementing UN sanctions.
      The United Kingdom currently implements UN sanctions by means of Orders in Council that are made by the Queen under the 1946 Act. Under the Bill, the power would not be separately exercisable in or in regard to Scotland, so provisions in such orders covering devolved matters in or in regard to Scotland would not be subject to a procedure at Holyrood. It is made quite clear that important considerations on international obligations have a Scottish Executive dimension that could be utilised if necessary.
      9.30 pm
      Dr. Fox: Am I correct in saying that the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for implementing the Scottish practical side of any UN resolution that is agreed by the United Kingdom? Am I also correct in thinking that if, under new clause 19, the Scottish Parliament, for reasons known to itself, chooses not to implement that

      253
      resolution, it could be implemented by Order in Council by a UK Minister without having to consult a member of the Scottish Executive? Is that a clear representation of the position?
      Mr. McLeish: Yes, but with an addition. Amendment No. 143 adds existing UN sanction orders that have been made under the United Nations Act 1946 to the list of enactments in clause 52, so that UK Ministers can continue to exercise powers under such orders involving the licensing of certain activities on a UK-wide basis, although some of those activities do not relate to reserved matters. The Bill provides that the implementation of international obligations is devolved in relation to devolved matters. That is straightforward.
      Clauses 33 and 54 provide a power of intervention for the UK Government to ensure that such obligations can be met. However, amendment No.143 recognises that it will make some sense for sanctions to be administered on a UK basis, and it allows for that. Hopefully, that helps the process.
      Mr. Dalyell: I asked about Lockerbie.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has not given way.
      Mr. McLeish: As my hon. Friend rose to his feet, I was about to say that I would deal with the matter that he raised.
      The Lockerbie issue was also raised in Committee. The current prosecuting authority functions will transfer from the UK Government to the Scottish Executive. In terms of the Scottish judiciary, the powers of Scottish Law Officers and the Scottish Office will be transferred. My hon. Friend will appreciate, because he has had it from various sources, that the international aspects of the matter will continue to be matters for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In a sense, that is a continuation of the current position, with the addition of the Scottish Parliament.
      The Lord Advocate will retain his responsibilities for criminal prosecutions and death investigations. The Scottish Parliament will have legislative competence on criminal law and investigations, but the UK Government will take the lead in international relations in line with the reservation of that matter in the Bill.
      Mr. Dalyell: The matter is not quite as esoteric as it is made out. It is a practical issue. I listened carefully to the Minister. Two Governments will be responsible, and they may not agree on the question of a trial taking place in a third country. To put it mildly, there will be a difference of opinion. I might welcome that, but it is a problem.
      Mr. McLeish: Again, the first part of my hon. Friend's intervention is correct. We are going to have a Scottish Executive and a Westminster Government, but the current functions that we exercise in Scotland will be transferred. I should like to think that, as part of the discussions that we have had this evening and of the wider agreement, we will continue to work closely. It is devolution of
      254
      responsibility within the UK. It is not creating two separate states, where communication and exchanging information might be that more complex.
      I turn to the points made by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), at the start of the debate. The change is part of a technical change to the definition of the executive competence of Scottish Ministers. Amendment No. 138 makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament could not confer functions that are not exercisable in or as regards Scotland. Clause 49 as amended will ensure that only functions that are transferred could be conferred by an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
      In relation to the further points of clarification required on amendments Nos. 141, 142 and 143, the hon. Member for Woodspring is right in his assertion that those are narrow, technical amendments that do not change the substance of the Bill's previous intent.
      Mr. Hogg: Is the hon. Gentleman giving way, or has he ended his speech?
      Mr. McLeish: I am giving way.
      Mr. Hogg: I am most grateful—otherwise, of course, I could make another speech.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong.
      Mr. Hogg: If I have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not in this debate.
      Mr. Hogg: Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be, in the circumstances.
      Mr. Hogg: I acknowledged it, too.
      There is a point that troubles me about new clause 19. I should like to take the Minister of State back. He has said that a Minister of the Crown can, under an Order in Council, exercise functions of the sort that are normally performed by the Scottish Executive. Where come the funds that underpin the performance of the functions? From what vote will that money come? Will the Minister of the Crown be authorised to spend English money in respect of a Scottish function? What is the authority for that?
      Mr. McLeish: There are two points. Let me reiterate that, if it is an Executive function within the UK Government, the Minister of the Crown is responsible to the UK Government and to Parliament. This is reserved business.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about a Minister of the Crown. To reiterate the point I made, if it is a devolved matter, it is entirely a matter for the Scottish Executive. The question was posed to me: what, then, would the resource element of that function be? Clearly, that would vary, depending on which Government

      255
      function or Department was involved. I have no doubt that that will not provide any extra burden, because we are talking about a process that occurs at present and will continue, but in a different guise with the two Parliaments.
      I have given some clarification. With that, I commend the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 41, in page 11, line 28, leave out from 'functions' to end of line 30 and insert—
      '( ) a judge of any court, or
      ( ) a member of any tribunal which exercises the judicial power of the State, in connection with the discharge by him of his functions as such![Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 24

      WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS: OFFENCES
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 12, line 17, leave out 'without reasonable excuse'.
      No. 43, in page 12, line 19, after 'refuses', insert 'or fails'.
      No. 44, in page 12, line 23, leave out 'without reasonable excuse'.
      No. 45, in page 12, line 26, at end insert—
      ( ) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (d) to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for the refusal or failure.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 28

      LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in page 14, line 6, at end insert
      'or confer or remove functions exercisable otherwise than in or as regards Scotland'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 131, 132, 223 to 229 and 256.
      No. 110, in clause 29, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
      '(3A) If two thirds or more of the members of the Scottish Parliament vote for a motion requesting modification of Schedule 5, such modification shall be considered by a joint committee consisting of members of the Scottish Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom for appropriate action by both Parliaments.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 258, 203, 234 and 243 to 245.
      Mr. Dewar: I approach this group of amendments with some trepidation, as though tiptoeing into a minefield. I realise that there is no more desperate risk and hazard than the ill-informed question of someone who only half understands the matter. Before anyone takes offence, I should say that, in the past 20-odd years, I have been in that position myself so many times that I know to just what extent the occasional potshot can have a remarkable random success. Moreover, I see before me formidable exponents in the art-such as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is an apprentice but learning depressingly fast. There is
      256
      always, of course, the possibility of a very cheerful foray into the wilderness by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). It is quite a characterful cast.
      In the hope of choking enthusiasm, I should say that most of the amendments in this group are extremely technical and totally without political interest—there is a claim. Although the amendments are grouped under the heading "legislative competence", which is immensely tempting, they are not quite as meaty as that sounds. Nevertheless, on the basis that we still have 20 minutes to go in this debate, perhaps I should start by very pedantically and carefully speaking to Government amendment No. 130.
      I should stress—it is important to do so—that the intention of Government amendment No. 130, which will amend clause 28, is to make it outwith the Parliament's competence
      "to confer or remove functions exercisable otherwise than in or as regards Scotland."
      As hon. Members will instantly realise, the amendment ties in with the Bill's general approach to defining devolved executive competence, whereby devolved functions are to be exercisable only in or as regards Scotland. I think that that is all we need say about amendment No. 130.
      Mr. Ancram indicated assent.
      Mr. Dewar: I am glad, and grateful, to see that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) agrees with that.
      We move on to Government amendment Nos. 131, 132, 203, 223 to 227 and 243, which modify the approach taken in schedule 4 to defining the provisions of the Bill itself that are not protected from modification by the Scottish Parliament. The amendments also extend the schedule to protect from modification by the Scottish Parliament the way in which the Human Rights Bill and the European Communities Act 1972 give effect to the key aspects of the European convention on human rights and European Community law in the law of the United Kingdom.
      I should stress that those are technical amendments and do not represent any change of policy. Specifically, they do not affect the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and Ministers to observe and implement EC law in relation to devolved matters. Neither will they affect the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the types of rights and freedoms that are covered by the European convention.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled amendments to the reservation of constitutional matters in schedule 5—which is a matter that we will deal with later, and may give rise to some quite interesting debate. However, again, it is very much a re-arrangement in the interests of clarity rather than a change of direction or of policy. Among other things, the amendments will make it clear that the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is a reserved matter—which is common ground between all hon. Members. Although there are those who wish to change that constitution, I think that they will realise that this Bill is not the vehicle for so doing.
      Mr. Ancram: I hope that I am not pre-empting our debate on the issue, but the Secretary of State mentioned

      257
      the Union of the United Kingdom being a reserved matter. Does that mean that a referendum on the Union also will be a reserved matter and not available to the Scottish Parliament?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Dewar: It is clear that constitutional change—the political bones of the parliamentary system and any alteration to that system—is a reserved matter. That would obviously include any change or any preparations for change. I have made that clear in I do not know how many exchanges with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) over the years. I have always said to him, and he has always accepted, that it seems that the best way for him of trying to progress his cause—the reason for his party's existence being that he wishes to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom—is by persuading the electorate in Scotland that they should vote for such a change. It is clear that he cannot find a vehicle for doing that in the machinery laid down in this legislation.
      Mr. Ancram: I have listened very carefully to the Secretary of State's lengthy explanation. In very simple terms, does that mean that a referendum on Scotland's future in the United Kingdom is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament?
      Mr. Dewar: If one assumes that that is a way of changing the constitution, no, it is not in the power of the Scottish Parliament to change the constitutional arrangements. Scotland will of course have a right to enter into any debate about these matters in the United Kingdom Parliament, and there will be Scottish representatives to do so. That is as it should be. They will be expected to play a very full and proper part in debates in the United Kingdom Parliament on behalf of their constituents.
      Mr. Grieve rose—
      Mr. Salmond rose—
      Mr. Dewar: I will take the intervention of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, the successor to Disraeli.
      Mr. Grieve: In the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I detected a certain tendency to shy away from the specific question. Clearly, a referendum in itself would not be a constitutional change but a mechanism of consultation. Would the holding of a referendum be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament? I think that that is the nub of my right hon. Friend's question.
      Mr. Dewar: A referendum that purported to pave the way for something that was ultra vires is itself ultra vires. That is a view that I take, and one to which I will hold. But, as I said, the sovereignty of the Scottish people, which is often prayed in aid, is still there in the sense that, if they vote for a point of view, for change, and mean that they want that change by their vote, any elected politician in this country must very carefully take that into account. I do not believe that they will vote for that change, or that
      258
      there is enthusiasm or a wish for that change. We shall no doubt argue about, debate and analyse that many, many times.
      Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State will recall among our many exchanges the one on 4 June last year while debating these matters, when he told me in no uncertain terms that the way in which to progress the issue, if I were ever in a position to do so, was to put the question on independence to the Scottish people in a single-question referendum. I take it that he is not retreating from those wise words.
      Mr. Dewar: I am not going to bandy texts. I am always rather touched by the exactitude with which the hon. Gentleman treasures almost every word that I have uttered on this issue, and in the House. I sometimes wonder whether his bedroom walls are papered with such quotations. He will recall that I have consistently argued that the way in which he progresses his cause, to use that term again, is by trying—I believe in vain—to persuade people to vote for candidates who are committed to his point of view. At the moment, he has three colleagues—is that right? It is a modest total.
      Mr. Salmond: Five.
      Mr. Dewar: Oh, five.
      Mr. Salmond: That is worrying.
      Mr. Dewar: If there is anything worrying, it is the ease with which some of us forget some of his colleagues. I accept that it might be my fault. I am not going to pursue that point. In his own political flock, the hon. Gentleman is quite a dominant figure, as has often been said. I accept that he is probably travelling hopefully these days. We shall have to see what the people decide when votes for elected representatives go into ballot boxes. I am sad to see that we have only 12 minutes to go.
      Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend's charm, wit and verbal facility disguise that there has been no answer to a fundamental question. Can the Scottish Parliament of itself initiate a referendum on independence?
      Mr. Dewar: I thought that I had answered that in reply to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, who looked pleased with my answer because he felt that he had pinned me down. I saw him taking his slightly aggressively green biro pen to note my words. I accept that this is a serious matter. It is my view that matters relating to reserved matters are also reserved. It would not be competent for the Scottish Parliament to spend money on such a matter in those circumstances. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan may dispute that, but we can return to this argument on another occasion.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Dewar: No, because I will be criticised for not covering the amendments, and I will be sorry if that happens. If the hon. Gentleman would haud his wheesht, we can come back to the matter.

      259
      Government amendments Nos. 131 and 132 make a technical alteration to the way in which clause 28 introduces schedule 4, which reflects the way in which the schedule has been restructured by the other amendments. Government amendments Nos. 203 and 243 are purely drafting amendments. The amendment to schedule 7 deletes two lines which previously protected certain provisions in the European Communities Act 1972 from the general modifications made by clause 106. Amendment No. 203 re-enacts this as part of clause 106 itself.
      Parliamentary counsel concluded that it is better drafting if the amendment is made by virtue of clause 106 rather than schedule 7. The policy remains unchanged. Why the Parliamentary Counsel came to this conclusion is not entirely clear to me. However, as they are men of skill—whose expertise has been effectively and creditably displayed in the drafting—I am glad to take their advice.
      There are also some technical amendments to the way in which schedule 4 specifies provisions of the Scotland Bill and other enactments modified by it which are or are not protected from further modification by the Scottish Parliament. In particular, Government amendment No. 224 provides that the Scottish Parliament will be able to modify clause 22(7) which specifies the penalty for a breach of subsection (6) of that clause on Members' interests.
      I have no doubt that there will be a good deal of interest—I cannot avoid the word—in Members' interests in the Scottish Parliament, as there has been in this House. It is a matter for increasing study and, sometimes, speculation. The amendments are consistent with the devolution of matters relating to the criminal law.
      Mr. Heald: The Secretary of State referred to amendment No. 223 and, earlier, he said that the Union is a reserved matter. Under "Acts of Union" in schedule 4—if the amendment is agreed to—the passage will read:
      "Articles 4 and 6 of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and of the Union with England Act 1707 shall not be modified so far as they relate to freedom of trade."
      Does that mean that there are aspects of the Acts of Union which may be modified by the Scottish Parliament, and if so, what?
      Mr. Dewar: This is a belt-and-braces provision which means exactly what it says. The amendments to schedule 4 entrench the provisions of the Acts of Union between England and Scotland which relate to freedom of trade. There might be a semi-respectable argument for saying that that is hardly necessary because the matter is reserved, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said. This is not a subject for contention, because there is one thing which unites everyone in the House; whatever final settlement is reached, it is clear that Scotland and England will always need access to each other's markets. Free trade will be a sine qua non. The amendment makes that clear.
      Government amendment No. 227 provides that the Scottish Parliament can modify the Bill's provisions and sets out that Parliament's procedure on subordinate legislation made under the Bill that is subject to procedure in that Parliament. Again, that is consistent—a useful word in this context—with the Parliament having control over its own procedures. As the House will know,
      260
      we intend to be as flexible as possible—and impose as little as possible restrictive legislation—on the Parliament's procedures and internal arrangements. We hope that the Scottish Parliament can, when the time comes, consider in an enlightened and sensible way the evolution of its own procedures. We do not assume that it will follow the procedures of the House of Commons. It may do so, as some of our rules are based on common sense and have evolved over many years, but it may find new approaches and procedures—we want to leave maximum flexibility for that.
      Government amendment No. 227 also clarifies that the amendments made in schedule 7 to enactments within the devolved field that relate to the role of the Advocate General are to be protected from modification. Hon. Members will remember that the Advocate General is a new inhabitant of the Government—he will be the Law Officer responsible for advising the United Kingdom Administration on Scottish law.
      Government amendments Nos. 228 and 229 extend the list of bodies and offices to which the Scottish Parliament can amend references in the Bill. Government amendment No. 234 is a technical amendment to simplify and clarify the provision in part III of schedule 5 that states how references to enactments in the schedule are to be interpreted. Those references are mostly to the subject matter of enactments, and are used as descriptions of reserved matters. As before, they are to be read as references to the enactments as they have effect on D-day—the day when the Parliament assumes its powers. However, for enactments that cease to have effect between enactment of the Scotland Bill and D-day, the references are to be read as references to the enactments as they had effect immediately before that time.
      If I may hurry on, I shall refer the House to Government amendments Nos. 256 and 258. Clause 29 provides for the list of reserved matters in schedule 5 to be varied by Orders in Council, subject to affirmative resolution at both Westminster and Holyrood. The amendments would enable the consequences of such changes to be provided for.
      Government amendment No. 256 and the first part of Government amendment No. 258 transfer the provision that enables a clause 29 order to modify enactments and other documents from clause 29 to clause 100, where such provisions are generally set out. I do not think that I should labour these points. The amendments tidy up the Bill's drafting in what I hope hon. Members will feel are helpful ways.
      Government amendment No. 244 is a purely technical amendment to ensure that references to an Act of Parliament in section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 are read as references to Acts of the Scottish Parliament in appropriate cases. Government amendment No. 245 amends section 3(4) of the European Communities Act 1972, which deals with Community instruments in the custody of a Government Department that may be used as evidence in legal proceedings. That extends the scope of the section to include any part of the Scottish Administration.
      I apologise to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, who I think is preparing to speak, for having left him only two or three minutes in which to make what may be complex points. I thought that it was only polite to try to deal with some of the points that were

      261
      being put to me and—even though it was a rather hurried Cook's tour—to survey the range of amendments in the group.
      Mr. Heald: We are all pleased to recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has made a colourful picture from what might otherwise be dull material. I want first to ask him about schedule 4 as amended. Government amendment No. 223 lists various provisions that may not be modified, including—as it will be—the Scotland Act itself. However, amendment No. 227 states that the Scottish Parliament may modify section 100, under which a Scottish Minister may exercise his powers by statutory instrument, and section 101(3), which provides for the affirmative procedure.
      Is the Secretary of State satisfied that consistency can be achieved between the measures passed here and those passed by the Scottish Parliament? If the documents are not of the same form and character, difficulties may arise.
      Clause 101(5) says that a recommendation for an Order in council for Scotland can be made only after the matter has been through the House on the affirmative resolution procedure. What are the minimum criteria to be applied for such a recommendation to Her Majesty to have proper force and legitimacy? Clearly, we are working on the basis of a set of parameters and safeguards for subordinate legislation, to ensure that we know exactly how the powers are to be exercised. If there are to be modifications, are there any limits within which that is to happen, and does Parliament have any say in how it might be achieved?
      10 pm
      What is the interaction between the European Communities Act 1972 and the Consolidated Fund as regards the Scottish functions referred to in Government amendment No. 203? The Secretary of State may be able to explain why the provisions of clause 106(2) and (3) do not apply; as time is short, a letter would be satisfactory.
      Can the Secretary of State confirm that both Westminster and Edinburgh would have to pass an order under Government amendment No. 258 and that the procedure would always allow for adequate debate on such orders in both legislatures, given that reserved powers are concerned? What is the interaction between the amendment, providing as it will for a two-way street with Orders in Council, and clause 27(7)? Does the power of this Parliament remain undiminished, and if so, how?
      Mr. Dewar: In the very short time available, I cannot properly answer all those questions. The hon. Gentleman will recall that Government amendment No. 227 provides that the Scottish Parliament can modify the Bill's provisions and sets out the procedures in relation to subordinate legislation made under the Bill, which will be subject to the procedures of that Parliament. It is a narrow point. The Bill contains some prescriptive clauses about procedures. If the Scottish Parliament wants to modify
      262
      them, it is important that there should be a way of doing so. It is not a major point that should concern the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Heald: I asked about consistency.
      Mr. Dewar: I am advised that it will be possible to have consistency, and indeed I have used the word several times. The best thing that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am so advised.
      On the consolidated fund and the European Communities Act 1972, I shall unashamedly accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to write to him. Indeed, I shall tell him a secret: I suspect that someone else will have to compose a suitable letter, but—
      It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendments made: No. 131, in page 14, leave out line 7 and insert—
      '(b) it modifies an enactment in breach of the restrictions in Schedule 4'.
      No. 132, in page 14, leave out line 14.—[Mr. Dewar.]

    Schedule 4
      PROVISIONS OF ACT NOT PROTECTED FROM MODIFICATION
      Amendments made: No. 223, in page 58, line 8, leave out from beginning to 'does' and insert—
      PROVISIONS OF ACT NOT PROTECTED FROM MODIFICATION
        'Acts of Union
        1A. Articles 4 and 6 of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and of the Union with England Act 1707 shall not be modified so far as they relate to freedom of trade.

        European Communities Act 1972
        1B.—(1) The following provisions of the European Communities Act 1972 shall not be modified:
        Section 1 and Schedule 1,
        Section 2, other than subsection (2), the words following "such Community obligation" in subsection (3) and the words "subject to Schedule 2 to this Act" in subsection (4),
        Section 3(1) and (2), Section 11(2).
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1), read with section 28(2)(b), is to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the exercise of any function is within or outside devolved competence.

        Human Rights Act 1998
        1C.—

        (1) The Human Rights Act 1998 shall not be modified.

        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to the modification of sections 12 and 20 of that Act, so far as those sections relate to the exercise of a power by a member of the Scottish Executive.

        (3) Sub-paragraph (1), read with section 28(2)(b), is to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the exercise of any function (other than a function of making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation so far as it modifies that Act) is within or outside devolved competence.

        263

        (4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply to the exercise of a function under any of sections 1, 5 and 14 to 17 of that Act.

        This Act
        1D. The provisions of this Act shall not be modified.
        1E. Paragraph 1D'.
        No. 224, in page 58, line 9, after '(6)' insert & 22(7)'.
        No. 225, in page 58, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'does' in line 17 and insert—
        '.—(1) Paragraph 1D'.
        No. 226, in page 58, line 23, leave out 'Section 28(2)(b)' and insert 'Paragraph 1D'.
        No. 227, in page 58, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
        '. Paragraph 1D does not prevent an Act of the Scottish Parliament modifying—

        (a) section 100(1) so far as it relates to the exercise of a power by a member of the Scottish Executive,

        (b) section 101(3), (5)(b) and (8),

        (c) section 102(5) to (7) so far as relating to the Parliament, and

        (d) the reference to instrument in—

        (i) the definition of "subordinate legislation" in section 111(1), and

        (ii) paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 7.

        Enactments modified by this Act
        . The amendments of enactments made by paragraphs 1, 3 and 17 of Schedule 7 shall not be modified so far as relating to the Advocate General.
        . The effect of section 106(3) in relation to any provision of an Act of Parliament relating to judicial salaries shall not be modified.

        Exceptions
        .—(1) This Schedule does not prevent an Act of the Scottish Parliament modifying any reference mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) in any enactment (including this Act)'.
        No. 228, in page 58, line 31, at end insert—
        'the House of Lords'.
        No. 229, in page 58, line 35, at end insert—
        'the Lord President of the Court of Session,
        the Lord Justice Clerk,
        the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court'—.[Mr. Dewar.]

    Clause 29
      RESERVED MATTERS
      Amendment made: No. 256, in page 15, leave out lines 3 and 4.—[Mr. Dewar.]
    Clause 33

      POWERS TO INTERVENE IN CERTAIN CASES
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 16, leave out lines 11 to 34.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 16, line 12, leave out
      '(a) which the Secretary of State'
      and insert
      'which the Secretary of State, having taken legal advice,'.
      264
      No. 6, in page 16, line 13, leave out from 'obligations' to end of line 19.
      Mr. Ancram: It is perhaps surprising that, with only one day to go of the 11 days we will have spent on the Bill, we have finally reached clause 33. When the Bill was published, the clause caused a certain amount of consternation, and almost immediately became known as the governor-general clause, or the veto clause. In a Bill otherwise designed to produce and deliver devolution for Scotland, the clause suddenly appears to create an enormous potential road block. For that reason, it is useful to be able to debate it tonight.
      The rather draconian amendments that I have tabled are intended to carry the debate. They are probing amendments; I do not seek to delete the clause. That said, I hope to press amendment No. 5, as it is useful.
      Given the way in which we have dealt with the delegation of powers from this Parliament to the Scottish Parliament, given all the arguments about sovereignty and the practical restraints on it that might exist in the new set-up, and given the powers that are being transferred to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, it is extraordinary suddenly to come across a clause that appears to place draconian powers in the hands of the Secretary of State. Clause 33(1) states:
      "If a Bill contains provisions—
      (a) which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations … he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent."
      If there were a clear contravention of international obligations, the Bill would not proceed. None of us would cavil at that, because that power must be within the Secretary of State's responsibility and purview.
      Clause 33(1)(b), however, is rather out of tune with the rest of the Bill. It states that if a Bill contains provisions
      "which are within the legislative competence of the Parliament by virtue of subsection (4) — but which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of an enactment as it applies to reserved matters,
      he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent."
      That is very different. The Secretary of State, a politician, will have the power to decide whether in his view—he will have to state reasonable grounds, which I should like to pursue further—the legislation will have an adverse effect on the operation of some Act that applies to a reserved matter. He will effectively have the power to kill an Act of the Scottish Parliament stone dead.
      That power goes beyond the other powers that the legislation places in the hands of the Secretary of State. I would have understood if the Bill had said that the Secretary of State could, for instance, apply to the courts to decide whether a particular piece of legislation from the Scottish Parliament transgressed the interests of an enactment on reserved matters. The Bill does not say that, however; it says that the Secretary of State himself can make that decision.
      The point is worth exploring further. If I read clause 101(6) correctly, the Secretary of State could make an order that would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. There would be parliamentary scrutiny of the order, but it would be by negative resolution, although the

      265
      effect of the order would be to prevent a piece of legislation from the Scottish Parliament from being submitted for Royal Assent.
      Clause 33(2) states:
      "The order must identify the Bill and the provisions in question and state the reasons for making the order."
      Perhaps, if I probe a little, the Secretary of State will provide some reassurance. The Bill says that the Secretary of State can say, "In my view, this piece of legislation will have an adverse effect on a piece of legislation affecting a reserved matter." If, however, he is required to give reasons, or to show that he has been reasonable, what test will he have to meet? I am not an expert on employment law—under which the question of reasonableness is often raised—but I think, and will be corrected if I am wrong, that the person making the judgment must show that there has been a proper inquiry, and that there is evidence on which to base the judgment. In employment cases, where facts will decide the matter, I can see that reasonableness might easily be shown. My difficulty with the clause is that the judgment will often essentially be a political judgment, not one that can simply be based on facts. How is the Secretary of State to set out his reasons, which may be challengeable or unchallengeable, possibly by judicial review? I do not know the answers, for which I look to the Secretary of State, who is seeking advice even as I speak.
      Unless there is some control, we are creating, for a Secretary of State who will have almost no other role left on devolution, a power to bring the actions of the Scottish Parliament to a halt. People may ask why I am worried about that, given my views on devolution and the delegation of powers. It is because the purpose of the Opposition throughout the passage of the Bill has been to try to identify the areas in it that could lead to dramatic confrontation between the Parliament and Government in Edinburgh and the Parliament and Government in London. I can see within this draconian power—were it used in a way that ran counter to the wishes of the Scottish Parliament—the epitome of such a confrontation. What will be the criteria by which the Secretary of State will make the judgment. What will be the restraints on the Secretary of State in making it? In what ways can he be challenged?
      Mr. Browne: The basis on which this power can be used by the Secretary of State is clearly set out in the words that the right hon. Gentleman himself read to us. Under clause 33(1)(b), the Secretary of State must have "reasonable grounds to believe" that a certain state of affairs exists. There is no suggestion that he merely needs to hold a view; he must have reasonable grounds to believe. He must thereafter set out the reasons why he believes that he has reasonable grounds.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is a member of my profession; I should have thought that we should have reasonable grounds to hold a view. There is no identification or definition of what the reasonable grounds are. Such decisions will often be taken on neat little points involving much subjective political judgment. That is when such a provision will lead to confrontation.
      Mr. Hogg: Is there not a further problem? The requirement is not that the Secretary of State believes
      266
      something, merely that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" something. It might be more reasonable to impose on the Secretary of State an obligation actually to believe the state of affairs set out in the statute.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who makes my point with even more force. I do not want take up too much time, because other hon. Members wish to speak. I am trying to provide a reasonable and simple solution. The Secretary of State should not be allowed to make such a judgment on his own because of the difficulties that I have identified: he should be required to take advice. In amendment No. 5, I suggest that the Secretary of State should take legal advice before he reaches a judgment—just as it might have been better had an ability to refer the matter to the courts been created.
      Mr. Wallace: If I recall correctly, on Second Reading I asked the Secretary of State whether any decision under the clause would be judicially reviewable, and he said that it would. Is that not a sufficient safeguard?
      Mr. Ancram: I am not certain from my experience of judicial review that I necessarily regard it as a safeguard. It is a way of achieving a remedy. The Secretary of State laughs, but if the law is to be the protection, the sensible thing would have been to create a power for the Secretary of State to refer the question to the courts in the first place. In the absence of that power, my suggestion that he should be required to take legal advice so that he is acting on more than his own judgment represents a sensible compromise.
      The clause as it stands creates, and places in the hands of the Secretary of State, an enormous power which, if abused—which is my fear—could lead to a massive confrontation between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. I am trying to avoid such a confrontation. That is why I tabled the amendments, and I ask my hon. Friends to support them, particularly amendment No. 5.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Dewar: I shall speak reasonably briefly, because I recognise that many other hon. Members want to speak. I want to put a point of view to the House, as that would inform the debate. This is an important debate and I entirely accept that the clause deserves attention. I have no complaint about what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has said and it is proper that we should probe this question, using as a basis for our debate the rather sweeping, albeit perfectly legitimate, amendments that he has tabled.
      The clause refers to the Secretary of State. I make no complaint, but everyone jumps to the conclusion that that will be the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is not necessarily true; it is any Secretary of State. This is one case where I can say, "Not me, guv." If the decision to proceed to use the machinery was within the remit of the Secretary of State for Social Security, he or she would be the Secretary of State who took the decision and came to the House with the invitation to it to act in the way the clause describes. The matter is subject bound: "Secretary of State" is not a prescriptive description of one member of the Government.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Taking that comment in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman's earlier

      267
      assurance that such decisions, on reasonable grounds, would of course be subject to judicial review, if the Secretary of State was not the Secretary of State for Scotland but another of the Secretaries of State in this Parliament, in which courts would a judicial review take place—the English courts or the Scottish courts?
      Mr. Dewar: That might be a matter of choice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is not really surprising—what a shriek. As I understand it, those decisions would certainly be justiciable in the Scottish courts, but may I return to that point in a minute if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that answer?
      Let me explain what the clause is all about. We have a situation in which there is a division of responsibility as between reserved and devolved powers. If one takes a simplistic view, one might say that the writ of the Scottish Parliament runs in devolved areas and that there will be reserved areas with which the Scottish Parliament cannot meddle and where its writ does not run. That is the general description of the scheme: a division of responsibilities with strength and internal logic. However, the world of politics and of legislation is not as neatly divided as that—there are no exact demarcations or neat barriers that cannot be crossed—so legislation in a devolved area of responsibility will often have implications for reserved areas and reserved functions.
      We had to consider whether we stood pat on the fact that, if there was some effect on a reserved matter, it would not be competent for the Scottish Parliament to continue, or whether we should find some way of building in a safeguard, so that a knock-on effect was not an abuse of process or something that would cause problems in a reserved area. Although I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, the power is not a blocking mechanism. I would rather see it as an enabling mechanism, because if we do not have such a piece of machinery—we can argue about the detail—we will be in great difficulties. The Scottish Parliament might find that its room for action was greatly inhibited because almost any legislation in Scots private law—to which, hon. Members will recall, clause 33(1)(b) refers—would have an impact on reserved powers or reserved responsibilities. Many United Kingdom responsibilities operate, by definition, in Scotland, and would therefore be subject to Scots private law.
      I was not prepared to take the rather narrow view that, if there were a reaction, that legislation would probably be called incompetent or would be open to challenge. We therefore sought a balanced way to ensure that the competence of the Parliament—its range of responsibilities—would be exercisable and at the same time would not give rise to abuse.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Dewar: I will give way in a moment, but this point is important.
      We have struck an important balance in the clause. The Secretary of State will have recourse to the power, but it will be subject to a number of important safeguards. The first is that he or she must believe that there would be an adverse effect on the operation of an enactment as it applied to reserved matters. Secondly, the
      268
      reasonableness test is built in. There is also the important safeguard that if the power is to be used, a majority in this House must be in favour, and that would not be given lightly.
      Mr. Hogg: The Secretary of State has the power to make an order under the clause. It is not absolutely clear that that is an Order in Council subject to resolution in the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred to clause 101, but that seems to apply to delegated legislation, and I am not sure that the order-making power to which the Secretary of State is now referring will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. If it will be, where will the negative resolution be made—in the Scottish Parliament or here? If it will be made in the Scottish Parliament, what will happen if the Parliament decides not to approve the order made by the Secretary of State?
      Mr. Dewar: The order would be made in this House by a Secretary of State. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked a question and is now engaged in gesticulation with his colleagues. That order would be laid in this House and would have to command a majority.
      An important safeguard, which was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), is that the decision would be open to judicial review. In my view, it would be open to judicial review in the Scottish courts. The courts would have to consider the adverse effects of such an order and apply the reasonableness test. If the Secretary of State were acting unreasonably, clearly the action for judicial review would succeed. I am advised—I can go a little further; because of my days 35 years ago of practising law, I am aware—that the test of reasonableness is not unknown in the law of Scotland. Judicial review is an important safeguard in this case.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Let us assume that the Scottish Parliament, for good reasons, after careful debate, decided to pass legislation to make separate arrangements for the trial of those who carried out the Lockerbie bombing, and that the Foreign Secretary took the view that, under clause 33(1)(a), that legislation might be incompatible with an international obligation relating to the United Nations. How would that be resolved? Would we tell the Scottish Parliament that it had no right to determine a legal issue relating to a bombing that took place in Scotland in which people were killed? Would the Foreign Office be able to step in and prevent it from doing so? To avoid conflict, we should say what would happen in such a situation. That is a specific, clear question. Would the Foreign Secretary have the right to step in?
      Mr. Dewar: That comes under clause 33(1)(a). If what is proposed by the Scottish Parliament—or by any Government Department in the United Kingdom—is a clear breach of Britain's international obligations, the Government would have the right to intervene. The House has constantly recognised those special and important circumstances, and my answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes. However, that would occur only if there was a breach—or there was held to be a breach—of Britain's international obligations. We could not allow any part of the Government machine, including the Scottish

      269
      Parliament, to defy a binding international obligation if that breach caused great damage to this country or cost the Government of the United Kingdom substantial financial penalties. We are talking about a very unusual event, and the mechanism takes account of a situation that I do not for a moment envisage occurring. However, it is right that provision should be made.
      I do not know where the Opposition are coming from on this matter—I do not say that in an unfriendly spirit. I stress that the process of government is a process of negotiation and discussion; it is a matter of bilaterals and discussions at an official level. It is ultimately a case of Minister talking to Minister—whether it be the Scottish Executive talking to a United Kingdom Department or United Kingdom Departments talking to each other. All hon. Members are familiar with that process. Common sense dictates, consensus emerges and agreement is reached 999 times out of 1,000.
      Hon. Members must accept that that is the business of politics. I do not know whether the Scottish National party, for example, conducts its affairs on the basis that, if one man says "jump", everyone jumps; or whether sometimes a little discussion and canvassing the merits of a situation lead to a common result. That is certainly what happens in my party; it is what happens in government; and it will certainly happen within the United Kingdom when we have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh assembly and a United Kingdom Administration. We are nearing the end of a very long process of discussion which I suspect, in almost all cases, will ensure that matters are settled properly.
      Mr. Wallace rose—
      Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, but I want to continue. I said a moment ago that I did not know where the Conservatives were coming from, and perhaps they would care to explain it to me. It seems to me that we have a choice: we can say that, if there is any impact for devolved legislation on a reserved responsibility or enactment, that stops the devolved legislation in its tracks, because it has gone outwith its competence, or some formulation of that kind—in which case, the Government would be open to the charge that we were not meeting the prospectus laid down in the White Paper—or we can say that there must be some proper mechanism that recognises that there will be an impact and provides a remedy, if it is thought that that impact will be adverse, damaging and will go too far. On top of that, we could build in the safeguard of judicial review.
      I see this measure not as a blocking mechanism or governor-generalship, but as introducing a sensible element of flexibility that allows expansion and contraction at the edges of the division between the reserved and devolved functions in a way that is ultimately very sensible and makes the system much more workable. It is the old clichéwhich I used in an earlier debate—of whether a glass is half full or half empty. This measure is a means of ensuring that we enable the Scottish Parliament to fulfil its remit. Without a mechanism of this kind, it would be cabin confined and restricted in a way that most people—including certainly all Scottish parties—would consider to be unacceptable.
      Mr. Wallace: It sometimes seems that we are quibbling about affirmative or negative procedure, but as the
      270
      Secretary of State thinks that the situation would arise very rarely, and as it would be an important step for a Secretary of State to take, should not the mechanism be affirmative resolution of both Houses, rather than negative resolution?
      Mr. Dewar: Under clause 101(6), as the right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned—I congratulate him on his energy in pursuing the matter to the end—the negative procedure would be used. If the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) feels that that would not be a sensible procedure, his hon. Friends can no doubt push that at a later stage.
      I believe that that machinery would have to be used only in very exceptional circumstances. I find it almost inconceivable that the negative procedure would not be invoked if the order was as controversial as hon. Members imagine. Subsequently, if there was no satisfaction, the judicial review process could be invoked.
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to speak in due course, and I understand that other hon. Members want to come in. I have tried to put the matter in perspective and I await the response with interest.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State is aware that clause 33, to which the amendments refer, has been dubbed by the Conservative party the "governor general" clause. If that is the Tories' view, most reasonable people would reflect on how much power the clause puts into the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland or any other Secretary of State. We have already had this evening an illustration of how political considerations can prevail on the better judgment of Secretaries of State.
      Earlier, the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested that I papered my bedroom wall with quotations of his statements in this place. I do not paper my bedroom wall with them, but I have them in my speaking notes. The right hon. Gentleman will hear a great deal more of them in the coming weeks and months in Scotland.
      In Hansard on 4 June last year, the Secretary of State said:
      "Although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is in favour of a multi-option referendum as a general principle, when it comes—if it ever does—to the point where he wishes to implement a specific constitutional scheme, he should put that to the people of Scotland in a single-question referendum to get it endorsed."—[Official Report, 4 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 433.]
      On 21 May last year, the Secretary of State said:
      "Even though the hon. Gentleman"—
      that is a reference to me—
      "and I may have differences of interpretation, I hope that he will accept that I should be the last to challenge the sovereignty of the people or to deny them the right to opt for any solution to the constitutional question which they wished. For example, if they want to go for independence, I see no reason why they should not do so. In fact, if they want to, they should. I should be the first to accept that."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 725.]
      Mr. Dewar rose—
      Mr. Salmond: I shall give way to the Secretary of State in a few seconds. I am illustrating how political

      271
      considerations can prevail on the judgment of a Secretary of State, which is highly pertinent to clause 33 and the amendments that we are debating.
      In The Herald in May last year, it was reported that the Secretary of State
      "made it clear that there would be no 'glass ceiling' built in. 'The only way in which we could move to independence would be if people voted for independence. That is clearly their right and I would not wish to deny them that right' he said, ruling out any trick in the White Paper."
      The amendments reflect concerns and considerations about whether a Secretary of State may be moved by political reasons to attempt unduly to restrict the ability of the Scottish Parliament to determine the legislation before it. I submit that we have seen an illustration this evening of how political considerations can prevail to turn a Secretary of State who, last year, put forward a perfect democratic prospectus into a Secretary of State who, this year, dissembled and wriggled when asked clear questions to which he had an affirmative answer last year.
      If the Secretary of State goes to the people of Scotland and says that the Government are forming a Scottish Parliament to allow the people of Scotland to determine their own future, and that the Government have signed a Claim of Right which asserts absolutely the sovereignty of the Scottish people, but also says that there must be a safeguard in Westminster so that any Secretary of State can say, "This far and no further—we do not consider this matter pertinent or within the competence of a Scottish Parliament," he will be extremely fortunate to sustain his current position in the opinion polls—never mind the position that the Labour party previously had.
      The amendments are highly pertinent because they illustrate the difficulties and vulnerabilities of investing in a single person or persons abilities and powers to restrict a democratic Parliament when the Secretary of State, or any Secretary of State, as has been clearly illustrated this evening, can be panicked or influenced by political events into changing from what was a clear democratic position last year to a somewhat muddied position this evening.
      Mr. Dalyell: We are in political fairyland. I have worked with nine Secretaries of State for Scotland; all of them had considerable authority as members of the British Cabinet. Some of them, such as Willie Ross, Jack Maclay, who became Viscount Muirshiel, and, I suspect, my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State, had considerable say in the British Cabinet. The Secretary of State whom we are talking about tonight will be a poor creature after May 1999 whose job will soon evaporate. The Secretary of State for Scotland will have a car, a chauffeur, a salary, he may have a private secretary and he may even have an assistant private secretary, but he will have little else.
      Sooner rather than later, the British Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) or whoever it is, will want to deal, in relation to Scotland, with the First Minister of Holyrood in Edinburgh. That is the natural course of events. I see the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) nodding.
      My right hon. Friend implicitly and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister of State have recognised that because they have decided where the power is. There is no question about it. I state that as a matter of fact. The Secretary of State whom we are discussing will be a
      272
      Minister of no consequence. I predict that, within months, the Secretary of State will find that he does not have a place in the British Cabinet. He will be moved over, because it is natural that the Prime Minister in London will want to have his discussions with the person in control of the spending Departments. Therefore, tonight's discussion is totally unreal.
      During the debates on the Government of Wales Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) often referred to the unbundling of the United Kingdom. It will be an unbundled United Kingdom, and the Secretary of State, whom we are discussing tonight, will have about as much power as Silver Stick in Waiting.
      Mr. Wallace: I agree with what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says about the diminishing powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It has been the Liberal Democrats' policy that he would become unnecessary, but I am not sure how that relates to clause 33 and amendment No. 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I welcome the fact that we have had a debate on that clause because it is an important provision.
      When I first read the clause, I thought that it was the "governor general" clause, as it was described earlier, giving huge powers to the Secretary of State to block legislation of the Scottish Parliament. I think that I am right in saying that such a power existed in the 1978 legislation. Under that legislation, any Act of the Scottish Parliament had to obtain the further approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have moved miles from that.
      It is important to put that point into context, although it is difficult to find examples of what is involved. My understanding is that this is a safeguard in relation to a provision that allows the Scottish Parliament to go beyond what would be the case if we strictly adhered to reserved and devolved powers. It allows the Scottish Parliament to take a step over the threshold into the territory of reserved powers, where it makes practical common sense to do so. The Secretary of State would intervene only if that step were one too far.
      I have tried to think of other examples and, for other reasons, happened to read the House of Commons brief on the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill. It refers to correspondence between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Lord Clinton-Davis, on behalf of the Government, makes it clear that interest and late payment of commercial debt will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, albeit that the legislation before the House will also apply to Scotland. The letter to Lord Fraser states:
      "We see no compelling reason why policy responsibility should be retained by Westminster for late payment legislation, particularly since, as noted above, all other aspects of contract law are to be devolved; hence, this area has not been included in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Bill".
      The Scottish Parliament may amend that Bill, which could have an impact on commercial matters that otherwise would be reserved under head 3 of schedule 5. There would be a lot of sense in that: we would achieve a degree of consistency across a range of interest and late

      273
      payment of debt issues, rather than subject only some contracts to the Bill because they were clearly in devolved areas. Therefore, the provision is welcome.
      Mr. Salmond: I am following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument carefully, but can he explain why clause 33, which authorises the Secretary of State to
      "make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent",
      could be considered to be a permissive clause, as he is arguing?
      Mr. Wallace: If the hon. Gentleman had followed my argument and tried to understand the issue rather than making political points—although he is perfectly entitled to do so—he would have realised that that provision is related to clause 28, which is the permissive part of the Bill. The Scottish Parliament will be able to step into the area of reserved functions, but if it goes too far, an order would have to be—
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: How far would the hon. and learned Gentleman let that go?
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Lady asks how far I would let that go, but the question whether an order applied to reserved matters would have an adverse effect on the operation of an enactment is a matter of judgment. An order must be made subject to approval and subject to judicial review. If the opponents of the provision are proposing that the Scottish Parliament should not have power in any respect to go beyond the threshold between reserved and devolved matters, they will inhibit the Scottish Parliament far more than is allowed under the Bill.
      Mr. Hogg: I shall be brief, although I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has said.
      I understand the Secretary of State's argument that clause 33(1)(b) is enabling. There is truth in that, for the reasons that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and the right hon. Gentleman have outlined, but if I were a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I should be extremely uneasy about the clause in its entirety. One must analyse why.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes passed quickly over clause 33(1)(a), which relates to international obligations. The Secretary of State would have to intervene where an enactment in the Scottish Parliament contravened an international obligation—I understand that—but let us be clear that what is involved is judicial interpretation of whether an enactment in the Scottish Parliament would or would not contravene an international obligation.
      The Bill will give the Secretary of State or his successor—
      Mr. Dewar: The Foreign Secretary.
      Mr. Hogg: The Secretary of State—it might well be the Foreign Secretary—will be given a right to intervene if he
      274
      "has reasonable grounds to believe".
      That is not satisfactory, because the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will not be accountable to the Scottish Parliament; indeed, he is not accountable to this House for the exercise of his power.
      I take the Secretary of State to clause 101(6), which is the order-making power. I have grave doubts about whether the order in clause 33 is covered by clause 101(6). The order-making power under clause 101(6) relates to a statutory instrument containing subordinate legislation. The power of the Secretary of State under clause 33 by order to prohibit an enactment is by no stretch of the imagination subordinate legislation.
      The order power conferred by clause 33 is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, because under clause 101(6), parliamentary scrutiny is confined to delegated legislation. The Secretary of State should think back to new clause 19, which made specific reference to an Order in Council. An Order in Council is different from an order such as we are now contemplating.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Dewar: The objection that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making is not valid, but I take it seriously as it comes from him. The intention is that the order should be covered by clause 33, hence the reference to that clause in clause 101(6), but we shall consider this point if it is troubling the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his generous response. I see the reference to clause 33, but I also see the reference to a statutory instrument containing subordinate legislation. The order power under clause 33 does not include subordinate legislation: it is merely a prohibiting power, which is different in kind.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes is right to emphasise that the power under clause 33(1)(a) or (b) is not subject to any obvious control. If we leave aside the question whether it is a negative resolution, the only other remedy is judicial review. It is not clear which court will have jurisdiction: perhaps the Secretary of State will intervene on that point. He will know that it is not the business of a court on judicial review to consider the merits of the order, but merely to determine whether it is intra vires or whether the Secretary of State is acting unreasonably, which is really the same point.
      Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making important points. The judicial review would be taken in the Court of Session in Scotland. It would be a challenge from Scotland and would be dealt with by the Scottish courts.
      There is an important distinction between the governor generalship powers, as they are sometimes called, under the 1978 legislation and the powers in the Bill. Under the 1978 legislation, the Secretary of State could have intervened on the basis that he did not like the policy that was being followed by the Scottish Parliament. The Bill provides an important qualification. It is no good the Secretary of State pleading that he does not like the policy: it must have an adverse impact on reserved powers. That is a sharp distinction.
      Mr. Hogg: That is a good debating point, but it does not go as far as the Secretary of State thinks it does. Under

      275
      the Bill, the Secretary of State would merely have to show that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that the policy would have an adverse effect. I have never encountered the phrase "adverse effect" in legislation. There is no qualitative assessment of how serious the adverse effect should be. It could be very slight to trigger the power.
      Mr. Salmond: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the permissive aspect lies in clause 28? Clause 33, which empowers the Secretary of State to intervene, cannot be considered a permissive clause.
      Mr. Hogg: I think that the Secretary of State has a good point. He is arguing that a total prohibition on the Scottish Parliament to deal with issues that touch on—I use a loose phrase—reserved matters would be a total barrier. He is enabling the Scottish Parliament to pronounce on reserved matters subject to the right of the Secretary of State to intervene if he thinks fit and to other controls. To that extent he is right to say that it is an enabling power. However, he goes further than he should. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There are many conversations in the Chamber. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with a complicated matter and he should be heard. Anyone who wants to engage in conversation should leave the Chamber.
      Mr. Hogg: The Secretary of State overstates his position by his failure to acknowledge that the exercise of the power is not subject to effective constraints. In that sense, I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
      Mr. Salmond: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if one accepts the basic structure of the legislation, with its reserved and devolved powers, without clause 33 there would be no clause 28? In that sense, it is permissive. Will he comment on the fact that we are debating the adverse effect of an operation on an enactment and not a power?
      Mr. Hogg: On that narrow point, there is nothing between me and the hon. Gentleman. I have said that I agree that, in reality, clause 33 gives an enabling power. However, it is couched in such terms that it will give the Secretary of State unfettered power to intervene.
      Mr. Grieve: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the juxtaposition of clauses 32 and 33? We have been dealing with clause 33, but clause 32 provides specific instances for reference to the Judicial Committee when there is likely to be conflict over competence. Why have clause 33, unless it is to enable action beyond that? I do not understand that.
      Mr. Hogg: I think that the Secretary of State wants to go beyond that for the reasons that he has outlined and for which I have some sympathy. My hon. Friend's point is sound because clause 33(1)(a) deals with international obligations that may contravene an enactment of the Scottish Parliament, and such matters could be put to
      276
      the Judicial Committee. If they were, that would provide some safeguards in the interests of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
      Mr. Salmond: We are debating an amendment that would delete clause 33. Was that amendment moved to enhance or diminish the powers of the Scottish Parliament?
      Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes moved the amendment so that the House could have a clear view of the extent of the powers that are to be conferred on the Secretary of State. There is a respectable case for clause 33(1)(a), but I question whether 33(1)(b) is quite in that category. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Conversations are breaking out again. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking in some sort of upper-class, barrister gabble that no one can follow.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in perfectly good order. I can understand him.
      Mr. Hogg: We have known each other a long time and we have become very familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I am making to the House, although not, I think, to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), is that such powers should be subject to effective constraint. The objection to the clause is that they are not subject to any obvious constraints. That is why I am against the clause.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I have just a few minutes, but I hope that hon. Members will think carefully about a matter on which I feel strongly—that clause 33 is the basis for a Parliament which, I am afraid, will be a rather pathetic Parliament. It will lead to frustration and will be a source of conflict with the United Kingdom Parliament. I shall give an example.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to go wide of the amendment. We are debating the powers of the Secretary of State, not the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has had other opportunities to speak about that.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was coming on to that in my second sentence. The Secretary of State is taking the power—the complete power—basically to overrule laws passed by the Scottish Parliament.
      Imagine just one or two examples of what that will mean. I mention one particular one: the Lockerbie bombing, which has haunted many Members of Parliament and others for a long time. If the Scottish Parliament took the view, because this explosion happened in Scotland and because it felt that the people who had lost their relatives and friends in the bombing deserved to find out the answer, that a special Scottish law should be passed on how the case should be tried—and perhaps even on which procedures should be used—and if the Secretary of State, because of advice from the Foreign Office, said, "That Bill is dead," how would the

      277
      people of Scotland feel? I have spent most of my life in Scotland. I know that nothing would make them feel more sick or miserable than if the English Parliament—as they would call it, although it is a UK Parliament—overturned the views of the people of Scotland on that matter.
      Let us think of another issue on which I know people in Scotland feel strongly, and on which I feel passionately and have a recorded interest. Let us assume that the Scottish Parliament takes a strong opinion on opencast coal.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, the hon. Gentleman must remember that this is a limited debate. I will not allow him to go on to discussions about the Scottish Parliament. With this amendment, we are talking about the powers of the Secretary of State.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      If the Scottish Parliament were to do that, the Secretary of State could step in and say, "That law is dead. That law is finished." Hon. Members should appreciate that, under clause 33, we are basically giving the Secretary of State an unrestricted power simply to walk in and to tell the Scottish Parliament that what it is doing is wrong—because, in his opinion, it conflicts with some international obligation or with some other aspect of Government policy for the UK or for Scotland.
      There is no doubt at all that the wording used causes concern.
      Mr. Dewar: May I in just one sentence say to the hon. Gentleman that he has misunderstood the situation and that the Secretary of State could not do any such thing?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, but the Secretary of State can promote an order, which is put before the House of Commons. That order—it is laid down specifically—can be discussed and Parliament, of course, will decide.
      In this clause, there is the basis for the break-up of Britain. Unless some restriction is placed and unless we have a clear demarcation of the lines of responsibility, whereby the Secretary of State's power is limited or controlled, we are not improving democracy, but paving the way for Britain's break-up.
      Mr. Dewar: Let us take the hon. Gentleman's opencast coal example, because it is interesting. There is no question of the Secretary of State in the UK Government saying, "You cannot pass a law that is properly within the devolved powers, because we do not like it." He could say, of course, that opencast coal was a reserved matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. Without the mechanism I have described, which is in the Bill, the Scottish Parliament might not be able to pass a planning law that had an impact on opencast coal, which is reserved. Therefore, we have to have the enabling flexibility that this mechanism gives.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: That is exactly the point that I am making. I hope that the Secretary of State will think about it because he will have to deal with it. The Bill clearly says that opencast coal is a reserved matter, but there are exceptions to this. Those exceptions could produce
      278
      Scottish law. Having warned him what would happen to the SNP once this came through, I hope that he will think carefully. What if the Scottish Parliament does pass a law and sends it to him, or he is notified of it? What if it is clearly and specifically on planning aspects and, in his opinion, conflicts with Government national policy? There will a row. There will be problems. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate and remember what I have said, because we have had sparrings over many years.
      The Scottish Parliament—the Secretary of State will be the recipient of this—will probably pass a law every six months which, unfortunately, under this clause the Government will have to overturn. Just imagine the consequences if that happens. Having come from Scotland, and knowing the strength of the views of the Scottish people, I am afraid that it will cause great anger and distress. Inevitably, it will lead to break-up, and not to better government.
      The Secretary of State may shake his head and think that I am wrong about that, but we should talk about the matter again in two or three years.
      Mr. Grieve: I should like briefly to pick up on the points that have been made on clause 33. The Secretary of State asked where Conservative Members were coming from. We are trying to improve clause 33. Will the right hon. Gentleman re-examine the clause, which will be considered in the other place? It is odd that there is no mechanism of reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when there is a dispute, and when the Scottish Parliament and Government wish to dispute the competence of the Secretary of State. Such a mechanism would solve many of the problems in clause 33.
      Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are two distinct issues: vires, and a mechanism to deal with knock-on effects on reserved matters, to allow the flexibility that I have mentioned? Those two different issues should not be confused. I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman is confusing them.
      11 pm
      Mr. Ancram: We have had a useful debate on a very important clause. However, we have not clarified the issue—if anything, we have rather muddied the waters, which is a matter for concern. My own view is that the clause still places in the hands of the Secretary of State a draconian power which is inconsistent with the desire of all hon. Members to ensure that the legislation works in a manner that will not cause future conflict between England and Scotland.
      If the Secretary of State is right and the clause is enabling, I am worried, because I can foresee a Scottish Parliament testing the line ever further, to discover how far across the line it can move before it is thought to be acting adversely in reserved matters. I am even more worried by the fact that—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said—it will be not the Secretary of State who will be dealing with those issues, knowing what they are about, but any Secretary of State in the Westminster Government. Clause 33 would cause only conflict between Edinburgh and London, and we have to prevent that from happening.

      279
      Amendment No. 1 was essentially a probing amendment, and I should like to ask leave to withdraw it. However, I should like to press amendment No. 5, which is a useful answer to the specific conundrum with which we have been dealing.
      I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 16, line 12, leave out
      '(a) which the Secretary of State'
      and insert
      'which the Secretary of State, having taken legal advice,'.—[Mr. Ancram.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 296.

      Division No. 273]

      [11.2 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Green, Damian

      Amess, David

      Greenway, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Grieve, Dominic

      Arbuthnot, James

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Baldry, Tony

      Hammond, Philip

      Bercow, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hayes, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Horam, John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brady, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bruce,Ian (S Dorset)

      Burns, Simon

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Butterfill, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Cash, William

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Chope, Christopher

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clappison, James

      Leigh, Edward

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Lidington, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Collins, Tim

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Loughton, Tim

      Cran, James

      Luff, Peter

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Madel, Sir David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Malins, Humfrey

      Duncan, Alan

      Maples, John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Mates, Michael

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Faber, David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fallon, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Norman, Archie

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Page, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger

      Paterson, Owen

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Prior, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Randall, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      280

      Robathan, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Wardle, Charles

      Ruffley, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Wells, Bowen

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Whittingdale, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Spring, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Willetts, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Streeter, Gary

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Woodward, Shaun

      Syms, Robert

      Yeo, Tim

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mr. Stephen Day and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Oliver Heald.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Colman, Tony

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Alexander, Douglas

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Allan, Richard

      Cotter, Brian

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Crausby, David

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cummings, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Barron, Kevin

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Darvill, Keith

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Benton, Joe

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Best, Harold

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Betts, Clive

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dobbin, Jim

      Boateng, Paul

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Borrow, David

      Doran, Frank
      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Drew, David

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Browne, Desmond

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burden, Richard

      Ennis, Jeff

      Burgon, Colin

      Etherington, Bill

      Burstow, Paul

      Fatchett, Derek

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Byers, Stephen

      Fisher, Mark

      Caborn, Richard

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Follett, Barbara

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Casale, Roger

      Galbraith, Sam

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Galloway, George

      Chaytor, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clapham, Michael

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clelland, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clwyd, Ann

      Goggins, Paul

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cohen, Harry

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Coleman, Iain

      Gorrie, Donald

      281

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mandelson, Peter

      Grogan, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hain, Peter

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Meale, Alan

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Michael, Alun

      Hanson, David

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Milburn, Alan

      Healey, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Heppell, John

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hesford, Stephen

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Hill, Keith

      Mudie, George

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoey, Kate

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Oaten, Mark

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hope, Phil

      Olner, Bill

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hurst, Alan

      Pike, Peter L

      Hutton, John

      Pollard, Kerry

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pope, Greg

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Radice, Giles

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Rapson, Syd

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Khabra, Piara S

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kidney, David

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rendel, David

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      Laxton, Bob

      Rowlands, Ted

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruane, Chris

      Levitt, Tom

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Linton, Martin

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sawford, Phil

      Livsey, Richard

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lock, David

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Love, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Singh, Marsha

      McCabe, Steve

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McFall, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

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

      McIsaac, Shona

      Snape, Peter

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      McNamara, Kevin

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      MacShane, Denis

      Spellar, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McWalter, Tony

      Stevenson, George

      282

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Watts, David

      Stringer, Graham

      White, Brian

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Timms, Stephen

      Willis, Phil

      Tipping, Paddy

      Winnick, David

      Todd, Mark

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Touhig, Don

      Wood, Mike

      Truswell, Paul

      Woolas, Phil

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wray, James

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Vaz, Keith

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wallace, James

      Janet Anderson and

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      More than six and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned, pursuant to the Resolution this day.
      Bill, as amended (in the Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  Prostate Cancer Screening
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: I confess at the outset that I am not an expert on prostate cancer, its research, screening or treatment—nor do I have any medical training. I am also pleased to say that I do not have prostate cancer. For this debate, I have consulted widely within the medical profession; I am extremely grateful for the advice and guidance that I have received. I particularly grateful to Dr. James Dobbie, senior clinical research fellow at the university department of surgery at Edinburgh royal infirmary, for the time that he took to explain the issues involved.
  I decided to move outside my field of knowledge because I realised that prostate cancer, its protection and treatment, is a matter of great concern to many of my elderly constituents and to the elderly male population of this country. However, prostate cancer and its associated problems can develop at a relatively early age; as with other cancers, it must be sensible to have periodic checks when young to detect it.
  Nearly everyone to whom I have spoken about the subject knows someone who has been diagnosed as suffering from prostate cancer. It is the third most common cancer death in men—after lung and large bowel cancer—with a mortality rate of about 34 per 100,000 males. Currently, it kills more than 10,000 men a year in this country; by 2015, the figure is predicted to double. It has become a real threat to men's lives, yet many in my constituency believe that it has been largely ignored, whereas medical research on other cancers has been much more generously funded.
  Cynics among us might think that, if the prostate were a female organ, we would be far further advanced in establishing a strategic approach to treatment. As a man, I bow to the dedication with which women campaign vigorously for research into the cancers that affect them, and for the ever-widening screening programmes that are available to them. I suspect that the male of the species is much more reluctant to discuss such intimate matters; many of us believe that our aches and pains will go away if ignored. Sadly, that is not always the case. The Institute of Cancer Research is campaigning to bring men's health issues to light, and to ensure that, where possible, cancers are caught early. I hope that this debate will add weight to that campaign.
  The incidence of prostate cancer increases with age—it is sometimes described as an old man's disease. Only 12 per cent. of clinically apparent cases arise before the age of 65. The prostate is a male sex gland, about the size of a walnut, located below the bladder and in front of the rectum. Symptoms of prostate cancer include difficulties or delays in urinating, urinating more often than usual, pain during urination, a weak stream or blood in the urine, and pain or stiffness in the lower back or hips.
  In contrast to other types of tumour, a unique feature of this cancer is the relatively high incidence of what is known as latent cancer in men over 50. The incidence increases steadily with advancing years, such that more than half of males over 80 have small focal areas of tumour in the prostate.
  284
  Is it any surprise that many of my constituents are fearful for the future, and distressed that so little is apparently being done? They may not appreciate the fact that only in a restricted number of individuals will those small areas of tumour become aggressive and extend outside the gland to cause clinical problems, and ultimately, for some individuals, death.
  The difficulty is that the medical profession cannot predict with any great accuracy which of the small areas of latent tumour, when detected, will in time become aggressive and life-threatening. The on-going clinical debate concerns how one should treat the finding when a doctor discovers evidence of a focus of latent prostate tumour.
  The characteristic features of a prostate tumour and its behaviour are absolutely central to understanding current medical consensus on the issues of the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. As the House will know, there is currently no national screening programme for prostate cancer. In the absence of such a programme, patients diagnosed with the disease have usually sought help from their doctor following the classic symptoms that I described. Their discomfort is such that their condition is often well advanced.
  Most informed opinion is in favour of careful clinical monitoring of the patient, together with regular blood tests for a protein specifically released by the prostate, known as prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, the level of which in the blood rises if the tumour changes from latency to local expansion and spread.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the PSA test is not absolutely reliable—many women with breast cancer also give off PSA—and that we really need a sensitive genetic test, which will probably come from the human genome project, allowing us to determine whether a benign cancer will move into the malignant state? Treatment could then be targeted accurately to the individual.
  Mr. Fraser: I agree entirely. The problem concerns the way in which the research is done and how the gene is to be identified. Currently, there is literally a wait-and-see process, which is unhelpful and desperately upsetting for those who suffer from the cancer.
  The patient and his family suffer considerably, because it is not clear how the cancer is caused and what can be done when it is diagnosed. It has been said that the majority of sufferers die with, and not of, prostate cancer. My concern is that that clichéd prognosis is breeding complacency.
  Jane Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Institute of Cancer Research. Its campaign, designated Everyman, concerns male cancers in general. Early diagnosis is important, but so is early awareness on the part of the patient and his family. It is especially important to be aware that symptoms such as he described will not be attributable simply to old age, but may indicate a disease that can be treated. With early diagnosis, the trauma can be minimised.
  Mr. Fraser: I thank the hon. Lady; I am indeed aware of that, and such awareness is spreading across a wide age group.

  285
  I am concerned that funding for vital research is far too low. Prostate cancer research receives less than £1 million a year, compared with £16 million for breast cancer and £40 million for heart disease. Prostate cancer, however, is the third most common cause of male cancer death. It is predicted that it will overtake both lung and breast cancer, and become the most common cancer in the United Kingdom by 2018.
  One obvious possible reason is the increasing age of the population, but we do not know what causes prostate cancer. We do not know whether diet or the environment are relevant factors. There is evidence that men with brothers or fathers who develop the disease are at a higher risk, and incidence is thus likely to spiral. To address that grim future, the medical profession must now actively seek ways in which to treat the cancer, and to try to reduce the number of deaths from it.
  There are three ways in which the medical profession can do that: prevention, the development of more effective treatment methods, and early detection. Although much work is being done on treatment strategy, only early detection is currently available—but here we return to the problem of predicting the future behaviour of any latent focus of the disease.
  In the past few years, a considerable professional and public debate has developed in the United States. Urologists, oncologists and primary care practitioners—along with health planners, health economists and the lay press—have struggled with the complex issues of early detection and screening. That has given rise to both American and European randomised studies in screening for prostate cancer.
  The aim of a screening programme must be to identify, as early as possible, latent tumours that will become aggressive, and to offer treatment that will increase the quality and length of life. Huge strides in molecular genetics are beginning to offer the prospect of more effective screening and more successful treatment. Surely, however, society cannot wait 10 to 15 years until the unequivocal results of the efficacy of early detection and treatment are provided by several international studies that are currently under way.
  I accept that screening creates its own problems, including the over-detection of cancers that are not necessarily life-threatening; the unknown natural history of the disease in different individuals; the fact that screening is costly—although there is a relatively cheap prostate specific antigen test—the natural anxiety associated with screening tests; and the potential harm involved in investigating healthy men. There are also ethical and legal implications, as well as people's natural concern about their insurance premiums.
  We must remember, however, that screening programmes have been accepted by women, who recognise that there may be something wrong with them and who clearly welcome the fact that they are taking control of the situation. The disadvantages that I have listed are considered to be a price worth paying when they are offset against the advantage of early detection and early treatment.
  Mr. Howard Flight: The health authority in my constituency is phasing out
  286
  screening, on the basis that it is unreliable. I think the gist of what my hon. Friend is saying is that, given the likelihood of detection, phasing out screening is a mistake.
  Mr. Fraser: We are talking about a combination of factors—not just screening, but the research that accompanies it. If screening is not efficient and effective, it can be argued that there is no point in proceeding with such a programme, but if research will lead to better screening, health authorities should take it more seriously.
  If we are to make progress on all fronts, we need vital information that can be gained by screening for prostate cancer.
  For example, does treatment for localised prostatic cancer result in a reduction in morbidity and mortality? Do screening tests identify patients who are curable and need to be cured? What are the best screening tests, and in whom, for whom and how often? Can we afford a national screening programme? That is a major consideration.
  The interim recommendations of the American Urologic Association and the American Cancer Society are:
  "All men over 50 years of age should have an annual rectal examination and Prostatic Specific Antigen blood test performed".
  In this country, the Institute of Cancer Research has expressed grave concern about widespread ignorance among the population about male cancers, including prostatic and testicular cancer. Through its Everyman campaign, as previously mentioned, it is seeking to raise awareness of, and funding for research into, male cancers. I add my voice to that campaign.
  We must work to determine what causes prostate cancer and how to treat it. Then we must establish a national screening programme to give early warning of the disease. Without more funds and a strategic and aggressive research programme, prostate cancer will threaten the lives of increasing numbers of our aging population. We must not allow that to happen.
  11.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The hon. Member for Mid- Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) is to be congratulated on having raised an important and topical matter. The Government certainly recognise that prostate cancer poses a serious threat to men's health: 8,254 men died from it in England in 1996. Although it is encouraging that the overall mortality rate has fallen somewhat over the past five years, prostate cancer remains second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer deaths in men. Unfortunately, as he recognises, there is no clear evidence about its causes. Unlike with lung cancer, where we know that smoking greatly increases the risk, we cannot advise men of ways in which they can reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer.
  Given the circumstances, it is understandable that there should be considerable interest in the prospect of a screening programme similar to the breast and cervical screening programmes to detect prostate cancer at an early stage. It was as a result of, and in response to, those concerns that the Department of Health standing group on health technology made prostate cancer one of its original priority areas for health technology assessment. The Department commissioned two systematic reviews

  287
  of the diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer from the university of Bristol and the Institute of Cancer Research.
  The results of the two reviews were published early last year, and produced a clear recommendation that the current evidence does not support the introduction of a national screening programme for prostate cancer at this time with the available technology. I am well aware that that recommendation came as a disappointment to some, but it is important to understand the reasons for it. The contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) raised some of the difficult and complex issues involved.
  Current evidence suggests that the introduction of a screening programme would result in unnecessary, painful and potentially harmful treatment for many men. The age profile of those experiencing and living with this problem suggests why that might be. Although prostate cancer can be a killer, the evidence suggests that many prostate cancers are slow-growing, and unlikely to cause clinically important symptoms during a man's life, not least when they develop late in life, when other forms of illness responsible for death are more likely to bring about death than the cancer in question. Autopsy studies show that 30 per cent. of men over 50, who had no symptoms of prostate cancer while alive, had histological evidence of prostate cancer at the time of death. That percentage rises to more than 50 per cent. in men over 80 years of age.
  Measurement of serum prostate-specific antigen is the most commonly advocated method of screening for prostate cancer, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North brings his considerable experience to bear on the issues surrounding PSA. After blood tests showing raised PSA levels, men would be asked to undergo transrectal needle biopsy—TRNB—of several segments of the prostate under ultrasound guidance. It is estimated that between two thirds and three quarters of men undergoing TRNB would not have any form of prostate cancer. Studies also suggest that two thirds of the prostate cancers detected by PSA screening would not be clinically significant.
  Detecting a cancer early is of little value if patients cannot be offered effective treatment. Unfortunately, there is currently no medical consensus about the best way to treat prostate cancer. The most common policy in the UK is "watchful waiting", which may be accompanied by regular PSA testing or physical examinations.
  Radiotherapy is one alternative to watchful waiting. Unfortunately, that treatment may have serious side-effects: damage to adjacent organs such as the gastro-intestinal tract and bladder occurs in 36 per cent. of patients and impotence occurs in 40 per cent. Radical prostatectomy, entailing the removal of the entire prostate, is a common first-line treatment in the USA, and is increasingly used in the UK as well. Again, that treatment entails substantial risks to the patient, including incontinence or impotence. Currently available research indicates that survival with watchful waiting, radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy is relatively high, and does not suggest any significant difference in mortality between the three methods.
  To sum up, there is no reliable evidence to determine whether early detection and treatment of prostate cancer improves survival. The considerable uncertainty about the
  288
  natural history of prostate cancer, the accuracy of screening tests and the best form of treatment all hamper our ability to make an accurate assessment of the costs and benefits of any screening programme. No one can deny that annual PSA testing will detect a number of clinically important cancers. The health technology reviews suggest, however, that annual testing would also lead to unnecessary anxiety and discomfort for many men, and the possibility of potentially harmful and costly treatment bringing uncertain benefits.
  It is ethical to offer someone a screening test only when it is likely to do more good than harm. Ethical considerations undoubtedly affect judgment as to whether screening is the best way forward. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) spoke of the judgment made by his health authority on that question.
  Given the lack of evidence of benefit and the possibility of harm, the reviews concluded that a national prostate screening programme simply could not be justified. It was on the basis of those studies that the national screening committee recommended that there was no case for a national prostate screening programme. That recommendation was accepted by Ministers, and EL(97)12, issued in June of last year, advised health authorities that prostate cancer screening should not be routinely offered to patients.
  This debate gives us an opportunity to look briefly at what the future might hold, because there is undoubtedly a need for further research into prostate cancer. The Government welcome initiatives such as the Everyman campaign launched by the Institute of Cancer Research last year, seeking to raise awareness of male cancers as well as funds for research. There is much that we can learn from campaigns spearheaded in respect of cancers suffered by women, just as there is much that we can learn from women about the importance of self-examination, and of men being less hung up about discussing our bodies, either with each other or with our GPs. We men understand the problems we experience on that. We have to learn to overcome our natural reticence, in the interests of our health.
  The Government are aware of the work of the Prostate Cancer Charity and the Prostate Research Campaign UK. We want to work constructively with the voluntary sector to find the best way to tackle prostate cancer. Several journals, organisations and programme makers also contribute to raising men's awareness of the importance of taking action to assist in the early diagnosis of the condition.
  Prostate cancer remains a priority in the Department's health technology assessment programme. Five proposals for a trial of treatments for the spectrum of prostate cancers likely to be identified by a screening programme are being considered. The average cost of the proposals is £2.5 million. A funding decision is expected next month.
  That will be a significant Government investment in prostate cancer research, giving us a greater understanding of the disease and possible methods of treatment. That knowledge should enable us to make progress in tackling the condition. Although no change in the policy on screening is envisaged in the near future, the national screening committee will continue to keep the issue under review in the light of any new evidence that emerges. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has said, it is important to keep research under review.

  289
  The Government are committed to seeking to provide equal access to high-quality health services. We are giving particular priority to improved cancer services, including those for prostate cancer. We have fully endorsed the recommendations of the Calman/Hine report, "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services".
  The report recommended improved organisation and delivery of cancer services through the development of a skilled, multi-disciplinary work force, better co-ordination between primary, secondary, tertiary and the voluntary sectors, and a greater involvement of patients in care and prevention through improved public education, information and counselling. That is already happening in many hospitals and centres of excellence, from district general hospitals to the great teaching hospitals. The Central Middlesex hospital in my constituency is doing important work.
  A great deal of work is under way in the NHS to implement the Calman/Hine recommendations. We shall continue to work on identifying units and centres where, with local agreement, we can ensure that specific cancers are treated at hospitals where particular expertise is being developed. In many regions, that has involved site visits by multi-disciplinary teams to assess cancer provision against agreed standards, to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to agree a time scale for change and improvement.
  In the White Paper "The New NHS", we have set targets for urgent referrals to cancer specialists to catch the problem as early as possible. Everyone with suspected
  290
  cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their general practitioner deciding that they need to be seen urgently and requesting an appointment. We shall guarantee those arrangements for everyone with suspected breast cancer by April 1999, and for all other cases of suspected cancer by 2000. The initiative will benefit all cancer patients, including those with prostate cancer.
  I am confident that last year's decision not to introduce prostate cancer screening was correct. The decision was taken responsibly in the light of all the available evidence and after carefully weighing up the potential benefits, the possible harm and the uncertainty surrounding many of the important questions.
  Tonight's short debate has enabled us to consider several issues across the Chamber and for the benefit of a wider audience concerned about the problem. I assure the House that we shall continue to keep the issues under urgent review, taking forward the cause of research. We cannot allow complacency or indifference to creep into our consideration of the issues. Men are challenged to take seriously issues concerning their own health. We look forward to working with the voluntary sector and all those concerned about improvements in men's health.
  I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole for enabling the House to debate the issue. We shall continue research in the area. We look forward to a satisfactory conclusion of that work, and an amelioration of the suffering that prostate cancer causes.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in relation to the Review of Trust Ports in Northern Ireland announced on 26 August 1997; and if she will make a statement. [41803]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Review of Trust Ports in Northern Ireland which I announced last year has now been concluded. In general, the review findings serve to reinforce the strategic importance of the commercial Trusts Ports in relation to the Northern Ireland economy. However the review has identified the need to broaden and extend the powers of the commercial Trust Ports and to ease the financial controls under which they currently operate, to enable them to meet the challenges of the future. Further detailed consideration will now be given to these recommendations with a view to bringing forward suitable legislation at the earliest opportunity.

  During the course of the review, Belfast Harbour Commissioners submitted to the Department of the Environment (NI) a proposal for the future development of the Port of Belfast. This followed careful consideration by the Commissioners of a range of possible future options. BHC's preferred option envisaged the transfer of the Port to the private sector by means of a placed flotation and the establishment of a public/private partnership, through the retention by the Government of a golden share in the successor company.

  The Harbour Commissioners consider that such a change to the status of the port is necessary to assure its long-term viability and competitive position, and offers the benefit of enabling the successor company to raise private equity and debt to finance its future development. The golden share arrangement is intended to ensure that the wider interests of the Northern Ireland economy are safeguarded.

  The Department accepts that transfer of the port to the private sector and the establishment of a public/private partnership, as outlined in BHC's proposal, represents the best option for the future and will enable the port to realise its full commercial potential. Accordingly the Department has today conveyed to BHC its agreement, in principle, to the proposal (subject to certain conditions) and invited the Commissioners to further develop the proposal with a view to bringing forward a Scheme for the Department's detailed consideration. Under the Ports (NI) Order 1994, any such Scheme will be subject to public consultation.

  There are no plans to change the current status of any other Trust Ports in Northern Ireland. However, following the review, in addition to widening the powers and easing the financial controls on the other commercial Trust ports,
  58
  further consideration will now be given to improving their accountability by increasing District Council representation on the boards.

  Crime and Disorder Legislation
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to introduce legislation for Northern Ireland containing provisions similar to those of the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords]. [40635]

  Mr. Ingram
  Different local administrative and legislative arrangements limit the applicability of much of the Crime and Disorder Bill to Northern Ireland. However, a small number of provisions will be introduced to Northern Ireland by means of a negative resolution clause in the Bill. These are the sex offender order, the drug treatment and testing order, TV links for pre-trial hearings, the abolition of doli incapax and powers for youth courts to deal with unrelated charges. In addition, should Parliament decide to retain the clause, introduced in the House of Lords, which abolishes the death penalty in respect of treason and piracy, then the relevant legislation in respect of Northern Ireland will be repealed by the Bill.

  The potential impact of the remaining provisions will be assessed, taking account of experience in England and Wales, in order to determine whether similar measures should be incorporated in future Northern Ireland legislation.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what proportion of her Department's appointees to non-departmental public bodies are (i) aged under 25, (ii) aged 25 to 30 and (iii) aged 31 to 35 years. [40734]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is not available. Dates of birth of appointees were not recorded before 1 July 1996, the date on which the Guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments took effect. Details covering the period 1996–97 are available in the Secretary of State's First Annual Report on Public Appointments, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Government are committed to encouraging a wide range of candidates, including young people, to apply for positions on public bodies. This includes encouraging more young people to put themselves forward as potential candidates for public appointments. All appointments are made on merit, and candidates must demonstrate that they have the necessary skills and experience to match the needs of the public body on which they wish to serve.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits to each district council area by potential inward investors were arranged by the Industrial Development Board between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [40927]
  59
  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:

  Visits to district council areas by potential investors 1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  District council

  Number of visits

  Antrim

  21

  Ards

  1

  Armagh

  2

  Ballymena

  5

  Ballymoney

  2

  Banbridge

  1

  Belfast

  82

  Carrickfergus

  15

  Castlereagh

  2

  Coleraine

  7

  Cookstown

  9

  Craigavon

  16

  Derry

  14

  Down

  3

  Dungannon

  3

  Fermanagh

  5

  Larne

  9

  Limavady

  2

  Lisburn

  23

  Magherafelt

  1

  Moyle

  0

  Newry & Mourne

  5

  Newtownabbey

  19

  North Down

  4

  Omagh

  5

  Strabane

  2

  Total

  258

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many grants have been made from the National Lottery(a) to encourage walking and footpath development and restoration and (b) to increase access to the countryside. [40431]

  Mr. Banks
  The Lottery distributors estimate they have awarded some £440 million to projects designed to encourage walking, footpath development and restoration, and access to the countryside. The distributors do not however record these awards separately. Details are set out in the table:

  Distributor

  Number of awards

  Value of awards (£)

  Arts Council for England1

  0

  0

  English Sports Council

  389

  51,593,435

  Scottish Arts Council

  0

  0

  Scottish Sports Council

  27

  1,954,154

  Arts Council for Wales

  0

  0

  Sports Council for Wales

  5

  159,327

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  356

  153,679,679

  Millennium Commission

  33

  232,991,684

  National Lottery Charities Board

  12

  554,215

  Total

  822

  440,932,494

  1 ACE has made some 375 capital grants totalling £370 million to rural projects. Some of these will cover the areas specified but they cannot be precisely identified.

  Football (Racism)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what response he has made to the Football Task Force report into racism in football. [41866]

  Mr. Banks
  I welcome and fully support the practical recommendations made in the Task Force's report, which I believe can make a significant contribution to eliminating racism within the game. I have written today to the bodies identified in the report, asking them how they intend to take the measures relevant to them forward, and seeking a clear timetable for action.

  There are two specific recommendations that fall to Government: that the Football Offences Act 1991 should be amended to make racist abuse by individual spectators an offence; and that schoolchildren should have access to playing fields on a regular basis.

  The Government will be amending the Football Offences Act 1991 as soon as legislative priorities allow. There is no suitable legislative opportunity available at this time. In the meantime, the Home Office has written to all chief police officers in England and Wales reminding them of existing powers under the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress to the person to whom such words or behaviour are directed.

  The Government recognise that schoolchildren should have access to playing fields to enable them to participate in a range of sports. We recently announced how we will protect existing playing fields needed by schools and communities through new legislation requiring schools to seek consent for the sale of playing fields and by tightening planning controls.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing (Disabled Access)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require local authorities to build new housing which is funded by capital receipts to those standards for accessibility which are proposed to be included in an extension of Part M of the building regulations. [40336]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We announced on 9 March 1998,Official Report, columns 12–13, that Part M of the Building Regulations would be extended to include new dwellings. Part M will cover all new dwellings, including those built as a result of the additional resources released under the Capital Receipts Initiative. Amendment Regulations will be laid later this year and will come into force 12 months after publication.

  New housing built by Registered Social Landlords has to meet standards prescribed by the Housing Corporation which already covers most of the requirements of Part M.

  Diving
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will re-activate the Newcastle diving registry records as a basis for a comprehensive database of divers. [41128]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive has no plans to re-activate the Newcastle diving registry, but is investigating whether the information collected in the registry can provide information which could be useful in the proposed research project into the long-term health effects associated with diving.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action was taken by the Health and Safety Executive in response to the Offshore Technology report, OTO 94 009 Neurological and Cerebrovascular Abnormalities in Divers, issued in August 1994, in respect of its findings relating to damage caused to the central nervous system by diving. [41127]

  Angela Eagle
  In my written reply, given on 22 January 1998,Official Report, columns 614–15, to one of the hon. Friend's earlier questions, I explained that HSE was commissioning research into the long-term health effects associated with diving. This was, partly, in response to the report referred to.

  The initial advertisement and tendering exercise for this research project was not concluded successfully and so the scope of the project is being reconsidered with a view to readvertising it.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many professional divers he estimates there were in each year since 1979; and how many have had their medical certificates revoked or not reissued due to medical conditions directly attributable to diving. [41130]

  Angela Eagle
  The best estimates of the numbers of active professional divers in Great Britain come from the numbers of medical examinations notified to the Health and Safety Executive by approved medical examiners of divers under the Diving Operations at Work Regulations 1981 and the Diving at Work Regulations 1997. These figures are readily available only from 1989 and are shown in the table. Information for the period between 1985 and 1989 could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  The medical condition causing divers to fail their medicals is reported to the Health and Safety Executive, but not the cause of that condition. The conditions are often those prevalent in the general population, for example hypertension, which may, or may not, be attributable to diving. It is not, therefore, possible to state which of the failures were the result of conditions caused by diving. The numbers of divers failing their medicals from 1989 is shown in the table.

  Since 1995, only one medical certificate has been revoked. The diver concerned had a serious medical condition, unrelated to diving, which was not disclosed to the examining doctor. This condition put the diver at a
  62
  serious risk. Information on other revocations is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  Year

  Medicals

  Failures

  1989–90

  3,943

  30

  1990–91

  4,746

  33

  1991–92

  4,749

  60

  1992–93

  5,054

  43

  1993–94

  4,984

  78

  1994–95

  4,911

  23

  1995–96

  4,867

  54

  1996–97

  4,780

  34

  1997–98

  4,889

  36

  Pipelines
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the development of pipelines for the movement of fluids and freight in the United Kingdom. [41102]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are a number of pipeline networks in the UK for the transport of gases and liquids such as oil and water. I am not aware of any major movements of freight by pipeline, but if my hon. Friend has a particular issue in mind, perhaps she could write to me.

  Wildlife Sites
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he plans to take to protect wildlife sites affected by abstraction and sewage effluent. [41201]

  Angela Eagle
  After consulting interested parties, my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales will publish in July their guidance to the Director General of Water Services on the environmental obligations which they will expect the water companies to meet during the period covered by the Director's current water price review—that is, the years 2000 to 2005.

  Roads (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the effect on Warrington's economic development of(a) building and (b) not building a new Junction 8 on the M62. [40897]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 7 May 1998]This scheme is being considered as part of the Government's strategic Roads Review. The economic impact of the scheme is being assessed as part of the new appraisal technique that has been developed as part of that Roads Review.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the level of traffic-related pollutants on the A49 in Warrington over the next five years(a) if a new Junction 8 is built on the M62 and (b) if no new junction is constructed; [40896]
  63
  (2) what estimate he has made of traffic flows on the A49 in Warrington over the next five years (a) if a new Junction 8 is built on the M62 and (b) if no new junction is constructed. [40898]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 7 May 1998]I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Helen Jones, dated 12 May 1998:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the effects of the proposed new Junction 8 on the M62 on the traffic flows and related pollutants on the A49 in Warrington. The proposal for a new junction is linked with that to widen the M62 between Junctions 8 to 9 and all the information given in this reply assumes that the full scheme is implemented.
  We have carried out air quality assessments at two locations adjacent to the A49 in Warrington: Winwick Link junction, north of M62, and Forton Leisure Centre, south of the motorway.
  At the northern location, traffic related pollutant concentrations are currently well within air quality standards and will remain so by the year 2003, with or without the construction of M62 New Junction 8.
  Concentrations of particulates south of the motorway are within air quality standards but, because of the large volume of traffic on the A49, standards for carbon monoxide, benzene and oxides of nitrogen are already exceeded. However, by the year 2003, tighter emission controls which have already been introduced on new vehicles are expected to bring about an improvement, and traffic relief from the introduction of the new junction would mean that levels of all pollutants would be significantly lower than would otherwise be the case. Oxides of nitrogen are, however, still expected to exceed current standards with or without scheme.
  Taking the busiest peak hour, and assuming high growth in order to present a worst case, the estimated traffic flows on the A49 in Warrington are:
  On the A49 at Winwick Link, north of M62 Junction 9:
  2381 vehicles/hour in 1998

  (a) 2436 vehicles/hour in 2003 if Junction 8 is built

  (b) 2534 vehicles/hour in 2003 if Junction 8 is not built

  On the A49 Winwick Road, south of M62 Junction 9:
  4645 vehicles/hour in 1998

  (a) 3785 vehicles/hour in 2003 if Junction 8 is built

  (b) 4793 vehicles/hour in 2003 if Junction 8 is not built

  In the light of recent traffic surveys we are reviewing these forecasts for the forthcoming Public Inquiry into the Junction 8 proposals but we do not expect the level of traffic relief offered by the new junction to change significantly.

  Electoral Arrangements (North Somerset)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to give effect to the Local Government Commission's recommendations for electoral arrangements in North Somerset. [41527]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are currently considering the representations which we have received on the Commission's recommendations, and intend to announce our preliminary response to those recommendations as soon as practicable.

  Freight Transport
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy towards the levels of freight transported internationally. [41457]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  International freight movements are a reflection of economic activity. While growth in this area is evidence of a healthy economy, such traffic should take place efficiently and with regard to its environmental impact.

  Bangladeshi-registered Airlines
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list air services operated by Bangladeshi-registered airlines operating to or from the United Kingdom. [41557]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Biman Bangladesh Airlines is the Bangladeshi-registered airline designated to operate scheduled services to and from the UK. It currently operates five passenger services per week between Dhaka and London Heathrow using DC-10 aircraft.

  In addition, any airline registered in Bangladesh may apply to the Department for permission to operate ad-hoc charter services.

  Cycle Routes
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of cycle way have been introduced since May 1997; and what(a) encouragement and (b) support is given to local authorities to introduce cycle ways. [41589]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information about the lengths of cycle tracks or cycle routes provided in local authority areas in England is not held centrally. We encourage all local authorities to respond to the National Cycling Strategy by establishing local cycling strategies, and by setting local targets for increases in cycle use. We support local authorities efforts with funding from the annual local transport budget, based on their Transport Policies and Programme submissions. This year, over 70 package bids are being supported, all containing cycling measures. We also provide technical support through an extensive range of Traffic Advisory Leaflets and other publications on cycling, and in response to day-to-day inquiries.

  Housing (Disabled Conversions)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total level of grants made to convert housing to enable people with spinal cord injury to live in their own homes; and how many properties were converted in each year since 1990–91. [40865]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on the level of disabled facilities grants given to those suffering from spinal cord injuries, and the number of homes converted, is not collected by the Department. However, research published by the Department in 1996 estimates that in 1993–94, such grants were given to 1,141 people with spinal problems.

  Roads (Litter Clearance)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which body is responsible under section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for the clearance of litter in Cambridgeshire on(a) the M11, (b) the All, (c) the A 1 4 and (d) the A10. [41604]

  Angela Eagle
  Under Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Highways Agency are responsible for the clearance of litter on the M11. Responsibility for litter clearance on the All, A14 and A10 falls to the relevant district councils along those routes.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications were made under section 91 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for the issue of litter abatement orders in(a) Cambridgeshire, (b) the Eastern Region and (c) England in the last year for which figures are available; and how many orders were made in each case. [41605]

  Angela Eagle
  These figures have not been collected centrally. However, the Tidy Britain Group will be requesting information on applications for litter abatement orders and the number that are issued when they carry out their local authority enforcement survey later this year.

  Lifebelts
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to standardise the lifebelt regulations for inshore fishing boats which also operate as pleasure boats. [41606]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Inshore fishing boats which also operate as boats used commercially for sport or pleasure must comply with safety requirements depending on the distance they operate from a safe haven.

  Boats operating more than 3 miles out to sea or more than 15 miles from a nominated departure point must comply with a Code of Practice—The Safety of Small Commercial Motor Vessels, which sets out the standard safety requirements including those relating to the carriage of life jackets and lifebuoys.

  Boats operating less than 3 miles out to sea and less than 15 miles from a nominated departure point must comply with safety requirements laid down by local authorities. A draft safety code which will standardise safety requirements for these vessels has been developed, and Ministers have agreed that public consultation on this code may take place.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the HSE Working Party on Freedom of Information Memorandum on Persistent Inquirers for Information, Special Monitoring, dated 18 December 1997. [41601]

  Angela Eagle
  I have placed a copy of the memorandum in the library, anonymised to protect personal privacy. The purpose of the memorandum is to 66
  ensure that the named inquirers get all the information to which they are entitled in a consistent, fully explained and usable form.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future financial support from his Department for disabled persons and disability groups through the Access Committee for England. [40558]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The question is taken to refer to funding for the Access Committee for England (ACE), for which this Department's involvement has always been peripheral, confined normally to occasional research projects. In the event of the Department inviting ACE to bid, in accordance with the Department's specification, for any future project requirements, a bid from ACE would be considered on its merits alongside other bids invited for that work.

  Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the Government's proposals for implementing the requirements of the amended Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (97/11/EC); and if he will make a statement. [41888]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following an initial consultation last Summer, a second consultation paper on the implementation of the amended EIA Directive was issued on 19 December 1997. It set out our detailed proposals for refining the way in which the need for EIA is determined in the UK. To date, 195 responses have been received from business, government and environmental organisations across the UK, as well as members of the public. In addition, one response was submitted on a confidential basis. A list of responses received has been placed in the Library of the House. Copies of the responses themselves have been placed in my Department's library.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he has set for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. [41925]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following key targets have been set for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). The targets are set out in MCA's Business Plan, copies of which will be placed in the Library.ensure that at least 60 per cent. of operators and crew of UK registered fishing vessels are aware of the safety standards promulgated by MCA.
  follow up at least 95 per cent. of significant breaches of safety and environmental aspects of Merchant Shipping legislation to determine whether prosecution is appropriate.
  decide on the search and rescue (S AR) response to accidents and life-threatening situations, and to initiate action, if necessary, within 5 minutes of being alerted in at least 95 per cent. of cases.
  complete at least 90 per cent. of key tasks and also complete at least 95 per cent. of the agreed planned programme of inspections and surveys.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to expand on previous guidance on the application of Articles 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive to sites which have been submitted to the European Commission as candidate special areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive and classified as special protection areas under the Birds Directive. [42065]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today restated our commitment to carrying out our legal obligations to implement the EU Habitats and Wild Birds Directives and, as part of that process, to contribute to the Natura 2000 network by designating Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and provides further guidance to competent authorities on the application of Articles 6(3) and 6(4). I have given a clearer policy lead to local planning authorities on how issues should be resolved where obligations to review extant planning permissions arise under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 and guiding principles for all competent authorities on what might constitute overriding public interest.

  A paper setting out the Government's outline position has been placed in the Library.

  Inclusive Regeneration Report
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the research report on Inclusive Regeneration: Local Authorities' Corporate Strategies for Tackling Disadvantage will be published. [41889]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am today placing in the Libraries of the House copies of the research report by Sheffield Hallam University and the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to implement measures to ensure that an economic link exists between UK-flagged vessels and the fishing communities in the UK intending to benefit from quotas allocated to the UK under the Common Fisheries Policy; and if he will make a statement. [41893]

  Mr. Morley
  There has been extensive consultation with the various interests affected and we have also been having detailed discussions with the European Commission on the basis of the guidance contained in the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission which took place at the Amsterdam meeting of the European Council last year.

  Specific proposal by the UK are currently under consideration by the Commission and we expect to receive their advice on them shortly so that we can make early progress with implementation.
  68
  A copy of the UK proposals under current consideration by the Commission has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review approvals of pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [41892]

  Mr. Rooker
  As part of the national arrangements for the running review of past approvals of pesticides, I have agreed with my colleagues in the other regulatory Departments that there should be a review of those organophosphate pesticides approved for agricultural use under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. The review will not extend to sheep dips and other veterinary medicines which are authorised and subject to scrutiny under separate legislation. On the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) the review will also cover carbamate pesticides as these have similar modes of action.

  I welcome the ACP's intention that the review should be informed by all relevant sources of information.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Children's Rights Convention
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason the United Kingdom has not ratified the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights. [40371]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights was opened for signature on 25 January 1996 and has not yet been ratified by sufficient states to bring it into force. The Government will give this matter careful consideration as soon as their programme of business permits.

  Patents (Great Seals)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the public holding arrangements for the Great Seals for the period 1617 and 1831 concerning patents granted. [40133]

  Mr. Hoon
  Copies of letters patent issued over the great seal between 1617 and 1831 could be enrolled in the Chancery patent rolls. Under the Public Records Act 1958, these patent rolls are open for consultation by the public in the Public Records Office.

  Not all letters patent were thus enrolled and the system of enrolment broke down between 1648 and 1659, for which period few rolls survive. Original letters patent over the great seal were issued to the person to whom the grant was made. They thus passed into private hands, and were not subject to public holdings arrangements.

  The matrix for a new seal is cast at the beginning of the reign of each Sovereign or when the Seal wears out. In the past, the old Seal was broken into several pieces but more recently, it has been the custom for the Sovereign to 'damask' (deface) the old Seal by means of a special

  69
  hammer, to render it unfit for use. The old Seal is then presented to the Lord Chancellor as a personal gift of the Sovereign.

  Prisoners (Civil Justice)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to deny prisoners serving custodial sentences access to civil justice in matters relating to the conduct of the Prison Service unless they have first exhausted all internal grievance procedures and taken their case to the Prisons Ombudsman; and if he will make a statement. [41022]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is not legally possible to interfere with a person's right of access to the civil courts solely because they are in custody. Where alternative procedures exist, however, it is in order for these to be brought to the attention of the individual.

  Contingency Fee Payments
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he has received from interested parties which were supportive of his proposals for contingency fee payments to lawyers; and if he will make a statement. [40933]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have not made any proposals for contingency payments to lawyers. We have received 233 responses to the Consultation Paper Access to Justice with Conditional Fees by the closing date of 30 April 1998. These are currently being analysed.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to what extent his Department uses political affiliation as a criterion in the selection of justices of the peace for advisory committees; and if he will make a statement. [40863]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor requires that the composition of Advisory Committees should broadly reflect the communities which they serve and should include at least one acknowledged supporter of each of the main political parties. Both magistrate and non-magistrate members of committees are asked to declare their political affiliation when applying for appointments and this, together with age, gender, ethnic origin, place of residence and occupation, is taken into account in the appointment of suitable candidates.

  Deaf Jurors
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines his Department has published for judges in respect of deaf jury members receiving communication support in(a) open court and (b) the jury room. [40819]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which is a non-departmental government body. The JSB has an advisory committee whose remit has recently been extended to cover all aspects of equal treatment training, including training on increasing awareness of the needs of people with hearing 70
  difficulties, including jury members. The Committee will be considering guidance for members of the judiciary on handling those with hearing difficulties.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in the last year a judge has permitted a deaf person carrying out jury service to receive communication support from (i) a palantypist and (ii) a sign language interpreter. [40818]

  Mr. Hoon
  Palantypists are not available in the Crown Court. Details of those jurors using the support of a sign language interpreter are not held centrally and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what proportion of his Department's appointees to non-departmental public bodies are (i) aged under 25, (ii) aged 25 to 30 and (iii) aged 31 to 35 years. [40744]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Government are committed to encouraging a wide range of candidates to apply for positions on the boards of public bodies, reflecting the diverse society in which we live. This includes encouraging more young people to put themselves forward as potential candidates for public appointments. All appointments are made on merit, and candidates must demonstrate that they have the necessary skills and experience to match the needs of the public body on which they wish to serve.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the guidance which will be given to governors concerning the assessment of the suitability of eligible prisoners for home detention curfew. [41865]

  Ms Quin
  We have today placed in the Library a draft version of the guidance to governors which would be used in assessing prisoners' suitability for Home Detention Curfew. A final version of the guidance will be included in a Prison Service Order which the Prison Service expects to issue to governors in October. Copies of that Order will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 359–61, on prisoners, to what dates in 1998 the figures in Table A are provided. [41354]

  Ms Quin
  The 1998 figures in table A of my reply of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 359–61 refer to the period 1 January to 31 March.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the disbursement of revenues from prison work. [40234]
  71
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]Planned income generated by activities in prison industries and farms is included in the voted provision contained in the annual Supply Estimate for the Prison Service as part of the receipts appropriated in aid of the gross expenditure borne on the Estimate. The relevant level of appropriations in aid is included in the budget allocated to each prison. We are shortly to issue guidance on new arrangements which will give governors greater flexibility to take up commercial opportunities which develop during the year.

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 1997,Official Report, column 542, on firearms compensation claims, when all compensation claims made under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 under (a) options A and B and (b) option C, will be complete. [41225]

  Mr. Michael
  The estimated timetable for completion of compensation payments under the large calibre handgun compensation scheme remains as set out in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 6 April 1998,Official Report, columns 19–20, that is to say, completion by around the end of May for payments under Options A and B and by the end of the year for most, if not all, payments under Option C.

  Immigration
  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many women who are British Overseas citizens have been admitted for settlement under the quota voucher system in each year since quota vouchers were introduced; [41148]

  (2) how many women British Overseas citizens would qualify for admission to the United Kingdom for settlement, if women were treated in the same way as men under the quota voucher system; [41150]

  (3) under what circumstances a woman who is a British Overseas citizen can be admitted for settlement under the quota voucher system; [41147]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the advantages of treating women British Overseas citizens in the same way as men under the quota voucher system. [41149]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration Rules, set out in House of Commons Paper 395, provide for a British Overseas citizen to be granted indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom if he or she is in possession of a special voucher. This provision applies equally to both men and women.

  A British Overseas citizen may be issued with a special voucher if he or she fulfils a number of requirements, one of which is that the person concerned is the head of their household. Women will be considered to be the head of their household if they are single, widowed, divorced or married to a man who is incapable of fulfilling the role of head of household for medical reasons, in accordance with a House of Lords ruling that this is not unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
  72
  The available data on the number of women who have been admitted for settlement as special voucher holders in each year are given in the table.

  Female British overseas citizens1 granted settlement as special voucher holders 1968–97

  Year

  Number

  1968

  2—

  1969

  150

  1970

  140

  1971

  260

  1972

  330

  1973

  2—

  1974

  590

  1975

  800

  1976

  790

  1977

  490

  1978

  490

  1979

  530

  1980

  430

  1981

  390

  1982

  420

  1983

  530

  1984

  380

  1985

  320

  1986

  270

  1987

  270

  1988

  360

  1989

  290

  1990

  290

  1991

  260

  1992

  240

  1993

  170

  1994

  120

  1995

  120

  1996

  120

  1997

  90

  1 United Kingdom Passport Holders prior to 1 January 1983

  2 Not available

  Human Rights
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ratify Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [41754]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have no plans to ratify Protocol 4 at present. Ratification will be possible only if potential conflicts with our domestic laws can be resolved. There is a particular concern in relation to Article 3(2) of the Protocol, which protects the right of nationals not to be excluded from their home state. This could be taken as conferring the right of abode in the United Kingdom on various categories of British nationals who do not have it.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which optional provisions under UN and Council of Europe human rights agreements he is reviewing possible UK accession; which reservations to human rights treaties he is assessing the advantages of lifting; to which additional conventions he is assessing the advantages of acceding; and if he will make a statement. [41153]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government announced on 3 July 1997,Official Report, column 221, that they intended to review the United Kingdom's position under various international human rights instruments. This includes the question of whether to accept the right of individuals to submit complaints under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and

  73
  Political Rights, under Article 22 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and under Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The review is in progress and the outcome will be announced when it has been concluded.

  In preparing the Human Rights Bill, we also reviewed the United Kingdom's position on Protocols 4, 6 and 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Our conclusions were set out in the White paper "Rights Brought Home" (CM 3782).

  In addition, the Government have a commitment to review unratified International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions. The Government fully support the principles embodied in the core ILO Conventions and are currently reviewing the United Kingdom's position with regard to ratification of the Conventions on minimum age and discrimination in employment.

  Name of APC member

  January

  March

  May

  June

  July

  September

  November

  December

  (a) 1996

  Prof. Brazier

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  Prof. Anderson

  +

  +

  -

  -

  +

  +

  +

  -

  Prof. Boden

  +

  +

  -

  +

  -

  -

  +

  +

  Prof. Bridges

  +

  +

  -

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Prof. Broughton Pipkin

  +

  -

  +

  +

  -

  +

  +

  +

  Dr. Christopher

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  Dr. Cripps

  +

  -

  -

  +

  -

  -

  -

  +

  Dr. Flack1

  +

  +

  Prof. Flecknell

  +

  -

  +

  +

  -

  +

  +

  +

  Prof. Iversen

  +

  -

  -

  -

  +

  -

  +

  +

  Mrs. Macarthur Clark

  +

  -

  +

  -

  -

  +

  -

  -

  Miss Milburn

  +

  -

  +

  -

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Dr. Purchase

  +

  -

  -

  +

  -

  -

  +

  +

  Dr. Southee

  +

  -

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Prof. Spyer

  -

  -

  -

  +

  -

  +

  +

  -

  Dr. Suckling

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Mr. Ward

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  1 Dr. Flack resigned from the Committee in March 1996

  Name of APC member

  January

  February

  April

  May

  June

  July

  September

  October

  November

  December

  (b) 1997

  Prof. Brazier

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  +

  Prof. Anderson

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Prof. Boden

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  -

  +

  +

  +

  -

  Prof. Bridges1

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  Prof. Broughton Pipkin1

  +

  -

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  -

  +

  Dr. Christopher2

  +

  +

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Dr. Cripps

  -

  +

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  +

  -

  Prof. Dunbar3

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  -

  +

  -

  Prof. Flecknell

  -

  -

  +

  +

  -

  +

  +

  -

  +

  +

  Mr. Gregory3

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  Prof. Iversen1

  -

  +

  +

  +

  -

  -

  +

  +

  +

  -

  Mrs. Macarthur Clark

  -

  -

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  -

  -

  Miss Milburn

  +

  -

  -

  +

  +

  -

  -

  +

  +

  +

  Dr. Purchase

  -

  -

  -

  +

  -

  -

  -

  +

  +

  +

  Dr. Southee

  +

  +

  +

  -

  -

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  Prof. Spyer1

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  -

  -

  +

  +

  +

  Dr. Suckling

  -

  +

  +

  +

  +

  -

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Prof. Turner3

  -

  +

  +

  -

  -

  -

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Mr. Ward

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  +

  1 Professors Bridges, Broughton Pipkin, Iversen and Spyer retired from the Committee in December 1997.

  2 Dr. Christopher resigned from the Committee in August.

  3 Professors Dunbar and Turner and Mr. Gregory were appointed to the Committee with effect from 1 January 1997.

  Proxy Voting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to eliminate fraud in respect of proxy voting. [41584]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which I chair, will be examining both proxy and postal voting. We will pay particular attention to the need to achieve a balance between accessibility and the prevention of abuse.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Animal Procedures Committee, and their records of attendance for each of the meetings in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998. [41343]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The membership of the Animal Procedures Committee and records of attendance have been as follows (attendance is signified by + and their absence by -):
  75

  Name of APC Member

  January

  March

  April

  May

  (c) 1998

  Prof. Brazier1

  +

  Prof. Banner2

  +

  +

  +

  Prof. Anderson

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Prof. Boden

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Dr. Clark

  +

  +

  Dr. Cripps

  -

  +

  +

  +

  Prof. Dunbar

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Prof. Flecknell

  +

  -

  +

  +

  Mr. Gregory

  +

  -

  +

  +

  Dr. Jennings3

  +

  +

  Dr. Langley3

  +

  +

  Mrs. Macarthur Clark3

  +

  -

  +

  -

  Prof. Martin3

  -

  +

  Miss Milburn

  +

  -

  -

  Dr. Purchase

  +

  -

  +

  +

  Dr. Southee

  ,

  ,

  +

  +

  Dr. Suckling

  +

  +

  +

  Prof. Turner

  +

  +

  +

  +

  Mr. Ward

  +

  +

  +

  +

  1 Professor Brazier resigned from the Committee in January 1998.

  2 Professor Banner joined the Committee on 1 February 1998.

  3 Professor Martin and Drs. Clark, Jennings and Langley joined the Committee on 1 April 1998.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to publish members' attendances at future meetings of the Animal Procedures Committee. [41342]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I will ask the Animal Procedures Committee to consider publishing this information in its annual report.

  Incapacitants
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the possible incapacitant agents which were assessed before the CS sprays were adopted for police use; [38609]

  (2) how many published and internal papers have been written by his Department on the health effects of CR gas sprays since 1991; and what are the current security classifications of the internal reports. [38608]

  Mr. Michael
  CR (Dibenz (b.f)-1:4-oxazepine) was considered in a report by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, commissioned by the Home Office, which reviewed the toxicology of CS (Orthochlorobenzylidene Malonitrile). The report, which was produced in December 1994, is unclassified and copies have been placed in the Library. The Home Office has not produce any other published or internal reports on CR.

  Incapacitants considered in the 1994 report apart from CS and CR were CN (chloroacetophenone, commonly known as Mace) and oleoresin capsicum (commonly known as pepper spray). None of the alternatives to CS is considered to be an appropriate incapacitant for use by police officers in this country.

DEFENCE

  Officers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of(a) 4 star, (b) 3 star, (c) 2 star and (d) 1 star officers in respect of the (i) Royal Navy, (ii) Army, (iii) Royal Marines and (iv) Royal Air Force and the total number of service personnel based in each of the Government's standard regions of England and in Scotland and in Wales at the latest date for which figures are available. [40997]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of 1 to 4 star officers, by Service, and the total number of Service personnel, based in each of the Government's standard regions of England, Scotland, and Wales, as at 1 July 1997 (the latest breakdown figures available) are set out in the tables.

  Number of 1 to 4 star officers by region

  All services

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Army

  RAF

  North West

  4 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 star

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Yorks & Humberside

  4 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 star

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1 star

  5

  —

  —

  5

  —

  East Midlands

  4 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 star

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1 star

  4

  —

  —

  1

  3

  West Midlands

  4 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 star

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1 star

  3

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Eastern

  4 star

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3 star

  3

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2 star

  7

  1

  —

  —

  6

  1 star

  27

  8

  1

  4

  14

  London

  4 star

  6

  1

  —

  2

  3

  3 star

  7

  —

  —

  4

  3

  2 star

  29

  7

  —

  10

  12

  1 star

  64

  20

  1

  24

  19

  South East

  4 star

  3

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3 star

  4

  2

  —

  1

  1

  2 star

  21

  7

  2

  7

  5

  1 star

  86

  25

  5

  42

  14

  South West

  4 star

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3 star

  4

  1

  —

  2

  1

  2 star

  26

  7

  —

  10

  9

  1 star

  81

  17

  2

  41

  21

  Wales

  4 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 star

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Scotland

  4 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3 star

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 star

  3

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1 star

  6

  1

  —

  4

  1

  Note:

  No 1 to 4 star officers are based in North East or Merseyside regions
  77

  Total number of service personnel by region

  All services

  Naval services

  Army

  RAF

  North East

  1,294

  25

  784

  485

  North West

  1,981

  18

  1,786

  177

  Merseyside

  200

  28

  151

  21

  Yorks & Humberside

  10,958

  103

  8,838

  2,017

  East Midlands

  7,791

  110

  934

  6,747

  West Midlands

  5,102

  91

  3,480

  1,531

  Eastern

  17,039

  1,081

  7,511

  8,447

  London

  7,338

  916

  4,088

  2,334

  South East

  46,567

  15,337

  22,865

  8,365

  South West

  44,367

  18,657

  16,211

  9,499

  Wales

  3,333

  27

  929

  2,377

  Scotland

  13,891

  5,283

  2,953

  5,655

  Departmental Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former Royal Marines personnel(a) above the rank of captain and (b) at or below the rank of captain are currently employed by his Department on a (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) consultant basis. [39936]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of former Royal Marines service personnel above the rank of captain employed by the Ministry of Defence on a full-time basis is 10; none is employed on a part-time basis. The number at or below the rank of captain employed on a full time basis is 174; none is employed on a part time basis.

  The number of former Royal Marines service personnel employed by the Ministry of Defence on a consultant basis is not held centrally and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former Royal Navy service personnel(a) above the rank of lieutenant commander and (b) at or below the rank of lieutenant commander are currently employed by his Department on a (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) consultant basis. [39934]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of former Royal Navy service personnel above the rank of lieutenant commander employed by the Ministry of Defence on a full-time basis is 69; the number employed on a part-time basis is one. The number at or below the rank of lieutenant commander employed on a full-time basis is 953; the number employed on a part-time basis is seven.

  The number of former Royal Navy service personnel employed by the Ministry of Defence on a consultant basis is not held centrally and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former RAF service personnel(a) above the rank of squadron leader and (b) at or below the rank of squadron are currently employed by his Department on a (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) consultant basis. [39933]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of former RAF service personnel above the rank of squadron leader employed by the Ministry of Defence on a full-time basis is 122; the number employed on a part-time basis is two. The number 78
  at or below the rank of squadron leader employed on a full-time basis is 1,598; the number employed on a part-time basis is 19.

  The number of former RAF service personnel employed by the Ministry of Defence on a consultant basis is not held centrally and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former army personnel(a) above the rank of major and (b) at or below the rank of major are currently employed by his Department on a (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) consultant basis. [39935]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of former army service personnel above the rank of major employed by the Ministry of Defence on a full-time basis is 514; the number employed on a part-time basis is two. The number at or below the rank of major employed on a full-time basis is 2,404; the number employed on a part-time basis is 11.

  The number of former army service personnel employed by the Ministry of Defence on a consultant basis is not held centrally and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Field Marshals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) serving and (b) retired field marshals there are; and, in respect of the latter, what continuing duties or obligations they have. [41223]

  Dr. Reid
  One of the recommendations made in the Independent Review of the Armed Forces' Manpower, Career and Remuneration Structures by Sir Michael Bett was that promotion to 5-star rank should cease in peacetime. There is now no serving officer at Field Marshal rank. There are, however, eight retired Field Marshals retained on the active list. In terms of continuing duties and obligations some have retained honorary appointments connected with the Army which tend to be ceremonial and do not involve official commitment. These are: Constable Tower of London, Master Gunner St. James's Park, Vice Lord Lieutenant Wiltshire and Lord Lieutenant Greater London. In addition, two members of The Royal Family hold the honorary rank of Field Marshal, as does HM The King of Nepal.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 16 February 1998,Official Report, column 483, what was the nature of the exercises conducted by the Royal Navy with Indonesian forces in the South China Sea in 1997; and what was the cost of those exercises. [41551]

  Dr. Reid
  HMS Richmond visited Jakarta from 9 to 12 April 1997 as part of the Royal Navy'sOcean Wave 97 deployment to the Asia-Pacific region. She participated in a low-key, passing exercise (PASSEX) with a ship from the Indonesian Navy as she left Jakarta following the visit. The PASSEX comprised a communications exercise and practice approaches for replenishment at sea. HMS Richmond also gave a demonstration of her Lynx helicopter as she left port. Exercises of this type are

  79
  routinely undertaken with host navies by Royal Navy ships either at the beginning or upon completion of a visit to an overseas port. No separate costings of this activity were made.

TREASURY

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 1998,Official Report, column 664, if he will place in the Library his Department's latest assessment of the effect of the sale of excess reserves of (a) gold and (b) foreign currency by central banks participating in EMU on (i) world gold prices and (ii) international exchanges; and what assessment his Department has made of the need to modify Bank of England holdings of such prior to the settling of the Frankfurt reserves of the Central Bank. [41509]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  No.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the quarterly growth rate of the combined industrial, construction and agricultural sector of the United Kingdom economy in(a) the fourth quarter of 1997 and (b) the first quarter of 1998; and if he will make a statement. [41162]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 11 May 1998]Output in the combined industrial, construction and agricultural sector fell by 0.5 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1997. Estimates for the first quarter of 1998 will be published by the Office for National Statistics on 22 May.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the Comprehensive Spending Review. [41163]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 11 May 1998]The CSR is proceeding to timetable. It is on schedule for completion this Summer.

  NVQ Training Providers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if flying instructors registered with the Inland Revenue as training providers under the NVQ scheme will be able to continue to provide to existing clients training at a cost reduced by the standard rate of income tax beyond 30 June; and if he will make a statement. [41351]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 May 1998]Vocational training relief, the tax relief for certain training expenses, is available on payments for training which can count towards a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) or a Scottish Vocational Qualification (SVQ). Notice has been given by the Qualifications Authorities that the Piloting Transport Aircraft and Piloting Rotary Wing Transport Aircraft qualifications will cease to be accredited as NVQs or SVQs from 30 June 1998. Trainees who have registered with an Awarding Body for these qualifications before 30 June 1998 will be able to complete their training towards the NVQ or SVQ during the three years after 30 June (four years in Scotland).80
  These trainees will be able to continue to obtain vocational training relief on the cost of training which takes place after 30 June 1998. The Inland Revenue is writing to all training providers who operate vocational training relief to explain the arrangements for giving tax relief on flight training after 30 June 1998.

  North Sea Fiscal Regime
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish his consultation paper on the North Sea fiscal regime; and if he will make a statement. [41575]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 April 1998]The consultative document on the North Sea fiscal regime is expected to be issued shortly.

  Mozambique (Debt Repayments)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much in debt service is expected to be paid by Mozambique, in US dollars, in each year from 1998 to 2002, following the recent agreement under the HIPC initiative, according to(a) the HIPC final document, and (b) the latest estimates. [41207]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 May 1998]The HIPC Final document produced by the IMF does not give figures of debt service after full debt relief under the HIPC initiative.

  The latest estimates of the debt service that Mozambique will have to pay after receiving debt relief under the HIPC initiative are:

  Year

  Debt service $ million

  1998

  124

  1999

  147

  2000

  97

  2001

  101

  2002

  97

  Debt relief under the HIPC initiative will reduce Mozambique's stock of debt by $1,487 million in Net Present Value terms. Without this debt relief, Mozambique would have been due to pay an average of over $450 million a year in debt service over this period.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid in debt service by Mozambique, in US dollars, in each year from 1995 to 1997. [41206]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 May 1998]The debt service paid by Mozambique between 1995 and 1997 was:

  Year

  Debt service paid $ million

  1995

  112

  1996

  131

  1997

  97

  The debt service paid in these years was, however, only a fraction of the total debt service due, which was some $375 million a year.

  Tax-free Sales
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on(a) income and (b) employment, in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom of the abolition of internal European Union tax-free sales in 1999, with particular reference to the Scotch whisky sector; and if he will make a statement. [41171]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No assessment has been made of the effect on income or employment in the Scotch Whisky sector in the United Kingdom of the abolition of intra-EU duty and tax-free sales in 1999.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages to the United Kingdom of the abolition of internal European Union tax-free sales in 1999. [41174]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise have advised me that the abolition of intra-EU and duty-free sales in 1999 may result in an increase in Customs' receipts of about £100 million in a full year. This is very much a provisional estimate.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that the abolition of internal European Union tax-free sales will be on the agenda of the next ECOFIN meeting. [41172]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This issue is on the agenda for the next ECOFIN Council meeting to be held on 19 May 1998.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with European finance ministers regarding possible structural assistance to industries and areas which face a loss of business as a result of the abolition of internal European Union tax-free sales; and if he will press for such financial assistance to be given. [41173]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have had no such discussions with European finance ministers regarding possible structural assistance to be given to industries or areas which face a loss of business as a result of the abolition of intra-EU duty and tax-free sales in 1999.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on patterns of tourism to and from the United Kingdom of the abolition of internal European Union tax-free sales in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [41170]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No assessment has been made of the impact on patterns of tourism to and from the United Kingdom of the abolition of intra-EU duty and tax-free sales in 1999.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to respond to the resolution of the Transport Ministers Council on 17 March calling on ECOFIN to ensure that a study is undertaken of the impact of abolition of duty free within the European Union. [41222]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This matter is on the agenda for the next ECOFIN Council meeting to be held on 19 May 1998.

  Government Information (Access)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to state which exemption of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information is being invoked to prevent the release of information in answer to parliamentary questions. [40873]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers would expect to explain the reasons why information could not be provided in answer to parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to his answer of 6 March 1998,Official Report, column 817, which exemption in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information makes publication of the correspondence inappropriate; [40870]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) of 12 March 1998, Official Report, column 313, on VAT rates on housing works, which exemption in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information makes publication of the correspondence inappropriate. [40874]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Exemptions 1 and 2 apply.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many answers to parliamentary questions his Department has declined to provide information because it was inappropriate under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information since 1 May 1997; and what subjects those questions concerned. [40867]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury records show that in the case of some 19 of the 3,500 or so parliamentary answers given by Ministers in the present Parliament the information sought was not made available as is permitted under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. These questions concerned such matters as individuals' tax affairs, personal information relating to officials, representations made to Ministers in confidence on commercial and other matters and internal discussions and advice on various policy issues.

  Additionally, Treasury Ministers have traditionally declined to disclose in advance information relating to the Chancellor' s Budget statement. In innumerable other instances, statistical and other information either is not available or cannot be presented in the form requested.

  Civil Registration Records
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to improve access to historic registration records. [41349]

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for allowing free public access to the records of civil registration of births, marriages and deaths. [41341]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 7 May 1998,Official Report, column 455.

  Cornwall
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Office for National Statistics first proposed that Cornwall should be considered as a NUTS 2 area in its
  83
  own right for Eurostat purposes; and on what date his Department notified Eurostat that such a unit should be considered for structural fund purposes. [41106]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  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. Dafydd Wigley, dated 12 May 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the proposal to consider Cornwall as a separate NUTS-2 area for European purposes.
  I wrote to Eurostat on 30 June 1997 with proposals for a new NUTS structure for the UK, which included the designation of Cornwall as a separate NUTS-2 area. Those proposals are still being discussed between Eurostat and the Government Statistical Service.
  The consideration of any areas for Structural Funds purposes is not a matter for the ONS or for Eurostat.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 26 March 1998,Official Report, column 278, if the Financial Secretary will in future keep a record of the number of letters sent to hon. Members which are not personally signed. [38186]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers see no need to maintain such a record.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Staff Car Mileage Allowance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what percentage of the staff of all grades employed by his Department were eligible to claim a car mileage allowance on 31 March in each year since 1990; [40435]

  (2) what were (a) the total value in real terms of staff car mileage claims paid, (b) the total value in real terms of staff rail fares paid, (c) the total amount of staff car mileage for which reimbursement was made and (d) the percentage change from the previous year in each case, for his Department in each year since 1989–90. [40440]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average number of years of full-time equivalent post-school specialist learning provided per head of population for the age group 16 to 25 years in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries. [41105]
  84
  Dr. Howells
  An average1 of 2.7 full-time equivalent years are spent studying in UK further and higher education institutions, between the ages of 16 and 25. If post-compulsory school-age studies in a school setting are included, this increases to 3.4 full-time equivalent years. Comparable information is unavailable for other EU countries.

  1 Enrolment and population data for 1996–97 are used to calculate an "expected" number of years in education

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost per head per year of full-time education in(a) the higher education sector and (b) the further education sector. [41099]

  Dr. Howells
  In 1996–97, the average funding for teaching and research per full-time equivalent per year was £4,700 in the higher education sector. In the further education sector the unit funding, for teaching only, was £2,920. Figures are presented at 1996–97 prices.

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage, to three decimal places, of all year 2(a) pupils, (b) boys and (c) girls, attained (i) Level 2 or better, (ii) Level 3 or better, (iii) Level 4 or better and (iv) Level 5 or better in the Key Stage 1 English SAT tests for (1) reading, (2) writing and (3) English, in each local education authority area; and what was the national average level attained per pupil and by each gender in (A) 1996 and (B) 1997. [38160]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 7 April 1998]The full information is not available in the form requested.

  Child Care
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment his Department has made of the likelihood of individuals offered training in childcare, as part of the New Deal, achieving sufficient qualifications to work in that intended capacity for local authority social services or education departments; [41528]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the likelihood of individuals offered training in childcare, as part of the New Deal, subsequently achieving NVQ level 3 as a result of continued employer support after the initial six months of New Deal funding. [41529]

  (3) if he will extend the New Deal arrangements for training to ensure that participants seeking qualifications for employment in childcare can continue beyond NVQ level 2. [41530]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Young people on the New Deal for 18–24 year olds, who wish to train to work with children, can work towards an NVQ level 3 childcare qualification during their New Deal placement, if their previous experience and qualifications are appropriate. If they gain an NVQ level 2 or 3 qualification, this will help them find employment whether in the voluntary sector, private sector or with a local authority. There is currently no formal requirement within the Children Act 1989 that childcare workers should have qualifications, but, in
  85
  registering a provider, the authority will look at the range of experience, qualifications and maturity of the person concerned and any other staff.

  In some areas, individual local authorities have introduced, through their discretionary powers, requirements of registration to the effect that providers must either have, or be working towards, certain qualification levels. This should not, however, prevent childcare providers, including local authorities, from employing these young people under supervision, after their New Deal placement ends. Moreover, the local New Deal partnership may be able to arrange for the young person to work towards an NVQ level 3 qualification, after their New Deal placement ends, as part of the New Deal 'follow through' strategy. This could be arranged through the Training and Enterprise Council, using funding from the employer, or other sources—for example, the Single Regeneration Budget and the European Social Fund.

  We are not in a position to predict the proportion of young people on New Deal who train to work with children who will thereafter work for local authorities, nor the number who will gain NVQ level 3 qualifications with employer support after their New Deal placement ends, as this will vary according to individual and local circumstances.

  The Department and the Department of Health recently issued a consultation paper on the regulation of early education and daycare. The consultation paper outlines the Government's intention to introduce more consistent regulatory standards across different sectors and localities. We have also asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the relevant National Training Organisations to look at qualifications for childcare and early years workers.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish the Green Paper on Child Care Strategies. [41654]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our Green Paper on the national child care strategy will be published shortly. This will set out the broad principles of the strategy covering the whole of the United Kingdom and detailed proposals for England. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland will be publishing in due course their own documents on implementation of the strategy in those countries.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what technological barriers have been developed by his Department in the introduction of the National Grid for Learning, to secure children from access and exposure to unsuitable and damaging Internet material. [41345]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has commissioned the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency to publish good practice guidance on the use of information and communications technologies in schools. This includes up to date advice on installing controlling software on classroom computers as well as more general advice on access by pupils to the Internet. LEAs and schools are required as a condition of the Standards Fund grant for the National Grid for Learning to have in place 86
  policies on protecting pupils from on-line access to undesirable materials. Industry is of course sensitive to the need to develop improved mechanisms to screen out such material.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provisions have been made to monitor children's use of classroom computers when searching the Internet. [41347]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has commissioned the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency to publish good practice guidance on the use of information and communications technologies in schools. This includes advice on proper monitoring of pupil's use of the Internet in the classroom. LEAs and schools are required as a condition of the Standards Fund grant for the National Grid for Learning to have in place policies on protecting pupils from on-line access to undesirable materials.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial provision he will make available to local education authorities to meet the costs of(a) installing and (b) maintaining the National Grid for Learning in their area. [41346]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are supporting £100 million of ICT-related expenditure by LEA-maintained schools in 1998–99 through the Standards Fund. By building on LEAs' own development plans for information and communications technology (ICT) and those of their schools these grants will help schools to gain access to the National Grid for Learning by enabling them progressively to improve their provision. Support for future years will be determined in the light of the outcomes of consultation on the NGfL and the progress of overall strategy.

  Pre-school Learning
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the average hourly rates of pay of employees of pre-school learning groups. [41655]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Rates of pay will vary with the type of group. Most pre-schools are sessional: I understand that average hourly rates of pay for staff in such pre-schools in membership of the Pre-school Learning Alliance are £4.40 for pre-school leaders.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he intends to allocate the £500,000 announced on 6 April for the purposes of stopping further closures of pre-schools; and how he will ensure that the money achieves his stated objective. [41656]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  With the help of the Pre-school Learning Alliance and other playgroup organisations, Early Years Development Partnerships will be asked to identify good pre-schools where some short-term funding may avert the threat of closure. Criteria for the distribution of funds will be discussed with the Local Government Association and the pre-school organisations.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future financial support from his Department for disabled persons and disability groups through the Access Committee for England. [40559]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department of Education and Employment has only once provided financial support for ACE. That was in respect of a research project into the settlement of disputes between disabled people and service providers. There is a small balance to pay£2,501—on successful completion of the project.

  ACE are free to bid for funding for future project work. All such applications are considered on their merits.

SCOTLAND

  Local Authority Elections
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Boundary Commission in respect of the 1999 local authorities elections. [41200]

  Mr. Macdonald
  To date, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland have submitted reports on five council areas, namely Angus, East Lothian, Perth and Kinross, East Dunbartonshire and Moray, and we are expecting them to send in reports for all other authorities within the next few months.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria are being used to determine the distribution of the strategic fund element of the recurrent grant-in-aid funding for Scottish colleges in 1998–99. [40895]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 7 May 1998]Of the £6.76 million Strategic Fund for 1998–99, £4.21 million has already been allocated to 13 colleges to limit their grant losses this year under the funding formula to no more than 6 per cent. The criteria which will be used to determine the allocation of the balance, which will largely be used to support strategic initiatives within the further education sector, are still under consideration.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of the fixed element cost of the grant-in-aid funding for Scottish colleges in 1998–99; and what was the level in financial years(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96, (d) 1996–97 and (e) 1997–98. [40893]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 7 May 1998]The annual fixed element of recurrent grant-in-aid for Scotland further education colleges is shown in the table, on a 'per college' basis.

  Years

  £

  1993–94

  Nil

  1994–95

  Nil

  1995–96

  207,500

  1996–97

  250,000

  1997–98

  250,000

  1998–99

  200,000

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total cost of the building to house the Scottish Parliament, broken down into the costs of(a) securing the land, (b) construction of the debating chamber and associated administrative offices, (c) construction of offices for members and (d) equipping and furnishing it. [41110]

  Mr. Dewar
  The estimated construction cost of the Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood is around £55 million, including site acquisition costs and demolition costs but excluding fees and VAT. The estimated total cost of acquiring and preparing the Holyrood site is approximately £4 million. A detailed breakdown between the cost elements for the debating chamber, the administrative offices, Members' offices, equipment and furniture is not yet available. These costs cannot be estimated until the design team is appointed in the summer of 1998 and has undertaken further detailed work.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the length of time during which the Scottish Parliament will have to meet in temporary premises; and what is the(a) cost of renting this facility and (b) capital cost of adapting, furnishing and equipping this facility. [41101]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Parliament is expected to meet in temporary accommodation from May 1999 until the new building at Holyrood, Edinburgh, is ready for occupation in the second half of 2001. The estimated cost of preparing the temporary accommodation for use by the Parliament and for rent and rates over a 2-year period is estimated at £6 million. This does not include heating, lighting, security or other building-related costs, or the provision of IT and broadcasting equipment, furniture and services. These costs are still being assessed.

  Student Awards Agency
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recommendations he has received following the review he established into the operations of the Students Awards Agency for Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [41894]

  Mr. Wilson
  In view of the unacceptable situation experienced last year, in which students experienced very considerable delays in the processing of their applications for awards, I requested a Review of the Agency's operation arrangements; and established an independent Steering Committee, under the Chairmanship of Mr. G. Wilson CB, Head of The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, to oversee the review. I asked for a report by April.

  The Steering Committee reported to me on schedule, with a statement covering the Review report. The problems identified in relation to last year were difficulties with the new computer system and inadequate staff resources (as a result of staff reductions which took place during the period for the previous Government) to deal with the consequences of these difficulties. I am arranging for copies of the report and statement to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses; and to be made publicly available.
  89
  The Review has produced a number of recommendations relating both to the staffing resources and processing arrangements of the Agency. I accept these recommendations, and am arranging for additional resources, of up to £380,000 to be available to the Agency. I am also strengthening the senior management of the Agency to ensure that the recommended improvements to the processing arrangements are taken forward quickly.

  I am grateful to the Steering Committee for their advice. They will continue in existence to monitor implementation of these arrangements, and to be available to offer further advice as required.

  I am confident that the steps I have taken will ensure that the Agency provides a good service, especially to the students.

  Tweed and Eye Protection Order

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those persons and organisations recently consulted about the Tweed/Eye River protection order prior to his decision to revoke the order other than for those with angling interests in the Whiteadder area. [41469]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The difficulties with access in the area covered by the Tweed and Eye Protection Order came to light during a wider consultation exercise on the effectiveness of Protection Orders. A list of respondees has been placed in the Library of the House. Fifty-four responses were received, of which seven were from angling interests outwith the Whiteadder area.

  A further two representations were received by angling interests outwith the area after the consultation exercise closed.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors led him to conclude that it was necessary to revoke the protection order covering the Tweed/Eye River system; and what account he took of recent discussions between interested parties in the Whiteadder area. [41471]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Protection Orders are first and foremost intended to provide greater public access to angling. This has not been the case for some time with the Tweed and Eye Protection Order, despite attempts by the River Tweed Commissioners, Tweed Liaison Committee and the Scottish Anglers' National Association to resolve access problems. I am aware that discussions concerning the Whiteadder are continuing.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses to the consultation process on the operation of protection orders commenced in 1997 he has received; and how many of those responses referred to difficulties in the operation of the Tweed/Eye order. [41473]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A total of 54 responses were received. Of these, 11 referred to difficulties in the operation of the Tweed and Eye Protection Order.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from angling interests, other than those in the Whiteadder area,90
  about riparian owners denying access to anglers in the Tweed/Eye River catchment area covered by the current protection order. [41470]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Six representations from angling interests outwith the Whiteadder area have been received about reductions in angling access in the area covered by the Tweed and Eye Protection Order. Those responses draw attention to areas where previously available access to freshwater fishing has been withdrawn.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will delay the publication of the formal notice of his intention to revoke the River Tweed/Eye protection order until he is able to consider further representations on the implications of the revocation. [41472]

  Mr. Macdonald
  No. It is the Government's intention to give formal notice of proposed revocation action in the Edinburgh Gazette shortly.

  River Protection Orders
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the advantages of introducing protection orders which allow him to deal separately with sections of rivers within the protection order area without disturbing the protection in other parts of the river system. [41474]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Protection Orders are made in response to applications. When such an application is made, consideration is given as to whether it meets the terms of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976. Before an Order is granted, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the required standards will be met and maintained throughout the prescribed area.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Age Discrimination
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1998,Official Report, columns 420–22, when he expects to issue guidance to departments and agencies to help them avoid unfair discrimination on the basis of age. [41363]

  Dr. David Clark
  My Department will be issuing the guidance referred to in my answer of 2 March 1998,Official Report, columns 420–21 in the summer.

WALES

  NHS Survey
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to initiate a national survey of patients' and users' experience of the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [40648]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  A new national survey of patient and user experience is intended in Wales. Consultation on the conduct, content and use of the survey, including its timing, will be undertaken with the NHS and interested organisations.

  New Deal (NHS)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to extend the New Deal into the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [40649]

  Mr. Hain
  The New Deal will provide employment opportunities in both the private and public sectors. The NHS is a major employer in Wales and can offer good quality jobs with training to young people.

  The Employment Service has actively marketed the health sector and several Health Trusts have already indicated their commitment to the New Deal.

  Teaching Hospitals
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the teaching hospitals in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [40650]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff is the main teaching centre but teaching also takes place at most District General Hospitals in Wales—most notably at Morriston, Wrexham and the Royal Gwent Hospitals.

  Spinal Injury Units
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many spinal injury units there are in Wales. [40914]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The designated regional service for spinal injuries is based in the University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS Trust and comprises acute spinal trauma surgery at Cardiff Royal Infirmary with rehabilitation at the Spinal Injuries Unit, Rookwood Hospital. Some acute spinal surgery for trauma is carried out at other acute hospitals.

  Further Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new moneys he has released to colleges of further education in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [41495]

  Mr. Hain
  In recognition of the pressures on the further education sector in Wales, we increased the Further Education Funding Council for Wales's 1998–99 grant by £5.4 million in November 1997. In March this year, we made £1 million capital available to the sector in 1997–98 and £360,000 for FE developments associated with the New Deal. Furthermore, arising from the Budget on 17 March, we have made an additional £3.5 million available to the FEFCW to set up an 'Education for Industry Challenge Fund' to meet local adult skills needs and develop outreach provision. This amounts to a total of over £10 million of new money to the further education sector.

  Rural Job Creation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to create more jobs in rural Wales. [41491]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government aim to create job opportunities in rural Wales by attracting new investors and ensuring that indigenous businesses have access to 92
  comprehensive and effective support services so that they can develop and prosper in a vibrant and healthy rural economy.

  Many small rural businesses looking to expand, but unable to take the initial risk of recruiting additional employees, will benefit from the employer subsidy available under the New Deal for 18–24 year olds. This, working in tandem with the Sole Traders Initiative, will encourage the self-employed to create new jobs. Others will be created under the self-employment route of the New Deal for 18–24 year-olds where young people can receive the support and guidance needed to set up their own businesses. A revamped Business Connect also means that new and small businesses now have access to the one-stop assistance they need.

  The Welsh Development Agency (WDA) has consistently met its targets for job creation beyond the eastern M4 and A55 corridors and will continue—wherever possible—to encourage and steer industry to the more rural parts of Wales. The rural unit of the new enlarged WDA being established later this year will also provide the interface for a wide range of rural interests helping to stimulate the introduction of new and innovative approaches to economic development and job creation.

  School Sixth Forms
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current teacher to student ratio in school sixth forms in Gwent; and what were the figures in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [41484]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is not available centrally. Teacher to student ratios are not available for year groups and can be calculated only for entire schools.

  Autistic Children
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision is made for the educational needs of autistic children in each local authority area in Wales. [40631]

  Mr. Hain
  Responsibility for identifying and making appropriate provision for children with special educational needs, including learning difficulties associated with autism, rests with LEAs and schools. Such children are educated in a variety of settings depending on each child's particular needs. These include mainstream schools, special schools and independent schools. Information on how individual LEAs organise provision for autistic children is not held centrally.

  Public Appointments
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of his public appointments since 1 May 1997 have been in full accordance with the guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments; and if he will make a statement. [41761]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have sought to make all appointments since 1 May 1997 for which I have sole responsibility in full accordance with the guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
  93
  I am keen to ensure that all appointments to public bodies in Wales, whether made by me alone or made jointly with other Government Departments, obey the principles of fair and open competition and appointment on merit. Where appropriate, I have extended the application of those principles to those bodies currently outside the Commissioner's remit.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with CADW in relation to the maintenance cost of the Pierhead building; what conclusions he has drawn as to the amount of useable office and meeting space in the Pierhead building; and what use he proposes to make of that space for Welsh Assembly purposes. [41764]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None. A condition survey of the Pierhead building has been completed. Having considered the layout of the building, I propose, subject to further consideration, to use it for offices for the more senior members of the Assembly, the Leaders of each Party, and a number of support staff.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what costings he has obtained in relation to the deterioration of the foundations of the Pierhead building and the stability of the superstructure at the front end of the building; if the costs of shoring up the foundations are to be carried out by Grosvenor Waterside as a condition of the lease; and over what period of time the work will be carried out. [41768]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  A condition survey has been completed, and I am considering what essential work needs to be undertaken to Pierhead building. The terms of the lease will require that the building, on termination of the lease, will be in no worse a condition that upon commencement.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) of 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 299, what is the estimated cost of adapting the computer mainframe room to become the temporary debating chamber of the National Assembly. [41772]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have not yet decided which part of Crickhowell House should be used for the temporary debating chamber.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the legal obstacles to a system of twinning of constituencies for election to the Welsh Assembly; and what discussions he has had on this matter with the Lord Chancellor. [41755]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Government's view is that the procedure a party adopts for selecting candidates for the National Assembly for Wales is a matter for the party itself. The parties will have to have regard to the framework provided by domestic and European employment law in respect of equality of opportunity for all. The Government's view on this issue was set out by my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution in the House on 31 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1144–46.
  94
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has made of the costs of providing temporary accommodation for the Welsh Assembly at(a) City Hall and (b) Crickhowell House. [41891]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The estimated cost of capital works to bring City Hall into suitable condition for use as the temporary home for the National Assembly for Wales is at least £3 million.

  None of this expenditure would benefit the National Assembly once it moved to its permanent home. There would in addition be removal costs of an estimated £100,000.

  The cost of fitting out Crickhowell House as a temporary home is expected to be between £750,000 and £1 million. Members will be in their permanent offices from day one, so there will be no nugatory expenditure on their accommodation. Much of the equipment and furnishings of the temporary chamber will be re-used as part of the permanent arrangements, and the chamber itself will be available for other uses the Assembly decides.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce the members of the assessment panel for the design competition for the new National Assembly for Wales building. [41890]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Lord Callaghan will chair the Assessment Panel which will have as lay members Elinor Bennet, Angela Gidden, Mike Reilly and Professor Robin Williams together with two eminent architects nominated by RIBA.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to permit the successful architect in the RIBA competition for the design of the Welsh Assembly debating chamber to co-ordinate the design with that of the office building on the adjoining part of the Pierhead site. [41766]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  It is not for me to decide who will design the office building for Grosvenor Waterside but they have indicated a willingness to consider using the same architect as the one who designs the Assembly building, should that be appropriate.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the total area of Crickhowell House occupied by(a) the Prescription Pricing Unit, (b) Information Technology and Health Solutions Wales Group and (c) Contracts and Supplies; and what is the rent paid per square foot where it differs from the rent level for Crickhowell House as a whole; [41769]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 6 May 1998, Official Report, column 416, what rent he has agreed for Crickhowell House for the next five years as a percentage of the rent currently paid by the market-tested sections of WHCSA occupying areas of Crickhowell House; and what are the two levels of rent expressed in pounds per square foot per annum. [41770]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The rent for Crickhowell House for the next 5 years shows no increase on the current level, ie £16 per square feet (£172.22 per sq.m). The other
  95
  matters raised are the responsibility of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my Friend.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 6 May 1998,Official Report, column 416, what flexibility is built into the leases he is proposing to take on Crickhowell House on behalf of the National Assembly as regards (a) break clauses, (b) privity of contract, (c) repairs and insurance and (d) permission to sub-let or assign. [41771]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There are no break clauses in the leases on Crickhowell House. In common with Government office accommodation, it is intended that leases will be held in the name of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, with all ownership responsibilities vested in me. The leases contain full repairing obligations and I have dispensation to self insure. The existing provisions to sub-let or assign the lease remain constant.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for relocating the Legal Services Unit of Welsh Health Common Services Authority; and what amendments he proposes for its chain of command. [41763]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Discussions are under way between the Authority and Glan Clwyd NHS Trust about the transfer of Welsh Health Legal Services to the Trust. The management structure is a matter for the Authority and the Trust to consider as part of the transfer arrangements.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the office staff of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning(a) transfer arrangements to (i) the National Assembly and (ii) trusts and health authorities, and (b) where those staff currently working at Crickhowell House will work in future. [41765]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None. My Department involved staff representatives when options for the location of business units were being considered but consultations with staff about transfer arrangements are a matter for the Authority as employer. No decision has been taken about accommodation for staff currently working in Crickhowell House.

  Museums
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the President of the National Museums and Galleries of Wales in relation to the closure of the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum. [41767]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My officials have held frequent discussions with the Museum's Director and his senior staff and I have been kept fully informed of the circumstances surrounding the closure of the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum.
  96
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the President of the National Museums and Galleries of Wales concerning the provision of a suitable place for exhibiting the mediaeval ship recovered from Magor Pill. [41762]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Decisions regarding the display of the remains of the Magor Pill boat are a matter for the professional staff of the National Museums and Galleries of Wales.

  Incomes
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the income per capita for each of the unitary authorities in Wales(a) in cash terms, (b) as a percentage of the United Kingdom average and (c) as a percentage of the European Community average in the last year for which figures are available. [40089]

  Mr. Hain
  The available information, provided by the Office for National Statistics, is given in the following table, in respect of the former counties of Wales. A single figure is given for the counties of Dyfed and Powys, because separate estimates cannot reliably be made.

  Unitary Authority estimates and European Community comparisons are not currently available.

  Household income, 1994

  £ per head

  Percentage of UK

  Clwyd

  8,751

  90.2

  Dyfed & Powys

  8,391

  86.5

  Gwent

  8,414

  86.7

  Gwynedd

  8,983

  92.6

  Mid Glamorgan

  7,781

  80.2

  South Glamorgan

  9,509

  98.0

  West Glamorgan

  8,460

  7.2

  Wales

  8,549

  88.1

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

HEALTH

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding the powers of the proposed Commission for Health Improvement to intervene in the running of NHS trusts and the proposed primary care groups. [29049]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will consult on the role and responsibilities of the Commission for Health Improvement before bringing forward legislation.

  Haemophiliacs (Hepatitis C)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with haemophilia in the United Kingdom are currently infected with hepatitis C as a result of their treatment in the NHS with contaminated blood products. [33612]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department estimates that around 4,000 people with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through blood products prior to the introduction of viral inactivation processes in 1985.
  97
  The latest figure quoted by the Haemophilia Society shows that they now assess the total number of haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C at 4,800.

  NHS Trusts (Mergers)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy with regard to merging the functions of NHS trusts; how many trusts will be involved; and if he will make a statement. [39286]

  Mr. Milburn
  Any proposal to merge National Health Service trusts will be considered on its own merits. Most importantly, mergers must lead to benefits for patients in improved health care and lead to savings in management costs.

  Proposals for merging NHS trusts are initiated locally. There is no central programme of NHS trust mergers.

  Devonshire Royal Hospital
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will have the responsibility for the upkeep of the Devonshire Royal Hospital building in Buxton when it is no longer required as a hospital by Stockport Health Authority. [38971]

  Mr. Milburn
  Responsibility will remain with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health until such time as the building is disposed of to a third party. Every effort will be made to find a new owner before health services are withdrawn and the building is decommissioned for healthcare purposes, which is expected to be in 2000.

  GP Research Database
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the role of the General Practitioners Research Database in formulating policy in respect of(a) reducing waiting lists and (b) applying resources to where they are most needed; [41221]

  (2) what steps he has taken to use the data contained on the General Practitioners Research Database to ensure that the use of NHS funds is based on scientifically recorded data; [41219]

  (3) what programmes are in operation to categorise the information on drugs, treatment and medical procedures which is recorded on the General Practitioners Research Database to provide doctors and patients with information that is not currently available elsewhere; [41220]

  (4) what plans he has to analyse the recorded data on the General Practitioners Research Database concerning the long-term results of treatments, drugs and medical procedures in order to inform doctors of the ongoing results of these treatments. [41218]

  Mr. Milburn
  The General Practice Research Database (GPRD) is owned by the Department and is a powerful research and analytical tool. It is one of a number of data sources available to the Department, each of which has its strengths and limitations for specific purposes. For example, because of its general practice focus, the GPRD is well suited for many drug safety and pharmaco-epidemiological studies. However, because it is based on a sample of general practices, it is less valuable for making comparisons between health authorities. This would limit its use in resource allocation or in 98
  understanding waiting list issues at local level. The GPRD's lack of socio-economic data is also a factor in the way it can be used.

  Data from the GPRD are published in Key Health Statistics from General Practice1, and extracts have also been used in the Chief Medical Officer's Annual Report. The Department has used data from the GPRD on a number of occasions. The Medicines Control Agency, which is responsible for medicines regulation, uses data from the GPRD to investigate and evaluate drug safety issues.

  Overall, the number of applications to use the GPRD for research studies has increased in the past year and we are keen that this trend should continue.

  1 published through The Stationery Office by the Office for National Statistics in 1996

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all National Health trusts which received more than 15 per cent of their income from extra-contractual referrals in 1996–97, indicating the total amount of revenue from ECRs for each trust and the percentage this represents of total revenues. [41538]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1996–97, the following National Health Service trusts received more than 15 per cent. of their income from extra-contractual referrals (ECRs):

  ECR income £000

  ECR as per cent. of total income

  The Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust

  2,561

  33.19

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  11,793

  32.04

  Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital NHS Trust

  1,044

  31.72

  The Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  4,895

  26.82

  Robert Jones & Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic & District Hospital NHS Trust

  4,446

  19.80

  Oncologists
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department issues on the maximum number of new patients annually a clinical oncologist should take on. [41546]

  Mr. Milburn
  None. It is for local health service employers to estimate the level of staff required in the light of professional guidance and local population needs and priorities.

  Sodium Bicarbonate
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the increase in prices between March and May of sodium bicarbonate supplied to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [41024]

  Mr. Milburn
  We understand there is a single supplier of sodium bicarbonate capsules 500 milligrammes in the United Kingdom. The company concerned increased its
  99
  list price from £2.05 to £30.56 for 100 capsules between March and April 1998. Officials have written to the company seeking a justification.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the sources, in each case, of the fluoride used to fluoridate water supplies in England. [41004]

  Ms Jowell
  About half a million people in this country receive water which is naturally fluoridated at or about the optimum level of one part per million. A further one million people receive water which is naturally fluoridated at a lower level, but which still confers some dental benefit. Some 5 million people receive water where the fluoride content has been artificially increased to a level of one part per million. Information on the sources from which water companies obtain fluoride is commercially confidential and is not routinely collected by government.

  Laser Surgery
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to review the safety and appropriateness of laser surgery to correct short sight. [41586]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department is consulting the Royal College of Ophthalmologists about this procedure, which is not available under the National Health Service but carried out in private clinics. The College has undertaken to provide information on complications and clinical standards. This will inform a judgment about the adequacy of the regulatory provisions currently available.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), on 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 347–48, concerning hospital waiting times, for how many trusts figures were supplied, what assessment he has made of the reliability and accuracy of the data he published on 1 April and if he will provide a breakdown of the ways in which the patients who had been on the waiting list for more than 18 months prior to 1 April were removed from the waiting list. [41720]

  Mr. Milburn
  As I made clear in my reply to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 347–48, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State based his announcement about the number of patients waiting longer than 18 months on 31 March on management intelligence. This was obtained by regional offices of the National Health Service Executive as a special exercise as part of their performance management function. Provisional waiting list/time information for 31 March 1998, based on the well-established series of quarterly returns from health authorities and trusts, will be published in week commencing 18 May 1998. Information on removals from waiting lists collected centrally does not differentiate between the various reasons for removal, nor does it show how long patients had been waiting at the time of removal.

  Closures and Service Reduction
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those hospitals whose accident and emergency departments have been(a) closed and (b) downgraded to Minor Injuries Clinics since 1 May 1997 which are subject to consultation which might lead to such closure or downgrading; [41757]

  (2) if he will list the hospitals and health units which have been closed since 1 May 1997 or which are subject to consultation which might lead to closure; [41756]

  (3) if he will list those hospitals or health units which have been subject to a major reduction in services provided on site. [41758]

  Mr. Milburn
  In line with the practice of previous Administrations, this information is not collected centrally.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which authority will make the final decisions regarding the boundaries of primary care groups, with particular reference to where centres of population are on the borders of a health authority area; and if it will be possible for a primary care group to cross health authority borders. [41602]

  Mr. Milburn
  Guidance issued at Easter (HSC 1998/065) made clear that Primary Care Groups will be based on natural geographical communities of people, typically covering around 100,000 population, and taking account of social services organisational structures. Health authorities are charged with responsibility for establishing the Primary Care Groups and will be required to notify the National Health Service Executive of their local configuration by July 1998.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future financial support from his Department for disabled persons and disability groups through the Access Committee for England. [40557]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is open to the Access Committee for England (ACE) to apply for funding for projects under the general section 64 grant scheme administered by the Department for the financial year 1999–2000 onwards. Each project application will be considered carefully in the light of its likely furtherance of the Department's objectives, other applications received and the amount of money available. The decision was taken in March this year, following an inter-departmental review, not to renew core funding for ACE from the current financial year (1998–99). This was in line with our policy of time-limiting core grants of which all voluntary organisations receiving support from the Department under section 64 have been made aware. It is, therefore, unlikely that any future application for core funding from ACE would be successful.

  Eastbourne District General Hospital
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received treatment at Eastbourne District General Hospital in each of the last five years. [41475]
  101
  Mr. Milburn
  Information on numbers and patients treated is not collected centrally. In-patient activity is recorded in terms of finished consultant episodes (FCEs), and outpatient activity is recorded in terms of consultant outpatient attendances.

  The information provided in the table is for Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust. The trust consists of Eastbourne District General Hospital and All Saints Hospital. A breakdown of the information between the hospitals is not available centrally, but may be available from the Chief Executive of the trust.

  Data are taken from the publications, "Ordinary and day case admissions for England" and "Outpatients and ward attenders for England", 1996–97, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Table: Finished consultant episodes and first consultant outpatient attendances for Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust, 1992–93 to 1996–97

  Finished consultant episodes

  Year

  Ordinary admissions

  Day case admissions

  First consultant outpatient attendances

  1992–93

  30,163

  5,040

  134,861

  1993–94

  31,434

  6,554

  135,800

  1994–95

  31,707

  7,140

  136,074

  1995–96

  34,866

  8,226

  134,971

  1996–97

  32,273

  10,026

  138,864

  Source:

  Finished consultant episode data—Department of Health form KP70.

  Consultant outpatient data—Department of Health form KHO9

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients(a) are currently awaiting admission and (b) were awaiting admission on 1 May 1997 to Eastbourne District General Hospital. [41468]

  Mr. Milburn
  Waiting list information collected centrally shows the number of patients waiting at the end of each quarter and how long they had been waiting broken down by 3 month timebands. Information for 1 May 1997 is not therefore available. On 31 March 1997, there were 4,806 patients awaiting admission to Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust on either an ordinary or day case basis. The latest information currently available is for 31 December 1997 and this shows 5,079 patients awaiting admission.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many policy reviews are currently being carried out within her Department; what is the cost to date of those reviews; and when each review is expected to report. [40901]

  Mr. Denham
  We are reviewing the major components of the Social Security system. On 26 March, we published a Green Paper, New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract For Welfare, which sets out the Government's principles for welfare reform, indicates the issues to be tackled and identifies a series of proposed success 102
  measures by which we can monitor progress. We are currently seeking views on its contents. The consultation period ends on 31 July.

  In accordance with our manifesto commitment, we have also instigated a review of pensions and we will be publishing a Green Paper on Pensions later this year. Further announcements on other areas will be made in due course.

  The costs of this activity are being met from within existing Departmental running costs.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 7 April 1998,Official Report, column 224, on lone parents, if she will update that answer to cover the period 21 July 1997 to 31 March 1998. [40900]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information on the operation of the New Deal for Lone Parents is available up to and including 31 March 1998.

  As at 31 March 1998:
  24,795 lone parents have been contacted, or have made contact with their personal advisers
  6,085 initial interviews have been arranged, and 5,178 lone parents have attended interviews
  4,637 lone parents have agreed to participate in the programme following initial interviews
  1,530 lone parents have found jobs following agreement to participate in the programme. A full independent evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents is being undertaken, to report in Autumn 1999. This will assess the overall effectiveness of the programme in helping lone parents move into employment.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 21 April 1998,Official Report, columns 604–05, on lone parents, how many lone parents who gained employment between 1 March and 31 March are now in receipt of income support and have no earnings. [40952]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The number of lone parents who gained employment between 1 and 31 March 1998 was 280, and, of these, 25 are now in receipt of Income Support and have no earnings.

  It is not possible to draw conclusions about exit rates from employment of lone parents on the New Deal for Lone Parents as the data from the New Deal for Lone Parents are insufficient to calculate exit rates. The evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents will identify any factors which have affected the programme's success and will calculate exit rates from employment of lone parents on the New Deal for Lone Parents. The full evaluation will report in Autumn 1999.

  EU Ministers for Women
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the conference of EU Ministers for Women on Childcare in Belfast on 5 and 6 May; if she will place in the Library a list of those who attended and copies of those speeches made in English; and what plans she has to publish a transcript of the conference including translations of speeches made in other languages. [40463]
  103
  Ms Harman
  The theme of the UK Presidency is employability. We have been clear from the outset that this means the employability of women as well as men. That is why we called the meeting of EU Ministers for Women which we held in Belfast on 5–6 May.

  The meeting focused in particular on the importance of childcare and family friendly employment policies, and provided a valuable opportunity to share best practice with our EU partners. The meeting reached a consensus on the following key points.

  Affordable, accessible, and high quality childcare, parental and other leave schemes, and family friendly working policies are essential for women and men to combine work and family responsibilities.
  Equality between women and men must be mainstreamed in all employment policies, both at national and EU level, so that measures to improve employability and support the unemployed take the rights and needs of women and men fully into account.
  Meetings of Ministers for Women and for Equality provide useful opportunities for the exchange of ideas and best practice and developing strategies. They intend to meet at least once a year in future.

  Member states expressed their commitment to drive forward these initiatives and will use proposed future meetings to do so.

  The full text of the Belfast Communiqué will be placed in the Library, together with a list of those attending the conference. In keeping with normal practice for informal proceedings at such conferences, transcripts of speeches will not be published, although the programme and the speech to the open session by Secretary of State will be placed in the Library.

  Child Support
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications to the Child Support Agency for maintenance assessment have been outstanding for more than(a) six months, (b) 12 months and (c) 18 months; and if he will make a statement. [41352]

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

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

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 11 May 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.
  The child maintenance formula can require the Agency to enquire, look at and consider over 100 pieces of information before an assessment can be made and it is inevitable that some time will elapse between an application being made and the maintenance assessment being made.
  From its launch in 1993, the Agency has taken on just under 2.4 million cases. In the last year, the Agency has started to clear the backlog of cases that had built up during the Agency's first two years, with the emphasis being on completing full maintenance assessments. The Agency's increased performance in this area is
  104
  well illustrated by the number of full maintenance assessments completed; in 1997/98 up to 31 January 1998, 132,724 full maintenance assessments had been completed compared to 97,542 for the same period the previous year.
  The Agency is very aware of the need to assess maintenance applications as quickly as possible, and in 1997/98 had a Secretary of State target covering this area which included a volume element for the first time. The target required a total of at least 525,000 maintenance applications to be cleared; 60% of new maintenance applications to be cleared within 26 weeks and on 31 March 1998 no more than 5% of all maintenance applications received by the Agency to be over 52 weeks old. The volume element of the target was exceeded by 13% with 595,000 clearances achieved, a significant increase on clearances of 357,000 in 1996/97. Both percentage targets were also met. 71% of new applications were cleared within 26 weeks, against an achievement of 54% in 1996/97. This represented a total of 278,180 applications cleared within 26 weeks, an increase of 52% over the previous year. At the end of 1997/98, less than 5% of all applications received since the Agency's inception were over 52 weeks old. This was a major improvement on last year, when the target to have no more than 10% of cases over a year old was missed. The 1998/99 Secretary of State target requires 65% of new applications to be cleared within 22 weeks and on 31 March 1999 there to be no applications outstanding over 52 weeks old.
  The latest available information on outstanding maintenance applications (to 31 March 1998) is detailed below:

  applications outstanding over six months and less than 12 months: 45,211

  applications outstanding over twelve months and less than 18 months: 11,593

  applications outstanding over eighteen months: 98,524

  The number of applications outstanding over 6 months and less than 12 months in each Business Unit is approximately 6,500; in 1997/98 each Business Unit cleared on average around 85,000 applications. Any maintenance application which is over 52 weeks old is considered to form part of the Agency's backlog—the large majority of these applications are a legacy from the difficult first two years of the Agency. At the beginning of 1997/98 the number of backlog applications amounted to 224,714; this has more than halved to 110,117 at 31 March 1998.
  The Agency has developed and is now implementing a strategy for meeting its undertaking to clear all its backlogs. All Business Units have put in place operational plans which will guide them towards the achievement of our stated objective of clearing all the backlogs by 31 March 1999.
  We are constantly looking at how we can adapt and improve our procedures to speed up the time taken to clear maintenance applications. The timescales for clearances have shortened considerably over the last 2 years. The Agency is now building more pro-active use of the telephone into its assessment process; an increased use of the telephone to gather information, should have a positive impact on timescales.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what use is made of the Yield Analysis Statistical System in each Contributions Agency region and office. [41463]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of National Insurance contribution records and related issues is a matter for George Bertram, the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend shortly.
  105
  Letter from George Bertram to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated May 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency I have responsibility for answering questions about matters relating to the Contributions Agency. I have been asked to reply to your question about the Yield Analysis and Statistical System (YASS) and its use within the Agency's regions and regional offices.
  The YASS is a personal computer based targeting system that has been rolled out for use by the Contributions Agency's Operations in the Field. Initially, one YASS personal computer was installed into each region, but subsequently nine of the twelve regions have installed additional YASS personal computers.
  YASS is a targeting and modelling tool that was designed to assist CA Field Operations in identifying those employers who:

  Need assistance in completing their end of year returns correctly; or

  Those that are most likely to owe arrears of National Insurance Contributions

  YASS uses data taken from the Agency's Employers Index System (ENDX) and information supplied from the inspections of employers National Insurance records.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Exporters
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department in improving its support for British exporters. [40501]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace process. [40508]

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with Israel and surrounding Arab countries regarding peace in the middle east. [40515]

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the initiatives taken by his Department to assist the middle east peace process. [40522]

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace process, following the visit by the Prime Minister. [40524]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan).

  Iraq
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in Iraq. [40512]
  106
  Mr. Fatchett
  Iraq's record on human rights is appalling, as our annual report on human rights made clear. The latest report from the UN Special Rapporteur Max Van-Der Stoel concluded that the situation had deteriorated still further since his last report to the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. On 21 April the Commission adopted a tough resolution, drafted by the UK as EU Presidency, which strongly criticised the Iraqi regime.

  South Africa
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other European Foreign Ministers on the EU-South Africa trade negotiations. [40517]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's most recent discussions with European colleagues took place at the General Affairs Council in March. He noted the progress made in the previous negotiating round, and reiterated our wish to complete the negotiations soon. The Commission will report back to the Council in the light of its further negotiations with the South Africans, the next round of which is scheduled for late this month.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with representatives of the Argentine Government. [40518]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have no plans to discuss the transfer or sharing of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with the Argentine Government. We do not regard the sovereignty of the Islands as negotiable.

  Hong Kong
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress towards democracy in Hong Kong. [40519]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We strongly support the goal of a legislature elected by universal suffrage, as provided for by the Basic Law, and welcome the HKSAR Government's commitment to this goal. We hope that this will be achieved according to a timetable reflecting the wishes of the people of Hong Kong.

  The fact that elections will be held on 24 May to replace the unelected provisional legislature is a welcome step towards more representative government, although we have concerns about some of the detailed arrangements, particularly in the functional constituencies.

  EU (Enlargement)
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in achieving agreement within the European Union on the enlargement process. [40521]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In the first four months of our Presidency of the EU, we have taken forward the remit agreed at the Luxembourg European Conference in
  107
  London on 12 March; we launched the Accession Process in Brussels on 30 March; and we opened Accession Negotiations the next day with six of the applicants.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent contact group meetings on Kosovo. [40523]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Contact Group has met regularly since January to discuss Kosovo. It has condemned the continuing violence in that province and underlined the need for a meaningful dialogue between the parties if the spiral of violence is to be reversed. We will continue to play a leading role on this issue within the Group, including on the need for further measures against Belgrade if President Milosevic continues to turn his back on dialogue.

  European Integration
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for further European integration. [40525]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We support closer integration with our European partners where it is in the United Kingdom's interest. This Department has made no specific proposals for further integration.

  Sudan
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the crisis in the Sudan. [40527]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Civil war in Sudan has displaced large segments of the population in the South, creating a serious humanitarian problem. Bahr El Ghazal is the area where the current crisis is most acute. We are deeply concerned at this unfolding human tragedy and we have been active in trying to find solutions. We and our EU partners are of the view that a political settlement is essential to bring to an end the suffering of the Sudanese people. As Presidency, we issued an EU Declaration on 1 May which voiced European concerns and called for an immediate cease-fire. At UK instigation, Sudan was discussed at the UN Security Council on 5 May and a press statement was made by the President expressing the UN's concerns. We have lobbied countries in the region to bring pressure to bear on all parties in the civil war to reach a comprehensive negotiated settlement at the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace talks held in Nairobi on 2 to 5 May.

  Environmental Protection
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's progress in securing protection of the international environment. [40507]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have raised the profile of international environment issues in foreign policy discussions. As a result, environment will have been a theme at each of the major conferences hosted by the UK from October 1997 to June 1998. Environment is one of 108
  the themes of the UK Presidency of the EU. We are working in international forums with colleagues from other Departments to achieve better protection of the international environment, notably in the area of climate change and protection of the world's oceans.

  Human Rights Annual Report
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's first annual human rights report. [40513]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary undertook last July to publish an Annual Report on the Government's activities to promote human rights.

  He published the first such Report jointly with the Secretary of State for International Development on 21 April. The Report illustrates activities in respect of human rights in a range of activities undertaken by the government in some 70 countries; as well as summarising our activities in the UN and other international organisations.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 July 1997,Official Report, column 708, if he will make a statement on the use of Hawk aircraft in East Timor since 1983. [41447]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have studied all the information available about allegations of Hawk being used in East Timor. We are confident that UK supplied Hawk aircraft have not been used in East Timor or, indeed, in a counter-insurgency role in Indonesia.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure the British and French proposals for a code of conduct governing arms transfers will give priority to the protection of human rights in Indonesia over the maintenance of a strong defence industry. [41550]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Discussions with EU partners on the text of the Code of Conduct are continuing. Our policy is that the Code should apply to all arms exports to all destinations, and should specify that Member States will refuse an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression.

  Arms Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries are currently refused arms export licences as a consequence of the ethical foreign policy. [41569]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  All applications to export goods entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 are assessed against the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29. The criteria do not specify automatic refusal of licence applications for exports to any country or countries. But they do state that a licence should be refused if approval would be inconsistent with the UK's international obligations and commitments to enforce UN, OSCE and

  109
  EU embargoes together with any national embargoes. I listed all arms embargoes implemented by the UK in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Flynn) of 28 January 1998, Official Report, columns 273–74.

  Lord Whitty
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Lord Whitty's salary in his capacity as Minister with Special Responsibility for the EU Presidency. [41383]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As a Government Whip, my noble Friend Lord Whitty receives the salary of a Lord in Waiting. He receives no further salary for performing other official duties on behalf of the FCO or other Departments.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Pakistan Government expressing concern about the death sentence passed on Ayub Masih for blasphemy. [41385]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 7 May 1998,Official Report, column 483.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will monitor the case of Pakistani Christian, Ayub Masih, who was sentenced to death on 27 April at Punjab District Court for blasphemy. [41384]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our High Commission in Islamabad is monitoring Ayub Masih's case closely. His lawyers have lodged an appeal in the Punjab High Court against his sentence. I was shocked to hear of the suicide of Bishop John Joseph on 6 May, apparently in protest at Ayub Masih's sentence. Our High Commission has sent condolences to his family and community.

  Name

  Company

  Post/department

  Job

  A. Heffernan

  CBTG

  Peking

  Commercial Secretary

  Mr. Hallington

  BNF

  Tokyo

  First Secretary Financial

  A. Vaudrey

  CAA

  Washington

  Counsellor Atomic Energy

  G. Bentley

  Standard Chartered Bank

  South East Asia Department

  Desk Officer, ASEM

  T. Witton

  BP

  Middle East Department

  Desk Officer, Yemen, UAE

  J. Paxman

  BP

  Washington

  Environment Secretary

  M. Davies

  Barclays

  Sydney

  Inward Investment Officer

  S. Wayne

  Barclays

  Los Angles

  Inward Investment Officer

  J. Miller

  Lovell White Durant

  San Francisco

  Inward Investment Officer

  J. Butler

  BT

  New York

  Inward Investment Officer

  M. Mullins

  NatWest

  New York

  Inward Investment Officer

  M. Economou

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Chicago

  Inward Investment Officer

  Short-Term Business Attachment Scheme

  D. Watson

  AMEC

  Johannesburg

  Commercial Adviser

  G. Doyle

  Levitt Bernstein

  Paris

  Commercial Adviser

  M. Stephenson

  Midland Bank

  Kuala Lumpur

  Commercial Adviser

  E. Bailey

  Rolls Royce

  Brasilia/Sao Paulo

  Commercial Adviser

  D. Scammell

  Quantel

  Los Angeles

  Commercial Adviser

  M. Groundsell

  Halcrow

  Lisbon

  Commercial Adviser

  Strategic Arms Exports
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he plans to publish his annual report on strategic arms exports. [41729]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We hope to publish the annual report on strategic arms exports during the current session.

  Seconded Staff
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the secondment of individuals from private companies to his Department. [41068]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department has had a long-standing programme of interchange with business. We aim to build on this. Last July, we announced a new programme of short-term business attachments to our missions overseas of business people to work on specific projects. The 14 recruited so far have added their expertise to our commercial effort. We also open some longer-term positions within this Department, at home and overseas, to business people. In addition, we second FCO staff to companies so that they can gain first-hand business experience.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role individuals on secondment from private companies to his Department have in advising Ministers; and what access such individuals have to Ministers on issues concerning their company. [41072]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Secondees contribute towards the work of departments and posts and are managed by civil servants. To avoid conflict of interest, individuals do not have access to Ministers on issues directly concerning their company. Steps are put in place to ensure no conflict of interest.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many individuals are currently on secondment from private companies to his Department; and if he will list them, indicating their responsibilities. [41073]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We currently have 21 staff seconded from private companies, including 10 secondees under the Business Attachment Scheme. Details are shown.
  111

  Name

  Company

  Post/department

  Job

  L. Clarke

  NatWest

  Kuala Lumpur

  Commercial Adviser

  R. Pitfield

  Taylor Woodrow

  New York

  Commercial Adviser

  R. Soderstrom

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Bangkok

  Commercial Adviser

  D. Healey

  ADH Inc. Export Consultants

  Istanbul

  Commercial Adviser

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which body has final jurisdiction in respect of the interpretation of framework decisions taken under the proposed Article K.6(2)(b) and (c) of the Treaty of Amsterdam where Her Majesty's Government under Article K.7 does not accept a preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice. [41507]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 11 May 1998]Article K.7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, confers jurisdiction on the European Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of framework decisions and decisions adopted by the Council pursuant to Article K.6(2)(b) and (c). By virtue of Article K.7(2) a Member State may choose whether or not to accept that jurisdiction. Since the Government do not intend to accept that jurisdiction, if a framework decision or decision adopted pursuant to Article K.6(2)(b) or (c) fell to be interpreted by the British courts, the House of Lords would ultimately be the Court of final jurisdiction as far as the United Kingdom was concerned.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  North American Free Trade Agreement
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the recent proposals to bring Britain and the European Union closer to NAFTA. [40503]

  Mrs. Beckett
  There are many ties of trade, culture and history between the UK and North America, and we are also a committed member of the European Union. In trade matters we act primarily as part of the EU. During its Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers, the UK has sought to develop our multilateral trading relations and our relations with North America so that these relations are closer and mutually supportive.

  Employment Protection
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been paid to employees of insolvent employers through the provisions of sections 63 to 65 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 and successive acts incorporating those provisions in each year since 1976. [41360]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The information is not available as such payments are part of general payments which may be made to employees of insolvent employers and are not separately identified.

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are used to decide whether a post office in rural Scotland provides a vehicle licensing service. [41046]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency determine the total number of post office outlets from which the motor vehicle licensing service operates. Post Office Counters Ltd then determine the most suitable post office locations for the service taking account of various criteria, including local car parking facilities, space within the office to cope with demand for service at peak times, level of customer demand and proximity to alternative offices to achieve a suitable geographical spread.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of post offices in Scotland have been able to offer vehicle licensing facilities for each year since 1987. [41043]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office tell me that the percentages of post offices in Scotland offering vehicle licensing facilities for each year since 1987 for which the information is available are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1992

  22.2

  1993

  22.4

  1994

  22.6

  1995

  22.8

  1996

  23.0

  1997

  23.2

  1998

  23.5

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of post offices in England have been able to offer vehicle licensing facilities for each year since 1987. [41044]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office tell me that the percentages of post offices in England offering vehicle licensing facilities for each year since 1987 for which the information is available are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1992

  20.1

  1993

  20.3

  1994

  20.5

  1995

  20.7

  1996

  20.9

  1997

  21.1

  1998

  21.3

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many and what proportion of her Department's appointees to non-departmental public bodies are (i) aged under 25, (ii) aged 25 to 30 and (iii) aged 31 to 35 years. [40741]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As far as I am aware, none of my Department's public appointments is held by people aged under 25; three are held by those aged 25–30 and 51 by those aged 31–35. This represents approximately 0.1 per cent. and 1.7 per cent. respectively of the overall number of appointments. These figures exclude a few appointments to advisory bodies (approximately 2 per cent. of the total) for which details are not available.

  The Government are committed to encouraging a wide range of candidates to apply for positions on the boards of public bodies, reflecting the diverse society in which we live. This includes encouraging more young people to put themselves forward as potential candidates for public appointments. All appointments are made on merit, and candidates must demonstrate that they have the necessary skills and experience to match the needs of the public body on which they wish to serve.

  Import Quotas
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which import quotas have been exceeded, and by how much, in each of the last five years; and what(a) penalties and (b) sanctions the United Kingdom has imposed. [40626]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since 1994, all quantitative restrictions on imports have been established at the level of the European Union.

  I am aware of one case where the European Commission established that products subject to quota were imported into the European Union under false declarations of origin, and where an equivalent reduction was made to that country's quota for a later year.

  I am not aware from the information that is readily available, and after taking account of the flexibilities provided for under the various regimes, of other instances in the past five years of imports of products subject to quota exceeding permitted levels.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the tests listed by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to evaluate the suitability of nuclear materials for import, in its publication on the import and export of radioactive materials, were applied to the consignment of enriched uranium due to be sent from Georgia to Dounreay. [40672]

  Mr. Battle
  The tests listed by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) were applied to the consignment of enriched uranium recently 114
  sent from Georgia to Dounreay. For the majority of the material which is unirradiated, Tests 4 and 5 are relevant, in that useful material with a positive economic value to the UK can be recovered from it. Based on these tests alone, there would be an expectation that wastes produced would be returned to the country of origin. This is also true of the wastes arising from the reprocessing of the small quantity of spent reactor fuel.

  However, Tests 9 and 12 are overriding for the whole consignment in that the quantity of radioactive waste arising would be too small for the recovery processes to be practicable in the country of origin. Furthermore, Georgia could not reasonably be expected to develop suitable disposal facilities of its own for such a small amount of waste. Test 10 is also relevant in that the material accepted does not significantly add to the wastes needing to be disposed of in the UK.

  UKAEA Constabulary
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 30 April 1998,Official Report, column 237 if she will place a copy of the most recent HMI Constabulary report relating to security at UKAEA Constabulary-policed sites in the Library; and if she will list the security organisations which advised HMI on the report. [41086]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 6 May 1998]The Director of Civil Nuclear Security, not HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, is responsible for auditing security at UKAEA Constabulary policed sites. HMI of Constabulary is tasked by the Police Authority to report on the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the force. As his reports relate to detailed arrangements concerning the internal security of nuclear material, it would not be appropriate to release them.

  Ethical Trading
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent initiatives involving private sector and non-Governmental organisations her Department has promoted to develop the ethical trading initiative. [41039]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Ethical Trading Initiative is a partnership between the private sector, non-governmental organisations and trades unions which is part-funded by the Department for International Development. DTI supports the ETI and similar partnerships which are promoted by the partners involved.

  Information and Communication Technologies
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to monitor and assess the United Kingdom's progress in the uptake of information and communication technologies in the United Kingdom compared with other countries. [41927]
  115
  Mrs. Roche
  An understanding of the UK's position in the global information age is essential for development of relevant and timely government policies, and is an important tool for UK companies in benchmarking their own development. This is why the Department of Trade and Industry has been carrying out a series of benchmarking studies, as part of the Information Society Initiative (ISI), to compare progress in the UK with other major economies (USA, Japan, Germany, and France). Today I published the latest report 'Moving into the Information Age—International Benchmarking Study 1998' and copies have been place in the Library of the House. Copies of the 1998 report (and last year's report) are also available by calling the ISI Business Infoline on 0345 15 2000, or by e-mailing info@isi.gov.uk, or through the ISI website at http://www.isi.gov.uk.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Reviews
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many reviews are currently in train in his Department; what is the cost to date of each review; and when each review is expected to report. [41152]

  The Attorney-General
  The only review currently in train in my Department is the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service under the chairmanship of Sir Iain Glidewell. The costs incurred in the financial year 1997–98 were £508,000.

  I expect to receive the Report before the Spring Bank Holiday.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Textiles and EC Anti-Dumping Duties
Lord Pearson of Rannochasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to persuade the European Commission to lift its provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton greycloth from countries outside the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, we agree with the opposition expressed by the British textile industry to the imposition by the European Commission of provisional anti-dumping duties in this case. Along with a majority of member states, we made it clear to the Commission that we opposed such duties. Despite this, the Commission proceeded with the imposition of provisional duties. Although legally entitled to do this, we regard the decision as unfortunate. The provisional duties will stand for no more than six months. If the Commission were to propose definitive duties, it would be for the Council of Ministers, acting by simple majority, to determine the issue. For our part, we shall continue to make every possible effort to ensure that definitive duties are not imposed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that marginally encouraging reply when one considers that some 2.5 million European jobs depend in some way on these imports, perhaps 0.5 million of which are in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm that the Council of Ministers had agreed with its advisory committee that these duties should not have been reimposed and that under EC law that should have been the end of the matter? Can he also confirm that even though no new circumstances had arisen, the Commission agreed to reimpose the duties last month but only after intense and improper pressure from M. Chirac?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, it is not correct to say that the Commission has no legal right to impose a provisional duty. That has been the position since anti-dumping legislation was first implemented in the European Community in 1968. The Commission has a right to impose provisional duties. The UK agreed to that on accession to the Community in 1973 and when the relevant Council regulation was revised in 1979, 1988, 1994 and 1996. The issue is that these are
938
provisional duties. The legal position will be clarified during the investigations; it will then be for the Council of Ministers either to agree definitive duties or not.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not the case that there are 5,000 French jobs involved in this matter which is why the French are particularly keen that the duties should be imposed? However, there are many more jobs which are adversely affected by those duties. Is it not true that the rest of Europe has caved in to the French position? I have no complaint about the French. They are only batting on their own wicket. But should we not try to play some decent cricket or even la boule instead of allowing the parlez-vous to get away with it?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, we could debate the numbers. The noble Earl refers to 5,000 French jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, says that there are 2.5 million jobs at risk. That means that there is even more gearing than the noble Earl thinks. This is a provisional position. Investigations are taking place. There will be a very good reason to turn over the provisional duties so that they are not made definitive if a majority of the Ministers believe that the French are behaving improperly. Let us wait until October, until the investigations are over. If it is improper, as the noble Earl suggests, the decision will be turned over.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that unlike the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I do have a quarrel with the French because they are not behaving in what is termed in polite circles a communautaire manner? I sincerely hope that my noble friend will take that into account. If it is shown that the European Commission has acted outwith its powers, will my noble friend promise me that the British Government, if nobody else, will take the Commission to court to clarify the position and to safeguard the many jobs, including British jobs, which are involved?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I have made it clear already that this is not an illegal imposition of duties. The Commission is acting within its right to impose provisional duties if it has grounds to believe that pricing is illegal. I agree that if the French are found to be in a minority when the matter is put to the Council of Ministers in October, as it is obliged to be after the six months provisional duties period has run out, the decision will be turned over and not become definitive. I should say that on our unofficial current count, *-five countries are supporting the provisional duties.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a danger that this sort of Question descends into Europhobia and that we should have a more serious look at the importance to the British textile industry of the issues raised? Does the Minister agree, first, that our textile industry is dependent on the added value of finished goods? It is extremely important therefore that the textile industry has a worldwide free market in greycloth, and that is the policy which the British Government have so far pursued. More particularly, will the Minister agree that there is a serious danger in this

939
case? Jobs are being lost in the textile areas of the country. In addition, producers of greycloth, particularly in Turkey, are developing significant added value capability and are using the opportunity of the manufacture of greycloth and its high price to stop the textile added value which manufacturers in this country can obtain. Will the Minister agree that it is not a question of bashing the French or Europe but a question of confirming the Government's commitment on this issue?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that we quite agree that value added on this imported material is extremely important to the British industry. We have that in mind in continuously expressing our opinion that this is an improper imposition. In October, when we come to vote, we shall say the same thing and hope to have a majority. We quite agree that our industry is very good at adding value.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, although the Minister is correct about the imposition of these duties, which would provisionally be for six months, does he accept that the problem here is their improper re-imposition for another six months?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, that may well be so, but we have not yet finished the first six months or had the Council's vote on the matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, cannot the Council of Ministers deal with the matter before the present six-month period has expired?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I do not think that the investigations will be completed before the six months have expired.

Palace of Westminster: Media Passes
2.44 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkfordasked the Chairman of Committees:
How many passes are now issued to media representatives in the Palace of Westminster, and of the total how many are held by BBC staff.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, a total of 514 media passes are on issue; 125 of these are held by the BBC.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees accept my thanks for that reply? Is it not surprising that we are now moving rapidly towards a situation where there will be one media representative for each elected Member of the other House? Indeed, no other democratic institution in the free world has such a coverage as prevails here.
940
In relation to the number of passes held by the BBC, does the noble Lord recall that in the 1960s and the early 1970s, before either this House or the other place was televised, David Holmes and Hardiman Scott, assisted from time to time by none other than Angela Rippon, were able to report the proceedings in both Houses with great expertise? In view of the noble Lord's own excellent experience in the media, can he explain why on earth the BBC needs 125 people to cover the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament when we seldom, if ever, see any of them at this end of the Palace?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with reference to the noble Lord's middle question, I do indeed recall those days. That is certainly so for the 1960s but less so for the 1970s in the case of the BBC. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I worked for the BBC during the 1950s and the 1960s. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is right about the numbers who managed to report the proceedings then. However, we are now in a different situation. Whether we are moving to the situation that the noble Lord described, as regards the proportion of media representatives to the number of elected Members in another place, I do not know.
Indeed, comparisons are awkward. I do not know what is a proper number of media representatives. All I can say is that this number seems to be needed. Perhaps I should, therefore, draw upon Mozart's riposte to his royal critic when the latter said that he had used too many notes. Mozart replied:
"No more and no fewer, your Majesty, than are necessary".
The BBC does need quite a number of representatives. It should not be forgotten that, apart from its coverage of Parliament, which it is required by its Charter to provide on a daily basis—and we try to facilitate the BBC as far as we can—noble Lords will also be aware of the BBC's role in covering special events, such as the State Opening of Parliament, Addresses to Members of both Houses by foreign and Commonwealth leaders, and other such matters.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, in addition to the number of passes which have been issued to members of the Press Gallery, can the noble Lord now say whether there has been any change in the number of parking permits issued to named members of the Press Gallery, which stood at 18 in 1993?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I shall resist the temptation to enter the quagmire of the subject of parking in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster. I am briefed on the number of passes, but I regret to say that I am not briefed on the matter the noble Lord has raised. If I can help him, I shall do so in writing.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees agree that the number of passes issued for people to cover the two Houses of Parliament seems to be in inverse proportion to the coverage that is provided? Does he agree that there may

941
be a price to be paid by the media representatives in respect of the number of passes that are issued in terms of longer and better coverage of the two Houses?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am very much in favour of greater coverage of your Lordships' House, as it works hard. A great deal is done not only in your Lordships' Chamber but also in your Lordships' committees. That work is well worth publicising. I was heartened by the amount of coverage given recently in the press and by the broadcasting organisations to the report on antibiotics—that is not its full title—which was published fairly recently. The noble Lord is quite right about the difference between the number of passes issued by your Lordships' House and another place. Some 19 have been issued by your Lordships' House and 491 by another place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given the large number of passes issued to reporters and the small amount of reporting that is carried out, and given the noble Lord's experience in the media, can he tell us what these people are doing?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am tempted to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as I have a modicum of sympathy with his question. However, the media representatives are doing a great deal. One has to bear in mind the coverage not only of the national television stations but also of the regional television stations, the national radio stations and the local, sometimes quite small, radio stations, and the agencies. In addition there is complete national and regional press coverage. A considerable amount of media coverage is needed. Therefore I think it is right that a sizeable number of media passes should be issued to permit media representatives to enter the Palace of Westminster.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does my noble friend have in his brief an estimated cost of this media coverage?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I regret to say that I do not. I doubt that I shall be able to assist on that matter, but if I can I shall do so.

Post Office Review
2.54 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parksideasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to give greater commercial freedom to the Post Office.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced in the other place on Monday 6th April the second phase of the Post Office review. This will make recommendations on the Post Office's future structure, organisation and financing that will best deliver greater commercial freedom for the Post Office within the
942
public sector. The Government intend to announce their proposals in the autumn. Further details are set out in the Government's observations to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the third report of the 1997–98 session of the Post Office, which was published by the committee on 14th April.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Does he acknowledge that the previous Tory government rather cynically used the Post Office as a cash cow, stripping it of most of its profits and denying it the freedom to develop its profitable areas of business? Will my noble friend consider the proposition that the best way forward for the Post Office is not privatisation but for it to be converted into a publicly owned plc with an agreed limitation on what the Treasury would receive from the Post Office's annual profits?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me rather too soon to describe the detail of the structure which we wish to put in place after this next stage of the review. It is quite right to assume that we expect the Post Office to remain in the public sector but with a greater independence to achieve the kind of flexibility in commercial terms that we have long wished to see for it. In terms of financing, I believe the Post Office is currently investing between £400 million and £450 million a year, so the capital investment flows are quite encouraging. However, a limitation on the rest of the flows which would pass to the Treasury is a matter that we shall review during this second stage.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, does the Minister agree that there are enormous technological developments in post offices throughout the world, and that the British Post Office, in spite of its great expertise, has hitherto been held back in meeting that challenge? Will the noble Lord therefore confirm—arising out of his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Evans—that in the solution found by the Government later this year they will make sure that they will not denude the Post Office of such a large proportion of its post-tax profits as has hitherto been the case; namely, up to 90 per cent. compared with about 30 per cent. from a normal company, and that it will be given the freedom to go to the market to raise money for valid propositions?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there are enormous technological developments taking place in postal services around the world. We certainly want to ensure that our Post Office is competitive in international markets. We shall not have to wait until the end of the review to make some progress because my right honourable friend in the other House announced that, with immediate effect from her announcement, there would be limited freedoms for the Post Office to enter into joint ventures in the domestic market to enable it to take advantage of these developing technologies, as has occurred in other countries. We are well seized of that. I shall not be tempted into discussing the numbers which fall from the

943
capital budget and the Treasury requirements. That is something that we have to look at extremely carefully. The purpose is to have an internationally competitive Post Office. We must take care as regards the balance between capital expenditure and dividend to the Treasury.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will my noble friend exercise some caution in allowing flexibility to the Post Office as regards the closure of village post offices? Is he aware that if solely commercial criteria were applied to many of these organisations they would have to close, but they provide a social service which is irreplaceable by any other means?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. During the consultation period, which was undertaken before the announcement in April, it was made absolutely clear that the users regarded that as a high priority. Most of the 20,000 outlets are in private hands. Rural post offices need to be effective and profitable for the people who want to run them. That, of course, rests on the quality and range of services that they can offer. We are trying to make sure that the Post Office modernises and offers a wide range of services so that we can keep as many outlets open as possible.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister give an absolute assurance that whatever the Government propose in the autumn of this year they will in no way interfere with the universal postage rates which prevail throughout the United Kingdom?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I believe that that was one of the criteria which were attached to the Statement that my right honourable friend made in the other House in April when the second stage was launched.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister's previous answer seemed to imply that the Post Office would offer so many services that any rural post office would be able to be profitable. That will not be the case. I should like to hear the noble Lord say that the Government will continue the subsidy to these post offices after all the services have been exhausted.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord slightly misheard me. I did not say that all rural post offices would be profitable. I said that the objective of the exercise was to develop services to make it as attractive as possible for private sector individuals still to maintain trade through a wide network across the country. Clearly if one seeks to offer a universal service with a universal pricing basis, there will be occasions when the arithmetic does not work. We shall cope with those problems when we come to them. How that situation will be coped with will be part of the inquiry.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is not only the rural post offices which are under
944
threat but also some in central London? For example, the very busy post office in Eccleston Street near Victoria is under threat of closure. I believe that there is some question of selling the building as a capital gain.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I was not aware of the detail of the Eccleston Street Post Office. However, if there are any plans to change its status, I shall try to inform my noble friend accordingly. I am not aware of that amount of detail.

Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Allowayasked Her Majesty's Government:
When it is expected that Guardsmen Wright and Fisher will be released.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, no decision has yet been taken regarding a release date for Guardsmen Wright and Fisher.
In October 1997 the Secretary of State decided that the cases of the two guardsmen should be considered by the Life Sentence Review Board in October this year. The timing of this review is currently the subject of a judicial review. Judgment is awaited.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Do the Government acknowledge that the exercise of ministerial discretion to release those serving a mandatory life sentence for murder does not have to conform with advice from the judiciary or from a review board? If so, and it is so, why is that ministerial discretion—it is akin to the royal prerogative—not exercised to release those guardsmen now?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I well understand the strong feelings held on this subject. However, the Government have made their position quite clear. The Life Sentence Review Board looked at the cases last October. It was agreed by the Secretary of State that the Life Sentence Review Board would again look at the cases this coming October. That seems to me a proper process free of political influence; and a process which has been accelerated. Normally that body would not consider cases until the 10-year period. It started looking at this case after five years, and will do so again after six years.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, do the Government understand that such Questions are entirely natural after a weekend when convicted terrorists were released to attend a political meeting? Such concerns represented in this House are but a pale shadow of the wave of concern that is sweeping Northern Ireland because of a perception that the incessant and insatiable demands of paramilitary parties always seem to take precedence over the reasonable requirements of democratically rooted parties, law abiding citizens and sometimes

945
justice itself. Do the Government understand that those so-called risks in aid of the settlement are beginning to become more of a risk to the settlement?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I listen to the noble Lord because of the great knowledge he brings to bear from his experiences in Northern Ireland and his involvement with the talks process. The prisoners who were temporarily allowed out of prison to attend the conference last Sunday were allowed out only on a short-term basis. There are precedents for allowing prisoners out on a short-term basis—for example, for compassionate reasons. It was judged helpful to the peace process if the views of a limited number of prisoners could be heard. That was a decision made. The prisoners are now safely behind bars.
Lord Annan: My Lords, why must the noble Lord be so formalistic about this matter? If the Balcombe Street murderers have been released, why could not the guardsmen be released as part of the process?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, first, the Balcombe Street gang were released by the Dublin Government, not by the British Government. But using the word "release" is not accurate. I understand that they were let out for a couple of days. The two or three prisoners held in prison in Northern Ireland who were allowed to go to that conference were let out for a short period of a couple of days only. That is not the same as a release.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the Government are to legislate shortly to set up a sentence review board to facilitate the release of loyalist republican prisoners under a new scheme as part of the settlement. Will those two guardsmen be dealt with in the same way?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend touches on an important point. Under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, subject to legislation going through Parliament, there will be established a sentence review body which will look at earlier releases of prisoners held in prisons in Northern Ireland.
The position as regards those two guardsmen is as follows. Clearly their case will still come before the Life Sentence Review Board this October. However, if the legislation goes through in time, and the new sentence review body is set up, it is possible that that body might decide in its scheme of priorities to consider the case of the guardsmen early on. So they will come for consideration under one body or the other.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Campbell, the Minister said that last October the Life Sentence Review Board made a recommendation, and the Secretary of State decided not to let the men out. The two events had nothing whatever to do with one another. May we assume that the long delay in finding any answer to the review held on 25th March—we were promised it in about April—bodes well for a favourable decision both from the judge and the Secretary of State?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I cannot comment on what the judge will be minded to decide when he announces his decision. That is for the judiciary. However, last October the Life Sentence Review Board made its confidential recommendations to the Secretary of State. I have no knowledge as to the contents of that recommendation. It may well have been to keep them inside; I simply do not know. But the Secretary of State decided that it would be proper in the circumstances to ask the Life Sentence Review Board to consider again the cases of the two guardsmen this coming October. That is the position.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.8 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Stoddart of Swindonmoved Amendment No. 1.
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
DECLARATORY
(". Nothing in this Act affects the sovereignty of Parliament or the constitutional principle that one Parliament cannot bind its successor.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, many noble Lords will know that I seldom move non-contentious amendments, but on this occasion I am sure that noble Lords will all agree that this amendment is very non-contentious. It deserves, and I hope will receive, the support of the whole House.
Having said that, I believe that there is a need to have the declaration in Amendment No. 1 as part of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I take that view because, first, we need to reassure those both inside and, more importantly, outside Parliament that their constitutional rights, privileges and ability to govern themselves are not being eroded step by step, with power being handed over to unelected bureaucrats or politicians who have not been elected by the British people and are not therefore under their control through the electoral process.
Secondly, we need to remind British Ministers that Parliament is supreme; and that, although it may go through a period of indolence or toadyism, it can still bite back and holds the ultimate sanction.
Thirdly, we need to educate the ignorant or arrogant in other countries that, however many deals they do with British Ministers, or whatever measures they force on Britain through qualified majority voting, in the last analysis Parliament is the ultimate authority and holds the eventual sanction of providing or withholding supply.
We also need to remind people that Parliament remains the ultimate highest court in the land and cannot be overruled by another sitting in a foreign city.

947
It is timely to have a declaration of this sort at this stage, because it is now 25 years—a quarter of a century—since we joined the then common market, when we were assured by Mr. Heath in his 1971 White Paper that accession to the Rome Treaty would involve
"no loss of essential national sovereignty".
It is 23 years since we were told by a Labour Government in a booklet entitled, Britain's New Deal in Europe, issued during the 1975 referendum, that no important new policy could be decided in Brussels or elsewhere without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and a British Parliament. So I am restating what has already been said.
Since then, we have had the Single European Act 1985, which extended qualified majority voting to many other areas and made a start on police and judicial co-operation and foreign and defence matters. Then came the Maastricht Treaty, which only just scraped through the Commons on a guillotine, and which consolidated and extended the measures in the Single European Act and laid down the conditions and timetable for the completion of economic and monetary union and the introduction of a single currency.
Now we have the Bill that is before the House today—a Bill to put into the effect the Treaty of Amsterdam, which further extends Community competence, strengthens the foreign and security pillar, gives further powers in respect of police and judicial matters, and strengthens and extends the powers of the institutions. The president of the Commission is given new powers and an enhanced status. The European Parliament has had its powers increased through new areas of co-decision—34, I believe—and qualified majority voting has been extended.
The Government may very well say that all this is merely a case of sharing sovereignty. But that is simply not true. Sovereignty cannot be shared. You either have it, or you do not. So it really is time to have it on record that none of this affects the basic truth of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle that one Parliament cannot bind its successor.
Furthermore, this declaration would help to put some backbone into Parliament, when it is told, as it was over the Factortame case—the case concerning the Spanish fishermen—that legislation it passed to protect the interests and livelihoods of British fishermen had been declared illegal and that it was required to repeal it—backbone, that is, to tell government that no European court can tell Parliament what to do.
This declaration is meant to be helpful to Parliament, government and indeed the Official Opposition. This is not a wrecking amendment. If it were agreed, it would not affect the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty. As I said, I wish to be helpful to the Government, as I always do—and on this occasion even to the Opposition—in that I want to strengthen their firm declaration that they are in favour of a Europe of nation states and against a federal or unitary union.
948
On 31st January 1997, during the debate in which this House gave a Second Reading to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to repeal Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, speaking for the then Conservative Government, stated:
"So we must and shall continue to argue and work for the sort of European Union which we believe is right: a partnership between nation states, working together through agreed decisions of decision-making where that brings real advantage".—[Official Report, 31/1/97; col. 1421.]
So there is no question about the position of the then Conservative Government when this House passed that Bill to repeal Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act.
The same is true of the present Government—that is, if the Prime Minister is to be believed. During and before the last election, Tony Blair wrapped himself in the Union Jack, and his famous and ringing declaration in his Sun article of 17th March that, "I'm a British patriot", gave reassurance to millions of voters that neither he nor a Labour Government would sell Britain out to a European superstate.
In order that people know what he said, I wish to quote from the article. He said:
"If there are those in Europe who want a federal superstate, we would refuse to go along. Furthermore, we would want to stop all of Europe moving in that direction. The people of Europe do not want such a superstate".
He went on to say:
"I am a British patriot. Anyone who believes I would sell my country short has not listened to a word I have said in the past three years. I didn't change the Labour Party into the party it is today to give it all away to Europe or anyone else.
But I look at the Tory record—on BSE for example, where nine months on from the 'beef war' John Major still hasn't got a bean out of Europe".
That is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was saying to voters before the election. I am not at all sure, however, that by—
3.15 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way and showing such courtesy. I wonder if he would be kind enough to tell the House exactly what are the differences between his definition of "superstate" and that of the Prime Minister.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is for the Prime Minister to say. My view of a European superstate is well-known, and my position on it is expressed very well in the amendment that is before the House and to which I am now speaking. I believe that a European superstate would undermine our nationality and our self-government. That is why I am against it. The Prime Minister must speak for himself. I hope that his views are in line with mine, as they appeared to be when he wrote that article on 17th March 1997. It is clear; and if my noble friend believes that I am not telling the truth, I will send him a copy of the article.
I am not at all sure that by signing the Amsterdam Treaty my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has kept the pledge about stopping all Europe moving

949
towards a federal Euro-state. There are clauses which he ought to re-examine, after which he might agree that they allow other countries to go ahead towards federalism, although perhaps he does not wish to do so himself.
Nevertheless, the strong message from the Prime Minister to the electorate on 17th March 1997 was that Labour believed in Britain. So do I and so, I hope, do all other noble Lords in the House. There is no better way of confirming that policy and Mr. Blair's mantle of British patriotism than by accepting my amendment. It puts on record the final safeguard of Britain's constitution and its continuation as a marvellous country with a great history and an able and tolerant people who want nothing better than to govern themselves through their elected Parliament and Government. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to which I have put my name and which was so magnificently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The stark fact is that this proposed declaration—
"Nothing in this Act affects the sovereignty of Parliament or the constitutional principle that one Parliament cannot bind its successor"—
can only be true if one adds the words, "provided that Parliament retains the power to take the United Kingdom out of the Treaty of Rome". If that proviso does not apply, then the sovereignty of Parliament and the ancient principle that one Parliament cannot bind its successors have already been ceded to the treaty and there would be no point in the amendment.
That cession is not just inherent in this Bill which incorporates the amendments agreed at Amsterdam; it is also contained in the amendments agreed at Maastricht; in the Single European Act; and in the original Treaty of Rome itself.
The treaty uses three deadly weapons to remove national sovereignty in perpetuity. They are the qualified majority vote, the acquis communautaire and the fact that the treaty does not contain an exit clause. The treaty also contains a worthless pretence at safeguarding national independence, which is known as "subsidiarity". It is worthless because in areas covered by the treaty the Community decides the matters in which the nation states may remain independent. It also decides the matters in which they are to be subservient to the Community, as we saw in our debates at the Committee stage on 28th April (Hansard, cols. 170 to 191). We shall be returning to subsidiarity later in the Report stage and so I will not repeat any of the arguments now. Suffice it to say that the Amsterdam Treaty amendments on subsidiarity merely clarify and underline the supremacy of the Community over the nation state. So that is one area in the Bill which confirms that the sovereignty of Parliament has already passed to the treaty for as long as we remain a signatory.
Bereft thus of any protection from subsidiarity, we should look briefly at the treaty's three deadly weapons which are designed eventually to remove national sovereignty. The first is its system of qualified majority voting. As I never tire of reminding your Lordships, there are 87 such votes among the 15 member nations;
950
62 votes are required to carry a motion and 26 votes are required to block one. The United Kingdom has only 10 votes. So clearly we can be, and indeed often are, outvoted on matters which, were it not for our adherence to the Treaty of Rome, would have remained under the sole authority of this Parliament.
The villain of the qualified majority voting piece has turned out to be the Single European Act of 1985 which brought in a substantial increase in QMV by subjecting all our industry and commerce to its control. I understand that the United Kingdom in good faith promoted that expansion of QMV in order to facilitate the single market. The trouble is that it has backfired on us because we can be outvoted on the vast quantity of harmonising single market legislation which often penalises our global trade.
Recent examples of this would be the proposed EC Chocolate Directive, which your Lordships debated on 30th April, or the EC's proposed tax increases on our international art market which your Lordships debated on 10th December last year. Many other British interests have been similarly affected, including the workings of the common agricultural and common fisheries policies. There are at least a dozen other industries which I could name to your Lordships, but I have done so before and will not weary the House with examples now.
Looking back on it, more areas which were previously under national control were ceded to QMV by the amendments agreed at Maastricht. Now, the Amsterdam Treaty proposes to claim another 34 areas. So qualified majority voting is alive and well and expanding aggressively as time goes on.
The second deadly weapon is the acquis communautaire which decrees that whenever an area passes from national control to Community control, it can never again be given back to the nation states. The Community may keep still for a moment or two, but it never retreats. The Treaty of Rome is therefore a one-way ticket to
"the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe"
which is required in Article A.
There was a moment when my right honourable friend Mr. John Major, when he was Prime Minister, thought that some 25 per cent. of all EU legislation could be repealed as a result of the subsidiarity clause which the UK had caused to be inserted in the treaty at Maastricht. But in fact, not one single piece of useless bureaucratic interference has been so repealed, let alone anything more useful. So, that is the acquis communautaire in action and this weapon is also confirmed and strengthened in the Amsterdam Treaty which we are now considering.
The last weapon is complementary to the acquis and it is the remarkable fact that the Treaty of Rome does not contain an exit clause. So if we want to leave it, we have to break it, unless all the other nations are prepared to sit down and renegotiate a new treaty which we find acceptable. The chances of that happening are so remote as to be unreal, unless, of course, they were all convinced that we really were prepared to leave if they did not give us what we wanted.

951
I never cease to be amazed at how many people in this country regard the prospect of leaving the European Union as something negative or even frightening. They do not seem to appreciate that we give the EU much more than we get out of it, and so we could easily negotiate a bilateral trade agreement, as Switzerland has done. Indeed, we could negotiate a more favourable one than Switzerland has done.
We would then be free to follow our global trading interests comparatively unencumbered by the EU's stifling red tape and harmonisation. If we wanted to join another trading bloc, the Northern American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) makes a far better fit with our economy than does the European Community. Indeed, I was encouraged to see that Mr. Henry Kissinger last week floated the idea that NAFTA might be renamed the North Atlantic Free Trade Area, to include perhaps ourselves and maybe others.
Of course, like all other free trade areas in the world, it would not need a parliament or a commission or a council of ministers or a court of justice. That is because its aim would not be to create a corporatist superstate, designed to devour the sovereignty and independence of the nations which took part in it.
So it seems to me that the Minister who is to respond to this debate may be in a bit of a fix. Presumably she will not want to refuse to accept the amendment on the grounds that the Bill does affect the sovereignty of Parliament or the principle that one parliament cannot bind its successors. If so, I really hope that she will agree that the sovereignty we have already handed over could indeed be retrieved by a successor parliament, but only through substantial renegotiation of the Treaty of Rome or more likely by withdrawing from it altogether.
If the Minister comes to what I regard as that inescapable conclusion, I hope that she will not regard it as too terrifying or misguided an option. It is not. It is a perfectly simple policy option, like any other, which should be decided in the interests of the British people and not in the interests of the overweening political and bureaucratic machine in Whitehall and in Brussels which has come to so dominate and impoverish our lives.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and others. Political developments since we joined the then Common Market in 1972 have proceeded quickly, though in a series of small steps. So much so that perhaps it is necessary from time to time to go back to the beginning and find out just how much the situation in which we now find ourselves developed from the situation in which we were in 1972.
In common with your Lordships, I found some difficulty in going through the detailed provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam as they affect the Treaty of Maastricht as amending the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act and so forth. To trace one's way through the intricate web of treaty legislation in which we have participated since that time is a
952
considerable task. There is always a tendency barely to notice some of the smaller changes at the time they take place. It is only when one looks at the cumulative effect of those changes over a number of years that one begins to reflect on the enormity of what happened.
That was particularly brought home to me by paragraph 8 of the earlier substantive amendments to the European Union as set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam. I draw your Lordships' attention to that because it is unique. It says that paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
"paragraph 1 [Article F in the old treaty] shall be replaced by the following: The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States".
It goes on to say that paragraph 3 shall become paragraph 4 and the new paragraph 3 shall be inserted as follows:
"The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States".
I do not know whether or not your Lordships realise it, but that is the first time that the word "democracy" appeared in any of the treaties. It is useful to reflect that those who participated in the inter-governmental conference which led up to Amsterdam and the actual process of concluding the Treaty of Amsterdam should suddenly have realised that democracy is important.
Democracy is difficult to define. I suppose it can be said that we know when we have not got it, and we in this country, fortunately, have experienced a fairly advanced degree of democracy. We are accustomed—though not so much now as 20 years ago—to the power of Parliament. Such great leaders as the late Winston Churchill always profoundly respected the power of Parliament. Over the years I have found—others may yet have to tread, at any rate in length, the path that I have trodden—that the biggest menace to democracy is a power-seeking bureaucracy.
If we are going to follow the strict words in the treaty and uphold the principles of democracy and rule of law, one of the things we may have to decide, both domestically and in Europe, (though opinion may be divided as to whether it is necessary at all because it is so respectable to follow bureaucracy) is the deliberations and actions of the distinguished body of men and women who comprise the bureaucrats—they are enormously valuable and indispensable to the operation of modern society and indeed the enactment and enforcement of laws—and to what extent we can and should begin to limit the power of bureaucracy to dominate our lives.
At this stage of the debate, I do not wish to enter too intrusively or too embarrassingly into the events that attended the appointment of the chief of the European Central Bank, Mr. Duisenberg. That may be a little too embarrassing at the present stage. I should like the Government to accustom themselves to what happened before they embark on a definitive reply. But that is just one example.
The European Commission, right from the beginning, sought to take unto itself the greatest possible amount of power, not necessarily and exclusively for the

953
carrying out of immediate tasks as it saw them, but for the purpose of increasing its own power and encroaching ever further upon the powers residing in member states.
With the permission of the House, I am constrained to give some examples of the steps we shall have to take if we are to follow the new provisions relating to democracy in Europe. They will be large in number and will take a number of years and several governments to accomplish. That is the fundamental reason why we insist on the confirmation of the edict that no government can bind their successors in what they do. Undoubtedly, over the next four or five years progressively, amendments will have to be made to the treaty and they will certainly lap over into the next Parliament after this. That is why we need a re-affirmation of the present constitutional position, as I understand it and as legally advised, that at present no parliament can bind its successors.
At the moment there are a whole series of fields which are not subject to any democratic control. I hasten to add that I shall quite understand those Members of your Lordships' House who would prefer things to be solved not democratically but by so-called and self-styled experts. I can understand that and I will make allowances for it. But talking, as I believe I may be, on behalf of large sections of the population not confined to the profession of banking, not confined to providing financial services, which of course are now called products, I think we are going to have to insist that the present series of bodies which are self-appointed should he subject to democratic control. By that I mean political control or governmental control and accountability.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has just referred to self-appointed bodies. I imagine that he does not mean that the Commission is self appointed. If he is citing the example of the appointment of the president of the European Central Bank, is it not fair to assume that the Commission wanted one person to be appointed for eight years and that it was national governments who were responsible for splitting that term? It is rather unfair to blame the Commission for the problems over the appointment of the president of the European Central Bank.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, owing to a personal affliction, I did not hear the majority of what the noble Baroness said. On the assumption that she wished to draw attention to the incongruity of a Member of the House of Lords who is not democratically elected referring to these problems, I would immediately agree with her. But that still does not diminish one's right to speak upon it.
Perhaps I may mention the organisations that are at the moment responsible to no one but themselves. They are, first, the administrators of the European Social Fund, established under Article 147 of the treaty. Then there are the members of the European Court of Justice, who are chosen from persons whose independence is beyond doubt. They are responsible to no one but themselves. Then there are the members of the Court of
954
Auditors, who are chosen from persons who belong or have belonged in their respective countries to external audit bodies and who are specially qualified for this office. They are required in the general interests of the Community to be completely independent in the performance of their duties.
That is not always so. I can well recall an incident of four years ago when a member of the Court of Auditors felt it necessary to retire because he found that the Court of Auditors was under pressure from the Commission to alter a report which it proposed to submit.
There is also the Economic and Social Committee in Europe, which once again is responsible to no one and consists of representatives of various categories of economic and social activity. It is not bound by any mandatory instructions. All it is required to do is to consult with the Commission. Then there is the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank. There is also the European Central Bank, on which I will not touch further at the moment.
There is a whole series of organisations. The European Monetary Institute, which will soon cease to exist, will have its functions taken over by the ECB. There are all these bodies which are accountable to no one. As I understand it—I may have to cite as an authority, although I hesitate to do so, the honourable Member for Hartlepool, Mr. Mandelson—something will have to be done. I am at one with him on that and I trust that those remarks, coming from the quarter that they did, will receive more general support.
The fact of the matter is that legislation, or proposed legislation, is a monopoly of the Commission, which is appointed by accord. Later amendments will deal with the president and members of the Commission. At the moment the Commission is responsible for all proposals. The Council of Ministers cannot act save on a proposal. Now there are proposals and there are proposals. Normally speaking, under the kind of leisurely society which is probably more conducive to a calm appraisal of a country's real problems, we used to have just about the amount of legislation with which we could cope in terms of its interpretation and in terms of its enforcement. Now we are bombarded with a whole series of proposals upon which explanatory memoranda have to be drawn up by the departments concerned in this country and in other countries. This has reached a point where the legislative machines in practically all the countries comprising the European Union are becoming so clogged that those politicians individually responsible for presenting legislation to their parliaments are unable to consider the proposals put forward by the European Commission.
It is of course the oldest dodge in the world. If you want to confuse your Ministers, you make quite sure that the volume of proposals you lay before them is such that they cannot physically deal with it. That state has already been reached in the United Kingdom and has probably echoes in other fields that are more topical at the moment.
Those are the things we have to moderate. I do not mean moderate by some kind of drastic action that will cause friction in every quarter affected. I mean moderate

955
by that kind of action which is the result of mature reflection by legislating chambers such as the other place and ourselves, where we are able to consider matters calmly, where we are able to put forward proposals and where we are able to secure public discussion, calm discussion, of the matters involved. If we do that, it may well be that the constitutional dictum which stands at the head of the amendment will have relevance to our own future society. For the sake of my country and for all of us, I hope that that will be the case.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment, to which I have put my name. The arguments have been put very clearly and I do not propose to cover the same ground. What is plain is that some of the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty as they now stand are in direct conflict with the constitutional tradition of our own—for example, that no parliament may bind its successor. Any treaty which contains words such as "irrevocable" or "irreversible" is sowing dragon's teeth for the future.
Although I was unable to be in the Chamber for the Committee stage of the Bill, I read the Hansard reports carefully. I was struck by how often Ministers answering in the debates would try to persuade themselves and the House that the treaty as it stands would not mean that any future British government would have to take action contrary to their own interests or with which they disagreed. For example, one has only to look at the articles dealing with common foreign and security policies. One example is Article 14.2 which reads:
"Member states will refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union".
The unwritten rider to that must be, even if it is contrary to the interests of a member state. Article 15 states:
"Member states shall ensure that national policies conform to common positions".
Is it not conceivable that a member state may disagree with that common position? We need look no further back than the Falklands war to find differences between the position of the United Kingdom and of other members of the Union at that time. More recently, there was the Gulf war. There was a chasm between our position and that of some of our partners in the European Union. I remind noble Lords that Belgium's contribution was to refuse to sell us ammunition for the guns it had previously sold us.
All this goes to show that the idea of the European Union that one size fits all is simply unrealistic and will not work. I support this amendment because it will ensure that final decisions which affect us and our interests will always be taken at Westminster and not in Brussels. Whichever way one looks at the treaties on European Union, whether it is the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty or the Amsterdam Treaty, the traffic is all one way. We are gradually but inexorably ceding powers away from Westminster to Brussels.
956
When the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, introduced this amendment I believe he said—if I did not mishear him—that this was a contentious amendment. But I do not see how it can possibly be construed as contentious.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I said quite the reverse. I said that noble Lords will be used to my moving only contentious amendments but that this amendment was uncontentious and that I believed that everyone could support it without any problem at all.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am glad to hear that. This amendment is uncontentious and I apologise for mishearing what the noble Lord said. All it does is to enshrine in the Bill the unassailable fact of the supremacy of Parliament and to ensure that empty declarations relating to "irreversible" and "irrevocable" will be treated as the nonsense they are.
I do not believe that this or any government should be able to fetter their successors. I cannot believe that they would wish to do so. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to accept this modest and uncontentious amendment.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us whether he is aware of the fact that the basic voting rule on common foreign and security policy is by unanimity? Where there are disagreements there has been introduced through the treaty the device of constructive abstention. Is the noble Lord aware of that?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am indeed aware of that. But it does not alter the fact that in the past our position has been very different from that of some of our fellow members of the European Union.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on this new clause covering the subject of the sovereignty of Parliament and the constitutional principle that one Parliament cannot bind its successor.
As noble Lords are well aware, and as has been made clear during the exchanges we have had so far this afternoon, the notion of sovereignty, both political and legal, is one of the most complex and emotive of constitutional concepts. Given the unusual nature of our constitution, which is uncodified and which has evolved over a thousand years from Magna Carta to the Maastricht Treaty, this is particularly true within the context of our relationship with the European Union.
It is for that reason that I specifically wish to speak to this new clause. I want to clarify the Opposition's assessment of the effect that our membership of the European Union has had on the Diceyan tradition of parliamentary sovereignty, particularly since the legal relationship between the member states and the European Union is not simply one of conventional, international law between sovereign entities but instead it is unique in its supranational quality and its effect on the domestic law of those member states.

957
As noble Lords are well aware, it is our tradition that legal sovereignty rests with Parliament and that political sovereignty rests with the electorate. That means that every time we co-operate with Europe and sovereignty is affected, as in the Single European Act, the Maastricht process and now in the Amsterdam Treaty, it is incumbent on the government of the day to ensure that it is fully in the interests of the people of this country to do so. That is the point I wish to focus on because I believe it is particularly important since decisions taken in Europe are different in kind from those we take nationally.
The composition of national parliaments changes; national governments change and with them national policies. But in the European Union such changes do not take place every four to five years, giving the member states a chance to reconsider. Treaty change is permanent. If one member state changes its mind it cannot simply reverse policy; it needs the agreement of all other member states. Therefore, the issue of our sovereignty and decisions to transfer or share it within the European Union is one which rightly pierces to the very heart of the process of legislative scrutiny in which we have been engaged over the past few months. It is an issue which raises fundamental questions about the vision of Europe that the Government have for the future; about where the limits of European integration lie and where they should lie; and about the correct balance of powers between European institutions and nation states.
During the progress of this Bill it has sometimes seemed that in the Government's responses to our questions on this very issue they have managed to obfuscate their vision for the future of Europe rather than to clarify it. The progress of this Bill has demonstrated again that in your Lordships' House, across all political hues, voices can be heard championing their vision of the future of the European Union. This Bill has in particular raised questions concerning our constitutional principle that Parliament cannot bind its successors.
I wish to ask specifically about Article K.7 of the Amsterdam Treaty. That article explicitly involves the European Court of Justice in the home affairs pillar by giving it a degree of jurisdiction therein which has raised concerns about the continued supremacy of this key constitutional principle. At the very least this article encroaches on the intergovernmental structure agreed at Maastricht whereby the question of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice was to be left open. At the most it may have implications for the fundamental constitutional principle which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has raised in introducing this new clause.
So can the Minister clarify whether a declaration, annexed to the treaty and giving notice to the other 14 member states of the UK's intention not to incorporate this article into law, was required before signing the treaty? If so, did the Government make such a declaration? Can the Minister confirm that, if such a declaration was not made and the Government adhered to their clearly stated commitment not to incorporate Article K.7 into UK law, that means that in the UK the
958
treaty will be ratified in a form which is not the same as that ratified by the other 14 member states, which could render it invalid?
The issue of Article K.7 clearly illustrates that the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty underlying this Bill have constitutional implications for this country. Any Bill which affects our constitution, the very guardian of our democracy, requires constructive, measured and adequate scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament.
That brings me to my second point. We have repeatedly heard from the Government that this measure is a modest treaty; an unexciting treaty; a treaty that is not radical; a workmanlike, pragmatic treaty; a compromise treaty; or in the favourite phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, a "consolidating treaty". The implication is clear: such a constitutionally timid treaty does not merit the forensic scrutiny to which it has been subjected. Indeed, the Bill's constitutional implications have been minimised so as to render it almost invisible by the Government. In our efforts to raise the profile of these issues during the Committee stage of the Bill, on occasions we have been accused of paranoia, demonology and fantastic constructions. Yet we have sought to explore the implications of the transfer of powers contained in the treaty. Such scrutiny is not paranoia; it is our essential duty, for every time that we co-operate with Europe and transfer or share sovereignty we must ensure that it is in the best interests of this country.
In this treaty there is an increase in the powers of European institutions at the expense of nation states. We do not say that such an increase is ideologically wrong, but we on these Benches strongly believe that each increase in the power of the European institutions, which necessarily involves a diminution of the powers of the nation state, must be judged against the key litmus test of the benefit that accrues to Britain. To be blunt, does such a transfer bring a quantifiable benefit to this country or represent an ever-finer shaving, chiselling, and gradual erosion of the powers of our national institutions? The Government plainly do not appreciate the point of this litmus test; or why would they seek to limit the scrutiny of this Bill as they did in another place?
It is tempting to take the view that this Bill cannot contain anything of very much import since one of the greatest sins of the Treaty of Amsterdam was its glaring omission of all those European Union problems which the IGC was intended to tackle and which the treaty left unresolved. It turned a blind eye to enlargement, quota-hopping and reform of the European Court of Justice. The sheer scale of its omissions does not justify relegating the treaty to the status of some kind of post-Maastricht MoT, overshadowed by the towering themes of the single market and economic and monetary union which underpinned the two previous European treaties, for this Bill (which incorporates into British law the treaty agreed at Amsterdam) has clear constitutional magnitude. That was why our procedure required it to be debated on the Floor of both another place and this House. One would expect disagreements over its constitutional magnitude and comparisons with the fundamental constitutional implications of the Treaty of

959
Maastricht and the Single European Act, but that is not to deny that there are constitutional implications and a transfer of sovereignty contained in this Bill.
The Bill makes important changes to our relationship with the European Union. Those changes cannot easily be undone because the Bill gives effect to a major international treaty which cannot be set aside by a subsequent parliament but which provides for the transfer of substantial powers from the Parliament of the UK to sources of powers and authorities outside this kingdom. It provides for an extension of QMV and therefore the surrender of our veto. It will give more power to the European Parliament. It also includes the social chapter and a new employment chapter which will impose new regulations upon British people. It neuters any substance in the concept of subsidiarity. It also makes new arrangements for border controls and moves us closer to an integrated foreign and security policy. It changes the law on subsidiarity and gives more power to the President of the Commission.
These among others are important measures that need to be considered in the context of this new clause. They go to the very heart of the sovereignty of our institutions. Nor am I compelled by the Government's arguments on institutional change in this context. The changes made to the institutional arrangements of the Union are not merely technical, minor amendments but significant changes in the nature and powers of key European institutions.
I still fail to understand why the Government agreed to give more powers to the President of the Commission, which is a subject to which we shall return in a later amendment. Why should the President have the power to veto Commissioners recommended by member states? Why should all Commissioners now be required to work under the President's political guidance? These and many more points on institutional change demonstrate the constitutional significance of the Bill.
Yet in another place the Government ruthlessly moved to guillotine this Bill after only 12 hours in Committee. The remaining Committee, Report and Third Reading proceedings were crammed into just two days, thereby ensuring that a Bill with constitutional implications and involving potentially momentous decisions on QMV, the co-decision procedure, institutional change, flexibility, the free movement of people, discrimination, proportionality and subsidiarity, proceeded without full and proper debate. Parliament has not been given adequate opportunity to consider in detail the vitally important issue of sovereignty both here and in another place.
It is upon the management of the consideration of this Bill—it has been played down as a minor, amending, technical change to the existing treaties—that I have focused in the few words that I have uttered. That is why the new clause moved by the noble Lord and his colleagues is vitally important and that is why it is right and proper that this House should give it due consideration.
4 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I owe the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, an apology. I indicated to him that I probably would not intervene in this debate. I shall do so only briefly, largely in the light of what he said. Perhaps just a couple of sentences should be added to the debate.
First, the Treaty of Amsterdam is a relatively modest treaty and a certain amount of it flows fairly directly from the implications of the Single European Act of long ago. I take one example. Because our citizens will be free to move around to seek work in other countries of the European Union, such matters as racial discrimination will no longer be issues for only one country but for all member states. That is just one obvious example. There are many other similar examples.
When one passes legislation, one must always consider that the consequences may be very far-reaching. It is quite clear that the consequences of the Single European Act—I make no criticism of the previous government for the passing of that Act—have been much greater than perhaps was imagined at the time. Like a stone falling into a pond, the repercussions continue today.
Secondly, so far we have looked almost entirely at just one side of the equation and not the other. Whether we like it or not, we live in a world in which the problems have moved on and have ceased to be contained within the borders of a single nation state. I give one or two examples of the way in which these problems have moved on which have absolutely no bearing on the European Union but a very close bearing on the sovereignty of the British Parliament. One example goes right back to the establishment of NATO in 1949. When in 1963 the then Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, accepted the deal under which this country received Polaris on strict conditions about the way in which it was used, we qualified our sovereignty in one essential respect; namely, national defence. From that day to this, at no time has the United Kingdom been free to use nuclear weapons supplied under agreement with the United States entirely according to its own sovereign wishes; for example, we could not have used nuclear weapons in the Falklands without the full agreement of the United States. I think that most of us know that.
A second example arose in the 1980s under the previous administration. That administration accepted the removal of controls over the movement of capital, as did many other advanced industrial countries including the United States. That had a tremendous consequence for our parliamentary sovereignty. It is true that today certain fiscal policies cannot possibly be pursued because the international bond markets respond in ways which make those policies too expensive to continue. That has grossly affected the ability of any British Government to do exactly what they please. The French Government, too, discovered that when, between 1981 and 1983, they attempted to buck the opinion of international markets. I do not say that that is either a good or bad thing; it is simply a very harsh fact of the world in which we live.

961
A third and final example is the nature of some of the challenges that confront us today, ranging from organised crime to environmental challenges with regard to the pollution of seas, lakes and rivers. These matters cannot be handled by one nation alone; they require an international response. In some cases, they involve agreements that go beyond individual sovereignty to the pooling of sovereignty. I do not want to detain the House, but one could give very many more examples.
I have a great deal of sympathy with those who say that we should fully examine this Bill. I have no objection whatever to sitting here for many hours while that examination takes place. I respect noble Lords' persistence on the matter. That is what parliaments are for. Having said that, I think we have underplayed seriously the nature of the world into which we are moving.
I give one final example; the impact of information technology. Although we might like to control information on the internet that is virtually impossible—even with regard to information which many of us regard as highly dangerous in terms of encouraging criminal activity. I simply ask that we address that and accept that we will therefore have to move in directions that are new and constitutionally different from the ones in which we have moved in the past.
Within the scope of those challenges, I believe that time and again the Treaty of Amsterdam leans over backwards to accept the rights of member states. We have heard the example from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, of the common, foreign and security policy. We will be discussing that matter on a later amendment. If you read the whole of that section very carefully, every possible attempt is made to allow countries which do not wish to participate to stand aside and not to be involved. But it is not unreasonable to say that they should not actively seek to obstruct the action of other countries.
It is of vast importance that we retain democratic accountability. That is a central task for this Parliament and the parliaments of other democracies in Europe. In my view the crucial element of democratic accountability lies in ensuring that there is full parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation. We will come to that later in this debate; but I believe it to be absolutely central and crucial. Attempting to talk about parliamentary sovereignty, which is essentially theoretical, without noticing the problems which must be addressed, is not a helpful way of addressing the dilemmas that confront the Government.
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I have more sympathy with the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, put forward than with the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, put forward in relation to the impact of this treaty.
962
In the Government's view this is a relatively modest treaty or, as my noble friend Lord Whitty described it—the noble Lord acknowledged this description—it is a "consolidating" treaty. Nonetheless, it is a consolidating treaty which has made some extremely useful progress in some areas, notably on human rights, employment, equality, the social chapter, and parliamentary scrutiny. I accept that not all of the measures that the Government regard as "useful progress" may be regarded as such by others. Nonetheless, I do not think that we are dealing with anything more extraordinary here than a treaty which is essentially one of consolidation.
In your Lordships' House we enjoyed considerable scrutiny of the treaty after Second Reading: five Committee days, two now on Report and no doubt there will be a substantial commitment of time on Third Reading. So I hope that noble Lords will feel that in your Lordships' House we have given this a considerable amount of time and scrutiny.
This amendment, in the Government's view, is both unnecessary and undesirable. It is undesirable because if the new clause proposed in this amendment were to be inserted in the Bill, that would create doubts about other Acts of Parliament and other Bills. Similar clauses would have to be inserted into all Bills, especially those designed to enable the United Kingdom to comply with international treaties. That would clearly be unacceptable.
Nothing in the Amsterdam Treaty or in this Bill alters the right of this Parliament to amend or repeal any existing Act of Parliament. Nothing affects the ultimate ability of the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union, hypothetical and undesirable as that would be. But the amendment is also unnecessary because it merely restates the constitutional principle that no parliament can bind its successors.
The general position has already been explained, in Committee on 12th March, but I should like to restate it here. In our constitutional law, Parliament may amend or repeal any existing Act of Parliament. In that respect, this Bill is no different from any other. Of course, if a future parliament were to repeal the European Communities Act, that would put the UK in breach of its Community treaty obligations and the Government would have to negotiate the term of its departure from the European Union—something that this Government have no wish to contemplate.
Naturally, such negotiations would be extremely complicated. The United Kingdom has been a member for 25 years and UK and EU law are intricately interlocked. So although this Parliament ultimately retains the ability to repeal the 1972 Act and withdraw from the European Union, it would be by means of detailed and protracted negotiation. It is not a proposition to which I should like to give any currency in this House or elsewhere.
As regards the sovereignty of Parliament, the position is clear. Successive governments and parliaments have agreed that it is in the UK's best interests to work together with our partners within the Community framework. But should a future parliament decide that that was no longer appropriate and that we should no

963
longer remain party to this treaty or to any of the others on which the European Union is based, then, as I have said, it remains open to us to negotiate our way out of them. That was the case before the Treaty of Amsterdam and it is unchanged by anything in that treaty.
Let us not beat about the bush. The amendment goes to the heart of the differences which have been aired in Britain and the European Union during our debates on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, went to the heart of the matter when he said that in his view the real villain of the piece was the 1985 Single European Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others have said on various occasions, what they really object to is our very membership of the Union. That is what this amendment is really about.
I respect the sincerity of the views held by those who support this amendment, but I disagree with them most profoundly. Withdrawal is not something which the present Government even begin to contemplate. On the contrary, the Government believe that our membership of the European Union is central to UK interests. This treaty is perhaps, as I have said, not as far reaching as the Single European Act—and certainly not as far reaching as the Maastricht Treaty—but it touches on the real concerns of ordinary people in areas like employment, the environment and the fight against crime. It contains many improvements of the kind that the Government declared they would seek in their pre-election manifesto. It provides the basis for a successful enlargement process. The Government believe that it is a treaty which is good for Britain and good for Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, argued about Article K.7 which he said could affect the sovereignty of this Parliament by giving the European Court of Justice jurisdiction to overrule national legislation. I believe that is wrong. The argument is based on a misunderstanding of Article K.7(6) There is no question that the article could be used to strike down legislation passed by Westminster. The references in Article K.7(6), which are often quoted, to the Court's jurisdiction over "framework decisions" or "decisions" do not refer to the decisions made by this Parliament. They refer back to the instruments which may be adopted by the Council under Article K.(6)(2)(b) and (c) respectively. As noble Lords will know, these are new types of instruments available to the Council under the Amsterdam Treaty specifically for co-operation in the field of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.
Article K.7(6) only allows the court jurisdiction over decisions of the Council and only in the field of police and judicial co-operation. That jurisdiction does not extend to measures taken by member states to give effect to their national law or resulting obligations. This article can have no effect on the sovereignty of this Parliament. It does not give the court the ability to override legislation by Westminster. On the specific point which the noble Lord made, Article K.7 will not be incorporated into UK domestic law.
964
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, spoke eloquently in favour of democracy. It is a sentiment which the Government fully share. But his attitude exactly defines the difficulty which he and those who agree with him have in this respect. One way in which democracy in the EU manifests itself is through the European Parliament. However, I have heard little from the noble Lord in support of extending the powers of the European Parliament so that it can be an effective watchdog on the Commission or even on the Council. Indeed, the European Parliament is in the process of delivering its view on the appointment of Mr. Duisenberg as president of the European Central Bank.
Much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, can be regarded only as an attack not on the Treaty of Amsterdam but on the whole framework of this country's membership of the European Union. This is not a framework which the Labour Government invented after 1st May. The basic tenets of our membership of the European Community were drawn up in 1972 by the then Conservative government.
I turn to some of the issues which run through the whole of our discussions on the treaty in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and accountability to Parliament. That represents much of what has worried noble Lords who have addressed this amendment and much of what has worried noble Lords who dealt with amendments in Committee.
The Government are committed to a European Union that is more open and democratic. We want a Union whose activities are transparent and whose decisions are subject to proper public and parliamentary scrutiny, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, suggested. We made proposals in the IGC last year and our presidency this year will help to achieve more open decision-making; better public access to documents; closer oversight by the European Parliament of legislative decisions that are subject to majority vote in the Council; and there will be introduced in the treaty a legally-binding minimum period for national parliaments to scrutinise legislative proposals.
The measures involving national parliaments are the most important. We believe national parliaments remain the primary source of democratic legitimacy in the EU. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, agreed with that in Committee. We will therefore take action nationally to reinforce progress at the EU level.
The Government have recently made proposals to strengthen the scrutiny of European business by this Parliament. They will build on the very extensive arrangements already in place. Your Lordships are familiar with the formal parliamentary scrutiny process. Each year about a thousand pieces of draft legislation and other EU business are examined by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and its counterparts in another place. Their recommendations lead to several dozen debates and many high quality reports. I pay tribute to their work.
The information that we give Parliament, and the scrutiny carried out by Parliament, range even more widely than this. Every six months we publish a White

965
Paper on developments in the European Union. This describes progress made and new initiatives launched in all areas of EU business, including economic, budgetary and monetary matters; agriculture, fisheries and food; the single market; common foreign and security policy; and justice and home affairs. It also sets out, for example, major proposals adopted, major treaties and agreements concluded, and key European Court of Justice cases.
In this House and another place there are regular debates on European Union business. Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other departments regularly give evidence on EU matters to Select Committees, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
We make particular efforts to facilitate parliamentary discussion of business before the European Council. Before each meeting, the Foreign Secretary provides a memorandum and gives oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place. That is followed by a debate on the Floor. After the European Council has met an oral report is made to each House. A Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister gives oral evidence about the meeting to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We provide other information on a more frequent basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out in Committee, each month we announce by Written Answer the agendas for future meetings of the Council of Ministers and a forecast of other main events over the next six months. Every meeting of the Council of Ministers is followed by a written report to Parliament.
These channels of information are supplemented by the regular occasions to question Ministers and raise subjects for debate. Taken together, these represent a considerable commitment to keeping Parliament informed, and facilitating parliamentary scrutiny, of developments in the European Union. By tradition, these arrangements are laid down in convention and standing orders or resolutions. We believe this flexible approach remains more appropriate than primary legislation.
We are, however, committed to building on these arrangements, as part of our efforts to strengthen the scrutiny system and to reinforce the role of national parliaments in the EU. The President of the Council has published a memorandum setting out our proposals. The memorandum takes up several proposals made by the noble Lord's committee and other Select Committees. It has been sent to the Modernisation Committee in another place, as well as other interested Select Committees whose views on its contents we would welcome.
Our proposals include giving Parliament a strengthened, formal role in scrutiny of second and third pillar business. Detailed arrangements must reflect the specific character of the pillars. In the second pillar, for example, the nature of business means that confidentiality is vital and decisions are often needed at short notice. This may require explanatory memoranda to be submitted after adoption of a proposal.
We also propose to extend the scope of the scrutiny reserve to cover documents in the second and third pillars or on which political agreement may be sought
966
at European Councils. And we propose to strengthen the arrangements for reporting to Parliament on Council meetings. As I have said, we already report on such meetings orally or in writing. We propose more detailed reports in future, by letters to Select Committee chairmen, to ensure that Parliament is better informed on the outcome of more important issues, particularly those which have been the subject of especial interest or debate in Parliament.
We should remember the strengths as well as the deficiencies in the scrutiny system. The 1996 report by the European Legislation Committee in another place noted that it "compares extremely well with others", and that the vast bulk of scrutiny cases are handled satisfactorily. The proposals I have described will build on and improve the existing system. They will add to the wider arrangements in place to report to Parliament and ensure proper scrutiny of European business.
I hope that the explanation I have given answers the specific points raised on sovereignty in your Lordships' House and has put them into the wider context of the scrutiny which we hope will be available through this treaty to your Lordships and to our colleagues in another place.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—and I am grateful to her for responding so fully to the points that were raised—perhaps I may clarify an important issue. She stated that the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which we are considering today, will not incorporate Article K.7 into domestic UK law. Will she therefore clarify the procedure for enabling an individual member state to ratify the treaty in a form different from that which is ratified by the 14 other member states? Can the Minister say, for instance, how the Government intend to ensure that Article K.7(6) is not incorporated into our law? If the UK ratifies a treaty in a form which is not the same as that ratified by the other member states it could be rendered invalid. I should be grateful to the Minister if she could clarify the issue.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can do so. Article K.7 gives member states the option, by declaration, to accept the ECJ's preliminary rulings jurisdiction in the third pillar. The UK will not make such a declaration. Therefore, we shall not accept that jurisdiction. When I said that Article K.7 will not be incorporated into domestic law, it is because we shall not take up that option. I hope that that clarifies that point.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I could press the Minister on the three points I put to her. While, of course, the increased time for scrutiny is very welcome, and many of the other improvements which she mentioned for democratic accountability are very welcome, nevertheless would she not agree that, were a British House of Parliament not to lift the scrutiny reserve—in other words, that we were not to agree with a proposal from the European Union—and the proposal

967
was subject to the qualified majority vote which I mentioned, all the scrutiny in the world would be of no use to us and we could be outvoted on the proposal in question? Furthermore, will she confirm that the acquis communautaire and the whole business of there not being an exit from the Treaty of Rome moves us inexorably in one direction only and not in the direction which some of us would prefer to go?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this treaty provides what the Government said we should be doing in our manifesto; namely, it put us back into a leadership role in Europe. I recognise the point which the noble Lord has made about the possibility of being outvoted. On some issues there is the possibility of being outvoted. We shall deal with particular issues as we reach them in the course of our debate, as we did in Committee.
However, the safeguards which the Government have negotiated in the Amsterdam Treaty and the safeguards which this House and another place have in relation to scrutiny are very much better than they were before the negotiation of this treaty. The noble Lord nods. Therefore, I hope he will agree that this treaty improves the position over Maastricht rather than the reverse, which the noble Lord seemed to imply in his question to me.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate and longer than I thought it would be. Nevertheless, many important issues have been raised and I am obliged to all noble Lords who have taken part, including the Minister, who dealt extremely fully with the points raised and, indeed, has gone further in some cases.
As my noble friend said, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, struck at the heart of the matter. Indeed, that follows his very successful operation on 31st January 1997 when he persuaded the House to pass a Bill which would have had the effect of repealing Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act. Had he done that, and had we proceeded with it in both Houses of Parliament, we should not be discussing this matter today. Therefore, my noble friend is absolutely right that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, got right down to fundamentals.
My noble friend Lord Bruce quite rightly mentioned the question of democracy. Because of the way the European Union works, democracy is undoubtedly a casualty. There can be no doubt about that, in spite of what the Minister said. Democracy is a casualty and ordinary people feel alienated by the whole issue. Indeed, my noble friend is right to warn against the creeping bureaucracy which, through the European Union and, indeed, through our own democracy, is increasingly dominating our lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, referred to phrases in the treaties which refer to irrevocability and irreversibility. That is what worries so many people. If my noble friend would only say that in the last
968
analysis they are reversible and not irrevocable, that would be extremely helpful. I am not at all sure that the Minister did that when she wound up.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made the very important point that we have a constitution which has not been imposed in writing on our nation. It has developed since the Magna Carta. It has developed in relation to the different needs of different ages. That is what is so good about the British constitution. It is a flexible constitution, and unlike many other constitutions, it has served this nation well. I accept that it might not serve other nations, but nevertheless it has served this nation very well indeed.
I am glad that the noble Lord raised also the question of Article K.7. While I was very interested in the Minister's reply, it may well be that we shall have to return to that matter. Indeed, an amendment has been tabled and we can explore the matter further when we reach that point.
Again, the noble Lord was quite right to say that this Bill is not a 3,000-mile service. It has constitutional magnitude. I believe that that was the phrase which he used. I wish that people would not say that this is only a small treaty. It is not. It has some extremely serious constitutional implications. That is what many of us are worried about. It is a pity that the House of Commons did not have a lot more time to debate the matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that the Amsterdam Treaty is modest. I do not agree with her. It extends the competence of the institutions of the European Union. I must disagree with her that it is something like, under NATO, Polaris being provided or sold to the British Government. That did not affect sovereignty at all. I must disagree with the noble Baroness about that. Polaris was a delivery system which was sold to the British Government. We had to buy it. As far as I understand it, there was no treaty. Polaris was sold to us on conditions. Indeed, if we did not comply with those conditions, we could not have used it. But that was not a question of undermining our sovereignty. That was a condition of sale. That is completely and utterly different. We needed the technology and, therefore, we agreed to that particular condition of sale.
The Minister gave a very long winding-up speech and we shall have to study it in Hansard closely because she said some important things. She emphasised the point—and this is important because some people take a contrary view—that Parliament could still repeal the European Communities Act 1972. If that were to happen, the Government would be obliged to denounce the treaties and to negotiate their way out of them. That is an important statement. Because of the words "irreversible" and "irrevocable", many people say that that cannot be done. However, my noble friend is saying that it can be done. That is a vital statement and one which we shall keep the Government to every time we discuss the matter. That being so, I really do not see why the proposed new clause should not be accepted. All my noble friend the Minister is doing is confirming what the proposed new clause actually says. The only difference is that my new clause would put it on the face of the Bill, and that would be entirely satisfactory.

969
My noble friend also talked about measures in the treaty and the Government's determination to have better scrutiny. But scrutiny is not really what is important; what is important is accountability. That is what our own Parliament keeps on losing. Ministers can go abroad, meet with Ministers from other countries and, provided that they have the consent of the Commission, the European Parliament, and so on, and a vote by qualified majority—in other words, other countries qualifying our decisions—our Parliament has no accountability. They are not accountable to Parliament for that. It does not matter whether the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, considers the matter for 4 weeks, 6 weeks or not at all. Once the decision has been taken in Europe by qualified majority, or any other method, Parliament then has no role. If my noble friend would only tell me that the Government really do want better accountability and that they would be prepared to be mandated by Parliament before they went and made their decisions, that would be something. Indeed, that really would be progress. However, I fear that she is not going to tell us that today.
We have had a good debate. I am much obliged to all those who have spoken, especially my noble friend, who dealt with the matter very seriously and at proper length. I regret that the Government will not accept my amendment. I shall not insist on voting on the amendment today because I and, I believe, other noble Lords will wish to scrutinise what my noble friend and other speakers have said. Nevertheless, I have to give notice that I may wish to return to the matter on Third Reading when we may well have to seek the decision of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishmoved Amendment No. 2.
After Clause I, insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION
(". A Minister of the Crown shall, on 1st May 2003, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing details and an assessment of—

(a) the constitutional impact,

(b) the monetary and financial impact, and

(c) the impact on economic and social progress,

on and in the United Kingdom of any measure adopted or to be adopted, or decision taken or to be taken, by the Union pursuant to the objective set out in Article B of the Treaty on European Union of establishing economic and monetary union ultimately including a single currency.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had an interesting debate on the issue of the euro during the Committee stage of the Bill. I am returning to the debate today as I am a good deal more certain of the importance of the need for a clear report in five years' time than I was even two or three weeks ago. The reason is that we have had the meetings of ECOFIN and the Council of Ministers to start off the euro. If anything, it illustrates the point that we have to be vigilant about what government Ministers say. We also have to ensure that
970
all the facts are laid at the disposal of the British people in a proper manner, before this country makes a decision to join the euro.
In Committee, we had just received the excellent report of the Treasury Select Committee of the other place. Indeed, I quoted from it fairly frequently during the course of my speech. Understandably, I did not receive much of a response on these points from the Minister because there is a convention that Ministers do not respond to a report of the Treasury Select Committee until the Government have responded collectively. Indeed, I do not suppose that I shall make any more progress today and drag from the Minister any comments on the Select Committee's report.
However, that does not in any way mean that your Lordships should not consider carefully what the Treasury Select Committee said. Indeed, the theme of my argument this afternoon—its text—is encapsulated in paragraph 40 of that report. I should like to read it to noble Lords, just in case they have not brought their copies with them into the Chamber. Paragraph 40—in fact, so important is this that it is repeated in paragraph (0 of the committee's conclusions—says:
"We agree that if the Government decides to recommend that the UK should join it is imperative that a 'final report' be produced. We recommend that it should also contain a comparative assessment of the consequences of entry and of staying out in the long term. For the reasons we have outlined, it would not be desirable for the final report from the Government before any referendum simply to contain an updated assessment of the five tests"—
that is, the five tests outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
"However, we conclude that it will not be possible to judge 'clearly and unambiguously' either the 'success' of EMU or the answers to all of the Chancellor's five tests for at least five years. It will remain the case that the UK's decision will have to he made on a political and economic assessment of the balance of national advantage".
I believe that the proposed new clause before the House this afternoon expresses those views in a slightly different way, but, nonetheless, the conclusion is the same: the need for a report in five years' time. I should have thought that that will be so, give or take a year or so. The Treasury Select Committee has come to a conclusion regarding five years and I have come to a conclusion about 1st May 2003. That is about the right time to start contemplating such a report. My proposed new clause says that there "shall" be such a report at that time, while the Treasury Select Committee is a little more vague. Nevertheless, I believe that we have come to the same conclusion.
When we discussed the matter on the last occasion and considered the report of the Treasury Select Committee, we were looking forward to the vital weekend meetings of ECOFIN and the Heads of Government at the beginning of May when decisions would be made about who satisfied the convergence criteria and about the presidency of the European Central Bank. I pointed out then the need for an honest approach to the convergence criteria and referred to assurances from the party opposite that the criteria would be rigorously adhered to.
One has to look backwards before one looks forwards to the year 2003. My worry is even greater than it was before the meeting of ECOFIN. Despite all the pledges

971
that we had received, I believe that "fudge" was the order of the day. For example, on 4th June 1997 in the other place, the Prime Minister said:
"I have also made it clear, as we have always said, that the criteria for monetary union should not be fiddled, fudged or botched in any way. If they are, the answer is not to delay—the answer is not to proceed".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/6/97; col. 386.]
Moreover, as recently as 25th March of this year, the Prime Minister said:
"I also agree that it is our duty as president of the European Union to ensure that the criteria are properly obeyed. We shall do so".— [Official Report, Commons, 25/3/98; col. 492.]
I am not entirely sure that the Prime Minister obeyed his own words and that the criteria were not indeed fudged, and fudged again. We have gone over the matter, and I shall not do so again in any detail, but, however one looks at the criteria, they were certainly fudged in a very big way.
The Treasury Select Committee warned us of the fudge. At paragraph 12, the report says:
"Substantial concerns remain with regard to the state of the public finances. Although deficit levels have fallen and it appears that 14 of the 15 potential members had deficits below the 3 per cent reference value, a number of these countries benefited from one-off measures which reduced the deficit for a temporary period only. Progress on reducing debt levels has been far from convincing. The average debt level across the EU area stands at over 70 per cent of GDP and 11 of the 15 potential EMU members currently have debt levels of over 60 per cent. of GDP … In particular the very slow progress on fiscal consolidation made by Belgium and Italy provoked the EMI to comment that 'there is an evident ongoing concern as to whether the ratio of government debt to GDP will be sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace and whether sustainability of the fiscal position has been achieved'. The general assessment from both the EMI and Bundesbank reports, which was further expounded by the Governor, was that there is still a very long way to go before fiscal positions are sufficiently robust to ensure that the majority of member states will achieve the aims of the Stability and Growth Pact in the medium term".
Yet, despite that, they all signed up. The criteria were not met. Everyone knows that they were not met. This is simply an arithmetic version of what I believe—if my memory serves me rightly—the queen in Alice in Wonderland said, "Words mean what I say they mean". In this case, the arithmetic means what I say it means.
When we consider the position of the United Kingdom in relation to the euro in the future, we cannot lose sight of the way the heads of government clearly decided that the end justifies the means. We heard that phrase just the other day in connection with another part of the world. But if the end justifies the means, I believe that we have to put some kind of stumbling block, test or whatever it may be, into the legislation on this treaty to make sure that before the United Kingdom makes any decisions a clear, concise report is available on all the various issues which are set out in my amendment. I shall discuss them in detail shortly.
It was not just the arithmetic that was fudged. The other fudge concerned the presidency of the European Central Bank. I think that Wim Duisenberg is a pretty good choice. He has made some robust comments since he was appointed president. I am not entirely sure whether that will endear him to some of the people who agreed to the fudge. It was quite clear that every member
972
state bar one had decided that Wim Duisenberg should be president of the new central bank. That one state was, of course, France which dug its heels in. It is amazing that when any country, with the exception of Britain, digs in its heels, no one says, "Oh, they are not being communautaire". Yet the moment we dig our heels in about anything we are accused of being anti-Union, anti-communautaire and all kinds of other things. Yet France dug its heels in pretty effectively. France did not give way—as we used to be told good Europeans should give way—and it forced a compromise which was clearly in breach of the Maastricht Treaty.
The Prime Minister described the situation in his Statement to the House of Commons, which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal repeated in this House. The Prime Minister almost denied that there had been a compromise. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal repeated the Prime Minister's words in this House, saying,
"Much of the subsequent press reporting has rested on this simple factual inaccuracy: that Mr. Duisenberg intended and wished to serve for a full eight years, as opposed to being nominated for that time, which is the time stipulated under the treaty … Mr. Duisenberg very properly made it clear that he would not want to serve a full eight years … he should at least stay until the euro was launched and all transitional arrangements, particularly the introduction of the notes and coins, were in place. This accorded with Mr. Duisenberg's own wishes that he oversee this process and step down shortly after".—[Official Report, 5/5/98; cols. 508–9.]
The Statement continues at col. 509,
"At my suggestion"—
that is the Prime Minister's—
"he stated his position personally, in his own words, to the Council. He explained that, because he would be 67 in 2002, he did not wish to serve the full term, but that it was his intention to see through the transitional arrangements for the introduction of euro notes and coins, including the withdrawal of national notes and coins".
The amazing thing is that Mr. Duisenberg then went to see the European Parliament and was refreshingly honest with it. According to a report in The Times of last Friday, he dissociated himself with the,
"British brokered compromise at last Saturday's summit which effectively ended his tenure in 2002. He said. 'I have never stated that I will serve only four or five years. What I have done is indicated that I regard it not likely that I will serve the full term of eight years'".
When asked if he might stay for the full term, he drew applause when he replied,
"Given good health, then yes".
That is in fair contrast to what your Lordships and the other place heard last week. All he had promised the summit was that he would stay at least until the deadline for the changeover to euro notes and coins in July 2002. He said,
"I do not know how long beyond that I will serve. I do not intend to stand down at a specific moment in time which I would have in my mind now".
He went on to say,
"There were efforts to convince me that I should announce a day to stand down. That is why it took so long last Saturday. I refused to do so. In that case I would not have accepted the job".
That contrasts quite markedly with what we heard in your Lordships' House last week. I do not wish to embarrass the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal in his

973
absence, but I cannot resist one further quotation. The noble Lord said in replying to questions on the Statement,
"But there is no question about Mr. Duisenberg wishing to serve the eight years, as I understand it".—[Official Report, 5/5/98; col. 516.]
That was not what Mr. Duisenberg understood when he went to see the European Parliament. He said,
"Given good health, then yes".
What is clear about the events of the past two weeks—whether they concern the convergence criteria or the presidency of the European Central Bank—is that we cannot leave the decisions on whether Britain should join, or when we should join, if that is the decision that has to be made, just to the Government and to the heads of state. We need some clear, legal obligation that a proper report will be produced. That is what this amendment calls for. I refer not just to the Chancellor's five tests. I make no apology for repeating my next point. The Chancellor's five tests are the Chancellor's selected five tests. Many more tests could be applied, and perhaps they should be applied. At paragraph 25 of the report from the Select Committee on the Treasury, Christopher Johnson is quoted as having argued that,
"'The Chancellor's tests are so loosely defined that anyone will be able to say that they have been either passed or failed, according to the dictates of political expediency'".
Mr. John Arrowsmith suggested that,
"if no commitment is given as to when a further assessment will be made, 'there will be a lot of guessing going on and a lot of uncertainty generated in financial markets that could actually prove to be destabilising and, if you like, upset the apple care"'.
At the end of that paragraph, the Select Committee concluded,
"We believe that the Treasury response to this Report should set out more precisely the ways in which the tests will be assessed, particularly to avoid uncertainty in the financial markets".
My proposed new clause sets out in some detail the issues which the tests ought to address in order not just to prevent uncertainty in the financial markets, but also—dare I say it?—to prevent uncertainty in the political climate in this country. That is why I ask for a report which would examine a number of specific issues. It would, for example, examine the constitutional aspects not just of "going in" but also of "staying out". We are talking of whether we go in or stay out. That is an option which the British people and the British Parliament will have to decide.
The constitutional position will be important. However, given the public opinion polls in Scotland, one is a little fearful for the constitutional position of the United Kingdom in five years' time. However, that is another issue. As I said, the constitutional position is important. I do not normally share some of the more fevered suggestions—I describe them kindly—of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch or of some noble Lords opposite as regards the European Union. However, I am in some danger of being smitten by their fears when I read, for example, what Chancellor Kohl said to the Bundesrat just recently. I have taken to reading The European. In The European of 27th April
974
my attention was drawn to evidence given to a Bundesrat committee by the German chancellor. The article states:
"He made it clear that monetary union is a process which will make European unification irreversible. He sees EMU as the single most significant step on the road to a federal Europe. He even regretted that the Amsterdam Treaty did not take integration further … Mr. Kohl's vision of a united Europe is based on the German model of a decentralised federal state: `What has been achieved over 40 years in terms of arrangements between the German federation and its constituent Länder—and it was no simple process—can nonetheless happen in the development of the EU.' There will be substantial devolution of power, as there is to the German Länder, but Europe is to have a federal government more powerful than anything admitted to in London".
Those noble Lords who have heard me debate European issues know that I am a supporter of the European Union. But I am not a supporter of the kind of federal Europe that some noble Lords seem to think will be inflicted upon us. When I read Chancellor Kohl's views I become a little worried that someone in such an important position believes in going a good deal further than I, and I think the majority of your Lordships, would be happy to go. Perhaps the Minister can give me a flavour of what the Government feel on the constitutional aspects of moving ahead in the way Chancellor Kohl describes.
The next part on which we would like a report is the monetary and financial impact. By 2003 we shall be in a better position than today to judge how the monetary and financial aspect is working. I need say no more on that; it is self evident. We all hope that the Euro will work. If it does not work, the consequences for all the economies in Europe will be very serious indeed. But we wish to see how the monetary and financial systems are working together before we in this country decide to go in.
The third aspect is the impact on economic and social progress. That is very important indeed. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to two points of view. They are not the only two, but I give them as examples. One is unemployment. I noted that in the Treasury Select Committee report at paragraph 32 it says:
"The Governor of the Bank of England argued that, 'wide divergences in unemployment rates pose a real question as to the sustainability of that situation in the absence of much more flexibility in labour markets in Europe' … if structural differences persisted, 'you could have difficulty in getting a single monetary policy which is appropriate for the area', giving rise to `high unemployment persisting in some parts of the area with potentially inflationary pressures persisting in others'".
I could continue at some length about the difficulty of one interest rate throughout all the 11 member states; and how for some of those member states that interest rate will be too low, and for others too high. However, we know that for the past five years under the previous government, we successfully pursued labour market monetary policies which enabled our unemployment to come down month by month on whichever count one takes, whereas our friends on the continent saw their unemployment rise month after month. It gives me no pleasure to say that, but that is a simple fact. Therefore employment is an important aspect.
The other aspect that I believe important—I know a little about it from my experiences in the past government—is pensions. By 2003 we shall be in a

975
better position to see how the social policy—for example, pensions provision—is panning out in Europe. The impact of the ageing population in all our countries will be considerable. Some of our European friends have huge unfunded pension promises for the future. We are fortunate in that we have considerable funded pension provision in place—although, frankly, not nearly enough, and not covering nearly enough of our population. But at least it is a good deal better than that of our European friends. We shall want to be sure that no effort is being made by 2003 to translate those unfunded obligations from the individual member states to the union.
I believe that the new clause accords with what the Treasury Select Committee asks the Government to do: to produce in five years' time a balance sheet of the economic, social and constitutional advantages and disadvantages of joining up to the single currency. Given the events of two weekends ago, it seems sensible to tie this down in a legislative framework in case after the five years the Government treat the whole issue in the same fudging way as it was treated two weekends ago. I believe that that would be to the detriment of this country.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend concludes, will he bear in mind that the various matters set out in the amendment, with which I fully agree and which he has stressed as being important, will start revealing themselves within 12 months? I should have thought that within three years conclusions could be reached upon each of them. Five years in politics and economics is an eternity. If we wait until 1st May 2003, it means that this Government will be under no obligation to submit a report on these matters until after the next general election. Surely on further reflection my noble friend may at a later stage accept an amendment to make the period three years instead of five.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not often accused of being more generous than I should be. My noble friend makes the point that the date I have chosen would take us beyond the next election. But I am more interested in pinning down whoever will be the government then—I hope that it will be this side and not the other side—to an obligation to produce a report about the position of the euro. I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend that the position will be clear within three years. Much of the business as regards euro coins, notes and so on, will not come fully into play until, I think, 2002. Therefore while I understand my noble friend's point—I should look sympathetically at any further amendment he wished to put to my new clause—2003 seems about the right time. It accords with the Select Committee report. I commend this new clause to the House. More importantly, I commend it to the Government.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, before the noble Lords concludes, perhaps I may ask a question. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out that there must be a
976
general election before the year 2003. If I heard the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, aright, he based his date on a speech made by the Chancellor when he said that it would be at least five years before this issue would have to be decided. "At least five years" does not necessarily imply that the report would be made by 1st May 2003. I do not assume that the noble Lord means that the Chancellor in 2003 will be Gordon Brown. But will whoever is Chancellor in 2003 be obliged to pay attention to this provision? We spent an hour and a half discussing the previous amendment during which debate it was emphasised that no Parliament can commit its successor. Would whoever was Chancellor on 1st May 2003 ignore the provision on the principle that he was not committed by what was done by the previous Parliament?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if we passed this new clause, and the government in 2003 decided that they did not wish to implement it, they would have to come forward to both Houses of Parliament with fresh legislation to rescind the legislation that we had placed on the statute book. The same argument could be made for every piece of legislation that we pass. I suspect that it would be a pretty brave government who would say, "We are not going to bother with a report". It might be clear by that time that there was no point in our joining the euro and we could not possibly join it, and therefore from that point of view a report was unnecessary. But in those circumstances a government would have to come before the House and bring forward new primary legislation to repeal any legislation passed in this Bill. I hope that answers the noble Lord's question. I shall not be drawn into whether or not the Chancellor will be Gordon Brown. Indeed, if the Labour Party cannot do better than the Scottish Nationalists in Scotland in the polls, shortly, Chancellor Brown may not even be a Member of Parliament for the United Kingdom.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I support this amendment tabled by my noble friend, in spirit at least, if not in its detail. I shall shortly explain to your Lordships why I have some reservation on the detail.
It is extremely timely that we should debate this matter again, although we debated it in great detail in Committee. A great deal has happened since then to affect the evolution of the whole gigantic euro project. Therefore it is right to return to the matter again, as we shall have to do many times in the future.
The spectacular part of the weekend meeting which reached certain decisions on the launching of the euro and the participation of member states was the argument referred to by my noble friend as to who should he chairman of the ECB and for how long. Whether that means that there will be a soft or a hard euro is not very significant. Both the candidates, Mr. Duisenberg and Jean-Claude Trichet, are extremely hard-line, tough, experienced, sound money-men. Whoever is actually at the helm of the ECB, it means that the euro will be administered and underpinned by a very strong

977
monetary policy, whether the French Government or other governments like it or not. So, from the point of view of the euro itself, the issue does not really matter.
The more worrying aspect is the way in which the matter reflects a much deeper flaw and fault-line in the entire system. What it indicates should chill us all. It has been very well and successfully hidden for many years. I refer to the continuing underlying irritation, if not worse, between the French outlook upon European development and integration and the German outlook. That is a matter that we should all pause to consider. In the past, that irritation has grown to more than irritation and turned into some of the most ghastly consequences of the 20th century. That the French and the Germans should not irritate each other, and that they should work together, is a fundamental requirement for making the euro a successful currency in due course. If there is indeed a flaw in the system and that irritation is allowed to grow into a real division, then the euro is in trouble and the whole of Europe is in trouble. This country will be in trouble too. So the real worry is that it reflects a deeper difference of perspective as to what the whole euro project is about.
Is it about the French gaining control of their monetary destiny, as they always say in Paris, or is it about Germany finally submerging itself in a greater Europe and cutting itself off, or purging itself, of its past historical guilt, as is the basic story put forward by Chancellor Kohl—and very understandably? He wants never again the experiences of his youth. We do not know the answer to that question. It is not resolved. The events of the weekend before last proved that the matter is certainly not resolved but will continue, and will return to haunt the euro system in the future.
The second development since then—although it has in fact been going on all the time—is one that leads to my having doubts as to the precise wording of my noble friend's excellent amendment. I rather agreed with the intervention of my noble friend Lord Renton. Not only is 2003 a very long way away, but I would go further than my noble friend: it seems that the whole issue is knocking at our door, and coming in through the back-door of the British economy at a rate which many people did not foresee. It is already becoming daily more visible.
The truth is that already more and more countries are moving over to managing their entire debt in euro-denominated bond issues. The old currency-denominated issues of Europe will probably have disappeared altogether by this time next year, and the entire business will be conducted in euro-denominated issues. I am not talking about euro bonds; I am talking about euro-denominated bond issues, which are quite different. Luckily, the City of London appears to have the major role in managing those issues. I declare an interest: I work for an organisation involved in these matters. That is coming at a pace—it means that a great deal of the debt market will be denominated in euros, not in five years' or three years' time, and not when the currency finally appears and the individual denominations disappear, but long before then, almost before the official fixed date for the currencies of 1st January next year.
978
Secondly, it can only be a matter of time before our financial system and our bank statements all come, as they already do in France, in euros as well as in the local currency. Thirdly, a great many corporations will move over to parallel accounting in the local currency, the pound, and the euro currency. Fourthly, let us wait for the first take-over bid by a big European euroland corporation of a corporation or company on UK soil outside the euro zone. That will almost certainly be couched and put forward in terms of euros. There is no way in which we can pass a law saying, "No, that's a terrible thing. We can't have a take-over bid made in euros for a corporation in the sterling zone". We cannot stop that. It will happen; and the entire debate and bid process will have to be conducted in euros. Therefore I suspect, far from having to wait five years, we shall find, probably by this time next year, May 1999, that the pound has already become a parallel currency, and will continue to circulate but that the euro will circulate as well—albeit not as legal tender or underpinned by any law of this House or another place; nevertheless it will be there. The euro will have come in by the back-door.
That does not mean to say that there are not tremendous difficulties ahead for the euro system. I for one have grave doubts about what we—that is, we, the Europeans—have committed ourselves to in moving at this political speed into the euro project. But that is quite different from the point I am making; namely, that the euro has arrived, and has already arrived in the UK, and it will therefore be necessary for the two Houses of Parliament to have very detailed reports before them as from possibly this time next year about the impact on our own affairs, which will be very considerable indeed, and very massive, and will lead to all sorts of consequences for our own monetary system and our own economic and social progress, to use the words of the amendment.
Nobody, of course, knows how all this is going to work out. I said a moment ago that Mr. Duisenberg and Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet between them, if Mr. Duisenberg does move aside—which he does not look like doing before eight years—will run a very tight ship and a very hard currency. But other political and market forces may undermine their ranks. However much the ECB continues to raise interest rates, this is a system, an animal, as it were, the like of which has never walked the earth before. It is a single currency which cannot be compared to the Maria Theresa dollar or the gold standard; it has a single monetary authority but 11 budgetary authorities—allegedly bound together, as it were, bound round their legs by the stability pact, but no one knows exactly how that will work. Never before in history has such a system been attempted. It is a colossal experiment and, ironically, at just about the time when the present Government may be talking about Britain wanting to join, there could possibly be the most colossal crisis. My guess is that everything will happen very much faster than anyone realises, and long before we reach the next general election, the end of this Parliament or other matters, we shall find the maintenance of this position, of hoping one

979
day that synchronisation will somehow come—frankly, I have never understood how, if we are "out of sync" now, we shall magically get "into sync" later. The whole of that position will be swept away by events of which neither this Government nor the governments of the other European countries are fully in control.
My regret is not only that it is a huge and dangerous experiment—and one that we could have managed without; although there are those who have said that the European Union could not go forward without a single currency, which I have never fully understood. My greater regret is that it has taken energies away from the real project of Europe. That project is the one for which our forebears and many in this House fought in a world war. It was to unite the whole of Europe in free republics and monarchies from Lisbon to the River Bug and from Calabria to the Orkneys. That was the dream of the united Europe. It was all destroyed after 1945 by the Soviet occupation. We had to wait 45 years, then the Berlin Wall came down and everyone thought, "That's fine, now we'll get on with the real project of Europe, embracing the new democracies of east and central Europe". But we did not. Seven years have gone by and we are still waiting.
Desultory negotiations have begun. We shall come to that at a later point in the debate, I know. It will probably be 15 years before any of those countries joins the Community. That was the main purpose; that was the dream. Instead, all energies have gone into the alternative project of EMU. It is interesting. No doubt many people will get rich and many new and fascinating economic developments will occur, but to my mind it is not in the main stream of what being a true European is about. It is, of course, irrevocable and irreversible, as noble Lords have pointed out. It is underpinned by a law which is superior to British law, so that we cannot go back.
I have enormous respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, but she said something with which I am afraid on this occasion I disagreed most profoundly. She said that EMU was not very different from NATO or global capitalism. In other words, interdependence and trans-governmentalism are not different from the supra-governmental nature of the whole undertaking. It has a system of superior laws; superior to the laws of this House and the House of Commons and superior even to the judgments of the British courts which can be overturned.
With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, it is not intergovernmentalism; it is not interdependence; it is a supra-national project. It is irrevocable and irreversible—or so the great leaders of the European Union say. Of course, when the irrevocable and the irreversible meet the contrary irresistible forces of market intentions—as will happen one day—we shall be in for the most almighty bust up. That is why we shall be swept in early; but later, perhaps by 2003, we shall just about be in the middle of the first tremendous crisis.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, unlike most contributors to the debates on the Treaty of Amsterdam, I am free of
980
the necessity to say that I am, of course, in favour of the European Union. I am not. I believe that it was a mistake for Britain to sign the Treaty of Rome and I think we are now seeing many of the consequences which were bound to follow, although I admit that I did not see them at the time.
The speech which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who has great knowledge of these matters, is one with which I could not possibly bring myself to disagree—that is, in the sense that he is probably right that the tempo is being accelerated. But there are other things happening to which I called your Lordships' attention at an earlier stage of the Bill which one must look at again. They are political developments on the continent of Europe.
When the treaty was first signed, it appeared almost unthinkable that Chancellor Kohl would not be in power when the provisions about a single currency came into effect. It now looks not only likely, but very probable, that Chancellor Kohl is on his way out and that the kind of statement which he made about Europe becoming a single government, not merely having a single currency, will begin to look very dated. If Chancellor Kohl does not succeed in winning the next election, the well known German antipathy to the sacrifice of the mark will begin to make itself felt, even with the clumsy German political system. Therefore, we are not in a position to know, even within the next 12 months, who our interlocutors will be in Europe.
There is also the important point that, after all, when we come to discuss the important questions of the impact on employment, we have had one experience within the past decade of monetary union—the monetary union between western and eastern Germany. What has been the result of that monetary union? The relative economic positions of the two parts of Germany have not converged but have gone farther apart. As I pointed out to your Lordships a week or two ago, the result is the recrudescence of extremist right-wing and left-wing political parties in what was the German Democratic Republic. The idea that somehow or other those political and constitutional issues are secondary to the insights of multinational firms—often blinkered as to their own real interests—is something which this House should deplore.
Therefore, we come to what I think is the central point of the new clause proposed by my noble friend and with which, despite those reservations, I have no quarrel. The central point is the constitutional one. We have constantly been given to understand by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that this is not a constitutional issue of central importance; namely, the final transfer of power from the British electorate to put in power or to chase out of power a government with which it is not in accord. That is, after all, ultimately what the constitution is about. To suggest that a government would be worth electing which would have no power over currency, which was a symbol of government not merely for decades but for centuries—or, as archaeology tells us, for millennia—is to embark on an enterprise which can surely only end in disillusion and disaster.

981
It is therefore absolutely essential that constant pressure is brought to bear on the Government to make clear whether there is anything in the idea that some kind of political influence could still have an impact on those splendid hard money characters whom everyone unites to praise. Hard money may be a good thing in some circumstances. It may be counter-productive in others. The assessment must be the assessment of the prosperity of the peoples involved.
Whatever one may think about French negotiating tactics, President Chirac has a point. The French people will not accept indefinitely having their economic fortunes dictated by the will of a country, their neighbour, twice their size and much more powerful industrially. There are bound to be frictions. They may have as many pâté de foie gras dinners in Avignon as they like, but in the end the French economy and the German economy are different. If one brings in the economies of southern Europe, the differences are even more marked. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can even flirt with the idea of Britain being part of that kind of enterprise, doomed, as it is, I fear, to failure.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Over the years he and I have been somewhat opposed over the issues of the Central Bank and our membership of the European Union. I understand his position and I am sure that he understands mine. I found his quotation from The European of 27th April to 3rd May interesting. It was a reference by Herr Kohl to EMU and the relationship of Germany to Europe through EMU.
For a long time many of us have been quoting Herr Kohl and others as saying that it is German policy to have a united federal Europe under the suzerainty of Germany. I have been criticised for saying that. I have been called a xenophobe and told that I am anti-German simply for quoting what Herr Kohl says. It seems to me that what I and others have been saying has now been made respectable by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He too realises what the German agenda is and he is no more anti-German or xenophobic than I am. However, we need to understand the reality of the position and, in understanding it, be careful of what we do.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, quite rightly cautioned against being pushed into this venture without knowing where we were going and what the results would be. He is quite right. It is absurd for this Gadarene gallop into the unknown to be taking place at this point in time, or for that matter at any point in time. We must recognise that going in will involve major risks. It has never before in history been tried. That does not appear to be borne in mind by all those who are enthusiastic about it. It is like saying, "It will be all right on the night". But, as the Conservatives found at the last general election, it was not all right on the night. We cannot exist simply on hope; we must grapple with reality. The reality is
982
that there is no precedent to which we can refer and therefore it is dangerous to gallop in before we know what is involved.
Again, I do not believe that there has ever before in history been a single currency without first there being in place the political structures to manage it. Yet we are going into the single currency without the political structures which will make it viable. That is a recipe for disaster, and everybody knows that. We must understand what those political structures are. That is why we need a proper report. It will be no use the Government replying to the House of Commons' excellent report in the way that they so often reply to those of us who ask for a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union. From their reply, the benefits would appear to be self-evident. But they are not; and they are certainly not self-evident when we look to future economic and monetary union together with a single currency. We must be careful therefore what we do.
We must remember ERM. Can anybody forget it? I cannot, but some people can. What was the reason for the ERM disaster? It was because we rushed into it without knowing or contemplating the consequences. We were bounced into it at much too high a rate. We were probably bounced into it by the other countries of the European Union. I hope that I shall not be accused of being a xenophobe for saying that. It was in their interests that we should go in at too high a rate. It was a disaster, and we should remember that.
We should also bear in mind that if we go in, we shall lose control of our monetary policy and to a degree our fiscal policy also. How then will we deal with a possible slump? Bankruptcies and ruin will be inflicted on many industries, as happened when we came out of the ERM. Unemployment will rise to 3 million or 4 million. How will we deal with it if we are irrevocably linked into the European system and a single currency?
We discuss issues in this Chamber, but others discuss them as well. I was struck, on reading the Daily Telegraph of Monday 11th May, to see a letter from Mr. Rodney Leach. He is not a politician; he is not a Member of the House of Lords; he has never been a Member of the House of Commons, but he is a sensible and extremely experienced man. He is second-in-command at Jardine Matheson and a director of many other companies. He wrote an excellent letter under the heading,
"The euro is a leap in the dark".
I cannot quote the whole letter, but if noble Lords will bear with me I should like to read the final two paragraphs. He said:
"The greatest problem of the euro is the democratic deficit. Whether it is to be the exclusive property of central bankers or part of the struggle for European political supremacy matters less than the fact that Britain's interests, if we were to sign up, would count for little. When unemployment again approaches three million here, as some day sadly it will, there would no longer be the democratic option of changing the team in charge of economic policy. Popular diction might then find its outlet in extremist reactions, as we have seen recently in Saxony-Anhalt and in France, where neo-fascist or neo-communist parties are now strong enough to qualify as coalition partners.

983
There is a quiet campaign—unique to this country—to make an orthodoxy of the Clarke/Brown line that the single currency raises no significant constitutional issues, with the implication that to believe otherwise is the mark of an ideologue. When this is eventually put to the test of hard times, it will prove to be a dangerous fallacy".
I sit down and let Rodney Leach's letter speak for me.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am sure that the House is indebted particularly to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Howell of Guildford—I shall come back to that in a moment. In the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, taken together with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, we see the difficulty of trying to put a date into an amendment of this kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out that matters were moving much faster than may be implied by a date of this sort, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that we had no way of knowing exactly when the next election will be; we can make an assumption about it but we may get it wrong. Clearly the Government are committed to a referendum in any event and in my view therefore the amendment is probably otiose.
In fighting a referendum, whatever view the Government take at that time, they will have to set out their case to the British people in great detail, as will those who take differing views on the matter. The crucial issue is to ensure that the British people are as fully informed as possible.
In that context one matter that I profoundly regret is that the previous government did not make available information about the European Monetary Union, which I believe they should have done, because we now have to look at a country which is less well informed than most of its neighbours in respect of the implications, or possible implications, of European Monetary Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out that euro-denominated bonds are growing very fast, and perhaps I might add to that a more pedestrian thought. Last weekend I took part in a business forum in Ipswich for East Anglian business people in the presence of both a German businessman of some standing, whose company has a number of subsidiaries in this country, and a Dutch financial expert. Both of them pointed out that in their view the companies in East Anglia should move as quickly as possible to denominating prices in euros, and this is years before there is any possibility of this country joining the euro system. They felt that British companies would lose out very badly in their export markets unless they began to move very quickly in that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, did not express a particular view about when there should be a decision with regard to the European Central Bank and the single currency, but what he did do, and was absolutely right to do, was warn the House, and he gave us a very strong sense of the urgency of this issue, whether or not Britain becomes a full member. I ask that we meet at some time to discuss the point that he raised with regard to what I had to say, but in the meantime perhaps I may say this. Of course, he is absolutely correct on the legal and
984
constitutional aspect, but I was not making that point; I was making a point about the de facto issue of sovereignty. The noble Lord will understand that I was a member of a government which had to accept quite specific intervention by an international monetary fund in existing government policies as a condition of receiving a loan to enable them to sustain sterling through a difficult period. Therefore, I am much scarred by an awareness that all the sovereignty that may exist in constitutional terms can be very much qualified by the harsh facts of economic and financial life.
I now turn very briefly to the clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but the noble Baroness is again making a fundamental error of definition. Nobody would deny, for instance, that in 1939 the country—I will say Estonia in the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle—was a sovereign independent state. That status did not help that country when the Soviet armies approached. There is interdependence, and there are different degrees of dependence: political, military, economic. However, these are totally distinct from constitutional sovereignty, which is the right of people, unless they are impacted upon from outside, to settle their own fortunes.
So long as the noble Baroness persists in confusing interdependence—a characteristic of all forms of society—with legal constitutional independence, her argument can make no impact.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I appreciate the remark made by the noble Lord. I thought that it was almost exactly the point that I had made a moment or two before. I was indeed indicating that there is constitutional sovereignty. I was accepting the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on that issue and I was pointing out that in the hard world of power constitutional sovereignty does not necessarily mean that one is able to pursue the policies one believes to be right for one's own country.
I return for a moment to the argument I was making about the moving of the new clause by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I did feel that he was, to say the least of it, rather ungenerous in his estimate of what has actually happened over the past two years. The truth of the matter is that if one looks back at the remarks that were made in this House, in another place, in the Financial Times and in other serious newspapers in this country, almost nobody expected the European monetary process to start on time; almost nobody expected 11 countries to be members of it and almost nobody expected the date of the European Central Bank's launching to be on exactly the date that was first opined as the earliest possible date. We did what so often in this country we have done. We underestimated the other countries of the European Union in their capacity to meet the timetable that they had set themselves. We have done that ever since the Messina Conference of 1950; we did it over the Treaty of Rome; we did it over the European defence community, and we have done it time and time again.

985
I would plead with Members of this House and, indeed, with our own Government to recognise that we have to look at the actual timetable of events and not at what we might wish to be the timetable of events. That means that, inevitably, we have to deal with the reality and not with what we might wish to be so.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I will not give way for a moment. Allow me to complete my argument and then I will give way. The reality is that 11 countries have made an immense effort in terms of approaching and in most cases meeting the convergence criteria. That is something nobody imagined that they would do. The crucial outcome of that great effort is that they have now accepted a philosophy of stable pricing and there is acceptance of a resistance to inflation, which is something totally new, especially for some of the countries of southern Europe. I feel that it would be less than gracious of us in this House not to recognise the scale of that achievement. We may indeed wish to criticise certain elements of it. We may wish to make the point that Belgium or Italy, for example, have not wholly met the debt criteria, but we should at least recognise, whether or not we decide at the end of the day to join the European Central Bank and to accept the single currency, that this has been an astonishing and major achievement, and one about which there are almost no predictions in this House or in another place that would suggest we might actually meet it. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, to some degree the noble Baroness has answered the point that I wish to make to her. She said that this country underestimated the commitment of other countries. I do not believe that is so at all. What we overestimated was their ability to hold to agreements that they had made through treaties, such as the Maastricht Treaty. It has actually been crucial, or it was crucial, we thought, that all countries should meet the Maastricht criteria in every sense. They have not met the Maastricht criteria in every sense—and some of them have missed it by a very long way and by creative accounting—so perhaps the British people or the British Government were a little too trusting of the other countries, rather than underestimating their commitment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I merely say that creative accounting is not unknown in this country, too.
In conclusion, I turn to the situation as regards enlargement that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. I believe him to be absolutely tight. The crucial historical goal for this century and the beginning of the next century is the enlargement of Europe. I agree fully with the concern of the noble Lord. Lord Howell, as regards the possible divergence of energy. However, I must say, and say clearly, that if the United Kingdom had consistently given the lead it
986
should have given in Europe and had consistently attempted to shape European goals and European policies, enlargement would, in my view, have been able to be that central priority.
I conclude with a quotation from one of the closest friends of the United Kingdom—Holland—and in particular the chairman of the Netherlands International Institute of Relations, which is the equivalent of Chatham House. It is a very recent quotation made at a special session that was held to recognise the launching of the UK presidency of the European Union. This is what Mr. Alfred Pijpers, who is not a politician, but a very distinguished expert on international affairs, said:
"It was widely felt in the Netherlands and the rest of continental Europe that during the long period of Conservative government, Britain developed an increasingly sceptical and even negative attitude towards the European Union".
That is not a position from which it is easy to commend the central importance of enlargement. I believe it is important to say that we could have gone much closer to achieving that goal much more quickly had the United Kingdom recognised the speed at which the rest of the European Union was actually moving.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I rise briefly to give warm support to the amendment because I feel that we do not know anything like enough about a matter which will not only affect this country for many years to come but change our country totally and completely. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, with whom I sat for many years in another place, that it is not something to marvel at that a group of countries gets to the starting post; what is to marvel at is if they succeed in the race that is to follow.
I have heard little about the concerns expressed by economists. What about the letter which went out from 153 leading economists in Germany some three months ago saying that they were very worried indeed about how economic and monetary union would be brought about? Economists in other countries have expressed their concern. They have said that it is rather as if the leaders of great countries are saying that such and such a thing must happen, without recognising that there are enormous problems in making it happen.
We have to recognise that there are many problems on the monetary front. Our unemployment figures and cost of living figures are totally different from those of other EU countries. Furthermore, we are the only country in the whole of Europe that is a net exporter of gas and oil. Therefore, changes in the prices of petrol, gas and oil will affect us in a completely different way. It is all very well to say that we will join when economies converge, but how do we know that they will lock? I cannot see that they will.
It is important to know about the constitutional impact of what is proposed, but I am also worried about what the effect will be on our foreign policy. I think back to a recent occasion when we supported America over the difficulties with Saddam Hussein. We were the ones who did. France was very much against us. What rows there would be if we joined in a European currency.

987
I cannot see that happening unless we have a federated United States of Europe and I am quite certain that most people in this country do not want that.
Finally, I am certain that all of us and many thousands outside the House will want to know a great deal more about how it is proposed to bring economic and monetary union about.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the few remarks I was able to make some half an hour or so ago I mentioned the importance given in the Treaty of Amsterdam to democracy and the rule of law. I wish to concentrate on the rule of law in addressing myself to the subject matter of this amendment.
Your Lordships will recall that a Statement was made in the House on 5th May concerning the deliberations of the Council of Ministers, the heads of state, the European Council, or whatever it may be, on 2nd May. Your Lordships will recall that at the conclusion of the exchanges on the Statement I mentioned the fact that the appointment of Herr Duisenberg was, strictly speaking, unlawful because the provisions of the treaty, in particular those of Protocol 18 to the Maastricht Treaty and of Chapter III, Article 11, were not adhered to.
I do not think that we can be picky and choosy about this. If we believe in the rule of law—we apparently believe in the rule of law when it suits us—what was decided on 2nd May does not seem to have been an admirable way in which to approach the treaty. Your Lordships will recall that I drew the attention of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to this matter. He ventured to suggest that my interpretation of the article concerned was wrong. He said:
"I shall consider Chapter III, Article 11.2 of Protocol 18 of the Maastricht Treaty. I do not know what opinion I shall arrive at, but I suspect that my opinion will probably be on the side of the Council".—[Official Report, 5/5/98; col. 521.]
I do not see how that can be because the terms of the protocol and, indeed, of Article 112 of the amended treaty are quite specific. They do not mention, as Herr Duisenberg himself pointed out, any designation of a person by nationality as probably going to be the next holder of the post. Nothing in the protocol or the treaty refers to the nationality of the person to be appointed or the person next to be appointed. The text is quite clear:
"Their term of office shall be eight years and shall not be renewable".
Either the text of the treaty is right or it is wrong. There is no question of fudging this in the same way as various other issues were fudged.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned some points which she thought to be of general interest in determining our attitude towards monetary union. I would have expected her above all people to have been mindful of the law, particularly in the light of the matters that I ventured to raise and which are incorporated in the treaty. But she did not. She confined herself to, if I may say so with respect, the usual generalities, with which we are familiar, about the broad arguments for monetary union. She did not mention that there are 20 million unemployed people in Europe at the present time and she did not mention, when assessing
988
her own country's contributions to the Community, that we subscribe £2.5 billion annually out of taxpayers' funds. That did not seem to attract her attention in the slightest.
I hope that we are able finally to lay to rest the question of the legality of the appointment of Herr Duisenberg. Quite clearly, I am right and the treaty is right. It would at least ease the position if we could have a complete admission of that, bearing in mind, as I ventured to mention at the time, that the Government have had the opportunity to amend the clauses at a number of stages ever since Maastricht and right up to the intergovernmental conferences which led to the new Amsterdam treaty, but they did not. Protocol 18 remains and Article 11.2 remains. I invite the Government to confirm that in presenting those facts to the House I was absolutely correct.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, so 11 nations have signed a piece of paper and the booming baby euro has suddenly been born and is expanding at a vast rate. However, many dissensions belie the sense of unity. Much has been said already on this issue, so I shall proceed straight away to the point that we should remember, which is that the bank has no political input or agreed basis of operation except the authority of its own expertise. There is no effective parliament to which the central bank has to report. Therein lies the heart of the democratic deficit that is bugging the whole prospect.
One is tempted to fantasise on the contents of the reports that are called for by this amendment. Certainly, they will not contain any information from the European Central Bank because Mr. Duisenberg has said that it will not publish any reports for probably 16 years. We do not want to have any part of such a bank.
A country that has a new interest rate imposed on it without any definition as to why it is being done may become out of line with the bank's requirements. The Commission will then impose the rigours of the stability pact, which will further weaken the ability of the country in its efforts to repair its economy. In the meantime, unemployment and rising inflation will cause unrest, as has already been mentioned, and the government will probably fall—not the euro—followed by an administration cobbled together by a group of warring politicians. We will have Italy all over again. What a happy scenario!
There will be no effective mobility of labour through lack of a common language, and the prospect of the transfer of manufacturing facilities, prompted by cheap labour in the failing country, is a delusion, as firms will not transfer their plants to unstable economies. At the same time the minimum wage will be a further disincentive to the transfer of manufacturing facilities.
We should instead enlarge the single market, as has been said, and create a stable industrial base in line with the World Trade Organisation agreements by reorganising the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. We should allow the single currency to develop alongside national currencies. We could all use the euro. It could be a universal currency

989
that we can put in our pockets. Any firm could have it and put it in the bank against its use in trading facilities with Europe. We should allow the currency to develop alongside our own national currency in the manner of the hard ecu which was originally suggested by Mr. John Major. We would then be in a position where everyone could use the ecu without any problems.
6 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I shall be brief because I know that the debate on this amendment has gone on for a long time. I wish to make a few points directed to one or two statements that have been made.
The first relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. He said that the French people will not long tolerate having a powerful neighbour dictating economic policy to them. Precisely—but that is exactly what EMU will remove. The noble Lord smiles, but that is the case. Economic and monetary union will remove the kinds of influences that he was so concerned about, such as Germany having power over economic decision-making in France.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that he misunderstood me. My view is that it is not so much that the bank will he an instrument of German control over France, but that unelected bankers, with the kind of philosophy which Mr. Duisenberg has already revealed of keeping everything to himself, will create the kind of social discontent in France which is evident daily for anyone to see who goes to that country. There are strikes, demonstrations and other movements. I sometimes wonder whether noble Lords ever read the newspapers.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, noble Lords do read newspapers, but not necessarily the same ones as those read by the noble Lord. That may be the difference. I come back to the point. The noble Lord said that Mr. Duisenberg and the bank would be keeping everything to themselves. I am not clear what he means by that. The people running the European Central Bank may not be elected officials, but they have been chosen because they are very good central bankers.
I believe that the result achieved in Brussels—although it was an extremely messy process, which I deplore—is a good one. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out that now we have the prospect of maybe 12, if not 16, years in which the European Central Bank will be run by two men who are both hard money-men. That is absolutely correct. So although I deplore the manner in which it was achieved, I am quite comforted by the result. If anything, France shot herself in the foot. One thing is certain in that as a result of the events in Brussels, the European Central Bank is going to be even more cautious about political interference than it was before. That is quite right because we need an independent central bank.
As regards Mr. Duisenberg, the 16 years referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, and the fact that there will be no reports for 16 years, perhaps I may point out to him that that is simply not the case. Mr. Duisenberg said that he did not believe it was a
990
good idea to publish reports which tracked the course of discussions and named the names of the people who were parties to them. I believe that he is absolutely right. Serious consequences can flow from a report of that kind being made immediately, or even a short time after, the governing body, which is the board, has met.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, will the noble Lord reflect on the arrangements made by his party for the management of the Bank of England? It reports immediately each month.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I know that it does, but I am talking about the European Central Bank. There are different considerations here. Let us suppose that there is a recession in France. The vice-president of the European Central Bank, who is a French national, will not find it easy if the course of the arguments that he follows in that body are immediately published. If he makes one recommendation he will be accused of favouring his own country, but if he makes another he will be accused of the opposite. There does not seem to be very much point—and Dr. Tietmeyer agreed—about publishing in detail.
The point I am making is that it is wrong to say that no reports will be coming from the European Central Bank for 16 years. Of course there will be reports. The bank is going to explain why it has arrived at certain decisions without laying out at the time all the arguments in great detail as though it were the transcript of a meeting. Every quarter the president of the European Central Bank will be going before the European Parliament to explain what the bank has been doing and why it has done it. That is the kind of accountability and transparency that we are looking for. It is a great mistake to pretend that if the reports made are not in extensor they are not proper reports. That is wrong.
I come briefly to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce. He mentioned the 20 million unemployed, as though the introduction of a single currency were bound to have a negative effect on that. If one cares to read what Dr. Otmar Issing, currently of the Bundesbank and now of the executive board—and most probably the chief economist of the European Central Bank—has said, he has encapsulated the situation very well in the following words. In Brussels he referred to the fact that price stability was the primary objective of the Central Bank, while taking into account what it was that the member governments saw as being the essential economic policies that they wanted pursued in Europe. He said:
"Price stability, and the resulting low interest rates, will he instrumental in securing higher levels of investment, increased growth and new jobs".
It is not the responsibility of the European Central Bank directly to be creating jobs. But by pursuing price stability and being very firm on that, in the end, as Otmar Issing said, that should lead eventually to an increase in jobs.
The final point I wish to make is this. I hear voices in your Lordships' House suggesting that if there is no precedent for something, then it is too risky to take on.

991
I do not remember the Wright brothers having any real precedent for getting an aeroplane off the ground when they went about their particular enterprise. But I find it distressing that we live in a time when people believe that where there are no precedents no risks should be taken.
Of course EMU is a gamble, but it can be made to work provided that there is a good independent central bank and that the governments who are members make their views heard. They will do so through informal discussions in the Euro 11. They will all make their views known through ECOFIN which will have primacy over Euro 11. They will also be heard in the governing council and general council of the European Central Bank.
It is not as if EMU has been introduced with no clear ideas as to whether or not there are structures in place to make it work. The structures are in place. If they are used properly, there is a very good chance that EMU will prove to be the success that many believe it will be and that it will become a major reserve currency in the world and serve the single market in the way intended.
It would be a pity to take the view that just because we are uncertain that it will work, we should shy away from it. If that had been the policy all the way through, the European Union would never have got off the ground in the first place. I know that that would have given great pleasure to a number of noble Lords, but the truth of the matter is that we should give this a try. There are so many signals to suggest that it is a good move to make. We should have the courage to set aside some of our fears about what may happen if it goes wrong and make a determined effort to ensure that it goes right.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will clarify the point that he has just made. If as he says we should give it a try and it does not work, is he saying that the consequences will be so insignificant that we should just get out of it and give something else a try?
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I withdraw the words "give it a try". I meant that we had to try very hard to make it work. We are not certain that it will work, but we have to try.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to return to some recent remarks. I believe that my noble friend Lord Beloff meant that not many noble Lords read French newspapers. It is not a matter of what newspapers noble Lords read. If any noble Lords read French newspapers they may come to the conclusion that France is in turmoil, with strikes and every kind of disorder.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, perhaps I may inform the noble Lord who has just sat down that I left my home in the centre of Paris this morning and that neither when I read my newspaper which I picked up along the way, nor when I travelled to the Gare du Nord did I become aware that France was in turmoil. I assure the noble Lord that I read the French newspapers every day and I
992
have seen no recent signs of that. I believe that the last manifestation that I saw occurred some distance away and that on that occasion some shopkeepers were complaining about working hours.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, apart from anything that my noble friend the Minister may say about the desirability of inserting an amendment of this kind into the Bill, it is obvious to me that if the point arrives when the Government of the day know exactly where they stand in relation to the currency, they must make a report of some kind to Parliament. I would be surprised if it did not include the three points contained in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
I do not support this amendment in its present form because I believe that it would be unworkable. I can envisage two sets of circumstances. Before 1st May 2003 there may well be a situation in which the Government of the day are in possession of all the facts to enable them to make a decision on which they wish to report to Parliament. If before 1st May a Minister rose to say that he wished to make a report to Parliament on the position and asked to be absolved from the necessity to make it a year or 18 months hence as provided for in the 1998 Act, I do not suppose that there would be any difficulty in obtaining consent to that.
But there is another possibility. It may be that some time at the beginning of 2003 the Minister responsible may know that he will not be in a position to make a statement on 1st May 2003. If the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is right, according to the answer provided to me the Minister would have to ask Parliament to pass another Act enabling the Minister to say that he would not be in a position to make the statement on 1st May 2003 and asking Parliament to remove that provision from the legislation. That would be absolute nonsense.
It is obvious that whatever the merits of this amendment it is defective in that it refers to a specific date. If it had said "at the earliest possible moment" or words to that effect, it would have been appropriate to whenever it was suitable to make the statement, but including the date 1st May 2003 makes the amendment unworkable. Quite apart from the merit of inserting this into the Bill at all, I believe that if we are to have such an amendment, it should be one that works.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was not going to intervene in this debate but I feel that I must do so very briefly given the unbounded optimism and enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for this project. There was discussion earlier in the debate about the timescale which is in the amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord and the Minister on the Front Bench will be aware that there is a well informed view in the City of London that it may take as long as two years after 1st January 1999—in other words, up to about 1st January 2001, more or less—for the inherent stresses in the economic and monetary union project to become irresistible. I have referred to those stresses before. Essentially, they are that the single interest rate and the single exchange rate, which the project forces on

993
disparate and diverging economies, will not be able to hold their people together for much more than two years. On the one hand, we must be looking at much increased tax from the countries which are doing better and/or civil unrest in the countries which are in decline and which will not be getting the tax from the donor countries.
I do not know whether it is appropriate to put that question to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, at Report stage. I am sure that I can look to the noble Lord the Minister to reply in a way that perhaps his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal did not reply in the debate on the EMU Statement the other day; nor did the noble Lord himself reply when I put that question as clearly as I could in the debate on 28th April.
Finally, I cannot sit down without taking issue on two points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. Referring to sovereignty, she touched on the well-worn analogy to NATO. The slogan runs that we gave up our sovereignty to join NATO, so what do we have to worry about if we give up any sovereignty over the powers to tax and spend which go with EMU?
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. We are not giving up powers to tax. Under EMU every government has the right to tax high if they wish to spend high or to tax low if they wish to spend low. We are not surrendering the power to tax.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I accept the point raised by the noble Lord, except that those of us who know how the European Union proceeds are well aware of the discussions now in Brussels about the necessity for a unified tax system under EMU. They are very much more confident and advanced than they were even before the absurd events of a fortnight ago. The particular machinery to which I should have referred—and to which I did refer earlier—is the single interest rate and the single foreign exchange rate for disparate and diverging economies.
I come back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that we gave up our sovereignty, or some of it, or much of it, to join NATO and therefore what is the problem now with the EMU project or, indeed, with the whole European project. The answer of course is that we can leave NATO when we want, but we cannot get out of the quagmire, the quicksand, the quaking bog of the Treaty of Rome into which we have so foolishly strayed already.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that those of us who doubted that EMU would start on time have been proved wrong. That is not quite right. We said that we did not think that the proposed countries of the Economic and Monetary Union project would meet the requirements. In that we were quite right. We did not foresee with complete clarity that the European enthusiasts would go ahead and fudge the issue and carry on, whatever the treaty said, in any case.
Then the noble Baroness said that she wanted to congratulate the participating nations which are joining EMU on having got to the station and got to the train
994
on time. The trouble is that we have not the faintest idea where the train is going, but there are some very dangerous signals ahead.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, when he said that it was necessary and appropriate that we should debate this matter again after the weekend of 1st to 3rd May. As he rightly said, our debate on the previous occasion was in anticipation of the great events that then took place. We are now not only past that date, but I would have hoped, and I still do hope, that we are past some of the more hysterical reactions which took place immediately after that weekend on the decisions that were then taken.
There is no doubt that they were important decisions. Since our previous debate heads of state or government have agreed that 11 member states: Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Spain and Finland, will participate in EMU on 1st January 1999.
In line with the information that we gave to Parliament before the Special Council, the United Kingdom voted in favour of the participation of each of those 11. Some noble Lords before and since have expressed concern about the participation of some of those countries. In particular, I recall a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, about the participation of Italy.
But we supported the Commission recommendation. We did so because all of the 11 countries joining the euro have been confirmed by the Commission and by the European Monetary Institute reports as having made substantial progress towards economic convergence on the basis of the treaty criteria.
I repeat the point that I made before that what they and we were looking for was not spot convergence at any single date but convergence over a period of time. Of course, there were elements in which spot convergence did not occur. There were examples in Italy, Belgium and other countries in which the formal requirement at a particular point in time, if you stopped the clock at that time, would not have been compliant. But the important point has always been, and was recognised by the Commission and the European Monetary Institute to be, that the direction of progress in all cases was the right direction. That is confirmed by the framework for fiscal discipline which is provided by the stability and growth pact.
The high debt countries—and of course there have been high debt countries—have been reducing their debt to GDP ratios in recent years and are committed to reducing them in the future.
The declaration agreed on 1st May reaffirmed the commitment to fiscal discipline, economic reform and job creation—vital ingredients to the success of Economic and Monetary Union.
The decision on 2nd May on participation in the single currency was a historic decision carefully prepared and in line with market expectations. It removed any remaining uncertainty as to the start date of, or participation in, the single currency.

995
I said that it was appropriate that we should be having this debate at an interval after those decisions took place because what was conspicuous about the immediate reaction was how wrong it was in emphasis and, indeed, in the conclusions reached. In particular I want to refer to the excessive emphasis which was given to the issue of the presidency of the European Central Bank. The heads of state or government reached agreement on the appointment of Wim Duisenberg as the first President of the European Central Bank. He indicated that he would not wish to serve a full term. The heads of state or government agreed that he would be succeeded by a Frenchman. M. Chirac indicated that his nomination would be M. Trichet, Governor of the Banque de France and no head of state or government found any difficulty with that suggestion.
It has been suggested in debate this afternoon that because Mr. Duisenberg has not been precise about the day that he will wish to retire—indeed, he has indicated that there may be considerations affecting his retirement date which are not yet known—somehow that is a breach of the Maastricht Treaty. It is now being suggested that he is likely to stay on for the full eight years. Noble Lords cannot have it both ways. Either they are making the swingeing attack on the breach of the Maastricht Treaty which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington made or they are saying that the Maastricht Treaty is going to be observed and somehow that is a terrible thing as well. I do not know which side noble Lords will take when they come down on this interesting but not fundamental issue. All I can say is that they cannot have it both ways.
I shall not go into the other, perhaps much more important, decisions that were taken about the membership of the executive board, the vice-presidency and the varying terms of office of the remaining members of the board. But all I can say is that it is going ahead entirely as planned. When the European Parliament gives its decision tomorrow—because it held its hearings up to the end of last week and will vote on its opinion tomorrow—heads of state or government will agree the formal appointments by written procedure and the European Central Bank will be formally constituted and able to proceed with its preparations for 1st January 1999.
Anybody reading the press coverage, particularly on the Sunday and Monday of the first weekend in May, would think that a disaster had happened. Because a debate took 12 hours longer to conclude than was intended, it was the process that commentators in the press appeared to think to be important. They seemed to ignore the fact that agreement was reached, a strong executive board will be in place and that the European Central Bank will proceed as planned. The judgment of the press at that time, and particularly of opposition politicians at that time, was shown to be faulty by the reaction of the markets.
It was anticipated from the outset by all of these people in their immediate reactions, including the Leader of the Opposition, that when the markets opened on the Monday they would show their disapproval of the whole procedure and their belief that the Economic
996
and Monetary Union had somehow been stillborn or born in some deformed way. The markets totally disproved that. The reaction of the markets shows that the decision was the right one. Their reaction shows that there is a strong executive board at the start of the single currency and it increases the likelihood that EMU will succeed. And we want it to succeed. We have always made clear that we want it to succeed. If the economic benefits of membership are clear and unambiguous, we want Britain to participate in it and to participate therefore in that success.
There are many potential benefits: for instance, an improved single market; greater transparency; greater competitiveness; reduced transaction costs; greater opportunities for trade and investment; and many advantages which we will see only when we do not have them and the other 11 countries do.
Noble Lords, as is their right, have highlighted uncertainties. The Government have always said that for the full benefits of EMU to be realised, the economic reform of labour, transport and capital markets must continue. That is why we are pursuing our agenda of economic reform at home and during our presidency of the European Union.
A consensus behind the need for economic reform is building. I refer noble Lords to the declaration agreed by the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) on 1st May. That declaration goes well beyond re-emphasising the importance of sound public finances. It reaffirms the commitment of member states to economic reform and job creation. Member states committed themselves to producing reports on their products and capital markets as well as their labour markets. That pushes economic reform up the EU agenda. It increases the likelihood that the full benefit of EMU will be realised. This Government will be seeking further progress before the Cardiff European Council.
Many of the issues we are discussing will come into effect before or after—whether or not—Britain joins the economic and monetary union. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in what I dare to say was an extremely thoughtful and impressive speech, spoke of the existence of a parallel currency. It is called by the nastier term "Eurocreep", and I am glad that he avoided using it. Of course, that will come into effect in the period before we join. When the Chancellor made his speech on European monetary union at the end of last year, we were right to emphasise the preparations that we are making for the single currency. We are making them because they have to be made, irrespective of whether and when we join.
I turn to the amendment. I have no objection to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, leaping on to paragraph 40 of the 5th Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Treasury. It is entirely legitimate to do so. He was too kind to me when in the previous debate he said that I did not respond to the report because the Government had not made their formal response. I did not respond because he had read the report and I had not. I had been on the Bench the whole time the Treasury report had been available and no one had given me an advance copy.

997
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord about the status of the report and the committee. The committee includes as its chairman Giles Radice, who is high up in the European movement. It also includes Sir Teddy Taylor, whose views are pretty well known and who left the official Parliamentary Conservative Party for some time. Therefore, it is hardly likely that the committee will go out on a limb. Indeed, it states explicitly in paragraph 6 of its report that members of the committee have differing views as to the intrinsic merits of EMU and that it therefore decided it would be unproductive to attempt to reach a view as to whether the UK should or should not participate in stage 3.
Indeed, the committee scrutinised the framework for making the decision which the Chancellor set out. In paragraph 40, which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, quoted, it stated that it would not be possible for there to be a final report giving all the answers to all the problems. The committee acknowledged that history would not stop at the date of some "final report".
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, fell into that trap. He is proposing that history should stop on 1st May 2003. I looked up 1st May 2003 in the hope that it would be a Sunday. Unfortunately, it is a Thursday, so he gets away with that on a technicality. But the idea of a single date five years away is a total nonsense. That is revealed by the fact that until yesterday the noble Lord's amendment related only to measures to be adopted or decisions to be taken. It was only yesterday that he and his colleagues woke up to the fact that some measures might already have been adopted and decisions taken. They wrote that into the amendment.
We do not need reports of that kind, not because the date is silly—although it is—but because it is inconceivable that the issues set out in the amendment will not have been reported to Parliament on many occasions between now and 1st May 2003. I do not know what measures and decisions might be on the table at that date, but I know that any there are will have been subject to the normal scrutiny procedures of this Parliament. Those procedures were repeated for the record by my noble friend Lady Symons only two hours ago.
We are committed much further than that. When the Government decide that we have the measure of stable convergence that is necessary to begin the process of entry to the European economic and monetary union, at that stage we will be committed to the triple lock; the Cabinet will make a decision; Parliament will make a decision and the people of this country will make a decision in a referendum. Even if EMU were not to be debated between now and then at a fundamental as well as at an occasional level, it is inconceivable that we would go to the people of this country without a full report covering at least all the points set out in the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he assure the House that despite its insistence on regular reporting to your
998
Lordships' Chamber this amendment will not be brought out again on Thursday and an unlimited tranche of time given to this debate once more?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in Committee, I was accused of being tetchy for pointing out that procedures in this House allow matters to be debated at unlimited length and as often as any noble Lord likes. I can give no assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will not bring forward a similar amendment if he needs or wishes to on Third Reading.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Hughes was right when he made it clear that the amendment is unnecessary. It is also patently apparent to all of us who have an open mind on these matters that it will be damaging. I urge the House to reject it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may presume to correct him. It is a fixed rule of this House that we cannot raise matters on Third Reading which have been fully debated either in Committee or on Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have found ways of getting round that, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, knows, and I do not doubt the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to do the same.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was rightly cautious. He did not fall into the trap of trying to give me a lecture from a newcomer as to what we can and cannot do in this House. I shall decide in a few minutes whether to take the step necessary to prevent me bringing this matter back on Third Reading.
We have had an interesting debate. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I am glad that he thanked me for my kindness on the day the report was published. However, I know the convention is that Ministers do not respond to Select Committee reports in detail. I appreciate some of the points made about the report and I understand that the Government will present to the House of Commons their own fuller report in response to the Select Committee.
I thought that the noble Lord was on slightly weak ground when he said that the Select Committee's report was a sort of compromise between the Europhiles like Giles Radice and the Europhobes like Teddy Taylor. I should have thought that that was the strength of paragraph 40: that despite the wide range of opinions in the Select Committee, it was able to reach that conclusion. It is now two or three weeks since I read the report, but if my recollection is right, in the proceedings of the committee where it decides to agree or disagree with amendments tabled by various members, no amendments were tabled to paragraph 40. It was agreed and nobody attempted to vote against it. That is my memory. I do not have the report at the moment and I cannot check that. However, if I am wrong, I am sure that the noble Lord will correct me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, an amendment was proposed to paragraph 40 which was carried.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, therefore, the paragraph is indeed the majority wish of the committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, six to five.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not ask the noble Lord to go further and tell me what the amendment was. However, I do not believe that it was to strike out the whole paragraph or to strike out particularly pro or anti-European sentiments.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer extol the virtues of the euro. Therefore, I am slightly puzzled as to why they, as a government, are not beginning the steps to enter it. After all, we meet more of the convergence criteria than most of the 11 who have been allowed to join. It seems to me that if the Government really believe what they keep on telling us, they should be prepared to put it to the test. The fact that they do not makes me wonder whether they are as confident about the advantages of the euro or about their ability to sell it either to Parliament or to the British people. But that is another issue.
This amendment refers to the year 2003. I explained why I chose that date. It has to do with the five years mentioned in the Treasury Select Committee report. By that time, we should have a fairly clear view of how the project is working out and whether it is succeeding. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, hopes it will succeed but he indicated just a slight tremor of doubt when he spoke. That is quite legitimate. He feels that we should put our minds to making a success of it. I have made clear on a number of occasions that it would seem to me not in Britain's interests, now that it has started, that it should fail because we should be caught up in the resulting economic disturbance, which would not be good for our economy.
The point about 2003 is that it accords with what the Select Committee said. I have put down a proper date. If I had known that that would be the sticking point for many noble Lords, I may have made it slightly vaguer and suggested that it should be within five years, or something like that. That tempts me to bring back the matter at the next stage with that as the change which would be well within the rules of order.
In an intervention, my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Renton thought that we should be able to tell long before 2003 how successful the project was. They may or may not be right. However, as I explained, the year 2003 was chosen by myself and my noble friends on the basis of the five-year period suggested by the Treasury Select Committee.
The choice of Mr. Duisenberg and the subsequent choice, if that is what it is to be, of Jean-Claude Trichet is an indication that perhaps the euro will be a firm currency. Indeed, Mr. Duisenberg's evidence to the European Parliamentary Committee last week would certainly encourage one to think that it will be a strong currency.
1000
However, I must say to my noble friend Lord Howell that there is no guarantee that Mr. Trichet will be the next president of the European Central Bank. The Statement, which was given by the Prime Minister and repeated here, said:
"Secondly, that we expected his successor to be French".
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, picked that up. The Statement goes on to say:
"President Chirac made clear his nomination would he Jean-Claude Trichet".—[Official Report, 5/5/98; col. 508.]
But in an intervening exchange, when the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked whether he had heard correctly that the Statement said that the next president would be French, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said:
"It was M. Trichet—not just a Frenchman—who was nominated".
On re-reading the Statement, I do not believe that to be correct. It is quite clear that a Frenchman is to be nominated. If something happens to Mr. Trichet, if he falls under the proverbial bus, it will be another Frenchman.
Indeed, Mr. Duisenberg said in his evidence last week that he found slightly absurd the leader's promise to guarantee his vacant job to France. He said that the summit deal to hold his job for a French national amounted to a breach of the Maastricht Treaty because it contained no references to specific nationality as a credential for the post. Therefore my noble friend Lord Howell should not be so reliant on those two gentlemen holding those posts for the next 12 or 16 years because the Statement does not exactly say that. There is certainly a way out on the part of the French Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, talked about enlargement. Just to show that I listen and agree with her occasionally, I agreed absolutely with what she said about enlargement. Indeed, it is rather a pity that as much energy has not been put into enlargement as has been put into the creation of the euro. In the long march of history, it may have served Europe better had more energy been put into enlargement rather than the creation of the euro.
Therefore, I still believe that this is a difficult issue for us. I do not wish to delay the House further on this matter. As I have suggested, the amendment accords clearly with the Select Committee's findings. The House of Commons should be allowed to discuss those findings before the Bill becomes law. If this amendment were passed, then the House of Commons would be able to consider the issue in the light of the report by the Treasury Select Committee.
I was undecided, but having been given a lecture from the Liberal Democrat Benches that I should not bring this matter back at the next stage, I shall make sure that I cannot do so by asking the opinion of the House.
6.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76: Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Marlborough, D.

Astor, V.

Marlesford, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Balfour. E.

Monson, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Beloff, L.

Moran, L.

Berners, B.

Moynihan, L.

Biddulph, L.

Munster, E.

Blatch, B.

Northesk, E.

Boardman, L.

Norton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Cadman, L.

Palmer, L.

Carnck, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Coleraine, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Rawlings, B. [Teller.]

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rennell, L.

Exmouth, V.

Rodney, L.

Gage, V.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shaw of Northstead,L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Stockton, E.

Henley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Home, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kintore, E.

Tryon, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Ullswater, V.

Liverpool, E.

Wakeham, L.

Lucas, L.

Wharton,B.

Lyell, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dubs, L.

Addington, L.

Eatwell, L.

Alderdice, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Amos, B.

Ezra,L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bethell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Goodhart, L.

Blyth, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Borrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grantchester, L.

Burlison, L.

Gregson, L.

Carlisle, E.

Grenfell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Chandos, V.

Hacking, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe,L.

Hamwee, B.

Crook, L.

Hanworth, V.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hardie,L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Haskel, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hayman, B.

Desai, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dholakia, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Donoughue, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

1002

Hughes, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Puttnam,L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hylton,L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Islwyn, L.

Razzall, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rea, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Redesdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Judd, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Rochester, L.

Kennet, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Russell, E.

Levy, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sandberg, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ludford, B.

Sewel, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Simon, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Maddock, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mar and Kellie,E.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean. B

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Meston, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thomas of Swynncrton, L.

Molloy, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Monkswell, L.

Thurso, V.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Newby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicholson of Winterboume, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Nicol, B.

Walpole, L.

Ogmore, L.

Whitty, L.

Orme, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winston, L.

Resoled in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Moynihanmoved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause—
COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY
(". Her Majesty's Government shall not take any steps to participate in the decision-making arrangements for the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) applicable under Article J.13 of the Treaty on European Union (as set out in paragraph 10 of Article 1 of the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts) until each House of Parliament has come to a Resolution on a motion relating to the CFSP tabled by a Minister of the Crown.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I indicated in Committee that I intended to return on Report to the issue of the new decision-making procedures applicable under Article J.13 of the Treaty on European Union, as set out in paragraph 10 of Article 1 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. We had a valuable and comprehensive debate on foreign policy in Committee in which we appreciated the Minister's detailed responses to a wide range of arduous and probing questions, which demonstrated the high level of interest and concern over matters relating to the common foreign and security policy in your Lordships' House. We were grateful that the Minister dismissed the fear that the Amsterdam Treaty could be a Trojan horse for a supranational

1003
foreign policy, and for her confirmation that the Government intend to ensure that the CFSP remains intergovernmental, with overall strategy on foreign policy issues and the most important decisions of principle taken by unanimity in the European Council, as indeed they should be.
Likewise, we appreciated the explicit recognition that qualified majority voting is not appropriate for foreign policy decisions and that it is essential for us to retain our national veto in that area. A member state vetoes a common foreign policy proposal when it considers that its national interests would be damaged by such a proposal. Under majority voting, it would have to accept that damage. But if a country felt strongly enough to veto a proposal in the first place, it is likely to feel strongly enough to complain loudly about being over-ruled. The result would be a member state resentful at seeing its national interests overridden and an artificial European common foreign policy discredited before it had even begun, as the rest of the world would know that it was contested even within Europe.
However, although we have retained our national veto, the Amsterdam Treaty nevertheless makes significant changes to the CFSP decision-making process. The case for those changes was not made satisfactorily in Committee. The argument that the introduction of automatic qualified majority voting for the implementation of decisions will make the CFSP more effective has not been proved. It still remains for the Government to explain what benefit would be gained from the provisions in paragraph 2 of Article J.13; for the treaty continues the distinction between decision making on principles of policy, which will still be unanimous, and on the implementation of those decisions, which will now generally be by QMV. The fact that qualified majority voting will now automatically apply to the implementation of many decisions leaves open many questions about the feasibility of maintaining that distinction; for example, could not an implementing decision for one country touch on points of policy for others? When this happens who will determine what is implementation and what is policy? I am not convinced that the line between principle and action is sufficiently clear-cut to merit the automatic introduction of QMV.
In the Minister's opinion what is a trade sanction? Is it a principle or is it an action? I take the example of the United Nations resolutions to criticise human rights in China. The present Government, despite their ethical foreign policy—increasingly tattered and careworn though it is—and to the jaw dropping amazement of human rights campaigners the world over, took the extraordinary decision not to support a UN resolution on human rights in China, apparently solely in the interests of maintaining a common foreign policy in Europe. In the eyes of the previous government such a resolution represented a straightforward matter of implementing agreed policy in a timely way, while for other member states it appeared to be an error of judgment. How would the automatic procedures for QMV have worked in that case? I should like the
1004
Minister to clarify how this change to allow automatic QMV for implementation of decisions on the basis of common strategies will,
"allow Europe's voice in the world to be heard more clearly and will improve the effectiveness of CFSP co-operation when the line between principle and action is not always black and white so that we risk the creation of an artificial forced common foreign policy supported by most, instead of a true common foreign policy agreed by all".
Nevertheless I am grateful for the Minister's definition of a new CFSP instrument—the common strategy—which she envisaged would not be very different from existing joint actions but which somehow would give the European Union's common policies more weight on the world stage. When they are genuinely common policies agreed by all this is a worthy and desirable objective. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could provide us with a little more detail on this point. The treaty provides for common strategies in important areas of foreign policy where member states have interests in common and where they agree there will be advantage in working together. To what extent does the Minister envisage that this new instrument will be used? Can she give examples of current important areas of foreign policy where member states have interests in common to which she anticipates the common strategy would be applied? To what extent does she anticipate decisions of the Council on CFSP will be made using common strategies and therefore decided by QMV? What decisions concerning important areas of foreign policy is it likely to result in which we would then have no power to prevent? Given that the number of decisions taken by QMV in the Council of Ministers will ultimately be determined by the number of common strategies decided upon by consensus in the European Council and by the political will of a particular presidency to try the QMV procedures on decisions of a secondary nature, what vision do the Government have for the practical operation of qualified majority voting?
I return to some questions on the national veto mechanism or "emergency brake" and the provision for constructive abstention. In Committee I said that if past experience has taught us anything it is that constructive abstention is a tool best used in a "can't", not "won't", situation when a country agrees with a decision but for domestic reasons is not able to participate in its adoption, particularly in the light of paragraph 1 of Article J.13 which requires abstainers to accept in a spirit of mutual solidarity that the decision commits the Union as a whole and they cannot undermine or seek to thwart it subsequently. Can the Minister confirm that, given paragraph 1 of Article J.13, constructive abstention is not an adequate and appropriate mechanism to deal with real disagreements between countries over foreign policy decisions to implement common strategies—and therefore taken by QMV—and that the only recourse for a country in this position would be the emergency brake mechanism? As the House is aware, the emergency brake can be pulled by a country when it has important and stated reasons of national policy which cause it to oppose a decision, thereby preventing a vote being taken. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that it is the

1005
individual member state activating the emergency brake that will determine what is an important and stated reason of its own national policy, and that no one else will arbitrate on what constitutes this.
Furthermore, if a number of other states can achieve a qualified majority on the decision, is it not the case that the adoption of the decision would be regarded as postponed, for the matter could then be referred to the European Council for a decision to be taken by unanimity which the country in question would have to veto? As the Minister pointed out to the Chamber in Committee, I am aware that referral to the European Council reflects the current reality that if Foreign Ministers cannot agree, they pass an issue to heads of government or state in the European Council to attempt to resolve the issue by unanimity. But what guarantees can the Minister give that a country in this position would not be under pressure to accede to the implementation of a forced common foreign policy decision?
I wish to ask the Minister about the operation of CFSP as a whole. To help clarify the points I wish to raise, I have focused on a case study in foreign policy; namely, recent events in Sierra Leone. How can the Government justify the changes to the CFSP decision-making procedures which bring us a step closer to an integrated foreign policy when the Foreign Secretary purports not to know the policies being undertaken by his own officials in the name of the British Government? When he finally finds out about these policies, he actively disagrees with them, professing deep concern and promising an inquiry and that appropriate action will be taken against anyone found to have transgressed. How on earth will the Foreign Secretary ensure that Britain plays a leading role in devising and co-ordinating common foreign policies in Europe when he does not even know what his own department is doing? How will he work to mould key common foreign policies in Europe in the image of British Government policy when the case of Sierra Leone has proved that he cannot be relied upon to know what British Government policy is in the first place? How will he have any credibility to ensure Britain's voice is heard when he was unaware of British Government involvement in a situation where arms were supplied in breach of a UN embargo?
This is not the first time the Foreign Secretary has been caught on the hop. Speaking on the situation in Kosovo only the week before, he was unaware that British troops were on exercise in Macedonia. Just how credible does the Foreign Secretary's promotion of an EU ethical arms code appear in the wake of the Prime Minister's extraordinary new foreign policy doctrine of the ends justifying the means, even to the extent of breaching UN arms embargoes? That is the scenario for this country, with the Foreign Secretary responsible for our input into CFSP, where ignorance is used as an excuse for negligence and where innocence of the facts is prayed in aid of incompetence. But what sort of CFSP would the Prime Minister advocate given that he is now praising the very same Foreign Office officials whom the Foreign Secretary only six days ago roundly disowned?
1006
The Prime Minister would presumably support a CFSP in which the ends justified the means, in which it is permissible to condone breaches of international law and to undermine the credibility of the United Nations if it means the right results, and then to massage the terms of any awkward arms embargoes to claim that they were not breached deliberately. Does the Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary, who has said,
"The Government have consistently supported the legitimacy of the United Nations. This Government abide by the resolutions of the Security Council and are committed to the rule of international law. We have not and we will not condone any breach of international law"?
Or does she agree with the Prime Minister, who has said it was the right thing to do, thereby somehow managing to distinguish between deliberately breaking international law, which he deems to be wrong, and inadvertently doing so, which he condones as long as it results in a democratic regime being restored to power after any illegal military coup? That is a distinction which the Foreign Secretary clearly does not make for he has said that no one, presumably including the Prime Minister, should understate the gravity of a breach of a Security Council resolution. From her statement yesterday, when the noble Baroness told this House that the Prime Minister's assessment of the arms to Africa affair as a "hoo-ha" constituted an admirable summary which we would all do well to remember, I must conclude that the Minister agrees with the Prime Minister and not the Foreign Secretary.
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised questions about the alleged human rights violation in Sierra Leone since the restoration of President Kabbah. He asked whether,
"contrary to the impression given by the Prime Minister … one of the legacies of the counter coup is that they have been left with an ethnic militia known as the Kamajors which is hostile to other groups within the territory and that far from promoting reconciliation, the restored government have charged 59 people with treason and locked up 2,000 others without charge, most of whom are northeners or ethnic Krios and that this is hardly a recipe for the national reconciliation of which both Resolutions 1132 and 1162 have spoken".— [Official Report, 11/5/98; col. 823.]
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask what this has to do with Article J.13 of the treaty?
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, absolutely everything. I can fully understand why the Government Benches do not want to hear this as a case study. This is a severe and lasting embarrassment to the performance of the ministerial team at the Foreign Office. But the real relevance is this. It goes to the heart of the CFSP. How on earth will the British Government manage a common position on a foreign policy issue if one week they take position X and the following week they completely change their position? Will they exercise the emergency brake because the Prime Minister has determined that the foreign policy as determined by the Foreign Secretary a week before was wrong? No, my Lords. I believe it vitally important to look at case studies. In Committee we looked at the French position as opposed to the British with regard to Iraq—another good case study. I note that the Government Benches did not jump

1007
up at that time and object to the fact that a useful case study, pointing out the weaknesses inherent in the CFSP, was not brought to the Committee's attention.
To reinforce the point, it would be important for the British Government, sitting with our European colleagues, to know what British foreign policy is.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, perhaps I may draw to the noble Lord's attention that we are at Report stage rather than in Committee. There is a big difference between the two.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am totally aware of the difference between Committee and Report stages. If the noble Lord intervenes to state that this new example also causes him discomfort, no doubt he will be able to listen carefully to the implications for his Government's policy with regard to the CFSP.
I wish to go into areas which were not covered in sufficient detail in Committee, where specific answers were not given to questions I raised. I used as an example the question raised yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is relevant to note that the Foreign Office position, given by the Minister, was,
"I do riot have information on what is happening at this moment in Sierra Leone".—[Official Report, 11/5/98; col. 824.]
Does the noble Baroness have the information today? The 2,000 locked up without charge are in gaols in Freetown. There are thousands more detained in the principal cities of Bo, Kenema and Makeni. It was reported to me earlier today that fighting continues in many areas outside the capital. Mèdecins sans Frontiéres have reports of mutilations occurring now. Are any of those at the hands of the Kamajors in our Prime Minister's newly-embraced favourite African country?
How great has been the collaboration between the tens of thousands of well-armed Kamajors and their Nigerian supporters? For the Nigerians are also subject to European Union and Commonwealth embargoes on arms. In the context of this debate, will our European colleagues turn a blind eye to the arms flow from Nigeria if the ends of the Prime Minster's new foreign policy justify the means?
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, my noble friend Lady Young and I raised important questions regarding the humanitarian aspects of the issue. What evidence is there of the British Government actively pursuing national reconciliation, to which both Resolutions 1132 and 1162 refer? Or will the answer once again be, "I do not have information on what is happening at this moment in Sierra Leone"? If that is the answer, what hope do we have of seeing the creation of a consistent set of common foreign policy and defence initiatives in Europe? What implications does the Minister think the British Government's doctrine of the ends justifying the means would have for the common foreign and security policy in Europe? We now have a Government who when they so choose are above
1008
the law, and an Administration authorised by the Prime Minister to cherry pick those laws it chooses to obey and those it chooses to flout.
It would be hypocritical to criticise our European partners, or any other country in the world for that matter, for pursuing a similar policy. This is the road to unravelling and ultimately demolishing the edifice of international law and the legitimacy of international organisations to uphold that law in the name of the values upon which our society is based: peace, security, democracy and human rights. This is an architecture which the mature democracies of the European Union helped to design; and those same democracies willingly agreed to be bound by its terms. If it is undermined by the very states which built it, who or what will be the arbiter of what is or is not internationally acceptable?
A country's foreign policy is a mirror reflecting its national interests and its values and principles. It is for that reason that our foreign policy should be decided here with the Foreign Secretary answerable to the House. At least Foreign Office Ministers will be ultimately answerable to this House for their conduct in the arms to Africa affair. In Committee I emphasised our belief in the potential of the CFSP. Where it acts with the grain of our national traditions and represents the coincidence of our national interests with those of our European partners, it will succeed. But where the CFSP is forced into the rhetoric of solidarity and unity, when whether for geographical, political or historic reasons that does not reflect reality, it will surely fail. And it will surely fail if there is not consistency in policy coming from the government of the day.
The purpose therefore of the new clause is to enable the Minister to reassure the House that the new decision-making procedures for the CFSP do not represent a forced march down the road to an artificial common foreign policy which is against those very national interests the Government purport to promote. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I do not dispute that the noble Lord raises some important points on Sierra Leone. He referred to the role of my noble friend Lord Avebury in raising those concerns. However, perhaps we should concentrate on the amendment. I intend to speak more directly to it than has the noble Lord.
The amendment relates to the procedures of the common foreign and security policy. First, I believe that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary. It is unworkable because it would prevent the speedy reaction that the European Union needs to be able to adopt in crisis situations. The noble Lord referred to the potential of the common foreign and security policy. I submit that that potential will not be realised if the decision making is slow and cumbersome.
Secondly, the amendment is unnecessary because there are sufficient safeguards. Indeed, those safeguards to protect member states' interests have been referred to by the noble Lord. Perhaps I may enumerate them.
Article J.13 starts from the premise that decisions are normally taken unanimously, both in the European Council and in the Council of Ministers. The article goes

1009
on to outline the procedure of constructive abstention while allowing, as the noble Lord mentioned, for respect of the principle of mutual solidarity. That is another safeguard for a national government.
The article then states that, by way of derogation from the normal rule of unanimity in implementing measures of joint actions and common positions, there could be qualified majority voting. Joint actions are defined as specific situations where operational action by the union is deemed to be required. That is the point on which we need to focus: specific situations requiring operational action.
Were the amendment to be accepted, it would introduce another hurdle of bureaucratic delay in trying to arrive at that operational action. But even the procedure of QMV is subject to the emergency brake to which the noble Lord also referred, whereby member states can oppose a majority vote. So there are a series of layers of safeguards for member states' interests.
My worry about the common foreign and security policy is that it is not sufficiently fast and effective in its response. The decision-making has been described by one commentator as "heavy and ornate". This amendment would introduce another element of heaviness and ornament.
The European Union is currently faced with challenges in Kosovo, Algeria, the Middle East and the Gulf—conflict in areas close to us, affecting our security in all kinds of ways. It is such considerations which have no doubt led the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to try to make the European Union more of a player in the Middle East peace process, somewhat matching the role of the United States.
The European Union seeks to guarantee peace, prosperity and democracy for its citizens. One of the ways it can do that is to have an effective voice in world affairs. This amendment would make that more difficult. It would be an unnecessary and unworkable impediment to British participation in the common foreign and security policy.
It may well be that Europe needs to streamline its activities, respecting the principle of subsidiarity in some domestic areas where it could be deemed to be fussy and bossy. I feel rather strongly about some of the rules on food safety, local cheeses being banned, and so on. But the quid pro quo is that we must use political capital to increase the arguments for Europe to have a common voice in the world. That is one of the essential things that the European Union must do. That is what it can uniquely do for the citizens of Europe: act jointly to preserve that peace and security. We must transfer this energy, perhaps from some of the streamlined activities, to the international arena. If we believe in Europe acting effectively on the international stage for the security of our own citizens, this amendment should be strongly resisted.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I support this amendment tabled by my noble friend. I realise that it affords this House an opportunity to survey further the common foreign security policy scene, although we
1010
covered a great deal of the ground in considerable detail in Committee. I welcome this further opportunity since here, as elsewhere, matters are changing all the time.
It might be worth commenting in passing that, nowadays, in the modern state about 70 per cent. of all external affairs—what used to be called foreign affairs—are to do with trade and investment. We have of course handed over responsibility lock, stock and barrel to the institutions of the European Union for trade and investment. So it is inevitable, whether we like it or not, that very large sections of what might appear to be foreign policy—to do with sanctions, trade and the promotion of commercial interests around the world—are not in our hands any more. They are guided by men of considerable ability and world prominence such as Sir Leon Brittan, and Karel van Miert, the competition commissioner. That explains why on the world scene we hear a good deal more about those two gentlemen than we do about many a Foreign Minister, or indeed the other external commissioner, Mr. Marin, or the high representative who emerges from the Amsterdam Treaty. So one needs to start from the fact that a large chunk of the external affairs of this country operates under a completely different system which will not be very much affected by the machinery or intricacies of joint actions and qualified majority voting in the narrow foreign policy area. Nevertheless, it is the narrower area of various issues of more traditional foreign policy, which do not include trade, on which we must concentrate; and presumably they are in the minds of those who want Europe to speak—as we just heard from the noble Baroness—with a common voice.
There is a good deal of nonsense talked about the apparently desperate need for the European Union to reach a common view, and have a common or even single (a terrifying prospect) foreign policy. It is one of those needs that is alleged to exist, and a lot of rhetoric surrounds it as to how Europe cannot be itself and find its destiny unless that is done. I believe that we need to be fairly cautious in assessing these fine speeches.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan is absolutely right to warn us, as he did very clearly in his excellent speech, about the dangers of trying to search for a common foreign policy for its own sake and then creating an artificial foreign policy where it would have been rather wiser to have allowed the normal bilateral allowances and associations to form—or possibly even a common position to come together, but not driven by some imperative that there has to be a foreign policy. I am worried for the future that the alleged imperative—that somehow a common strategy and common positions must be established in this issue or that—will lead to more divisions and difficulties in the handling of those sensitive world issues. I am worried not merely for vague reasons but because the record tells me that that is likely to happen, and has happened in the past.
The history of the past 10 years of European searches for foreign policy has not been a happy one. I know it has led some people to conclude, "There you are. We told you so. Why did we not have a more effective machinery and we could all sing from the same hymn

1011
sheet?" That is one reaction. The alternative reaction is that it might have been better to be a little more cautious in rushing for a single policy.
The most recent event where there was an attempt to have a common foreign policy, which fell to bits in some disarray, and where it might have been more dignified not to have attempted it in the first place, was the handling of the latest Iraq crisis. I wish to turn in a moment to a further serious crisis, the handling of which we need to think about extremely carefully. However, further back, before Iraq, there was the Bosnia tragedy, where there was great difficulty on the part of EU members in getting together a common position. Again, some said that we should have had better machinery and others asked: why did we try?
Before that, as noble Lords with longer memories will recall, there was the absolutely disastrous example of an attempt at a common policy leading to the worst outcome. I refer to the German-driven insistence that there should be recognition of Croatia, despite statements in the Badinter Report that the independence of Croatia and its recognition failed on every legal principle. Nevertheless, it was so deemed by the Germans. Because the pressure was on for a common policy and for all EU members to fall into line, and it was believed at the time that by agreeing with the German insistence there would be some trade-off and benefits elsewhere, the independence of Croatia was prematurely recognised, with catastrophic and bloody results. So one has to be very careful indeed about pushing ahead on these fronts.
The more serious issue now developing is one which your Lordships may wish to discuss more fully when we come to the subject of enlargement. It is partly an enlargement issue and partly a foreign policy issue. I refer to what is now happening in Turkey and Cyprus. There we have the makings of a first-class crisis emerging which demands foreign policy handling of the utmost sensitivity by all EU members as well as by the EU collectively. It has a role because the matter of Turkey has been raised by enlargement.
I was interested in the quotation which my noble friend Lord Moynihan produced yesterday at Question Time in your Lordships' House. It was by Mr. Richard Holbrook, who is a somewhat disappointed man after his visit to Cyprus. He found great difficulty in getting any agreement off the ground. He found no movement in Cyprus between parties. Indeed, he found movement backwards towards dangerous tensions which may lead heaven knows where.
Yesterday my noble friend quoted Richard Holbrook as saying:
"[The] EU's decision to open membership talks with Cyprus in March was a correct one, but the failure to put Turkey on the same basis as the other 11 countries that began the accession process was a mistake".—[Official Commons, Report, Commons 11/5/98; col. 813.]
Mr. Holbrook is not everyone's friend, I know, but he knows what he is talking about. The mistake is one for which we will pay dearly, in its effect of embittering Turkey and exposing it to all the turbulence of the growing Moslem minority, soon to be majority. There
1012
are also the difficulties with the Kurds and the central Asian powers. Although far to the north of both the Gulf and the Arab/Israeli situation, they have an influence and an input into those. There is also the question of their neighbouring position to Saddam who is still in Baghdad. All those are terrifying potential crisis areas where the European powers need to proceed with the greatest delicacy and the utmost co-operation with each other, shoulder to shoulder, but without trying to rush into common positions where someone is left behind and told, "You can constructively abstain", and others are told this, that and the other.
It is a dangerous position, a dangerous moment, when European Union foreign policy needs to be handled not by automatic machinery but by the most sensitive and careful discussion between foreign ministers. Hitherto they have not handled it well and that has created the situation which Mr. Holbrook rightly says is a mistake. I believe it will be an extremely violent and hot crisis before long.
I have nothing against the sensible idea of our European neighbours and ourselves in the European Union seeking to establish in certain situations common positions vis-à-vis Chechnya, aspects of central Asia and the handling of China in some matters. Common positions are sensible enough. It is when we are told that there must be elaborate machinery to press us on towards common strategies, a much bigger matter, and common policies, which are bigger still, that I become alarmed.
In my experience, when we were dealing with foreign policy issues in another place whenever we discussed common foreign and security policy with our European neighbours, they were tremendously in favour in general of the machinery doing it all. However, when it came to specific items, it was hard to find one on which they were prepared to go along with their own recommendations. Practically every serious issue had a rider attached to it, namely, that it was a vital interest and therefore could not be subjected to the machinery of joint action, as with a common foreign and security policy. Alternatively, if it involved the military, the Germans fought strongly on it. They said, "We could never contemplate exposing any policy which involves our military to a CFSP machinery. The issue of using our military is so sensitive, so central and difficult to handle inside German politics that it would have to be under our complete control".
I complete a brief intervention by saying: let us have sensible allowances and co-operation among the European powers and work with the troika system that we had in the past. Let us have common positions, but beware of creating useless machinery, which like the sorcerer's apprentice, would develop its own momentum and press us towards common and, as my noble friend rightly says, artificial positions.
We can and do work effectively with our European neighbours, with France on certain matters, with Germany on certain matters and with Italy on certain matters. We can somehow manage to square the circle between the WEU concept and the NATO concept, both of which are important to us.

1013
I believe that too much searching for too much machinery for a common foreign and security policy will, as with EMU, which we were discussing earlier, start by being an alleged instrument for unity and end by being a violent instrument for division.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I congratulate him on his thoughtful and probing analysis. However, does he agree that a large part of the problem is that foreign policy is an essential attribute of a state? It is in the European Union's quest for statehood that we see its desire to meddle and interfere all over the world. Does my noble friend agree with that? It is an important part of the analysis. I agree with him; I do not think that bad workmen should be given newer and sharper tools until they have proved that they can use the ones they had before.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to qualify what my noble friend said—and he is perceptive on such matters—by repeating what I said at the beginning. In trade matters, the pass is already sold and external trade issues which are foreign policy are handled by the European institutions. But on the rest, I agree that when we hear the rhetoric—perhaps we should not take it too seriously—about the need for a European destiny, it is time for some of us to button up our coats. We know about people seeking European destinies. They have done it in the past; we have spilt a lot of blood and made great efforts to stop them, and we do not wish it to start again.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on Amendment No. 3 be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I should indicate that the Report stage will be resumed not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Leaded Petrol: Abolition
7.36 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieurose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the damage which could be caused to the engines of a great number of older vehicles, some of historic importance, as a result of the abolition of leaded petrol on 1st January 2000 and what steps they can take to alleviate the problem in the short and long term.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suspect noble Lords may be rather puzzled as to the motives that lie behind this Question, because there is no doubt that the world at large has welcomed the intentions of governments to phase out lead in petrol as soon as practical, in view of
1014
the proven health hazards that exhaust fumes from leaded petrol are known to create. There is, unfortunately, a down side for millions of vehicle owners around the world. I would briefly like to explain the situation by a short history lesson.
In the early days of motoring, petrol was sold in two-gallon cans from chemists' shops and the many manufacturers produced their own fomulas. It was not until the 1920s that the first filling stations were set up. As car engines improved in the mid-1920s and were designed for higher compression, it was necessary to improve the quality of existing petrol as it produced poor combustion in such engines, which led to a condition known to drivers as engine knock.
So how did lead get into petrol? Seventy years ago, British motorists, having been beguiled by a teaser advertising campaign featuring a '20s flapper girl over the headline, "Ethyl is coming to give you a thrill", were first able to fill their cars with the new type of petrol—leaded. The search for a miracle ingredient had been instigated by Charles Kettering, the engineering genius of General Motors.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain to the House what is a '20s flapper?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I will tell the noble Lord later. The search for a miracle ingredient had been instigated 15 years earlier by Charles Kettering, the engineering genius of General Motors and a research chemist named Midgley, after reputedly trying 33,000 different chemical compounds. The result was tetra-ethyl lead. It was first brought to Britain in 1928 under the trade name "Ethyl" by Pratts Petroleum, the ancestor of modern Esso. Ethyl also enabled the development of the new generation of aero engines which gave this country the Schneider Trophy victory and the Battle of Britain. For decades it was the essential diet of all good car engines.
However, the rise of the green movement has seen poor old Ethyl branded a scarlet woman for containing the dreaded poison—lead, albeit in minute quantities, forcing the gradual compulsory withdrawal of leaded petrol in favour of lead-free.
In the early days there was no knowledge that lead would cause any damage. It is only in the past 20 years or so that the realisation of the harmful effects of leaded petrol has led governments to resolve that it should be phased out as soon as possible. In fact, on 19th June last year the European Union Environment Council, of which, of course, Great Britain is a member, decided that leaded petrol should be banned as from 1st January 2000. From that date leaded petrol would only be made available to specialist interest groups such as classic car clubs—it must account for no more than 0.5 per cent. of total petrol sales—and petrol companies would not be allowed to sell such leaded fuel on their forecourts.
While the demand for leaded petrol is naturally declining as the number of vehicles that need it decreases, current calculations show that unless drivers change their fuel-buying habits, some 4 million motorists will still be using leaded petrol by the year

1015
2000. Of those however, only 1.5 million would actually need the engine protection the lead in 4-star provides, as ignition adjustments and other alterations can be made to alleviate the situation.
For those 1.5 million cars, lead in petrol acts as a protective barrier between the exhaust valve and the valve seat into which it fits. Without lead or an alternative valve seat protector, "soft" valve seats can wear away, causing stalling, loss of power and, in some cases, the eventual breakdown of the car.
Naturally, as the news came out of the impending ban on lead in petrol, there was widespread concern—a concern which I am representing tonight. So this is a good moment to declare my well-known interest in historic vehicles, both as president of the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs which represents 293 clubs, with nearly 300,000 members and as chairman of the National Motor Museum.
So how many vehicles are owned by members attached to special interest groups? The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs reckons that there are 300,000 collectors' vehicles out of a total of 789,000 at the moment registered by DVLA, all built before 1980. Many are still used as family cars, owned by people with modest resources who will be least able to afford the costs of modifications.
So what can be done about it? First of all, derogation can be sought in Brussels, but I am sure that most people understand, albeit reluctantly, that this country's green credentials would be very much damaged if Her Majesty's Government sought to go down that path, particularly as the phasing out of lead in petrol has been decided by the Council of Ministers. I am also aware of today's announcement from the Expert Panel of Air Quality Standards that it wants to reduce further the amount of lead in the atmosphere.
I have two questions to ask: first, in deciding not to apply for derogation, have Her Majesty's Government considered that one or two years' delay into the next century would give vehicle owners a little more time to test the additives and the lead replacement petrol which will be on the market? Secondly, could Her Majesty's Government inform the House which other members of the Community intend to apply for derogation? Rumours persist that most of southern Europe—France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece—are all unhappy with the year 2000 and intend to delay until 2005.
There will of course be new additives to join those which have been on the market for many years and are most likely to come from small suppliers. We just have to wait to see how good they are. While carrying out some research for tonight's debate I consulted the oil companies concerned and the future is not quite as bleak as many people fear. I can report that the chairman of Shell confirmed to me that Shell has been aware of the situation for some time and has been working on the development of an additive effectively to replace lead and that the formulation has been finalised following extensive laboratory testing. It will be available and sold in due course as lead replacement petrol, either to be pre-blended into unleaded petrol or distributed in
1016
concentrate form for self-dosage by the customer. I understand that initial market research indicated that customers would prefer to buy pre-blended fuel out of a pump.
It is claimed that the use of lead replacement petrols over the past five years in some parts of Europe has demonstrated that they provide adequate protection for vehicles with soft valve seats in normal everyday use, so it is fervently hoped that there will be an acceptable replacement for 4-star in the UK when the lead ban takes effect in the year 2000.
Naturally, car owners are somewhat suspicious and distrustful and are taking pounds of salt with the claims of success in finding a real replacement for lead. They will be convinced only when they can use and assess the lead replacement petrol and the additives over a period of time.
Oil companies have the technical ability to sell lead replacement petrol in the UK now, but market research shows that the time is not yet right to introduce it into the UK market since customers have insufficient understanding or knowledge of the issues surrounding the phasing out of lead in petrol. They believe that there must be a British standard for lead replacement petrol before it is sold widely in the UK. That would guard against unregulated "wonder additives" which could have undesired side-effects, guarantee a minimum level of valve seat protection and reassure customers that adequate engine protection is being provided when they buy lead replacement petrol.
However, it is some comfort to know that lead replacement petrols containing alternative additives in place of lead are currently being used in 12 countries in Europe, as well as some countries in central Europe and in other parts of the world; for example, New Zealand. Austria has the most market-place experience of using lead replacement petrol, with more than five years' continuous use. That has shown satisfactory results, with no substantiated reports of engine damage in vehicles in normal every-day use.
Since the average mileage and speed are relevant, one would expect many classic cars to be less susceptible to valve seat recession than some more modern vehicles as most classic cars on the road tend to have lower annual mileages, less high-speed motorway use and engines which operate at lower engine revs.
Although one hopes that lead replacement petrol gives protection under all normal driving conditions, it must be recognised that some older vehicles—for instance, historic racing and sports cars—are run under much more severe conditions. Fortunately, the draft EU fuel directive allows for up to 0.5 per cent. of total petrol sold in each member state to be leaded, as long as it is distributed through "special interests groups". There is no doubt that such vehicles run under sporting conditions will require the full protection offered by leaded fuel and will require that fuel at club race meetings and so forth. I should like an assurance that that 0.5 per cent. allowance of leaded fuel will, indeed, remain available and conveniently available for those who require it. The great problem is how it will be distributed and at what price.

1017
Thus I specifically ask Her Majesty's Government to initiate urgent discussions with the major oil companies to try to resolve the distribution problem, bearing in mind that already aerodromes will have to stock leaded petrol and there are many motor racing tracks in the country which could have leaded petrol outlets especially available for historic vehicles attending race meetings. There is, of course, the question of private storage but that will naturally be bound by storage regulations.
I cannot stress too strongly that the motorists with older vehicles including classic cars are deeply concerned and desperate to be fully informed about the issues and plans surrounding lead phase-out, to ensure use of the correct grades and to avoid confusion about future changes. I understand that Shell is actively talking to motoring groups in that regard, but I see the need for a wider approach. I have no doubt that there is a role for the Government to play in publicising lead phase-out plans and thus giving confidence to motorists that oil companies will provide a replacement petrol, which will give the required protection.
Owners' concern and fear about the future is partly due to lack of information and partly due to ignorance. So it is very important that a comprehensive leaflet is introduced as soon as possible to be distributed to those concerned. I should like to see the Government place advertisements in newspapers, motoring journals and club newsletters to explain the situation. There must also be a much fuller information pack to go to garages and so forth; nor must we forget the problems of garden machinery, outboard motors and chainsaws.
To conclude, this question tonight is designed to give the Government an opportunity to inform all those interested of how they intend to deal with this situation in the years to come. What we urgently need now is more open government on this subject, a practice to which "New Labour" promised to subscribe. The noble Baroness can be assured that there are many thousands of somewhat distrustful and suspicious car owners in the country who fear that their cars will be made redundant through no fault of their own and who are urgently awaiting her reply.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for bringing this subject to our attention tonight. It is a matter of serious concern. I congratulate him on giving us a unique history of the problem and the possible solutions to it. In fact, it was so good that I should perhaps suggest to my chairman of Sub-Committee B that the noble Lord should be invited to attend as a specialist adviser, because he has given us some unique information. I am certainly looking forward to the next instalment on Ethyl, the 1920s flapper, outside this Chamber later this evening.
I declare an interest in that I have two cars which are particularly affected by this situation, one built in 1931 and the other built in 1970. I am not sure whether they can run on unleaded fuel. That is the problem; there is uncertainty about it. The matter was brought to my
1018
attention when Sub-Committee B started to look at this problem, and I am looking forward to seeing its resolution.
I strongly support the elimination of lead from petrol. It has to happen, and it has to happen quickly for the sake of everyone's health, but I believe that the Government have a duty to tell us who is affected, how serious the problem is for motorists and what can be done to mitigate the effects of not having lead in petrol.
I received a very interesting briefing from the AA, which is one of the few briefings that seem to be around. It is not quite as good as that of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, but it is not a bad start. I will not go through all the numbers again, but what it does mention is that there are 250,000 vehicles with soft valve seats which could be affected by prolonged hard driving. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, mentioned racing, but the AA also mentions towing a caravan on the motorway. One would not want them to lose all their valves on a motorway.
Whether the solution is fitting hardened valve seat inserts or new cylinder heads is a matter for concern, but it is all going to cost money. I suggest that there are several choices open to the Government before they allow this decision to go ahead. The first is not a good one, and that is to keep leaded petrol. In some communication from my noble friend Lady Hayman it was suggested that this leaded petrol could only be sold through specialist interest groups and classic car clubs. In my limited experience, most of these clubs are run from people's front rooms, and the thought of handing out the two-gallon tins of petrol mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, in people's front rooms has safety problems which would surely rule it out. It should not even be suggested. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will say that I have it completely wrong—I hope she does—but I hope that was not a serious suggestion.
There is a second alternative, which is to ensure the provision of an alternative fuel, if it works. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has said that the oil companies are working on it. If it is going to be introduced in less than two years should there not by now be standards? Should there not be agreements with the oil companies that this alternative is available? Should not the public be told that it will work and that their valves and their cylinder heads will work correctly?
There is a third suggestion, which is to provide some support for the capital cost of changing cars, possibly by reducing the age at which the vehicle excise duty is no longer paid. I do not pay VED on my two cars. It could be reduced from 25 years to, say, 15 or 10 years. It is an alternative way to mitigate the effect of spending £1,000 on a new cylinder head.
There are various different suggestions. I do not say that I approve of them all or support them, but it is very important that the motoring public, the millions of motorists who are concerned about this, are informed about what is going to happen in good time so that they can make their decisions about what should happen. Unless satisfactory replacement fuel which can be

1019
recommended with confidence is available, there will be confusion and alarm among motorists, and that would be very unsatisfactory. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says in response.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I have an interest in this inasmuch as I have a classic car of 1963. It is a comparatively high performance V8 engine and I am worried about this. I do not use the car very much. Although I am a member of the Daimler and Lanchester Owners Club, I, along with many other people, am simply ignorant of what is going to happen to us.
I started my working life being an apprentice for the Daimler Motor Company shortly after the war. In the service department we had models coming in which had monobloc. In other words, the heads were not detachable so that one had the cylinder head and block combined. These were desperately difficult things to have anything to do with, and I would hate to think that people will put new valve seat inserts in them.
I am worried about my car, which is at the moment being rebuilt and will, I hope, grace your Lordships' car park before the Summer Recess starts. I do not use it terribly much, but I would like the Government to provide us with a guide to the change, exactly as has been suggested by noble Lords who have preceded me. There are a lot additives which one can buy which are totally valueless. That has been the case over the years. Having said that, another noble Lord may use the rest of my five minutes.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, the noble Lord is to be congratulated on his brevity, which I shall try to follow. Our thanks are indeed due to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, not least because this fits almost exactly into a short inquiry being conducted by Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already alluded.
The directive which we are looking at in Sub-Committee B is known as the auto oil programme, and the papers deal with pollution and leaded petrol. I am paraphrasing. These matters have been the subject of considerable correspondence between the Minister and myself during February and March of this year. Unleaded petrol, or the manufacture of cars suitable for using unleaded petrol, has been mandatory since April 1991. However, in that correspondence the noble Baroness, on behalf of the Government, has said that lead replacement additives are "expected" to be available by 1st January 2000, and that the cost implications are "not expected to be substantial".
This was the area which really concerned the sub-committee, which I have the honour to chair. We have gleaned in the space of our short inquiry that 57 per cent. of the cars currently on the road within the European Union were built before April 1991. Interestingly, that is very close to the UK figure of 55 per cent. Of course, it is acknowledged that not all
1020
those cars are dependent upon leaded fuel. Indeed, probably the vast majority of them are not so dependent upon leaded fuel. Nevertheless, there will be a substantial number that are dependent on leaded fuel. The answer is either lead replacement additives and, I repeat, they are only "expected" to be available within the timescale, or conversion, which my noble friend Lord Montagu said cost £1,000; the information I have averages at about £600, but it is a significant sum of money.
My noble friend Lord Montagu also alluded to garden equipment, lawn mowers, outboard motors and such things. There is a whole host of machinery, if I may use that expression, which will be affected by this ban. Sadly, the statistics on the number of vehicles, ignoring garden equipment for the moment, which may well be affected on 1st January 2000 varies, as far as I am aware, between 300,000 and 3.5 million. I believe that my noble friend gave a slightly larger figure. Whatever it is, it is going to be substantial, and I cannot understand—indeed, the sub-committee cannot understand—how the Government can say that the cost implications are "not expected to be substantial". They will be very substantial to the owners of such cars.
In the most recent correspondence, and I do not believe that I am divulging any secrets in this respect, the noble Baroness, who is always extremely courteous—I do mean that and I made that point in our debate last week on drink driving regulations—referred in her letter to the fact that we had queried in a number of instances the points about the withdrawal of leaded petrol, and she says in the letter dated 19th March:
"I am considering the points raised by the Committee concerning the withdrawal of leaded petrol and will let you have a detailed reply as soon as possible".
Perhaps during this debate we shall get that detailed reply. I do hope so.
Interestingly, we asked officials from the Minister's department whether they would be kind enough to give us a briefing on this subject before the debate this evening and, albeit very politely, that was declined. We will have the benefit of that briefing—it will be a benefit: I am not being facetious in that respect—in two days' time, on Thursday, two days after this Unstarred Question. Question-marks keeping coming into our mind.
The individuals in this country on whom the ban will bite are, I imagine—we do not have full evidence on this—principally from rural areas. There are some rather important votes for the Government in rural areas, and I say that standing firmly on these Benches. I urge the Minister most strongly, particularly following what my noble friend Lord Montagu said, to consider the derogation to 2005 if indeed the southern Europeans members of the European Union exercise their prerogative in that respect.
8 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, for asking this Unstarred Question and apologise to him and to the House for missing the first couple of minutes of his speech.

1021
I have briefly to declare three interests in speaking in the debate. First, I have an interest in transport matters in general as parliamentary adviser to the Parkman Group, a civil engineering and transportation consultancy. Secondly, I am chairman of a company called Emission Control Systems International. It markets equipment which reduces pollution and increases mpg through promoting greater combustion of the fuel and also enables, I am assured, one to drive a car on unleaded fuel that is not designed to do so. My third interest is that I am the proud owner of a Morris Minor. Now, the Morris Minor is in a quite favoured position in this. As there are around 120,000 Morris Minors on the road and as they have what one might call a cult following, there is available an almost off-the-shelf, modified cylinder head. So this will not be too much of a problem unless people want to keep their Morris Minors in completely standard condition.
Various speakers in the debate have come up with figures. I shall add some more, which were provided to me by Charles Ware, who is the guru of the Morris Minor restoration fraternity. He has gone to the lengths of having parts made for his Morris Minors in a third world country using traditional labour-intensive means and, incidentally, paying people more than the going rate. He tells me that the AA has underestimated the problem. In round figures, in the UK alone, there are 24 million cars on the road. Unleaded facilities have been available for about eight years. If we say that 1.8 million cars a year have been sold in this period, the total number of cars using unleaded fuel comes to about 14.5 million. That means that approximately 9.5 million cars on the road cannot run on unleaded fuel. Many of those cars are otherwise perfectly sound and they would have tens of thousands of miles of useful life left in them. It is therefore essential that viable solutions, by way of additives or by way of equipment such as I have mentioned, are tested in time for their implementation and take-up before 1st January 2000. If that is not done, and if my figures are accurate, I can see considerable disruption to both the motoring industry and the motoring public.
There is a wider issue here which is highlighted by the noble Lord's Question. It concerns the way we produce vehicles and the way we view consumer durables, including cars. Mr. Ware, whom I mentioned earlier, has written an excellent book called Durable Motoring. Taking the Morris Minor as an example, he compares the overall cost of buying a renovated Morris Minor and keeping it in good condition for 25 years with the overall cost of buying a series of equivalent new cars over the same period. The Morris Minor, which lends itself by virtue of its design and construction to such a programme of planned maintenance, proves conclusively to be the more economical proposition. Of course, not everyone wants to drive a Morris Minor!
I mention this because most people who own cars are already caught on something of a treadmill. They have to overcome the financial inevitability of capital depreciation and the mechanical inevitability of the physical deterioration of their cars—the result of planned obsolescence which is built into the production
1022
process. If we impose a further burden requiring people to scrap their cars before the end of their usable life, it would be very unfair and quite unnecessary.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Montagu for initiating this debate. We all know the debt we owe him for what he has done for motoring. I declare an interest as an enthusiastic driver of classic and vintage cars. The magazines Classic and Sports Car and Classic Car, the car club magazines and the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs have all been doing their best to give publicity to this problem. We must try to get some answers from the Government tonight.
Why are the Government so anti-motoring, with a whacking great increase in the fuel tax and the registration fee for new cars? In particular, why are they so anti-vintage and classic motoring? Why have they stopped the rolling road fund exemption of 25 years? I understand from the press that the department is talking about the whole exemption system being scrapped as well. I find it inconceivable that the Government should go ahead and be so against what is, after all, a very attractive hobby carried out by many thousands of people who try to perpetuate the golden age of engineering in this country.
The problem before us tonight is one of lead petrol. My noble friends have given a clear indication of what the problem is. I hope the Minister will bear in mind that the cars we are talking about are, in the main, classic and vintage cars, although many cars made in the 1980s and even the 1990s will run into trouble. They are carefully driven, covering 1,000 or perhaps 2,000 miles a year, the engines are in top condition, there are minimum emissions and they are mostly used in the countryside environment where they do not add to the urban problem of pollution.
Is the Minister absolutely clear about fuel? Does four star red cause the amount of damage the Government say it does? After all, four star red accounts for a very small percentage of the overall amount of fuel used. Has she read—I suppose that everything in her Red Box is read these days—the report in the Sunday newspapers about the research of the United States Environment Protection Agency into diesel fuel which refers not only to the problem of global warming but to the possibility of cancer as well? Is she certain that her department appreciates the problems of global warming as between red and green petrol, bearing in mind the number of cars which use green or red? I believe that the department overestimates the damage that may be done by the relatively small number of classic and vintage cars which want to continue using leaded fuel.
What is to be done? My noble friends have indicated various possibilities. First, the derogation on red petrol could be extended, as the Minister is quite entitled to do within the European Union. Secondly, is she taking any steps to involve her department in scientific research into a possible additive? Is there to be more help on work on LRP, the lead replacement petrol? All this needs to be done urgently if she is not to remove the ban in the year 2000.

1023
Over the years many additives have been produced. How many have proved to be beneficial in this case? I would like to believe that there was some active scientific research being carried out by the Minister's department to help the thousands of people, particularly those with cars built in the 1970s and 1980s, when we come to the inevitable problem.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House have raised the problem of the great expense of grinding out the valve seats and inserting new, hardened seats and guides. That is not always possible with large, four-cylinder engines because the cylinders are so close together and there is not room to bore out valve seats and insert new ones. As the noble Lord opposite said, if one has a fixed-head engine—quite a number of cars had them in the 1920s because of the difficulty of getting a tight seal with a gasket—it is very expensive and difficult to achieve.
From what noble Lords have said on all sides of the House, I hope the Minister realises that we have to find answers quickly, unless the Government are going to give a derogation, which is the obvious thing to do. We should be given two to three years more in order to help to resolve this problem. As a noble Lord said not long ago at a public meeting, the Minister has to stop the relentless pressure to make motoring with classic and historic cars impossible. I hope that she will do something about this.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, it is a particular delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, in this debate. He and I were constituency neighbours for three decades in the south of Scotland and we shared many harmless enthusiasms along with political differences. One of them was indeed the driving of classic cars. I agree entirely with everything that he said. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for introducing this debate. I noticed that one Sunday paper said that I was going to be bracketed with him in this debate, to which someone unkindly said that they could think of a no more appropriate place than the House of Lords to be debating old crocks. I thought that that was not a very complimentary observation. He has, of course, a much larger collection of old crocks than I have. I have only two and I declare that interest.
One of the functions of Parliament is to stand up for minorities. There are two quite distinct minorities affected by the proposed withdrawal of leaded petrol in, let us face it, only 18 months' time. The first has already been mentioned by other noble Lords. They are the hard pressed people in rural areas such as the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and I have represented over the years. They live in areas with no public transport and no alternative. They are often on low wages and therefore drive to work in what are politely called "old bangers". I remember on one occasion having to tell a Minister of Transport that I had come across many constituents of mine who drove vehicles whose value was less than the vehicle excise duty charged each year. That is a particular minority who will be severely affected. I am not making it up. I remember one particular case in the
1024
Ettrick valley where the collapse of the family vehicle meant the dole queue. There was no question about it. The Government should be conscious of that particular minority.
If my noble friend Lord McNair is right as regards the figures, it will be interesting to have the Government's reaction. The AA claims that by the start of the year 2000 around 2 million vehicles will be using four star leaded fuel. My noble friend has said that the figure is much higher, but whatever it is there is a substantial minority interest in the matter.
The second minority has already been referred to and that is the owners and drivers of classic cars. Here the responsibility of the Government is to provide clearer information as to what is happening. I find that that is what people complain about most. They say to me, "You are a Member of Parliament and surely you know what is going on". I have to reply, "Frankly, I don't". I believe that we are all in that position.
Perhaps I may quote from an interesting article in the Jaguar Driver magazine. The author of the article about unleaded fuel writes,
"I wrote to one of the retailing chains who sell unleaded 4-star petrol seeking assurance that their product can he used in Jaguar engines which are designed for 4-star leaded fuel. The reply stated that they could not guarantee that this fuel was suitable for a particular model of car!".
That is passing the buck. The answer is that the people who own these cars have no idea what petrol is safe in what particular cars and for what engines. As regards this whole issue one finds a certain washing of hands. The United Kingdom Petrol Industry Association, for example, in a letter to Sub-Committee B on Energy Industry and Transport, says as regards the reduction of emissions from passenger cars,
"This is primarily a question for the Motor Industry".
So they are out of the picture. Then one turns to the memorandum to the European Communities Committee from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which states,
"With respect to the proposed banning of lead in petrol. we must point out that SMMT members have not built vehicles for the United Kingdom market which also have to use leaded petrol, for many years, over a decade in many cases. The issue of an unleaded petrol ban is, therefore, in some senses, academic".
It is not in the least academic for those who are directly affected by it.
There is the question of future standards. We are told by the Automobile Association that,
"The British Standards Technical Committee are very close to a specification for an additised fuel".
But the Institution of Mechanical Engineers points out that that has not yet been achieved and that there is considerable doubt about the effectiveness of these fuels. The AA has also said that,
"it would be in the interest of the consumer if there were an agreed method to test for valve seat recession in vulnerable engines".
It also points out that if the market proves to be,
"too small to provide [continued leaded petrol] at the pump".
after 2000, it is likely that motorists will be dosing fuel themselves using proprietary additive products.

1025
As regards these, it is interesting to note in the memo from The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that,
"'after-market' fuel additives [are] notoriously prone to exaggerated claims, and little real evidence of satisfactory performance exists".
So we have only 18 months to go in which to find more satisfactory evidence that these alternatives are effective.
Finally, in the same memo there is reference to the use of 95 octane unleaded petrol in lieu of the 97 octane leaded petrol, which will cause,
"deleterious effects [which] will be worsened by increased speed, possibly causing terminal damage in … extreme case[s]".
My final plea to the Government is that we need more information. Whatever decisions they are making, the matter cannot be left to the petrol industry, the British Standards Institution or the motor industry. The buck stops at the Department of Transport and we really need to know what is happening.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow two such distinguished and erudite graduates from another place. We are all most grateful to my noble friend Lord Montagu for asking this Question. He made an excellent and most interesting speech. However, that was to be expected as there is no one better qualified to speak on the subject of vintage and veteran cars than he.
I also state a small interest. Many years ago I had one well known classic car, the Aston Martin Atom, which was a unique prototype. So I can confirm the strong feelings with which many people tend to regard their valued, and often valuable, old cars. I look forward very much to seeing the car of the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, in the car park. I have been trying to work out what sort it is, but no doubt he will tell me afterwards.
There is no real argument about the detrimental effect of lead in petrol, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Monro. I believe that it has been proven that it is very unhealthy. It is also true that unleaded petrol is proven to be as satisfactory as leaded as long as it is used in a vehicle with the right engine specifications.
It seems to me that the Government have to deal with three separate but interlinked problems. One is very easy, and that is what happens to several million car users who could now, without great cost or inconvenience, switch from leaded to unleaded fuel in their cars. All that is required is some effective government publicity.
The second problem concerns an estimated 1–5 million cars in the year 2000 which will not run on anything but leaded fuel without the likelihood of serious damage to their cylinder heads. Clearly, the solution lies in an additive being found which will do the same job as lead. I understand that research has taken place and a product has even been on the market. It appears that the only delay in progressing to a solution is the fact that the British Standards Institute is going slow on its job of establishing precise standards for fuels containing lead substitutes. It appears that a legal Gordian knot needs to be cut quickly. I urge the
1026
Government either to do so or possibly to find some means other than the BSI whereby a standard can he reached for satisfactory additives.
The third problem is the one that prompted the Unstarred Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Montagu: historic cars. I am sure that the Government are aware of the strong and growing sport of racing some of these old cars. This has been going on for about 30 years. That is why some of the additives will not do because those cars are not able to withstand racing. Are the Government aware that already some people are having expensive engine rebuilds carried out to try to eliminate the soft valve seats, because there is considerable scepticism about the proposed 0·5 per cent. of leaded fuel being available only for classic cars after the year 2000? How does one define a classic car? Is it not possible that some of the 0·5 per cent. may be converted to old bangers? How will the fuel be distributed? Will it carry petroleum tax? If so, will it not be beyond the range of all except the rich? Is it not likely that a black market in this fuel will develop? Have the Government contacted the appropriate authorities in Austria and New Zealand, where I understand that leaded fuel has been off the market for some time and adequate substitutes have been tried, tested and proven?
The question of a possible derogation for Portugal, France and Greece has been mentioned. I do not know whether that would apply to Britain even if the Government wished to pursue the ploy of social hardship. But I do not believe that it would be a very long delay even if it was done. There must be some rapid and decisive action soon; otherwise, there will be a lot of confused and angry motorists. It is important to me and to a great number of others because some great old cars will be unable to be used except with inordinate cost and trouble. They are part of our heritage and a great many people care about them. The Government must prove that they care for that part of our heritage as much as they profess to care about other parts of our heritage.
8.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for giving me the opportunity this evening to make clear the Government's position on this important issue, and one that we recognise is of great concern to many. That has been apparent from the contributions made to the debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for the recognition that the future is not as bleak as some people may fear. It may be that I should also declare an interest in that I am the only speaker in this debate who does not own a classic or historic car.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that the buck stopped at the Department of Transport. Of course, it is now the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and that is where the buck properly stops because we must look at this issue in the round. One must acknowledge, as did the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and other noble Lords, the context in which one is considering this matter; namely, the detrimental effects

1027
of lead in the atmosphere which are well known and the reason behind the unanimous support of all member states for the banning of leaded petrol from the year 2000. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, that I do not believe that that support should be characterised as a crusade against the motorist. That is absolutely not the case. This is a crusade in favour of air quality and children's health.
I also understand the concerns about US research into diesel. We have a substantial research programme into the effect of air pollutants, including investigation of the health effects of fine particulates. I do not believe that we are neglecting that area. Nor do I believe the Government are neglecting the cause with which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has been associated for so long; that is, to ensure that the rich heritage of vehicles that the country enjoys is protected. The reasoning behind the negotiation of a derogation for a small ongoing supply of leaded petrol was primarily to protect the needs of classic car racing. Perhaps I may return to the categories of cars that will be affected in a moment.
Since recognition in the 1960s and 1970s in medical circles of the particular risks of exposure to lead pollution, mainly from emissions from petrol-engined vehicles, lead in petrol has been progressively reduced. Sales of unleaded petrol have been encouraged and today account for three-quarters of the market. These policies resulted in a fall in lead in UK air of some 70 per cent. in that time. This is not something that has gone on only in this country. A number of countries are ahead of Great Britain in this area. Austria, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, the USA and New Zealand have already banned or reduced to extremely low levels sales of leaded petrol. We are not operating completely in the dark. There is experience from other countries. It has been made possible by the development of alternative additives to lead which have been introduced on a widespread basis without any major problems for owners of older vehicles. It was against this background that member states unanimously adopted a ban from 2000 which has been endorsed by the European Parliament.
The Government supported the ban in line with their policy of taking action wherever practicable to reduce exposure from all sources of lead and to ensure that the general decline in UK blood lead levels continues. In areas where there is a concentration of industrial and vehicle lead emissions the ban will make a significant contribution to meeting the kind of levels recommended in the report of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards which was published yesterday.
Tonight much has been made of the figures. For example, the noble Lord, Lord McNair, provided some details. It may assist if I give the Government's understanding of the problem and the action that they can take to deal with various aspects. The use of leaded petrol has been steadily declining and now accounts for about 23 per cent. of total petrol sales. We predict that by January 2000 this will have fallen to about 18 per cent. There will however still be a large, though declining, number of older vehicles that will be affected by the
1028
withdrawal of leaded petrol. Estimates suggest that the total number of cars using leaded petrol may be as high as 5–3 million on 1st January 2000. However, the same estimates suggest that as many as 3 million of these vehicles could use unleaded petrol either directly, with absolutely no change, or with very simple engine adjustments. Here, we are not talking about expensive engineering tasks but perhaps the changing of the timing of engines at a cost of between £15 and £50.
Of the remaining 2·3 million vehicles, leaded petrol currently performs the important function of providing lubricant protection from wear of soft valve seats in the engine. I am very nervous about lecturing noble Lords on these details. I suspect that the engineers far outnumber me. It also provides a higher octane, which many of these vehicles require. However, both of these functions can be fulfilled by practical and proven alternatives that we believe will be available. Octane needs can be met simply by owners switching to high octane fuels such as super unleaded petrol or the new lead replacement petrol. Alternatively, minor adjustments can be made to engines to compensate for the lower octane value of unleaded petrol. These are all practical and proven alternatives for vehicles that need a high octane fuel.
Alternatives also exist for those vehicles which will continue to require lubricant protection. In those countries where leaded petrol is already banned, the oil companies have provided alternatives either in the form of lead replacement petrol, containing suitable substitute additives, or by such additives being sold separately for motorists' use—and also for gardeners' use. What will deal with car engines will also deal with lawn mowers in particular.
The substitutes have, we understand, resulted in few, if any, reported problems arising from valve seat wear for vehicles operating under average, mixed day-to-day driving conditions. Where problems have occurred these have been associated with continuous high speed or high temperature operations such as may be found under high engine load conditions. Those have been referred to either in terms of where vehicles are used in a very aggressive fashion—not, as has been pointed out by noble Lords, the usual use of classic cars—or where they are towing heavy trailers or caravans for sustained periods. It is a question of avoiding prolonged use at high engine speeds or high engine loads, as these may result in very high engine temperatures. Motorists must take care to maintain the engines properly if we are to reduce the risk of valve seat recession. For most vehicles preventive measures by way of inserting hard valve seats—in those cases where we are talking about hard wear—should cost no more than £200 to £400, although I recognise that for more sophisticated and specialist vehicles the cost may be higher. It will depend largely upon the nature of the vehicle. The market experience—
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is there any chance that the department might be able to give authoritative advice as to which engines require which treatment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that I can deal with the question of advice in a moment. The key—and

1029
the noble Lord himself referred to it, as other speakers did—is to have good information in this area. I want to put on the record some of the more technical aspects, but I think it is important that we then look at how we address the concerns of individuals.
The oil companies are well placed, we believe, to cater for that part of the UK market which will continue to require protection against valve seat wear. As to concerns about the availability of lead replacement petrol, supply will remain a matter for commercial decision but there is clearly going to be a strong demand for such a product. We are confident that the oil companies will respond as they have done in other countries. We understand that they are making plans to have lead replacement petrol introduced in the UK from about the middle of 1999. But we are in something of a chicken-and-egg situation. We will not get the lead replacement petrol being introduced until there is a firm date for the ban on leaded petrol. It is in the interests of certainty to get on with the task of meeting the needs of the cars and the car-owners for this sort of petrol.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and others mentioned the need for a British standard for lead replacement petrol. I think that would help to reassure motorists. But I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Monro, that officials from my department have participated in the British Standards Technical Committee meetings in order to help progress development of the new standard. The work was virtually complete when the BSI announced earlier this year that it was to halt further progress pending the resolution of a legal dispute involving a member of the technical committee. There are problems from that delay for all those involved, especially in the short term, but we are confident that the problem will be resolved in good time for the standard to be finalised and for the fuel to be widely available for the year 2000.
Turning to the position of historic and classic vehicles, which is of particular concern, the alternatives of lead replacement petrol or bottled additives will of course be suitable for use by the vast majority of these vehicles, especially bearing in mind the type of use to which they are generally put. Where these vehicles are used for such activities as classic car racing, however—circumstances in which considerable load is demanded on the engine—it is recognised that substitutes for lead are unlikely to be sufficient to meet their needs. That is why under the terms of the directive the UK has negotiated a special provision to ensure that a supply of leaded petrol is available to cater for such needs. The allowance is indefinite. It is limited to 0·5 per cent. of total sales. We would have liked more but we did not win that argument. I have noted the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, raised. I am sorry about the officials not coming before the meeting. That was not a conspiracy; it was a matter of timing. I hope that by what I have said tonight, and the detailed information that they will be able to give the committee, we can reassure people.
I do not have time to deal with matters in great detail. The point I should like to make, very clearly, is that the key here is good communication. It is absolutely essential—and I take the responsibility of the department here—to work with all those involved—the
1030
AA, the RAC, the historical and classic car clubs and the industry—to ensure that the information is available, is in a form which people can understand and is accessible to them. I would not in any way shirk from the department's role in that responsibility. We also have a responsibility to work with classic car organisations over the distribution mechanism for that 0–5 per cent. derogation to ensure that it is available for the classic car racing fraternity and to negotiate the way in which it can safely be distributed under the terms of the derogation.
I am aware of the time constraints. I hope that we will be able, in the evidence to Sub-Committee B, to reassure noble Lords further. But I say once again that the steps being taken by industry, government and other organisations and the experience in other countries lead us to believe that we can address the concerns expressed today and ensure the continued operation of older vehicles following the general withdrawal of leaded petrol in the year 2000.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
8.36 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Amendment No. 3.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think in truth that what the noble Lord has presented us with is a wrecking amendment. If passed, it would prevent the United Kingdom from taking part in any decision under the common foreign and security policy until both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution on the CFSP. That would mean that, once the Amsterdam Treaty was enforced, we would, under domestic UK law, be prohibited from participating in the CFSP, which would then be virtually inoperable. We could not in good faith ratify the treaty subject to that constraint. So it will not come as a very great surprise that the Government cannot accept this amendment.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, acknowledged in Committee, in an interdependent world it is important that we co-operate with our EC partners on foreign policy when we have common interests. That means pooling EU efforts where sensible and in line with United Kingdom national interests. Collectively we can exercise more weight on the world stage.
However, a single supra-national CFSP would not be more effective. CFSP is based on the will of member states to act together. That will cannot be artificially created through institutional mechanisms such as QMV. If member states do not hold convergent positions, we should not try to create a false consensus. Such a hollow common foreign policy would weaken, not strengthen, the weight of the EU on the world stage, since member states would be quick to undermine that policy behind the scenes. I believe that there is a large measure of agreement on that point between the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and Her Majesty's Government.

1031
That is why the Government ensured, as we committed ourselves to do in our manifesto, that under Article J.13 no member state can be forced to act, or not to act, against its will. Member states in the Council remain in firm control of CFSP and the presidency remains in the lead in managing it.
The CFSP provisions of the treaty introduce practical steps to streamline decision-making and financing arrangements, to improve the quality of Council Secretariat advice, to improve external representation of the EU, and to enhance the armoury of instruments for action at member states' disposal. It is a good result for Britain and for the European Union.
I wish to cover each of these improvements in a little more detail. I turn first to decision making. In line with their negotiating aims, the Government preserved at Amsterdam the UK's ability to require unanimity in CFSP decision-making. Article J.13 preserves unanimity for all decisions on common foreign policy in the form of common strategies, or of joint actions and common positions not agreed on the basis of common strategies; and for any decision with military or defence implications.
Maastricht allowed for QMV for implementation of agreed foreign policy. Amsterdam makes that automatic. Further, and usefully, it adds the ability constructively to abstain when a member state does not want to be forced to act, but does not want to stop others from doing so. The decision on whether to abstain or not is for the individual member state, and that state alone. So constructive abstention cannot be used to make a member state act against its national interests if it is in a minority.
These two measures usefully streamline decision-making. The UK has for many years played a leading role in CFSP and will continue to do so. So QMV and constructive abstention are to our advantage. They allow more effective implementation arrangements for what we want. EU election monitoring, for example, could not be held up by bickering over precisely how many monitors to send. Less active member states could stand aside without blocking action by others.
However, if there is a real difference, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right: the so-called "emergency brake" provision in Article J.13(2) is an important safeguard which recognises the potential sensitivity for all member states of any such decisions by QMV. It allows any member state to require that any decision be taken by unanimity. The individual member State has independent control over whether and when to pull the emergency brake. The noble Lord asked for an assurance about whether anyone else would arbitrate. The answer to that is no.
The noble Lord invited me to say which current issues in foreign policy will be the subject of common strategies. As the noble Lord knows, the treaty does not define when a common strategy must or must not be used. Common strategies will come into being when heads of state and government recognise that there is enough common ground in their approach to a foreign policy issue to warrant agreeing a framework which can
1032
be the basis of future action. But the noble Lord went on to imply that the member state would have no power to block subsequent joint action or common policies agreed by qualified majority. The answer to that is the emergency brake mechanism, which can be applied so the national veto is retained.
If such an issue were referred back to the European Council, the member state which had pulled the emergency brake might well feel itself under some political pressure, but it will have used the emergency brake only to protect a key national interest. Therefore, it will no doubt stick to its position. It is for the member state alone to decide what is a key national interest.
The noble Lord invited us to consider what he referred to as a case study—that of Sierra Leone. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that a Customs investigation is under way into alleged breaches of UNSCR 1132. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is co-operating fully and openly. There was no ministerial prior knowledge or approval of any breach of the arms embargo. It has not been established whether UNSCR 1132 has been breached or whether the Government were in any way involved in such a breach.
I do not wish to dwell on the matter in quite the excitable way the noble Lord seemed inclined to do, but the Foreign Secretary did not disown officials. The Foreign Secretary went out of his way to make it clear, as I did yesterday in your Lordships' House, that no one should rush to judgment. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, yesterday that I would write to him about the serious matters he raised in relation to Sierra Leone. It will be a sensible and considered reply. If the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would like a copy, I shall of course be happy to send one to him. But I urge the noble Lord to be sensible and calm about this. We have to wait for the facts. Rushing to judgment, as it seemed the noble Lord was a little inclined to do, is not the sensible course of action at the moment. We know the key facts on Iraq; we do not know the key facts on Sierra Leone. If we are looking at case studies, I say to the noble Lord that a case study needs facts and I suggest that he, like the rest of us, should have the patience to wait for those facts.
Looking at one of the examples which the noble Lord wanted us to consider, the EU agreed a joint action on how to handle the transition to democracy in South Africa. Subsequently, the Council decided on the resources which should go to that end. It is quite possible that, if common strategies had existed, heads of state and government might have chosen a particular route because of all kinds of decisions likely to be taken under it, if they were relatively uncontentious.
I hope that I have managed to answer the sensible points which the noble Lord raised and that I have encouraged him to be a little more sensible about some of the other points which he seemed inclined to draw us into.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I wish to make only one point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are at the Report stage. Only the mover of the amendment can speak after the Minister.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her initial remarks. I have never been paid so great a compliment by a colleague from another party. I am concerned that my example was not as apposite as she might have liked. She went on to develop it in some detail, picking up six threads of the argument that I developed during my speech and making interesting observations on them. Clearly, she felt it important to consider those points and I am grateful to the Minister for responding to them.
My noble friend Lord Howell, was right in airing and echoing the reservations that I made in my opening remarks, particularly the point that it was fine to adopt common positions but that there was real concern about the move from common positions to common strategies and, ultimately, the more important move from common strategies to common policies. That point and the contribution which was made by my noble friend at this stage was extremely important.
I note and appreciate, although I am somewhat surprised, that the Minister came back on the example that I used of Sierra Leone. I simply state to the House that the fundamental point that I was making in the context of this amendment is that if the Government do not know their own policy, how can they possibly influence foreign policy in Europe? There is no better contemporary example of the importance of that point than Sierra Leone and thus my detailed analysis this evening.
I agree totally that case studies require facts. It appears that government Ministers do not have them. I was putting a number of important points to this House in the context of what we have been informed by Ministers in order to develop the point that it is clear that the fast-moving, fast-shifting sands of explanation which we are having on an almost daily basis on a foreign policy issue would cause very real difficulties for Ministers going to Europe and trying to establish a common policy position on what might be an extremely important issue. Certainly Sierra Leone is an important issue and there are implications within Europe which may well lead it to become an important issue for Europe, not least in relation to European Union arms embargoes with regard to Nigeria.
That is the reason that I raise the issue. I am pleased that I gave that example. I am grateful to the Minister for placing on record yet more reflections from the Foreign Office on the important questions that I raised.
Finally, in no way was my amendment intended to be a wrecking amendment, and I would happily debate that issue. However, we have had a useful debate on this matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Moynihanmoved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause—
BORDER CONTROLS: IMPLICATIONS FOR GIBRALTAR
(". Her Majesty's Government shall not exercise the opt-in to border controls set out in Protocol 4 to the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts until each House of Parliament has cone to a Resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown relating to the implications for the people of Gibraltar of the voting arrangements for such an opt-in.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the position in Gibraltar at present. I say straightaway that I particularly regret the fact that it is necessary to return to the issue of Gibraltar and Britain's opt-in to the Schengen acquis. In Committee, I went into some detail on my amendment as to the implications for the people of Gibraltar of the voting arrangements for the opt-in to border controls. I did not do that because I sought to analyse policy differences between the Opposition and the Government. Indeed, as I have made clear repeatedly, this is an area of the treaty as regards which we wholeheartedly support the Government for maintaining the previous government's policy in retaining sovereignty over Britain's border controls. It was not because I sought to explore the nature of the provisions. No, indeed. In Committee, I went into detail because I sought an explanation and perhaps even an apology to the people of Gibraltar for the Government's apparent utter ineptitude and negligence in handling those negotiations. Nowhere in the treaty is ministerial incompetence more obvious than in respect of the issue of our opt-in to border controls.
As noble Lords will recall, I set out the catalogue of incompetence, conflicting views and contradictory statements from the Government regarding Gibraltar. I had hoped that in Committee, the facts would be presented to us frankly and openly so that once we were in possession of all the facts, we should be able to determine whether it was most appropriate to accept the Government's explanation or to demand an apology. But my hopes were severely disappointed. I am now in a position of having to press the Minister on this matter.
First, I sought clarification on the precise areas of the treaty to which the Prime Minister referred in his Statement of 18th June 1997. He told another place that
"what we have secured, which is important and is a better way of going about things, is what I call an opt-in. We have the power within the treaty to go into any of these areas if we want to. If we do not want to, we need not, but if we do, no other country can block us going in".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/97; col. 319.]
I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether that statement referred only to the new Title IIIa on asylum, immigration and visas or whether it referred also to the Schengen acquis. If it referred only to the new Title Ina, why did the Prime Minister use the Schengen acquis to illustrate his point? Clearly, if the Prime Minister's statement did refer to the Schengen acquis, then it has subsequently been shown to be incorrect and the Foreign Secretary misled those in another place.

1035
Secondly, I sought clarification from the Minister on the issue of Article 4, the protocol, integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union. I sought to understand how the Foreign Secretary allowed a late amendment from the Spanish Prime Minister to be accepted into the treaty by default in the early hours of the morning on 18th June, meaning that any member state, including Spain, will have a veto over future opt-ins to the Schengen acquis which will be decided by unanimity rather than by QMV.
That blunder by the Foreign Secretary potentially hands the Spanish a powerful bargaining chip with which to exact concessions over Gibraltar. I welcomed the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Committee that the Government would:
"continue to defend vigorously the position of Gibraltar in the European Union and the Community law rights of Gibraltarians".— [Official Report, 27/4/98; col. 105.]
That answered one half of the question to the Foreign Secretary from the noble Lord's colleague in another place, the honourable Member for Wrexham, which I repeated in Committee. Like me, he wanted to know whether that had happened simply because,
"Her Majesty's Government do not care about Gibraltar and give it a low priority, or was it just a Government cock-up?"
I had hoped that the noble Lord would take the opportunity to answer the other half of the question and would cut cleanly through the morass of negligence and blunder and the catalogue of confused and contradictory explanations which followed to produce a clear, consistent and coherent explanation of what happened.
However, an embarrassing multitude of questions remain unanswered. All we know for sure is that the Foreign Secretary thought he had agreed to one arrangement—opt-in by QMV—only to discover that he had agreed to something completely different; that is, opt-in by unanimity. After that, the version of events twists, turns and spins out of control, depending on who is doing the explaining.
I shall ask those specific questions to which I did not receive a reply and perhaps this evening we shall be given some conclusive answers. Did the Foreign Secretary actually challenge the Spanish Prime Minister's late amendment, causing it to be withdrawn as he says he did? If so, why was the Dutch presidency unaware of such a challenge?
The Government have called this a "difference of historic interpretation". What is a difference of "historic interpretation" in plain English? Is it not the case that one party is telling the truth and the other party is not? In that case, who is telling the truth—the Foreign Secretary or the Dutch presidency? Either answer would have very serious consequences. It is not even clear whether the Foreign Secretary challenged the proposal for an amendment itself. The Foreign Secretary has told us that the amendment was withdrawn when he challenged it, while the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, told us in Committee that no amendment was submitted. He told us that:
"During the course of the debate at the European Council, Spain proposed an amendment to the Schengen Protocol to bring in unanimity for UK and Irish participation in the Schengen
1036
acquis … At the insistence of the Foreign Secretary, there was agreement that any such amendment should be submitted in writing by Spain".—[Official Report, 27/4/98; col. 105.]
He went on to say that no such amendment was submitted.
Never mind that relatively minor disparity. So far, so good in the Government's negotiations. The Foreign Secretary challenged either a Spanish amendment or a Spanish proposal. The Spanish backed down and either withdrew the amendment or decided not to submit it formally. But if, thanks to the Foreign Secretary's insistence, the amendment was not formally submitted or if it was withdrawn, why did it mysteriously reappear in the text of the treaty when the Foreign Secretary received it after the summit? Again, in Committee, we received no answer. Was it really the result of a deal done between the Spanish Government and the Dutch presidency which was kept secret from the other member states and incorporated into the treaty after the negotiations had finished, as the Foreign Secretary has claimed? Will the Minister today give the House consistent details of the secret deal? We do not even know for sure when it was concluded. Was it during the summit on the nights of 16th and 17th June, before the negotiations had finished, as the Minister of State thinks? Surely that cannot be correct since the Foreign Secretary has told us that at that very same time, the Spanish amendment was in its death throes thanks to his bold, on-the-ball challenge?
The Foreign Secretary said that this hole-in-the-corner deal between Spain and the Netherlands was concluded after the conclusion of the summit and that he found out about it a week later when he received the text of the treaty. But it seems that his Minister of State knew the day after the summit was concluded when he received a copy of the revised treaty on 19th June and not like the Foreign Secretary, after a whole week.
How come the Minister of State failed to inform the Foreign Secretary of what has happened? Perhaps that lapse is not surprising, as we have come to appreciate more recently that communication among Ministers, the Foreign Office and its officials is clearly at a low. At one point the Minister of State tried to combine both explanations when he said that the deal was done between the Dutch presidency and the Spanish Government in the margins of the summit and then discussed afterwards.
I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would throw some light on the matter; but, sadly, he failed to shed any light on the point when he told us in Committee:
"When the revised text was circulated after the Summit, we subsequently learnt that the unanimity requirement had been introduced into the text".—[Official Report, 27/4/98: col. 105.]
Can the Minister clarify this evening once and for all when the Government first learned that the unanimity requirement had been introduced into the text of the treaty?
In alleging that the text of the treaty was changed to the detriment of the UK, are the Government in fact saying that they were effectively cuckolded by the Dutch presidency and the Spanish Government as a

1037
result of a private deal between the two member states, which was not communicated to the rest of the Council? The Government's explanations for the whole of this affair have ranged from a genuine misunderstanding between member states—largely caused by the Dutch presidency's inefficient note-keeping which meant that the Foreign Secretary's successful challenge could not be proved—through to conspiracy theories of two member states—one of which held the presidency at the time—knowingly conniving to dupe a third member state against its clearly declared wishes.
If the Foreign Secretary was so forceful in making his views known, as he says he was, it follows that Spain and the Netherlands must have deliberately fiddled the text of the treaty without the full consultation of all member states. Both explanations put the Government's negotiating ability in an incompetent bungling light. But the latter allegation of hole-in-the-corner deals between member states, following the conclusion of an intergovernmental summit, is most serious and has ramifications for the transparency of the European decision-making process, and I emphasise that point. This case is important in its own right, but it is vital in the context of its ramifications for the transparency of the overall European decision-making process.
Yet while these serious allegations were being bandied about, the Government made no representations at all to the presidency of the EU about the bilateral agreement between Spain and the Dutch presidency. I see that the Minister, from a sedentary position, is saying, "Yes, we did". That is extremely helpful. I hope that the noble Lord will clarify when he did that—if he indeed did—and why the matter was not raised as a priority at the Luxembourg summit last September. I am grateful to him for his clarification. Perhaps he can answer my question about the Luxembourg summit. If it was a misunderstanding because the note-keeping of the Dutch presidency was at fault, as the Foreign Secretary first told us, and as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, confirmed when he said in Committee on 27th April (Hansard, col. 105) that,
"It emerged that there was a misunderstanding about what had been agreed at Amsterdam",
can the Minister now tell us how that misunderstanding came about? Was it because there were absolutely no provisions for minutes or a record of the meeting in question to be taken, as the Minister of State has claimed?
The Foreign Secretary has made very strong criticisms of the Dutch presidency. He has effectively accused the Dutch Government of inefficiency by criticising their note-keeping. He has effectively accused the same member state of not telling the truth about whether a challenge to the amendment was made. Moreover, he has effectively accused them of cheating by colluding in a secret deal. Not surprisingly, the Dutch Government have clearly been concerned by these extraordinary allegations and they subsequently wrote to the British Government as long ago as 16th July last year.
Despite the Government's commitment to open government and transparency, they have refused to publish that letter on the grounds that it is not normal
1038
practice for intergovernmental correspondence of that kind to be published. Similarly, it is not normal practice for one member state to accuse two others of cheating at intergovernmental summits; nor should it be normal practice for that member state to prove unable to provide a coherent and consistent explanation for a provision contained in a treaty to which it has agreed, which could have serious implications for the citizens of a dependent territory. The only consistency that the Government have demonstrated in this sorry saga is their repeated failure to provide a clear explanation for what happened.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in Committee that,
"the important thing is not the process of what happened on a particular night, however late, in June, but the result".—[Official Report, 27/4/98; col. 106.]
I do not agree that in this case what happened on a particular night has no importance, given the Government's prevarication. However, I do agree that the result of this confusion and its implications for the people of Gibraltar are of paramount importance. It seems that the result referred to by the noble Lord, which is supposed to rectify the whole situation, is the fact that the Government secured Declaration 45 which is attached to the final Act of the treaty. It sets out that the UK's admission to existing provisions of the Schengen acquis will be on the same basis as an Opinion of the Commission, which calls upon other member states to use their best efforts to enable the UK to participate.
However, the Minister omitted to mention that, had the Government done their job properly in the first place, Declaration 45 would never have been necessary. Similarly, the Minister did not answer the question of whether the declaration is legally binding in the same way as an amendment to the treaty. I invite him to do so now, especially in the light of the opinion of Mr. Peter Caruana, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar:
"we in Gibraltar have no doubt whatsoever that Spain will deploy her veto unless the UK agreed to exclude Gibraltar from the application of the Schengen arrangements".
Our fears and concerns about the use of the Spanish veto on a future British entry into the Schengen arrangements are not imaginary. Spain will exercise the veto, just as it did in relation to the application for air liberalisation to Gibraltar, from which we are still excluded; just as it threatened to veto the external frontiers convention unless Gibraltar was excluded from it. As far as concerns Spain, the very same issues arise in respect of Schengen.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reiterated that, in practice, the Government have no intention of signing up to the Schengen acquis in full on the grounds that that would be inconsistent with our determination to maintain frontier controls. From these Benches, it will come as no surprise to the Minister that we welcome that assurance and support this seamless transition of policy.
In Committee I sincerely hoped that we would not receive yet another unsatisfactory explanation from the Government and that the questions that I put would be answered at that time. But an unsatisfactory explanation from the Government is precisely what, regrettably, we

1039
were given. The latest interpretation of events, apparently compiled from a mishmash of the different strands of the conflicting statements of the Foreign Secretary and his Minister of State, did nothing to refute in a satisfactory way the accusation that the Foreign Secretary's negotiation was negligent. It cleared up none of the lingering doubts about the Foreign Office's competence or its ability to protect and enhance British interests in all future negotiations, and it failed to sweep away the suspicion of gross dereliction of its duty. In this context when I refer to the Foreign Office, I refer to Foreign Office Ministers; I do not refer to the officials.
This has simply added to the confusion of an already messy situation which has made a mockery of the Government's claim to be respected as a constructive partner with which the other countries of Europe can do business. It has made a mockery of the Government's claim to have got a better deal for Britain as a result of their new, co-operative approach. This is an example which totally undermines the claims that their approach to negotiation in Europe is successful and brings benefits to both the people of this country and to the people of Gibraltar. I beg to move.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. First, I should declare an interest in that I returned from a visit to Gibraltar this afternoon. A number of other noble Lords accompanied me on that visit. I feel that this should be a relatively short debate and that it should deal with some of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has posed. However, I was worried by his speech as he seemed to be firing widely directed broadsides at the Government. I minded less his criticism of other member states. I believe that my noble friend and his colleagues in the Government have been striving mightily to assist Gibraltar. It ill becomes someone who was connected with the government who were responsible for international matters and for matters connected with Gibraltar for almost two decades to be so extravagant in his criticism of the present Administration. Indeed I believe the noble Lord mentioned a date that was only a matter of a few days after the present Government took office.
Nevertheless the questions posed by the noble Lord are serious. I am confident that my noble friend will respond to them adequately. I believe that in this debate we should concentrate on the Schengen Agreement. However, during the discussions that I and other noble Lords had with our hosts in Gibraltar over the past 48 hours, little was said about Schengen but much was said about the wider anxiety that exists. I believe the House will have to consider that. I would deeply regret it if the noble Lord's extravagant attacks on my noble friend led the House to consider this debate as a platform for the wider debate which will have to take place soon; namely, as regards the dominant, overwhelming interests of the people of Gibraltar who believe that they ought not to be the only part of the European Union which is not democratically represented within that body.
1040
My noble friend should not forget that there is widespread appreciation of the efforts of the previous Labour government which provided Gibraltar with the constitution which it enjoys today. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's response to the noble Lord. I certainly hope that this debate will not become a substitute for the debate that must take place before long.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has made some serious allegations of incompetence and of possible bad faith on the part of the Dutch presidency. It will be interesting to hear how the Government respond to that. I, too, declare an interest in that like the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, I returned from Gibraltar this afternoon having spent 48 hours as a guest of the Gibraltar Government.
I wish to move slightly away from Schengen while sticking closely to the ideal of freedom of movement. The Gibraltarians have been members of the EEC—as it then was—since 1973. The Spanish are relative newcomers; they have been members only since 1986. Yet despite their seniority in terms of length of membership, the Gibraltarians are treated as second class, or indeed third class, EU citizens by the Spanish. As I have said on other occasions, time and time again the Spanish behave in a totally non-communautaire manner, not only in regard to Gibraltar but, for example, as regards vetoing the admission of Austria, Sweden and Finland to the Community until the Spanish receive extra money from some source or other, or additional fishing rights—I cannot quite remember which. Anyway it was a blatant act of blackmail. For some reason they are never criticised for their behaviour.
The specific aspect of freedom of movement that I wish to raise relates to identity cards. The European Commission has accepted the Gibraltar identity card as a document valid for both travel and residence purposes under the terms of EU law. It has written to all member states seeking confirmation that the respective authorities will accept the Gibraltar identity card. Yet not only does Spain not recognise the card, it is also putting pressure by the back-door on other EU countries to refuse Gibraltarians entry if they carry merely a Gibraltar identity card. Some—commendably for example Finland—have refused such pressure and allow Gibraltarians in. Others, unfortunately, have succumbed. It will be good to hear what the Government intend to do.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support what the last two speakers said. I recognise that we cannot widen the debate. I welcome the idea that there should be an early debate on Gibraltar. However, perhaps now is the moment to ask what the Government are doing inside the EU to make clear their strong disapproval of the pressures which Spain is bringing to bear on a fellow member. It is a fellow member for whom we are responsible and which has no vote of its own and cannot speak for itself. Whatever the explanation as regards what happened in June last year, it is necessary for Gibraltar to see that we are using our position in the EU actively to protect her interests.

1041
I realise that a great deal of the best negotiation goes on behind the scenes. Nevertheless, it is well known publicly that the Spanish have proposed a joint sovereignty package. That must have greatly alarmed the Gibraltarians. I do not know the Government's position on that. When I last asked, I was told that the matter was under consideration, or that discussion was taking place. I accept that. But from Gibraltar's point of view it becomes increasingly important that we are seen to take a position of concern publicly in the EU for a member of the Community which is being harassed by another member.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised some important issues which no doubt the Government will address. I do not wish to pursue them. They relate to what has happened, and are correctly on the record. They are serious allegations which need to be cleared up. However, I wish to address the issues referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, and referred to in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Park.
A critical issue is that Gibraltarians feel that their point of view is not taken fully into account. The problem does not lie solely with the Spaniards. It lies in part with the previous government of the United Kingdom. One could forecast the impact of the Schengen agreement on the borders between Spain and Gibraltar—a country of 30,000 adults, which has therefore a great degree of dependence upon free movement rules within the EU agreement.
One of the great problems—it is a fair point about which Gibraltarians feel sour—is that effectively they were not consulted in the run-up to the IGC. Nor have they been adequately consulted over many recent years regarding European legislation which directly affects them. If Gibraltarians are concerned about European legislation, it has been left for them to raise the issue. It has been left for them to pursue the matter through all the highways and byways of Whitehall. There has been no clear channel by which they can make their feelings known. The point is not addressed to the present Government but to the previous government. Therefore the previous government are not in the strongest position to criticise the present Government about what happened in June. That does not mean that the present Government should not respond to those criticisms.
A serious issue relates to the future position with regard to Gibraltar, a country which has no representation in an EU of which it is part and which is not part of any Euro-constituency, despite the fact that everyone else in the United Kingdom and in other member states has some form of representation through the European Parliament which they can use.
During Committee stage, in response to representations by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and others, understandably the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out the extreme difficulties of trying to amend European election law. Perhaps it is a pity that no one thought about Gibraltar at the time that that law was drawn up. That is not the responsibility of the present Government. But it leaves Gibraltar in an anomalous
1042
situation: an area—a "statelet", if you like—which is bound by the laws of the European Union yet can in no way influence them through any democratic process.
I therefore have a suggestion for the Government, if they are temporarily blocked—as they are—by the difficulties of amending European election law. If I am correctly informed—and as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—it would require every single member state of the European Union to ratify an amendment, and that is unlikely to happen for reasons that are well known to the House. So what other steps might be taken to enable the people of Gibraltar to he heard?
There are obvious ways in which the Foreign Office and other government departments could make themselves open to representations by Gibraltar. However, I suggest that the Government should examine closely the possibility of using the existing, extremely good, process of the Select Committees. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has often pointed out how effective they are. That could enable the Prime Minister of Gibraltar and his government to indicate their belief that a particular piece of European legislation might have substantial consequences for the people of Gibraltar. Such a matter could then be brought to the attention of the Select Committee on European Legislation. The committee would then consider whether the matter was in its view of sufficient importance to be referred to one of the sub-committees for further investigation, including the hearing of evidence and the acceptance of papers—which same evidence might include representatives of Gibraltar's Executive. In that way, at least the people of Gibraltar could feel that their representations were taken very seriously.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who continually reminds us of the importance of democracy. It puts us in an extremely vulnerable position to argue that Spain has no rights in Gibraltar, when we ourselves recognise no democratic rights for the people of Gibraltar in this House and the other place, on which they are solely dependent for making representations at a European level.
That may not be the right approach; it is simply one thought among others that has occurred to me. There may be other ways in which we could give the people of Gibraltar a voice in this House and through parliamentary procedures. But that we need to move—and to move recognising that we have effectively ignored the concerns of the people of Gibraltar to give them a feeling that there is a democratic channel—is of the greatest importance.
My party and I believe that, in the long run, it is worth exploring the issue of some form of dual sovereignty. The Northern Ireland treaty has clearly indicated that the bedrock of any form of acceptance that Spain has the right to be heard on certain issues must be the self-determination of the people of Gibraltar. That self-determination means, for as far ahead as one can see, that the people of Gibraltar will opt by any democratic method to remain within the orbit of the United Kingdom. So be it. I believe that

1043
self-determination is a profound rock upon which democracy rests. I see no great fear in relation to listening to Spain on such issues as border controls, epidemics and so forth. I do not see that there is any great objection to that, provided—and I underline this point—that the self-determination of the people of Gibraltar is the central base on which we approach this question. It might actually help to ease our relations with Spain.
Having said that, let me return to the suggestion I made. Perhaps at some stage the noble Lord or the noble Baroness the Minister will write to me. I believe that there is a way forward, and that it should be taken. I recognise that it is not the best way forward; however, since the best way forward is blocked—namely, European elections including the people of Gibraltar—it is incumbent upon the Government and those of us who serve in this House and another place to find some legitimate channel by which the views and opinions of the people of Gibraltar might be heard.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, was invited to visit Gibraltar last weekend. However, knowing that this item of business would arise, I was unable to accept the very kind offer of the Gibraltar Government. However, I am pleased to support the views expressed in the debate so far in relation to Gibraltar's problems and rights and its right to be considered.
The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that I agree with much of what she said. However, before I develop that point I wish to say this. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has enough on his plate at present and I shall not go along the lines of criticising or questioning what he has done. Indeed, I wish to express some sympathy for him. The way in which matters are arrived at within the European Community and within the discussions seems to me, quite frankly, to be chaotic. That was revealed by the BBC2 programme called, I believe, "The Money Changers". It was about EMU and so on. It showed just how chaotic the decision-making process appeared to be. I can quite understand why Ministers cannot always be on the ball about every single item and every single detail.
I believe that in one way or another we must arrange that the decision-making process is open and is slowed down so that Ministers, and not merely their officials, know what is happening, it is Ministers who take the decisions and it is known what decisions are being taken by all the member states, not just a few. That needs to be done.
As regards Gibraltar, it has the sympathy of the whole House. There is no question about it, that has been shown in the debate tonight. That is why I am on my feet to bolster that support and to say to the Gibraltar people that we understand their difficulties. We believe that their interests have not been properly looked after, whether or not in the European Union. It is about time that their loyalty to this country was recognised and rewarded.
1044
One of the ways in which it can be recognised and rewarded has been mentioned by the noble Baroness and other noble Lords: we should ensure that they have some representation in the European Union. It ought not to be beyond the wit of our Government, our Parliament and the European Union to ensure that that happens. I hope that it will be so.
The noble Baroness raised the question of dual sovereignty. A whisper from my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath leads me to ask a question about it. I understand that, unless Britain retains full sovereignty, the Treaty of Utrecht becomes null and void and sovereignty passes to Spain. That is important, bearing in mind the discussions we had about sovereignty earlier this afternoon. I hope my noble friend will be able to give an answer to that and tell us that we are safe and we retain full sovereignty over Gibraltar. If we do not, it would be a serious matter.
In conclusion, I reiterate my support for the Gibraltar people. They are being treated badly by Spain in particular and we have a duty to protect their interests.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I associate myself with the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. The point I wish to make is that Gibraltar has always indicated that it wishes to be associated with this country.
I have been a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union for over 40 years. It is interesting that the Transport and General Workers' Union has organised, and organises, the workers on the Rock at the present time. Recently, it produced the Prime Minister for Gibraltar. In the case of Spain, in some senses it is a question of the pot calling the kettle black. Spain has two enclaves—two colonies it could be said—in Morocco. We do not hear much about that from Spain or about any possibility of withdrawal.
I have always felt that Gibraltar should decide its own destiny by democratic means. As I said earlier, it has so far indicated that it wants to be linked to this country. We should certainly give it a voice in the European Union. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, there should be a democratic channel and it is up to us in this House to speak up for Gibraltar.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there can be no doubt about the universal concern and sympathy expressed in the House this evening for the people of Gibraltar—a sympathy and concern which the Government share, as I hope to show in responding to the debate.
Let me put the issue in context before I come to the specific questions raised. It must be said from the outset—it was said in the context of a wider debate on freedom of movement at Committee stage—that there is nothing in the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty which erodes the Community law rights of Gibraltarians, in particular existing rights of free movement in the European Union. Nor is there anything which gives Spain any additional rights over its border with Gibraltar. We will continue to defend the position

1045
of Gibraltar in the European Union. Where a measure that the United Kingdom would like to opt into is particularly relevant to Gibraltar, our approach will be to give due weight to the interests of the United Kingdom and to the interests of Gibraltar as to any other European measures. Where the UK opts in, it will negotiate in good faith, taking into account the interests of Gibraltar.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in what I recognise was a deeply-felt speech, criticised the alleged failure of the Government in their negotiation of the provisions for UK participation in existing Schengen agreements. I hope to show, without making the assertion myself, that my noble friend Lord Hardy was right in describing the speech of the noble Lord as "extravagant". However, the record is rather different from that which he implied.
First, the noble Lord made explicit allegations of prevarication. That is nonsense. The subject has been raked over in the greatest detail in another place, in addition to exhaustive discussion in Committee and at other stages of the Bill both in another place and here. Ministers have answered over 40 parliamentary questions on every aspect of the issue. All of those questions have been fully answered.
The Opposition appear to be trying to weave a great mystery by selecting different words from different places to try to cover up our efforts to explain the events with the greatest clarity possible. It is necessary therefore for me to repeat the statement of the sequence of events which I set out in Committee, and if there are any gaps in it—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked specific questions—I shall try to deal with those gaps as well as with the fundamental facts.
During the course of the debate at the European Council in Amsterdam, Spain proposed an amendment to the Schengen protocol to bring in unanimity for UK and Irish participation in the existing Schengen acquis. At the insistence of our Foreign Secretary, there was agreement that any such amendment would be submitted in writing by Spain. No such amendment was submitted.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether an amendment was withdrawn, but there was no amendment on the table to be withdrawn. All we know is that at the end of that session, no amendment had been submitted in writing as had been agreed. When the revised treaty text was circulated after the summit, we subsequently learned that the unanimity requirement had been introduced into the text.
The noble Lord asked me to be more precise about when we knew of that additional unanimity requirement. The answer is that we knew when we received the text on the 19th. The noble Lord has invited me to make all sorts of speculations about what happened between the end of the debate and the time when we received the revised text and the unanimity requirement. We do not know. We cannot know. These matters had been put forward by the Spanish Government and were considered by the Dutch presidency. It does not lie in my mouth to accuse either the Dutch presidency or the Spanish Government of bad faith, and I have not done so. We could not know other people's motivations when we were not involved in the process that took place.
1046
What we could do—and what we did do—was to take the matter up with the presidency and with a number of member states. It emerged that there had been a misunderstanding about what had been agreed in Amsterdam. If that is not clear enough, "misunderstanding" means that some people understood one thing and some people understood another thing. Again, I cannot impute motivations to those who understood something different.
We not only took the matter up with the presidency and with other member states, but we obtained a declaration. That was Declaration 45, which provides protection for the interests of the UK in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether that declaration had legal effect. It is a declaration of the intergovernmental conference. It is politically binding on member states. It invites the Council to seek the opinion of the Commission before it decides on a request by the United Kingdom to participate in any measure in the existing acquis. Moreover, under the declaration member states undertake to use their best efforts to enable the UK to participate.
The noble Lord asked me what parts of the opt-in to the Schengen acquis are involved. Clearly, the Schengen acquis is involved because that is what the declaration is about. Clearly, also, provisions under the new Title IIIa are also involved, but they do not require the declaration because they are not affected by the unanimity provisions.
The second question of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, began by being about Article 4, but it was also about the process which I have now described. I forget the exact words he used, but he described it with an embarrassing multitude of different descriptions. If he will look back at the record, I believe that he will find that we have never done anything other than set out the situation as far as we know it and as far as we understand it. There are gaps in our knowledge. Those are gaps which took place in a period when we were not involved. The noble Lord asked me what is meant by a difference of historic interpretation; what I mean is that what came out in the text of the debate was different from what we understood would go into the text of the debate. It is as simple as that.
The noble Lord asked me again about the Dutch presidency letter of 16th July. I can only repeat what is commonplace and, indeed, normal in diplomacy. Letters of this kind between sovereign states are not part of political debate and we do not release such letters for political debate. I did not, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, appears to think I did, accuse the Dutch presidency of cheating. I must repeat that I do not impute motives to other member states. I simply describe the discrepancies which took place.
In all of this I do not doubt the sincerity and seriousness of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on these issues. But his concern is with a process of what happened in a very by short period of time and for which the remedy has been achieved by the addition of Declaration 45 at the end of the process. I suggest that we should now turn from the history of those few days to the wider issues which were properly raised by other noble Lords in debate.

1047
Both in Committee and in debate today noble Lords have addressed the nature of the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar more generally. We work together on all issues which affect Gibraltar. We attach particular importance to ensuring that the Government of Gibraltar are consulted on and kept fully informed about all relevant developments. Gibraltar is consulted extensively, if I may say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on European Community legislation because we have made great efforts to make that so. We have very close links with both policy makers and legal draftsmen in Gibraltar responsible for European Community legislation. Mr Caruana was in Brussels only a few days ago for talks with the Commission and the UK representation. He also led discussions on EU matters in London immediately afterwards. A Foreign and Commonwealth Office official dealing with EU matters was in Gibraltar in the past fortnight. We expect shortly to have another visit by Gibraltar officials dealing with EC matters. That is typical of what goes on under this Government. It is a process of careful consultation on EU issues which affect Gibraltar.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is there any consonant parliamentary structure which would enable the actions of the Executive to be considered in Gibraltar as they are in this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, I was about to refer to that point. I have more to say about our relationship with Gibraltar, but I may as well say now that we find the noble Baroness's suggestions very interesting. I do not think I can reply off-the-cuff. But if she will allow me, I shall write to her on the subject.
I wish to pay tribute to the Gibraltar Government for their newly opened office in Brussels and the links which have been established between that office and our own permanent representation in Brussels.
Gibraltar is unique not only because of its historical links with the United Kingdom—it was correct to refer back to the Treaty of Utrecht—but also because it is the only UK overseas territory within the European Union, as part of UK membership by virtue of Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome. Gibraltarians are rightly proud of the European identity. They are committed to being part of the European Union in the future, and we welcome that. Last year the Government of Gibraltar—representing 30,000 people—spent £1 million on bringing up to date implementation of European Community legislation in Gibraltar. They put into place effective regulatory mechanisms, which met UK and EU standards, to join in the international fight against money laundering.
Being part of the EU brings rights as well as responsibilities. As I have already said, we will continue to defend the position of Gibraltar in the EU as well as the Community law rights of Gibraltarians. A fundamental right which Gibraltarians enjoy within the EU is that of freedom of movement. The Spanish Foreign Minister has given an assurance that Spain has
1048
never questioned the right of Gibraltarians to freedom of movement in the European Union; nor will Spain do so in the future. We shall hold Spain to that assurance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked me about Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty, as indeed did the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who made a similar point. We have agreed to study those proposals carefully. But the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Spanish Foreign Minister at their meeting on 10th December that there can be no compromise on sovereignty against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. So it follows that any Spanish proposal would have to win the approval of the Gilbraltarians in order to prosper.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked me about Spain's refusal to accept Gibraltar-issued identity cards. The Government notified the Commission in October 1995 about Spain's refusal to accept them as valid travel documents. In July 1996 the Commission accepted the cards as valid. The matter of whether or not formally to initiate infraction proceedings against Spain remains under consideration by the Commission. Commission infraction proceedings are confidential. However, contrary to press reports that appeared last August, Spain has not succeeded in closing the case and the Government continue to stand up for Gibraltar's rights in this matter. We wrote to the Commission in March and underlined that we looked to it to ensure compliance with EC law, and we remain in touch with it on that issue.
The final issue to which I have to refer was raised in particular by my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath—voting in European parliamentary elections. Concern has been expressed both here and in another place. It has been suggested that the Government are ignoring the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. We understand the strong feelings and that this is an important and sensitive issue. The Foreign Secretary has been in touch with the Chief Minister on this issue and has requested a thorough legal review of the situation. That legal advice is consistent and clear: to extend the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar by changing UK law alone, as has been suggested by some Members in another place, would put the UK in breach of European Community law; namely, the European Community Act 1976 on direct elections which has treaty status.
I can spell all that out in detail, but I believe that your Lordships will really want to hear only the conclusion. The only legally secure way to extend the EP franchise to Gibraltar is to amend the 1976 Act. That would involve the agreement of all member states. I do not want to speculate on the likely views of other member states, but at the same time I would not underestimate the difficulties, which my noble friend Lord Whitty spelt out in Committee, of a process which requires treaty amendment. The prospect of securing that is uncertain, to say the least. It is not clear to us that risking the possibility of a veto on Gibraltar's inclusion in the European Parliament franchise would benefit the people of Gibraltar or further the wider and long-term interests that the UK is pursuing on Gibraltar's behalf.

1049
As I said at the beginning, I recognise the genuine and deeply felt concerns which noble Lords have expressed and I share them. I believe that we are doing the right thing, and have been doing so, to protect the people of Gibraltar. I invite the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I did ask him a question about the Treaty of Utrecht. I understand that he may not be able to answer it off the cuff, but I shall be most obliged if he will write to me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my understanding is that the Treaty of Utrecht is as my noble friend described it. It is dependent on UK sovereignty. That is the reason why there has been no move towards independence for Gibraltar.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I tabled a very tight amendment concerning the implications for the people of Gibraltar of the voting arrangements for an opt-in. In the light of earlier interventions this evening, not least about my use of the important example in the context of common foreign and security policy as regards Sierra Leone, I was interested to note the exchange on the Labour Benches on the much wider issue of voting in European elections. That is not covered in my amendment and it will be the subject of much more detailed debate at a later stage in another Bill coming before this House.
That said, I am grateful to the Minister for answering some of the questions that I have posed. He referred to "embarrassing multitude". For the record, an embarrassing multitude of questions remained unanswered. This evening many questions remain unanswered. The purpose of this specific amendment was not to cover the wider issues affecting the people of Gibraltar. The fact that I have not tabled an amendment to do that does not mean that I dissociate myself from the extremely important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and others, about the importance of having a wider debate in future—indeed, the sooner the better—the vital necessity of ensuring that the views of Gibraltarians are taken into account and the degree of cross-support for the many concerns expressed very clearly in correspondence to your Lordships by the people of Gibraltar.
I should like to pick up one or two points for the record. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that I had made some important allegations about the Dutch presidency. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, believed that I had laid those allegations at his door. I did neither. The important points that I sought to make related to the Foreign Secretary's strong criticisms of the Dutch presidency and his accusations that the Dutch government had been inefficient in its note-keeping, not to mention the accusation that the same state had effectively not told the truth about whether or not a challenge to the amendment had been made and also that it had colluded in a secret deal. Those were three very important allegations, all of which are clearly on
1050
the record, not least in the evidence of the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 4th November last year and in other places.
I sought to highlight those points for one extremely important reason. In the context of this Bill the House has been allowed to look closely at the serious process of how decisions are made within the European context, particularly in the negotiations over this treaty. It is because of the ramifications for the transparency of the European decision-making process and the need to focus upon that that I have tabled this new clause.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for recognising that the comments that I made were deeply felt. They were as deeply felt as the comments that I made earlier this evening on the common foreign and security policy. I believe that his choice of words was more accurate in reflecting the tone of my delivery than that of his noble friend the Minister earlier this evening. But in the light of his answers and genuine desire to answer a number of questions—he has answered a considerable number of additional questions, but not all, the answers to which I should like to study in further detail—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewoodmoved Amendment No. 5
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
BROADCASTING
(". Within six months of the passing of this Act a Minister of the Crown shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the meaning of "public service broadcasting" set out in the Protocol on the System of Public Service Broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a preface to moving this amendment, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his letter to me of 5th May, which answered one of the questions that I raised when this matter was considered at Committee stage. He pointed out that the primary principles guiding the legality of the public funding of public service broadcasters remained the existing treaty state aid rules.
The protocol on the system of public service broadcasting in member states which is annexed to the treaty is drafted on the basis that broadcasting will continue in the future in very much the same form as today. However, to put it no higher—I do not want to overstate my case—there is a real possibility that this will not necessarily be so in the future. The traditional distinction in this area is between broadcasting—which is the transmission of material over the radio spectrum on a point-to-multi-point basis—and telecommunications—which is the transmission of a similar type on a point-to-point basis. This is a simple and clear distinction.
However, in the era of digitisation, convergence, digital compression, the interleaving of programme material and spectrum abundance, as opposed to spectrum scarcity, the concept of a broadcast channel is rapidly becoming redundant. Instead, with the development of video on demand and near-video on demand, the viewer or listener is able to view or listen at the time of his choice rather than that of the

1051
programmers. When at the same time we are seeing a number of cable companies, which were originally conceived as broadcasters, increasingly carrying on a business which is telecoms and, in particular, telephony-based, which incidentally carries some television material, which in turn itself may be linked to interactive services, the distinction between telecommunications and broadcasting starts to look very blurred.
What this protocol spells out is that state aids to public service broadcasters for the purpose of public service broadcasting will not be considered unfair state aids. This, in itself, is an uncontentious principle. However, what we are concerned about is the reality in the commercial world of contemporary Europe of the distinction upon which it is based. Can it truly be said that public service broadcasting will stand apart, separate and distinct from commercial broadcasting, commercial telecommunications or commerce conducted interactively via a return path?
There are two particular aspects of that which I should like to draw to the attention of the House. First, public service broadcasting, not least if it is also funded by advertising—that is sometimes the case on the Continent and, as your Lordships will know, with Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5 in this country—may be linked to interactive services and can be a commercial rival to commercial broadcasters for viewers and for advertising.
Given that the acceptability of public money or subsidy of some kind or another going to a particular broadcaster is that the service it provides is defined as being public service, can the Minister confirm that the particular remit that a member state may give to its own public service broadcaster must fall within a wide European Community definition? I should like to invite the Minister to confirm that is the case, not least because it would appear to be in accord with the teleological approach to the interpretation of Community law. Can he also give us any indication of the definitions of public service broadcasting which are employed in each of the member states and confirm that the Government are happy that they are acceptable within their view of what constitutes public service broadcasting?
The risk here is that if we are not careful it is possible that this protocol can very easily become a device for unscrupulous member states to protect their own broadcasters through the mechanism of attaching the words "public service broadcasting" to a hidden or open subsidy that they may be inclined to give. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the European Commission intends to look behind whatever words may be employed in these circumstances to examine the underlying reality of what is involved and that it is prepared to act, where appropriate, if abuse can be established on the facts?
The second point I should like to draw to the attention of the House is that because public service broadcasters, commercial broadcasters and telecommunications frequently employ the same networks, would he therefore not agree that the presence of a particular
1052
public service broadcaster on any particular network will be a significant commercial advantage to the owner of that network?
That, in turn, could be a very easily disguised means of subsidising one network at the expense of another and/or favouring the users of one particular network at the expense of the users of another network. Again, can the Minister confirm that the Commission recognises that possibility and thereby the means that could exist of conferring unfair advantage in the single market; that it will be on its guard for that kind of abuse and that it will act where on the facts of any particular case, it will be appropriate to do so? I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the reason for the amendment. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I rapidly recapitulate on how we have reached this position and on the debate on broadcasting in Committee.
The debate in Committee was based on the attempt principally by the Competition Directorate to restrict subsidy by member states of public service broadcasting on the ground that it would be in commercial competition with unsubsidised broadcasting. The thrust of the debate from the Opposition Front Bench was to see what was meant by Protocol 4 and the concept of public service broadcasting.
In response to the debate, I attempted perhaps in a foolhardy fashion to set out what we meant by "public service broadcasting". It is relevant because it affects my answers to the noble Lord's question about whether the definition is too wide and whether risks were involved. I suggested that public service broadcasting could be defined not in a single definition but by a number of shared characteristics. First, focus on the audience—in other words, for the benefit of viewers and listeners. Secondly, quality programming. Thirdly, diversity and choice, including programmes for entertainment, information, education and programmes for minority audiences. Fourthly, accessibility; that is, the geographical coverage of services and broadcast programmes which many people find enjoyable and interesting. Fifthly, editorial independence; that is, decisions about programmes being taken by broadcasters or broadcasting authorities, not by government or other interest groups. Finally, the concept of national identity—public service broadcasting reflecting the national interests and cultural traditions of the audiences.
I did not attempt a definition in terms of the way in which public service broadcasting operates. As I explained, public service broadcasting in this country operates under a number of different regimes; the BBC with its charter, Channel 4 and S4C in a different way and the regulatory role of the ITC having a different effect.
I understand the noble Lord to be asking me in what way the protocol will work. It might be useful if I put on the record the fact that I wrote to him—unfortunately, the letter reached him only today—setting

1053
out the Government's view of that. I am happy to repeat it on the record tonight. The primary principles guiding the legality of public funding of public service broadcasters remain the existing treaty state aid rules, in particular set out in Article 92.3(d).
Any company claiming that a public service broadcaster was receiving funding that contravened state aid rules would take its complaint to the Commission as guarantors of those rules. The Commission would then investigate whether the complaint did indeed amount to a breach of state aid rules, as it is doing now with the complaint by the Portuguese commercial company, SIC, against the public service broadcaster, RTP.
Once the treaty is in force, the Commission will take the protocol into account in its investigations. The aim of the protocol is to give a strong indication to all interested parties—the Commission, member states, public and private broadcasters—that a public service remit can carry onerous and possibly unprofitable obligations which are in the public interest and therefore require public moneys in one form or another.
That final sentence enables me to respond to the specific questions of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I do not believe that the definition is too wide. In Committee, the general tone was one of welcome for the fact that our existing way of subsidising the BBC is not under challenge from the European Commission or under competition rules. I thought it was agreed generally that the protocol was helpful in relation to protecting those benefits of public service broadcasting which I have set out and which clearly involve obligations which can justify the use of state money.
I do not know how other member states will define "public service broadcasting" but I know that the protocol will make it easier for the Commission to make a proper balance between competition rules and the protection of public sector broadcasting.
DG.IV of the Commission is extremely experienced in state-aid cases. It will no doubt apply the protocol carefully so that where there could be unfair competition, the new provision will be applied.
The Government see this provision and the protocol as a protection for quality broadcasting and for the whole ethos of public sector broadcasting in this country and in Europe as a whole. We are not afraid of the implications of the protocol for this country and we believe that they will stand up to scrutiny both in Brussels and throughout the member states. I invite the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his remarks. One of the difficulties that we have in considering public service broadcasting is that, rather like the elephant, it is very difficult to define it in words but we all know it when we see it.
I wish to make two points arising from the Minister's response. First, many of the characteristics which he ascribes to public sector broadcasting are, if not the characteristics, then frequently the aspirations, of those in the commercial broadcasting world.
1054
Secondly, I return to the comments I made at the beginning of my remarks. The form which public service broadcasting is now taking may well change, and change quite rapidly and significantly—I do not say it will, but it might—in the very near future with the changes arising from the digital television systems which we shall see.
Against that background, we need to be on our guard against the possibilities of abuse—and, of course, alert to the possibilities of good features which may arise from those changes. I am merely anxious to be sure that the European Commission shares the Government's present view as to what that particular protocol means.
The crucial factor in all this will not be what the Government of the United Kingdom or any other member state believes is the appropriate interpretation, but what the Commission believes is the appropriate interpretation. In theory, the matter may then go to the European Court. However, clearly we cannot have a determination in advance of an actual case.
However, I wish to reflect on the helpful remarks of the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Rawlingsmoved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
CONDITIONS FOR ENLARGEMENT OF THE UNION
(". This Act shall not enter into force until a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament reports on the measures agreed between the Member States of the Union to—

(a) reform the Common Agricultural Policy;

(b) reform the structural and regional funds; and

(c) streamline the institutions of the European Union, including the re-weighting of votes in the Council,

and such reports have been approved by resolution of each House.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I strongly believe—it is a belief which I have held for some time—that enlargement and the institutional changes of the European Union must go hand in hand if we want the Union to succeed.
We have just witnessed the official birth of the euro. That is an historic step whether or not we become part of it. Without counting the euro forerunners of the snake and the EMS, the birth of the euro took seven long years. Yet nine years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the European Union is still not ready for enlargement which the Amsterdam Treaty failed to address.
Enlargement is the present historic challenge. It is a real dream, as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford expressed it so eloquently earlier this evening. It is desirable not only for strategic, political and economic reasons but also for moral reasons. Based on the principle of democracy, fraternity and the need to heal the deep scars left by the Communist era, it will unite a continent that historically and culturally should be one. It will add 28 per cent. to the Union's population and 34 per cent. to its area. As a consequence, it will fundamentally change the nature and functioning of the Union.

1055
Major institutional changes and enlargement will have significant geopolitical consequences. I am not a great one for sketching scenarios for some 10 years hence. As was said in your Lordships' House only recently, it is dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future. However, it is obvious that relations between the European Union and its neighbours, both to the east and to the west, will be affected. These historical developments should, in no way, detract from our continuing relationship with the United States and the Atlantic alliance. It is for that reason that I would support the proposals of Sir Leon Brittan for a new transatlantic market place. These are not just proposals for a far-reaching trade and service liberalisation; they are intended to give a new political momentum to US-EU relations.
Sir Leon's proposals represent a further step in adapting that relationship to the post-Cold War period, building on the 1995 new transatlantic agenda. Our close ties with Europe should not preclude our relationship with our natural ally, the largest democracy in the western world; namely, the United States of America. I have always felt this, so much so that the purpose of my last report in the European Parliament was to further EU and US cultural relations.
Both Euro realists and those who would like to see the European Union's demise, agree that enlargement is desirable, and they say so; as, indeed, we heard from my noble friend Lord Beloff. I greatly respect him, but cannot agree with him on this matter. Enlargement is the acceptable—dare I say it? —politically correct stance on the European Union, yet rhetoric alone will not make enlargement happen. If it is not followed by consistent action, it will fail. At worst, enlargement could stagnate and degenerate into hollow talk. For example, the President of the European Parliament, José Maria Gil-Robles, said to the Romanian Parliament:
"Enlargement must be carried out smoothly, without creating new divisions or blocs in our continent".
It seems unreasonable in these circumstances that the Commission is still insisting that Hungary should impose visa requirements on Romania. What would any noble Lord say if he were the man on the proverbial down-town Bucharest bus?
Much as we may say we want enlargement, it cannot happen without reforming the European Union and, in particular, its institutions. That is the main reason behind the amendment that I am introducing this evening. It is not a wrecking amendment; it is intended to raise the pressure to bring about reform. By and large, Amsterdam failed to prepare the institutions for enlargement. The Government acknowledge that fact. However, I differ with them on two grounds: first, the institutional issue is more important and more difficult to resolve than I believe the Government are prepared to admit. Unless the institutions are right, the policies that the Minister considers of the uppermost importance never will be right. Moreover, would it not be fairer to settle the institutions first so that the applicant countries knew what the club rules were before they joined?
1056
From my experience as an MEP, I learned what a cumbersome, rough beast the institution of the European Union and its procedures can be. I have also learned that trying to solve institutional and procedural issues can be wildly frustrating, time-consuming and complex. I remind the Minister of the interminable, on-going discussions on the site of the European Parliament, which I believe we shall discuss later.
I am not reassured by Article 1 of Protocol 11, even though it puts into place a specific mechanism. At the date of entry into force of the first enlargement, each member country will have only one commissioner, provided that the reweighting of the votes has been satisfactorily solved. As the accession of the first wave is likely to take much longer than the Commission predicts, the article in effect just delays reform. Reform is clearly necessary now and by the completion of the first wave accessions will be well overdue.
Secondly, I beg to differ on the degree of progress achieved at Amsterdam. I accept that capping the European Parliament's size and transferring most policy areas, subject to co-operation procedure, to the co-decision one is a significant change. In Committee the Minister gave the impression that the only outstanding issues of those originally on the table were the size of the Commission and the reweighting of the votes in the Council of Ministers. That simply is not the case.
There is also the reform of the Council presidency which appears to have dropped off the agenda. Even though I know that the discussion on the institutional matters dealt with by the Amsterdam Treaty cannot be reopened, there are, however, other institutional issues which need to be addressed quite urgently. I shall mention just two problem areas. Ten days ago the appointment of the president of the European Central Bank degenerated into a disgraceful squabble. This is the most recent of the melodramatic rows over top appointments to a European Union institution. It is imperative that the European Union looks at how the top posts are filled. This is presently done by unanimous decision by the heads of government. Surely some solution could be found and surely there is a more effective way to do this while still representing the rights of the member states.
There are now 15 members and 11 official languages. In a European Union of 26 there are likely to be 22 official languages. Can you imagine the nightmare: stacks of paper, armies of translators, interpreters and legal advisers? Can you imagine the dreary delays and the monster misunderstandings that could occur? It would be the ultimate babel. The number of official languages has to be drastically reduced. I anticipate the Minister's answer; namely, that these matters will be taken care of by Article 2 of Protocol 11. The article requires that the comprehensive review of the institutions is carried out at least a year before the Union exceeds 20. However, I have the impression that this is just another ruse further to postpone the necessary reforms because it is clear that enlargement must take longer than is officially claimed.

1057
In Committee I asked the Minister a series of specific questions which I am afraid he did not answer. I do not, of course, expect him to disclose any details which would undermine his negotiating hand. The extent of his silence, however, perturbed me. Could it be that the Government are not particularly focused on the institutional issues? Will the Government give their full backing to the committee proposed by the president of the European Parliament, Gil-Robles, to make proposals for the reform of the European Union's decision-making system? Will the Government make an announcement about the next IGC to resolve the institutional issues in Cardiff?
The purpose of the latter part of Amendment No. 6 is to put pressure on the European Union not to dodge the issue any longer. It makes the entry into effect of the Amsterdam Treaty conditional on the reduction of the Commission's size, which in turn is conditional on the reweighting of the votes. The Minister stressed the importance of getting our policies right. I agree entirely with that. We cannot admit more members without reforming the European Union's main policies as well as its institutions. Otherwise, as the Financial Times concisely put it,
"Enlargement would bust the Union's budget".
That brings me to the first part of Amendment No. 6. It would make entry into force of the Act conditional upon reforms of the CAP and of the structural fund. Last month the proposals were outlined in Agenda 2000 embodied in a Commission package. The European Union has been slow in developing these proposals and it is doubtful whether they amount to a coherent strategy.
Some 75 billion ecu are expected to be transferred to the applicants between the year 2000 and 2006. These are not spread evenly. The second wave of countries, by and large the poorer countries, is expected to receive from the EU less money than the five front runners—400 ecu and 900 ecu per head each year respectively. The Minister disputed those figures. They have been taken by the Royal Institute for International Affairs from the agenda and confirmed by the Commission. Why is there that discrepancy between the first and second wave of applicants? I am not persuaded by the argument that the applicant countries cannot absorb more money.
Our response, however, appears to be inadequate, in particular towards the poorer countries. I have just been in Bulgaria and have seen the amazing recent improvements in a relatively small town, Blagoevgrad, outside Sofia, the site of the American University of Bulgaria, which is housed in the old Communist party headquarters. It is quite remarkable.
I fear that enlargement will require more money than the Commission estimates. However, it is imperative that the European Union stays within the own resource ceiling of 1–27 per cent. of the European Union GDP. That leaves us to square the circle. The Commission believes that a sustained rate of growth between the European Union and the applicant countries will solve the problem. I feel it may be over optimistic. If it is over
1058
optimistic, as I believe, it will only increase the pressure to find additional funds by reforming the existing policies.
If we wish to provide the applicants with the necessary funds, we shall have to face very tough decisions. This is particularly the case for the CAP. Far from reducing the CAP budgetary expenditure, the Commission proposals increase it. That is totally unacceptable. As regards the appropriateness of the proposals towards enlargement, I wish to refer to the damning opinion of the Agriculture Committee of another place on the outline proposals of Agenda 2000. The committee believes that the proposals are fraught with problems and therefore unacceptable. The proposals for the structural and cohesion fund also appear unsatisfactory. The criteria for distributing the overall allocations appear to be fundamentally flawed. They lead to an unfair distribution across the existing Union members and between those and the new applicants.
The decision to limit funding to 4 per cent of GDP has a perverse effect. En short, the richer you are the more you get. Yet the main purpose of the fund is to reduce the disparities with the Union. Furthermore, in all the applicant countries, the GDP per head is below that of Greece and Portugal. It is estimated that in 1999 Greece and Portugal, the poorest Union countries, will receive from the structural funds 400 ecu per head. It is also estimated that between 2002 and 2006, according to the Commission's proposals, the first wave applicants will receive 120 ecu per head, and a second wave group only 23 ecu per head. Moreover, the decision to maintain the cohesion fund in the present form, albeit with minor changes, flies in the face of fairness. It helps the relatively less poor countries and leaves the poorer ones out in the cold.
Perhaps we are not talking about the same Community or the same Union. We are not. It is increasingly clear that several countries are queuing outside the door. Some people ask, "What are the applicants joining?" Some people say, "A Community or a caste system?" Enlargement rightly developed almost as a natural response to the end of the Cold War. I hope that under the UK presidency the Government will make some real progress towards what has been described many times today as the central point of the Amsterdam Treaty; namely, enlargement. I beg to move.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, the noble Baroness has spoken eloquently of the vast complexities of reforming the CAP, the structural funds and the institutional arrangements in the European Union. In doing so, she has revealed the true intent of this clause. That is simply that it would be far better to use this argument as an argument for delaying the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty on the grounds that clearly these reforms will not be completed very fast. So the cat is rather out of the bag on this one. To put it charitably, the framers of this clause may have been seduced by the wishful timetable that one reads about, which basically states that the CAP reforms should be in place before the world trade negotiations start next year; that the reform of the structural funds must inevitably be completed before

1059
they in effect run out in 1999; and that the institutional reforms must be in place before the enlargement actually happens.
I certainly agree that the institutional reforms, CAP reforms and reforms of the structural funds need to be in place before the enlargement can take place. That is perfectly clear. However, let us not underestimate the amount of time that it will take, first, to get the reforms through, and, secondly, to complete the enlargement process.
Agenda 2000 sensibly stated that it did not want to use the enlargement as the vehicle for driving through these reforms. It was smart enough to realise that these are complex reforms and that they need to be made in any case, whether or not enlargement takes place. The overhauling is absolutely necessary. Whether the enlargement is to 20, 25 or whatever the number may be, the reforms must take place.
It would be a tremendous pity if we were now to say in accepting this amendment that the very sensible measures proposed in the Amsterdam Treaty should be held hostage to a dual process of agreed reform to the CAP, the structural funds and institutional reforms, and the extremely complex negotiations on enlargement. They will simply not come about that quickly. If for a moment we could divorce in our minds the reforms that we want to see achieved from the process of the actual enlargement of the European Union, and concentrate on the reforms, get them through and then move on to the enlargement process, that would be the sensible approach. The reforms have to come about before the enlargement.
As I said in Committee, we should remember that the reforms that we want to see put through are necessary to the enlargement. But they cannot be hurried. We have waited a long time for them; however, their complexity is such that they must be handled properly. Many of the applicant countries that want to enter the European Union—both those that are on the accession list and those that are not—are in my view gravely underestimating the amount of time that it will take for their negotiations with the European Union to be completed—we have only to read in today's Financial Times the reports of the tremendous difficulties that Poland is having with the European Union over the use of aid funds made available to that country so far. If that is any indication of what the problems are to be in the negotiations, the process will be much more drawn out than those countries unfortunately believe.
However, it gives us time to get proper reforms through. What one must not do is to hold up the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty until the reforms have been agreed. There is no reason to do so. As we have said so many times on this side of the House, the Amsterdam Treaty is not highly controversial. There are sensible measures in it to try to get the European Union to work more efficiently. Many of the measures put forward are those which meet many of the interests and requirements of this country. So let us not try to hold up the Amsterdam Treaty and simply wait until the long drawn out and complex series of negotiations on reform have been completed.
1060
As the noble Baroness rightly said, there are very tough decisions, fraught with problems. That is absolutely right. So let us take the time to get them right and get the solutions through and not hold up the Amsterdam Treaty.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, since the Committee stage, events have marched on on this front as well as the others we have discussed today. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Rawlings for the amendment which gives us the opportunity to review the situation again. It is changing fast.
Enough has been said by the noble Lord. Lord Grenfell, by my noble friend Lady Rawlings and by others in earlier speeches this afternoon to remind us what an appallingly drawn out process this has been, is being and will be. It is amazing to reflect that it will probably be 15 or 16 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall before the new democracies, who thought they were rejoining Europe when they got rid of the Soviets, come to be likely to get into the European Union. That is assuming that no new obstacles are raised against them, which is quite a tricky assumption. That is for the fast track, whereas the prospects of the other five of the 11— the five plus one plus five—those who are considered not yet properly prepared, are disappearing into the blue yonder of the never-never land. I can see no hope for them at all at the moment and it seems to be getting less all the time.
We have not discussed this evening—and I do not want to give any time to it because the hour is late—the question of the handling of Turkey. It was mentioned earlier, I know it is difficult: many people in Europe do not want Turkey in the European Union. They talk of involving millions of Moslem people in the Union. So their feelings were expressed in, I thought, an extremely clumsy exclusion of Turkey from the whole process. I know Turkey was supposed to come to Lancaster House and did not turn up, but the country was more or less told that it was not on the list. That has caused great ill feeling in Turkey, there are very dangerous undercurrents and we shall all pay a frightful price for it in due course.
As we know, the official position on enlargement is set out in Agenda 2000, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, referred. I think on the surface it sounds reasonable. The five plus Cyprus will be negotiated with: negotiations are already supposed to have started. The other five will be left on the slower track. But if one wants to understand the real approach, the real philosophy driving enlargement, it is better to look at the pre-accession strategy rather than the Agenda 2000 document, which contains some high flown aims for reforms. None of them has got under way. But the pre-accession strategy was clear in numerous councils and European summits. The new applicants were told two things precisely. One was: "Marketise your economies, turn them into free market economies. Get rid of the remaining barriers and create the conditions in which you can trade fairly with the existing European Union". The second was to accept the acquis, lock, stock and barrel. The difficulty which many of the east

1061
and central European governments have been pointing out ever since, rather mournfully, is that those two diktats, or requirements—perhaps "diktats" is too crude a word—are contradictory.
It so happens that the eastern European economies are rapidly emerging as the most dynamic, free-market economies on the European continent. They are moving ahead of many parts of western Europe. They have liberalised at a fantastic rate. Perhaps it is because they started under Soviet authoritarianism. But they have now leap-frogged to the point where a country like Estonia has no tariffs at all—none—with anybody in the external world.
They are highly liberalised countries. Poland is racing ahead; Hungary has done brilliantly; the Czechs have had a hiccup over some of their privatisation difficulties; but those are already market economies. Yet now they are being told to adopt the acquis and the acquis is not by any means totally informed by market economics. It has got all sorts of requirements for new regulations and new standards said to be part of the necessary arrangements for trading with the existing European Union but which in effect raise barriers, raise costs and remove the very advantages which those countries have exploited so well so far—being highly skilled countries, with low labour costs, and having considerable dynamism and the ability to attract enormous outside investment, which they are rapidly doing, both portfolio and direct investment.
One can therefore see that from the western European point of view it is essential to make sure that the acquis is accepted, though the price that will otherwise be paid by the interests and lobbies of western Europe will be extremely high and that is a price that they do not want to pay. I find all that understandable. As the amendment says, it is a question of structural and regional funds. But if one is in the existing Union enjoying those benefits, one does not want to see them go east. If one is in the existing Union, one does not want to see direct foreign investment—private investment which is poured into the Iberian Peninsula and into some of the Mediterranean countries—diverted, as it is being diverted, into the gigantic new motor manufacturing electronic works in Poland, Prague, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
One can see what the real forces in this game are. Many people in western Europe are anxious that enlargement will take away the enormous benefits that have been enjoyed. And that is not all. Western Europe is reeling under the impact of Asian competition, which is about to get much worse, of course, as much lower cost, devalued currency imports pour into Europe. As the Berliners rather sadly say, "We are threatened with Asia only 40 kilometres away, behind our backs". At the Polish border we are going to be dealing with Asian levels of competition; labour costs one-tenth of those in western Germany, or indeed in Germany as a whole, because of the unification procedure, and very high quality goods as well, all of which are a direct threat to western Europe.
One must therefore be realistic in recognising that the motivations for pushing for enlargement are extremely limited and not at all at the root of popular opinion in
1062
western Europe. On top of that, we have the problem of the common agricultural policy. Eastern and central Europe are dominated by agriculture, much of it extremely competitive. Hungary alone could probably feed the whole of western Europe; certainly Poland could. That creates the ultimate impossible dilemma, as was outlined brilliantly in a House of Lords European Select Committee report two years ago. The dilemma is perfectly simple: if the present levels of subsidy are to be maintained and applied to eastern Europe, then the entire budget will blow up. We are talking about trebling or quadrupling the budget, or more.
If the subsidy levels for the new entrants are reduced, then we are creating a two-tier system, with the poorer farmers of eastern and central Europe having to compete with the richer farmers of western Europe who will be receiving larger subsidies. It is hard to think of a more divisive formula for undermining the sense of European unity, which many of us thought we were supporting.
Finally, there is the question put so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Rawlings that if one is sitting in eastern Europe wondering what they are doing in the treaty reforms to accommodate and prepare, and we look at the Amsterdam Treaty—I am not arguing with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, about delaying the treaty—we find it is, in the words of my noble friend Lord Moynihan earlier this afternoon, blind. It has nothing to say at all in the way of institutional preparation for enlargement. That is not very encouraging if we look at it from Warsaw or Prague.
No changes in procedure therefore are contemplated, and there are no changes in the law-making procedures, which my noble friend Lord Renton, in a brilliantly perceptive article in the Statute Law Review two years ago, said were absolutely essential before we could begin on the serious and bona fide process of enlargement.
One is therefore left feeling a little downcast about the whole enlargement story, and I fear grave disillusion ahead on this entire matter. These are small nations. They say yes to being in Europe of course; that is perfectly understandable. They want to be reassured by being part of the European family. But they are not so keen on losing their national identity, which they have only just got back after a hideous 40-year struggle. They are clearly not going to qualify for EMU because their economies are not convergent. There is, therefore, a real set of difficulties ahead, on top of the fact that there does not seem, under the surface of rhetoric, to be very much enthusiasm in western Europe for enlargement at all.
We have much in common in this country with these small countries, and they look to us with great respect. We helped bring some of them into being. We brought Estonian independence into being through the Royal Navy in the 1920s; Hungary sought British leadership between the wars; we went to war for Poland in 1939. We were seen as the champion of these countries and, in my view, we should resume that championship, and it is not a moment too soon to do so.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I listened with great attention to both the noble Baroness,

1063
Lady Rawlings and the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I do not want to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I do believe that the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Howell was somewhat too pessimistic. Also, while I accept many of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, I do not believe that the amendment would be helpful in bringing about enlargement at the earliest possible date.
Perhaps I may say a few words about each of those matters. The process of enlargement is a process of iteration between the existing members and the would-be new members, and it is a process which is continuous and ongoing. It does not have to be wholly sequential; it can be conducted at the current time. Obviously, there are elements in the Treaty of Amsterdam that become part of the acquis once the treaty is ratified by all member states. That, in turn, becomes one of the preconditions of membership. Therefore, with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, I agree here very much with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that it would only delay the process of enlargement if the acquis in concluding the Treaty of Amsterdam were to be delayed, as the amendment suggests, until a resolution had been passed on each of these complex areas of reform, probably for a number of years. It would simply mean that the negotiation of the new member countries in accepting the acquis was put off until such time as all those reforms were completed. I do not believe that that would be helpful to the potential new members.
Secondly, among the list of issues that the resolution of the noble Baroness raises, at least one of the proposed changes is already being initiated—I refer by that to the reform of the regional and structural funds. It is my impression that the reform involved in extending these to the new members and in passing through the political difficulties associated with reducing the present scope of the structural funds has already been embarked upon with considerable political courage.
The appropriate director-general of the Commission responsible for regional policy has already indicated that regional assistance must be more concentrated on the poorer parts of the European Union, and has indicated that there should be a reduction in the recipients from about 49 per cent. of the population of the existing European Union to about 31 per cent. in order to reduce the claims on the funds sufficiently to allow a substantial sum to be targeted towards the new would-be candidate countries.
That involves painful political choices because, as the noble Baroness implied—and she was right to so imply—nobody is suggesting a substantial increase in the proportion of the gross national product that is to be spent on the European budget, which continues at the relatively modest sum of 1·27 per cent. of GNP. Incidentally, in my view, that is a figure that is not consonant with some of the wilder charges about moving towards federalism and may be compared to something like a 30 per cent. figure for the US federal budget in comparison to the budgets of the states. This 1·27 per cent. is not going to allow huge generosity with
1064
regional funds. Therefore, it does involve a redirection of regional funds and it is quite clear that this process is being embarked upon.
It is understandable that countries that will lose as a result are fighting very hard against that, including, incidentally, our own Government—that is what one would expect and in no way would I criticise or censure them. But it is worth saying that this process has been embarked on and that the Commission has been clear about the change in targeting involved. It will he of great benefit to the new members to receive the approximately 19 billion ecus a year which will emerge should these proceedings continue and succeed.
Secondly, in the area of institutional change, we all recognise that there was a deep reluctance at the Amsterdam Treaty negotiations to address this issue. That deep reluctance—I in no sense try to defend it—was not assisted by the fact that the United Kingdom herself was going through a difficult period of change, from one government to the other. Neither the government who were leaving, nor the government who were coming, were particularly anxious to grapple with this extremely difficult issue. We all understand that the issue has to be addressed before enlargement can take place because we simply could not run the Union on the basis of the present institutional structures. That has to come. But there is no need to delay the rest of the process until the institutional changes have been completed. Indeed, in many ways, continuing the process will speed up the pressures for institutional change.
I turn to the common agricultural policy. This is where I found the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Howell, to which I always listen with great care and attention—it is always worth doing so—to be more pessimistic than they needed to be. Surely we already know that the common agricultural policy, for good or for ill, will not be extended to the new candidate countries. That has been made plain. It is also clear that in consequence of that there have to be substantial changes in the common agricultural policy, moving towards systems of rural management rather than systems for protecting prices. I would suggest to the House—and here I may differ from other noble Lords—that the pressure on the common agricultural policy to change arises precisely out of enlargement. Enlargement has actually spearheaded the difficult process of reform of the common agricultural policy and that process would not have gone so far unless enlargement had been embarked upon. It is an instance of what one might call constructive synergy, which I believe has occurred as a result of enlargement.
Finally, with regard to that, perhaps I may turn to one aspect of the acquis that is not in the field of economics, which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, so clearly described, but rather is in the sphere of politics. It seems to me that the central achievement of the Amsterdam Treaty, which was to put respect for human rights hack at the centre of the whole of the unrolling European Union development, is of crucial importance to the new countries. The single most important political contribution we can make to them is to put this at the core of their constitutions as much as at the core of the

1065
European Union's own structures. In that respect I believe that the extension of the acquis to these areas of human rights, including Article F.1, which says that a country that does not accept fully human rights cannot continue to be a full member of the Community, is a wholly constructive development.
Perhaps I may say a few words about Turkey. I happen broadly to share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the issue of the importance of Turkey, which plays an increasingly significant part in central Asia, in the former republics of the Soviet Union and well beyond. Turkey is a key player in a very unstable part of the world. She has been consistently friendly towards Europe, towards the West and towards the United States, and she is a member of NATO. We have to consider carefully not to alienate her. However, it is not unreasonable that one might expect and hope that Turkey could evolve somewhat further in respect of her attitude towards human rights and her attitude towards constitutional and democratic practices. That, to my mind, although certainly not to all members of the Union, is the major difficulty and one we would be more than ready to see overcome. We would do everything we could to encourage Turkey were she to address those issues.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I would like to add my support to the amendment for rather different reasons. I am concerned about two things. The first is that it seems to me that the priorities have gone wrong. An organisation which is working out a common defence policy and planning to have an operational one, as well as contemplating administrative costs in that regard, and also intending to work with and through the WEU, will cause great confusion to the unfortunate people who are to join under enlargement.
They are already dealing with the question of joining NATO, and that is well worked out: everybody knows where they stand. If they are also to find themselves members, without quite knowing where they stand, of a new defence organisation (for lack of a better phrase) which is going to be responsible for peace-making and humanitarian tasks, essentially that is going to require a military organisation and troops. I cannot see where they are coining from at the moment except from us.
It is unfortunate. There should be a sense of priorities. It is important to get the institutions clear first. Until it is quite clear what the relationships are going to be in the end between NATO the WEU and the new defence organisation and how that will affect the new entrants to the Union, there is everything to be said for reforming the institutions first and getting that aspect of it quite clear before enlargement can proceed.
I support enlargement and believe that it is one of the most important things that we are considering. It is even more important that there should be a new set of priorities in the European Union. It should begin by sorting out exactly how everything is going to work before plans are made for "adventures"—I can only call them—in the military sphere.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a wide range of interesting points has been made in the course of this debate on enlargement, many of which are apposite to the subject. But I am not entirely clear that they are apposite to the amendment. I shall pick up points which noble Lords have made, but I believe that I should address the amendment.
It is slightly bemusing. Possibly it has been overbilled: the slightly ambiguous title calls it "Conditions for enlargement of the Union". As I recall, a similar amendment at Committee stage did indeed refer to preconditions for enlargement, but this amendment does not deal with that but with preconditions for the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty on the CAP. As my noble friend Lord Grenfell pointed out, we should not ratify the treaty until we have resolved the problems on the CAP, the structural funds and the institutions.
It would have been strange if this House, of all places, had tried to put preconditions on enlargement in order to slow down the process. I believe that we were all moved by the first intervention this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in particular in describing the challenges of enlargement. The whole process of the reunification of Europe is the most important political challenge and difficult project for this generation of politicians. It would have been wrong to put a brake on the progress of enlargement as a result of consideration of this treaty. Therefore, I am grateful that, by and large, noble Lords have not quite said that.
Nevertheless, the almost retrospective preconditions for ratification of the treaty which this amendment raises are unacceptable. This new clause would prevent the United Kingdom from ratifying the treaty for some years. Surprisingly, the new clause has been tabled by the noble Baroness speaking for the official Opposition. I confess that I find it highly disingenuous coming from the party which was in government for the vast majority of the time we were approaching the intergovernmental conference.
I accept that there is genuine disappointment for noble Lords of all parties as regards subsection (c) of the amendment; namely, the failure to secure full agreement on the question of institutional reform, specifically on the reform of the Commission and on the re-weighting of votes in the Council. The House will address those issues on Thursday when it turns its attention to Amendment No. 12.
The Government believe that these issues can be resolved in a relatively simple IGC process, not one that re-opens the whole range of institutional questions as the noble Baroness appeared to imply or involves a changed relationship between the EU and NATO, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, suggested. We have made quite clear—it is reflected in the treaty—that NATO remains the bedrock of the security of Europe. That will not change in the period that we are considering before enlargement.

1067
We do not believe that a whole range of institutional rearrangements must be faced, but obviously the issues left over from Amsterdam about the Commission and the reweighting of votes in Council must be addressed. I was slightly bemused by some of the implications raised by the noble Baroness. For example, she referred to the appointment of the president of the central bank. She appeared to advocate by implication a significant extension of QMV. I recall that that was not exactly the position of the previous government about senior appointments. They caused a degree of discomfort among our partner member states when as a minority of one they vetoed the appointment of a widely supported candidate for the presidency of the Commission. I was interested and slightly bemused by the change of tack of the Conservative Party on this matter. However, I welcome its openness to the extension of QMV, if that is what it represents.
It is breathtaking for the Opposition to suggest that we should not ratify the treaty until we have delivered reform of the agricultural policy and structural funds. At this time of night it is probably not sensible to go into great detail on the problems that face us on both fronts. In responding to this point I simply ask the noble Baroness to set out for the information of the House the detailed steps that her party took when in power to secure policy reform of this kind in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference which ended in Amsterdam.
The reality is that in the run-up to the election last year the Conservative Party made all kinds of conditions on the signing of the Treaty of Amsterdam. They threatened to veto the treaty in a number of areas ranging from reform of the European Court of Justice to resolution of the issue of BSE, quota-hopping, which the House will again debate on Thursday, amendment of Article 118a in relation to working time and opposition to any extension of qualified majority voting or the powers of the European Parliament. Those threats were made all the way through the approach to the Intergovernmental Conference and we deplored most of them. But at no time was any mention made by the previous government of a condition to secure reform of the CAP and the structural funds before the treaty could be agreed. As the noble Baroness and her colleagues in government at that time are aware, that was never part of the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference.
In the context of enlargement and the problems faced by the European Union in the coming years, the House will be aware that the Government are fully committed to reform of the key policies that have been mentioned. This is imperative if enlargement is to be successful. But that process must proceed in parallel with the negotiations for enlargement, as the noble Baroness, Lady has said. It cannot proceed retrospectively in parallel with the negotiations on the Treaty of Amsterdam. The United Kingdom Government favour radical reform of the CAP, in particular the reduction of supports. That will need to
1068
be done not only in preparation for enlargement but also as a result of the WTO negotiations in the year 2000. We are also in favour of some of the proposals which the Commission has already tabled, but they do not resolve the problem of the full reform of the common agricultural policy. We are in favour of reform of structural and cohesion funds which are fair both to existing EU states and to future EU states and are affordable and durable.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has already pointed out, the Commission has made proposals some aspects of which are acceptable to us, but we have severe reservations about others. We are also in favour of providing help during the Agenda 2000 rejigging of the budget in order to provide for applicant countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised the question of whether we were damagingly differential in our support for potential applicant countries. The disparity between payments to those who are in the first wave and those who are in the second wave is relatively small when measured in terms of the relative wealth of the two waves of applicants, and that is logical. There are real limits to the ability of relatively poor economies to absorb large sums of assistance. But the big disparities which I think she was calculating only arise when you take into account post-accession transfers to the first wave. We are continuing to meet the continuing problem of all the applicants—the first wave and the second wave—through the transfer of funds which the Commission includes within the Agenda 2000 programme.
We too are in favour of tight control on total EU spending in the coming period 2000–2006. We will also attempt, as I have said, to make progress on as many as possible of these issues, including institutional reform, in the coming year. We hope to make some progress on budgetary changes by the Cardiff Council. But the reality is that no significant improvement in these budgetary areas will take place at least until we are into the Germany presidency next year. Some of the fundamental issues, particularly relating to the CAP, will go well beyond that.
We are therefore, as noble Lords have said from various points of view, engaged in a quite lengthy process. We are engaged in a process which runs in parallel: improving the situation on institutions, on the budget and on the way the budget is allocated by the existing members of the EU, while at the same time helping the applicant members to meet the acquis, to improve their economies and, in some cases, as the noble Baroness indicated, to enhance the democracies of those applicant countries over that period.
I shall not, tonight, put a timescale on these negotiations. My noble friend Lord Grenfell was right in saying that some of those negotations will take considerably longer than has perhaps been suggested by the rather heightened expectations in some of the applicant countries. Nevertheless, we are committed to an intensive period of negotiation over that time.

1069
We have already started that during the British presidency. We held the successful European Conference on 12th March of all the applicant countries; we have secured agreement to the accession partnerships; we have launched the accession process and we have launched the formal accession negotiations with the six first wave countries on 31st March.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford and others referred to Turkey. It is our intention that as far as possible Turkey, through all diplomatic efforts, should be persuaded to rejoin the European Conference process as early as possible, recognising all the difficulties. However, I have to say, in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that before Turkey becomes a serious candidate for formal negotiations to join the EU, there are certain severe human rights problems which have to be addressed within that country. Turkey is not being judged by different criteria from the other applicants but the human rights problems are more deep seated in that country than they are with any of the other 11 countries.
The launch of the enlargement process has represented real progress. Those negotiations will take some years. So will the negotiations on the CAP, although there may be some decisions in time for the year 1999 or 2000. The full reform of the allocation of the budget will also take some years to negotiate.
The amendment, if it were passed, would set back the process not only of enlargement but also of budgetary and institutional reform. If we were at this point required before we ratified the treaty to achieve significant progress on CAP reform, on the structural funds and on the institutional areas which were not dealt with by Amsterdam, we would be setting back all these ambitions considerably.
The Treaty of Amsterdam made a number of institutional reforms which help the enlargement process. We should not dismiss the Treaty of Amsterdam as failing to provide for enlargement, as I think was the implication of some of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. It did not make sufficient institutional changes, but, as I have said, believe those institutional changes can be made relatively easily and certainly in time for the medium-term period of negotiations over enlargement.
1070
Given our commitment to enlargement and to a positive future for the European Union, I hope that the noble Baroness recognises the problems which her amendment raises and will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend rises, I appreciate the—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are at Report stage. After the Minister has spoken there should be no intervention other than by the mover of the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords. I ask for the forgiveness of the House.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, this has rightly been an interesting debate and I thank noble Lords who have participated. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made two good points which need stressing. She pointed out that enlargement has superseded the necessary change to the CAP, which has been worrying us all for a long time. Secondly, she made a valid point relating to Turkey, about which we do not usually hear, and I fully support that.
The comments of my noble friend Lady Park about enlargement with regard to NATO were most important. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford was right in saying that applicant countries are moving rapidly from command to market economies. However, they still have serious structural problems and the change will take a long time. I am not sure that the picture is as rosy as he depicted.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for stressing the reasons for the reforms. The amendment was an exploratory amendment and I agree with the noble Lord that there are not sufficient reasons for delaying the final ratification of the treaty. Enlargement is one of the most important issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I may return to it on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  UN Dues: United States Arrears
  UN Dues: United States Arrears
  Turkey: Trade Union Federation and ILO
  Turkey: Trade Union Federation and ILO
  Turkey: Human Rights Abuses
  Turkey: Human Rights Abuses
  Mr. Pius Njawe
  Mr. Pius Njawe
  Ocean Charter
  Ocean Charter
  Parliamentary Constituencies in National Parks
  Parliamentary Constituencies in National Parks
  Environmental Impact Assessment Directive: Consultation Responses
  Environmental Impact Assessment Directive: Consultation Responses
  Maritime and Coastguard Agency: Key Targets
  Maritime and Coastguard Agency: Key Targets
  NHS, Scotland: Expenditure Data
  NHS, Scotland: Expenditure Data
  NHS, Scotland: Projected Allocations
  NHS, Scotland: Projected Allocations
  Thomas Hamilton: Inspector Hughes' Report
  Thomas Hamilton: Inspector Hughes' Report
  Dunblane Inquiry: Chief Constable's Report
  Dunblane Inquiry: Chief Constable's Report
  House of Lords: Paper Recycling
  House of Lords: Paper Recycling
  Local Authority Computer Equipment Disposals
  Local Authority Computer Equipment Disposals
  Home Detention Curfew
  Home Detention Curfew
  Institute of Animal Technology: Annual Congress Venue
  Institute of Animal Technology: Annual Congress Venue
  Firearms Acts
  Firearms Acts
  Senior Police Officers and Surrendered Firearms
  Senior Police Officers and Surrendered Firearms
  Immigration Act Detainees: Location and Detention Period
  Immigration Act Detainees: Location and Detention Period
  Fishery Laboratories
  Fishery Laboratories
  Fishery Research Vessels
  Fishery Research Vessels
  Meat Imports from non-EU Countries 1998–99
  Meat Imports from non-EU Countries 1998–99