Sitting of 14 May 1998

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

  CONTINGENCIES FUND ACCOUNTS 1996–97
  Ordered,
  Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1996–97, showing:—

  (1) The receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1997.

  (2) The distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Betts.]

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

    Bread Pricing
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What representations she has received from independent bakers on supermarkets selling bread below cost price. [40953]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I have received representations from my hon. Friend on behalf of W. H. Oddie Ltd., and from him and others on behalf of the National Association of Master Bakers, complaining about predatory pricing of bread.
    Mr. Prentice: On Monday this week, I was in Blackpool speaking to the annual conference of craft bakers, of whom there are about 8,000 across the country. They are very concerned that supermarkets are selling bread as a loss leader, for less than the cost for which the small craft baker can bake it. Given the importance we attach to preserving vibrant town centres and our desire to keep bakeries in our high streets, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Competition Bill, which we debated on Monday, will be effective in outlawing that sort of predatory pricing?
    Mr. Griffiths: The new Competition Bill introduces tough provision against the abuse of dominance in the market, including predatory pricing. In future, selling products at below the average variable cost of production will be presumed to be predatory, without anti-competitive intent having to be proven.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is good to hear that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has gone to Blackpool, given that the other members of his party
    498
    have decided that it is not good enough for them. Has the Minister received any representations about the undersale in supermarkets of Calvin Klein and Levi jeans?
    Mr. Griffiths: I have received representations from supermarkets asking for support for that practice. I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that our party conference is in Blackpool this year.

    Manufacturing
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: What assessment she has made of the impact of the present exchange rate on British manufactured exports. [40954]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government understand industry's concerns about the strength of sterling and appreciate the difficulties it is causing exporters and manufacturers, but we are determined not to return to the boom and bust policies of the past. We are delivering a stable macro-economic environment, which will allow business to thrive in the long term.
    Mrs. Spelman: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that manufacturing output has fallen for the second consecutive quarter, thus confirming that the sector is now truly mired in recession? What action will she take to offset bleak prospects for exporters as their contracts come up for renegotiation at the higher rates of exchange?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the figures on manufacturing output and I share the concern that has been expressed, although it is still expected that manufacturing output will rise over the year—indeed it is higher than it was a year ago—and the Confederation of British Industry's latest survey shows that manufacturers expect output to rise over the next four months. As for the action we are taking to help exporters, we have restored support for trade fairs, which was cut by the previous Government; we have introduced a programme called export explorer and a programme to address sales leads on the internet; and we have increased support for trade exhibitions and seminars—all of which follows on from a report by the export forum, which the Government set up to take advice from exporters on work that would help them.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there were increased output and exports from the engineering sector in the first quarter of this year and that the fall in sterling resulting from the clarification on the euro has been welcomed by our manufacturing sector? Most important, is she aware that between May 1990 and May 1997 the value of the pound against the deutschmark changed no fewer than 87 times; and that 20 per cent. of the rise of sterling took place in the last 12 months of the irresponsible, flippant, yo-yo currency stewardship of the Conservative Government? They are to blame for any crisis that our manufacturers now face.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. On Monday, I was with a very successful British manufacturer and exporter who went out of his way to tell

    499
    me that sterling has not yet reached the same level as it was under the previous Government. He showed me graphs to show how he had coped with it—by putting the emphasis on value and quality, which is the message of this Government, but not of the previous Government.
    Mr. John Redwood: Far from abolishing boom and bust, the Government have pulled off the unique double of a bust in manufacturing while there is a boom in everything else. Is the President of the Board of Trade aware of the new fears, expressed in the City following the Bank of England's remarks that there will now probably be higher interest rates and a higher rate of sterling, which will do still more damage to manufacturing? What will she tell the Bank, which is blaming the Government's policy of the minimum wage and differential pay awards—and the higher pay that will result—for the threat of higher interest rates and higher sterling that will do more damage to manufacturing?
    Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman has clearly not paid attention to what the Bank actually said, because it did not say any of those things.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It was in the Financial Times this morning.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong. The Bank said that the level of the minimum wage is important, that it retains its responsibility and concern for inflation and that it is confident that the policy is on course to deliver lower inflation. It said that it would be necessary to reassess its position and its concerns when the level of the minimum wage is announced, but that it did not intend to reach any conclusions in advance of that announcement—thereby showing a great deal more common sense than Opposition Members.
    I do not think that it lies in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends to complain about the level of sterling when they have done everything they could in the past few days to talk up the level of sterling by talking down the possibility of the euro.
    Mr. Redwood: The President owes it to business to tell it what the minimum wage will be. It is the uncertainty that she is generating in the markets that is doing the damage. If she told us now what the minimum wage would be, the markets could assess the seriousness of a threatened wage explosion and the Bank could take the necessary action. Will she do that?
    Mrs. Beckett: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, the business community is perfectly well aware that the Low Pay Commission will report in the near future and that the national minimum wage will be introduced in April 1999. There is no worry on the part of business: it knows perfectly well what the timetable is.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent KPMG survey that shows that since the value of sterling has been high there has been no increase in the number of firms calling in the receivers—which is very good news? Will she continue her campaign—which is much appreciated on Labour Benches—to make Britain's manufacturers more productive? That is part of the answer. We shall always
    500
    have problems with currencies going up and down—that is the truth of the matter—but it is essential to make our companies more productive, and we should continue to campaign for that as vigorously as possible.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and he has campaigned on this issue very effectively for a long time. I share his view completely, and we continue to discuss and address the matter.
    Mr. David Chidgey: Given the damage that has been done to exporters by the recent high value of the pound and the continuing instability of exchange rates, does the President of the Board of Trade accept that the Government must make an urgent and clear commitment about early entry into economic and monetary union? If we do not do that, we shall not provide the confidence and stability that is needed. Will the right hon. Lady impress on the Chancellor that continuing uncertainty is holding back the essential investment that we need in industry, which is not helping to reverse the widening gap in productivity that was mentioned a moment ago?
    Mrs. Beckett: I fully understand that that is the view of the hon. Gentleman and of his party, but it is not yet the view of business. Perhaps business will come to hold that view, but the business community—which we consult regularly about such matters—is not expressing it now. Secondly, I remind the hon. Gentleman that in a recent report the Bank of England suggested that, owing to the folly and neglect of the previous Government, it would take some years for British industry even to begin to be ready to go into the euro, should that decision be taken. Thirdly, I remind him that this Government are committed to the triple lock on that decision: Government, Parliament and the people must first decide.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend pleased, first, that the markets are looking towards sterling's depreciation, and particularly that sterling is being sold at DM2.7 in the five years ahead market—partly due to George Soros and others, of course—and converging towards DM2.7; and, secondly, that many of the markets and investors are looking towards interest rates going down, so sentiments in the market are extremely positive for manufacturing exports?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. The market is forecasting both lower interest rates and a lower exchange rate in the longer term, which suggests that the markets understand—as the Opposition do not wish to understand—that the Government are working for stability.

    Rural Post Offices
    Mr. David Rendel: What assessment she has made regarding the impact of proposals for the increased commercialisation of postal services on rural post offices. [40955]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): Both the Government and the Post Office are committed to maintaining the universal postal delivery service, the uniform tariff structure for postal services and a nationwide network of

    501
    post offices. Specific proposals for greater commercial freedom for the Post Office will be assessed against those commitments and their contribution to meeting the challenges of changing domestic and international markets for postal services.
    Mr. Rendel: I am grateful for that reassurance, which will be appreciated by rural post offices in particular. Does the Minister share my concern that increasing commercialisation could lead to the Post Office's beginning to centralise some of its services so that it can concentrate more on the commercial aspects that may bring in increasing profits? Could not that lead to a further run-down in rural post offices? What does the Minister propose to do about that?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman's fears are unfounded. The principle of the review is to maintain and develop the network of 19,200 post offices. Let us remember that only 5 per cent. of villages in Britain have a bank, but 60 per cent. have a post office. Today we announced a new arrangement for the Post Office with British Gas, which will provide new services through sub-post offices. We are looking for business opportunities not for the centre, but for sub-post offices. The Government have given that commitment from day one and will continue to do so, because the Post Office and its services are critical to daily life in Britain.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress that has been made in the review of the Post Office's functions and the Government's acceptance of the Trade and Industry Committee's recommendation that additional commercialisation in the public sector will generate the funds necessary for rural post offices to be protected, so that their services will be available to people in the more distant parts of the country.
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend. The Government have lifted the fear of privatisation that for so long hung over the postal services under the previous Government. We are moving forward to deliver a new postal service that will ensure, in rural and urban areas and internationally, new business opportunities for the Post Office in general and for sub-post offices in particular.
    Mr. Richard Page: Despite the apparently comforting response to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), are not the Government's proposals too little and too late? Everybody wants the Post Office to have greater opportunities from commercialisation. Other postal administrations are already going down that route—the Dutch post office has purchased TNT and the German post office has taken a 22.5 per cent. stake in DHL. When will the Government do a BT and set the Post Office free?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is a failed Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. It is no good his coming now, so many years later, to ask Ministers at the Dispatch Box how we are rebuilding a Post Office from the wreck left by the previous Government. From day one of this Government we have made the Post Office a priority, and we shall continue to do so.

    Manufacturing
    Mrs. Diana Organ: If she will make a statement about the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry. [40956]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): United Kingdom manufacturing productivity is 20 per cent. lower than that in Germany and France and 40 per cent. lower than that in the United States. It is critical that we improve. Last year, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade established six business-led working parties whose conclusions are shaping the forthcoming White Paper on competitiveness.
    Mrs. Organ: In shaping the future White Paper on competitiveness, what assessment has the Department of Trade and Industry made of manufacturing output, investment and employment during the period July 1989 to April 1992?
    Mr. Griffiths: Output fell by 2 per cent. a year on average, investment fell by 7.8 per cent. and 750,000 people in manufacturing lost their jobs. Throughout those years, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry presiding over the decline. Under my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the last three months' figures show that manufacturing output, exports and employment are up.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Minister recall that, when the dollar was floated in 1971, there were DM8.5 to the pound compared with a little under DM3 today and 600 yen to the pound compared with a little over 200 today, yet in the 25 years that followed the Smithsonian conference in 1971 the German and Japanese economies not only prospered, but their productivity outpaced that of all other industrial countries in the world? Does not that show that a strong currency, if properly handled by industry, can be of immense benefit to an exporting industrial economy? Is that not in fact the real nature of the golden economic legacy the Government have inherited from the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Griffiths: Far from it. If the hon. Gentleman cares to join me in talking to the CBI and manufacturers throughout Britain he will realise that they know that the previous Government's record on manufacturing and business was abysmal. It is fortunate that in the past quarter figures have improved and that the Government have taken firm steps which, had they been taken 18 years ago, would have put our business record on a much better track.

    Low Pay Commission
    Mr. David Hanson: If she will make a statement about the work of the Low Pay Commission. [40957]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The Low Pay Commission has completed its comprehensive programme of consultation to obtain views of employers, employees, interested organisations and individuals on the national minimum wage and related issues. It also undertook a series of visits to seek local opinions throughout the UK, including Wales. I understand that it is on course to make its recommendations to the Government by the end of this month.
    Mr. Hanson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Low Pay Commission's recommendations will be particularly welcome in Wales, where 43,000 people still earn less than £2.50 an hour and where 2,000 of my constituents are condemned to family credit by low-pay employers? Can my hon. Friend confirm that, at the end of the Tory years, the inequality in pay levels was greater than it was in Victorian times? In view of that, will he take the opportunity to ask the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about his views on the minimum wage, given his leader's support for it?
    Mr. McCartney: I can confirm that the legacy of the previous Government was one of the highest ever levels of poverty and low pay in the United Kingdom. Whether in Wales, Scotland, England or Ireland, the levels of low pay were truly horrendous. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will have to answer for himself, but it is interesting to note that he has not yet given any support to his party leader, who has made a policy U-turn in that he is now willing to accept the introduction of a minimum wage. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wokingham will say whether he will continue to oppose the introduction of a minimum wage following the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: Before the Minister disappears from the Dispatch Box, will he agree that the minimum wage can be summed up simply? If it is set at or below market levels it will be otiose; if it is set above market levels it will lead to a loss of jobs. Is not that the simple fact?
    Mr. McCartney: When Conservatives talk about the minimum wage, they usually use the word odious rather than otiose. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a simple explanation: the minimum wage will be good for business and good for the workers. It will be equitable and its level will be set due to economic circumstances. Millions of people in Britain are ready and waiting for its introduction.
    Mr. Chris Pond: Can my hon. Friend confirm that 80 per cent. of the electorate, including two thirds of those who still admit to being Conservative supporters, believe that a national minimum wage is a good idea and support it firmly? They understand that it is not only a way of dealing with the major social injustice left by the previous Government, but good business sense. Will he also confirm for Conservative Members who still carry around their 0-level economics textbooks that the evidence shows that a minimum wage can help to enhance productivity, efficiency and, therefore, employment?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only people in Britain who oppose the introduction of a minimum wage are the Rag, Tag and Bobtail outfit in front of us—the shadow Department of Trade and Industry team. A majority of businesses and, overwhelmingly, the people of Britain want a national minimum wage to be introduced. International and national comparisons—I include the United States in that—show that a sensibly introduced minimum wage helps to create jobs, not to destroy them.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: At least we now know from the Minister that the figure will be published in a fortnight. We can then start the fully informed debate on the subject.
    Has the Minister noticed yesterday's news on inflation and the concern expressed by the Chancellor about increases in the private sector, especially in pay rates? Has he noticed the warnings in the Bank of England's inflation briefing about the fact that its computations could take no account of the recent decline in the exchange rate or the introduction of the minimum wage? What conclusions has he drawn about likely implications for pay differentials, for inflation and for the future course of interest rates?
    Mr. McCartney: Why should there be surprise that the Bank of England seeks to have a view on any report published by the Low Pay Commission? The Government made it clear from the outset, when we established the LPC, that it would have to make recommendations based on economic circumstances, which include issues surrounding the economy, including inflation. There is nothing new in that.
    There is also nothing new in the Government talking to people in the labour market about pay restraint, and that includes people at the top of the tree. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we are prepared to be even about the matter and to say to people at the very top, including those who support the Conservative party and campaigned against the minimum wage, that it is about time they showed pay restraint and that there should be social justice at the bottom through the introduction of a minimum wage.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: In the context of the minimum wage and the fairness at work package, has my hon. Friend had discussions with United Kingdom-based multinationals such as Rio Tinto about the need to promote human rights and to protect the environment in areas of the world where they practise?
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for asking such a good question. Through trade arrangements and arrangements in Europe, the Government regularly work nationally and internationally to ensure that agreements in trade organisations include human rights and employment and environment rights. We have been negotiating in the World Trade Organisation, in the multilateral agreement on investment and in other international agreements to ensure fair standards throughout the world, including in multinational companies working in third-world countries. The Government are clear about that commitment. We meet business all the time. Inward investors come to Britain for our skills and knowledge and, in the main, provide good business practice, which I welcome.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What assessment she has made of the effect the introduction of EMU in other EU states will have on the competitiveness of British firms. [40958]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Economic and monetary union will create both opportunities and competitive challenges: opportunities for British companies that are prepared to expand into new markets as trade becomes more open in the euro-zone, but challenges for the unprepared.
    Mr. Evans: The assistance given by the DTI team to help Back Benchers with their questions is legendary. I should like to thank the Secretary of State's parliamentary private secretary for her assistance with this question. It is a great shame that, although the questions are inspired, the answers never are. When will the Government take responsibility for the fact that their policies have led to the strength of the pound? The Government's acceptance of the fudged criteria has allowed 11 other countries to go ahead with the single currency. If they want British companies to be competitive in Europe and in the rest of the world, they should listen to Jacques Delors, who said that deregulation and competitiveness had enabled Britain to become a magnet for inward investment. The Government's adoption of the social chapter and the minimum wage will make British companies uncompetitive with the rest of Europe.
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is clearly unaware that two thirds of the increase in sterling took place before the election. Consequently, it is hard to see how the Government's policies can be held responsible for the strength of the pound. Perhaps he was not present earlier when I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) that it is no good Conservative Members complaining about the level of sterling being too high, when by trying to damage confidence in the euro they are talking it up.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the good work of companies such as Siemens that intend to trade in the euro internally in Britain and to offer advice and guidance to their suppliers and to those to whom they sell about how they, too, can trade in the euro so as to obtain the advantage of currency stability and gain practice for selling to European markets? Does she welcome that? Will she give an undertaking that the DTI will follow through that example and offer assistance to smaller businesses?
    Mrs. Beckett: It has often occurred to me that one of the greatest failures of the Conservatives in government was not preparing themselves for the advent of the euro and giving British business, especially small and medium enterprises, which will be the most vulnerable, the impression that the only thing that mattered was whether Britain went in. They failed to point out to businesses that they will be affected by the launch of economic and monetary union whatever decision Britain makes. My
    506
    hon. Friend is right about the need to give advice and support to businesses. We are doing that in a variety of ways, including a series of regional seminars.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: What evidence did the President of the Board of Trade rely on in her main answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am not quite sure what the hon. and learned Gentleman means. I told the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that there will be both opportunities and challenges. We have consulted extensively with British business, and that is very much its view. The challenges are obvious: I was just referring to them. People who are unprepared will face difficulties. As to the opportunities, British businesses that are genuinely competitive may find that, in the euro-zone market, price transparency will give them a potential competitive advantage. It is therefore all the more essential that businesses that could prosper in that environment take advantage of that opportunity.

    Automotive Industry
    Barbara Follett: What action she has taken to promote the competitiveness of the automotive industry. [40959]
    The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The Department is taking a number of measures to encourage all parts of the automotive industry to maximise their international competitiveness and to strengthen the United Kingdom's advantages as a location for investment.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and his Department on their efforts to foster research between universities and industries. Combined with the foresight initiative, that will do a great deal more to ensure the future competitiveness of the British automotive industry than was ever done by the Rag, Tag and Bobtail—and otiose—outfit opposite.
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend refers to the foresight programme. In particular, the work of the cleaner vehicles task force looks to the future of the automotive industry, and to new technologies that will provide new jobs and go some way to tackle environmental problems. I would add only that, in order for the industry to be competitive, we must strengthen back-up companies, and ensure that the sector is strong as we move into a new century.
    Mr. John Bercow: What rationale can the Minister offer for the Government's policy of, on the one hand, encouraging people to abandon their cars and use public transport, and, on the other hand, handing out large subsidies to car manufacturers in an attempt to boost their competitiveness? Can the hon. Gentleman get his mind around that paradox, and explain it for the benefit of the House?
    Mr. Battle: I had not previously heard the Conservatives campaigning for the abolition of the car; now, it seems, they are. The scheme to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett)

    507
    referred is a middle way towards achieving cleaner vehicles. One option would be to ensure that vehicles burned more environmentally friendly fuel. I do not think that improving the environment ought to be set at odds with vehicle use. The two are not, and will not be, at odds under this Government.
    Mr. Richard Burden: My hon. Friend will be aware of the importance to the west midlands of the motor industry, including, in particular, the major Rover Group plant at Longbridge in my constituency. Will he take this opportunity to congratulate Rover on exports worth £3.7 billion last year, which is the company's highest ever figure? Is that not a tribute to Rover and its work force, and to the stable environment that the Government have generated for the motor industry?
    Mr. Battle: I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend says. According to the latest figures, United Kingdom car production is at its highest for 24 years, and represents 10 per cent. of UK exports. It is a successful sector, and will continue to be so under the Government.

    Post Office
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What discussions she has had with the Post Office regarding minority share sales. [40960]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I have discussed with the Post Office our wish to give it the commercial freedom that it needs to meet changes in domestic and international markets. The Government have commissioned a review of possible options for achieving that, and the Post Office is closely involved in the work. A minority share sale is just one of the options for consideration.
    Mr. Morgan: The Minister is aware that the public are against privatisation of the Post Office, but is he aware that they will also be deeply sceptical about any move to sell shares in the Post Office? Is he prepared to put an upper limit on the percentage of shares to be sold, or—even better—will he rule out the option altogether?
    Mr. McCartney: The terms of reference are unequivocal. The Post Office will remain in the public sector, and will continue to provide a universal postal service under a uniform structure with a nationwide network of post offices. Privatisation is off the agenda: it is not part of the Government's policy. We have made it absolutely clear that we are seeking to create joint ventures involving the public and private sectors, and the creation of a public sector trust and an independent public corporation. A range of issues is being considered, and, when the issues have been considered, we will bring proposals before the House—probably in the autumn—to take the Post Office into the next century.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is the Minister aware of the level of public disquiet already caused by competitive pressures, which has led to the extraordinary phenomenon of two public demonstrations
    508
    in New Milton regarding closure of Ashley Stores post office? Will he meet a delegation of my constituents to hear their concerns?
    Mr. McCartney: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings. Thank goodness he has a Labour Government, who will save the Post Office from the damage caused by the last Government. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about his case, I will be prepared to see him to discuss it, because I have an open-door policy. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government are safeguarding the rural and urban network that the last Government wanted to privatise.

    Arms Exports
    Mr. David Heath: How many licences have been granted for the export of arms to Indonesia in the current year to date. [40961]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Between 1 January and 3 April 1998, 28 individual licences were issued covering the export to Indonesia of goods that are listed in part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994. The list is much broader in scope than just arms, and includes a wide range of equipment. All the applications for the 28 licences were circulated for advice to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to the Ministry of Defence, and considered under the criteria that were announced last July by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Heath: Why are we in the business of selling arms to a regime that is bankrupt both politically and economically? Is the Minister not concerned when she sees democratic demonstrations in Jakarta being put down by British-made water cannon firing British-supplied nerve gas? What price an ethical foreign policy?
    Mrs. Roche: The Government are extremely concerned by the current situation and are monitoring it very closely. The hon. Gentleman will also want to know that, since coming to power, we have refused licence applications for Indonesia covering sniper rifles and other firearms, spare parts for firearms, military vehicles and a military simulator. As I have said, we are monitoring the situation very carefully and we are looking at reports that water cannon, supplied from the UK under licences that were issued by the previous Government, have been used.
    Ann Clwyd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Indonesia is covered by export credit guarantees of more than £1 billion and that £800 million of that is for military exports? Would it not be better if we had a debate in Parliament about whether arms should be exported to sensitive countries, as happens in the United States Congress? In the circumstances, will she urge her right hon. Friends to freeze all arms sales to Indonesia as from now?
    Mrs. Roche: No, I certainly cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. She knows that we continue to monitor the situation very carefully. It was this Government who, unlike the previous Government, introduced the criteria by which every application is

    509
    measured. We already give information on those other matters. Of course, it is for the business managers to decide when debates can take place, but my hon. Friend might wish to pursue other actions open to her to secure a debate on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. John Redwood: What does "ethical policy" mean when we see farces day by day, over Sierra Leone and now Indonesia? Did the Foreign Office receive the documents? Did it read them? Why did DTI Ministers not themselves see that there would be an unfortunate circumstance if the Indonesian regime used any of the materials—these armaments and anti-riot goods—against its own population, as we see it doing on television now? Why did not the Minister, and particularly the President of the Board of Trade, understand the sensitivity of the matter? Was the Foreign Office asleep on duty again? How can the Minister explain the 56 export licences under her Government?
    Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking absolute nonsense. This party—the Government—will take no lectures from him or from the Conservative party. They had no criteria. It was my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who introduced the criteria and who has fully answered all the questions on this matter. I have clearly said that there have been refusals because we are concerned about the situation and we are monitoring it on the ground. We will not take any lectures from the right hon. Gentleman, thank you very much.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Tony McNulty: When she expects the Low Pay Commission to report its recommendations for a national minimum wage to her Department. [40962]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I expect the Low Pay Commission to make its recommendations to the Government by the end of this month on the level at which the national minimum wage might be introduced.
    Mr. McNulty: I welcome that response and the earlier response to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), as will the 1,000 families in Harrow in north-west London who still rely on family credit. I know that this is tedious for my hon. Friend, but will he try again to elicit the views of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on this issue? We know that the right hon. Gentleman can be forthright because we have read his views about the Leader of the Opposition. Will my hon. Friend try to ascertain, in the interests of consensus—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have told Back Benchers before that it is for the Government to account for their policies and actions, not those of the Opposition.
    Mr. McCartney: That was a good try by my hon. Friend.
    Madam Speaker: No, it was not.
    Mr. McCartney: You, Madam Speaker, say that it was not a good try, and I will not challenge your wisdom.
    510
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have, at great speed, taken the opportunity to introduce a national minimum wage. Conservative Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), have been wriggling on this matter for the past six weeks. The right hon. Gentleman does not want to agree with the Leader of the Opposition. He is a one-man band and a one-man party, and soon he will be the only person in Britain who does not support the minimum wage.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister have a message for my constituents, particularly those in the hotel, catering and restaurant business, who fear that their jobs may be lost owing to the introduction of a minimum wage?
    Mr. McCartney: I know that industry very well because I am a former chef who was sacked for having the audacity to ask for a £1 a week wage increase because of the birth of a child. I take no lessons about the poverty of those who work in that industry from the hon. Lady. It is interesting that the industry supports the national minimum wage. It is sick and tired of being smeared as a low-pay, low-activity industry and wants to change its image, which is why it is now working with the Government towards the successful introduction of the minimum wage.

    Utilities (Regulation)
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What plans she has to change the regulatory framework for the utilities to give increased priority to consumers' interests. [40963]
    The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): It is the Government's intention that consumers' interests should be put at the heart of the regulatory system. We said that we would change that system, and we are working towards that. That is why my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade published on 25 March a Green Paper on utility regulation—"A Fair Deal for Consumers: Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation".
    Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that the new regulations will be strong enough to deal with the casualties of Tory utilities privatisation? Will they be able to deal with the legacy of fuel poverty, whereby poorer people get the worst deal? Will they be able to deal with the outrageous situation whereby the privatised water companies have increased bills to domestic consumers by an average of more than 95 per cent. since privatisation?
    Will my hon. Friend consider making the new regional chambers the focal point of consumer representation in the regions, perhaps by enabling them to call hearings where the utility companies have to come to be called to account by public representatives?
    Mr. Battle: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. The Green Paper includes a substantial programme of action inviting the regulators and the industry to develop a clear action plan to ensure that poorer consumers enjoy more of the benefits of the

    511
    privatisation programme. As she rightly said, we inherited a legacy of fuel poverty and there is a horrendous difference between those who can use direct debit schemes and those who are in the trap of having self-disconnecting meters. We have not just been waiting for the White Paper; our response to fuel poverty included reducing VAT on fuel. Proposals for consultation of consumers are also included in the Green Paper.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of a serious anomaly in the regulation of the utilities that has arisen this morning because a consortium of local authorities representing the three major parties has been obliged to pull out of the terminal 5 inquiry because of a lack of funding, whereas a regulated monopoly—BAA—is continuing with the support of taxpayers' money because it has been able to offset its costs against tax? Will he undertake to speak to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that that undemocratic anomaly is addressed as soon as possible?
    Mr. Battle: I shall certainly speak to my colleagues in other Departments. If the hon. Gentleman has not had an opportunity to see the Green Paper, I should tell him that it is confined to gas, water, electricity and telecoms. I shall take the matter further with colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Before the Minister gets too impressed by his Back Benchers' rhetoric and crocodile tears over increases in some utility prices, will he take into account the impact of the huge council tax increases levied by Labour-controlled local authorities, and set them against the lousy level of services that most of those authorities deliver?
    Mr. Battle: I would be delighted to get carried away with the record of Labour councils, which have done a brilliant job over the years, under incredible pressure from a Conservative Government. They delivered services as the Conservative Government reduced their budgets year on year. Indeed, those councils were usually the ones picking up the pieces following Tory legislation.
    Mr. David Drew: In my area, we have had the road dug up for the past two months, thanks to Severn Trent Water, the telephones were off on Monday, thanks to BT, and it is guaranteed that any train run by Great Western Trains will be late into Paddington. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot wait a moment longer for greater powers for the regulator?
    Mr. Battle: As my hon. Friend suggests, the Green Paper proposes to improve the accountability, consistency and transparency of the regulatory process. We believed that it needed reforming; we stated in opposition that we would set about that task. The Green Paper is out for consultation, which closes on 31 May. We will then act on that consultation. Consumer groups and the utilities alike have responded very positively to the Green Paper.

    Electronic Commerce
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What proposals her Department has to promote electronic commerce. [40964]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Electronic commerce is extremely important and the Government are committed to ensuring that all United Kingdom citizens and businesses have the opportunity to share in its benefits. The Government's programme of linked initiatives in the area is outlined in the policy statement "Our Information Age: the Government's Vision", which was launched by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last month.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the hon. Lady for her reply. Does she agree that the best way in which the Government can help to promote electronic commerce is to use it themselves and ensure that, as a major buyer of IT, they are fully compliant and have everything working well, rather than considering subsidies or special schemes? Will she have a word with Ministers in all Departments so that at least they are on board and we Members of Parliament can write to them via e-mail? Still, hardly any Ministers publish e-mail addresses.
    Mrs. Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He takes a close interest in these issues. It is absolutely right that the Government should lead by example, which is exactly what we are doing. It is important that everybody embraces the benefits that electronic commerce can bring, which is why the Government are doing all that they can in forums such as IT For All and our programme for business. I shall certainly take his points on board. I am sure that he will be pleased with the progress that we have been making.
    Mr. Stephen Timms: I particularly welcome the publication of "Our Information Age: the Government's Vision", which is an excellent and very impressive statement of the Government's vision in the area. Is not the great disappointment that, in the framework of telecommunications that the previous Government put in place, we have not secured the widespread access to innovative and advanced telecommunication services that we were promised at the time? Is not that the missing jewel, and what we need if we are to be successful, as we all hope, in the implementation of electronic commerce?
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend, who is also an expert in these matters, puts his finger on it. We need to do two things. First, we need to ensure that the single market in telecoms in Europe is implemented and a true reality. The Government are absolutely committed to that. All the new services that will flow from that must be provided on the basis that new entrants can tap that newly liberalised market. Secondly, we need to ensure that all our citizens feel comfortable with new technology; that manufacturers ensure that it is as easy to use as possible; and that all businesses, including small and medium-sized businesses use it, too.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: In her enthusiasm for electronic commerce, the Minister will appreciate that businesses are interdependent electronically on an international basis. Has she therefore considered the effect of the millennium bomb on businesses in other countries and the consequences for United Kingdom business of supply-chain failures?
    What contingency plans has the hon. Lady made to protect British services and systems against failures elsewhere in the world, which would have a severe knock-on effect on the British economy? Does she appreciate the fact that unless she has well publicised and well thought-out contingency plans, this country may find Labour's slogan coming back to haunt it, and the failures of the few will affect the many?
    Mrs. Roche: I think that the hon. Lady was referring to the millennium bug rather than the millennium bomb. That aside, she will know that in the short period in which the Government have been in office we have put in place proposals to spend 17 times more resources than the Government of which she was a member spent in the past 18 years. None the less, the hon. Lady made an important point—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Lady will stop talking and allow me to finish. She made an important point about what needs to be done internationally. I am pleased to say that last Friday the United Kingdom hosted an important international event for our EU partners, which I addressed. There is a serious problem, and that is why the Government are putting in so much time and effort.

    Competitiveness UK Initiative
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If she will make a statement about the progress of her Competitiveness UK initiative. [40966]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I set up six business-led working parties last year to look specifically at the weaknesses in United Kingdom companies' performance identified in "A Benchmark for Business", which I published in November 1997. The working parties are examining underinvestment, failure to innovate and to adopt best practice, shortage of skills in the work force, and failure to capitalise fully on the opportunities provided by the information age and by our membership of the European Union. Their work will contribute to a White Paper on competitiveness, to be published in the autumn. In parallel, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I met senior business people this morning in the first of a series of seminars to discuss how to bring about improvements in UK productivity.
    Dr. Ladyman: Does the President agree that, under the Tories, too many companies came to believe that, to achieve competitiveness, all they had to do was to cut staff and wait for a devaluation? How does my right hon. Friend plan to convince companies that the only way to achieve competitiveness is to invest in their staff, in new equipment and in research and innovation? In doing that, will she use as an example Pfizer, a company in my
    514
    constituency—my former employers, in fact—whose huge investment in research has created the world's greatest drug discovery team—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I could give the hon. Gentleman an Adjournment debate if he wishes—but now I want to move on through the Order Paper. Come along.
    Dr. Ladyman: Will my right hon. Friend use as an example of good practice the innovations of Pfizer, whose great team has discovered Viagra, which has been much publicised and is, I suspect, eagerly awaited in all parts of the House?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of the factors to which he drew attention in terms of investment in skills as well as in a variety of other ways. One of the issues that we discussed this morning with business—and will continue to discuss with the business community—is how to get those messages across throughout English business, including small and medium-sized businesses. There seems to be general agreement that a combination of best practice, mentoring and, in particular, business people themselves spreading the word down the supply chain, seems likely to produce the most effect. We are continuing to discuss the issues. I am aware of the tremendous reputation of Pfizer, which has substantially increased its inward investment in this country since the Government came to power.
    Mr. David Prior: Does the right hon. Lady believe that the compulsory recognition of trade unions will improve the competitiveness of British industry?
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. The Government will introduce a framework of legislation to bring about the recognition of trade unions should a majority of the work force wish. That is a simple human right, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman opposes it.

    Kyrgyzstan
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If she will make a statement on United Kingdom trade relations with Kyrgyzstan. [40967]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Trade relations with Kyrgyzstan are the warmest they have been since the country achieved independence. The country is preparing for clear and rapid integration into the global economy and we fully support its efforts to join the World Trade Organisation on the right terms.
    The Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan is in London with a large delegation of Ministers for an important investment conference and I shall be meeting him and his colleagues for discussions later this afternoon.
    Mr. Robathan: I am delighted that the Minister is meeting the Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan today. I know that that Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Kyrgyz Parliament and Government are grateful for the support they have received from this Government and the

    515
    previous Government as the country comes out of its past in the Soviet Union. Will the Minister confirm whether export credit guarantees now cover Kyrgyzstan, and whether the know-how fund can be used to greater effect there?
    Mrs. Roche: I should be interested in any representations that the hon. Gentleman might care to make to my ministerial colleagues and me about the use of the know-how fund. As regards export cover, officials from the Export Credits Guarantee Department visited the country last month to review the position. The review will take some months and it would be unwise to predict the outcome.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given the importance of Kyrgyzstan—especially in light of this morning's
    516
    conference, attended by many in British industry—and that country's commitment to democracy, and given the fact that the Kazakh capital is moving from Almaty, will the Government reflect on whether it would be wise to have an embassy with trade officials in Bishkek as separate from the embassy now covering both Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan?
    Mrs. Roche: I am glad that my hon. Friend found the conference so useful. From what we understand, it was a great success. On the specific question he asked, we have no plans at present to move diplomatic representation from Almaty, so cover for the country will continue as it is. In the longer term, we will take into account my hon. Friend's representations.

India (Nuclear Tests)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the recent nuclear tests in India.
On Monday, the Government of India announced that they had conducted three nuclear tests, including one thermo-nuclear device. On Wednesday, the Government of India confirmed two further nuclear tests. According to a statement by the Government of India yesterday, the last two complete the planned series of nuclear testing. These were India's first nuclear tests since 1974.
Nuclear proliferation is a serious threat to the stability and security of the international community. We and our partners have sought vigorously to prevent the technology and equipment for nuclear weapons programmes from being acquired by states that might use them to develop a nuclear weapons capacity. Last weekend, the G8 Foreign Ministers committed our countries to strengthen further the safeguard systems against nuclear proliferation. The recent nuclear tests by India undermined the efforts of the international community to prevent nuclear proliferation, and may encourage other states that wish to do the same.
Nor will these tests help the security of India. An increase in tension in the region cannot be in the interests of India, and the escalation of an arms race in the sub-continent cannot help to tackle the poverty in which millions of its people live. The sharp reaction by China demonstrates the danger that such tests will increase tension, rather than strengthen security.
We have already expressed our dismay to the Indian Government. Yesterday, the acting high commissioner for India was summoned to the Foreign Office in order that we could express our concern at the test programme. In New Delhi, our high commissioner led a troika of European Union ambassadors to inform the Government of India of the concern not just of Britain, but of all Europe. I can inform the House that I have today recalled our high commissioner from Delhi for consultation on how Britain and Europe can effectively bring home to the Government of India our anxiety at the damage of these tests to the non-proliferation regime and to the stability of the region.
We shall also seek to co-ordinate our response with our major international partners. Tomorrow's G8 summit in Birmingham will consider how our countries can work together to bring home to the Government of India the dismay of the international community at the resumption of nuclear tests. In a week's time, at the next meeting of the General Affairs Council, we shall seek a common approach by Europe, making clear our opposition to this new challenge to the non-proliferation regime.
The urgent task now is to do all that we can to prevent the tests from provoking other tests in the region. Our high commissioner in Islamabad has led representations by the European Union troika, conveying to the Government of Pakistan our strong view that Pakistan's interests would not be served by a regional arms race. We are urging Pakistan's leaders to show restraint at what we acknowledge is a difficult time for them.
We regret and condemn these nuclear tests. Britain is a leading advocate of the comprehensive test ban treaty and of the non-proliferation treaty. We firmly believe that
518
their provisions provide Britain and all members of the international community with the strongest basis for confidence in their international security. Nobody's long-term interests are secured by encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons. I am sure that the whole House will want to support the Government in sending a united message on behalf of Britain that we oppose and condemn the tests.
Mr. Michael Howard: Conservative Members share the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about the nuclear tests that India has carried out and at the prospect that that dismal example may be followed by Pakistan. Nuclear proliferation is one of the greatest dangers faced by humanity as we move towards the millennium.
What position will the Government take, both in the European Union and at the G8 summit this weekend? We know that France and Russia are opposed to sanctions against India, but that the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are either imposing, or considering the imposition of, sanctions. On which side of that divide do the British Government stand?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us more about the prospects of India's now signing the comprehensive test ban treaty? What, if anything, can the British Government do to bring that about?
Mr. Cook: I shall respond first to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point. The Prime Minister of India has written to say that India may be interested in adhering to some parts of the comprehensive test ban treaty and to the fissile material cut-off treaty, of which Britain is a leading advocate. We welcome the suggestion that India is willing to be drawn into an international dialogue on arms control for nuclear weapons, and we shall seek to build on it. Our ambition must be for India not to adhere to parts of the comprehensive test ban treaty, but to sign, ratify and abide by the whole of what is intended as a comprehensive treaty.
I do not think that it helps our case to suggest, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman explicitly did, that there is a divide in the international community.
Mr. Howard: But there is.
Mr. Cook: There is no divide—there is a range of views on what measures it would be appropriate to use. I believe that the appropriate job for the presidency of the G8 this weekend will be to find the point of maximum unity. Certainly, measures will have to be taken to bring home to the Government of India the strength of feeling in the international community, but it is important that we act with unity and around the maximum point of that unity.
India has aspirations in the international community, particularly at the United Nations. It must now reflect soberly on whether its conduct over the nuclear tests has advanced or hindered those ambitions.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what we are witnessing is not simply a matter of non-proliferation, extremely serious though that is, but the most dangerous nuclear missile race

519
in the world? Both India and Pakistan have not only the missiles to hit each other—and to poison each other and themselves—but the capability to put warheads on the missiles. Is he aware that the director of the CIA has told the United States Government that the confrontation between India and Pakistan is the most dangerous nuclear flashpoint in the world?
We cannot simply stand by—I know that my right hon. Friend does not intend to do that—and say that dealing with the issue on the basis of non-proliferation is enough. I hope that the Government will support sanctions when the G8 meets, but we must also take into account the fact that the reason for the confrontation is the canker of the unsolved problem of Kashmir. As long as the Kashmir problem remains unsolved, the confrontation will continue.
Will my right hon. Friend, who has great courage in these matters, bear it in mind that it is now the responsibility of the international community to intervene actively to try to bring about a solution to the Kashmir problem? Otherwise, a nuclear confrontation might well take place in the Himalayas.
Mr. Cook: I fully echo my right hon. Friend's concern that there are now three nuclear or near-nuclear weapons states in the region, among which great tension exists, and there have been two wars in recent decades. Those are matters of concern not only to those countries but to the international community as a whole. I also agree entirely that a just solution to the issue of Kashmir would do far more for stability and security in the region than any number of nuclear tests.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's expressions of regret and condemnation? Does he agree that if the nuclear tests have caused anger among India's enemies, they have most certainly caused profound disappointment among its friends, of whom there are many in the House? Does he also agree that our condemnation would be rather more soundly based if the United Kingdom had done more to fulfil its obligations under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which requires us to seek general nuclear disarmament?
To show willingness to fulfil those obligations, will the Foreign Secretary confirm Labour's manifesto commitment to deploy no more warheads on the Trident system than there were on the Polaris system that it has replaced?
Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman invites me to make a statement that properly belongs to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I can assure him that, as a general principle, we stand by all our manifesto commitments. Britain has been a leading supporter of the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the Government have urged it on all other countries and sought to encourage India to adhere to it.
We have also led the way in tabling proposals for a fissile material cut-off treaty, to try to cap further nuclear weapons programmes, and, in a range of forums, we have advanced ideas for international arms control, to try to create confidence among states that do not have nuclear
520
weapons that they do not need to achieve nuclear weapon status to match existing nuclear powers. I regret that India's action may encourage others to contemplate following its example.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Clearly these are issues of concern. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, no matter what is said publicly, a constructive, positive and strong dialogue will continue with the Indian Government, who have a long-standing special relationship with this country? How can that happen, when he has recalled Sir David Gore-Booth? Will Sir David return to continue that dialogue? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, no matter what happens at the G8 summit, we will not cut humanitarian aid to India?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that, after consultation, it would indeed be our intention that our high commissioner should return to Delhi. I do not disagree at all with the central point that it is important to maintain dialogue and contact with the Indian Government, in order that they may be fully aware of the dismay of their friends and allies in the international community at this development.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we do not contemplate withdrawing aid from India, which is the recipient of our largest aid programme anywhere in the world. We do not think that it would be right effectively to register our protest about a decision taken at the highest levels of Indian society by taking steps that would hit the poorest in Indian society.
Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, given not only this testing of nuclear weapons, but the fact that missiles are being tested and being supplied by China to one of the countries concerned and that there is every prospect and danger of a further test in the region, this could hardly be a more dangerous time?
The countries involved have a grievance which, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made clear, might make people on either side mad enough that they could conceivably justify the ultimate deterrent. In those circumstances and recognising that the test has blown a serious hole in the non-proliferation treaty, in particular the apparent credibility of the United States in being able to monitor any attempts to evade it, it is a matter of the greatest urgency in discussions with the United States and China that we should avoid the serious situation in which others will have observed and learnt from the experience of India. They must quickly be discouraged from following suit.
Mr. Cook: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will co-ordinate closely with the United States on how we both react and will ensure that our messages reinforce each other to the countries of the region and to India in particular. He fairly outlined the intense security environment in which this event has taken place. I do not know that it could correctly be ascribed to the failure of the United States' intelligence or anyone else's—it had been well known for some time that India had a near-nuclear weapon capacity. What is distressing about the tests is the plain and evident decision of the Indian Government to display that capacity and to assert a

521
nuclear weapon's state role. I very much hope that it will be possible for us to pull back before other countries in the region feel obliged to respond.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, overwhelmingly, opinion throughout the world will share the concern, anxiety and alarm that have been brought about by the tests? He will be aware that there is a warm welcome for what he said about sanctions—that they should not be used against a people when the Government are responsible, which has some application to Iraq. Is he also aware that the statement he made against India possessing and testing nuclear weapons applies with equal force to this country? Indeed, it is difficult for a moral stand to be taken on that matter by the Government when, in the manifesto on which we were elected, we were utterly committed to the retention and possible use of nuclear weapons. There has to be some logic in this matter. India could certainly claim to have pursued that policy in line with the policies pursued by previous Governments in this country.
Mr. Cook: I have to say to my right hon. Friend that although the Government of India put forward a number of justifications for the nuclear tests, they have not put forward our possession of such weapons, although they have referred to other countries in the region. Also, there is no double standard on the part of Britain. We have not conducted nuclear tests for some time, and we are a signatory to the comprehensive test ban treaty, which we uphold. We believe that India's security would be better served by adhering to that treaty than by continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Would not the people of India be justified in thinking that there is just a whiff of hypocrisy in our reaction, as the fact that India has possessed nuclear weapons has been known for more than a quarter of a century? Is not India's position analogous to that of France? Having tested its weapons on Mururoa and made the next generation of nuclear weapons secure, France then signed the comprehensive test ban treaty. Would not the best approach now be for Sir David Gore-Booth to remain in New Delhi and encourage the Indians to sign that treaty instead of maintaining their current position?
Mr. Cook: I have to say to the hon. Member that if I had come to the Dispatch Box today and welcomed Indian nuclear tests, I would have been roundly condemned from both sides of the Chamber, and rightly so. Nor is our condemnation simply that of a nuclear weapons state, as many countries that have no nuclear weapons and have never had any ambition to acquire them have also joined us in firm statements of concern, dismay and anxiety. Yes, it is our ambition that India should sign the comprehensive test ban treaty and we will continue to build on the modest opening that India has made for dialogue in that area.
We have recalled our high commissioner precisely so that we can together work out the best way of putting pressure on the Government of India to recognise the concern of the international community.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nuclear tests are damaging
522
to nuclear proliferation and regional tension, and that the resulting arms race will make poverty in the sub-continent much harder to deal with and will increase it? Does he agree that we should not give aid to Governments who spend a great deal of money enhancing their military forces and developing weapons of mass destruction?
Why are the Americans doing more than we are in acting against the Indian Government over the tests? Should we not stop direct Government-to-Government aid, while putting it through non-governmental organisations to help the poor directly? Will we stop export credit guarantees? Surely we should not subsidise, even indirectly, India's nuclear weapons programme.
Mr. Cook: I welcome my hon. Friend's robust support for our criticism of the nuclear tests. It is not fair for us to respond to them by withdrawing aid, which would affect the most vulnerable people in India. The aid that we provide is not handed over to the Government of India as some sort of funding arrangement, but is directly administered, overwhelmingly by us and often in collaboration with NGOs, to make sure that it gets through to the poorest people in the poorest regions of India, primarily in rural areas. I doubt whether it would be particularly effective pressure on Delhi were we to turn off that tap, but it would have an immediate and direct effect on communities living barely at the level of subsistence. I do not think that it is the appropriate response.
I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend said about the priorities of the Indian Government. One of the tragedies of the Indian sub-continent is that there are countries throughout the region whose defence budgets exceed their education budgets. That is unsatisfactory in areas of such poverty. I hope that it will be possible to achieve a reduction in tension which would result in a reduction of defence spending.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: At this very tense time, should we not give a moral lead to the rest of the world by scrapping the Trident missile system and spending the money saved on health, education and increased aid to the rest of the world?
Mr. Cook: I have already told the House that this Government were elected on their manifesto and will abide by it. Our commitment on nuclear weapons was to pursue the goal of a nuclear-free world. An appropriate time as we approach that goal will be the time to consider the future of Trident, but our manifesto committed us to retaining Trident as long as there is a an external nuclear threat to Britain.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): The Government of India are still a relatively new Government and a fragile coalition. Does my right hon. Friend believe that they now understand that they have probably made the most appalling mistake that they could have made? Their decision does not help to solve the problems of poverty, their desire to play a greater part in world affairs or to resolve the problem of Kashmir, which has existed for 50 years. They need to talk with Pakistan to solve that problem.

523
Is it not also crucial that Pakistan, which has a stable Government with a large majority, recognises that, however much it feels that its security may be threatened, the worst possible thing to do would be to respond with nuclear tests?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend finished with an important message for the Government and people of Pakistan. Its security and future relations with other countries in the sub-continent would be best served by retaining allies, partnership and respect throughout the international community. I hope that the Government of Pakistan will approach their present critical position by recognising that they have an opportunity to demonstrate to the international community their adherence to its standards and norms, rather than locking themselves into a competitive arms race.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I support the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in saying that a resolution of the outstanding issues between India, Pakistan and China should be an urgent objective of United Kingdom, European Union and United Nations policy? Has the Foreign Secretary any proposals in that respect? Will he take every opportunity to make it plain to the Government of India that, as long as she has not signed up to the treaty, her chances of obtaining a permanent seat on the Security Council are pretty remote?
Will the Foreign Secretary also take advantage of the G8 meeting to make it plain to the French that the European Union troika representations would have been even more effective if the French Government had not conducted tests within the past three years?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, although I seem to recall that, when those tests were carried out, it was the party then in opposition which condemned them, not the party in government. On his other points, of course a solution to tensions in the region is the way forward to achieving security in the region. I fear that the recent nuclear tests will make it more difficult, rather than easier, to achieve the meaningful dialogue that is necessary to resolve the outstanding problems.
On the question of the United Nations, to which I alluded in my response to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), India has ambitions in the international community. Those are reasonable ambitions given India's size, its role in the world and its potential significance on the world stage; but they are ambitions which will be realised only if India now recognises the depth of concern and dismay felt by friends in the international community who would otherwise wish many of those ambitions to prosper.
Ms Jenny Jones: We are all agreed that the geographical siting of the nuclear tests will not improve the relations with Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there is a growing view that it is also likely to increase the internal tension between the Indian Government and the Punjab? That issue, which for a while
524
looked as though it was going quiet and beginning to be resolved, is now likely to flare up. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind when he talks to our high commissioner, because there are many Indians of Punjabi origin in this country who are extremely concerned about the implications of these events?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to respond to my hon. Friend by saying that I fully understand the point to which she refers. Indeed, the recent visit to Amritsar brought home to me not only how large was the Sikh population in India, but the strong connections between it and our domestic population in Britain, which is funding the restoration of the golden temple.
My hon. Friend referred to the most distressing feature of the nuclear tests: there are serious problems of bilateral relations between India and some of its neighbours and serious problems of resolving ethnic tensions within India. It is impossible for even the most friendly outsider to see how the nuclear tests will assist in the resolution of either set of problems.
Mr. David Davis: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that it was the policy not only of this Government, but of the previous Government, specifically to avoid what has happened in the past few days, for reasons cogently stated by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—reasons of technological escalation in an area of hair-trigger tension. Does he accept that it is vital that Britain and Europe as a whole go to the maximum extent—including sanctions, but not including withdrawal of aid, which I accept would be an amoral approach—not only to demonstrate to India our disapproval, but to dissuade Pakistan from following suit and to deter other countries on the nuclear threshold from following the Indian example?
Mr. Cook: I fully share the right hon. Gentleman's concern and I am happy to say that we understand that my statement today contains sentiments that would also have been expressed by the previous Administration. It is important that India should recognise the unity of concern over this issue. We shall now be pursuing that unity of view throughout international forums where we can, not only at the G8, but in the ASEAN regional forum, which is to meet soon, in the European Union and, almost certainly, within the Security Council at the United Nations. I hope that those messages, which will be backed up by agreed common positions in many of these forums, will bring home to the Government of India the fact that they have much more to gain from exercising restraint than they can possibly hope to gain from demonstrating nuclear capacity.
Mr. Marsha Singh: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that fragile Government have taken this irresponsible action partly for reasons of national electoral popularity? If that is so, why should the British taxpayer subsidise that national electoral popularity? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, unless the international community takes the firmest possible action, it will be a

525
green light for other countries to test nuclear weapons? If he does agree, should we not lead on sanctions rather than trail behind others?
Mr. Cook: I am not aware of any subsidy that we provide to the Government of India. I have already made clear our position on our aid programme. If that programme is a subsidy to anyone, it is a subsidy to the poorest communities in India.
My hon. Friend raises a very important point of which we should not lose sight. It may be unfortunate, but the reality is that the Indian nuclear tests have been widely and enthusiastically welcomed by large sections of the Indian population. That is why I think that it is very important that, in our conduct of this issue and in order to get the message across, we must demonstrate not just to the Government of India but to their people that the course on which the Government have embarked in this case is damaging to India's national interests and that the interests of the Government of India and their people will be far better achieved by adhering to the comprehensive test ban treaty, by reducing tension and by seeking a reduction in confrontation with neighbouring countries rather than an escalation in the arms race.
Mr. Bowen Wells: May I welcome the measured and responsible response of the Foreign Secretary to these deplorable nuclear tests, and particularly his reassurance to the House that we shall continue with our aid programme in order to assist the poorest people in India? Will he lose absolutely no opportunity of impressing on the Indian Government the sheer uselessness of the nuclear tests and of the arms race that they will inevitably trigger? They will set in motion a line of expenditure that the Indian population and the Indian Government can ill afford, and will thus deny many millions of Indian people the opportunity for good education, good health and inward and domestic investment in their economy.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman speaks with knowledge of, and commitment to, the development issues. He speaks eloquently about the Indian Government's mistaken priorities. He is absolutely right: it is very difficult to see what possible utility is served by these nuclear tests or any future nuclear weapon that India may acquire as a result of them. Tragically, we all understand only too well the immediate and urgent utility that would be served by improving India's education and hospital systems.
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): May I take forward the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) regarding constituents who originate from the Punjab and who have many relatives remaining there? They have expressed concern in recent months about the build-up in that area of not only nuclear weapons but military weapons in general. It is proposed that a sub-continental conference be established to bring together the relevant states in order to discuss non-proliferation and the demilitarisation of the Punjab so that we can secure long-term peace in that area, which has been blighted for so long.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to a geographic and historic truth regarding the sub-continent: the historical area of the Punjab crosses both states and
526
both sides have a clear interest in reducing tension between the two states. One unfortunate consequence of the recent nuclear tests and other recent events is that, in the past few years, there had been a very good and welcome development towards regional co-operation and regional forums in the sub-continent. It is very much in the interests of the sub-continent that that path is resumed. At present, India and Pakistan trade only 1 per cent. of their gross domestic products with each other. In the modern world, where prosperity is based primarily on trade, external investment and the exchange of technology, that kind of barrier to trade makes no sense for the prosperity and development of those two countries.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is there anything in the Foreign Secretary's statement that will prevent India from maintaining the regional strategic advantage that the deplorable test programme has afforded to it? Will there not be a temptation for Pakistan, which we all hope it will resist, to follow suit, unless that regional strategic advantage is redressed? Will the Government, at the very least, deny the granting of any export licences for armaments to India, and follow the American example of a selective trade embargo until the Indian Government sign the comprehensive test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty?
Mr. Cook: If the international community decided on any such embargoes, we would, of course, adhere to them and uphold them. We have consistently taken the view that if there is to be an effective embargo in any circumstances, it should not be unilateral—it must be international.
I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's earlier point that the tests will have had a destabilising effect elsewhere in the region. It is not at all clear to me that they have conferred an advantage on India. India's nuclear capacity is still clearly inferior to that of China, and, although it has demonstrated a capability, India may not necessarily be that much further ahead in technology than Pakistan. India's interests are not served by seeking an illusory advantage through the nuclear weapons programme. Its interests would be much better served by seeking a reduction in tension and economic co-operation across the sub-continent.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the revelation of India's series of tests gives the lie to those who believed that, after the end of the cold war, we could lock the nuclear weapons argument away and throw away the key? The tests are a dangerous development for India, possibly Pakistan and who knows where else.
Is it not worth noting that in a week when there have been two private notice questions from the Tory Opposition relating to a west African country and scraps of paper that never appeared in red boxes, the Opposition have shown their priorities? They did not ask for a private notice question today on this matter.
Mr. Blunt: We did.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: We did.
Mr. Skinner: I know who did. It was left to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to do that. That is where the private

527
notice question came from. Does that not show that when the Sierra Leone tittle-tattle has ended, we will still be dealing with the problem of the nuclear tests?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his own point in his own robust way. In my statement, I appealed for a united position on the issue, and I am pleased that the House has managed to sustain a united position. That is an important message to send to the outside world. I understand that my hon. Friend and I will have an excellent opportunity next week to make party political points.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: How confident is the Foreign Secretary that there has been no assistance to India for the missile programme or for its separate nuclear weapons programme from countries in the European Union or, more likely, from individuals from the former Soviet Union, in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? If the right hon. Gentleman is not entirely confident that India has operated alone, will he raise the matter at the G8 meeting over the weekend?
Mr. Cook: All members of the EU are parties to agreements that oblige us not to provide technology or equipment that could assist with nuclear proliferation. As India is not a party to the non-proliferation treaty, it has been regarded with special care by those who are parties to the those undertakings. I cannot answer for clandestine groups or illicit sales from within the former Soviet Union. That is a matter of legitimate concern and one which the international community has sought to tackle. At the G8 we sought to increase the safeguards against illicit trafficking in nuclear equipment and nuclear weapons material. We must continue to be vigilant and ensure that the international community does not assist development that it finds damaging.
Mr. Harry Barnes: We all understand the dangers of Pakistan retaliating and engaging in its own tests, thus creating tit-for-tat between the two nations and escalating the test problem considerably. From our contacts with Pakistan, how serious is the likelihood of its engaging in tests? Are there views and values coming from within Pakistan that show that different counsels will prevail?
Mr. Cook: I wish that I could speak with confidence about what counsels will prevail in another Government. We have urged restraint on the Pakistan Government and, so far, they have done nothing to retaliate in a way that would be regarded as escalating the tension. We should recognise that the Government of Pakistan are under some pressure from public opinion there. We hope that they will show leadership and maturity on this issue and that they will listen to the international community. If they do so, they will win for themselves great support from within the international community, which will be of much greater value to Pakistan than any nuclear tests have been.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Given the dangers of nuclear escalation, which other hon. Members have pointed out, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Foreign Office was literally surprised by the Indian nuclear tests? If so, what will he do about it for the future?
Mr. Cook: Yes, both we and the United States were surprised at the speed with which these nuclear tests took
528
place. We are, indeed, concerned at that degree of surprise and we are considering it. The hon. Gentleman will understand full well if I do not outline what we intend to do.
Dr. Lynne Jones: May I add my voice to those who have already expressed the view that our influence on India and other states seeking to acquire weapons technology would be all the greater if we took more convincing steps not only to reduce but to get rid of our own nuclear weapons stockpile, which serves us no useful purpose either? Will my right hon. Friend initiate urgent talks with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence to see how we can improve our performance in this area?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a point which I know she holds strongly and which many people understand and support. One recognises that argument. I do not believe that if Britain did not possess a nuclear deterrent it would have had a material bearing on the decisions made in Delhi in the past few months. What is important is that we have credibility because we abide by our international commitments against nuclear tests and uphold the regime of non-proliferation. If we do so, we have every right to say to the Government of India, as a respected friend and partner, that they should do likewise.
Mr. Nigel Beard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although these events are universally to be regretted, they also give urgency to the steps to strengthen international confidence in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Will he consider steps, therefore, to restart the stalled processes of mutual nuclear disarmament between the western powers and Russia?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that this was an issue on which we called for progress when the G8 Foreign Ministers met last weekend. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that if we can get that process back on track and achieve success there, it will create a rather different climate in which non-nuclear weapon states may consider whether to proceed to proliferation. Tragically, at present they may be more immediately influenced by the nuclear tests that have just occurred. That is why we are right to convey a strong, united message of opposition, concern and dismay that a friend such as India should have taken this step.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I generally support the sentiments expressed about the nuclear tests in India, but mention has been made of Punjab and of Kashmir. My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones), for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) expressed views with which I do not agree. I was born and educated in Punjab, and I know the situation there.
The partition of India took place in 1947, and the problem in Kashmir is the legacy of British imperialism. I often go to Punjab. I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on a visit at the end of 1996; he went to Kashmir to study the problem for himself. Will my right hon. Friend say that this country has no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of another country? There has been terrorism, which is being supported across

529
the border. The Conservative party and the Labour party are committed to rooting out terrorism wherever it exists in the world, and we have been doing that in Northern Ireland. This country is committed to fight against terrorism.
Will my right hon. Friend say that this country will never interfere in the internal affairs of another independent, democratic, secular country?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend speaks with feeling and personal knowledge. I assure him that we have no intention of interfering in internal affairs. We have repeatedly stressed that issues such as Kashmir are primarily for the parties concerned to resolve among themselves. If we can in any way help them to find a solution, we are ready to do so, if called on to do so. In expressing the views that we have, we are not in any way interfering in what is solely an internal affair for India. The tragedy of the nuclear tests is that they will have profound external effects, which is why they are a legitimate matter of concern for the international community.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I stay on the issue of Kashmir? My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was absolutely right that Kashmir could be the flashpoint for a nuclear war in the region. Given that the issue of Kashmir has been festering unresolved for half a century and that United Nations resolutions passed in the 1940s have never been acted on, would it help if the UN were to revisit the issue and consider a new resolution with fresh legitimacy that could bring the warring parties—Pakistan and India—to the negotiating table?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the tension within Kashmir and the extent to which that could provide a particularly dangerous environment for India to press ahead with a nuclear weapons programme.
I am not necessarily sure that the UN can usefully play a role at present; if we were to return to it for a fresh resolution, there would be grave difficulty in crafting a resolution that would be acceptable. I am not necessarily
530
sure that the end product would be more acceptable to my hon. Friend than the resolutions that are on the table of the Security Council. It is inevitable that, as a result of the nuclear tests, the UN Security Council will have to address the issue of the tests and of the sub-continent and will almost certainly adopt a presidential statement on it.
I am not sure that it is necessarily in India's interest that it should involve the UN once again in the affairs of the sub-continent. India would much better serve its objectives if it were to ensure that, by adhering to international norms and to the comprehensive test ban treaty, it demonstrated that it was interested in finding a solution rather than escalating tension.
Mr. Howard: You will know, Madam Speaker, how false was the premise on which the intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was based.
On a point of substance, given that there has been a good deal of consensus in the House about the undesirability of taking action to withdraw aid from India, will the Foreign Secretary share with us the Government's view on the desirability or otherwise of imposing other sanctions? He has told us about the importance of establishing consensus in the European Union, the G8 and the United Nations. We understand that, but presumably the Government will not approach those talks with no view of their own. Will he share with the House what their view is on this vital question?
Mr. Cook: Most of the countries to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred have, as an economic measure, suspended their aid programmes. We do not intend to take that course. In fairness to those countries, I should point out that their aid programmes are much more modest than ours, so they are better able than we are to use that as political pressure. A suspension of our aid programme would have a substantial impact.
We hold the presidency of the G8 and are consulting at official level with the other countries of the group to find a point of consensus. I do not resile from the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When the G8 meets, we shall have to take action to back up the strong condemnation.

Business of the House
4.20 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, I wish to make a statement on the business for next week.
MONDAY 18 MAY—Opposition Day (11th allotted day).
Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on Sierra Leone, followed by a debate on the Territorial Army. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 19 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Scotland Bill.
WEDNESDAY 20 MAY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (first day).
THURSDAY 21 MAY—Debate on the common agricultural policy on a Government motion. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Whitsun recess will be as follows.
MONDAY 1 JUNE—Remaining stages of the National Lottery Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 2 JUNE—Opposition Day (12th allotted day).
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 3 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (second day).
THURSDAY 4 JUNE—Until about 7 pm, Second Reading of the Registration of Political Parties Bill.
Debate and motions on modernisation of the House of Commons.
FRIDAY 5 JUNE—Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House on a subject to be announced.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 20 May, there will be a debate on fisheries monitoring under the common fisheries policy in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 20 May:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 6123/98, Fisheries Monitoring under the Common Fisheries Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-xxii (1997–98).
Thursday 21 May:
Floor of the House—Relevant European Community document: 7073/98, Agenda 2000: Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-xxvi (1997–98). The Second Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1997/98,
532
"CAP Reform: Agenda 2000" (House of Commons Paper No. 311) and the Government response thereto (House of Commons Paper No. 719).]
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business for next week and the provisional business for the week after. May I thank her on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and of the Opposition as a whole for her efforts to accommodate us on the timing of the Modernisation Committee debate? She will appreciate that we shall want to study the long-promised and long-delayed Registration of Political Parties Bill.
May I revert to a subject that has often been raised in recent weeks? With the Foreign Secretary sitting by her side, will the right hon. Lady ensure that we have a full debate on foreign affairs before the end of our presidency of the European Union? She referred to that matter last week, and we have pressed for such a debate over many weeks. It is crucial that it is held before our presidency comes to an end.
We have chosen Sierra Leone as the subject for the first of the debates on Monday. In the light of Sir John Kerr's evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning, which made it plain that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), was fully briefed before the famous Adjournment debate on 12 March, may we hope that the Foreign Secretary—who will no doubt hear what she says—will apologise for the confusion that his statements have caused? When the Foreign Secretary speaks in the debate on Monday, will he give a detailed and precise answer to all the questions that have recently been put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary?
We all hope that the referendum a week today in Northern Ireland will produce an affirmative result. The right hon. Lady knows that the Government have the official Opposition's complete support in that regard. On the assumption that the referendum goes the right way, will she give us some idea when the legislation consequent on that referendum will be presented?
Will the right hon. Lady also arrange for two statements of clarification to be made in the week after the Whitsun recess? May we have a statement on the Government's accommodation or agreement—call it what you will—with the trade unions on recognition? May we also know when we will be told precisely the level of the minimum wage? After yet another Question Time with the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon, we are none the wiser. When will we be informed?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is £5.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is £5. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will confirm that, as the hon. Gentleman seems to know, and obviously has a hotline to all sorts of people.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the state of the legislative timetable is such that the Government are likely to keep the House sitting into August?
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that we have been able to accommodate the request to change the day of the debate on modernisation. It will be convenient if the shadow

533
Leader of the House can be present, not only because of her position, but because she is a member of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.
I made it clear last week that we intend to have a debate on European matters before the end of our presidency, and before the summit. I echo that commitment today.
As far as Monday's debate is concerned, I hope that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is fully up to date with what has been said following the hearing held this morning by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I hope that he has seen the letter from Sir John Kerr to the Chairman of the Committee, which clarifies further Sir John's statements to the Committee today. When hon. Members have had time to study that letter, they may feel that the situation is clearer. The letter confirms that the briefing prepared for my hon. Friend the Minister of State for use in the debate on 12 March did not mention arms shipments, and did not say that one such report had already been passed to Customs and Excise. I think that Opposition Members should study that clarification with care before they take part in Monday's debate.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Foreign Secretary will answer all the questions that have been asked of him: of course he will. I hope that, during the debate, Opposition Members will acknowledge the difference between allegations and facts; otherwise, I am not sure how useful the debate will be.
On Northern Ireland, we welcome the complete support that the hon. Gentleman offered on behalf of the Opposition. He asked me to be specific about the time scale for consequential legislation, but I do not think that I can be. This side of the referendum, it would not be helpful to make immediate judgments about what should happen on the other side.
The hon. Gentleman requested statements on trade union recognition and the minimum wage. We shall decide about statements in the normal way, and no date has yet been established for publication of the White Paper to which he referred. Any statements will be announced to Conservative Members in the usual way. We look forward to further confirmation that the Opposition have changed their views on the minimum wage and are coming round to accepting it.
On the legislative programme, recesses always depend on the progress of business.
Ms Margaret Moran: At 6 o'clock on Friday morning, I took part in a drugs bust with Luton police as part of Operation Eagle, the national endeavour to tackle drug peddling and drug-related crime. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in parts of Luton and, I am sure, throughout the country, drug peddling and packaging has become a cottage industry involving women and children? Will she join me in commending Luton police for their activities as part of Operation Eagle and allow time in the House for a full debate on the implications of the drug problem in Luton and throughout the country?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend speaks from personal experience, having seen the drug problem in her constituency. Many hon. Members share her concern about the impact of drug taking on local communities—on the individuals who take drugs and on victims of
534
crime, which is often a consequence of people needing money to fund drug habits. We had a brief debate on drugs on Wednesday morning and we recently published the Government's strategy and made a statement in the House. I said at the time that it might be possible to have a more general debate on drugs once the strategy was under way and I still bear that possibility in mind.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I congratulate the Leader of the House on keeping a straight face in responding to the request from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman for debates on an ethical foreign policy? I look forward to Monday, and pigs might fly.
On Sierra Leone, will the right hon. Lady address two particular points and pass them on—I see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) is beside her—so that they can be addressed on Monday? First, is there not an urgent need to clarify the present procedures on arms sales? She may be aware that, in addition to the evidence to which she has referred, during this morning's Select Committee the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office betrayed complete ignorance of the very existence of the interdepartmental restricted enforcement unit, which was responsible for initiating the Customs and Excise investigation in this case. If the Permanent Under-Secretary was not aware even that it existed, that suggests that there is a need for some clarification of the roles in the Foreign Office, quite apart from the other issues that have already been referred to.
Secondly, please may we have a statement on Monday on the Government's intentions in relation to improving the procedures? The Minister of State will recall that, in the debate on 2 April, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made some specific requests for information on improvements, but we have yet to receive an answer from the Minister of State, despite, the Leader of the House will recall, my reminding her of it last week. I hope that the Government will recognise that, to avoid a repetition of these events, we must have effective parliamentary scrutiny that operates on the same basis as the Intelligence and Security Committee and a register of arms sales.
In considering those issues, will the Leader of the House and, indeed, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office look at the answers that have been given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about arms sales to Indonesia? It is extraordinary that, this morning, the Foreign Secretary saw fit to make a statement—apparently without being asked—on the "Today" programme, yet has not come to the House to give an explanation. Is it not true that the Government still follow too slavishly the procedures of their predecessors in these matters?
Mrs. Taylor: On the last point, we are certainly not following slavishly the procedures of our predecessors. In fact, new guidelines were established last July and are being followed.
On the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises on Sierra Leone, he is anticipating the debate next Monday, perhaps in case he is not called. I am sure that all the issues that are particularly relevant to Sierra Leone will be answered during that debate.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House consider the fact that on the streets it is being

535
said that the proposed White Paper on industrial relations and trade union reform will be published next Friday, when the House will not be sitting? I urge my right hon. Friend to tell the appropriate Minister that that would be bad form because not only should such a major White Paper be published while the House is sitting, but there is the prospect, with Madam Speaker's permission, of having a statement, which is important for such major legislation. Indeed, that would give us the opportunity to proclaim the merits and virtues of trade unionism, as well as to probe in detail whether the threshold will be set by the Bill or by statutory instrument, which would cause concern among some of my hon. Friends.
Mrs. Taylor: I caution my hon. Friend against believing everything that is said on the street. As I said a few minutes ago, statements will be made in the usual way when it is convenient for the House and right in the Government's view. We will not give further notice of when statements will be made, and my hon. Friend will have to wait patiently for a little longer.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we have a debate in the near future about communication techniques in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, strictly on the basis of open government? The Leader of the House surely agrees that the country as a whole, not least Members of the House, must now be told who is told what, when and on what basis in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, simply so that we have a template against which to judge the twists, turns, changes of story and different versions that have emanated from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office recently, and so that they will not be repeated.
Mrs. Taylor: There is not even a template of the allegations—they seem to change every other minute.
Mr. Jim Cousins: May I remind my right hon. Friend that I had cause a few weeks ago to ask her whether she proposed to call a Standing Committee of the English regions, which has not met for 20 years? She told me that there was no demand for such a Committee, and I believe that some of my hon. Friends from the north and north-east have subsequently spoken to her about it. Has she had the opportunity to reconsider the matter? Does she propose to call the Committee, in the light of my hon. Friends' concern about resources and representation? May I assure her that we shall continue to press this matter, whatever the outcome on Saturday?
Mrs. Taylor: I enjoyed the reference to Saturday, when I shall watch developments with great interest. I have not been inundated with requests to re-establish a Standing Committee of the English regions. It is true that one of my hon. Friends has mentioned that issue. I am not inviting lobbying, but although I do not sense a great desire for such a Committee, I have not closed my mind to the suggestion.
Mr. Edward Garnier: On the basis of progress being made in Committee, when does the Leader of the House expect the Report stage of the Data
536
Protection Bill to take place? Secondly, how many more days will she allow for the Committee stage on the Floor of the House of the Human Rights Bill? She has kindly announced so far that there will be two days. I remind her that, some weeks ago, she promised to write to me about the commencement date of the Human Rights Bill—will she please do so?
Mrs. Taylor: I shall certainly follow up the hon. and learned Gentleman's last point. On the Data Protection Bill, I find it difficult to give two weeks' advance warning of business, so I am afraid that I cannot anticipate when we might have the remaining stages of that Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there is a great deal of legislation to be slotted in and sometimes changes are made late in the day. Discussions are continuing through the usual channels about how we should deal with the Human Rights Bill and how much time it will require.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend will recall that, at the end of last year, the Government undertook to introduce this spring a consultation document on leasehold reform. In the light of a letter that I recently received from our hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, which suggested that the consultation document may not be with us until after 25 June, and although we all appreciate that global warming has played havoc with the seasons, when does my right hon. Friend expect spring to finish this year?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend asks his question in a novel way, but I am afraid that I can give him only a straightforward answer. The Department has recently produced a series of consultative documents, and of necessity some have had to take priority. I cannot give him a specific date. If he applied for an Adjournment debate to air his views on what should be in the consultation document and what the outcome should be, he could take his chance with other hon. Members.
Dr. Liam Fox: May I, first, hope that the Leader of the House ensures that several copies of Sir John Kerr's letter are made, as letters have a habit of getting lost in the Foreign Office these days?
May we have a debate on the structure and function of government? Yesterday, during Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister said:
"the priority for the Government is my priority and my prerogative."—[Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 368.]
Such a debate might give us an idea of the residual role of the Cabinet.
Mrs. Taylor: I do not see any problem with that definition. The Prime Minister has always been first among equals.
Mr. Graham Brady: Is the Leader of the House aware of the unfortunate practice among some hon. Members of advertising their party affiliation on House of Commons headed notepaper alongside their name and, sometimes, their constituency? Does she agree that that is contrary to the spirit of the representative nature of our democracy, in which we all represent all our constituents regardless of party? Will she

537
reflect on whether the Modernisation Committee should guide Members that such a practice is not welcome and might be discouraged in future?
Mrs. Taylor: That is not exactly a matter for me. The misuse of headed notepaper is a matter for the House authorities. I have seen the notepaper of hon. Members of all political parties headed in such a way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is afraid of putting the word "Conservative" on his notepaper.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the request of my hon. Friend the shadow deputy Leader of the House, will the right hon. Lady reconsider and find time as a matter of urgency for a statement on the Government's position on trade union recognition? That position is of very wide interest—even if not to the solitary representative of the Liberal Democrats in the House this afternoon, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment told reporters last June that the Government's proposals would be announced by the President of the Board of Trade in autumn 1997? Seven months later, we have not had that statement. Is that not because there is a war in the Government between the advocates of modernisation and the trade union lackeys and recipients of trade union sponsorship?
Mrs. Taylor: I should expect nothing less from the hon. Gentleman. I made the position clear earlier. There will be a White Paper, and I am not going to say anything about timing.
Mr. David Prior: On 6 and 12 May, the Foreign Secretary said in the House that, when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), made his statement in the House on 12 March, he was unaware of any Customs and Excise investigation into arms sales to Sierra Leone. In view of Sir John Kerr's comments in the Select Committee today and the further confusion caused by the subsequent letter, which none of us has yet seen, is not it important that the House has the chance to hear a clear statement from the Foreign Secretary as soon as possible?
Mrs. Taylor: There is no conflict at all. The letter to which I referred from Sir John Kerr, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, says very clearly that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was not told about the Customs and Excise inquiry. I do not think that we can be clearer than that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the White Paper being held up because the Government have been waiting for the result of the referendum on the mayor of London? If that is correct, and since only 34 per cent. of people turned out in that poll and probably only about 24 per cent. voted yes, does that mean that the figure of 24 per cent. will be inserted in that new document?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend should know better than to tempt me to say anything about the contents of any White Paper. All I can say is that it will be a very positive document that I think will be very widely welcomed.

Points of Order
4.44 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During business questions, I raised what I regard a serious point, which hon. Members should take seriously. In the light of the Leader of the House's unhelpful response—which was flippant and party political, unlike the nature of my question—and her suggestion that the matter was for the House authorities, I would welcome any guidance from you on how it might be taken forward. It is important that all constituents receiving communications from Members of Parliament know that their Member represents their views and not merely party views.
Madam Speaker: I see very little notepaper from Members of Parliament; they usually telephone my office and ask to see me immediately, if not sooner. I have not had the privilege of seeing what is on their notepaper, but I shall make a point of looking. If anything, this is a matter for the Administration Committee, and I shall ask it to consider the point.
Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not a convention in this place that when a Minister has misled the House—accidentally or deliberately—he is obliged at the very earliest opportunity to make a personal statement? It would be perfectly proper and natural for the House to draw the inference from the evidence given by the Permanent Under-Secretary in the Select Committee this morning that, in fact, either the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or his Minister of State has misled the House—inadvertently or deliberately. The only thing that appears to have been offered—it is most unsatisfactory—is the text of an alleged letter, which has been read out to the House but is not available for us to look at. Surely you, Madam Speaker, would think it preferable that one or other of those Ministers should, if he is to rely on that letter, make a personal statement to clear up the position.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman perhaps was not in the House a few days ago when a point of order was put to me along those lines and when I made it quite clear that, if a Minister, however inadvertently, has misled a Committee, it is a matter for that Committee and that Minister. If any corrections were to be made, they would have to be made in that Committee.
Mr. Clark: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I can take it no further. This is the second time that I have dealt with a point of order on the matter. The ruling is very clear: it is a matter between the Minister and the Committee.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you clarify the status of a document—in this case a letter—from which the Leader of the House has freely quoted but none of the rest of the House has seen? This is a matter of some contention, as you have just indicated. Will you clarify such a

539
document's status—should it exist—and say when the House can expect to have sight of it and therefore be able to deal further with the matter?
Madam Speaker: The Committee can, and I hope will, put the letter in the Library as soon as possible so that it is in the public domain. I have not seen it, but I think that that is the best procedure at this time.
Mr. Clark: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I confirm what I said before on the record: my statement in the House on 12 March was an exact statement of my knowledge at the time. If, given the events of time, I need to correct that, I shall of course seek to do so before the House. At that time, I was not briefed, told, advised or in any way informed either orally or in writing of alleged arms shipments or of the Customs and Excise inquiry. I would add for the sake of completeness, and in accordance with your advice to the House, Madam Speaker, that I wrote, as I undertook to do, to the Chairman of the Select Committee correcting the record of my appearance before the Committee. I think that in so doing I discharged my obligations not only to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House but to the people of this country.
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—it arises directly out of the point of order raised by the Minister. Two points arise. First, the confusion that exists about the briefing that the Minister had available to him before his appearance in the House on 12 March can easily be resolved; that briefing can be made available without delay and in full to the House, and I ask for that to be done.
Secondly, the Minister of State has just said that what he told the House on 12 March was—I think I quote his words precisely—"an exact" description of his state of
540
"knowledge at the time". The report that I have seen of Sir John Kerr's letter—I have not seen the letter itself—records that the briefing contained a reference to a possible deal between Sandline and President Kabbah.
The Hansard report of the Minister's speech to the House on that occasion does not, so far as I have been able to check, contain any reference to such a possible deal. It would therefore appear that what the Minister has just told the House on a point of order is itself inaccurate. May we therefore please have a full statement that will put those confusions and contradictory statements to rest without further delay?
Madam Speaker: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, those are, quite rightly, matters for argument and debate between the Government and the Opposition. They are matters of policy; they are not at this stage matters for the Chair. I hope that perhaps on Monday many of the matters that the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds outstanding will be cleared up. I am sure that at that stage questions will be put by the Opposition in the hope that things may be clarified better than, in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, they have been at this stage.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As some Members are now in the Chamber who were not here a few moments ago, I remind the House that the letter that we were talking about earlier was from the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Sir John Kerr, to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. That letter said clearly that my hon. Friend the Minister of State had not been told about the Customs and Excise investigation. May I suggest that although the letter is probably technically in the ownership of the Select Committee, it may assist the House if, with the permission of the Chairman of that Committee, a copy were placed in the Library?
Madam Speaker: That is the way to proceed. Perhaps the right hon. Lady would follow that through and see that a copy is available there.

Orders of the Day

  Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

  Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill
    Clause 1

      AUTHORISATION OF EXPENDITURE
      4.52 pm
      Mr. Michael Fallon: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 6, after 'expenditure', insert
      `up to a limit of £20 million'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
      '(5) Any expenditure incurred under this section shall be separately accounted in the Commissioners' Annual Report to Parliament.'.
      Mr. Fallon: Last Thursday, the House gave the Bill a Second Reading, but not without serious reservations. Those reservations were expressed from the Opposition Front Bench, from the Opposition Back Benches and from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Essentially, they concerned the lack of any connection between the Bill and the subsequent major legislation that it purports to introduce, the lack of accountability, the Bill's failure to specify expenditure, and the broad nature of the power being given to the Secretary of State for Social Security and the commissioners of the Inland Revenue.
      The amendments are the first in a series that attempts to tidy up the Bill. Amendment No. 4 would introduce into the legislation a limit on the expenditure sought. The explanatory and financial memorandum makes it clear that the expenditure for which the Government seek authority should amount to about £15 million to £20 million. The Government are introducing the legislation because they have no authority to spend money for those purposes under existing votes.
      However, we find no reference to the money itself, or to any limit, in the Bill. We think it right that there should be a limit. Indeed, the amendment was inspired by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury herself when she challenged us about whether we thought more or less money would be needed—on Second Reading there was much talk about fancy computers and the like. She said:
      "We are confident that we have asked the House for the money that we need to develop this proposal".—[Official Report, 7 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 889.]
      However, the Bill asks for unlimited expenditure, so it is important to put an upper limit into it. I am prepared for the Financial Secretary to say that £20 million is a bit tight, that she ought to have some leeway and that she ought to be able to come back to the House in future—that she should be allowed initial expenditure up to one level, but with the ability to come back and change it. However, I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that there
      542
      should at least be some limit. The limit that we propose is that specified in the explanatory and financial memorandum—£20 million.
      Amendment No. 8 insists that the money spent under the Bill should be separately and properly accounted for. Essentially, the Bill asks for a new vote and a new line of public expenditure, and we would like to see that expenditure separately accounted for in the normal accounts presented to Parliament by the commissioners. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will say straight away that that is what will happen, and that the money will be so accounted for. However, given the unlimited nature both of the discretion sought under the Bill and of the expenditure possible under that heading, it would be preferable to have that fact written into the statute.
      Mr. Eric Forth: I echo and strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has said. To my regret, I come to the debate without having been able to participate in the earlier stages of proceedings on the Bill, and I am truly staggered by its nature—by its lack of any sort of framework or limitation. Surely what my hon. Friend suggests is not only reasonable, but would be expected by any taxpayer who was considering what Parliament is doing today.
      One has only to look at the original text of the Bill to see that it represents a blank cheque. It contains not one but several phrases along the lines of
      "the Secretary of State and the Commissioners"
      may
      "incur such expenditure as they think appropriate",
      and so on. The phraseology makes no attempt to circumscribe the areas of responsibility or to limit the expenditure.
      One would have thought that, whether this is a preparatory, a speculative or a paving measure, or whatever one might call it, as a matter of responsibility and accountability to the taxpayer, there would be indications at this stage of the kind of limit that we could expect. The Bill does the exact opposite, and goes to extraordinary lengths to allow unlimited expenditure on unspecified activities that, in the opinion of certain people—albeit important and responsible people—should be undertaken. In coming to Parliament and asking for such an approach, the Government are chancing their arm to an unacceptable extent.
      We are the custodians of the tax revenues of the people of this country. The Government come to the House of Commons from time to time to ask for moneys—sometimes very large sums—for specified purposes. However, this is a different matter altogether; we are in new territory. The Government are saying, "Trust us. We are not going to tell you what is going on here, but we would like the House of Commons to authorise us to spend any amount of money to pursue unspecified objectives." That strikes me as unacceptable. The amendments provide terms of reference against which the Government can be judged.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said that if the amount that he was suggesting in the amendment was unreasonable, he would consider a different amount—even a higher amount—providing the Minister was able to give an explanation of what the money would be used

      543
      for. We have nothing to go on; the Bill does not tell us. Surely the Minister must have some idea in her head as to what is intended. There must be a plan or specification within each of the Departments involved. Surely the Government cannot be coming here and asking for an unlimited amount of money to do something that they would like to do.
      5 pm
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): Did the right hon. Gentleman ask these questions when the Government of which he was a member put through paving legislation during their period in office?
      Mr. Forth: Regrettably, I was not in a position to do so because I was incarcerated in the Government. I would have found it difficult, within the terms of collective responsibility, to have queried—especially on the Floor of the House—what the Government were doing. I may have harboured my inner thoughts on the matter; that is different. From my lowly position in the foothills of the Government, I may from time to time have thought that my colleagues were chancing their arm. But our roles are now reversed; no wonder the Financial Secretary looks so happy and I look so downright miserable.
      We are dealing now with the Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill which the Government have proposed with completely unspecified demands contained within it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks made a reasonable offer. If the Financial Secretary could demonstrate that the £20 million limitation that my hon. Friend was suggesting was not appropriate, he would be prepared to look at it again. That is a generous offer, but I hope that my hon. Friend has made it on the condition that the Financial Secretary is prepared to give a more detailed account of the activities she has in mind which involve the expenditure proposed by the Bill.
      Amendment No. 8 seeks a reasonable and responsible requirement—separate accounting in the commissioners' annual report to Parliament. Two separate Government Departments are involved, and surely we should be told after the event—if we are not to be told before—what has happened in detail. This is a point of accountability. This is the classic role of the House of Commons—to undertake to look in detail at the Government's request to the taxpayer, and to express its view.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks for giving the lead in the scrutiny process so that we may hear much more detail from the Financial Secretary. I look forward to her explanation, and we will judge on that basis whether we should press this and other amendments as we seek accountability.
      Mr. Damian Green: It is important to set the amendments in context; they do not seek to stop the Government doing anything they wish to do. These are in no way wrecking amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has made it clear that we accept the principle of using tax credits rather than benefits if that is seen to be a better way in which to achieve the policy aim. However, there are important principles at stake, and the amendments would improve
      544
      the Bill and the process of moving towards the working families tax credit. We welcome the principle, but it is important for the Committee to address the question why the Bill would be improved if a specific limit were imposed on the amount of money that can be spent.
      Clearly, the amendments would be good for this House. I am a new Member of Parliament, still adjusting to life in this place. I may be forgiven for returning to first principles, and for asking why I am here, why all of us are here and what is the purpose of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made clear, one of the basic purposes of the House is to ensure that the taxpayers' money which the Government extract from all of us is not only spent well and responsibly, but is spent transparently. Ministers must not give themselves powers to spend indefinite amounts on purposes that may or may not be clear. The route to imposing the will of the Commons and to fulfilling that basic function of the House is surely to have as much detail as possible on new areas of expenditure that the Government may be planning.
      The amendments would also be good for the Treasury. The Financial Secretary knows better than most that if any spending Department came along with proposals for paving Bills that allowed Ministers to do more or less what they liked without any attempt to control public expenditure, the first people to jump down their throats—before the Opposition parties in Parliament—would be her officials and, one assumes, Treasury Ministers.
      It is in the interests of the Treasury that it can demonstrate to the rest of Whitehall that it is not saying, "Do as we say, not as we do." The Treasury should set an example to the rest of Whitehall, and should legislate responsibly to ensure that it allows for as much control and scrutiny of public expenditure as possible. That applies particularly to amendment No. 8, which would make the amount of public expenditure devoted to the matter transparent. The amendment is in the interests of the Treasury and is in line with the Government's alleged policy of increasingly open government. I hope that the Financial Secretary welcomes it.
      I hope that no Treasury Minister would ever even think—let alone say at the Dispatch Box—that we are dealing with only £20 million, and that that sum is not particularly serious. One is reminded of a former distinguished Chancellor, Lord Howe, who said that, when talking about public expenditure, people tended to say that there was a billion here and a billion there, but that when the figures were added up, one was soon talking about real money. I would hope that Treasury Ministers would be even more fine-grained than that, and would think that even £20 million—although it is only a drop in the ocean of public expenditure—was a serious amount of money. Therefore, not to have control over it would be a bad thing.
      The Bill is like the famous prospectus for the south sea bubble—a proposal was on offer to do things later about which no details could be given at the time. The Bill allows Revenue commissioners to spend sums of money that are not defined on projects that are ill defined. It is not good legislation, so I urge the Financial Secretary to accept the amendments.
      Dawn Primarolo: The comments of Conservative Members revolved round misunderstandings of parliamentary procedure—they showed what short

      545
      memories some hon. Members have. The right hon. Gentleman with the flashy tie—I cannot remember his constituency—
      Mr. Forth: Bromley and Chislehurst.
      Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) at least had the good grace to acknowledge that he did not pay sufficient attention to paving Bills introduced by the Conservative Government—he does not understand what such Bills are supposed to achieve. Another misunderstanding concerned whether there was control over expenditure.
      I cannot accept amendments Nos. 4 and 8. Amendment No. 4 would cap the preparatory expenditure that can be incurred, and amendment No. 8 would require the Inland Revenue alone to report the money that it expends under the Bill. I say, with respect, that the amendments are misguided; they add nothing to the Bill.
      I remind the Committee that a paving Bill is needed to enable the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security to begin to spend money on preparations for the introduction of the tax credits that were announced in the Budget. On Second Reading, I detected considerable agreement on the importance of those preparations, which would enable proper consultation on the Government's policy so that the substantive Bill covered the areas that hon. Members would expect it to.
      The Inland Revenue is not authorised to spend money on preparations because the tax credits represent a completely new area for it. The Department of Social Security is not authorised to spend money because the tax credit will eventually be administered by the Inland Revenue—the tax credit does not belong to it, so to speak.
      We need a paving Bill because there is a gap in the two Departments' authority to do the work on the substantive legislation—we need to close that gap. As I explained on Second Reading last week, we cannot afford to wait to begin that work. It is important that tax credits are introduced according to the timetable that we announced, so that people can benefit from them as soon as possible. The paving Bill fills the gap and—Conservative Members mentioned accountability—properly brings the matter before Parliament for its approval.
      The introduction of such a paving Bill is the right way in which to deal with the unusual situation that we face. The Bill follows the usual procedures, as can be demonstrated by reference to paving Bills introduced by the previous Conservative Government, which related to privatisations—the broad principle was brought before Parliament for endorsement, and the details were brought forward subsequently. Then as now, the paving Bill enabled work to begin on the broad concept because, then as now, there would otherwise be no authority to begin the work.
      Conservative Members seem to suggest that the Government are trying to pull a fast one on Parliament. That is absolutely not the case, as past practice, the debate on Second Reading and the information that the Government have made available show. What Conservative Members have said speaks volumes about the previous Government's attitude to Parliament. The Labour Government's attitude is different, and I have fully explained why the Bill is necessary.
      Mr. Forth: I hope that the Financial Secretary does not think that we are objecting to the principle of paving
      546
      measures. Our objection is that there is no limit on the expenditure—we believe that it would not be unreasonable to impose such a limit—and that the Bill contains scant information on the way in which the moneys may be spent. Those are the two lacunae—we are not challenging the principle of paving legislation.
      5.15 pm
      The First Deputy Chairman: This is an appropriate moment for me to remind the Committee that we should not have Second Reading debates. We are talking about amendments Nos. 4 and 8, which deal with a limit—hon. Members must address their comments to the amendments and to nothing else.
      Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Mr. Martin. The right hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the Bill will not relinquish the proper financial controls on expenditure that apply to all Departments. Departments look for best value for money in all their spending. There is no question of incurring expenditure earlier than necessary.
      The purpose of the Bill is to enable the most cost-effective preparations to be made; the Bill is not a licence to spend money. The estimates of costs in the explanatory and financial memorandum are, by necessity, tentative. They give Parliament an idea of the money that the two Departments may need to spend on the preparatory work between Royal Assent to this Bill and enactment of the substantive Bill, which we intend to introduce as soon in the next Session as the legislative timetable permits.
      I tell the Committee in all honesty that we cannot say with certainty how soon we shall be able to introduce the substantive Bill, nor can we predict how long it will take before the measures of that Bill become law. The financial estimates are designed to take account of that uncertainty, but—I have never tried to conceal this from hon. Members—they are, finally, only estimates.
      A cap on the total allowance is not the way in which to reduce the risk of money being wasted, if that is, indeed, the intention of the amendment. Perhaps Conservative Members' concern is to improve the control of spending by ensuring that no more than £20 million can be spent on the preparatory work, but the amendment would not do that either. There is nothing to be gained from Departments squandering money on matters that will not receive parliamentary approval, but everything to be gained from beginning the preparatory work that will enable the scheme not only to be implemented as early as possible, but to operate effectively.
      On amendment No. 8, I ask why the Opposition want only one of the Departments to account specifically for expenditure. If they are concerned that there should be tighter financial controls on the expenditure, I must point out that all the expenditure of both Departments is tightly controlled—the Departments are scrutinised by the National Audit Office and, ultimately, by Parliament through the Public Accounts Committee, as hon. Members are well aware. It is not the case that there will be no accountability for the expenditure unless such accountability is specifically required in the Bill.
      If Conservative Members are concerned about the potential waste should the detail of the scheme finally approved by Parliament differ from the assumptions made in the preparatory work, the amendments will not help.

      547
      I ask the Committee to reject them on the basis that accountability is in place through the normal parliamentary processes. All public money is accountable, and the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are the watchdogs to ensure that it is.
      Estimates provided in the Bill were intended to be helpful and not to be a cap. If Conservative Members want progress on the matter, given the safeguards that they know are in place, they will allow this paving Bill to go through, in the same way as they facilitated their own paving Bills when their party was in office.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: That explanation is far from satisfactory. The Financial Secretary does not need to explain to us what a paving Bill is; we all know that, and we have said that, in principle, we are not against such Bills. I am not sure that the hon. Lady has recognised that a paving Bill represents a considerable risk to the taxpayer because, should Parliament decide not to proceed with the substantive reform of working families tax credit—we shall have other opportunities to debate the merits of that—the £15 million to £20 million spent on setting up the systems will be lost and will not be recoverable by the taxpayer. That is an extremely good reason for having a limit, which is exactly why my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled the amendment.
      The Treasury continues to be committed to cash limits, which the Conservative party introduced in government. If it is possible for the Treasury to have a cash limit on the entire expenditure of the Department for Education and Employment, the national health service or the Ministry of Defence, how come it is not possible to have a cash limit on one particular project that involves setting up systems and hiring and firing people to operate a potential working families tax credit?
      The Financial Secretary avoided that issue altogether, and as a result, there is no way that we can withdraw the amendment. We will not press it to a vote, but we will not withdraw it: we will leave it to her either to accept it or to reject it, and to stand the consequences of so doing.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Fallon: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out
      'in doing anything which in his or their opinion is appropriate.'.
      The Bill gives the Secretary of State and the commissioners the most extraordinarily wide discretion. We have already established that the Bill is extremely widely drafted. There is no limit on the expenditure that can be undertaken under it, now that amendment No. 4 has been negatived. There is no restriction on the changes to the two benefits that we were initially told the Bill concerned; in fact, the Bill is not confined to those: as Liberal Democrat Members pointed out last week, it could be used for the transfer of any benefit into an income tax credit.
      Above all, as we shall see when we get to amendments Nos. 2 and 10, there is no link between the paving Bill and subsequent legislation, so we must ensure that expenditure authorised under this Bill is properly based on its aims, which should be properly and objectively defined within it.
      548
      According to subsection (1),
      "The Secretary of State and the Commissioners … may incur expenditure"
      not simply for the purpose of facilitating the listed matters but
      "in doing anything which in his or their opinion is appropriate"
      for such facilitation. In other words, the test is purely subjective. Almost anything could be classified as facilitating the changes and could have money spent on it.
      Last Thursday, the Financial Secretary gave us a glimpse of some of the purposes to which the money may be put—this may strike a chord with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—and said that the Government might want to spend some on
      "the advertising that might be necessary".
      We know exactly how thin that line could be, with the deluge of brochures, pamphlets and publicity material that are used to promote the Government's policies.
      Dawn Primarolo rose—
      Mr. Fallon: I seem to have struck a raw nerve.
      Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has not struck a raw nerve. I am trying to assist him so that he does not mislead the Committee. In fact, it was the Chairman of the Social Security Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who asked me to clarify that point, and I told him that I was talking not about advertising the working families tax credit but about investigating how we could ensure maximum take-up. The record will show that that is what I said.
      Mr. Fallon: I have the record to hand. The Financial Secretary specifically said:
      "The expenditure that is requested in the paving Bill is to cover the costs … It covers, mainly, information technology changes; the provision to the public of information about the new tax credits; the advertising that might be necessary".—[Official Report, 7 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 889.]
      We are getting into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office school of ministerial answers.
      The plain fact is that subsection (1) has been far too loosely drafted. If the expenditure is appropriate for facilitation, it should be appropriate objectively, as specified in the legislation, and not determined simply by the opinion of the Secretary of State or the commissioners.
      Dawn Primarolo: I have the record in front of me. I said:
      "If I have given that impression, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. I was speaking about the development work to ensure proper take-up."—[Official Report, 7 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 889.]
      That is a clear answer, on the record. Conservative Members do not want to oppose the working families tax credit, because they know how popular the concept is and how important the development work will be. That was especially clear from the points that they made about businesses on Second Reading. They try to misquote and twist what is said, and I hope that the record is now correct and that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) will acknowledge the fact.

      549
      I do not need to repeat the purpose of the Bill, but we need to point out again to Conservative Members—they have amazingly short memories—that accountabilities are imposed on Departments to ensure the proper scrutiny of the spending of taxpayers' money. Opposition Members want to give the impression that there will be a pot of money that Departments dip into without any check, but they know full well that both Departments need to spend the money to develop the working families tax credit and that the paving Bill does not affect the controls on that expenditure.
      Both Departments will be accountable for the money that they spend on the project in the same way as they are normally accountable, to their permanent secretaries and to the chief accounting officer. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are also there to scrutinise expenditure. There is no need for the amendment.
      If the hon. Member for Sevenoaks is so keen to ensure the smooth introduction of the working families tax credit, both for those who will receive it and to ensure that business is properly consulted and the bureaucracy kept to a minimum, he should withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Fallon: That is not a particularly encouraging answer, but in view of the need to get on to the other amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
      '(e) an assessment of the compliance costs involved in (c) and (d).'.
      The amendment provides for an assessment to be made of the compliance costs involved in the whole exercise—not merely the paving exercise but the working families tax credit exercise—which should be assessed as part of the preparations in the coming months. That is enormously important, because the public and businesses have not yet appreciated that the new working families tax credit, which is to be administered by the Inland Revenue rather than the Benefits Agency, will in fact be run by businesses, which will bear the real costs. This is one burden in the never-ending list of burdens that the new Labour Government are imposing on business, whether deliberately or simply out of negligence—or sheer ignorance of how businesses are run and the problems that such administrative and bureaucratic impositions can create for business, and small businesses in particular. We face the prospect of new trade union regulation, minimum wage legislation and a whole range of new burdens on businesses. The Bill will impose one more fairly major burden.
      5.30 pm
      As everyone knows, businesses in this country already bear the bulk of the administrative costs of running the income tax system. Under PAYE, which is administered by employers, the Inland Revenue has to do little other than receive a series of cheques. All the administrative work, deductions from salaries and so forth are done by employers, and that is a great burden on them. Over the years, they have had to face it and have put in the systems to cope. Employers, particularly small employers, complain very much about that, and rightly so.
      550
      The Bill will place a whole new burden on businesses, comparable to that placed on them by the introduction of PAYE but much greater. It will not merely double the burden that businesses have to carry as tax collectors for the state, but be a multiplication of that burden. It will impose a greater burden, first, because many details will have to be recorded that businesses did not have to bother about before.
      I am sure that the Financial Secretary is about to tell the Committee that the Benefits Agency will make the assessment then inform employers how the tax coding must be changed for the individual. The fact is, however, that people's family circumstances will now be relevant to the amount of money deducted from or added to their wages in the form of working families tax credit, so a range of factors that have not been taken into account in the calculation of tax codes will have to be considered. Since there will be more factors, there will also be more changes. More computer entries will be required and employers will need more complicated systems with more complicated software to cope. Things will go wrong, and there will be greater administrative and managerial burdens and problems to be resolved. That is a considerable charge on business, particularly small businesses.
      Mr. Forth: I hope that I am not anticipating my hon. Friend's point—if I am, I look forward to his clarification—but I am anxious that the amendment is too permissive and not sufficiently mandatory. Clause 1 states that
      "any of the following things"
      may be done, and lists them (a) to (d). The amendment adds (e), which is
      "an assessment of the compliance costs involved",
      but as I understand it that assessment will not be required. Does my hon. Friend think that the amendment is strong enough in that regard?
      Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend has a strong point. When the substantive Bill is before us, he might like to table a stronger amendment. We are showing how reasonable the Conservative Opposition are. We are starting the discussion of the concept of working families tax credit positively, making tentative suggestions and trying to be as helpful as we can to the Government. My right hon. Friend does not believe in a softly, softly approach when dealing with the Labour party, and I dare say that experience will prove him right, but we are starting the Parliament with a relatively softly, softly approach. I can assure him that, if it does not work, we shall return to the harder line that he suggests.
      Small businesses have not yet focused on the burden on employers. When they do, it will be a nightmare prospect. What is more, the Bill will open up a new dimension in the relationship between employers and employees. Even if employees do not directly have to inform employers of a change in family circumstances—divorce, marriage, children, the people with whom they live or with whom they cease to live—those details will be available to employers, because they will be evident from the change in the tax codes that the Benefits Agency provides.
      Finally and most significantly, an enormous potential compliance cost is involved on which we must have assurances from the Government this afternoon. At the

      551
      moment, net pay is less than gross pay. If an employee is paid £200 a week in gross pay, some of it will be paid to the national insurance fund and to the Inland Revenue through PAYE, and the balance will go directly to the employee. With the working families tax credit, in certain cases net pay will be more than gross pay, so the employer will have to pay out more than the salary or wage of the employee in question, and the difference will presumably be refunded subsequently by the Benefits Agency. That will create a significant cash flow cost for employers as well as a considerable financing burden.
      I have two questions for the Financial Secretary. First, by what measures will she compensate employers for that cost? I take it that they will be able to charge the Benefits Agency interest, which should fully compensate them for their financing costs. I also take it that that will not be less than the working capital cost that the employer pays when borrowing money from the bank, as that would be totally unfair and a new tax on employers.
      Secondly, what will be the position of employers who have already reached their borrowing limit with the bank? The requirement imposed by the Government through this measure, which is essentially for additional working capital, may push them through the limit and cause severe cash flow constraints, which might undermine the viability of the business. What assurances can the hon. Lady give the Committee on those matters? They are of the greatest economic importance and importance to businesses, as well as to employees, as the most perverse result of the measure might be, as I am sure she would agree, to reduce employment and create a major deterrent to employers to take on people who are, or look as though they are likely to be, the beneficiaries of working families tax credit.
      Dawn Primarolo: I like the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)—I sincerely hope that that does not damage his political future—
      Mr. Forth: Yes, it does.
      Dawn Primarolo: I am sorry. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford did not read the Second Reading debate before he commented on cash flow, burdens on employers and the need to keep compliance costs to the minimum, which were points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) in that debate. I realise that I am not allowed to repeat the arguments and will merely refer the hon. Gentleman to columns 886 and 887 of the Second Reading debate, which deal with compliance costs, working with employers and the need to keep those costs low.
      On cash flow, I pointed out to the House that procedures are in place to deal with a similar situation to the one that the hon. Gentleman described in respect of statutory sick pay and maternity pay. Part of the reason for the paving Bill to start consultation, particularly with employers, is to find whether similar procedures would be appropriate for tax credits, and how best they should be administered. The measure deals with exactly the points raised by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford on the involvement of business and whether there are extra compliance costs.
      552
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) got it in one when he mentioned the problem with the amendment and gave the reason why I am going to ask the Committee to reject it. It gives us powers to incur the expenditure but does not oblige us to undertake a compliance cost assessment. That is clearly not what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford intended. It is therefore defective and does not achieve its objectives.
      The project team of the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security has already met representatives of the business community, and will regularly meet and consult them, to ensure that we minimise employer compliance costs. That has to be a major part of our discussions with employer groups, payroll organisations and others. When the Bill to introduce working families tax credit comes before the House, hon. Members would expect discussions on compliance to be part of the debate. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment—first, because it is defective and does not achieve what its mover said he wanted it to; and, secondly, because what it is intended to achieve will be done anyway. No amendment is necessary
      Mr. Fallon: I am disappointed and hurt that I did not receive a sign of affection similar to that conveyed by the Financial Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). I see that I shall have to work harder whether in this Committee or in that to which we shall shortly return upstairs.
      This was a mild amendment, as the Financial Secretary said. It would not make the compliance costs mandatory but it would at least introduce them into the Bill and ensure that they were discretionary. She keeps saying that she intends to minimise the overall cost to employers, but she gave us no idea of the extent to which she recognised the cash flow problems of businesses, in addition to the administrative problems.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said, in many companies, the net pay of employees who receive the credit will be higher than their gross pay. The first payment will have to be made at least 19 days before the other payment. There will be a negative cash flow impact on business and a positive one on the Treasury. I think that there is a case for compensating employers who have to live with that cash flow impact. It is certainly a matter to which we shall return when the major legislation comes before the House. In the meantime, because of the Financial Secretary's failure to recognise the additional burden on business, I am not minded to withdraw the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 119, Noes 227.

      Division No. 276]

      [5.43 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Brazier, Julian

      Allan, Richard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Baldry, Tony

      Burnett, John

      Bercow, John

      Burns, Simon

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Blunt, Crispin

      Butterfill, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Brady, Graham

      553

      Chope, Christopher

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Clappison, James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lidington, David

      Collins, Tim

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cotter, Brian

      Loughton, Tim

      Cran, James

      Luff, Peter

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Day, Stephen

      Malins, Humfrey

      Duncan, Alan

      Maples, John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Moss, Malcolm

      Emery, Rt Hon 4Sir Peter

      Norman, Archie

      Evans, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Fallon, Michael

      Prior, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Randall, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Rendel, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Robathan, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gibb, Nick

      Ruffley, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gray, James

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Green, Damian

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Greenway, John

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

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Grieve, Dominic

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Steen, Anthony

      Hammond, Philip

      Streeter, Gary

      Hancock, Mike

      Swayne, Desmond

      Harvey, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hayes, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Trend, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Horam, John

      Welsh, Andrew

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Wilkinson, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Willis, Phil

      Hunter, Andrew

      Woodward, Shaun

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Mr. Nigel Waterson and

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Sir David Madel.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Burden, Richard

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burgon, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Byers, Stephen

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Caplin, Ivor

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Casale, Roger

      Barnes, Harry

      Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

      Battle, John

      Chaytor, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Clapham, Michael

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Betts, Clive

      Clelland, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clwyd, Ann

      Boateng, Paul

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Coleman, Iain

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Colman, Tony

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      554

      Cooper, Yvette

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Corbett, Robin

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Laxton, Bob

      Cranston, Ross

      Leslie, Christopher

      Crausby, David

      Levitt, Tom

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Linton, Martin

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lock, David

      Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

      Love, Andrew

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      McCabe, Steve

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Denham, John

      McDonagh, Sbbhain

      Dismore, Andrew

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dobbin, Jim

      McDonnell, John

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      McIsaac, Shona

      Doran, Frank

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Dowd, Jim

      McNulty, Tony

      Drew, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McWilliam, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Edwards, Huw

      Mallaber, Judy

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Fisher, Mark

      Meale, Alan

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Merron, Gillian

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Michael, Alun

      Follett, Barbara

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Galloway, George

      Milburn, Alan

      Gapes, Mike

      Miller, Andrew

      Gardiner, Barry

      Moffatt, Laura

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Gerrard, Neil

      Morley, Elliot

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mudie, George

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mullin, Chris

      Godsiff, Roger

      Norris, Dan

      Goggins, Paul

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Grant, Bernie

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Healey, John

      Pike, Peter L

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pope, Greg

      Heppell, John

      Pound, Stephen

      Hesford, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hill, Keith

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hope, Phil

      Purchase, Ken

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Rammell, Bill

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Rapson, Syd

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hurst, Alan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hutton, John

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Illsley, Eric

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Sawford, Phil

      Jamieson, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Soley, Clive

      555

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Vaz, Keith

      Stevenson, George

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wareing, Robert N

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Watts, David

      Stringer, Graham

      White, Brian

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Wood, Mike

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Woolas, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wyatt, Derek

      Todd, Mark

      Touhig, Don

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Truswell, Paul

      Janet Anderson and

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Fallon: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 17 and 18.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection (1) above shall apply to expenditure on any of the things there mentioned for a period of twelve months after this Act comes into force, but shall not apply thereafter in respect of any of those things unless a Bill giving, or purporting to give, approval to that thing has been read a second time in the House of Commons.'.
      Mr. Fallon: With this last group of amendments, we address the serious issue of the lack of a relationship between the Bill and the legislation it presages. We have been told time and again that the Bill is a paving Bill, yet there is nothing in it to link it to any subsequent legislation. Indeed, clause 1(2)(a) specifically states that the powers in the Bill
      "shall be exercisable whether or not Parliament has given any approval"
      to the changes that are being introduced. That means that all the expenditure and administrative effort could be undertaken, but the changes themselves—the replacement of benefits with tax credits—could be postponed or even cancelled.
      That is an extraordinary provision. Presumably, it has been put in the Bill to remove any doubt about whether the powers need to be linked to any subsequent legislation. Amendment No. 2 would delete that provision, and amendment No. 10 would introduce the link that is necessary to ensure that the Government can spend money on preparation, get on with consulting business and install the equipment that will be needed, but that, sooner or later—we suggest slightly sooner—the subsequent legislation must be presented to the House.
      Amendment No. 10 has been reasonably carefully drafted to ensure that the Government can at least get going and spend some of the money without having to wait for the subsequent legislation to be passed—indeed, they do not even have to depend on that legislation being passed—but that they have to present to the House and obtain Second Reading for a Bill to establish and give statutory authority to the various changes described in subsection (1). That is essential. Otherwise,
      556
      the Government could spend millions, even billions, of pounds on a particular course and decide in the end not to make the changes. If this is a paving Bill, it should be linked properly to the legislation that will follow it.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) for drawing this matter to the attention of the Committee. When I first saw clause 1(2)(a), I could not believe my eyes. Any purportedly serious legislation that states:
      "The powers … shall be exercisable whether or not Parliament has given any approval on which any of the things there mentioned depends"
      makes one pause for thought—to put it mildly. I shall say this for the paragraph—and these are my only words of welcome for it: it is absolutely consonant with the spirit of the rest of the Bill. As Opposition Members said earlier, it contains no detail whatsoever and is a catalogue of blank cheques, unconstrained powers, and unidentified aims and objectives. However, in the context of the parliamentary process, subsection (2)(a) is perhaps the most worrying aspect.
      6 pm
      That brings us back to what we said when discussing a previous amendment. As my hon. Friends have noted, we are reasonably content with the broad objectives of the Bill—there is no dispute about that. However, those objectives are stated in the broadest possible manner and contain no detail at all. That makes things difficult for responsible Members of Parliament on the Government or Opposition sides. I am delighted to see that one distinguished Government Back Bencher has joined the debate—I hope that we shall hear from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) shortly. I apologise, as I can see another Government Back Bencher. I think that I see two Labour Members packing the Chamber—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall not allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with that. He should speak to the amendment and not refer at length to who is in the Chamber. He is in the Chamber; I am in the Chamber; and I am listening to him.
      Mr. Forth: We make a great double act, Mr. Martin, and I am grateful for that.
      The Bill lacks any details that provide a reference point for Members of Parliament—whether numerous or not—to scrutinise, question and hold the Government to account. The more vague the Bill and the less detail it contains, the more difficult it becomes to promote accountability, which is primarily the responsibility of the official Opposition. Subsection (2)(a) goes further than that by seeking to extend the powers in clause 1 and becoming completely open-ended and unspecified.
      That is why I welcome the amendment, which seeks to remove subsection (2)(a) altogether. I hope that the Minister will explain why it was deemed necessary to include that provision in the Bill. I cannot for the life of me guess what the justification could be. At the very least, the Minister owes us a comprehensive explanation of the necessity of the provision and why it has been drafted in a way that arouses our suspicions. If the Government wanted to take the Opposition with them, one would think

      557
      that they would frame measures in such a way as to provide some reassurance. However, the Government seem to be doing the opposite. Bills that are drafted in this way cause unease and suspicion among hon. Members, which is most regrettable. I hope that the amendment will lead to a full explanation, if nothing else.
      That brings me to the second amendment that my hon. Friend introduced so ably. There is a risk that I may part company from him here. If I am reading the amendment correctly—this is also how I interpreted his explanation—it suggests that a mere Second Reading of subsequent legislation would provide a trigger for expenditure. I am not sure what was in my hon. Friend's mind when he drafted the amendment, but that strikes me as being a rather unusual approach, and I am not too happy with it. It is at odds with the argument that I am making—a fact of which I am rather conscious, so I shall point that out before anyone else does.
      I find myself in the unusual position of having difficulty understanding why my hon. Friend has included that provision in his amendment. It is somewhat at odds—I invite my hon. Friend to correct me if I am wrong—with the argument that I am making about detail and accountability. If my hon. Friend is saying that a mere Second Reading would enable further expenditure to take place without Parliament knowing the details of that expenditure, my fear is that it would lead to a lack of accountability, and I am arguing that the Bill should be more accountable.
      If the amendments are put to the vote, I might ask for them to be put separately. I shall be able to support whole-heartedly my hon. Friend's first amendment, which hits the nail on the head. Regrettably, unless I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks or my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), I am reluctant to support amendment No. 10 at this stage because I fear that it is at odds with the thrust of my argument this afternoon.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I rise briefly to echo the concerns expressed about subsection (2)(a). I agree with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that the phrase that appears in the Bill is quite extraordinary. I suppose that it is bold to include such an expression in legislation, because basically it says, "Please give us an unspecified amount for an unspecified time to do something that may not subsequently receive the approval of Parliament". My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), in his capacity as Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, referred specifically to that on Second Reading.
      While I do not have the same reservations as some Conservative Members about the Bill's ultimate objective, all hon. Members recognise that, although the working families tax credit and connecting benefit with the wage packet as a reward for work are good ideas, there are many difficulties associated with the measure that the Government have been unable to explain to the Committee. It is fair for the Government to say that they must make preparations. I do not object to a Bill that says that the Government must make preparations in order to provide information that will ultimately form the basis of more substantial expenditure. However, that is a little difficult to take when the Government will not define the
      558
      time scale or the amount that they propose to spend or make the measure in any way conditional on Parliament's approving the subsequent legislation.
      Some people may believe that this is an academic argument—they will look at the Government's majority and say, "They have a majority, so what is the problem?" There are two problems. The first involves a fundamental principle: either the House operates as a democratic Chamber or it does not. Whatever the size of a Government's majority, they should not presume that all their legislation will be passed. Secondly—and more to the point—the Government may find that although there is much support for the principle behind their plans, the detail is substantially different.
      In those circumstances, I believe that it is not unreasonable for the Committee to apply some defining framework to this legislation. I understand the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I suspect that he does not want one penny to be spent on preparations: he views amendment No. 10 as effectively sanctioning that expenditure and simply putting a time limit on it. I have no problem with that. As I recall, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was concerned about the haste with which the Bill was being introduced, and suggested that more detail should be in evidence before we give the Government a blank cheque.
      For those reasons, and not because I oppose the Government's aims, I consider the amendments pertinent. I hope that the Financial Secretary will recognise that there is genuine concern that we are being asked to approve a measure which might go out of control. I am sure that she will understand that if she or any other Minister has to tell the House in a year's time that the Government have spent £40 million and still do not have the answers, the record of today's debate will be quoted back at them.
      Mr. Green: I am grateful to follow two such distinguished and experienced parliamentarians. Their remarks have removed one of the doubts in my mind. When I read the words covered by amendment No. 2, I was puzzled about what they meant. As a new Member, I could not understand how a Government could, even in a paving Bill, claim powers that would be exercisable whether or not Parliament has given approval. I attributed that to my own inexperience, but I now know that others more experienced than I am find the proposal extraordinary.
      How could the powers be exercisable if Parliament did not approve the measures designed to follow this paving Bill and bring in the tax credit system? I hope that the Financial Secretary will explain that. On Second Reading, it was pointed out that the powers that the Government are taking under the Bill could be spread to almost any part of the benefits system. One suspects that that is the intention—the Government are introducing a way of allowing greater power to be exercised to change the balance between benefits and tax credits, without returning to the House.
      Apart from the arguments in principle that were deployed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), there is a practical objection. Any legislation that allows such latitude to a Government must be suspect. One of the possible

      559
      side-effects of the Bill is that the tax credit could have a significant effect on the public spending figures and particularly the public borrowing figures.
      As the money is transferred from public expenditure to tax credits, there will be an effect on some of the most important macro-economic statistics, which—not to put too fine a point on it—will look better, even though, in reality, nothing will have changed. If the Government are giving themselves the power to do that over a wide front, one would have to be naive to assume that that power would not be extremely tempting for a Government who had run into trouble with their public borrowing.
      The Government already have form in terms of attempting to take powers without proper respect for parliamentary scrutiny. It is therefore understandable that many Opposition Members are suspicious. Bagehot famously divided the constitution into the efficient and the dignified parts. I sometimes think that the Government have invented a third category—the inefficient part of the British constitution. They regard the House of Commons as inefficient because it can stand in the way of administrative fiat. That is what the Government dislike, but, as that is the purpose of Parliament, we must assert the powers of House at every opportunity, as amendment No. 2 does.
      I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that amendment No. 10 does not sit easily in a group with amendment No. 2, as it approaches the problem in a different way. Amendment No. 10 can be considered a backstop. If the Government are not minded to accept amendment No. 2, which would remove the problem caused by the clause as drafted, amendment No. 10 would give the House a chance to return to the matter after a year and take a view on whether the Government should be allowed to proceed as they intend.
      Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that even if a Bill were given a Second Reading, we could not be certain whether it sanctioned a particular level of expenditure, as that might come out only later, in Committee? Does my hon. Friend see the danger in that?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Green: I agree; that is important. If I had to choose between the amendments, I prefer amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 10 would be acceptable, though less good.
      The hon. Member for Gordon said that the argument may seem academic, but there are practical implications. We already know that the Government's legislative timetable for the year is in trouble. They are holding over the House the nuclear threat of sitting into August. It is not inconceivable that legislation planned for the next Session may not emerge in the Queen's Speech—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Green: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Martin.
      The 12-month rule in amendment No. 10 may be practically relevant, even if the amendment is inadequately drafted, as it may well be more than 12 months before the legislation that will follow this paving Bill emerges.
      560
      The argument would be important even if it were simply academic, because of the principle of enforcing proper parliamentary procedure and scrutiny, but it may have a practical point. The overall point illustrated by the amendments is that in a peculiar way, this is a paving Bill that does not pave. If nothing happens afterwards, the Bill proceeds anyway. One of the effects of the amendments, especially amendment No. 2, would be to make it a proper paving Bill. Something must follow it for the Bill to have effect. For those reasons, I support the amendments.
      Dawn Primarolo: I remind the Committee that the Government are publicly committed to introducing the new tax credits from October 1999. The paving Bill is the first step in ensuring that that will happen. As I said with regard to all the amendments and on Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to enable the two Departments to begin the necessary preparatory work now, in order to meet that timetable. I have also said that the substantive legislation will be presented to enable us to fulfil our plans and meet the timetable for introduction. On Second Reading, I made it clear that the Government were aiming for the next Session.
      Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot call on the Government to consult properly, to consider the options, and not to take Parliament for granted or make assumptions about what may follow, and then propose amendments Nos. 2 and 10, which would do exactly that.
      The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked a number of questions and argued the points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on Second Reading. In answer to his first question, the purpose of the Bill is to give the Government authority to undertake the development and consultation that every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate so far has recognised is necessary. It would be a miracle if we could settle on only one option and develop it. We need to explore the options. That is what consultation is about. Therefore, amendment No. 10, which introduces restrictions, is unhelpful.
      The hon. Gentleman then pointed out how much this would cost. I draw his attention to the financial effects of the Bill and remind him that, inevitably, these are estimates. We have provided the Committee with the best estimate. Conservative Members repeatedly seem to forget that the Bill does not affect the controls on public expenditure and the need for the Department to be financially accountable to the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and its accounting officer. There is no question of a lack of accountability.
      I do not think that the hon. Member for Gordon is suggesting that the Government should delay the introduction of the working families tax credit in opposing this paving Bill. Nor are other Opposition Members. They would not stand a cat in hell's chance on the doorstep of families who want to receive child care credits and understand how much the working families tax credit will help them to tackle poverty and support them in work if they explained, "We denied you all this money because we thought we should take a year longer."
      The Government's request is reasonable. We want a paving Bill so that we can undertake consultation and development work. That will ensure that when we

      561
      introduce the legislation we have the tax credits ready and the House is fully informed. I ask hon. Members to reject amendment Nos. 2 and 10 because the controls they seek are unnecessary. The Government's undertakings are clear. Hon. Gentlemen should support the Government and ensure that the legislation is consulted on, well drafted and introduced on time.
      I have one further point to make. It has been drawn to my attention that it was remiss of me not to wish the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) a happy birthday. I do so now. In the good spirit in which I know he will celebrate his birthday, I am sure he will support the Government on Third Reading.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The Financial Secretary has great charm and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is touched at having his birthday remembered in this fashion and, indeed, recorded by Hansard for the world to know about tomorrow morning.
      Once again, the hon. Lady has not dealt properly with the thrust of these important amendments. Their importance was well brought out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Gordon used the same phrase—a blank cheque. That is what the Bill is all about, and the House of Commons should not tolerate a blank cheque. A blank cheque will be forced on the Committee if we are not careful tonight.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends deserve a considered response to the point they raised in relation to amendment No. 10. They asked why the Bill should be confirmed as a paving Bill only if the substantive Bill is read a Second time. The implication was: why did we not include in the amendment a reference to Third Reading or Royal Assent? Once again, my right hon. Friend demonstrates that he thinks that it would be appropriate for the Opposition to take a hard-nosed stance and to show no trust in the new Labour Government. Perhaps he feels that we have been excessively conciliatory in our dealings with them.
      The essential point is that we are concerned with the extraordinary pretentiousness of clause 1(2)(a) which states that the powers
      "shall be exercisable whether or not Parliament has given any approval on which any of the things there mentioned depends".
      We thought that at the very least we should make it clear that if the substantive Bill is not introduced or fails on Second Reading, and Parliament clearly has no general intention to proceed along this line, the paving Bill and the powers that it confers on the Government would be brought to an end. That is the least that we can expect from the Government. It is perfectly reasonable of my right hon. Friend to think that we might go for rather more, but I am sure he agrees that we should expect at least that.
      I must ask the Financial Secretary what will happen if she introduces the substantive Bill, as she has undertaken to do—it is interesting that we have already have a commitment for the Queen's Speech this autumn—but it fails to receive a Second Reading. What will happen if the House decides not to proceed in the direction set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech? What will happen to the powers in the paving Bill?
      562
      We must have an answer to that before we take matters any further tonight. While that key question is in the hon. Lady's mind and before she can avoid it, I shall sit down and listen with interest to her answer.
      Dawn Primarolo: I have explained why a paving Bill is required and why we need these powers for the two Departments to undertake the consultation and development work. It is the Government's clear intention to introduce legislation within the timetable. Given the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in that timetable, I am sure that he will do everything possible to ensure the legislation's speedy passage through the House.
      Mr. Fallon: I assure the Financial Secretary that we have ensured that the legislation will go through the House reasonably smoothly. Indeed, we have been co-operating to that effect by agreeing to take all the remaining stages tonight, but she cannot expect this legislation to pass without any scrutiny whatever.
      The hon. Lady provided only two justifications for the absence of any connection between this Bill and the legislation which will follow. First, she said that there was a public commitment to produce this legislation. I remind her that the Government made a public commitment to produce a Green Book at the time of the Budget, but that did not appear. They made a public commitment to produce a White Paper on union recognition last autumn and to produce a defence review by this spring, but those documents have not yet appeared. It is no use her simply saying that the Government are committed to doing this. We believe that our amendment would secure the necessary link.
      Secondly, the hon. Lady suggested that whatever money was spent, there was some accountability. It was the Labour party which hammered the last Conservative Government about the sum spent in preparation for the community charge. All that money was similarly accountable for to Parliament. It was spent, and she, perhaps rightly, criticised how much was spent. Therefore, that suggestion will not wash.
      The hon. Lady has not answered the concern we raised in amendment No. 2 or explained why this curious paragraph is necessary. She has not justified lines 17 and 18 which every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate finds puzzling. In effect, they provide that whether or not Parliament approves the ultimate transfer of benefits into credits, she can go on and spend the money. Those lines should have been justified, and amendment No. 2 would delete them from the Bill.
      Amendment No. 10 did not win the unanimous support of the Committee. I take a more moderate view than my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). They are hard men, and perhaps they wanted me to press for the subsequent legislation to receive Third Reading and Royal Assent before the money could be spent. I was endeavouring to be helpful. We want the preparations to go well, but we also want to ensure that there is a longstop at the end. Specifying a Second Reading would at least have shown the Government's intention. Yet again, the Financial Secretary has failed to justify these wide-ranging powers,

      563
      but, because of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Sir Alan.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Man Haselhurst): I am given to understand that the right hon. Gentleman's point of order relates to another matter. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we complete the business before us.
      Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. The matter is urgent.
      The Chairman: Order. The Bill has to be reported first.
      Bill reported, without amendment.

  Points of Order
  6.33 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall get it right this time. I raise what I consider to be a most serious matter affecting a Select Committee of the House and the House as a whole. I ask that you report my remarks to Madam Speaker and ask whether she will look into the matter.
  A Committee's papers are very much held by it and are not published until it decides that they should be. Today, a letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was referred to on the Floor of the House, not only before the Committee had knowledge of it, but before the Chairman had received it or even knew about it. That most unusual situation was made more unusual by the fact that a copy was in the hands of the BBC at No. 4 Millbank. In addition, one learned at the BBC that a communication made by the Minister of State about the matter, of which no member of the Committee and no hon. Member knew anything, had also been sent to the BBC.
  This is a serious matter, because it affects the reputation of a Minister of State and evidence that was given to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning, which is partially but not entirely contradicted by the letter of Sir John Kerr. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, please ask Madam Speaker whether she will look into the matter? The way to clarify the situation, as has been suggested, is to produce the briefing given by the Foreign Office to the Minister in question.
  I realise that this is partially a Committee matter, but it is serious: it affects the House because the breach took place on the Floor of the House. Madam Speaker should look into it.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In answer to me at business questions, the Leader of the House referred to the letter in a manner that implied that I might have seen it. She said that she did not know whether I had seen it. I would not for a minute accuse the Leader of the House of saying or doing anything improper, but I could not have seen the letter, unless I was a BBC employee perhaps.
  This is most unfortunate, and I should be most grateful if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, reported the circumstances to Madam Speaker and asked her to consider the tone and content of the letter. It refers to Sir John Kerr checking his memory. One would have hoped that he would have done that before appearing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from anything that is the responsibility of Madam Speaker.
  I shall reply to the point of order from the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who, in essence, supplied the answer to the point of order made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), although I allowed the hon. Gentleman fully to state it for the record. The communication was to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, so it is for the Chairman and the Select Committee to determine what should happen to the document. Any other reference to that is not a matter for the Chair; a reference by any other

  565
  right hon. Member or hon. Member is a matter for debate and question in the House. If I opine correctly about the subject matter, there is to be a debate on it on Monday.
  Sir Peter Emery: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course you were right about the powers of the Committee—no one would challenge that—but my point is that the Committee has not had the opportunity to make any decision.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, must know, with proper regard to its rights, that he must next raise the matter in that forum. It cannot be for me to deal with from the Chair.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that came up this afternoon was different: the Leader of the House was purporting to offer in evidence a letter, without giving the House the opportunity to see it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point. Anything that is raised by a right hon. or hon. Member is a matter for debate and question in the House, not a point of order for the Chair.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful for what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I merely ask whether you would be kind enough to refer the exchanges to Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled that both the points that I have identified are not matters for the Chair and therefore, by definition, not matters for Madam Speaker. They are, however, on the record for everyone to read.

  Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  6.37 pm
  Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  When the working families tax credit is up and running, it will provide £5 billion to 1.5 million working families, which is the equivalent of £70 per week per family, and will give almost £1.5 billion more in-work support than family credit. It represents an important step towards greater integration of the tax and benefits systems and will reduce the wasteful overlap between the tax and social security systems, whereby almost 500,000 families pay tax to the Inland Revenue while receiving family credit from the Department of Social Security.
  This paving Bill will assist in the preparatory work for the development of the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit. It will ensure that the legislation, when it comes before the House, has been fully developed and that the credits are ready to be put into operation.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Fallon: The Bill is not about working families tax credit. We look forward to making a range of arguments when the major legislation is presented to the House later in the year. So that no one is able to mislead the House or the country about our position, I shall put on record the fact that we are not opposed in principle to the translation of benefits into tax credits provided that the system is transparent, easy to operate, does not impose a significant additional burden on employers and is fully compatible with the principles of independent taxation that we introduced.
  The Bill is unsatisfactory. It is indiscriminate, it lacks any limit on the expenditure being sought, it lacks a timetable and, above all, it is not a paving Bill, because it does not pave the way for any other legislation. Nothing in the Bill links it to any subsequent legislation. The expenditure under the Bill need not be restricted to the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit. The definition in clause 1(1) is
  "benefits with income tax credits".
  The Bill is thoroughly unsatisfactory, and we have done our best to amend it. The Financial Secretary has treated these proceedings throughout as if they were a burden to her. It is as if we should have given authority for this additional expenditure on the nod. The valid points that we have raised have justified the additional scrutiny that we have been able to afford the Bill.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As a Liberal Democrat, my support for the principle of tax credits is long-standing. My party has often argued that it is a way of transferring money to poorer people. I have no problem with the principle behind the Bill and the Government's desire to develop the idea of tax credits. I accept that we need to provide resources to do that.
  However, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I have expressed some reservations. We think that the Bill is imprecise and

  567
  ill defined. We shall hold the Government to the broad parameters that they have set themselves and to the timetable. I hope that as they develop the idea of tax credits, they will bear in mind the need for transparency and comparability.
  The amendment to the Red Book was not an unreasonable way to present the figures. However, the problem is that it had a different effect. The Chancellor said that there should be a debate about whether tax credits should be classified as expenditure—in effect, a charge on social security—or as a negative tax incorporated in the Inland Revenue. The Bill requires the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security to work out ways of administering the credits. The effect of treating something as expenditure as opposed to negative income tax is that it alters the percentage of the gross domestic product that goes in taxation. That has the convenient effect for the Government of just taking it away from the top limit that it was about to reach.
  I do not want to delay the passage of the Bill. I accept the Government's case with reservations. I urge them to ensure that when they present changes they do so openly and honestly, so that people can assess their significance. There is still concern about the problem of ensuring that the advantage gained from people getting benefits in connection with work does not undermine the principle, which the Government and the Liberal Democrats support, of the right of independent assessment. The Government have argued that, as that does not apply to family credit, no further compromise is required. However, they know perfectly well that an awful lot of women who currently receive money in their hands will not do so in future. If that were to happen, not everything that comes out of this process will be popular with all the beneficiaries. I hope that in a year from now the concerns that we have expressed will not have been vindicated by the outcome.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Forth: I am not as charitable about the Bill as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). We have not discussed its grand aims and objectives. The Financial Secretary misread the tenor of the debate when she happily burbled on about the joys to come if the Bill were to reach the statute book—never mind any further legislation containing the real substance, this being only a paving measure, as we have repeatedly been told.
  The debate in Committee was about the essential nature of the Bill and our worries about it, charged as we are with scrutiny of legislation. The debate revolved around the key phrases in the Bill, which were picked up again and again. It allows the Secretary of State and the commissioners to do
  "anything which in … their opinion is appropriate for the purpose".
  It rubs salt in that wound by saying that the powers conferred by that subsection
  "shall be exercisable whether or not Parliament has given any approval on which any of the things there mentioned depends".
  Those phrases caused the greatest anxiety among Opposition Members. What makes matters worse is the provision in clause 1(3), which states:
  "Any expenditure incurred under this section shall be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament."
  568
  That is almost legislative impudence. It completes the vicious circle. The Bill is saying, "Trust us, allow us to spend anything. We're not going to tell you in any detail what we're going to do. By the way, we want Parliament to give authorisation for any expenditure that may occur but it won't be specified."
  Mr. Green: Is not the position worse than that? As I read the Bill, it is possible for Parliament to reject the Bill that is intended to follow the paving Bill, and for this Bill still to enable the Government to act as if the subsequent Bill had been passed.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. That is our dilemma. We are being asked to authorise this completely unconstrained, unidentified and non-detailed activity and expenditure without knowing what will follow and in the knowledge that, if nothing were to follow—which would be in tune with what we have come to expect from the Government—because of delays, internal disputes, indecision or further review, we would be left with the burdens that this Bill would impose on the taxpayer. We do not know what those burdens will be, except for the vague passing reference in the explanatory and financial memorandum to "around £15–20 million", although even that must be in some doubt.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, perfectly reasonably, moved an amendment to write into the Bill a ceiling on expenditure not unadjacent to the figure in the explanatory and financial memorandum, the Financial Secretary refused to accept it.
  The Financial Secretary sought to reassure us by saying, "Don't worry. As usual, the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office, the accounting officer and other splendid organs of government and the constitution will scrutinise the money that has been spent, so that will be all right." By then, however, the money will have been spent. Surely our role is to take responsibility for the money before it is spent on the taxpayer's behalf. We should not turn round afterwards and say, "We are terribly sorry, but the PAC, the NAO and whoever else have just discovered that £20 million was spent to no effect." We have not had sufficient reassurance from the Financial Secretary.
  This has been a rather sorry episode. My hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks and for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) have endeavoured to co-operate with the Government; they have been rather too helpful in my view, but I understand what they have done, because they share the broad objectives outlined by the Financial Secretary. I, however, am not satisfied. Whether any of my hon. Friends are dissatisfied is for them to say, but we need much more explanation from the Government—particularly the Financial Secretary—before we can be satisfied with the Bill.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Let me briefly follow the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about public accounting. The Bill's provision for effectively changing benefits into tax credits should also, in my view, be considered in regard to what is wrongly called child benefit. I have said before that it should be called a child tax allowance, and I believe that the commissioners of the Inland Revenue and the

  569
  Department of Social Security should consider whether it should be set against tax in public accounting. If so, it would have an impact on the public sector borrowing requirement, but would not be counted in public spending.
  I would make more points if it were convenient to speak at greater length, but I must ask the Minister whether she knows the impact on public spending of turning one benefit and one allowance into a tax credit, and whether she could do the same for the child cash allowance. I feel strongly that child benefit should continue to be paid as a child cash allowance, but the name should change, for reasons that are perfectly well known to the Inland Revenue, the Treasury and the Department of Social Security.
  Until we are willing to overcome the theology of Government book-keeping, and become as creative as the Bill, we will not help people at the time when they are responsible for children. I am not talking about those on income support, but those in the broad bands who, when they have children, have reduced taxable capacity and increased need. An allowance—preferably cash—is clearly appropriate, but should not be counted as public expenditure.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: This debate, on an important Bill, has been much too short. Once again, that is extremely revealing of the fundamental arrogance with which the new Labour Government treat Parliament. We have had examples of that over and over again; I need not list them, as they are fresh in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The debate has been a monumental example of a Government's taking Parliament entirely for granted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made an extremely powerful speech about precisely that. The Government may think that they can get away with it, and that they can win vote after vote with their enormous majority. That may make them even more self-confident and arrogant, but such pride comes before a fall. The British public will begin to notice that our institutions are subject to extremely frivolous treatment.
  The Bill is extraordinary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly said that it should go into the textbooks as an example of how Parliament is taken for granted. The Bill says that whether or not Parliament subsequently expresses approval, the powers, once accorded to the Government, will remain. In the debate on the last amendment, I asked the Financial Secretary what would happen if the House refused the Bill a Third Reading. Apparently, the powers—and the rights that they confer to spend taxpayers' money—will simply continue. The Government have not answered that question, or told us what they would do in those circumstances. That is simply not good enough.
  We have said many times that we are not opposed in principle to the idea of working families tax credit. We therefore will not divide the House, and I do not urge my colleagues to vote against the principle of the paving Bill, because that would be interpreted as a desire to stymie the whole process. We do not want to do that, but we must ensure that if we go down this road, we do it properly. We must plan properly, but the Government have not satisfied us on that. They have rejected the sensible and
  570
  businesslike approaches in our amendments. We proposed that there should be a proper cash limit, a proper budget, proper controls and a proper time limit. They turned those amendments down, and there is a limit to our patience and indulgence.
  We shall keep the matter under review. At least three major shortcomings in the Government's planning for the whole exercise were revealed on Second Reading, and have been revealed again today. Over the next few months, the Government must focus on those, and come up with clear answers. Up to now, we have had no answers on crucial issues.
  Let me help the Government by reminding them what the key questions are on which they must do some homework over the next few months, and on which the British public will expect an answer before we consider how to vote in the autumn on Second Reading of the substantive Bill that will follow this. The first question has been put to the Financial Secretary repeatedly, but we have had no answer. What happens in the event of a dispute between partners over the working families tax credit? If the partners cannot agree whether the credit will be received by the partner in work through the tax system—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this is a Third Reading debate. It should look back at the terms of the Bill, not look forward to what will happen in future.
  Mr. Davies: It is indeed a Third Reading debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we are, indeed, looking back. I am trying to draw conclusions from our debates, which will be extremely important to the substantive Bill to which this paving Bill looks forward. The Bill forces the British taxpayer to spend a lot of money in anticipation of the substantive Bill. It seems reasonable to make it clear that if the taxpayer's money will be spent on preparing for another Bill, the lessons of our discussion should be properly taken on board by the Government. When they next address the House on this subject, they may be a little better prepared than they were on this occasion.
  There is another matter on which the Government had better do some rapid homework. There is considerable and growing anxiety about the burden of compliance costs on employers. The administration of the working families tax credit will be borne by employers. I put specific questions on that to the Financial Secretary, who, with her usual charm and parliamentary skill, deflected them all. We have had no answers.
  What about the cash flow issue, to which I have already drawn attention? In many cases, under the tax credit, net pay will be greater than gross pay, and employers will pay more to their employees than they have contracted to pay. No doubt they will receive some compensation weeks or—who knows?—months later from the Benefits Agency, but who will pay for that? There has been no answer. It is not good enough for the hon. Lady to use the analogy of statutory sick pay and maternity pay. In most cases, employers do not pay the current pay that they are contracted to pay to employees in that position, but pay the maternity pay and the statutory sick pay instead. There is no cash flow loss in such cases; we want to know what happens when cash flow loss occurs.

  571
  The third general point—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) referred in his interesting speech—is the way in which this form of expenditure will be classified. Among the promises that the Labour party made to the electorate before the last election—many of which have already been broken—was a promise to reduce social security expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product. If the Government are going to make progress towards that objective, it must be real progress. It must not be done simply by cooking the books, by falsifying the figures, by reclassifying what is now social security expenditure—the family credit—as something that is regarded as a tax credit, which is, in other words, negative tax and not public expenditure. That will not wash. If the Financial Secretary thinks that she can bamboozle the Opposition, or, indeed the British public, she had better think again.
  I draw from today's interesting debates several lessons, in an attempt—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst probably will not like this—to help the Government and to be positive. They may want to be taken seriously in bringing forward a new working families tax credit, but, next time around, in the autumn, we will not be so forgiving. We will expect clear precise answers to these important questions. We will expect the Government to do their homework—they have not done so up to now—and come to Parliament with proper modesty in proposing and explaining their legislative proposals, not the arrogance that we have had from them, with the Government thinking that, because of their enormous majority, they can simply take Parliament and its procedures for granted.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  River Kennet, Wiltshire
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  7 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I should start by saying how grateful I am to Madam Speaker for the chance to raise this serious matter on the Adjournment.
  In environmental terms, the River Kennet is one of the jewels in my constituency. It is not only one of the finest trout streams in England; the stretch of river to which this debate refers is a top-quality chalk stream and a site of special scientific interest in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Rising by Avebury with its ancient and awe-inspiring standing stones, it flows along a broad green valley, through the royal borough of Marlborough, by the Roman relics at Mildenhall and the riverside gardens at Ramsbury and past Chilton Foliat into Berkshire, where it finally escapes my representation. Just before Ramsbury, it runs by Axford, where much of the cause of this debate arises.
  The Kennet is a special river not only to the angler, but to the conservationist, the environmentalist and, above all, the genuine countryman. It is not a large river, which makes it vulnerable. It is not a fast river, which makes it precarious. It is the epitome of a crystal-clear chalk stream, bringing quality of life to the community through which it passes, habitat for local flora and fauna, and great pleasure to all the people who live near or along its banks.
  The River Kennet is under threat—from a changing climate, which has, as we all know, recently produced episodes of drought, from man-made activity along its banks, but, above all, from the abstraction of its precious water to feed developments outwith its catchment area, which are mostly in and around Swindon, to its north.
  I have watched the River Kennet at close quarters for some eight years. I have read all the technical data about the river and have tried, along even with experts, fully to interpret those data. It is not easy, especially for the layman. I hear the arguments about levels of flow and their effect on the ecology of the river. I struggle with cost-benefit analyses. My plea tonight, however, is based as much on my instinct as a simple countryman as on any of those matters. To a simple countryman, the fact is that the River Kennet is declining and the main cause for that decline is the amount of water that is abstracted from it both at Axford and further up the river.
  It is deeply depressing to see that the River Kennet to the west of Marlborough is, in the summer, effectively a dry and overgrown river bed, and to the east of Axford an unnaturally slow and reduced flow. It is an alarming spectacle when, each year, the extent of those problems appears to increase. It is not only of direct and understandable concern to people who fish or earn their living from fishing on the river; they have a direct and legitimate interest in being concerned. It is also a cause of anxiety to all the people who just value the countryside and the natural environment. However, that depression, that alarm, that concern, that anxiety are seemingly just brushed aside by those who have an interest in abstracting water from the Kennet, and it seems recently, I regret, by the Government as well.
  Ironically, anyone who looks at the River Kennet today might wonder at this debate because, after a month of unusually high rainfall, the river is in what is known as

  573
  spanking condition. It is looking as it always should look. The sad truth is that this is the exception which proves the rule. Normally these days, a much diminished version is seen. The river's flow has been reduced and that cannot be denied.
  Thames Water Utilities Ltd., which abstracts the water, blames river modifications for the changes in flow patterns and droughts for the reduction of flow. I find that a somewhat specious argument as, in the absence or with a reduction of abstraction, those other circumstances would themselves be less significant.
  Blaming drought in particular begs the question. If the risk of flooding on a flood plain is measured on a ratio of 100 years as a relevant criterion in considering planning applications for housing, surely the risk of drought measured on a similar ratio and for similar reasons in applications for water abstraction licences should equally apply. That is to say that, unless it is shown to be likely, rather than the exception, it should not be relevant. The real point is rather simpler: without drought, abstraction still reduces the river flow by the amount abstracted and the damage of that reduction still occurs. With drought, that problem is merely compounded.
  None of us argues that no water should be abstracted, only that it should be contained within the limits that the river can, without lasting damage, afford. People need water, but so does the environment. It must be a matter of proper balance. It is the lack of that balance that gives rise to such anxiety.
  The subject has long been a matter of local concern. I pay tribute to the group Action for the River Kennet, which is known locally and affectionately as ARK, for the way in which it has informed and guided local opinion and ensured that it has been directed constructively. The extent of that local concern has been demonstrated over a long period by substantial attendances at local meetings—not least one three weeks ago. My constituents mind about the Kennet. I mind about the Kennet. We are looking to the Government to mind, too.
  Although this concern arises as much in relation to the reduction of water in the aquifers at the head of the river, which is the apparent cause of the river's virtual disappearance to the west of Marlborough in the summer—a matter that also needs to be addressed by the Minister—the most recent concern has been brought to a head by the Government's decision in February in relation to the River Kennet, consequent upon a public inquiry in 1996 into Thames Water's abstraction at Axford.
  The inquiry was precipitated by Thames Water's application to make permanent a temporary variation to its abstraction licence, which had been in force for 15 years and which allowed the company to exceed its base licence of 13.1 megalitres per day by a further 7.4 megalitres per day, subject to a minimum flow of 61.4 megalitres per day measured at a particular point. The Environment Agency had sought a progressive minimum flow increase and, most important, a reduction in the base volume. Thames Water appealed against that.
  The inquiry was highly technical, hearing evidence on hydrological models of the effect of abstraction on river flow and, consequently, on aquatic flora and fauna. The case against Thames Water, which was led by the Environment Agency, was in summary that low flows were making the river less suitable for water crowfoot and
  574
  brown trout, two species that are particular indicators of a healthy chalk stream. The argument was that the river was being damaged.
  In the event, the inspector recommended against the Environment Agency's proposal for a reduction in the base rate of abstraction and suggested a review of that in 2007. He accepted a first-stage cut-off of 69 megalitres per day, but extended that to 1999. He reduced the agency's proposed second-stage cut-off from 104 megalitres per day to 90 megalitres per day.
  In February, the Secretary of State upheld Thames Water's appeal and endorsed the inspector's findings with no further comment. Although that was an improvement for the river on the current position, the result was deeply disappointing considering the circumstantial evidence in support of the Environment Agency's position. However, the lack of explanation of the Government's decision caused the greatest concern; hence today's debate.
  People regard the Environment Agency as not only the Government's adviser in matters environmental, but their protective arm. When the Government appear to cast aside that protective arm, that is obviously a matter for consternation and requires, at the very least, substantial explanation. After all, to whom else can people look for environmental support and protection?
  That consternation has been further compounded by the apparent conflict of the Government's decision with the Secretary of State's statement at last May's water summit that the forthcoming review into water abstraction
  "would examine ways in which environmentally damaging abstractions … can be equitably curtailed".
  The decision also seems to be at variance with the parliamentary answer from the Minister for the Environment on 25 March 1998, which said:
  "Where water abstractions are damaging sites specially protected—
  by, among other things—
  "designation as SSSIs"—
  as is the case here—
  "the Environment Agency should seek voluntary agreements for reductions with the abstractors where possible. Where that is not possible, the Environment Agency should use its existing powers … to vary or revoke the relevant licences, and be prepared to pay compensation where necessary. As part of their review of the water abstraction licensing system, the Government are considering future compensation arrangements and a consultation paper on those and other proposals will be published within the next few weeks."—[Official Report, 25 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 163.]
  That has certainly not been the outcome of the Government's decision in this case; far from it. I have not read the consultation paper—I am not sure whether it has yet been issued.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle)indicated assent.
  Mr. Ancram: The Minister nods—it has been issued. More importantly, the lack of explanation as to why the decision runs so counter to the statements that I have quoted is a genuine cause of resentment and concern. I hope that we will receive some explanation tonight.
  First, I hope that we can agree that there is damage to the River Kennet from abstraction. There may be arguments about the extent and effect of such damage, but

  575
  the acceptance of its existence is an important starting point. At the inquiry, it was generally agreed that the river's flow had been reduced by the Axford abstraction and that over time the diminution in the flow roughly equals the abstraction.
  It was also generally accepted that ranunculus growth had declined noticeably around Axford, which also corresponded roughly with the increased abstraction from that point, and that ranunculus growth is a good indicator of a river's health. I therefore hope that we can all accept that there is some damage, and hence some danger, related to abstraction. That falls fairly and squarely within the parliamentary answer to which I have already referred.
  Why, then, in their decision, have the Government seemingly ignored that damage in agreeing with the inspector to leave the base rate of abstraction unchanged? Could it be that there was a desire to avoid the question of compensation arising, especially as the formulation of compensation, and where it would come from, has yet formally to be articulated? Did the inspector deliberately avoid the issue of compensation because there was a lack of direction, and if so, should not the Government have re-examined that aspect of the report and, if necessary, made changes to the recommendations in the light of that?
  If decisions have not yet been made about the thorny problem of compensation, would it not have been better to hold off the decision—which, after all, had been waiting, without explanation, for over a year—until any new criteria or arrangements could be applied?
  Why did the report and, by their endorsement, the Government cast aside the cost-benefit analysis of their own Environment Agency in favour of Thames Water's figures? The decision to reject the agency's basis of calculation created an adverse difference of £12.9 million—between the agency's figure of £13.6 million and Thames Water's figure of £0.7 million—so there can be no doubt that that was a significant deciding factor.
  The agency had followed the benefits manual guidance in making its calculation, using the number of people in Thames Water's supply area. The inspector rejected that in favour of using a much smaller local head count. The agency believes that that decision has blown a hole in the wider strategy that it is pursuing on behalf of the Government and will seriously hamper its work on other rivers and wetlands.
  We are not talking about a peripheral judgment on methodology. The decision on the cost-benefit analysis strikes at the heart of the environmental argument. It illustrates an enormous variation in the methodology used to calculate what is known as the non-use value, which might more accurately be called the environmental value. By endorsing the lowest basis for calculating the environmental value for the Kennet, the Government are in danger of undermining the importance of the environment in such disputes.
  I hope that the Minister will explain why the endorsement was given and whether it reflects the Government's view of how environmental value should be assessed. If it does, we shall have to revise our perception of the Government's environmental policies; if it does not, the validity of the Government's judgment on the Kennet will be seriously called into question.
  576
  The Government cannot have it both ways. I suspect that no one is more aware of that than the Environment Agency. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's position on that important issue.
  More generally, is the forthcoming review likely to produce findings that, had they been effective, would have led to a different conclusion on the Kennet? If there is any chance of that, would it not have been fairer and more sensible to have held the Kennet decision until the review was complete? If that proves to be the case, will the issues be reviewable before 2007—the date proposed in the report endorsed by the Government? Anything less than that would lead to great resentment in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will consider my request seriously.
  I fear—I am always a pessimist on such occasions—that the Minister will tell the House that nothing can be done until 2007. The river will not survive that long without further deterioration. We need reassurances now. In spite of my fear, I live in hope that they might be forthcoming, if not tonight, then in the near future, when the full implications of the Government's decision on the Kennet, and more widely, have had time to sink in.
  The Kennet won a little respite from the outcome of the report, but not as much as had been hoped. If abstraction continues, even at the newly proposed rates, the river will remain in danger. Environmental damage to rivers such as the Kennet is easy to cause, but more difficult—sometimes impossible—to repair.
  I read the inspector's report, which the Government endorsed, with a heavy heart. I appreciate that such reports and decisions must be informed by models, methodologies and statistics, but I cannot help feeling that the real criteria are to be found in what the eye can see and what those who live by rivers such as the Kennet feel and experience. Rivers are more than a set of statistics and scientific findings; they are as much a part of our environment as the air that we breathe and the ground on which we walk. We know instinctively when our environment is under threat. In my part of Wiltshire, we know that the Kennet is under threat. We can see that, and physically experience it, as the river dries and the flow reduces.
  The Kennet is much more than just a stretch of water, a source of fishing or a pretty sight. It is part of the lives of my constituents; part of the environment in which we live and work; part of the quality of life in my constituency. That is why we fight to defend it. That is why we resent the current levels of abstraction and the half-hearted response to the danger in the inspector's report. That is why we find the report and the Government's acceptance of it, without explanation, so unpalatable. That is why I am seeking explanations and hoping for reassurances. The Kennet needs help. We are looking to the Government to provide it. I hope that the Minister will not disappoint us.
  7.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on successfully securing this debate.
  I am aware that there have been concerns about the River Kennet for several years. Indeed, they stretch back to the term of office of the previous Government,

  577
  of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, as well as into this Government. I am grateful for the intense interest in the issue that the right hon. Gentleman and his local community have taken, and for the work of various conservation groups, which not unnaturally guard the Kennet jealously. It is essential that environmental issues such as this are fully aired and that all those with an interest have an opportunity to contribute their views.
  The Government are determined that the water industry should be world class, water efficient and environmentally sustainable. That was the message at our water summit just a year ago, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, at which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out a 10-point plan of action to deal with leakage, and challenged water companies to increase efficiency measures so that our water resources were not squandered or put under undue strain, but used sensibly to meet people's needs. We also announced at that summit a review of abstraction licensing, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out. We shall announce the results of that review soon. If he wants a copy of the consultation paper, I should be happy to get one for him.
  The public inquiry into Thames Water's Axford abstraction licence appeal lasted 22 days. The inspector heard not only from the principal protagonists, Thames Water and the Environment Agency, but from English Nature, the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, Action for the River Kennet, the Kennet Valley Fishery Association and 15 interested persons. He also took into account written representations from 19 organisations and individuals, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was one.
  In the course of his inquiry and his consideration, the inspector had the benefit of numerous written reports and proofs of evidence from the various parties. There can be no doubt that all concerned took a full opportunity to present their cases to him. His report runs to more than 140 pages, and is commendably thorough and clear in its approach. It makes it clear that the upper River Kennet is a valuable example of an English chalk stream, and its associated flora and fauna. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, from Marlborough to Thatcham, it has been designated a site of special scientific interest.
  Much of the concern among local people about flows stemmed from their observation of reduced water depths in the river, although the inspector pointed out that dredging and other work on the river channel and general silt removal may have had some effect on water levels. He also pointed to the effect of weirs and hatches, and of reduced weed growth on river water levels. He recognised that the Axford abstraction had had an effect, but on consideration of flow modelling and other technical information put before him, found that the Axford abstraction could affect the river water levels by only about 3 cm. Although a possible contributory factor, that is certainly not sufficient on its own to explain the changes that have occurred to the plant life and general ecology of the flood plain.
  The inspector saw no reason to suppose that there was anything but a normal healthy macro-invertebrate population in the River Kennet, but he found, as the right hon. Gentleman at least hinted, a considerable decline in the growth of ranunculus—the common name for which is water crowfoot—in the entire upper Kennet between Marlborough and Knighton since the early 1980s. That decline seems to have been particularly marked in the Axford and Ramsbury area.
  578
  The presence of water crowfoot encourages fish and their food sources. In addition, a good growth of it considerably increases water depth simply by its mass and impedance to the flow of the river. For those reasons, the inspector accepted that the plant was an important indicator and controller of the health of a chalk stream such as the Kennet. He concluded that, in normal winter periods, there was no particular concern about the effect of the Axford abstraction on ranunculus, but he found that changes in river velocity, such as might occur in summer or in exceptional winter conditions, might explain the greater decline in the plant around Axford and Ramsbury.
  River dredging deepens the river channel and contributes to reduced velocity. The inspector indicated that changes to such practices, or the carrying out of other in-stream engineering works, might help to maintain river velocity. Interested parties might care to consider that further. If the Environment Agency were to find any serious legal impediment to the maintenance of or alteration to such a course of action, it would no doubt draw that to Ministers' attention.
  Water crowfoot could also be affected by increased siltation, increased growth of the blanket weed, cladophora, or by the growth of brown algae, but the inspector found that the Axford abstraction would have no significant effect on any of those processes. Even without the slight reduction in dilution caused by the abstraction, phosphorus concentrations in the river are considerably higher than would be required to limit the growth of blanket weed or algae.
  Phosphorus concentrations are influenced by agricultural practices in the catchment and by the Marlborough sewage works discharge. I understand that Thames Water is working with the Environment Agency on a new project to investigate the impact that phosphorus reduction has on the river. That is a good example of co-operation, of which we would like to see more, in tackling environmental problems in rivers. It also exemplifies the holistic approach to river catchment management, which is essential if we are to do the best for the environment and its users. As a nation, we lead integrated catchment management. The proposed water framework directive, on which we are making great strides during our presidency of the European Union, is founded on that approach.
  I am aware that the Kennet sustains a varied grouping of fish species. The inspector found that, apart from brown trout and, perhaps, grayling, there is little evidence to suggest that any of the populations of fish have suffered recently. No direct link was shown between the Axford abstraction and the declining size of the grayling population. Furthermore, the inspector considered there to be only limited evidence of a decline in the wild brown trout population in the river, and practically none to indicate that the situation was any worse in Axford and Ramsbury than anywhere else.
  The inspector went on to consider the computer modelling work that featured in the inquiry. It rejoices in the acronym, PHABSIM—physical habitat simulation model. It was developed in the United States of America, and has been used in New Zealand and several European countries as well as the UK, where our Institute of Hydrology has concluded that it is a powerful technique. The inspector accepted that, if correctly applied, it could

  579
  help to inform decisions relating to the ecological impact of changes in river flows. The inspector also recognised the complex nature of the work.
  Hon. Members will not expect me to launch into a detailed explanation of such work, but, as the inspector pointed out, it was unfortunate that the protagonists were not able to co-operate and reach agreement on how PHABSIM should have been applied in this case. That is clearly one of the lessons to be learned from this episode. I trust that all with an interest in the matter will join me in encouraging scientists to work together to improve the application of such techniques.
  Nevertheless, in the light of his detailed consideration of what he was told by the protagonists, the inspector concluded that the PHABSIM work tended to support the view that ranunculus could suffer at flow rates in the order of those associated with the Axford abstraction. He therefore reached the conclusion that abstraction of the full 20.5 megalitres per day, which had been allowed under the previous time-limited variation to Thames Water's licence whenever the river flow at Knighton was above 61.4 megalitres per day, should in future be allowed only when the river flow was above 90 megalitres per day. That is a tightening of abstraction licence conditions.
  Moreover, the inspector recommended that the new variation should last only for a further 10 years, rather than in perpetuity, as Thames Water had sought. That should be regarded as a victory. However, from consideration of all the environmental evidence, the inspector concluded that there was no requirement for a reduction in the abstraction rate below that of the base licence, which dates from 1965 and authorises abstraction of 13.1 megalitres per day.
  The Secretary of State accepted those conclusions. As I have said, the inspector was presented with a wealth of information pertaining to the fundamental question. That is the purpose of any public local inquiry. After prolonged consideration, the inspector found that the environmental evidence did not fully support the proposed action, and the Secretary of State found no reason to disagree with that view.
  Since our decision was announced and the inspector's report was put into the public domain, much has been made of his comments and conclusions on the costs and benefits associated with the reduction of the Axford abstraction to the extent proposed by the Environment Agency. I think that it proposed a level as low as 3 megalitres.
  The letter conveying the Secretary of State's decision made no reference to those conclusions, as the decision was taken on the basis of the inspector's conclusions in respect of the environmental evidence. Despite the inspector's stated view that the approach adopted to the assessment of benefits was acceptable in principle, it was clear from his further comments that considerable and unresolved uncertainty and controversy existed over the detailed way in which the approach should be followed in that particular case. That was the lack of agreement that I mentioned earlier.
  The approach adopted was that described in a manual published in 1996 as a result of collaborative research funded in part by the former National Rivers Authority and the then Department of the Environment, as well as
  580
  by a body representative of the water companies, so it is untrue to say that it was simply a creation of Thames Water. The executive summary to that manual made clear the limitations of the methodology, and envisaged that experience in its application would provide a basis for updating it in due course.
  Moreover, no matter how well developed general methodologies for assessing environmental costs and benefits become—and it is evident that a considerable amount of development remains to be done—the complex and highly variable nature of individual river systems and of their significance to society will almost certainly make it essential for detailed and specific studies to be carried out in particular cases. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring the right hon. Gentleman that in future hearings on abstraction licences, there will not suddenly be rule by computer models and manuals that do not apply to specific cases. Even as we speak, officials of my Department are discussing the matter with their counterparts in the Environment Agency.
  The appeal also highlighted the fact that many abstraction licences have no time limit attached to them. They remain until revoked or varied and, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, if either of those things is done at the direction of the Secretary of State, the question of compensation arises. Compensation arrangements, in both the short and the longer term, and time limits for licences are among the many facets of the present licensing system that we are examining in our review. However, I must emphasise that it is the system that we are now reviewing, not individual licences.
  My answer to a question that the right hon. Gentleman asked is that that decision was taken under the existing system, and does not prejudice any future system that we may put into effect after the review is published, should we decide to legislate. We shall publish a consultation paper on our proposals in the next few weeks. As I have already said in the House, where voluntary agreement cannot be reached on licence changes necessary to protect SSSIs, the Environment Agency should, on a prioritised basis, use its existing powers to see that the changes are made.
  It is the environmental evidence that is and will remain all-important in carrying through contested changes to licences. There has to be a strong case—a case that, as I have said before in the House, will withstand the scrutiny of public inquiry—to show that a particular course of action is appropriate for correcting whatever environmental harm is being caused.
  Clearly, the question of the Axford abstraction can be reopened at any time. I hope that that that gives the right hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he sought. There is certainly no requirement to wait until 2007, but the case for further action must be strong. It is clear that the causes of the perceived problems with the River Kennet are complex. Here, as elsewhere, there is a continuing need for all concerned to work together to understand the causes and to agree on whatever action needs to be taken. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in encouraging all concerned about the Kennet to do that, to ensure its future as an important SSSI, as a beautiful feature of his constituency and as a river that many people enjoy.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Biodiversity Convention
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the aims of the Government at the Conference of the Parties to the Biodiversity Convention meeting in Bratislava. [41455]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK, along with other Member States of the European Union, has already taken steps to implement the CBD at a national and European level. We are pressing for this Conference to agree further action at all levels in a number of areas. These include decisions on: inland water ecosystems; marine and coastal ecosystems; agricultural biodiversity; forests; benefit sharing; and the Biosafety Protocol. We are also striving to improve the operation of the Convention so that it becomes a much more effective force in the world. I represented the UK at a ministerial Roundtable at the start of negotiations which made recommendations on private sector activities, sustainable tourism, and the integration of biodiversity into policy decisions.

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year since its creation the number of warning letters issued by HM Railway Inspectorate to Railtrack plc. [41564]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate advise that the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year since its creation prosecutions taken by HM Railway Inspectorate against Railtrack plc. [41563]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate has initiated two prosecutions against Railtrack plc since its creation. The first followed an electrical burns incident at Hatton in Warwickshire on 24 July 1995. Railtrack pleaded not guilty but were found guilty. The second prosecution followed a derailment at Bexley on 4 February 1997. This is expected to be heard on 26 May 1998.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter issued by HM Railway 154
  Inspectorate to Eurotunnel as detailed in Paragraph 63 of the Annual report of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority 1996–97. [41560]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate to make public the contents of private correspondence with duty holders.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the Rail Safety and Technology Working Group relating to signals passed at red in the Channel Tunnel. [41559]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am not in a position to do so.

  This report was a working document produced by the Rail Safety and Technology Working Group to inform the Safety Authority and contains information supplied by Eurotunnel. Disclosure would be a breach of Clause 33 of the Concession Agreement of 1986 concerning intellectual property and confidentiality.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the main contractors employed by Railtrack to undertake maintenance work, and the names of any contractors or sub-contractors removed from any approved lists since the creation of Railtrack. [41568]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a commercial matter for Railtrack.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year since its creation the number of occurrences where unqualified staff or contractors have been found undertaking work on railway property on behalf of Railtrack plc. [41566]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive has no records of the numbers of such occurrences.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the last five years the number of derailments officially notified to HM Railway Inspectorate and the train operating companies involved. [41567]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 7 May 1998,Official Report, columns 441–42.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a comprehensive requirement for secondary treatment to be provided for significant sewage discharges to high natural dispersion areas; and what estimate he has made of the cost. [42033]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, secondary treatment of sewage discharges is the norm but coastal discharges may receive primary treatment if comprehensive studies establish that there would be no adverse environmental effect. We are, however, very aware of the concerns being expressed by
  155
  those who are not convinced that anything less than secondary treatment will afford the necessary level of environmental protection and are giving further consideration to the Government's policy options. Decisions will have to be taken in the context of the current Periodic Review of water company price limits, which is the process of balancing the environmental obligations to be placed on water companies in England and Wales with the consequent effect on water bills.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the programme of development work within the terms of paragraph 6 of the Annexe to the Commission Decision 94/730/EC of 4 November 1994 in respect of GMO release consent reference 95/R13/6. [42091]

  Angela Eagle
  The programme of development work for GMO release consent reference 95/R/13/6, to which the hon. Member refers, is entirely covered by information which was supplied in support of that particular application for a release consent, which was made under the first simplified procedure regulated by Commission Decision 94/370/EC. This information, as with all release applications in the UK, can be viewed either on the public register at Ashdown House, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or at the relevant Regional Office in the vicinity of the release. Details can also always be requested from the Biotechnology Unit, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  The information available includes details of the risk assessment; the sites of the releases; the conditions of the releases; and, in fact, all the other information contained on the file which has not been deemed to be commercially confidential. Therefore, as this information is freely and widely available, I do not consider it appropriate to put the programme of development work for GMO release consent reference 95/R/13/6 into the Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statutory provisions govern the conduct of tests and trials in respect of genetically modified seeds; and if he will make a statement. [41517]

  Angela Eagle
  All releases of GMOs into the environment are subject to Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 as amended (1995 and 1997). Accordingly, genetically modified seeds can enter trials and tests only if they have been granted a consent by the Secretary of State. The conduct of each trial is subject to the limitations and conditions of the consent in addition to the general conditions set out in section 112 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in respect of GMOs, and the general conditions relating to National List Trials for any seed.
  156
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will prevent planting of genetically engineered maize at Hood Barton, near Totnes in Devon, to avoid possible contamination of the neighbouring organic farm. [42089]

  Mr. Meacher
  Even if sown now, the genetically modified crop will not be in a condition to produce pollen until July at the earliest and there is therefore no need to prevent planting. If in the light of any new information it appears necessary to terminate the trial this can and will be done before the flowers produce pollen.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if companies releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment are required to pay for post-release monitoring, including the effects within the wider biological environment. [41481]

  Angela Eagle
  Companies holding a consent to release a genetically modified organism are required to pay the full costs of all monitoring of the release, annual subsistence charges to cover inspection by Health and Safety specialist inspectors, and any enforcement costs.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has(a) to improve public participation in and (b) to increase the transparency of the regulatory procedure for consenting to the release of GMOs. [42090]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are currently considering several options to improve public participation in, and transparency of, the regulatory procedure for consenting to the release of GMOs. First, in connection with the forthcoming quinquennial review of the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment, the Government will be considering how the deliberations of this Committee might be made more transparent.

  Secondly, the Department of Trade and Industry is preparing to undertake a substantial public consultation exercise on the wider—including ethical—issues raised by recent advances in the biosciences, one aspect of which is likely to be the regulatory procedures.

  Thirdly, the Government are also looking at improving and increasing the information they place on the Internet in relation to the regulatory procedure for consenting to the release of GMOs, and in doing so, hope to allow greater access to this information. It should also be noted that the current regulatory procedure is already extremely open, with the public able to have access to most of the information supplied in release consent applications.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), of 11 February 1998,Official Report, column 228, when he expects to (a) publish and (b) implement secondary legislation in respect of 20 mph speed limits. [42111]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Consultation on the details of a new system for making 20 mph speed limits was launched on 12 May. Copies of the paper detailing and seeking
  157
  comments on the proposal have been placed in the Library of the House. Subject to the views of consultees, we will bring forward secondary legislation as soon as possible.

  Parish, Beverley
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to table an order giving effect to the decision to establish a parish for Beverley. [41909]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We intend to consult shortly on a draft of an Order establishing a parish for Beverley. Our intention is to make the Order, which is not subject to parliamentary procedure, to enable elections for the new parish council to be held in May 1999.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the report and recommendations of the review by the Advisory Committee on Packaging of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. [41851]

  Angela Eagle
  The Advisory Committee on Packaging will complete its review of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 at the end of May. Their report and recommendations to Ministers will be available, as before, to members of the public. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if support will be given in the current financial year to English local authorities and to the Environment Agency to meet the capital costs of dealing with contaminated land. [42344]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department is continuing the Contaminated Land Supplementary Credit Approval programme this financial year with a budget of £15 million. It provides support for English local authorities for the capital costs they incur in dealing with contaminated land. The programme also supports, in the form of additional grant-in-aid, the Environment Agency where it is carrying out works to deal with water pollution caused by contaminated land.

  Most authorities with on-going contractual commitments for projects funded in previous years have already received notification that support will be available. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has decided many of the bids it has received to date for new projects and has written today to the successful authorities and to the Environment Agency notifying them of the financial allocations which are being made.

  The Department is discussing some bids with the authorities concerned and expects to make some further allocations. It will also decide new bids when they are received.
  158
  The table sets out the allocations which have been made so far this current financial year.

  £

  Local authorities

  Number of sites

  Total allocation

  Ashford BC

  1

  50,000

  Bexley LB

  1

  50,000

  Blackburn with Darwen BC

  4

  115,500

  Bury MBC

  2

  202,631

  Calderdale MBC

  1

  300,000

  Cheshire CC

  3

  23,950

  Chorley BC

  2

  179,000

  Colchester BC

  1

  12,125

  Cornwall CC

  1

  18,000

  Croydon LB

  5

  112,000

  Cumbria CC

  1

  536,408

  Darlington

  1

  250,000

  Devon CC

  5

  368,300

  Dudley MBC

  1

  79,200

  Durham CC

  1

  10,000

  East Sussex CC

  1

  40,000

  Essex CC

  2

  175,000

  Greenwich LB

  1

  10,000

  Guildford BC

  4

  31,940

  Hampshire CC

  2

  567,000

  Harrogate BC

  1

  19,000

  Havering LB

  1

  28,000

  Herefordshire C

  1

  25,000

  Hounslow LB

  8

  182,523

  Isle of Wight C

  1

  10,000

  Kent CC

  1

  60,000

  Knowsley MBC

  1

  114,000

  Lancashire CC

  1

  106,000

  Leicester City

  5

  535,000

  Leicestershire CC

  2

  33,100

  Maidstone BC

  1

  30,000

  Merseyside WDA

  3

  33,000

  Middlesbrough BC

  1

  464,000

  Newcastle City

  3

  793,550

  Newham LB

  1

  23,200

  Norfolk CC

  1

  60,000

  Northamptonshire CC

  2

  520,000

  North East Lincolnshire C

  1

  354,450

  North Lincolnshire C

  1

  185,000

  Norwich City

  1

  73,400

  Nottingham City

  1

  57,000

  Nottinghamshire CC

  1

  9,000

  Nuneaton and Bedworth BC

  5

  115,000

  Oldham MBC

  1

  70,000

  Oxford City

  1

  26,000

  Oxfordshire CC

  1

  15,000

  Plymouth City

  2

  153,800

  Portsmouth City

  6

  198,000

  Preston BC

  1

  316,750

  Redbridge LB

  1

  10,500

  Rotherham MBC

  3

  77,800

  Sandwell MBC

  16

  524,572

  Sheffield City

  1

  35,530

  Shropshire CC

  1

  44,000

  Solihull MBC

  1

  522,876

  South Holland DC

  1

  39,500

  Staffordshire CC

  1

  55,500

  Surrey CC

  6

  32,500

  Tameside MBC

  2

  35,000

  Trafford MBC

  6

  677,750

  Wakefield MDC

  1

  15,000

  Warrington BC

  1

  16,550

  Warwickshire CC

  1

  377,000

  Worcestershire CC

  1

  42,930

  Environment Agency

  9

  1,294,650

WALES

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cattle passports are issued each week by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [40658]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  On average Welsh Office Agriculture Department Divisional Offices issue 1,890 cattle passports each week.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what proportion of his Department's appointees to non-departmental public bodies are aged(a) under 25, (b) 25 to 30 and (c) 31 to 35 years. [40733]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Of the 625 people in appointments for which I have either sole or joint responsibility none are aged under 25; 3 (0.5!) are aged between 25 and 30; and 4 (0.6!) are aged between 31 and 35 as at 5 May 1998.

  I am keen to encourage applications for public appointments from a wide range of candidates who are representative of the communities they serve, which includes young people. All appointments are made on merit. Candidates must demonstrate that they meet the criteria set out for each appointment, including the relevant skills and experience.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to announce the results of the review into planning policy for opencast coal in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [41645]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Responses to the 1997 Consultation Paper are currently being analysed. I should soon be in a position to announce the way in which the review of opencast coal planning policy guidance in Wales will be taken forward.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will conduct a full review of Minerals Planning Guidance Note 3, on coal mining and colliery spoil disposal, in conjunction with the present review of energy policy in Wales. [41644]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The review of UK energy policy is underway. In parallel with that review, consideration will be given to the review of Minerals Planning Guidance Note 3.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received concerning his plans to restructure NHS Trusts in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [41648]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have received 2,843 letters and 15,114 petition signatures in respect of plans to restructure NHS trusts in Wales. In March, I announced a proposed new shape of trusts on which formal consultation will take place over the summer. Consultation documents are currently being prepared for each Health Authority area in Wales. These will explain the proposed changes in 160
  detail and the benefits for patients which are expected to arise as a result of the proposed changes. The consultation period is planned to start in early June and will last for three months. All comments received as part of this process will be considered before the Secretary of State makes his final decision in the Autumn.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to appoint the Standing Orders Commission in preparation for the opening of the Assembly for Wales. [41650]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I expect to appoint the Standing Orders Commission in the Summer, subject to Royal Assent to the Government of Wales Bill.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish a further draft of the Transfer of Functions (National Assembly for Wales) Order; and if he will make a statement. [42425]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have published a second draft of the order today and have placed copies in the Library of the House. I will be publishing a full draft in the autumn for consultation.

  Public Health
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to take to improve public health in Wales. [42216]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Today I have launched the public health Green Paper, "Better Health—Better Wales" which takes account of Government aims to tackle the underlying causes of ill-health by identifying a wide range of social, economic and environmental factors which impact on health. The paper proposes a broad range of areas where new and concerted action could make a significant difference to health and well-being. It addresses the implications of issues specific to Wales, including the significant health inequalities, the reforms proposed in the Wales NHS White Paper and the preparations for the National Assembly for Wales.

  "Better Health—Better Wales" has drawn on advice from both the Welsh Office and a wide range of key organisations in the public and voluntary sectors. The purpose of the forthcoming consultation period is to engage as many as possible in debate about the best ways to improve people's health in Wales. We hope that individuals, community leaders, employers and those responsible for services will participate.

  The Welsh Office will publish an Action Plan in Autumn 1998 based on the framework outlined in this document and informed by responses to the consultation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Material (Reprocessing)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the international agreements which prohibited the Government from giving advance notice to the House of
  161
  the recent transport of enriched uranium to Dounreay from Georgia; and what advice was taken on the interpretation of the relevant agreements. [40644]

  The Prime Minister
  The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material requires states who are parties to take measures to protect the confidentiality of information relating to the international transportation of nuclear material of the type imported from Georgia. The United Kingdom also follows the internationally agreed guidance in the document "The Physical Protection of Nuclear Material" published by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This recommends that advance knowledge of transport information should be limited to the minimum number of persons necessary. Advice on these international requirements and recommendations is routinely sought from the Director of Civil Nuclear Security who is the designated central authority for the UK on the physical protection of nuclear material, under the Convention. Furthermore, in this particular case, as I told the House on 22 April 1998,Official Report, column 818, it would have been most unwise to draw attention to the existence of this material before it could be secured and safely removed from Georgia.

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the purpose of the Strategic Communications Unit; if he will list the unit's employees; if he will estimate the annual cost of the unit; and if he will make a statement. [41115]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 May 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 14 January 1998, Official Report, columns 233–34, and to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 20 January 1998, Official Report, column 484. In addition, the Unit has been responsible for the launch of the No.10 website.

  Security Services (Software)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that software used by the security services obtained from outside the United Kingdom does not contain trapdoors, allowing unauthorised access to sensitive information. [41193]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 May 1998]: In common with other Government Departments, the intelligence and security services, when procuring software to process sensitive information, evaluate it against criteria which include its ability to deny unauthorised access.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to publish his annual report on judicial appointments. [41226]
  162
  Mr. Hoon
  As indicated by the Lord Chancellor in his statement of 9 October 1997, the first Annual Report to Parliament on the operation of the judicial appointments system will cover the period April 1998 to March 1999. It will contain statistics and information about judicial appointments made during that period and will be published in the summer of 1999.

  Magistrates
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the level of compensation for loss of earnings provided to magistrates. [41862]

  Mr. Hoon
  The payment of financial loss allowances to magistrates is governed by the provisions of Section 10 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 and the Justices' Allowances Regulations 1976. The rates are reviewed annually and new rates will be introduced in September 1998. Responsibility for decisions on individual claims rests with the local paying authorities.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will conduct an assessment of the ways in which magistrates can be assisted with child care costs; and if he will make a statement. [41863]

  Mr. Hoon
  Under Section 10(1)(b) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, magistrates are entitled to receive payments by way of Financial Loss Allowance for loss of earnings and any other expenditure incurred as a result of performing the duties of a Justice of the Peace. This can include claims for the cost of child care. Allowance is subject to the specified maximum limit.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure that employers give support to employees who wish to become magistrates. [41864]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is working with the Magistrates Association on a project directed at encouraging employers to release staff to serve as magistrates. In addition, the Lord Chancellor has commissioned the Central Office of Information to advise him on ways in which he may secure the support of employers in releasing staff to serve as magistrates.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how the building of Portcullis House has been funded; to which Vote on Account the expenditure is being charged; what was the original estimated cost of this building; and what is the estimated final outcome cost. [41080]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  [holding answer 11 May 1998]: The House of Commons Commission approved the final sketch design estimate in 1993 at the prices then prevailing with an allowance forecasting the possible rate of inflation in construction costs until the work is completed. Since 1993 changes to the brief and the cost

  163
  of the delayed handover of the site by London Underground Ltd. have accounted for the difference between the 1993 forecast of £219m and the current figure of £250m. The work is funded from Class 18A Vote 2, House of Commons Works Services.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Security Facilities Executive
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has made a decision on the future of the Security Facilities Executive. [41926]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have decided that SAFE is no longer a financially viable organisation, and that it should cease to be an executive agency from 1 July. From that date, its services will be provided from within the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service), with a view, thereafter, to transferring SAFE's essential functions and associated staff to the other Government Departments as soon as it is practicable to do so. I also propose that over the next three years its remaining services should be run down. This process will be completed no later than 31 March 2001.

  This decision is, I believe, the one which best meets my three criteria of:

  maintaining the security requirements of customers;

  safeguarding the interests of staff; and

  ensuring that the principle of value for money is maintained.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  British Library
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the memoranda negotiated by the then Secretary of State of the Department of National Heritage relating to the purchase of the freehold property near Chancery Lane formerly known as the Great Seal Patent Office and Library by the British Library. [40144]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Minute which transferred the freehold of 25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2, from the Department of National Heritage to the British Library was laid before the House by the then Secretary of State on 4 July 1996. It is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the costs of the development of the British Library's INSIDE CD-ROM products have been since 1984; and how much sales revenue has been generated from these products. [40112]

  Mr. Fisher
  A series of four inside current awareness CD-ROMs have been published since 1993. The total development costs and revenues relating to them are:

  Total development costs: £127,000

  Total revenue: £684,125.

  164
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the contracts with publishers which the British Library has entered into (i) by value and (ii) by publisher in the last 10 years. [40135]

  Mr. Fisher
  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of such contracts which the British Library has entered into over the last ten years and their respective values.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the costs of the British Library's digital library programme are for the current year; what they are estimated to be in future years; and how many British Library staff are presently engaged in the programme. [40131]

  Mr. Fisher
  The cost of the British Library's digital library programme for the current year is planned at £639,000. The costs for future years are projected to decline as follows:

  1999–2000: £488,000

  2000–2001: £388,000

  2001–2002: £388,000.

  There are eight staff dedicated to the digital library programme.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Visitor Visas
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on visitors' visa applications and the introduction of an appeal procedure. [41594]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have received no recent representations on visitors' visa applications and the introduction of an appeal procedure. We are committed to introducing a streamlined right of appeal for visitors refused a visa.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his timetable is for the introduction of an appeal procedure in relation to visitors' visa applications; and if he will make a statement. [41595]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our manifesto commits us to introducing a streamlined right of appeal for visitors refused a visa. We are considering the options for achieving this and we will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Firearms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many handguns are held as personal protection weapons in each region of the United Kingdom. [41797]

  Mr. Michael
  In England, Scotland and Wales there are no handguns held as personal protection weapons. Handguns are prohibited under the terms of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) and as such may be held only with the express authority of the Secretary of State. It is not the policy to issue that authority for firearms for personal protection.
  165
  In Northern Ireland, handguns for personal protection may be held on certificates issued by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Currently, there are some 9,800 handguns so held. Certificates are granted only to those people the chief officer believes to be under serious threat of terrorist attack and are not granted for the protection of money or property. As the threat of terrorist violence recedes, the number of firearms held for this purpose is expected to decline.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the current

  Original offence1,2

  Total sampled

  Percentage reconvicted for any offence3

  Percentage reconvicted for any drugs offence

  Numbers and two year reconviction rates for drug offences for prisoners discharged in 1994

  Dealing in cannabis

  678

  34

  18

  Dealing in ecstacy (MDMA)

  120

  28

  13

  Possession of heroin

  172

  64

  32

  Dealing in heroin

  125

  35

  18

  All drugs offences

  2,722

  37

  17

  Numbers and two year reconviction rates for drug offences for offenders commencing community penalties4 in 1994

  Other drugs offence

  511

  49

  27

  Dealing in cannabis

  190

  41

  25

  Possession of heroin

  250

  65

  33

  All drugs offences

  1,000

  51

  28

  1 Figures are given only for categories of offence where there were at least 50 offenders in either sample whose original offence was possession of cannabis. Possession with intent to supply has been included in dealing offences

  2 The original offence is based on the most recent offence recorded prior to discharge from prison. The data for the detailed categories of drugs offence relate to those sentenced from 1 January 1993, the date on which the categories presented here were first used

  3 Reconviction for a standard list offence. This includes all indictable and some of the more serious summary offences

  4 This sample was drawn from offenders commencing probation, community service and combination orders

  Licensing Hours
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages of harmonising licensing hours across continental Europe. [42038]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have not considered such a proposition. On 5 May, I announced a review of liquor licensing law for England and Wales. This will take appropriate account of experience elsewhere in Europe.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 26, what were the exceptional and specific justifications established for the use of wild-caught baboons in regulated procedures since 1996. [42113]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The wild-caught baboons are used in important heart xenotransplantation research. Baboons are used because of their physiological similarity to humans and because primates of a particular size (over 6kg) are essential. Extensive efforts have been made, by the research team, to find suitable sources of captive-bred baboons, but captive-bred animals are not available in sufficient quantities.
  166
  level of repeat offending for drug offences involving (a) possession of cannabis, (b) dealing in cannabis, (c) possession of ecstasy, (d) dealing in ecstasy, (e) possession of heroin and (f) dealing in heroin. [41618]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The most recently available relevant information relates to reconvictions in samples of prisoners discharged from prison in 1994 and of offenders commencing community penalties in 1994.

  The source of this information on reconvictions is the Home Office Offenders Index. This does not contain information on cautioning of offenders. It should be borne in mind that this information relates to reconviction rather than reoffending and is restricted to offenders who have been sentenced to custody or a community penalty.

  All applications to use wild-caught primates are referred to the Animal Procedures Committee. In this case, the Committee advised in 1994 that there was justification for allowing their use. The Committee has closely monitored and reviewed the work involving these baboons since the licence was granted.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he discharged the transgenic pigs exported by their owners Imtran for use in experimentation in Holland from the protection of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement; [42076]

  (2) how many animals intended for use in experiments were exported, and to which countries, for the latest year for which figures are available; [42112]

  (3) what controls his Department exercises in the regulation of the export of animals for intended use in experiments. [42075]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The export and transportation of animals is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Home Office does not keep central records of the number of animals exported, nor the purpose for which they were exported.
  167
  Animals which have been used in scientific procedures must be discharged from the controls of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 before they can be exported. We have authorised the discharge of transgenic pigs from the controls of the Act so that they might be exported to Holland. This authorisation was contingent upon a number of conditions, aimed at ensuring animal welfare, being met. These required, inter alia, that a veterinary certificate of fitness to travel be obtained and that only those animals which are unlikely to suffer adverse effects be exported. Any unexpected adverse effects experienced by the animals must also be reported to the Home Office.

  WPC Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 3, what response he has received from the Foreign Secretary in response to his letter relating to the latest position on the police investigation into the death of WPC Fletcher. [42086]

  Mr. Straw
  I minuted my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 20 April. The purpose of my minute was to inform him of the latest position on the police inquiries and to bring to his attention those concerns raised by my hon. Friend on 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 887, which relate to the Foreign Secretary's responsibilities. As such, my minute did not require a reply.

  Police Surgeons
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 February 1998,Official Report, column 181, if he will make a statement on his discussions with ACPO and the BMA on the problem of police surgeons refusing to carry out intimate body searches on those suspected of carrying drugs. [41884]

  Mr. Michael
  On 17 April representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Drugs Committee, the British Medical Association, the Association of Police Surgeons and the Medical Defence Union met Home Office officials to discuss the difficulties encountered by some police forces in getting doctors to carry out intimate body searches for concealed drugs. It emerged that information and understanding on all sides needs to be improved: the information from police forces about the number of times they would like an intimate search to be carried out but encounter problems is unreliable; but also the understanding of many police surgeons about the full legal and ethical issues involved is unclear. A number of helpful action points aimed at taking matters forward were agreed at the meeting. These include ACPO asking police forces to review their statistics of intimate searches to provide fuller information and the medical bodies reviewing their current guidance and reconsidering the ethical issues. A further meeting to take stock of progress is planned for the autumn.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households received double the proper payment under the Pensioner Fuel Bills Special Payment Scheme. [39853]

  Mr. Denham
  Winter Fuel payments are one of a number of initiatives the Government have taken to help vulnerable people, especially the elderly, keep warm in the winter. A total of £400 million has been committed for two years (97/98 and 98/99), to help pensioners with fuel bills to pay. This is the first time any Government have provided additional help with heating costs to all pensioners living in the United Kingdom who receive a Retirement Pension or one of a number of other qualifying benefits.

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

  The administration of Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Desmond Swayne, dated 13 May 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking how many pensioner households received double the proper payment under the Winter Fuel Payment Scheme.
  The making of Winter Fuel Payments to almost ten million eligible pensioners, in over seven million households, before the end of March 1998 has been a challenging task for the Benefits Agency (BA). This was achieved whilst maintaining normal benefit business.
  Around one and a half million of the poorest pensioners, those receiving Income Support (IS) or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA(IB)), received their payment of £50 during January. Almost eight and a half million other eligible pensioners, for example those in receipt of state Retirement Pension, were issued with a payment of £20 or £10. The issue of these payments was completed by 24 March 1998.
  So far we are aware of 645 eligible pensioners who received two £50 payments. This includes 211 who erroneously received two payments due to being in receipt of both Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance for at least one day in the qualifying week. In accordance with the legislation only one payment should have been made. A further 434 pensioners cashed both an invalid and a replacement girocheque. Due to a computer operator error, 40,801 invalid girocheques were sent out with an incorrect date of issue. The error was quickly identified and all the invalid payments were replaced within 72 hours. The letter which accompanied the replacement apologised for the error and advised the recipient to destroy the invalid girocheque or if they had managed to encash it, to return the replacement to the nearest Benefits Agency office. It appears that in a small number of instances both the invalid and replacement girocheque were cashed. Action will be taken to write to each of those eligible pensioners who received £100 instead of £50 informing of the position and inviting repayment. In the case of the 434 invalid girocheques cashed by the Post Office, where repayment is not offered by any

  169
  of the eligible pensioners, in accordance with agreed contractual obligations and responsibilities, any balance will be sought from the Post Office.
  No information is presently available on the other eligible pensioners who received either a £10 or £20 payment. To determine whether £20 or £10 was due it has been necessary to establish whether the pensioner lived alone. Where we identified they were the only eligible pensioner in a household they received £20; where they lived with other eligible pensioners each received £10.
  Legislation requires that the decision whether £10 or £20 is due is based on information held within official Departmental records. All the £20 and £10 payments issued have therefore been based on information which originated from pensioners and is held within these official records.
  We are aware from subsequent enquiries from some pensioners that the official records available and used by my Agency did not always accurately reflect the correct, current address details. For example, two eligible pensioners living at the same address have differing address details held in official records and despite expecting to receive £10 each, have received £20 each. Similarly, there will be pensioners who receive £10 but believe £20 is due. This will be because official records show the pensioner living at the same address as at least one other eligible pensioner, but they in fact are the only eligible pensioner in the household. In these circumstances they can apply to the BA for a review of the decision to pay £10.
  However, even though we have subsequently updated the address details the payments themselves remain correct in accordance with the legislation. They have been made using official records which were in place at the time eligibility was determined. The legislation is framed in such a way that providing the payments made are supported by records held then there has not been an incorrect payment.
  We are therefore not aware of any £10 or £20 payments that have been made in error.
  Thank you for the opportunity to explain the position.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Commonwealth Development Programmes
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has held about the proportion of(a) the Commonwealth Fund for technical co-operation and (b) other Commonwealth activity financed by the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [41807]

  Clare Short
  The Government are a strong supporter of the Commonwealth, contributing an annual total of some £18 million from the aid programme to a wide range of Commonwealth development programmes, including the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. We are the largest contributor to these programmes traditionally providing 30 per cent. of all contributions. In addition, we pledged an extra £4 million at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting for Commonwealth Secretariat programmes.

  Crown Agents Foundation
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what social and developmental purposes the Crown Agents Foundation will use profits derived from the Crown Agents; and under what guidelines. [41747]
  170
  Clare Short
  Ownership of the Crown Agents transferred from Her Majesty's Government to an independent Foundation in March 1997. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue this matter with the Foundation.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when Mr. Peter Pursglove was employed by the Crown Agents; and on what terms he was seconded to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. [41348]

  Clare Short
  Ownership of the Crown Agents transferred from Her Majesty's Government to an independent Foundation in March 1997. My hon. Friend may wish to pursue this matter with the Foundation.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's expenditure through non-governmental organisations in 1997–98 was applied to(a) the Joint Funding Scheme, (b) emergency relief, (c) volunteers and (d) other areas; and what are the comparable planned figures for 1998–99. [41365]

  Clare Short
  Details of bilateral development assistance are published each year in the British Aid Statistics. The next issue, which will include final expenditure figures for 1997–98, is due for publication in December 1998.

  Information on planned spending through UK non-governmental organisations for 1998–99 is not held centrally in the format requested. I regret that a full answer to the question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the bilateral development assistance programme was channelled through United Kingdom non-governmental organisations for development activities in 1997–98; and what is the planned figure for 1998–99. [41366]

  Clare Short
  The information requested for 1997–98 will not be available until later this year. Details of bilateral development assistance are published each year in the British Aid Statistics. The next issue, which will include final expenditure figures for 1997–98, is due for publication in December 1998.

  Information on planned spending through UK nongovernmental organisations for development activities for 1998–99 is not held centrally in the format requested. I regret that a full answer to the question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department spent under the Joint Funding Scheme in 1997–98; on how many projects; and what are the planned figures for 1998–99. [41368]

  Clare Short
  My Department spent £36,139,087 on development projects through the Joint Funding Scheme in 1997–98. This involved some 1,700 projects managed by 128 UK NGOs. Our planned figure for 1998–99 is £36,156,000. It is expected that the number of projects and agencies will be equivalent to last year.
  171
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department spent on the Volunteer Programme in 1997–98; how many volunteers were sent; to how many countries; and what are the planned figures for 1998–99. [41367]

  Clare Short
  In 1997–98 my Department provided £23,932,580 to the four main volunteer sending agencies Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), International Co-operation for Development (ICD), United Nations Association for International Service (UNAIS) and Skillshare Africa. This helped to fund the work of approximately 2,080 volunteers in around 60 countries.

  Our planned figure for 1998–99 is £25,533,124. It is expected that the number of volunteers will be maintained at the current level in the same number of countries.

  Western Sahara
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has over the next year to provide (i) aid and (ii) assistance for de-mining projects, to the people of Western Sahara with particular reference to Saharawi refugees. [39981]

  Clare Short
  The majority of UK assistance to the Sarahawi is provided via the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). A proposal from ECHO for a 7.2 mecu (£4.8m) programme of assistance to the Saharawi refugees in Southern Algeria for 1998 has recently been approved—the UK share of this will be approximately £670,000. Under this programme, funding will be provided to NGOs, UN agencies and the Red Cross for food aid, medical and sanitary assistance and improving drinking water supply. For UNHCR, the UK recently announced a £10m package of support for 1998, of which £7m will go to general programmes which include assistance to Saharawi refugees.

  We are also supporting some NGO programmes directly—my Department is providing £50,000 to War on Want for the improvement of food storage facilities for the refugees, and £30,000 to Action Water to improve water supply and distribution in the refugee camps.

  We understand from the UNHCR that there are problems with mines in the vicinity of the refugee camps. Mines awareness training is carried out by the UNHCR. De-mining is the responsibility of the UN Department of Peace Keeping Operations but no demining operations have been carried out to date. DFID has not been approached to provide any funds for demining but we are ready to look sympathetically at any such requests.

  Bosnia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received on the diverting of humanitarian aid to Bosnia to Swiss bank accounts. [41459]

  Clare Short
  I have not received any representations about the diverting of humanitarian aid to Bosnia to Swiss bank accounts. The Government's humanitarian aid to Bosnia is subject to strict financial controls.

  International Monetary Fund
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the International Monetary Fund in connection with the recent external review of the external structural adjustment facility; and if she will make a statement. [41745]

  Clare Short
  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has an important role to play in helping to eradicate poverty in developing countries, and I have taken a close personal interest in the external evaluation of the IMF's Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF). I have discussed the report with the Managing Director of the IMF, and other senior Staff on a number of occasions, and pressed them to ensure that key recommendations are adopted. The recommendations include the development of a closer working relationship with the World Bank in the design of ESAF programmes, encouragement of stronger local ownership of such programmes through national consensus building and by offering different policy options, and better monitoring of the impact of ESAF programmes on the poor. We have already taken a leading role in promoting greater collaboration between the World Bank and the IMF. The IMF will shortly be setting out how it plans to operationalise these recommendations.

  South Africa
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many joint ventures the British Investment in South Africa scheme helped and at what cost to her Department during 1997–98. [41744]

  Clare Short
  The British Investment in South Africa Promotion Scheme helps to promote investment in South Africa by making available Pre-Investment Feasibility Study (PIFS) grants to small and medium sized British and South African companies. Training grants are also available but have not yet been used. In 1997–98 the scheme disbursed grants worth £296,761 to seven applicants, with a projected investment value of more than £13 million. A further £473,933 was committed to 13 new applicants during the year but this has not yet been spent. The cost of administering the scheme during the year was £74,951. Since the start of the scheme, a total of 29 grants have been awarded and a further five are at an advanced stage of consideration.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to provide for the basic needs of the urban poor affected by the economic crisis in Indonesia. [41743]

  Clare Short
  The most immediate need in limiting the impact of the crisis on the poor is to restore confidence in the Indonesian economy. To help achieve this the Government of Indonesia must implement the programme now agreed with the IMF. In addition, the UK is contributing £5 million to the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) Trust Fund which will help affected Asian Governments, including Indonesia, to design interventions to combat the social effects of the crisis as well as to
  173
  reform their financial sectors. We are exploring urgently other possible opportunities for effective help to those poor in Indonesia suffering the effects of the crisis.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department will take to assist in ensuring an adequate food supply in Indonesia following the shortfall in this year's rice crop. [41742]

  Clare Short
  Our normal practice is to provide food aid through international agencies, and we stand ready to provide help if needed. We have received a food situation report from the World Food Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organisation and are awaiting a further report from the European Commission which is due shortly. It is possible that the real problem is one of logistics and markets, rather than absolute food shortage. Food aid can damage local production; it is therefore important that we make a proper assessment. Once we have full details we shall take a decision on whether and how best the UK can assist.

  African Development Bank
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made in connection with a possible increase in the capital of the African Development Bank; and if she will make a statement. [41749]

  Clare Short
  Negotiations on a fifth general capital increase for the African Development Bank have been in progress since February 1997 and were virtually concluded at a meeting on 23–24 March in Abidjan. The increase is not required for lending purposes but to strengthen the Bank's financial base. For non-regional shareholders, such as the UK, the capital increase will provide greater influence in the Bank through an increase in the non-regional shareholding from 33 1/3 per cent. to 40 per cent., and changes to the voting rules. Governors will be invited to adopt a draft Resolution on the capital increase at the Bank's Annual Meeting on 27–29 May. The capital increase will then come into effect in 1999.

  Mongolia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is currently providing to Mongolia. [41356]

  Clare Short
  We provide bilateral assistance to Mongolia under the Department for International Development (DFID) Small Grants Scheme, administered by the British Embassy in Ulaanbaatar. Support is currently going to a range of small-scale, poverty-related initiatives in education, social welfare and income generation. Expenditure in the current year is likely to be of the order of £250,000. Assistance is also provided through multilateral channels, including the European Union, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

  Sombrero Island
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultations her Department has held or plans to hold with ICF Kaiser on 174
  the scope of their environmental assessment of Sombrero Island in the Caribbean; and if she will make a statement on the scope and content of the assessment. [41624]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him today.

TREASURY

  Savings Accounts
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the change in the proposals for PEPs, TESSAs and ISAs in the Budget on the Government's target of attracting six million new savers. [36801]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: At present half the adult population has less than £200 saved. The new account will provide savers with an attractive tax-free savings opportunity which will be more widely available, will have no minimum investment requirement and will not lock up their money. Savers will have an unprecedented guarantee of stability as the scheme will run for at least ten years. We anticipate that these features will make the new account very attractive to those who are new to tax-free saving, as well as providing ample reason for existing savers to continue and increase their savings.

  Petroleum Products (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he has given to district councils, Department of Environment Planning and Road Services and Customs and Excise regarding control of diesel-only supply outlets reselling illegally imported diesel fuel from the Irish Republic. [41378]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It would not be appropriate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to issue guidance to district councils or the Department of Environment. However the Government, Customs and Excise and the other authorities in Northern Ireland are aware of the problem of smuggling of duty paid fuel across the border into Northern Ireland for onward sale.

  Customs are deploying resources and actively mounting investigations against those involved to counter the threat posed to the revenue and to the Northern Ireland business community. Customs are taking the lead on this issue but are acting in conjunction with other authorities, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to make seizures of oil tankers and vehicles carrying oil tanks filled with illegally imported fuel for resale. Wherever possible, cases are progressed with a view to criminal prosecution of the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Petrol Retailers Association about the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [41549]
  175
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor has received representation from the Petrol Retailers Association via Northern Ireland MPs. The letters have received replies explaining the measures which are being taken to counter the threat posed by this illegal trade.

  There is evidence of smuggling of duty paid fuel across the border into Northern Ireland for onward sale. The Government recognise that this is a serious problem which disadvantages legitimate traders. Customs are aware of the problem and are active in mounting investigations against those involved.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with HM Customs and Excise about the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [41554]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government and Customs are aware of the problem of smuggling of duty paid fuel into Northern Ireland for onward sale and recognise that it is a serious problem which disadvantages legitimate traders. Customs are deploying resources and actively mounting investigations against those involved to counter the threat posed to the revenue and to the Northern Ireland business community.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated loss of revenue through the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [41535]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no estimates available of this illegal activity.

  There is a problem with illegal importation of duty paid fuel across the border into Northern Ireland for resale. Both the Government and Customs are aware of this situation and recognise that it seriously disadvantages legitimate traders. Customs are deploying resources and actively mounting investigations against those involved to counter the threat posed to the revenue and to the Northern Ireland business community.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the pump price per litre of(a) unleaded petrol and (b) derv in (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) the Republic of Ireland, indicating the percentage of duty and VAT in the total cost of each. [41534]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The pump prices of unleaded petrol and diesel in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are as follows:

  Pence per litre

  Northern Ireland

  Republic of Ireland

  Unleaded petrol

  66.4

  55.73

  Diesel

  66.4

  54.87

  Duty (and VAT) represent the following percentages of these prices.

  Percentage

  Northern Ireland

  Republic of Ireland

  Duty

  VAT

  Duty

  VAT

  Unleaded petrol

  66.25

  (14.88)

  43.57

  (17.35)

  Diesel

  67.76

  (14.88)

  38.55

  (17.35)

  Leagues of Hospital Friends (VAT)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exempt from VAT charitable gifts from the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends to NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [41362]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If a League of Hospital Friends is not VAT registered, any gift it makes to a NHS Trust will be VAT free. Where a VAT registered organisation makes a gift of an asset that has not been used in its business, then the gift is outside the scope of VAT. A gift made for business purposes, where the cost to the donor was not more than £15, is also outside the scope of VAT, but not gifts which form a part of a 'series or succession' of gifts from time to time.

  It is also possible for Leagues of Hospital Friends to buy specific categories of goods VAT free for donation to NHS Trusts when using funds, provided either by a charity or from voluntary contributions. The list of goods covered by this relief includes ambulances and medical, scientific, computer, video, sterilising, laboratory and refrigeration equipment used for medical research, training, diagnosis or treatment.

  Economic and Finance Ministers Council
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Council meetings of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union held on 1 and 3 May. [41657]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I chaired the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 1 May, and again on 3 May. The Council also met (in the composition of Heads of State or Government) on Saturday 2 May. The Prime Minister has already reported on this to the House in his statement of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 563–65. The Economic Secretary represented the UK.

  On 1 May, the Council began by considering the Commission's Recommendations on the abrogation of excessive deficits. The Council concurred with the Commission's Recommendations, and agreed unanimously to decisions abrogating the deficits of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Portugal and the UK. These decisions were then formally notified to the relevant delegations, to allow the Council to move to its next business.

  As laid down in Article 109j(2), the Council then discussed its Recommendations on those countries fulfilling the necessary conditions for the adoption of the single currency. We agreed without dissent that Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal met those conditions. We agreed to attach to our Recommendation a declaration on the importance of fiscal consolidation and structural adjustment.

  On 3 May, we approved two important A-points (on the technical specifications of euro coin, and the legal framework for the euro). Finance Ministers from the participating Member States then went on to sign formal receipts of the notification of the Heads' decision on those countries which fulfilled the necessary conditions for the adoption of the single currency.
  177
  ECOFIN then formally adopted its recommendation on initial appointment of the members of the ECB Executive Board, which will go back to Heads for formal approval, after consultation with the European Parliament and European Monetary Institute.

  The Council also appointed the three of the six members of the committee which proposes the terms and conditions of employment of the ECB Executive Board that it falls to them to nominate. My colleagues Mr. Ciampi, Mr. Juncker, and Mr. Sousa Franco were agreed by the Council.

  The Council adopted conclusions on the Commission's Recommendations on the practical aspects of the euro, welcoming the Commission's initiative, but noting their non-binding nature.

  We adopted conclusions welcoming the progress the Greek Government have made towards the convergence required for participation in stage 3 of EMU, and their objective of joining in 2001, while noting that the requirements of the Treaty would have to be met in full.

  Amusement Machine Licence Duty
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much, in each year since 1990, has been raised by the amusement machine licence duty on(a) club machines and (b) amusement with prize machines; and how much he estimates will be raised in each category after the announced increases are implemented. [41506]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 May 1998]: The government do not have a breakdown of actual receipts from particular types of machine. The Government have full official data only on total receipts from machine licence duty. Amusement Machine licence duty was introduced in 1995. Prior to that, the figures relate to Gaming Machine Licence Duty.

  000s

  Year

  Receipts

  1990

  98,491

  1991

  97,187

  1992

  93,844

  1993

  95,347

  1994

  104,372

  1995

  113,014

  1996

  129,719

  1997

  132,943

  The announced increases in duty rates are expected to yield an additional £15 million in 1998–99 and £20 million per annum thereafter.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in each year since 1990, how many(a) club machines and (b) amusement with prize machines were subject to amusement machine licence duty; and what estimate he has made of the impact of his proposed tax increases on the number of machines which will be operated in future years. [41505]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 May 1998]: The Government do not hold official data on the number of machines of a particular type subject to amusement machine licence duty. Although any tax increase is likely to have some impact on demand, our calculations suggest that there is not likely to be a significant effect on the
  178
  number of machines made available for play. This is particularly so as those machines which the industry claim to be most price sensitive—those in the lower duty band—have not been subjected to any increase.

  Wildlife Trade
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about funding to continue HM Customs and Excise work to enforce legislation controlling wildlife trade; and what plans he has to expand this area of work. [41623]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise do not fund enforcement activity specifically in this area. Frontline anti-smugglers, investigation and intelligence staff tackle a wide range of prohibited and restricted goods, both at import and export, including species covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). The detection of commercial smuggling of endangered species, and goods derived from them, is a priority for Customs, and this will continue to be so.

  There are no plans to expand Customs activity in this area of work.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requirements in respect of the protection of individual consumers will be placed on the Financial Services Authority. [41390]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: The Government intend that the Financial Services Authority's statutory objectives will include the protection of consumers by ensuring that firms are competent and financially sound and that they give customers confidence in their integrity, while recognising consumers' own responsibility for their financial decisions. Draft statutory objectives will form part of the draft legislation which the Government plan to publish for consultation in the Summer.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the National Consumer Council regarding the establishment of the Financial Services Authority. [41391]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: The Government have received a number of representations from the National Consumer Council covering a number of different matters.

  Harmful Tax Competition
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the meeting of the EU Committee on Harmful Tax Competition held on 8 May. [42052]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The first meeting of the EC Code of Conduct Group on 8 May covered the chairmanship of the Group and initial plans for a work programme to review Member States' business tax measures which may be harmful within the meaning of the Code.
  179
  I am pleased to report that I received unanimous support from the members of the Group and was consequently appointed Chair for an initial two-year period. This is yet another example of the Government's determination to play a central role in Europe.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact on Exchequer revenue of the one per cent. reduction in the main rate of corporation tax after taking into account the introduction of quarterly corporation tax payments. [41847]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated costs of 1 per cent. cut in the main rate of corporation tax from 1 April 1999 after taking account of quarterly payments are:

  Year

  £ million

  1998–99

  negligible

  1999–00

  250

  2000–01

  900

  In table C1 of the 1998–99 "Financial Statement and Budget Report", the costs of the rate change are estimated before allowing for the introduction of quarterly instalments. The overall revenue effects of the changes to corporation tax remain the same.

  Savings (Taxation)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 April 1998,Official Report, columns 241–42, on the taxation of savings, if he will break down the total yield from taxes on savings for the last three years into the yield from (a) bank and building society interest and (b) dividends. [41371]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 May 1998]: Estimates for the last three years are given in the table. Taxpayers over retirement age include women aged 60 and over and men aged 65 and over.

  Full year yield from taxing savings income

  £ billion

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  All taxpayers

  Bank and building society interest

  2.3

  2.5

  3.0

  Dividends

  3.2

  3.8

  3.6

  Other

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Taxpayers over retirement age

  Bank and building society interest

  1.1

  1.2

  1.4

  Dividends

  0.8

  1.0

  0.9

  Other

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Irish Language
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on her plans for an increase in the number of Irish language schools. [40663]
  180
  Mr. Worthington
  Any increase in the number of Irish Language Schools will be determined by parental choice. The Government will continue to support proposals for new Irish language schools provided they are viable, provide effective education and are cost effective.

  Training Schools
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances her Department may place a child in a training school other than the one recommended by the court; in how many cases this power has been used in the past five years; and for what reason. [41075]

  Mr. Ingram
  The courts do not recommend the Training School in which a child is to be placed.

  When a Training School Order is made under section 74 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, the School in which he is to be detained is determined by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the 1973 classification for the reception of non-Roman Catholic boys changed; and for what reason. [41076]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 27 February 1998,Official Report, column 414.

  However, I would add that Lisnevin was "approved" as a non-denominational training school on 24 September 1973 and there has been no change to its status since then.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the statutory basis for the secure custody provisions in Lisnevin, and what criteria her Department uses in directing the courts to(a) use Lisnevin for placement and (b) use the other training schools when transferring from Lisnevin. [41077]

  Mr. Ingram
  A Training School Order (made under section 74 et seq of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 and defined by Article 2 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) (Order 1996) provides authority for the detention in custody in secure accommodation of a child who has been found guilty of serious or persistent offending and can be made only by a court. Nevertheless, it is policy to use 'open' accommodation if practicable. However, a child will be placed in, or returned to, secure accommodation if the seriousness or nature of his offending, or absconding or other behaviour while in 'open' accommodation, indicates that he may present a risk to himself or others.

  My Department does not direct the courts to use a particular Training School for the placement or transfer of any child within the Training School system.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the average total National Curriculum levels, rounded to 3 decimal places, attained by all 11 year old(a) male, (b) female and (c) male and female pupils in all maintained schools in each LEA at Key Stage 2 in (i) English, (ii) Maths,

  181
  (iii) Science and (iv) English, Maths and Science for (1) 1995, (2) 1996 and (3) 1997, on the basis of teacher assessment of the numbers of pupils attaining each level from level 1 upwards; and if he will list the number of pupils for each LEA area. [38418]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. It is not possible to present information for English, mathematics and science together as matching of pupils' results across subjects is not possible.

  Beacon Schools
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the beacon schools. [41621]

  Mr. Byers
  There are no beacon schools at present. I have invited those schools identified by HMCI as 'best performing' to consider beacon school status. Most of these are listed in HMCI's Annual Report for 1996–97.

  Project Charlie
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children were involved in Operation Charlie; over what period it was conducted; and how its value was assessed. [41619]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Project Charlie (Chemical Abuse Resolution Lies in Education) programme was evaluated soon after its implementation in two primary schools in Hackney over the period 1990–1992. The children who were involved in the programme at this time were followed-up in 1996 and compared with children who did not receive Project Charlie. A number of different comparisons were made involving more than 300 pupils and, among the findings of the evaluation study highlighted in a recent Home Office Drug Prevention Initiative study paper, are the positive effects the programme appears to have on pupils' skills, attitudes and reported drug use.

  Independent-State School Partnerships
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to respond to the interim report of the advisory group on independent/state school partnerships. [42399]

  Mr. Byers
  I am writing today to the Chairman welcoming the interim report of the Advisory Group. The full report, including my response, will be published tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  I am also laying before Parliament tomorrow the Education (Partnership Grant) Regulations 1998 and announcing the allocation of grant for 1998–99.

  New Deal
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the private sector to lead partnerships for the organisation and delivery of the New Deal to those unemployed adults covered by the pilot initiatives due to commence in November. [42545]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government wish to build on the experience gained from New Deal for 18-24-year-olds in taking forward the pilots of enhanced provision for 182
  those aged 25 and over, which were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the budget and which are due to start in November.

  Accordingly we have decided that around a third of the pilots which we intend to establish later this year should be taken forward by private sector led partnerships and that these should be in the areas where the private sector has been invited similarly to lead on the New Deal for 18-24-year-olds. The areas concerned are, Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys, Colchester, Exeter and East Devon, Forth Valley, Hackney and City, Leicestershire, Solihull, South Humber, Tyneside North and West Lancashire.

  Advertisements seeking expressions of interest in these pilots will appear in the national and local press shortly. We aim to announce the successful bidders in each locality by the end of August.

  The remainder of the pilots will be led by local New Deal partnerships. We will be announcing plans to select these areas in due course.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Investment
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on levels of investment in the United Kingdom relative to those elsewhere in the EU. [40968]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  In 1996, fixed investment accounted for 15½ per cent. of Gross Domestic Product in the United Kingdom and almost 19 per cent. in the rest of the EU.

  Productivity
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking to improve productivity in British companies. [40969]

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

  Responsibility for this lies largely with business itself. But Government are ready to work in partnership with business. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade set up six business-led Working Parties last year to make recommendations about how such a partnership can help to remedy these specific failings. Now she is co-hosting, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a series of seminars on the productivity gap over the Summer and Autumn.

  The conclusions of this process will contribute to a White Paper on competitiveness to be published in the Autumn.

  Engineering (West Midlands)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to improve the export opportunities for engineering companies in the west midlands. [40970]
  183
  Mr. Battle
  West Midlands engineering companies have local access to all national export assistance programmes which draw on the expertise of DTI officials.

  Local partners, including Business Links and the Government office, are also working together to help deliver the new Market and Trade Fair Explorer programmes designed especially for those companies who have had limited experience of selling overseas. This, together with a range of new schemes under the SME Initiative, will provide more opportunities for West Midlands firms.

  Industrial Relations and Employment White Paper
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what meetings she has had with and representations she has received from trade unions in the past three months in relation to the forthcoming White Paper on industrial relations and employment law; and if she will make a statement. [40971]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have met the TUC on several occasions to discuss union recognition and associated issues. My Department has also received a large number of letters from trade unions on these matters. The Government will announce their proposals on recognition in the forthcoming White Paper on fairness at work.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on progress in respect of the fairness at work White Paper. [40986]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government will publish the White Paper shortly.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she now expects the Low Pay Commission to report its recommendations for a national minimum wage to her Department. [40972]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I expect the Low Pay Commission to make its recommendations to Government by the end of this month on the level at which the national minimum wage might be introduced.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the Low Pay Commission to report its recommendations for a national minimum wage to her Department. [40980]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty).

  Inward Investment (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to encourage inward investment in the Yorkshire and Humber region. [40973]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Yorkshire and Humberside Development Agency (YHDA) co-ordinates the region's inward investment promotion effort. The Agency works in partnership with DTI's Invest in Britain Bureau, the 184
  Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber, Local Authorities and the private sector to encourage inward investment in the Region.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking to encourage new sources of long-term capital for small and medium enterprises. [40974]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are very keen to ensure that small and medium enterprises have access to appropriate finance for their needs. We continue to work in partnership with the private sector providers of finance, including the banks, venture capitalists and the business angel market, to explore new ways of providing long-term finance.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she last met representatives of small and medium British businesses to discuss competitiveness; and if she will make a statement. [40984]

  Mrs. Roche
  Competitiveness is at the heart of the department's policies. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade meets small business representatives to ensure that their needs are fully taken into consideration when formulating new policy.

  As part of this process my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade established an Advisory Group on Competitiveness, whose members include representatives of the small business community.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to encourage EU support for small and medium enterprises. [40990]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government recognise the important contribution that SMEs make to EU competitiveness and support effective action at European level to provide an environment in which SMEs can compete and grow. To help ensure this I maintain close contact with the Commission and with my counterparts in other EU Member States on a range of issues affecting SMEs.

  SMEs have been a key feature of the UK's Presidency of the EU. We have secured agreement on the package of financial measures for job-creating SMEs adopted at the Luxembourg Job Summit, held a discussion at the Industry Council on the Commission's proposals for a Directive on late payment and hosted the Enterprising Europe Conference at which delegates from all Member States considered ways of promoting entrepreneurship in the EU. The Cardiff European Council will consider the report of the Business Environment Simplification Taskforce which the Commission set up at the request of the Amsterdam European Council to identify barriers to growth and job creation faced by SMEs.

  Post Office
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the timetable for the second phase of the Post Office review. [40975]
  185
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the second phase of the inter-departmental review on 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 63. We plan to present our proposals to Parliament in the Autumn.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the Government's plans for the future of the Post Office. [40977]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government plan to give the Post Office greater commercial freedom so that it can meet changes in the domestic and international markets. The Government have commissioned a review of public sector options for achieving this.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to facilitate the international competitiveness of the Royal Mail. [40988]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have commissioned a review of possible public sector options for giving the Post Office greater commercial freedoms to help meet changes in the domestic and international markets and enhance its international competitiveness. Our conclusions will be presented to Parliament in the Autumn.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the balance of payments in manufactured goods for the first quarter of 1998. [40976]

  Mr. Battle
  In the three months to February compared with the previous three months, excluding erratics, the volume of manufactured exports rose by 1.5 per cent. while the volume of manufactured imports was unchanged.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the preparedness of UK business for EMU; and what progress her Department has made in assisting business to plan effectively. [40979]

  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the preparedness of British companies for economic and monetary union. [40983]

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress her Department has made in working with business to prepare for the launch of EMU. [40991]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The best large British firms have already begun to prepare but many small and medium businesses have not thought about the issue. To help them do so, the Government have a communications strategy to raise awareness and provide information, including a dedicated telephone line and website supported by a range of literature.

  Oil Installations
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations she has received concerning the dismantling and abandonment of redundant offshore structures and pipeline networks. [40981]
  186
  Mr. Battle
  I have not received any recent representations under the terms of the Petroleum Act 1987. My Department is currently considering Shell's revised proposals for the Brent Spar and has had preliminary discussions with a number of operators about their decommissioning plans.

  Business Burdens
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received regarding financial burdens on business. [40982]

  Mrs. Roche
  I receive many representations as part of the Government's extensive dialogue with business, including on issues that might place burdens on business. The Government's aim is to minimise such burdens, for example by ensuring long-term economic stability and adopting good regulatory practice.

  Innovation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to raise the profile of innovation among British firms. [40987]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department has a special Innovation Unit which works to spread best practice in and awareness of innovation through events such as the Audience with Innovation recently given by Richard Branson, through publications such as Partnerships with People and through networking both regionally and nationally with companies, with public and private sector bodies and with other parts of DTI.

  In addition, last year my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade set up six business-led Working Parties, including one on innovation which I chaired, to make recommendations about how the UK could be made more competitive.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a further statement on the handling of compensation claims from former miners suffering from respiratory diseases. [40989]

  Mr. Battle
  At a High Court hearing on 27 March 1998 the solicitors acting for the plaintiffs requested a three month adjournment to allow further discussions to take place with the Department's agents about our settlement proposals for dealing with the many thousands of claims expected. The court granted an adjournment and discussions continue. We trust that agreement can be reached quickly so that valid claims can be paid in full.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer to him of 30 April 1998, Official Report, columns 235–36, which explained that, as a further three month delay may be unwelcome to some claimants, particularly those who are severely disabled, we are continuing to make interim payments of £2,000 to miners seeking compensation for emphysema who are also in receipt of DSS PD.D12 benefit. Initially offers were made to those over 80 on

  187
  receipt of PD.D12 certificates from claimants' solicitors. But we are also making offers to claimants below 80 (in descending order) wherever practicable, to ensure that we reach our minimum target of 5,000 offers. Ideally we wish to reach this point by the end of June but, to enable us to do this, we need the co-operation of the plaintiffs' solicitors to submit evidence of receipt of benefit. Unfortunately, PD.D12 certificates are not being sent in to us as quickly as we expected and we trust that plaintiffs' solicitors will do all they can to speed the process up.

  Export Credits
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 27 November 1997,Official Report, column 645, if she will list the assessments made by (a) ECGD and (b) other relevant agencies on the risks of extending the export credits against which claims have been made by manufacturers and not recovered from the Governments of (i) Venezuela, (ii) Jordan, (iii) Kenya, (iv) Egypt and (v) Algeria. [39267]

  Mrs. Roche
  (a) All ECGD's risk assessments are based on analysis of the economic and political factors which influence an individual country's ability and willingness to meet its external debt commitments. Any

  Research council and year

  Project grants

  Programme grants

  Special grants

  Studentships

  Fellowships

  Biotechnology and biological Sciences

  1995

  13.4

  14.1

  24.8

  45

  n/a

  1996

  14.5

  16.1

  20.2

  46

  31.0

  1997

  14.3

  16.3

  22.1

  50

  29.3

  Engineering and physical sciences

  1995

  4.9

  —

  n/a

  21.4

  7.8

  1996

  4.7

  —

  n/a

  21.6

  6.8

  1997

  6.8

  —

  19.3

  23.3

  8.6

  Economic and social

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  47

  n/a

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  49

  n/a

  1997

  34

  n/a

  n/a

  52

  n/a

  Medical

  1995

  18

  13

  n/a

  54

  33

  1996

  23

  26

  n/a

  54

  42

  1997

  22

  9

  n/a

  57

  n/a

  Natural environment

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  21

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  1997

  8

  9

  n/a

  n/a

  26

  Particle physics and astronomy

  1995

  5

  —

  n/a

  21

  11

  1996

  4

  —

  n/a

  16

  15

  1997

  7

  —

  n/a

  15

  16

  Notes:

  1. The EPSRC and PPARC do not distinguish project from programme grants. In addition, the EPSRC figure for these grants and for the special grants is the percentage of applications by women in applications where the gender is known

  2. NERC figures for project grants represent NERC non-thematic (responsive) grants, and for programme grants NERC thematic (directed) grants

  3. Some Councils do not run special grants intended for new investigators, or are only in the first year of doing so

  4. There are no data for studentship applications because, with the exception of the ESRC research studentships, the Research Councils allocate studentships by quota to institutions which are responsible for the subsequent award. The figures given are the percentage of studentships awarded to women, with the exception of the ESRC which shows the percentage of applications for research studentships for women.
  188
  vulnerability to political risks, such as civil wars, coups, etc., is also taken into account. In the cases of Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Kenya, and Venezuela the risk assessments made prior to the issue of the guarantees led us to take the view that these countries had the capacity and willingness to pay, and the decision was taken to issue the guarantees. However, despite best endeavours at judging the long-term risk some countries can still default on their commitments for reasons which are outside ECGD's control (for example unforeseen economic shocks such as oil price falls).

  (b) ECGD considers a wide variety of country information and risk assessments from other relevant agencies such as the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, and Export Credit Agencies. Information from these agencies helps to inform ECGD's own assessment of the economic and political risks.

  Research Councils
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of applications, in relation to each of the research councils were from women, for(a) project grants, (b) programme grants, (c) special grants intended for new investigators, (d) studentships and (e) fellowships, in 1997 and each of the two previous years. [40879]

  Mr. Battle
  The available data are shown in the table.
  189
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of applications from women, in relation to each of the research councils, were successful for(a) project grants, (b) programme grants, (c) special

  Research council and year

  Project

  Programme

  Grants Special

  Studentships

  Fellowships

  Biotechnology and biological sciences

  1995

  22.3

  20.2

  18.4

  45

  0

  1996

  23.4

  22.0

  14.3

  46

  4.6

  1997

  32.5

  29.9

  24.1

  50

  6.4

  Engineering and physical sciences

  1995

  60.7

  —

  n/a

  21.4

  16.7

  1996

  49.0

  —

  n/a

  21.6

  21.1

  1997

  39.0

  —

  56.3

  23.3

  6.9

  Economic and social

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  n/a

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  n/a

  1997

  16

  n/a

  n/a

  32

  n/a

  Medical

  1995

  39

  75

  n/a

  54

  19

  1996

  39

  70

  n/a

  54

  34

  1997

  30

  50

  n/a

  57

  n/a

  Natural environment

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  13

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  1997

  20

  6

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  Particle physics and astronomy

  1995

  55

  —

  n/a

  21

  11

  1996

  67

  —

  n/a

  16

  17

  1997

  52

  —

  n/a

  15

  14

  Notes:

  1. The EPSRC and PPARC do not distinguish project from programme grants. In addition, the EPSRC figure for these grants and for the special grants is the percentage of applications by women in applications where the gender is known

  2. NERC figures for project grants represent NERC non-thematic (responsive) grants, and for programme grants NERC thematic (directed) grants

  3. Some Councils do not run special grants intended for new investigators, or are only in the first year of doing so

  4. There are no data for studentship applications because, with the exception of the ESRC research studentships, the Research Councils allocate studentships by quota to institutions which are responsible for the subsequent award. The figures given are therefore the percentage of studentships awarded to women, with the exception of the ESRC which shows the percentage of applications for research studentships by women which were successful

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her Department will give additional assistance to small businesses to assist in exports to take account of the current strength of sterling. [40965]

  Mrs. Roche
  The vast majority of our overseas trade services are geared towards helping small firms export, independent of the strength of sterling. We have recently announced a number of new schemes which will improve this support further.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to conclude her review of the coal industry. [40992]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) on 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 36.
  190
  grants intended for new investigators, (d) studentships and (e) fellowships, in 1997 and each of the two previous years. [40878]

  Mr. Battle
  The available data are shown in the table.

  Sustainable Development
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance her Department offers to British companies investing abroad to promote the OECD's national sustainable development strategies. [41040]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government believe that outward investment can make a significant contribution to sustainable development. As part of the DTI's response to the Export Forum report, a new Directorate has been established in DTI to review and strengthen our support for UK companies making such strategic investment overseas. The Department also continues to run the Technology Partnership Initiative, which seeks to promote technology co-operation with developing countries, and which can facilitate the transfer of the environmental technologies, which are crucial to the achievement of sustainable development.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. White
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support the Government are giving to small businesses to deal with the threat of Year 2000 computer bugs. [39795]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 6 May 1998]: This Government's support to small businesses to help them deal with the Millennium Bug falls under two headings: informed advice, guidance and signposting to sources of help through DTI's new initiative—Action 2000—and a Department for Education and Employment scheme to subsidise training in IT skills for staff of small businesses.

  Government support for Action 2000 now amounts to £17m. The main focus of the Millennium Bug campaign is on ensuring that small businesses take action now to address the problem by signposting practical help and guidance and available information on tools and services. DTI's network of Business Links and similar organisations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, working with Action 2000, are training staff to provide advice to businesses, including advice on the best programmes and consultants to use.

  In March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that £26m was being made available for DfEE to help employers in small businesses train up to 20,000 people to tackle the Millennium Bug.

  Faxes
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what powers she has to prevent the misuse of fax machines for transmitting unsolicited material; [41499]

  (2) if she will legislate to prevent the sending of unsolicited faxes. [41501]

  Mrs. Roche
  Measures are already in place to deal with the problem of unsolicited faxes. The telecommunications and telephone selling industries have established a Fax Preference Service to help residential customers reduce the number of faxes they receive. Customers who have a fax machine in their residential premises may register for inclusion in a database against which companies selling via fax 'clean' their mailing lists. Moreover, under the Telecommunications Act 1984, UK companies using fax marketing are subject to a class licence which contains measures aimed at limiting the nuisance which can be caused by unsolicited faxes. Anyone sending unsolicited faxes must cease doing so to any particular person on receipt of a written request from them, or face possible enforcement action, including the removal of their right to operate a telecoms system, by Oftel.

  The Government are addressing the question of additional measures to protect businesses and residential consumers from unwelcome faxes in the forthcoming consultation paper on the European Union Telecoms Data Protection Directive, which the Government will implement later this year.

  Petroleum Products (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to protect legitimate petrol and diesel fuel retailers in Border areas and throughout Northern Ireland from disadvantageous trading conditions arising from(a) the
  192
  difference in value of sterling and the punt, (b) fuel duty differentials between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic and (c) bulk fuel deliveries into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic. [41389]

  Mr. Battle
  The main problem affecting legitimate retailers of petrol and diesel in Northern Ireland is smuggling of duty paid fuel across the border for onward sale. The Government, Customs and Excise and the other authorities in Northern Ireland are fully aware of the problem.

  Customs are deploying resources and actively mounting investigations against those involved to counter the threat posed to revenue and to the Northern Ireland business community. Customs are taking the lead on this issue but are acting in conjunction with other authorities, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to make seizures of oil tankers and vehicles carrying oil tanks filled with illegally imported fuel for resale. Wherever possible, cases are progressed with a view to criminal prosecution of the individuals concerned.

  Sombrero Island (Environmental Assessment)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to conserve the Sombrero black lizards of the Sombrero Island, Anguilla. [41628]

  Mr. Battle
  I am informed that ICF Kaiser are producing an Environmental Impact Assessment on behalf of Beal Aerospace. This assessment will examine the impact of Beal Aerospace's proposed development of a satellite launch facility on all flora and fauna on Sombrero Island, including the Sombrero Black Lizard.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what consultations her Department has held or plans to hold with ICF Kaiser on the scope of their environmental assessment of Sombrero Island in the Caribbean; and what alternative sites for building a rocket launching pad have been considered; [41625]

  (2) what consultations her Department has held or plans to hold with ICF Kaiser on the scope of their environmental assessment of Sombrero Island in the Caribbean; and if she will make a statement. [41626]

  Mr. Battle
  ICF Kaiser is an adviser to Beal Aerospace which proposes to develop a satellite launch site on Sombrero Island in the UK dependent territory of Anguilla. Officials in the British National Space Centre (BNSC) have held a number of discussions with Beal Aerospace over the past three months to discuss a formal application to develop the site and conduct launches. BNSC officials have also contributed to defining the scope of an environmental assessment of the proposal. This contribution has reflected advice from a number of Government Departments including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Environment Agency.

  The scope and content of the Environmental Assessment have been prepared such that they fulfil a series of requirements including those laid down by the UK's Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulation 1988, the US National Environmental Policy Act, and the World Bank.
  193
  Beal Aerospace investigated a number of alternative sites before making a commercial decision to select Sombrero Island, the only UK territorial site investigated.

  North West London Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps she has taken to establish the precise financial status of North West London TEC and the proposed withdrawal of its partnership contribution to Business Link London North West; and what effect such withdrawal may have on the future viability of the Business Link; [41465]

  (2) if she will publish (i) the committed partnership contributions, (ii) the actual contributions made, (iii) the funding disbursed by her Department and (iv) the generated income of Business Link London North West for the fiscal years (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) that projected for 1998–99; [41464]

  (3) what action she will take to safeguard the sums paid by her Department to North West London TEC as pump priming funding for Business Link London North West in a view of the TEC's withdrawal of its previously committed partnership contribution for 1998–99 as partial matched funding for her Department's funds. [41466]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 11 May 1998]: The information is based on the data held by the Government Office for London and is also available in the North West London TEC's Business Plan:

  £

  Generated income

  Committed partner income

  Actual partner contribuion

  DTI funding

  1996–97

  40,000

  n/a

  255,000

  834,240

  1997–98

  112,000

  111,888

  150,000

  1,126,939

  1998–99

  196,000

  1160,000

  1160,000

  11,027,916

  1 Forecast

  The Government Office for London carries out regular financial audits of all its TECs. North West London TEC was audited in April 1997 and was assessed as being financially viable, and classified in the low risk category. The next financial audit of the TEC is planned for this summer.

  North West London TEC has been instrumental in developing and enhancing a successful local Business Link partnership in its area. The TEC is committed to playing its part in the development of quality business and enterprise support services in line with my vision statement announced in October last year, and to enhancing its strategic role in this respect. I understand that the TEC has not reached any conclusions about its contribution to the Business Link for 1998–99. If the TEC were to withdraw its partnership contribution, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would have the right, at her discretion, to withhold pump-priming funding and to recover the pump-priming funding already paid. In addition, concerns about operational and financial viability that may result as a consequence of any of the partners' proposals to withdraw contributions would be subject to a thorough review by the Government Office for London. This is done in the normal course of business so as to ensure that the TEC has an operational Business Link in the area.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment the prior options review of the Next Steps agencies for the Patent Office has made of the advantages of the agencies expanding their work into areas of activity undertaken by(a) trade mark agents and (b) patent agents. [41614]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The nature of the functions of the Patent Office is defined by Statutes which in practice preclude it from expanding its work into areas of activity undertaken by patent and trade mark agents. In the context of a prior options review in 1994, the previous Government considered in general terms whether legislation should be introduced to alter this arrangement. In the event, they decided not to proceed with legislation.

  Motor Trade (EMU)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the effects of European Monetary Union on the motor vehicle retail sector. [42047]

  Mr. Battle
  European Monetary Union will affect the business environment for firms in all sectors. The setting of inflation targets and interest rates by the European Central Bank will affect the macroeconomic situation, and barriers to trade between member states will be removed by the elimination of exchange rate barriers and currency transaction costs. EMU should also increase the transparency of prices across the euro zone, a point of particular interest to the vehicle sector. Businesses in all sectors should be considering their marketing and pricing strategies in the light of this new environment, as well as the practical implications of the change for the way in which they do business.

  World Trade Organisation Conference
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the United Kingdom's objectives for the second Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation in Geneva from 18 to 20 May. [42573]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The United Kingdom sees this as a significant meeting for further strengthening the rules-based multilateral system and its dispute settlement mechanism. We will be looking to secure:

  (i) affirmation of the continuing importance of trade liberalisation to economic growth, improving living standards, and new job creation across the world;

  (ii) a pledge to maintain open markets and resist protectionism;

  (iii) a renewed commitment to meeting deadlines to implementation of existing commitments and recognition that technical assistance will be made available to assist countries which are encountering difficulties;

  (iv) a strengthened commitment to achieving greater integration of the least developed countries into the multilateral system by reducing further trade barriers against their exports;

  (v) recognition of the need for a major step forward in the liberalisation of goods and services on a comprehensive basis;

  (vi) the setting in train of wide-ranging groundwork so that decisions can be taken at the 1999 Ministerial on the substance, modalities, and timetable for broad-based negotiations beginning from 2000.

  I will attend the conference in my capacity as President in Office of the Council of the European Union. As such, I will be guided by the conclusions of EU Ministers which

  195
  reflect the consensus among EU trade Ministers for the Ministerial Conference. Copies of these conclusions will be deposited in both Houses. My noble Friend the Minister for Trade will represent the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom's objectives are fully reflected in the EU' s objectives for the conference after which we will want, along with the Commission and other EU member states, to begin a process of communicating the benefits of trade liberalisation and the role of the WTO in that process.

  Internet
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to protect children from harmful material on the Internet. [40978]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are determined to ensure that children can access the many benefits the Internet brings, without fear of encountering harmful material. We support the work of the Internet watch Foundation (IWF) to uphold the law on line through its hotline and notification service and to lead development of an international approach to rating and filtering of content. But we are not complacent and I have announced a review of IWF to assess its progress to date and help us to establish its future priorities. IWF is now providing a model for action internationally, and we hope to reach agreement on a European Action Plan for Safe use of the Internet during our Presidency, to promote the safe use of the Internet, and protect children from harmful material.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flood Defences
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown of the projects aided by the £.05 million grant aid provided by his Department towards the Agency's flood warning arrangements. [41786]

  Mr. Morley
  In my reply to my hon. Friend's question on 6 May 1998,Official Report, column 418, I stated that in the past two years the Department had contributed some £0.5 million (not £0.05 million) of grant towards the Environment Agency's flood warning arrangements. This understated the contribution, which I now correct to £0.75 million. The breakdown is as follows:

  £000

  Agency Region

  Project

  Grant paid

  (a) National projects

  North East (on behalf of all regions)

  New national flood warning dissemination—purchase of capital equipment and contribution to publicity costs

  241

  (b) Regional projects

  Local improvements associated with national project and with telemetry systems:

  Anglia

  343

  Thames

  35

  Southern

  19

  South Western

  30

  North West

  21

  North East

  59

  196
  In addition, the Agency has met the balance of costs of these flood warning arrangements and will have incurred expenditure on other flood warning arrangements for which grant aid has not been sought.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many studies commissioned or evaluated by his Department have been completed into the effectiveness of inland flood warning systems since March 1996. [41788]

  Mr. Morley
  No such research has been commissioned directly by the Ministry. The Environment Agency has commissioned independent annual surveys of public response to assess the effectiveness of their flood warning arrangements. The results of the first survey have been supplied to the Ministry.

  My officials have also discussed with the Agency the results of the Agency's independent technical review of new flood warning dissemination systems. This has informed prioritisation of future developments.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 6 May 1998,Official Report, columns 417–18, which local authority areas are covered by inherited arrangements for flood warnings. [41784]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The arrangements for dissemination of flood warnings were mainly inherited from the police and the Environment Agency now provides a flood warning service in some one thousand locations.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meetings his officials held with the Environment Agency to discuss the flood warnings systems(a) in March 1996 to March 1997, (b) in March 1997 to March 1998 and (c) since March 1998. [41785]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of meetings wholly or mainly relating to flood warning systems in these periods is(a) 9, (b) 12 and (c) 1. Flood warning arrangements were also discussed in regular liaison meetings with the Environment Agency and were the subject of detailed discussions with the Agency prior to the Ministerial Direction in March 1996.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 6 May 1998,Official Report, columns 419–20, if he will list (a) the local authorities, (b) the value of the respective grants and (c) the title of the application for each of the applications by local authorities for capital grants for flood and sea defences set out in his answer; and which of these applications were approved. [41782]

  Mr. Morley
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested at(a) to (c) above, and approval status.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 6 May 1998,Official Report, columns 419–20, if he will list (a) the local authority area, (b) the value of the respective grants and (c) the title of the application for the applications by

  197
  the Environment Agency and the Inland Drainage Board from 1995 to 1997 set out in his answer; and which of these applications were approved. [41783]

  Mr. Morley
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested at(b) and (c) above, and approval status. Information on (a) is not readily available and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what flood warning dissemination plan has been developed for Northamptonshire since March 1998. [41787]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency's flood warning dissemination plan for Northamptonshire was drawn up in consultation with the local authorities and the Police in September 1996. The plan was reviewed by the Agency in May 1997 and a further review is planned shortly. A copy of the current Plan is being submitted to the Agriculture Committee and placed in the House Library.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for new regulations under section 16(2) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. [41525]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have plans to amend the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 and the Plant Protection Products (Basic Conditions) Regulations 1997 by means of new regulations. If the Pesticides Bill passes into law, as the Government hope, the existing Regulations will be amended to improve the arrangements for public access to information and also to extend to local authorities certain powers to seize and dispose of pesticides. In addition, the Government intend to remove the age exemption from the requirement for users of agricultural pesticides to hold a certificate of competence.

  We shall consult widely on these proposals.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in respect of the photocopying of information relating to pesticides, in cases where that information may be inspected by the public. [41526]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government's policy is to make as much information about pesticides available to the public as possible. Constraints are therefore kept to the minimum necessary to protect personal information, commercial secrets and intellectual property rights.

  Documents detailing the evaluation of pesticide compounds carried out by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides are available for inspection or purchase by the public. The individual scientific studies underlying these documents are available for inspection but we do not allow photocopies to be taken because of the potential for such material to be misused for the purpose of gaining a pesticide approval.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many products containing glufosinate ammonium he has(a) approved and (b) refused to approve; and if he will place a copy of all approvals and any extensions in the Library. [41523]
  198
  Mr. Rooker
  44 products containing glufosinate-ammonium have been granted one or more approvals by Ministers; and Ministers have refused to approve the uses requested for 1 product containing glufosinate-ammonium.

  I have placed a list of all the 44 products which have gained one or more approvals in the Library of the House. Individual approvals include the application documents and any subsequent correspondence from the applicant. As such, they contain commercially sensitive data and, therefore, we do not publish them.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the approvals he has given or extended for products containing glufosinate ammonium allow use near to, or in connection with, the production of edible crops. [41524]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are 60 extant approvals allowing use near to, or in connection with, the production of edible crops which relate to the 44 glufosinate-containing products which have been approved by Ministers.

  Seed Listings
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will specify those tests and trials conducted in respect of genetically modified seeds, which fall under(a) Regulation 11(1) of the Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations 1982, (b) Regulation 11(2) of those Regulations, (c) Regulation 11(3) of those Regulations, (d) Regulation 11A of those Regulations, (e) Regulation 12(2) of the Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations 1978, (f) any other specified statutory provision and (g) no statutory provision. [41516]

  Mr. Rooker
  Plant Varieties are tested for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) for the purposes of National Listing and plant breeders' rights. The main agricultural species are also trialled, for National List purposes only, to establish whether they have Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU). These requirements apply to all varieties, regardless of whether they are genetically modified or not, although genetically modified varieties cannot be entered in tests and/or trials unless a consent to release has been granted by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, as amended. The tests and trials must also comply with any conditions imposed in release consents.

  Tests and trials conducted on plant varieties under the provisions specified are:

  (a) DUS tests and VCU trials are conducted pursuant to Regulation 11(1) of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (the 1982 Regulations).

  (b) No tests or trials are conducted pursuant to Regulation 11(2) of the 1982 Regulations.

  (c) Regulation 11(3) of the 1982 Regulations requires applicants to submit the results of their own value trials on varieties with their National List applications. However, experience has shown that this information is of little value in assessing National List applications and the Department has not required applicants to comply with these provisions since 1995.

  (d) Ministers have licensed the British Society of Plant Breeders Ltd. to conduct VCU trials for National List purposes for varieties of the main species of cereals, fodder plants, legumes and winter oilseed rape and linseed, under Regulation 11A of

  199
  the 1982 Regulations. Similarly, Ministers have licensed the British Sugar Beet Seed Producers Association to undertake VCU trials in respect of sugar beet varieties entered for National Listing.

  (e) The Controller of Plant Breeders' Rights has not required any applicant for plant breeders' rights in respect of a genetically modified variety to undertake his or her own tests or trials, pursuant to Regulation 12(2) of the Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations 1978 (as amended). (These Regulations were repealed by the Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations 1998 on 8 May 1998).

  (f) There are no other statutory tests or trials conducted pursuant to the 1982 Regulations or plant breeders' rights legislation. However, Regulation 32 of the 1982 Regulations enables plant breeders to undertake their own tests and trials before submitting a National List application. It also enables National List applicants to undertake their own tests and trials and to multiply seed varieties while a National List application is under consideration. These are commercial matters for the applicant, provided he or she complies with the 1982 Regulations and (in the case of a genetically modified variety) with all conditions attached to the release consent.

  (g) As part of the normal co-operation between testing authorities, the United Kingdom Plant Variety Rights Office is undertaking tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability on behalf of the Belgian authorities in respect of 11 genetically modified oilseed rape varieties.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the tests and trials which have been or are being conducted in respect of genetically modified seeds; and if he will place the results in the Library. [41515]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department undertakes statutory tests and trials on plant varieties in respect of applications for plant breeders' rights or addition to the National List. Tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) are undertaken in respect of applications for plant breeders' rights under the Plant Varieties Act 1997 (the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, which preceded the 1997 Act, also required DUS tests). Tests for DUS and trials to establish Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) are undertaken in respect of applications for National Listing. The Department is currently considering 13 applications for plant breeders' rights, 11 applications for addition to the National List and 9 combined plant breeders' rights/National List applications in respect of plant varieties which are genetically modified organisms.

  The species concerned are as follows:

  Varieties

  Plant breeders' rights only

  Oilseed Rape

  13

  National List only

  Oilseed Rape

  5

  Sugar Beet

  5

  Maize

  1

  Combined plant breeders' rights/National List applications

  Oilseed Rape

  9

  As yet, no reports of tests or trials have been finalised. When a DUS test undertaken for the purpose of assessing an application for plant breeders' rights is completed, a proposed decision on the variety concerned will be published in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette. At the same time, a description of the variety will be placed on
  200
  the public register and a copy of the DUS report will be publicly available in accordance with Regulation 12 and 13 of the Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations 1998 (the first DUS reports are expected to be publicly available in July of this year).

  Reports of DUS tests undertaken solely for the purposes of assessing National List applications, and results of VCU trials, will be available on request to my Department, once tests and trials are complete for a variety and a proposed decision on whether or not it should be added to the National List has been published in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette.

  I am taking steps to ensure that the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette is placed in the Library of the House on a regular basis. Hon. Members may then obtain copies of reports in respect of any variety which is of interest to them.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if seed trials and tests in connection with national seed listing applications are also regarded by his Department as seed trials and tests in connection with plant breeders' rights applications, and vice versa. [41522]

  Mr. Rooker
  Varieties entered for plant breeders' rights under the Plant Varieties Act 1997 (and the legislation which preceded it) are tested for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS). Varieties entered for National Listing are also tested for DUS. A DUS test undertaken for plant breeders' rights purposes is acceptable for National List purposes. In most circumstances, a DUS test initially undertaken for National List purposes is also acceptable for plant breeders' rights. There may, however, be isolated instances when a DUS test undertaken initially for National List purposes is not entirely acceptable for assessing an application for plant breeders' rights. This is because Distinctness must be established in an international context for plant breeders' rights, whereas for National List purposes, it needs to be established only in comparison with varieties on a National List of another Member State or on the Common Catalogue.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if applicants for national seed listings must submit the results of seed trials and tests to his Department in connection with applications for national seed listing. [41521]

  Mr. Rooker
  No.

SCOTLAND

  Deafness
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets he has set for delivering deaf awareness training to general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [41633]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There are no set targets for delivering deaf awareness training to general practitioners. However, my Department has recently issued guidance to all Health Boards and NHS Trusts reminding them of their responsibilities for having appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that deafblind people are afforded the
  201
  services of a guide/communicator when they attend hospital or GP surgery. This is now part of a wider agenda concerning people with disabilities which flows from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and in particular the provisions within the Act governing access to services and employment. I intend shortly to issue guidance to NHS Trusts in Scotland on applying this part of the Act, including specific reference to treatment of deaf and deafblind people.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources have been made available for the provision of services for young deaf adults in each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement. [41634]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information required to answer this question is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current length of waiting lists for the provision of(a) a hearing test and (b) a hearing aid in each Scottish health board area. [41632]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on waiting lists at audiometry and hearing aids clinics is not collected centrally.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many products containing glufosinate ammonium he has(a) approved and (b) refused approval; and if he will place a copy of all approvals and extensions in the Library; [41513]

  (2) how many of the approvals he has given or extended for products containing glufosinate ammonium allow use near to, or in connection with, the production of edible crops. [41514]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer he received today from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Genetically Modified Seeds
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the tests and trials conducted in respect of genetically modified seeds; and if he will place the results in the Library; [41518]

  (2) if he will specify those tests and trials conducted in respect of genetically-modified seeds, which fall under (a) Regulation 11(1) of the Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations 1982, (b) Regulation 11(2) of those Regulations, (c) Regulation 11(3) of those Regulations, (d) Regulation 11A of those Regulations, (e) Regulation 12(2) of the Plant Breeders Rights Regulations 1978, (f) any other specified statutory provision and (g) no statutory provision. [41519]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer he received today from my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  202
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory provisions govern the conduct of tests and trials in respect of genetically modified seeds; and if he will make a statement. [41520]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer he received today from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle).

  Further Education
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of the fixed element cost of grant-in-aid for the Scottish further education sector for 1998–99. [41732]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on 12 May 1998,Official Report, column 87.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many weighted standard units of measurements there were in the Scottish further education sector for academic years(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97; [41731]

  (2) what was the value of the weighted standard units of measurement in the Scottish further education sector in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [41671]

  Mr. Wilson
  Weighted Student Units of Measurement (WSUMs) are used in the funding methodology which determines the allocation of recurrent grant to further education colleges. The numbers of WSUMs and the average value per WSUM are set out in the tables for the years in question. The average value has been determined by dividing the amount of funding allocated by the number of WSUMs used in the funding methodology for the appropriate year.

  Year

  Number of WSUMs

  1994–95

  1,528,517

  1995–96

  1,667,042

  1996–97

  1,843,665

  £

  Year

  Average 'value' per WSUM

  1996–97

  151

  1997–98

  139

  1998–99

  125

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the sector average unit cost per weighted standard unit of measurement of Scottish Office Education and Industry Department fundable activity for the Scottish further education sector for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [41733]

  Mr. Wilson
  The sector average unit cost per weighted student unit of measurement of Scottish Office Education and Industry Department fundable activity within the Scottish further education sector was £195 in 1995–96
  203
  and £180 in 1996–97. Over this period activity in the sector increased by an average of 10.6 per cent., and an efficiency gain of 10.57 per cent. in real terms was achieved.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each NHS trust in Scotland the projected deficits or surpluses, excluding the write down in value of trust assets, itemised in the monthly monitoring returns for 31 December 1997, indicating the total of the projected deficits or surpluses. [41812]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The table provides the information requested, as well as the most up to date figures available from the Trust monitoring returns.

  £000

  Full year surplus/(deficit) excluding profit/loss on disposal of fixed assets

  As at 31 December 1997

  As at 31 March 1998

  Aberdeen Royal hospitals

  473

  417

  Angus

  150

  189

  Argyll and Bute

  (5)

  11

  Ayrshire and Arran Community

  96

  258

  Borders General

  (100)

  56

  Borders community

  107

  131

  Caithness and Sutherland

  40

  12

  Central Scotland Healthcare

  78

  81

  Dumfries and Galloway acute and maternity

  173

  230

  Dumfries and Galloway Community

  83

  98

  Dundee Healthcare

  70

  126

  Dundee Teaching

  101

  (333)

  East and Midlothian

  136

  183

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  689

  710

  Edinburgh Sick Children's

  0

  71

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  57

  31

  Fife Healthcare

  1,910

  2,149

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  20

  56

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  (1,271)

  446

  Grampian Healthcare

  136

  364

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health

  375

  177

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse

  170

  253

  Highland Communities

  (7)

  148

  Inverclyde Royal

  105

  108

  Kirkcaldy Acute

  117

  195

  Lanarkshire Healthcare

  370

  412

  Law Hospital

  190

  190

  Lomond Healthcare

  5

  27

  Monklands and Bellshill

  380

  616

  Moray Health Services

  20

  27

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  (65)

  1,594

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare

  205

  220

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  325

  357

  Raigmore Hospital

  50

  209

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  139

  227

  Royal Alexandra

  355

  338

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  145

  223

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  30

  118

  South Ayrshire

  60

  232

  Southern General

  126

  378

  Stirling Royal

  (53)

  3

  Stobhill

  120

  102

  Victoria Infirmary

  (1,823)

  423

  West Glasgow Hospitals

  (847)

  (556)

  West Lothian

  472

  497

  Western General Hospitals

  120

  102

  Yorkhill

  (71)

  (125)

  Total

  3,956

  11,781

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to implement the six-point plan for co-operation on human rights with Indonesia announced in August 1997; and what are the estimated total costs of the plan. [41537]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We shall shortly be purchasing computer equipment for the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission (KomnasHam). Further work is in hand to assist the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) in the development of their computer system; £25,000 budgeted for so far on computer projects. A substantial collection of books on good governance, democracy and public administration was recently presented to KomnasHam; cost £2,000.

  Twenty scholarships for studies relating to human rights and good governance will be awarded this year under the Chevening Scholarship Scheme; estimated cost £300,000. We have identified three Indonesians working in areas related to human rights to attend the Oxford University Course on International Human Rights Law starting this July; estimated cost £14,000. Training under the current Government's police training initiative has not yet begun; costs will be subject to a needs assessment visit which is due to take place shortly. This will take account of the circumstances prevailing at the time.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the results of his Department's provision of training for Indonesian police officers; and what is the estimated cost to his Department. [41662]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Training under the current Government's police training initiative has not yet begun. A needs assessment visit to Indonesia will take place shortly. This will take account of the circumstances prevailing at the time. An estimate of the cost of this training will be easier to make in the light of the conclusions of this visit.

  Classified Information
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Mr. Mathieson has access to classified information within his Department. [42095]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My letter of appointment to Mr. Mathieson states that I do not envisage him having access to classified papers; and that he is required to exercise care in the use of official information acquired in the course of his duties and not to disclose without my prior authorisation information which is held in confidence.

  East Timor
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those who will be present on the Troika mission to East Timor on 6 to 10 June; and if their report will be made public. [41916]

  Mr. Fatchett
  HM Ambassador in Jakarta will be accompanied by the Austrian Ambassador, the Netherlands Ambassador (representing Luxembourg),
  205
  the Commission Representative in Jakarta and a member of the EU Council Secretariat. Their report will be submitted to the General Affairs Council for consideration.

  Papers and Correspondence
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time taken by him to sign off(a) policy papers and (b) correspondence from the date they are first submitted. [41845]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I deal with policy papers and correspondence as soon as practicable. Whether that is as soon as the documents are submitted, or shortly thereafter, depends on my other commitments, including absence from the office overseas.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what papers, telegrams and correspondence submitted to him by his Department and placed in his red boxes are currently awaiting a decision after a period of two weeks. [41822]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  None.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will draw up and publish an ethical code concerning arms exports, with particular reference to UN resolutions. [41834]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, announcing the criteria to be used when considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. These criteria specify that an export licence should be refused if approval would be inconsistent with the UK's international obligations and commitments to enforce UN arms embargoes.

  The UK takes seriously its obligations to implement UN Arms Embargoes and expects other countries to do the same. Within the EU, we are working towards an EU Code of Conduct that will set high common standards for arms exports from all EU Member States. The latest draft of the Code contains similar wording on Member States' international obligations and the commitments to enforce UN arms embargoes.

HEALTH

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the private sector cosmetic surgery industry. [23005]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1 May 1997 we have received 14 letters and hon. Members have asked ten Parliamentary Questions relating to private cosmetic surgery.

  Nurses
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many vacancies for qualified nurses are currently notified(a) in England and (b) in the constituency of North Shropshire; [29969]

  (2) how many people are currently undertaking training for nursing qualifications. [29975]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested on training is in the table. Information on vacancies for qualified nurses is not collected centrally.

  Pre-registration nursing1

  In training populations

  Level 1

  Part of the register

  1997

  General

  1

  9,595

  Mental health

  3

  1,120

  Mental handicap

  5

  264

  Sick children

  8

  842

  Adult

  12

  23,798

  Mental health

  13

  5,138

  Learning disability

  14

  1,417

  Children's

  15

  3,751

  Common foundation programme

  —

  2,111

  Total

  —

  48,036

  1 Source:

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (ENB) Annual Report 1996–97.

  Midwifery, health visiting and district nursing1

  In training populations

  1997

  Midwifery

  3,521

  Health visiting

  143

  Specialist practice—public health (HV)

  455

  All health visiting

  598

  District nursing

  139

  Specialist practice—district nursing

  401

  All district nursing

  540

  Total

  5,797

  1Source:

  ENB Annual Report 1996–97.

  Contraceptive Pills
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women used the contraceptive pill in each year since 1993. [32089]

  Ms Jowell
  The information is not available in the format requested. The General Household Survey (GHS) conducted by the Office for National Statistics estimated that in 1993 and 1995, 25 per cent. of women aged 16 to 49 in Great Britain used the contraceptive pill. Information is not available for the other years requested because the GHS only asked the specific question on contraception in 1993 and 1995.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to implement the recommendations of the Calman report on the provision
  207
  of cancer services in the NHS (a) nationally and (b) in the North Thames region; and if he will make a statement. [38377]

  Mr. Boateng
  We remain committed to improving cancer care, and achievement of the cancer targets within The New NHS and Our Healthier Nation will be set firmly within the ongoing implementation of the Calman/Hine recommendations. Nationally, a great deal of work has already been undertaken to agree the provision and standard of cancer services at each individual potential cancer centre or cancer unit. To support the implementation, commissioning guidance is being produced on the commoner cancers to help health authorities, hospitals, primary care and community services focus on areas most likely to make a difference to the outcomes of treatment. The first guidance document "Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer" was published in July 1996. The second "Improving Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer" was published on 24 November 1997. Guidance on lung cancer and the gynaecological cancers is planned for 1998–99.

  In the North Thames region, the majority of health authorities have focused initially on breast cancer services and have agreed standards of care for their cancer units based on the best guidance. Progress has also been made on the designation of those units that will provide services for colorectal, lung and gynaecological cancers.

  Designation status for cancer centres was agreed after a process of review jointly by clusters of relevant health authorities using standards drawn from the Calman/Hine report and agreed by all the health authorities. This process resulted in five centres being designated by November 1997. The centres are located at the following trusts: the Hammersmith Hospitals, Mount Vernon and Watford, the Royal London Hospitals/Havering Hospitals (joint centre), Southend Health Care, and the University College London Hospitals/Royal Free Hampstead (joint centre). A further two aspiring centres are exploring how they could collaborate with other trusts to strengthen their position in the cancer network. All the designated centres were required to produce action plans to set out how they would address issues and service gaps identified during the designation process and these are being closely monitored by the health authorities.

  The designated centres are starting work on protocols of care for each cancer. Health authorities and trusts across the Region have also developed a pan-regional audit process for breast cancer so that feedback can be given to providers on their comparative performance against key standards. A similar audit is being developed for colorectal cancer.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the costs of each of the reviews currently in progress in his Department; when the reviews are expected to report; and if he will make a statement. [40890]
  208
  Ms Jowell
  Information requested about the reviews currently in progress in the Department is set out in the table.

  Review

  Anticipated date of report

  Costs (to date) £

  Review of evidence relating to silicone breast implants

  June 1998

  160,000

  Review of Aspects of Surrogacy Law

  July 1998

  15,000

  National Health Service Charter Advisory Group (Review of Patient's Charter)

  Summer 1998

  278,000

  Review of the latest information available on inequalities in health

  Autumn 1998

  154,000

  1 Costs exclude officials' time since these cannot be differentiated from the normal running costs of Departmental business

  2 Costs include some officials' time since in this case it was possible to differentiate these from normal running costs

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the new primary care commissioning groups will be able to use their budgets to purchase specialist services from independent providers. [41542]

  Mr. Milburn
  Existing guidance to the National Health Service, issued for the 1998–99 commissioning round, is that health authorities and NHS trusts should explore the scope to make maximum cost-effective use of local NHS capacity before contemplating recourse to private sector hospital provision. Where care is nonetheless commissioned from private hospitals, the reasons must be reported to the Regional Office of the NHS Executive.

  In the White Paper The New NHS we promised to introduce new arrangements for commissioning specialised services for 1 April 1999. We have issued a draft guidance document for wide consultation, with responses due by 1 June 1998. Further guidance on Primary Care Groups will be issued in due course.

  Incontinence
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in respect of how many people Dudley Health Authority currently provides continence services; and what budget it has allocated to continence care in real terms in each year since 1990–91. [41750]

  Mr. Milburn
  This information is not routinely collected by the Department, but local information provided shows that the number of Dudley Health Authority residents currently provided with incontinence pads and other similar methods is 3,021.

  Expenditure from 1992–93 to 1998–99 is as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1997–98

  1503

  1996–97

  407

  1995–96

  357

  1994–95

  345

  1993–94

  304

  1992–93

  242

  1 Includes £30,000 winter pressures money

  Note:

  It is not possible to obtain data prior to 1992–93
  209
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding his Department has given to voluntary organisations providing support for incontinent people in each year since 1990–91; [41912]

  (2) what research his Department has undertaken into the number of incontinent people in the UK seeking advice and products outside the NHS; [41911]

  (3) when the NHS will issue national guidance on the treatment of incontinence. [41913]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 349.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been on waiting lists in(a) Winchester and (b) North and Mid Hampshire for continence pads from the NHS for more than (a) one month, (b) three months and (c) six months. [41910]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Ms Frances Sheldon, Chairman of North and Mid Hampshire Health Authority, for this information.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Northavon tabled on 11 March 1998 [34562] regarding ambulance vehicle ages. [42307]

  Mr. Milburn
  I replied to the hon. Member on 13 May 1998.

  EC Health Council
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the outcome of the EC Health Council meeting on 30 April. [42426]

  Ms Jowell
  I chaired the meeting of the European Community Health Council on 30 April in Luxembourg, on behalf of the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union.

  In an open debate on the future framework for action in the field of public health, the Council explored three strands for future action: improving information for the development of public health; reacting rapidly to threats to health; and tackling the determinants of health through health promotion and disease prevention. The Council also discussed the limitations of the present disparate funding programmes, and the importance of improved efforts to ensure that health protection requirements form a constituent part of other Community policies. The Council agreed common positions on the proposed programmes of Community action on rare diseases and on pollution-related diseases. Agreement was also reached on a Council Recommendation on the suitability of blood and plasma donors and the screening of donated blood. The Council agreed conclusions on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies, and on the integration of health protection requirements in Community policies. Progress was noted on the Community's role in combating tobacco consumption, on the Commission
  210
  proposal for a programme of action on injury prevention, and on the European Union-United States Task Force on communicable diseases.

  NHS Employees (Health)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to tackle ill-health among NHS employees; and if he will make a statement. [41850]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are committed to improving the health, safety and welfare of National Health Service staff. Our priorities are to reduce sick absence, organisational stress, accidents and violence and to increase staff control over the hours they work.

  Action being taken includes: the publication on 18 May of new guidance on "The Management of Health, Safety and Welfare Issues for NHS Staff"; the production of a model for the management of organisational stress; the organisation of 8 health and safety roadshows to be held in the autumn as a forum for the exchange of good practice; research to identify good practice examples of ways in which violence against staff working in the community can be reduced, for publication in the summer; and an evaluation of self-rostering pilots to be published later this year.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the sickness absence levels for each grade of staff in(a) Warrington Hospital NHS Trust and (b)Warrington CHC Trust for each of the past five years. [41855]

  Mr. Milburn
  This information can be obtained from the two National Health Service trusts. Therefore my hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Norman Banner, Chairman of Warrington Hospitals NHS Trust and Mr. John Gartside, Chairman of Warrington Community NHS Trust for further information.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the relative incidence of ill-health among the NHS workforce compared to levels in other occupations; and if he will make a statement. [41853]

  Mr. Milburn
  Statistics of the incidence of ill-health among the National Health Service workforce are not currently collected centrally, but we are looking at the feasibility of doing this. Guidance has been issued to help NHS managers locally to collect and act upon sickness absence data.

  Research and Development
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amounts of research and development support funding allocation to each NHS trust in the North West Region for each of the past five years. [41849]

  Ms Jowell
  The table lists the research and development support funding to National Health Service trusts in the north west region.
  211

  Research and development support funding to NHS providers in the North West Region 1994–99

  £000

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  North West Regional Office

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Aintree Hospitals

  636

  842

  901

  945

  922

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  12

  14

  24

  9

  0

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  11

  15

  25

  31

  0

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Community NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust

  29

  34

  46

  36

  0

  Burnley Health Care NHS Trust

  12

  14

  23

  24

  0

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  9

  11

  18

  1

  0

  Calderstones NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  68

  71

  Cardiothoracic Centre Liverpool NHS Trust

  76

  96

  100

  123

  137

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,794

  3,824

  3,773

  5,286

  5,228

  Cheshire Community Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  25

  0

  Chester and Halton Community NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  34

  0

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  144

  180

  171

  858

  1,006

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHS Trust

  13

  23

  23

  59

  64

  Communicare NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  Community Healthcare Bolton, NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  17

  0

  Countess of Chester Hospital Trust

  75

  91

  113

  129

  132

  Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  0

  2

  7

  5

  0

  Furness Hospitals NHS Trust

  7

  0

  4

  1

  0

  Greater Manchester Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Guild Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  4

  0

  5

  183

  187

  Halton General Hospital NHS Trust

  22

  26

  29

  52

  54

  Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancaster Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  12

  14

  21

  23

  26

  Lancaster Priority Services NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool Women's Hospital

  261

  332

  368

  380

  374

  Manchester Children's Hospitals

  548

  635

  763

  1,009

  1,025

  Mancunian Community Health NHS Trust

  0

  17

  8

  21

  0

  Mental Health Services of Salford

  0

  0

  13

  348

  432

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  18

  23

  35

  13

  0

  North Manchester NHS Healthcare Trust

  406

  526

  570

  472

  477

  North Mersey Community NHS Trust

  0

  4

  101

  51

  93

  Oldham NHS Trust

  11

  19

  21

  51

  0

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  11

  15

  25

  33

  33

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  9

  11

  16

  9

  0

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,360

  2,985

  2,859

  3,022

  2,981

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  498

  624

  683

  700

  683

  Salford Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  3

  3

  23

  0

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,617

  1,874

  2,271

  2,373

  2,353

  South Cumbria Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Manchester University Hospital (NHS) Trust

  2,302

  2,897

  3,215

  3,141

  3,098

  Southport and Formby Community Health Services NHS Trust

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Southport and Formby NHS Trust

  11

  18

  21

  7

  0

  St. Helens and Knowsley Community Health (NHS) Trust

  0

  0

  0

  22

  0

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals Trust

  231

  279

  303

  321

  325

  Stockport Acute Services NHS Trust

  10

  15

  19

  12

  0

  Stockport Healthcare NHS Trust

  31

  45

  51

  102

  104

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  3

  8

  10

  3

  0

  Tameside and Glossop Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  1

  133

  The Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery

  170

  214

  238

  124

  160

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  13

  16

  26

  42

  47

  Warrington Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  4

  14

  0

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust

  20

  26

  37

  33

  34

  West Lancashire NHS Trust

  6

  11

  16

  11

  0

  Westmorland Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  13

  15

  23

  18

  0

  Wirral and West Cheshire Community Trust

  0

  0

  0

  2

  79

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  138

  162

  183

  121

  118

  Wrightington Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  12,543

  15,962

  17,167

  20,412

  20,386

  Notes:

  A/B/C—Research element of "Service Increment for Teaching and Research" (SIFTR). Increases year on year due to a number of factors including additional funding made available and the incorporation of capital charges.

  D—Results of Culyer Declaration of actual R&D costs in 1996–97 uplifted by inflation. N.B. Difference between R&D Allocation in 1996/97 and 1997/98 was transferred from purchaser baslines to provide "steady-state" funding to providers for 1997/98.

  E—Result of first competitive bidding round of the New Funding System.
  212

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council how many and what percentage of those aged under 25 years she estimates have used(a) cannabis, (b) ecstasy, (c) heroin and (d) cocaine. [41611]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The British Crime Survey gives estimates of drug use among people aged 16 to 24 living in private households in England and Wales. The most recent estimates are from the 1996 survey, when 39 per cent. of people in this age group said they had used cannabis at some time. 11 per cent. had used ecstasy; 1 per cent. had used heroin; and 4 per cent. had used cocaine.

  The estimates of heroin, cocaine and ecstasy use should be treated with great caution, partly because they are subject to very large sampling error, and partly because a household survey such as the BCS is likely to under-represent current users.

  The table gives the range, together with the mid-point estimate. The estimates for cannabis use are fairly precise, while those for the other drugs are not.

  Number of 16 to 24 year olds using named drugs (95 per cent. confidence intervals)

  Thousand

  Named drugs

  Lower estimate

  Higher estimate

  Mid-point

  Cannabis: ever used

  2,100

  2,400

  2,300

  Ecstasy: ever used

  540

  770

  650

  Cocaine: ever used

  170

  320

  240

  Heroin: ever used

  30

  110

  60

  Source:

  1996 BCS. Weighted data.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council what estimate she has made of the average age of those in the United Kingdom first using(a) cannabis, (b) ecstacy, (c) heroin and (d) cocaine. [41610]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  This information is not currently available. However, one of the performance indicators set out in the new Government drugs strategy, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain" is"to delay age of first use of illegal drugs".

  During this year we will commission research to determine baseline indicators of current age of first use of illegal drugs. The UK Anti-Drugs Coordinator's first Annual Report and Plan of Action, to be published in March, will then set out the targets towards which we will be working.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the impact on ecstasy use of the Sorted campaign. [41613]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The 'Sorted' anti-drugs campaign was not a Government campaign and has not to our knowledge been evaluated.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Veterans
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on fertility levels among service men who participated in the Gulf War. [41502]

  Dr. Reid
  The question of whether service in the Gulf has affected the fertility of male Gulf veterans is being addressed as part of a MOD-funded epidemiological study currently being conducted by a team led by Dr. Patricia Doyle of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. This study is examining the reproductive health of Gulf veterans, both male and female, and the health of their children. Dr. Doyle's team will shortly begin sending out questionnaires for the main phase of this study to all Gulf veterans and to a control group of Service personnel who did not deploy to the Gulf. We expect that results will begin to emerge from this study by mid-2000.

  NATO Expansion
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from serving and retired military personnel cautioning against the expansion of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. [41587]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I and other Ministers regularly receive representations relating to European security issues from individuals and groups in all walks of life, expressing a variety of views. I am confident that the accession to NATO of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland is in the best interests of the Alliance and of European security as a whole.

  Visiting Forces
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements are in place in respect of the cost of, and timetable for, removal of polluted matter from RAF bases, where that matter can reasonably be assumed to have been caused by visiting US forces. [41777]

  Dr. Reid
  In the case of returned sites, under the terms of the confidential UK/US bilateral cost sharing arrangement, responsibility lies with the Ministry of Defence for rectifying any contamination caused by defence activities which may subsequently be discovered. United States Visiting Forces are expected to observe and abide by environmental protection standards at least equal to UK legislative requirements. If environmental pollution were discovered at a base made available to the United States Visiting Forces, they would normally be responsible for ensuring that the appropriate remedial action was carried out. The timescales for the removal of polluted matter would have to be set on a case by case basis.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the new space based infra-red system under construction at RAF Menwith Hill will be operated by US forces personnel. [41779]

  Dr. Reid
  I confirm that the system will be operated by US personnel.
  215
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of employing Ministry of Defence Police at RAF Menwith Hill in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what proportion of the cost was met by(a) his Department and (b) the US Government. [41776]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence Police is a civilian police force constituted under statute by the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. The Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police is independent of Ministerial, Departmental and political influence in the exercise of his constabulary powers. The total cost of policing RAF Menwith Hill for financial year 1997–98 was £1,915,122 of which £1,762,263 was recovered from the US Government. The US Government refund my Department all Ministry of Defence Police costs, other than overtime occasioned by the activities of protesters, in respect of RAF Menwith Hill.

  Holy Loch
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total estimated cost of the operation to remove debris and waste from Holy Loch. [41778]

  Mr. Spellar
  £5m.

  Strategic Defence Review (Cadets)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in respect of the impact on cadet services of the Strategic Defence Review. [41670]

  Dr. Reid
  A number of inquiries have been received by my Department concerning the possible impact of the Strategic Defence Review on the Cadet Forces. No decisions have yet been taken on the Strategic Defence Review but the Government fully recognise the contribution made by the Cadet Forces to national life, and Defence Ministers have made their support for the cadets clear on several occasions.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Smoking in Public Places
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to ban smoking in restaurants and other eating places.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as my noble friend may be aware, the Government will set out their plans to tackle smoking in a forthcoming Tobacco Control White Paper. This will include provisions on public places. The White Paper will build on yesterday's important vote by the European Parliament to ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship by EC directive. However, the Government are also aware that in the case of public places there is considerable scope to build on the voluntary progress which has been made over recent years.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that adults should continue to have the freedom to endanger, damage or destroy their health through smoking if they wish, but that there is a matching freedom for those of us who do not smoke not to have our health endangered by those who do? Does she not agree that it is especially important that steps be taken—in the way that has been done in some parts of the United States—to ban or at least to limit smoking in public restaurants and other eating places, or to confine it to specified areas, preferably out of doors?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I certainly agree with the first part of my noble friend's question and his remarks about the difference between children and adults being exposed to smoking. The House may welcome the fact—I am sure the business managers will—that the Government do not seek unnecessarily to legislate when we can achieve our ends through other means. There has been a great change in recent years in attitudes to smoking in public places. This has meant that many places such as workplaces, public transport, theatres and restaurants have become smoke free without changes in the law. We are encouraged by the extent to which these measures have been effective, but we shall keep the situation closely under review.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the excellent decision yesterday of the European Parliament. Will she confirm that this means that the European Union will no longer continue to subsidise tobacco growing at public expense?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, that comes under another remit
1168
of the European Community. As I said, we have taken great steps to ban tobacco advertising. Perhaps the European Community will see the logic of the noble Lord's suggestion.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the Government's White Paper include hints on how to give up smoking for those who are addicted to it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government's forthcoming White Paper is very much directed at those 70 per cent. of smokers who say that they would prefer to give up.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am happy to give way to a smoker.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Is my noble friend the Minister aware that I understand that the Government's position on this issue of smoking in workplaces is one of self-regulation and not the intolerant imposition implied by my noble friend? Is she not aware that the Health and Safety Executive has suggested that the best course is the voluntary approach in order to avoid friction in the workplace?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in my original reply, we have been encouraged by the effective action which has been taken on a voluntary basis in relation to public places. I draw noble Lords' attention to the voluntary understanding which has been recently agreed in another place that there should be no smoking at all in the other place's Library.
Viscount Long: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if there is one thing worse than smoking it is chewing gum?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Viscount is suggesting. Is he suggesting that we should legislate on chewing gum?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the riskiest thing people can do in restaurants and eating places is to eat? Is it not a fact that thousands and thousands of people suffer from food poisoning after eating in such establishments due to infection from, for example, E.coli, salmonella, listeria—you name it, it is there—and worst of all due to infection contracted from human faeces of staff who handle food, go to the lavatory and do not wash their hands afterwards? In restaurants there is a far greater risk from eating than from passive smoking.
Finally, will the noble Baroness join with me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Grade, on reaching the age of 91 and having a photograph taken with a great cigar in his mouth, and enjoying it, after 91 years of life?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am always ready to congratulate people who reach those extremely great ages, and who I am sure will lead active lives until perhaps 100.

1169
Perhaps I may add to my noble friend's extremely gloomy catalogue of risks that one runs in restaurants. The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health recently published a report on passive smoking. It stated that there is a 20 to 30 per cent. increased risk of lung cancer for those who had exposure to smoking; and that there is a clear increased risk of heart disease. Those are two factors that we should guard against in restaurants.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question on behalf of 15 million current British smokers. I must declare an interest as chairman of the leading European smokers' rights organisation. Fifteen million smokers represent a larger constituency than that which voted Labour—was it last year; it seems rather longer ago—in 1997.
Am I right in congratulating the Government on the fact that in their pursuit of inclusive policies they have now declared an intention to turn away from divisive legislative remedies and instead to support, for as far ahead as one wishes to look, the more mutually accommodating programmes of voluntary choice between smoking and non-smoking areas?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord accepts that the European directive on tobacco advertising is non-divisive. I am grateful for his support.
The White Paper on tobacco control in its wider context will be published before the Summer Recess. The Government recognise that a large number of people in this country are addicted to nicotine. It has never been our policy that we shall ban tobacco.

Algeria: UN Human Rights Commission Visits
3.14 p.m.
Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to persuade the government of Algeria to accept visits from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights special rapporteurs on summary, arbitrary and extrajudicial executions and on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we maintain a broad-based dialogue with Algeria at both political and senior official levels. This process offers the best chance of contributing to an improvement in the situation there. In our regular contacts, we encourage the Algerians to fulfil the obligations of UN human rights mechanisms, of which a visit by special rapporteurs would form an important element. We are disappointed that they have not yet done so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the forthright statement made at the
1170
Commission by Ambassador Audrey Glover on behalf of the European Union, in particular the statement on 22nd April under agenda item 3 on the necessity of compliance with United Nations mechanisms directed at Algeria? What happens if a state persists in its defiance of the United Nations and permanently declines to comply with the requests for visits by rapporteurs?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, as EU president, we co-ordinated its discussions within the UNCHR to try to promote rapporteur visits to Algeria. We regret that that was not agreed with the Algerians. The EU's disappointment was made clear in a statement delivered at the UNCHR in Geneva on 22nd April. As that statement made clear, the EU will be watching closely developments in Algeria to ensure that there is progress. It will consider its position carefully at the UN General Assembly and the 1999 UN Commission on Human Rights if there has been no progress. We shall continue to raise this with the Algerians.
There is a way for special rapporteurs to compile reports without visiting the countries. Perhaps that is the point to which the noble Lord refers. Special rapporteurs can draw on that information. But direct information is more valuable than second-hand reports.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the severe loss of life, possibly the greatest in recent years in any single country, and the refugee flows coming from Algeria, indicate that there is an interest in all outside powers achieving non-violence within Algeria?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords; I could not agree more. There must be that interest. I think we have all heard with increasing horror the reports of the violence. I remind noble Lords that the EU troika mission went to Algeria earlier this year, as did a group of MEPs. Our ambassador in Algeria has made a point of keeping us informed of what is happening and of looking at the sites of the alleged massacres. We continue to keep a close eye on what is happening.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government enter into consultations with other governments about how far policies which send large numbers of refugees, often destitute, into territories of other countries, should properly be regarded as internal affairs within the meaning of Article 2 of the UN Charter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the point that the noble Earl raises does not apply solely to the problems in Algeria. We could cite similar problems. The example of Burma springs to mind. The noble Earl raises an interesting point. I shall consult my colleagues responsible for policy on these issues and write to him after I have done so.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the Minister made the point that UN rapporteurs should be able to conduct inquiries from outside Algeria, or other countries, if those

1171
countries refuse an entry. Will Her Majesty's Government suggest that United Nations rapporteurs do that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, at present we are continuing to encourage the Algerians to change their mind. There seems to be a very strong view in Algeria, not merely confined to the governing party. When I met a group of Algerian women MPs earlier this year, it was not only those from the governing party but from opposition parties, too, who were very hostile to the idea of the UN rapporteurs. The matter must be pursued in the ways that I have described in answering the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. However, the noble Lord is right to return to my other point; namely, it is possible to do this without visiting the country. However, I think that we would all agree that the best way to do so at present is by visiting Algeria.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, what is the Minister's response to the accusation of Amnesty International that the international community has failed to take action to break the cycle of violence in Algeria; and to its criticism of the United Kingdom—not least in its presidency of the European Union—for failing to table a specific new resolution on Algeria calling for the appointment of the UN special rapporteur at the recent annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, those criticisms were not very fair at all, given the stance that the United Kingdom has taken, particularly during its presidency: my honourable friend Mr. Fatchett has led the troika mission; we have not only kept in touch, but have received regular reports from our ambassador, on which I have reported previously to this House; and we have encouraged groups of MEPs to visit that country. I mentioned the visit from the Algerian women MPs. A group of MPs from the United Kingdom will visit Algeria later this year. We hope that, through that sort of dialogue, we shall persuade the Algerians that a UN rapporteur is necessary in their country.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, of the women MPs who came to this country, those from the opposition side took a different line when they were away from their colleagues on the government Benches in relation to the visit by UN rapporteurs. Does she agree that there has to be a time-limit within which Algeria must comply with this process; and that it would be a good idea if the inquiry by the special rapporteurs from outside the country, which I was pleased to hear the Minister mention, could be initiated at some point in the future if an invitation has not been given by the Algerian Government at that date?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am extremely interested in the noble Lord's remark about the women MPs and their reactions when they were away from the others. There was, I know, one
1172
woman MP who did not agree with her colleagues. If there were more, I should be grateful to receive further information from the noble Lord. The noble Lord asked whether, if that does not work, we shall return to the idea of UN rapporteurs from sources outside that country? We really do want to pursue with the Algerians the idea of getting rapporteurs into the country. The problem with the noble Lord's suggestion is that, were we to go down that path, we should almost certainly sell the pass about not getting rapporteurs into Algeria. I can see the noble Lord nodding, I hope in agreement.

Teachers: Capability Procedures
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many incompetent teachers have been dismissed under the fast-track system introduced by the Government in 1997.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for School Standards wrote to the chair of the National Employers' Organisation for School Teachers on 31st October last year to ask him to take the necessary steps to put in place the outline capability procedures drawn up by an ACAS working group, and to monitor implementation and report back to the Minister by the end of October 1998. The necessary steps for implementation are: review by each local education authority of the procedures that they recommend to schools followed, where necessary, by adoption by schools of new procedures which are consistent with the outline capability procedure. The national employers' organisation will therefore report on progress at the end of autumn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, so the answer is "none". If and when an education action zone is established in areas where education is deemed to be failing—which is the rationale for the policy—will the education action forum have the power, if it is deemed necessary, to dismiss a teacher or teachers who are failing, using either the normal or the fast-track procedure?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the answer is not, "No"; it is that these procedures have yet to be adopted, and we shall receive a report in October. As regards action zones, procedure agreements operate between local education authorities or governing bodies. Those will remain the employers in most cases. The fast track will be part of the normal procedure, and that procedure is with the governing body or the local education authority.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, will the Minister clarify a point that I do not quite understand? Is the fast-track procedure now actually occurring, or will it not occur until October?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the local education authorities have to adopt separately the so-called fast-track procedure. The procedure is often represented

1173
as the four weeks' dismissal. It would apply in very limited cases, in extreme circumstances relating to the incapability of a teacher. The general approach is that a dismissal procedure should be completed within two terms; at present, it may take several stages and, in some cases, several years. Those procedures are in the process of being introduced, local authority by local authority and governing body by governing body. We shall have the full report on the process in October.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my question was: who will have the power in the case of a teacher failing? When the education action zones are set up, will the power reside with the education action forum, or not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the position of the education action forum in those circumstances will be almost equivalent to that of the local education authority. But in many cases the governing body will be the employer. Therefore the procedure rests with the employer in the first instance.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, how many local authorities have not adopted the procedure and therefore will not be able to comply by October?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my understanding is that virtually all local authorities have now adopted the procedure. Negotiations are taking place with the local teacher unions. Virtually all bodies will have adopted the procedure within a very short time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there any appeal procedure under the fast track in relation to dismissal for incompetence? If so, how does one establish the competence of those who judge competence?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the existing procedures, and all procedures throughout industry, have means of judging incompetence, subject to a fair assessment by the person accused of incompetence. The point of the fast-track procedure is that in extreme circumstances teachers can be dismissed within four weeks from the beginning of a process to the end, but that in a normal assessment of incompetence no longer than two terms would elapse, whereas at present that period can be two or more years.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, how will that process interact with the setting up of a professional body for teachers; namely, the general teaching council, under the Teaching and Higher Education Bill?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the GTC will have no direct role, but clearly its advice on how to nurture the competence of teachers will be relevant.
1174
Suggestions for changes in the procedure may well be taken into account at a later date. At present no direct role is envisaged for the GTC.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, how are members of the educational forum to be appointed in the first place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the noble Earl refers to education action zone fora, that matter is covered by the school standards Bill before the House. The noble Baroness shakes her head. It is included in a clause that we shall, I hope, debate reasonably shortly. The education action zone forum will consist of representatives of the schools within the forum and members from local business and other interested bodies, including in most cases the local education authority.

Sierra Leone: Sandline International
3.29 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What reply they have given to the letter to the Foreign Secretary, dated 24th April, from S.J. Berwin & Co., solicitors to Sandline International regarding Sandline's involvement in Sierra Leone.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the exchange of correspondence referred to was in confidence. However, as S. J. Berwin have released their letter I can inform the House that a reply went from the Permanent Under-Secretary at the FCO on 1st May saying that the enforcement of UK trade restrictions imposed under UN sanctions orders is primarily a matter for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and that their investigation staff were aware of the matters outlined. He also pointed out that the FCO would co-operate fully with Customs.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that frank and open reply. I hope that a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library. Can the Minister explain to me why the Foreign Secretary regards this episode as a serious matter and cause for an inquiry or investigation, whereas the Prime Minister regards it all as an "overblown hoo-ha"? Is there a contradiction of attitudes there?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, there is no contradiction at all. I shall explain why to the House. First, I shall ensure that a copy of the letter goes into the Library of the House. We all regard this issue as a serious matter. The Prime Minister made that very clear when he spoke earlier this week. He made it very clear indeed that the alleged breaking of UN sanctions was something that the Government could never condone. In that he was supporting my right honourable friend who, throughout all this, has made his position very clear as well. I think what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was referring to

1175
was perhaps what he described later as "the press hype" surrounding the issue. It is a serious matter, it needs to be treated seriously and it needs us all not to get too over-excited about it.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, has Parliament lost sight of the essence of the problem and the practical reality? Have we forgotten that a murderous regime, unanimously condemned by the Commonwealth, the OAU and the United Nations, has been brought to an end, that the arms were probably always destined for ECOMOG and were therefore not in defiance of the UN resolution and that we should now be encouraging a transparent trial of the perpetrators?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree. What is important now is the future of Sierra Leone. On his return to Freetown, President Kabbah spoke of the need for reconciliation and the need to establish a broad-based government. We and others will continue to support President Kabbah and his government to implement such policies and to enable all Sierra Leoneans to participate in building a peaceful democratic future.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, since the Statement on Monday there have been press reports of a letter sent to the Prime Minister from President Kabbah. Without prejudice to the investigations which my noble friend mentioned, can she say whether the letter sheds any light on the situation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think my noble friend is referring to President Kabbah's letter which made it clear that his government were told by my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh that we would provide diplomatic and other support to him, but that HMG could not provide arms.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, on the subject of President Kabbah's letter, would the Minister care to comment on the defamatory allegations made by President Kabbah against certain individuals in this country and the fact that copies of the letter were circulated by the Press Office in Downing Street?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to confirm the Prime Minister's spokesman's briefing, which made clear that Her Majesty's Government could not associate with some parts of the letter, including the part to which the noble Lord referred. I can confirm that the Government do
1176
not associate themselves with that letter nor with the defamatory comments about the noble Lord or any other person mentioned in that context.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister say whether three days before Customs officers raided Sandline on Friday 3rd April, Tony Lloyd, the relevant Foreign Office Minister, was in fact in Sierra Leone?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I regret to say that I am unsighted on that issue. I shall write to the noble Lord on it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this side!
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This side, Shirley, you will need to behave yourself! My Lords, will my noble friend accept my warm and sincere congratulations on the speed with which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office replied to the letter referred to in the Question? Seven days after the letter was received, the company received a reply. The noble Lord who tabled the Question is a very good friend of mine. He was a Minister in the Welsh Office in the last government. If you wrote to the Welsh Office at that time, you were lucky if you received a reply in seven weeks, let alone seven days!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his compliments, which I shall pass on to the Foreign Office where I know they will be gratefully received.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise for trespassing on the excellent question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. I wish to ask the noble Baroness one question about the wider implications of the relationship between the Foreign Office and Sandline. It arose earlier in Papua New Guinea when the High Commission was used by the director of Sandline for a press conference. It has arisen again over Sierra Leone. Will the noble Baroness ask her office to look closely at the relationship and ensure that it is in every way consonant with the Foreign Office's responsibilities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I can do that. I am unable to tell the noble Baroness whether the wider considerations to which she drew our attention will be within the terms of reference of the investigation which my right honourable friend has already announced. But I shall ensure that my right honourable friend is aware of the noble Baroness's suggestion.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the Government agree that the recent controversy indicates a real need to regulate mercenary companies? Will they do so within this country and seek mechanisms for international approval of mercenary operations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of that suggestion and many others which are coming forward at the moment. However, it would

1177
be sensible for us to await the outcome of the Customs and Excise investigation and then to look at what has really gone on in the Foreign Office as regards the issue with the investigation initiated by my right honourable friend. Then we should seek to draw sensible conclusions about this matter and others which have been alluded to.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on India: Nuclear Tests. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.37 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Moynihanmoved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
QUOTA-HOPPING
(". This Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown considering the legal protection for British fishermen afforded by the Treaty of Amsterdam on the issue of quota-hopping.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause returns to the issue of quota-hopping. Quota-hopping remains an area which, when measured against an index of tangible benefits secured for British people and British fishing communities, the Government's negotiation in parallel with the treaty negotiations at Amsterdam is found wanting.
The problem of quota-hopping was raised in our debate on Amsterdam last July. It was raised again at Second Reading of the Bill. It was again raised in Committee. It is raised today on Report because, despite all those previous debates, we still have yet to hear why the Government did not secure the deal at Amsterdam that they promised they would on behalf of British fishermen.
The Prime Minister told another place [Official Report, Commons, 18/6/97; col. 320.]:
"real progress…on the problem of quota hoppers"
was made at Amsterdam, thereby claiming to fulfil his promise to get the
"right changes to fishing policy in the British interest".
However, in the face of sustained criticism of his deal, not least from fishermen, even the Prime Minister admitted that it would be a "foolish illusion" and
1178
"wrong to suggest that" his deal solved the whole problem. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, continued this low-key approach in Committee when he described the deal as
"small … in the face of the problem.—[Official Report, 28/4/98; col. 271]
That is a far cry from the tub-thumping vigorous pursuit of British fishing interests promised in opposition.
Noble Lords will remember Elliot Morley MP, the Opposition spokesman, who said, referring to Tony Baldry,
"The Minister said that it [quota-hopping] will be pursued vigorously at the IGC and we support that approach".
In Committee, the Minister skirted the issue of why the Government's gear-change on British fishing interests has shifted down from overdrive to reverse. He did the best he could—for that we are grateful—to present the Government's deal as a success, but yet again he saved up all his energy to attempt to reflect on the performance of the previous government, as he saw it, and to use the tactics of righteous rhetoric to conceal the present Government's failure.
The noble Lord spoke scathingly of "pre-election posturing". In the light of the Government's so-called deal at Amsterdam, the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—must also be guilty of such pre-election posturing for he told the country,
"we certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest … where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are".
Given the promises before Amsterdam, attempting to justify their failure on quota-hopping on the biased basis of the previous Government's record is a cheap trick to play on British fishermen whose livelihood depends on those promises.
I spent some time in Committee setting out the previous government's policy and the tough and consistent line on quota-hopping which was contained in a 10-point package, all of which was widely publicised as our agenda for Amsterdam and debated during Committee. But this new clause is not about the previous government; it is not about waging the election again. A year has passed since the election and the Government must stand up and explain why they did not achieve what they said they would achieve rather than weakly trying to pass the buck and insisting that they did their best in difficult circumstances. That was not what the Government promised.
The Prime Minister said that he would hold up IGC business if he did not obtain a deal on fishing. He said that he was prepared to be isolated in Europe if he did not obtain a deal on fishing. But he obtained no deal and his innate fear of isolation proved too much for him. The interests of British fishing communities were coldly discarded. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, confirmed that when he said that the Government dropped the previous administration's proposed protocol to the treaty because there was no support for it among our European partners—not because the Government disagreed with the protocol, but because no other member state supported it.

1179
The protocol sought to deal with the quota-hopping problem once and for all by entrenching the condition that UK quotas must provide an economic benefit to UK fishing communities and not to fishing interests in other member states—and this is crucial—in a legally binding protocol attached to the treaty (something to which I shall return). However, the noble Lord dismissed the significance of that proposal for a legally-binding protocol. He went on to justify the Government's junking of it by implying that the previous government had not attached the same weight to its importance in Europe as they had at home. His logic for that assertion was that when the issue of the draft protocol was raised with the German Foreign Secretary, Herr Kinkel, prior to the Amsterdam negotiations, Herr Kinkel looked "totally blank".
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke with confidence since that information was on the good authority of the Foreign Secretary. Never mind that in June 1996 my noble friend Lady Trumpington told this House that the Government had already,
"notified the IGC, the Commission and other member states that [they] would be tabling proposals to deal with the problem of quota hopping … [in] the form of a protocol to the treaty which recognises that national quotas allocated under the common fisheries policy are intended for the benefit of national fishing communities and that, notwithstanding the treaty, individual member states may adopt appropriate measures which ensure that there are real economic links between their fishing communities and the vessels which fish their quotas".—[Official Report, 17/6/96; col. 82.]
Never mind that that protocol was tabled at the IGC back in 1996. Never mind the fact that the problem of quota-hopping has hardly been a low profile issue in European affairs, the resolution of which underpinned the previous government's negotiating stance during the very IGC process that the Treaty of Amsterdam concluded. It does seem somewhat unlikely therefore that the German Foreign Secretary would have been unaware of a protocol on this issue tabled by the United Kingdom the previous summer.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, claimed that, because the protocol was not supported, the previous government would have left Amsterdam empty-handed. It is easy to make such a claim in hindsight. The fact remains that the resolution of the problem was a key priority for the previous government. Crucially, the previous government's 10-point package sought to ensure that the quota-hopper problem was dealt with once and for all so that UK quotas provide an economic benefit to UK fishing communities, not to fishing interests in other member states.
The previous government intended to go to Amsterdam to achieve a solution, and that potentially included pressure to amend the Treaty of Rome if the problem could not be resolved within the framework of the existing treaty and the CFP. If treaty changes proved to be necessary, the previous government pledged that they would seek them. Of course I accept that we will never know what would have happened. The noble Lord may be right to say that we were outnumbered 14 to one and that we might not have made much progress. But the previous government had been in that situation before and successfully negotiated for British interests.
1180
So much for being prepared to hold up IGC business; so much for being prepared to be isolated in Europe; so much for the interests of British fishermen.
Let us look at the deal that the Government obtained, for if it represented real progress on restoring 20 per cent. of our national fishing capacity, the Government are to be congratulated. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the deal, though small, is of benefit to the fishing communities. If so, why have fishing organisations repeatedly criticised the deal? The chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations described it as a "hopelessly inadequate fudge". But the noble Lord had an answer for that too. He said that if the fishing industry did not like the deal—he doubted that it would—then yet again the previous government were to blame.
Despite the Government's fresh approach to Europe; despite their new and constructive partnership with all the other member states listening to Britain's voice with rapt respect; despite this lush landscape of harmonious relationships with the European Union, it is a sad state of affairs that this is the most constructive method that the Government can come up with to defend their record. As we heard in Committee, the fabled deal consists of the Prime Minister's exchange of correspondence with the former President of the Commission—the "Dear Tony" and "Dear Jacques" exchange of letters.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told us that the President of the Commission's letter was an "important step forward". It,
"records explicitly the Commission's interpretation of how a member state may within the rules of the single market establish an economic link between the fishing activity and fishing communities and make that a condition of licence or access to quotas".
He said that meant that "we should"—tense and use of the auxiliary verb "should" is essential here—
"now be able to specify and enforce the economic links and establish rules which will ensure that the benefits flow to our fishing communities".—[Official Report, 28/4/98; col. 272.]
He added that the Government expected the Commission to respond to the proposals currently under preparation to implement the economic-link licence conditions.
I need to press the Minister on that and ask him what legal advice he has taken on the Government's proposals for economic relationships to be written into the licences? What legal advice has the Ministry sought to ensure that, as soon as the economic relationship requirements are written into a UK licence, the Spanish do not immediately refer the matter to the European Court? If that happens, the potential solution to quota-hopping—it is only a piece of paper at the moment—could be set back for three years.
Have the Government had any bilateral discussions with Spain and received assurance from that country that it, for one, will not challenge us on these proposals? If the solution is set back in the European Court, how can we rely on the assurance given to the House by the Minister for Transport when he was in Opposition that there would be no further reduction in fishing capacity or effort in this country until the matter was resolved?

1181
Most important, can the Minister tell this House whether the letter from the President of the Commission has any legal authority and exactly how the provisions set out in that letter differ from the previous arrangements on quota-hopping?
The letter of condolence from the President of the Commission is no more than a piece of paper which restates the existing situation confirming Britain's rights to issue licences requiring 50 per cent. of fish caught against the UK quota to be landed in British ports, unless the noble Lord can guarantee that in a legal challenge from Spain, which incidentally, Spain has won four court rulings defending its rights to buy access to British quotas, the Commission will unequivocally support Britain. That is, after all, the same Commission which agreed to Spain's demands that quota-hopping should not form any part of the treaty negotiations. Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister's deal actually depends entirely on the Commission's good will, a Commission which will seek to look after the interests, incidentally, not just of this country but of the Dutch, the Spanish and other interests as well?
It is all very well the noble Lord protesting that the Commission helped to design this particular set of words, as he did in Committee, but is it not the case that this amount to the Commission's agreement to receive proposals based on a set of principles? The Government have made proposals but have not yet subjected them to the testing experience of European law. Can the noble Lord today stand up and say that the Commission's legal advice, or indeed the legal advice available to the Council, has said definitely that these proposals are not to be challenged in the European Court? In the debate on fisheries in another place last December, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could not do so. In the interests of British fishermen today, can the noble Lord do so? I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as many noble Lords will know, I have over several years pursued this subject in debates and in Questions. I therefore propose to make a few comments today. On 18th February this year, following a Question of mine, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, supplied me with a copy of the paper which was the United Kingdom's proposals, as sent to the European Commission. His letter to me referred to the paper as resulting from the Prime Minister's exchange of letters with the president of the EU in May, a year ago. The key words in the British proposals are "real economic link". The proposal is that a fishing boat should be judged as eligible to fish for British quotas if there is a "real economic link" with this country.
That is very different from the impression given immediately before the general election—and immediately after it—that all was in hand and would be settled very soon. Fishermen's leaders are most disquieted that time is passing and that the basis of the United Kingdom's proposals in that memorandum are not at all certain of acceptance; and that is a year later.
1182
The letter of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to me said that the aim of the UK's memorandum was to establish whether the proposals being put forward by Britain were compatible with the jurisprudence of the European Court. With respect, it is not so much a matter of jurisprudence. What is important is what the Court's judgment will be eventually and not whether the matter falls within its jurisprudence. Unfortunately, it probably will.
The last effort by a British Government, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which I strongly supported as it passed through this House as a Bill, made a very good attempt to define what should be regarded as a British fishing boat—a fishing boat with UK nationality. But it was found by the European Court to have failed to fulfil obligations under articles of the EEC Treaty. That judgment was in October 1991. I have the text with me but I shall not, in a short debate, weary your Lordships with it in full. The articles were specified as Articles 7, 52 and 221 of the EEC Treaty.
The UK Government had made careful provision in the 1988 Act for defining what should be regarded as fishing boats with UK nationality. I take now the opportunity again to point out the contradiction that exists in two conflicting concepts within the EU. I believe that this is the root of most of the trouble. European Union law on establishment—part of the treaties—seeks to make all EU nationals equal in business activities. The fisheries regime, in contrast, regulates fisheries and allocates quotas within EU countries specifically on separate nationalities. So one part of the treaty and of the Commission is trying to make all nationals within the EU as equal as possible, but the fisheries regime is dependent on allocating quotas in accordance with specific nationalities within the EU.
As a result, virtually any Spanish or Dutch boat operated by a company or an owner based in the UK can qualify for British quotas. Any assurance that towards the end of the present exercise the European Court will not again judge that these proposals fall foul of Articles 7, 52 and 221 of the EEC Treaty or successor articles coming from the Government Front Bench today will be welcome. That is really the main point. Can we be at all certain that the European Court will not find exactly the same kind of objections as it did on the last occasion?
The Government's attitude at Amsterdam has let our fishermen down. They feel exceedingly let down because they were given an impression that a much more robust attitude would be taken. I suggest that what is needed is definite and positive action now.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am not an expert on fishing; certainly not in the way the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is. He has been at it a long time. But what I have done is to arrange some meetings with Mr. Ashworth and Mr. Hay in the Palace of Westminster. They represent Save Britain's Fish and are great experts on this matter. They believe that the only way in which the fishing problem can be resolved is if control of British fishing waters is returned to the United Kingdom. Their members and the fishing

1183
industry have been most upset over a long period of time by the handling of this issue. It is not just a question of what this Government have done in 12 months; it is a question of what has been done over the past 25 years since we acceded to the Treaty of Rome, or at least gave away our fishing rights. Does my noble friend Lord Randall wish to intervene? He has been jumping up and down.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way and for showing such courtesy. Is it not the case that the common fisheries policy, which has caused a lot of concern particularly among Euro-sceptics, came into being in 1983?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend is not correct. We acceded in 1972 to the policy that fishing is a common resource. It is from there that the present policy derives. In 1983, when other nations acceded, the common rights were extended to the new entrants. That made the whole issue more complex, more difficult and more adverse for British fishermen. So my noble friend is both right and wrong. The fact is that Britain's fishing resource was handed over a long time ago. As I said, British fishermen at present believe that the only way the matter can be resolved is for control of Britain's fishing waters to be returned to the United Kingdom.
The pass on fishing was sold in 1972 when the Heath government gave away the right to control access to British fishing grounds and to manage them in such a manner to conserve fish stocks for the main benefit of the British people and British fishermen and to share any surplus with other nations prepared to work in accordance with British rules.
I remind noble Lords that fishing is still the only common resource in the European Community. There is no other common resource. The common resource which we gave away represented a huge loss for Britain—66 per cent. of the fish are in British waters—and a great gain for the other countries of the European Union. So it was a great handing over of British resources and British interests. It was an act of sheer, stupid folly. The fishing industry has had to suffer because of it.
Ordinary fishermen have been driven into bankruptcy, into burning their boats and into criminality because of absurd regulations. It is an Alice in Wonderland situation in which they are prevented from putting to sea themselves while watching Spanish and French fishermen happily catching the fish which they believe belong to them. That is the position. My noble friend really is very anxious this afternoon.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I express appreciation again to my noble friend for giving way. I know that he is aware that for 14 years I represented Hull where there is a fishing industry. Is it not the case that improved technology in terms of nets, identifying
1184
the location of fish and the capacity of fishing vessels now far exceeds the opportunities that exist for fishing? That is the essence of the matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend makes a marvellous point. He makes my case for me. Under those circumstances it would be far better if Britain were able to control its own waters, its own management and its own conservation. That is the point I am making. I am most obliged to him for intervening to assist me in making the case, based on his expertise and service over a very long period of time in a fishing constituency.
British fishermen want the whole matter sorted out in a way which benefits them and the British people and which brings British waters back under United Kingdom control so that we can stop the depredation of irresponsible fishermen from other countries ruining a vital and valuable resource. I believe that this amendment will assist the Government in their very difficult negotiations with the European Union. Therefore, I support the amendment and I hope that other noble Lords will do so too.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, my own intervention will be brief because, like some previous speakers, I am not an expert on the situation. I wish to set out the position as we see it on these Benches. We have a number of Members in another place who are deeply interested in the health and future of the fishing industry.
I do not believe that the previous government are in a position to point very great criticism at the present Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out, the common fisheries policy was accepted in 1972 and the government of the day acceded to it. Later on, when the Irish Government tried to seek substantial changes to it upon Spain's entry into the European Union, the British Government rather left them on their own.
In 1983 a decommissioning scheme was brought in precisely for the reasons adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux; namely, that there was overcapacity in the fishing industry, not only in this country but elsewhere. From 1983 to 1986 there was a fairly effective scheme for decommissioning of which a number of fishermen took advantage. I am told by Members in another place from Cornwall and other counties dependent on fishing that this was a well-received scheme in the industry.
However, in 1986, in their wisdom, the UK government decided that they would not put up their share of the finance to continue with decommissioning. As a result many British fishermen were forced by sheer economic circumstance to sell their boats to others, among them the Spaniards. I suppose that one can argue that the free market makes its friends and its enemies. It operated very harshly in this situation. It must be said loudly and clearly that the scheme advanced at the time to ease that situation—it was a very unfair situation for fishermen and in that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon—was largely undermined by the attitude of our own government.

1185
We have now reached the situation where in the year 2002 the common fisheries policy will be reviewed again. There is a central problem to which those advancing this amendment have not paid sufficient attention. There is an international crisis because of acute under-stocking and over-fishing. It affects all countries of the world and, of course, all countries within the European Union. I have had the not very great privilege of watching Russian fishing vessels literally vacuuming up the ocean bed. Members of this House have also seen a Japanese system which, I believe, has been ruled out of order recently. In that system the net is dragged across a distance of as much as one kilometre, taking with it almost everything in the ocean.
Let us move away for a moment from adducing national considerations to the wider interests with which our fishermen are bound up. It seems to me that, first, we need to look at effective enforcement. Here I sympathise with noble Lords who have pointed out serious breaches of fishing regulations on the part of Spanish ships, although not by them alone. It is right and proper to strongly reinforce European and international regulations as regards preserving fish stocks. I understand that the most efficient way of achieving that is an effective system of satellite inspection. There are a number of serious gaps in the system of satellite inspection which the European Union employs. That appears to me one constructive way in which to move forward. A second is to try out the principle of so-called "local economic interest". That is what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do. It may not yet meet the full demands of the fishing industry; it would perhaps be surprising if it did. It has not yet been effectively tried. We should at least see whether it will work. It lays down a series of quotas for the employment of crews from Britain and for the part of the stocks which are unloaded in British ports. We have hardly given the scheme a chance to see if it works before condemning it.
Thirdly and finally, it is simply unrealistic to believe that one can pull Britain out of the common fisheries policy without the gravest damage to our position in the single market. It is difficult to cherry-pick and to say that we would like greater freedom in manufacturing but we cannot allow common market fishing. Surely, the crucial point is that we have to see how we can best protect the interests of British fishermen; how the Government can best help them either to stay in the industry by raising the standards of their boats or get out of the industry if they do not wish to stay in. I plead that we try to find a constructive answer to what is an extremely difficult problem in the interests of our own fishing industry as much as anything else.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have been over this ground many times. It is with a heavy heart that I rise once again to answer. I believe that all in this House sympathise with the plight of many of our fishing communities. However, it is deeply disheartening to hear the line adopted by the official Opposition.
1186
I believe that I speak for the whole House—or at least those noble Lords who have had the strength to sit through these debates—when I say that admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has grown during these proceedings. His attention to detail and his forensic approach to amendments and to the treaty have deeply impressed us. It is unfortunate that with this amendment he has once again fallen into what I believe to be pre-election posturing. It is disheartening that the official Opposition have tabled this amendment. It comes from a party which for 18 years presided fairly passively over the decimation of our fishing communities. The official Opposition are attempting in this amendment to blame the incoming Government for not solving those problems in six weeks.
I, of all people, am anxious to avoid accusations of asperity of speech. Therefore, I shall not use the word "hypocrisy". Nevertheless, there is here a whiff of deliberate moral inconsistency. The fact is that in the 14 months of negotiation to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred the Conservative Government made no progress in convincing other member states of the merits of their proposals, and there was no prospect of doing so in the final six weeks of that negotiation. Not a single government among the other member states supported the proposed protocol. As the noble Lord has acknowledged, it is significant that many had never heard of it or did not regard it as a serious threat by the United Kingdom.
The protocol was submitted some time in July 1996 and circulated to the other member states by the then Irish presidency. That was the only time that it surfaced in the pre-IGC discussions, despite the fact that 3,000 other documents were circulated during that time. That was why I said that the German Foreign Minister and others were unaware of that draft or the alleged importance which the then British Government attached to it. Neither the Irish nor the Dutch presidency produced any draft proposals that would have incorporated it; nor would that protocol, had it been adopted, have secured the removal of a single quota-hopper from the UK register despite the impression given by the noble Lord.
The Labour Government have taken a robust but more cautious attitude. We fully agree that the current situation is not satisfactory, but in seeking to make progress we have tried to avoid posturing on the issue. What would the negotiating stance of the previous government, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have achieved?
The noble Lord claimed in Committee and today that if other member states had not agreed to the protocol submitted by the then UK Government, the UK would have prevented the conclusion of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Let us examine that. It is claimed that they would have held up the whole business of Europe if they did not get agreement to their proposals on quota-hopping.
Just how credible is that proposition? To put it in context, that was not the only threat. The then government also threatened to prevent the completion of the treaty if there was any extension of QMV; any

1187
increase in the powers of the European Parliament; if there was not a complete revision of the powers of the European Court of Justice; if the Working Time Directive was not rescinded and if the beef ban was not lifted. It is perhaps not surprising that other member governments thought there had been too many cries of wolf. Those threats had varying degrees of credibility and vacuousness.
The fact of the matter is that it was empty rhetoric and recalls nothing so much as the phoney "beef war" in which they also attempted to block European business. A precious lot of good that did either the British beef industry or Britain's negotiating position in Europe. Did the Conservative Government really believe that to end up with no treaty, no quota-hopping protocol and an impasse in Europe would have benefited our fishing communities one iota?
There is an alternative explanation of the negotiating position. In a more sophisticated mood no doubt the noble Lord would say that it does not work like that and that there would have been negotiations and perhaps a trade-off between quota-hopping and some other aspect of the treaty. But what would that actually mean?
The noble Lord rightly said that the main stumbling block to reaching any solution, even if the other governments could have been convinced, was the position of the Spanish Government. Unanimity is required on changes to the treaty. Frankly, Spain would have blocked incorporation into the treaty of the quota-hopping proposals put forward by the previous government.
What concession would the previous government have been prepared to offer Spain in order to remove that block to incorporation, and at what cost to our national interests? I do not believe that, in honour, the previous government would have made such a substantial concession to Spain to persuade it to remove its opposition to quota-hopping. Any concession to Spain would have had to be of tremendous importance to that country. Frankly, such a negotiating stance was not on. If the noble Lord believes otherwise, perhaps he should inform the House.
In contrast, the Labour Party when in opposition and in government did not, contrary to the impression given by the noble Lord, claim that it would seek to deal with quota-hopping at Amsterdam by insisting on a change to the treaty. We pursued the question of the fishing policy vigorously and separately from other negotiations at Amsterdam. At Amsterdam, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister secured an exchange of letters with the President of the Commission which represented an important step forward. That exchange records the Commission's interpretation of how Britain or any other member state may, within the rules of the single market, require an economic link between fishing activity and fishing communities.
Since Amsterdam, we have taken forward that process. Last July we issued to the industry a consultation document, following which government officials met representatives of all parts of the UK fishing industry to discuss the implementation of the economic link and the licensing conditions that we
1188
proposed. Subsequent to that fairly prolonged period of consultation, we submitted draft proposals to the European Commission, incorporating contributions and comments from the industry. A copy of those proposals was placed in the Library of your Lordships' House on 12th May.
We are confident that that represents a substantial package of measures that is both effective and compatible with the treaty. We intend that all vessels with a UK licence should be required to comply with one of the following criteria: they must land 50 per cent. of their catch of quota species in the UK; or require 50 per cent. of the crew to be resident in UK coastal areas; or require a certain level of operational expenditure in UK coastal areas; or other measures must be taken to provide sufficient economic benefit to populations in the UK which are dependent on fishing and related industries.
The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Moynihan, asked whether the Government believed that that package of measures was based on sound legal advice. We took legal advice before Amsterdam. The President of the Commission also took legal advice. We believe that those propositions are in line with the legal advice that both we and the Commission have received. It is of interest that both the Belgian and French fishing industries are now considering similar proposals. We are confident that the measures would be upheld were they to be challenged in the European Court of Justice, principally because they do not infringe the right of establishment, as did the previous government's attempt at regulation.
We are in the process of putting the bones on the Amsterdam proposition. We await the Commission's final opinion on the details of the proposals and expect a response shortly. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is right to say that real progress was made at Amsterdam and that further progress has been made subsequently. Of course, it is not everything that the industry would wish. The industry has criticised the extent of the proposals, as revealed by the contacts of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. But it is real progress, in contrast to the way in which the previous administration carried out their responsibilities to the fishing industry.
In considering the way in which the Official Opposition have approached this matter, I must repeat the points I made at Second Reading about the sad neglect of the fishing industry over 18 years of Conservative rule. If my noble friend Lord Stoddart is right, the neglect stemmed even from 1972. There was a complete failure to modernise our industry in anticipation of Spain and Portugal joining the common fisheries policy. There was a failure in the face of under-stocking to negotiate quota levels throughout the 1980s and 1990s which were favourable to UK fishermen. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, pointed out, there was a failure to match the money provided after 1986 by the European Commission to allow our fishing industry to decommission its inefficient and outdated boats. There

1189
was a failure to introduce a licensing system which would contain transfer of licences within the industry and not allow them to be sold off to the highest bidder.
As a consequence of those failures there was the further failure to prevent the sale by British fishermen of their licences, directly and indirectly, to Spanish and other non-British quota-hoppers and their agents. There was a failure to regulate this process and, when they did try to regulate it, there was a serious legal failure to recognise that the form of those regulations would inevitably run up against the European Court of Justice because they flouted the basic right of establishment in Community law. There was then a stubborn failure to recognise that the inevitable ECJ verdict meant that they had to change those regulations. Instead, they engaged in empty rhetoric and threats to derail the treaty.
This is a record of failure to tell the truth to the fishing communities and the public. It is a deplorable record. I do not see how, in any sense, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, can regard this record as a tough and consistent line in favour of the British fishing industry and its communities.
As noble Lords have recognised, I do not claim that what we have achieved in Amsterdam is all that we would have wished and not all of it has yet come to fruition. However, we have moved further in defence of the British fishing industry in six weeks than the Conservative Party did in 18 years. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is proud of his achievements at Amsterdam.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is an honourable man and in his heart of hearts he must be ashamed of that record. At the very least he must be a little shame-faced today in pursuing his amendment. I have heard rumours that he may even pursue it to a vote. It is time we stopped posturing on this and told the truth to the fishing communities. The amendment is not about what the Government did at Amsterdam but about the terrible legacy left over in the fishing communities by the last government. If the noble Lord does not see fit to withdraw his amendment it will be a damning indictment not of the very real progress made by the Government in a relatively short period of time, but of 18 years of neglect of our fishing industry by the last Government. I would ask the noble Lord to think again and to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister reminding the House about Second Reading. I also recall some exchanges on Second Reading, not least the excellent way in which the Minister undertook the responsibilities of the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who, sadly, was not present. I recall that at that time I was keen and eager to praise the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his contribution. I do so again today. I am very grateful to him for his generous remarks about me.
I went further than to praise him. I urged the Government to recognise that as Minister with special responsibility for the European Union presidency he should be given a private office, a car and the full
1190
back-up services that a man of his capability and a noble Lord of his oratory excellence deserved. I went so far as to table some questions and I was deeply upset to receive a reply from the Government which did not accede to my request that the noble Lord should be recognised as a Minister. The reply simply said:
"As a Government Whip, Lord Whitty is a member of the Government and regularly speaks on FCO business particularly on EU issues in the House of Lords. In that context he frequently carries out official duties on behalf of the FCO, in particular in relation to the UK presidency of the EU. There are no additional costs to public funds."
I can assure the noble Lord that, after his eloquent performance today, we will continue to battle on his behalf. We hope that in the imminent reshuffle, not least in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we will see him promoted.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reflected yet again on the period of government and his interpretation of Conservative fishing policy. As he knows full well, this is not what the amendment is about. There are no grounds whatever for arguing to your Lordships' House that you could not really expect the Government to go to Amsterdam and achieve anything on behalf of the fishermen. How can he possibly say that in view of what his own Prime Minister stated? Given the way that the significance of this whole issue has been belittled by the noble Lord, it is worth repeating what the Prime Minister said:
"we certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy and British interests … where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated."
The Prime Minister did not say that about any other issue; he said it about fishing. He said it about British fishermen's interests. It is no good the noble Lord coming before this House this afternoon and saying, "Come on, you do not expect us to achieve anything. There was nothing we could really do", when his own Prime Minister considered this the one issue of top priority that he believed he could deliver in Amsterdam.
The noble Lord's speech was unconvincing. It was in stark contrast to the excellent contribution from my noble friend Lord Campbell, whose knowledge on this subject is second to none. I would need no more persuading to push this to a Division than simply to listen to my noble friend Lord Campbell. I was absolutely persuaded when I heard the Minster's rather pathetic defence of the Government's position at Amsterdam. The defence avoided recognising that the legal protection for British fishermen which the Treaty of Amsterdam afforded—and which was there to be grasped—was lost. The truth is that, as it stands today, the Treaty of Amsterdam affords no legal protection.
I repeat, the Government's guarantees have come to nothing, their promises to fishermen are broken, their deal is worthless. They clearly do not regard the fishing industry as key to British interests. My Lords, I ask for the opinion of the House.
4.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 160; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Henley, L.

Addison, V.

Higgins, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Holderness, L.

Ailsa, M.

Howe, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Annaly, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor, V.

Jopling, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kintore, E.

Bethell, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Blaker, L.

Knollys, V.

Blatch, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bowness, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Brentford, V.

Leigh, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Byford, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cadman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Coleridge, L.

Monson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Courtown, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cox, B.

Moynihan, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cuckney, L.

Naseby, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Norrie, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Northesk, E.

Davidson, V.

Norton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denbigh, E.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dundee, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Falmouth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Feldman, L.

Rawlings, B.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Rees, L.

Fookes, B.

Rennell, L.

Gage, V.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Gray, L.

Romney, E.

Halsbury, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Harlech, L.

Rowallan, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

1192

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Seccombe, B.

Teviot, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Thatcher, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Vinson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Waterford, M.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Strange, B.

Westbury, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wharton, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Wilcox, B.

Sudeley, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Wolfson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Addington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Annan, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Maddock, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Avebury, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bath, M.

Meston, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Borrie, L.

Monkswell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Burlison, L.

Newby, L.

Calverley, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B

Carlisle, E.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Puttnam, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Desai, L.

Rea, L.

Dholakia, L.

Redesdale, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Gilbert, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sandberg, L.

Glasgow, E.

Serota, B.

Goodhart, L.

Sewel, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Han worth, V.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Taverne, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hylton, L.

Thurso, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whitty, L.

Judd, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Levy, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Winston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

India: Nuclear Tests
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Indian nuclear testing which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on the recent nuclear tests in India.
"On Monday, the Government of India announced that they had conducted three nuclear tests, including one thermo-nuclear device. On Wednesday, the Government of India confirmed two further nuclear tests. According to a statement by the Government of India yesterday, these last two complete the planned series of nuclear testing. These were India's first nuclear tests since 1974.
"Nuclear proliferation is a serious threat to the stability and security of the international community. We and our partners have sought vigorously to prevent the technology and equipment for a nuclear weapons programme from being acquired by states which might use them to develop a nuclear weapons capacity. Last weekend the G8 Foreign Ministers committed our countries to strengthen further the safeguard systems against nuclear proliferation.
"The recent nuclear tests by India undermine the efforts of the international community to prevent nuclear proliferation and may encourage other states who wish to do the same. Nor will these tests help the security of India. An increase in tension in the region cannot be in the interests of India, and the escalation of an arms race in the Subcontinent cannot help to tackle the poverty in which millions of its people live. The sharp reaction by China demonstrates the danger that such tests will increase tension rather than strengthen security.
"We have already expressed our dismay to the Indian Government. Yesterday the Acting High Commissioner for India was summoned to the Foreign Office in order that we could express our concern at the test programme. In New Delhi our High Commissioner led a troika of European Union Ambassadors to inform the Government of India of the concern—not just of Britain, but of all of Europe. I can inform the House that I have today recalled our High Commissioner from Delhi for consultation on how Britain and Europe can effectively bring home to the Government of India our anxiety at the damage of these tests to the non-proliferation regime, and to the stability of the region.
"We will seek to co-ordinate our response with our major international partners. Tomorrow's G8 summit in Birmingham will consider how our countries can work together to bring home to the Government of India the dismay of the international community at the resumption of nuclear tests. And in a week's time, at the next meeting of the General Affairs Council, we will seek a common approach by Europe making clear our opposition to this new challenge to the non-proliferation regime.
1194
"The urgent task now is to do all we can to prevent these tests from provoking other tests in the region. Our High Commissioner in Islamabad has led representations by the European Union troika, making clear to the Government of Pakistan our strong view that Pakistan's interests also would not be served by a regional arms race. We are urging Pakistan's leaders to show restraint at what we acknowledge is a difficult time for them.
"Madam Speaker, we regret and condemn these nuclear tests. Britain is a leading advocate of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We believe firmly that their provisions provide Britain and all members of the international community with the strongest basis for confidence in their international security. Nobody's long-term interests are secured by encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons. I am sure that the whole of the House will wish to support the Government in sending a united message on behalf of Britain that we oppose and condemn these nuclear tests."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We strongly share the Government's concern about the nuclear tests which the Indian Government have carried out.
Does the Minister accept that the decision by the Indian Government to ignore international pressure not to conduct any future nuclear tests since its last "peaceful" test in 1974 has had important implications in terms of damaging India's relationship with one nuclear power, China? As a result there is a real danger that we may see a nuclear arms race developing in South Asia which would have grave ramifications for the international community.
What further representations do the Government intend to make to the governments of Pakistan and China to ensure that the situation does not escalate?
I think it is important to set this day's exchanges in context. I believe it is important to recall that there was an exceptionally good and strong relationship between our two countries built by John Major when he was Prime Minister. I have to say that it is regrettable that that relationship has been damaged by Robin Cook's visit. Otherwise today that may have provided an invaluable and very special relationship with important historical ramifications for our country.
Therefore it is important that we learn what the Minister can tell the House about the ways in which the Foreign Secretary has worked to build on a relationship which the previous administration valued greatly and worked hard to promote through a constant and busy two-way street of traffic between government, business and people.
But most important in terms of questions, I should like to ask the Minister to comment on the decision of Germany, Sweden and Denmark to cut their aid to India. Does the Minister expect them to ask Britain to do likewise? What consultations have been held between

1195
the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development? Would the Minister also comment on Canada's decision to ban military exports to India?
Can the Minister elaborate a little further on the discussions the Foreign Secretary has had with his American counterpart? Have the Government examined the nature of American economic sanctions and has the Foreign Secretary consulted the President of the Board of Trade on the advisability of the United Kingdom implementing similar sanctions?
These are all important questions, but one aspect that unites both sides of this House is the importance we attach to ensuring that in this busy time during our presidency of the European Union and in government the Minister and his colleagues will have our full support in seeking an early resolution to this problem, hopefully against the recognition that trade sanctions may well be unwise given the damaging effects that they would have on a society possessing the entrenched democratic credentials of India. Finally, can the Minister confirm that that will be raised as a matter of urgency at the G8 meeting this weekend?
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may too thank the noble Baroness for the Statement. Perhaps I may ask her three questions. The first concerns the issue of monitoring. It is quite clear from both United States and British sources that there was no prior knowledge of what might happen, nor indeed any immediate result of monitoring of the tests that India held.
In view of the fact that during the Second Reading of the nuclear explosions Bill in another place the Minister of State, Tony Lloyd, specifically pointed out that a worldwide network of monitoring stations would
"detect, identify and locate the source of a suspicious event anywhere in the world".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/97; col. 456.],
can the Minister give us any information on the failure of monitoring in this case?
Secondly, perhaps I may ask her whether the phrase "co-ordinating our response", which was used in her Statement, means that we will follow the United States with respect to sanctions. In that I follow what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked.
My final question is perhaps to me the most important question that I want to ask the Minister. The Minister will be well aware that India had a long record, until recently, of constantly seeking peaceful outcomes. Indeed, many of us admired Indian governments precisely because they had a record of constantly trying to find peaceful answers to difficult questions. It therefore is a great disappointment that India, of all countries, should have broken the terms—although she did not herself sign it—of the comprehensive test ban treaty. Given her record, given also that she is the second largest country in the world and the world's largest democracy, would the G8 Ministers consider whether the time might be right for pursuing a new initiative in the field of comprehensive nuclear
1196
disarmament along lines that would embrace countries that are on the edge of nuclear developments, whether civil or military, that bring them into the group of nuclear powers?
It seems to me and to many of my colleagues on these Benches that it is essentially in the resumption of comprehensive disarmament of nuclear weapons that may lie the best answer to this extremely troubling new situation.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their support and for what the noble Lord described as his party's strongly shared concern over this issue.
As I believe I indicated in repeating my right honourable friend's Statement, the tension which the tests have caused in China is something which causes Her Majesty's Government enormous concern. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, there has been a strong reaction from China and the Government will be doing everything they can to try to lessen the tension in that part of the world, not only in relation to China but also in relation to Pakistan's reaction.
The only slight regret I have about what the noble Lord said is that he sought perhaps a touch of party political advantage when the rest of his remarks indicated what I hope will be the strong feeling of the House that the reaction from the United Kingdom should be one in which we all share the same feelings of condemnation. I am sure that that is the noble Lord's overwhelming feeling. Any suggestion that if things had gone a different way there would have been no nuclear tests this week is a little over-blown.
Dismay at the tests is shared by almost all the international community. India has chosen to isolate itself and as one of India's oldest friends we very much regret that. The strength of the relationship of this country and this Government with India was amply demonstrated at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October last year.
The noble Lord asked some questions about banning military exports. That is an issue which must be discussed with our international partners. I suggest that there are a number of different issues which will have to be discussed, not just that of arms sales. I suppose that we are fortunate in that we have all our G8 partners in Birmingham tomorrow and there will be discussions at that time. The noble Lord asked what else we could do in that respect. We are not only discussing the matter with the G8 countries over the weekend. We shall also be discussing it with our European partners, as I indicated, at the general affairs meeting on 25th May. I understand that at the United Nations we are discussing at the moment the Security Council presidential statement. That shows, I hope, that in three arenas—the European Union, the G8 and the United Nations—the United Kingdom Government are doing what they can to co-ordinate matters, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.

1197
The noble Baroness asked about monitoring which, I am sure, will be of interest to many people. I have some difficulty in going into any great detail because much of the monitoring must depend on intelligence issues which, as the noble Baroness will know, it is improper for me to discuss in your Lordships' House. Without wishing to denigrate the point which the noble Baroness made, it is an obvious one which we shall need to look at. We shall co-ordinate with those with whom we share intelligence material. I hope that that covers most of the matters raised.
The noble Baroness referred to strengthening the comprehensive test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty. Many countries which are signatories to those agreements will wish to look at ways to strengthen them and ways in which we can ensure that the united feeling of dismay about what has happened this week in India is not left in any doubt at all.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, from this side of the House, I express my support—I believe it will be widespread in this House—for the Statement which has been repeated. However, the Statement does not seem to go far enough. It refers to concern and dismay. But what about anger and determination? There should be a realisation of the dangers of the situation. Over the past few years, we have been moving gradually, even if there has been an element of lip service, towards, it is hoped, eliminating the nuclear threat. This incident could completely reverse that situation and we shall find ourselves marching in the opposite direction towards the ultimate of a nuclear war. That is the danger. In reply to questions the Minister has indicated that she is not without appreciation of that danger.
It seems to me that if we follow the path suggested by the Liberal Democrats just now it may be possible to rescue ourselves from the peril of this new position and move more vigorously towards the aim of nuclear disarmament. Unless we reach that point, the world will continue to remain in peril.
I express my general support, appreciation and approval of the actions which the Government intend to take. I would welcome a little more understanding and appreciation of the true horror which faces us unless we succeed in solving the present problem. It is that abyss which worries me. Although the Government may not wish to express it too clearly, I believe that it is that horror which is behind the Government's Statement. I should like to know from my noble friend whether I am correct in that belief.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Statement is unequivocal in its condemnation of the nuclear tests. I repeat that my right honourable friend said:
"We regret and condemn these nuclear tests".
The United Kingdom reacted immediately to the news of the tests on 11th May. The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my honourable friend Derek Fatchett, summoned the acting High
1198
Commissioner yesterday. He left him in no doubt of the seriousness with which Her Majesty's Government view the tests. In addition, as I said in repeating the Statement, my right honourable friend has this afternoon recalled our High Commissioner for consultation.
I must remind noble Lords that at the conclusion of the Statement I said that my right honourable friend was sure that he would have the support of the whole House,
"in sending a united message on behalf of Britain that we oppose and condemn these nuclear tests".
One cannot be much more unequivocal than that.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, your Lordships' House will be aware that until this event we were celebrating the 50th anniversary of the independence of India. Those in this Chamber who have lived and worked in that great country will be extremely worried by this event. In the Statement, the Minister rightly said that there are three opportunities for Her Majesty's Government to co-ordinate a response to this outrage. Those opportunities should be seized. This House will pass judgment in about 10 days' time on whether the Government had the leadership to pull together the rest of the world to make sure that what is in effect a minority government in India should suffer to a degree for their transgressions.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, all of us who consider ourselves friends of India will share the noble Lord's worries over the difficulty created by the tests in terms of the reaction of other countries in the region; in particular, Pakistan and China. Officials have spoken to the Pakistani High Commissioner in London and have urged restraint upon him. However, as the noble Lord noted from what I said, we have these three opportunities to try our best to co-ordinate our reaction to what is happening in India. I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be joining my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in trying to co-ordinate that response.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I have two questions for my noble friend. Given the fact that exercising a nuclear option was a manifesto commitment of the BJP made before the election, is there not a failure of political intelligence, let alone of technical monitoring, in that neither the United States nor the UK anticipated that this would be the first step that that government would take, bearing in mind that when they previously held office for only 13 days they had already made such preparations?
Secondly, at the meetings this weekend, may I urge my noble friend the Minister not to do anything precipitate about imposing sanctions on India, which would reverse the good economic reform record that she has maintained? We must also remember that the situation is also very fragile on that level. Indeed, we should promote trade, investment and industry and not do anything to punish India to an extent that we have not punished China for similar transgressions.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend's points raise enormously interesting issues.

1199
One of the problems in India is that the reaction to these nuclear tests seems to indicate that they are very widely supported in the Indian Parliament. I am not aware of the exact measure of support, but it seems that that has so far been the case. I understand that this was a commitment of the Indian Government. Nonetheless, I feel that we must still do everything we can to urge upon India the realisation that what it is doing not only poses a threat to that part of the world; it also poses a very real threat to India itself.
My noble friend urges us not to do anything which will destabilise the Indian economy. Her Majesty's Government are enormously aware of the difficulties that might flow from different sorts of sanctions. That is why the Government have not rushed in and imposed sanctions; why we are considering these issues very carefully; and why we wish to discuss them with our partners in Europe, in the G8 and at the United Nations.
However, Her Majesty's Government are also enormously aware of the very real poverty in India and of the difficulty that some sorts of sanctions might provoke in relation to some of the most vulnerable people in the country. All these matters have to be considered when deciding what sort of co-ordinated and united action should be taken on such issues.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what has happened in the past few days emphasises the importance of achieving a solution to the problems in Jammu and Kashmir, which is permanent, peaceful and, so far as possible, acceptable to its inhabitants? Jammu and Kashmir has already been the cause of two wars between Pakistan and India and there is now every prospect that, if there should by any disaster be a third war, it would be a nuclear one.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, what the noble Lord says has to be true. The fragility around Kashmir is a very worrying issue. Having been in both India and Pakistan in the past few months, it is very clear to me that it is the real gritty issue in their entire relationship. However, so much else in both those countries hangs on how the issue is treated. The noble Lord's worries and concerns about the way that the situation may develop lie very much at the heart of the concerns of Her Majesty's Government; indeed, they are very much at the heart of the reason why my right honourable friend wanted to recall our High Commissioner this afternoon.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will my noble friend not allow the Government to stop short at punishing and scolding India and insist that they look beyond and consult human reason and history and inquire from those authorities whether it is so much worse to have seven nuclear weapons powers in the world than it is to have six, as has been the case for many years now? If they were to find that this was merely an incremental change in an awful situation, would they then adopt the thought put forward very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney; namely, that the only true answer is a reduction
1200
leading to an elimination of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, by all countries in the world, including this one?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I do not have to tell my noble friend, nor, indeed, anyone else in your Lordships' House, that it is the reduction of nuclear weapons in particular—certainly weapons of mass destruction generally—that lies at the heart of the Government's thinking on the matter. Indeed, that was a very clear commitment in the Government's election manifesto. My noble friend asked whether it would be so much worse to have seven nuclear weapons powers than to have six. My answer is yes; it would be. What we are concerned with is the reduction of nuclear powers and non-proliferation. That lies very much at the heart of our policies.
I should also tell my noble friend that there is a particular problem, as we have just been discussing, with India taking such action because of the difficulties in its relationships with China on the one hand, and, on the other, with Pakistan. These countries have difficult and, in some ways, quite fragile relationships. Since the tests were carried out earlier this week, it is very obvious that the strength of the reaction in both those countries bears out the worries that we have had about how this may destabilise that part of the world.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that our High Commissioner in Delhi had correctly led the delegation of the other European Union nations to visit the Indian Government to make the protest. Can the noble Baroness tell the House if all the EU representatives accompanied him; what effect this representation had; and, whether the High Commissioner discovered if the Indians have any further plans to conduct these deplorable tests?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our High Commissioner led a troika of the European Union ambassadors. So three ambassadors went to see the Indian Government to express our concern. However, they did not speak just on behalf of the troika; they spoke on behalf of all EU members. I hope that that clears up the noble Lord's point. They will have made a very strong statement to the Indian Government, expressing not only dismay but also the unequivocal opposition and condemnation of the EU on these points.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, although I support every word that my noble friend the Minister has said, does she agree that, until further progress is made on disarmament generally, the alternative will be continual crisis management of this kind and perpetual running to stay in the same place? Therefore, will the Government renew their efforts to ensure a fourth special session on disarmament at the General Assembly?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend that further progress on disarmament is highly desirable. At present we are talking with our UN partners to try to ensure that

1201
there is a Security Council presidential statement on what has happened in India. Further to that, I cannot make any commitments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government other than to say, in the context of what I have already been able to tell the House in relation to the three arenas where we will be pursuing these matters, that Her Majesty's Government will of course be doing everything possible to ensure that our position—one of opposition and condemnation—is shared as widely as possible.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I support the Statement and I thank my noble friend for repeating it. I remind the House of the result of the previous general election when the British people endorsed the Labour Party's manifesto which stated,
"We will press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. When satisfied with verified progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multinational negotiations".
Bearing in mind the significance of recent developments, will my noble friend take a strong message from this House that we hope that the Government will take further practical steps to achieve the object of the manifesto,
"towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for reminding us all of the clear, unequivocal manifesto commitment of Her Majesty's Government. As I have on previous occasions been able to tell the House, we shall proceed on the basis of verifiable reductions. I shall be happy to convey the message of my noble friend, and indeed others, to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
5.11 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindonmoved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
(". This Act shall not enter into force until a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on the implications for the United Kingdom of paragraphs 40 and 41 (President and Members of the Commission) of Article 2 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, and such report has been approved by resolution of each House.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the proposed new clause states that paragraphs 40 and 41 of the treaty will not come into operation until a report of the implications has been made to both Houses and approved by them.
1202
We had quite a long debate in Committee on an amendment admirably moved by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I do not want to repeat all the arguments made then against paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Amsterdam Treaty. However, the two paragraphs are important as they hand more power to the European Parliament in that it will be able to veto the appointment of the Commission President whose appointment has been agreed unanimously by the elected heads of government who represent, and are accountable to, their own elected national parliaments. That is a transfer of power from the nation states and their parliaments to an institution of the European Union.
Under paragraph 40, the governments of the member states will in future be required to agree in common accord with the president of the Commission the other persons they wish to appoint as commissioners. This gives the President an ultimate veto of the candidate or candidates nominated by member states. In other words, the appointed President of the Commission could blackball the candidate of a member state's elected government. Surely that is a serious matter. After all, this involves democratic government and democratic accountability. It is important for that very reason.
When my noble friend Lord Whitty replied to the amendment in Committee on 27th April, he provided no satisfactory reason for this change. He did not say that the previous system was not working or that it had caused problems, so why this shift of power from elected Ministers to an appointed functionary? Perhaps we could now have a proper explanation of that.
Paragraph 43 states that the Commission shall work under the political guidance of its president. That proposition is, to put it mildly, quite startling and should have set alarm bells ringing in another place. That it did not do so was, I hope, an oversight and not neglect. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointed out in Committee that even Mr. Heath, Europhile extraordinaire, regarded commissioners, including the President of the Commission, as civil servants who took their instructions from elected Ministers. But now it is not elected Ministers who will give political direction apparently, but the unelected functionary".
Again, my noble friend Lord Whitty did not give a satisfactory explanation as to why it was necessary to include that article in the treaty. As we know, the treaty will be held by the Commission and the European Court of Justice to be sacrosanct. That is the problem with these treaties; once measures are included in them, the European Court of Justice rules in accordance with them. It does not rule in accordance with what we might like to think is in the treaty, but in accordance with what is actually in the treaty. The article states that the Commission will work under the political guidance of its President, not of the Council of Ministers or of the European Parliament or anyone else. So I should like an explanation as to why this article has been slipped into the treaty.
As I have already said, I do not want to rehearse all the arguments expressed in Committee but I have a final question. The Government believe that these new articles are minor adjustments. If they are so minor, why

1203
could they not have been made administratively? Surely amendments to treaties should concern only matters of great moment, not trivia. After all, you cannot take them out of the treaty without unanimity. Therefore it is important that what goes into the treaty concerns matters of great moment and is not trivia, which is how my noble friend described this particular provision in Committee.
The Government had better make up their mind. Either these articles are trivial, in which case they ought not to be in the treaty, or they are of great importance, in which case we and another place need a much better explanation of their meaning and practical effect. In any event, it is quite clear that the House of Commons, which is the true democratic authority representing the people of Britain, has not given proper weight to, and consideration of, paragraphs 40 and 41. I believe that many of its Members would like to do so. If this amendment is carried, it would give another place a further opportunity to consider this vital matter. I hope that noble Lords will therefore support this amendment for that reason alone so that the Commons can have another detailed look at this matter. Noble Lords can support this amendment in the sure knowledge that what they will vote for is democracy. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment in the light of both the persuasive arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the response given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, during an earlier stage of our proceedings, particularly with regard to the implications for the United Kingdom of the provisions on the appointment of the President of the Commission and the Commissioners.
I think it is fair to say that of all the amendments debated in Committee, the Government's refusal to countenance the notion that the provisions in paragraphs 40 and 41 could have any effect whatsoever on the sovereignty of the nation state perhaps most vividly illustrates the discrepancy of their position in purporting to pursue policies to preserve and uphold the role of the nation state in the European Union.
We perceive the Government to have given away important national powers needlessly. We consider the European Parliament's new right to approve the new President of the Commission diminishes the power of this Government, whose authority is derived from this Parliament. We consider that the freedom of member states to appoint commissioners of their choice is diminished, as the President of the Commission has been given new powers to veto the appointment of new commissioners and can therefore effectively pick the other 19 commissioners. What is more, those new commissioners will be required to work under the political guidance of the president for the first time.
When I studied what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in Committee, I was not convinced that his arguments for the changes benefit this country or this Parliament. On the new powers for the European Parliament, he told the House that these changes represent an improvement in democracy. On the
1204
President of the Commission's power of veto, he told us it was all right because it was just simple arithmetic. It was a little leap of logic to extend common accord from 15 member states to 15 member states plus one unelected official, but the fact that he was unelected did not matter because he had been agreed by elected governments. On the requirement for Commissioners to work under the political guidance of the President, he told us that it was all right. It was a lot of fuss about nothing because the President had a political role anyway.
I find the latter two arguments extraordinary. I fundamentally disagree with the argument when I hear from the Liberal Democrats Benches that the powers given to the European Parliament represent an improvement in democracy. However, I respect the legitimacy of that vision and the sincerity with which it is propounded. In a vision of a European state, the European Parliament represents all the people of that state, so to give more powers to the European Parliament would be a democratic move. But in a Europe of sovereign nation states, where national parliaments remain the guardians of true democratic legitimacy, that argument is far less compelling. For advocates of a federal Europe these changes represent a democratic gain to the European Union and the European Parliament which outweighs the democratic loss to nation states and national parliaments, because to improve the functioning of democracy and efficiency within the Commission it is worth diminishing the power and influence of member states.
For advocates of a federal Europe, the new rights of the European Parliament to approve, or refuse to approve, the name of the person put forward as President of the Commission is an extension, not a diminution, of accountability of a democratic kind. For advocates of a federal Europe, the fact that the nomination of the Commission lies in the hands of member governments, and that member governments must reach a common accord with the President of the Commission, represents an appropriate balance of power. That is another improvement in democratic accountability. For advocates of a federal Europe, the description of the President of the Commission as,
"more than a civil servant … he is a political figure who gives political direction",
would not even raise an eyebrow.
All of that is logical and consistent to a proponent of a federal Europe, a European superstate. It might even be possible to describe the provisions as relatively minor amendments. From these Benches we might fundamentally disagree with that position, but it would be a legitimate and consistent one. But are the Government advocates of a federal Europe? Not according to their election manifesto, in which they promise a commitment to Europe as,
"an alliance of independent nations choosing to co-operate to achieve the goals they cannot achieve alone".
The manifesto continues,
"We oppose a European federal superstate".
As I said previously, while the manifesto supports a Europe which is a partnership of nations, and opposes a federal Europe, it is disingenuous and discreditable to

1205
dismiss those provisions as "minor" and to brand our legitimate scrutiny as "fantastic constructions". The noble Lord did not argue that those "fantastic constructions" were impossible under the terms of the treaty. Indeed, he argued that he was justified in dismissing them by effectively saying, "Yes, theoretically those things could happen, but in practice it is very unlikely so I do not think there is a problem". I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, but I believe that that is a poor and flawed argument. If Europe has taught us one thing, it is that we should not rely on lack of precedent as an indication of what the future could hold. Nor should we assume that, in future, treaties will not be interpreted imaginatively or, in this case, just to the letter.
For a Europe of nation states whose national parliaments are recognised as the primary guardians of democratic accountability and legitimacy, surely these are major changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, stated, with major implications. Yet they were not even mentioned by the Prime Minister in his Statement in another place on his return from Amsterdam. They represent a significant step towards an overtly political Commission in which unprecedented powers are concentrated in one individual's hands. Taken together with the extension of QMV and the substantial additional powers for the European Parliament, the treaty represents a significant shift from the nation state to the central institutions of the European Union. It is therefore vital that today we have the opportunity to hear why those proposals were agreed to by the Government; the implications to Britain of those proposals; and why the Government consider them to be in the national interest.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, at present the European Union is not a federal state in the full sense of the word, as may be seen in states such as Australia, Canada or the United States. Nor, on the other hand, can it be regarded as no more than a forum for co-operation between its individual member states. The existing practice for the appointment of the President of the Union, before the Treaty of Amsterdam, leaving it wholly in the hands of the individual governments acting through the Council of Ministers, does not provide any satisfactory degree of democratic legitimacy or accountability. It is a notable and significant step forward that the European Parliament—it is a democratically elected body accountable to the people of Europe—should have a power of veto over the appointment of the President. In effect it becomes a matter of co-determination, recognising the proper balance between the individual governments, represented through the Council of Ministers, and the people of Europe, represented through the European Parliament.
We also welcome the amendment to the treaties through the Treaty of Amsterdam enabling the President appointed and elected by that process to have a say in the appointment of the individual members of the
1206
Commission. For that reason we support the provisions of Articles 40 and 41 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. We are unable to support the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I touched on this matter at Committee stage and have no further contribution to make. However, I wish to ask the Government a question. I hope that they will be able to reply fully. What do Her Majesty's Government understand by the words "political guidance"? What do they believe that that empowers the President of the Commission to do? What do they believe is the real meaning in practice of the term "political guidance"?
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that the European Parliament is a democratically elected body. Yes, it is elected democratically, but it is not a truly democratic body in so far as the smaller countries have many more seats per capita in Parliament than do the larger countries.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He mentioned that the President of the Commission will have a say. It is more than that. He has a right of veto in the provisions set out in the treaty at present. That is why those of us who have put our names to the amendment support it, and reject the wording of the treaty.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am afraid it is probably still the case that I am seriously lacking in imagination: I do find some of the constructs put on these relatively minor clauses fantastic. The Government do not wish to accept this amendment. It would not prevent ratification of the treaty; however, it is in our view unnecessary. We regard these changes as relatively minor management changes, desirable improvements in the way in which the institutions of Europe do their business.
I know that there is enormous suspicion in regard to the Commission in certain quarters of this House, not least on the part of my noble friend Lord Bruce. However, a Commission which acts coherently and effectively is in the interests of the United Kingdom. The Commission has a key role to play in the Community and the functioning of the Union. It proposes legislation; it implements decisions made by the Council; and it acts as the guardian of the treaties. An effective Commission and effective president are in our interests and in the interests of Europe. The good running of Commission business is surely a sensible step to introduce into the treaty, particularly in preparation for enlargement.
It is surely right that the President of the Commission should play some part in ensuring that the Commission itself, which is a collegiate body, is made up of a spread of people of the right ability, right representation and right competences.
The change is a relatively minor one, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and others have said. Under the Treaty of Amsterdam, the nominee for president is given

1207
a right of common accord together with the member states when it comes to choosing Commissioners. That is to say, we are replacing a common accord of 14 other member states with a common accord of 16, including the Commission President, the key institution.
The initiative still clearly rests with member states. Some noble Lords have suggested that the nominee for president might reject a whole series of potential Commissioners. I do not consider that to be a feasible situation. It is surely fanciful to think that the Commission President, just appointed by the 15 governments unanimously, would go ahead and offend the member state concerned unnecessarily, particularly given that it is the member state alone that can nominate any candidate.
The proposal regarding the president's right to give political guidance to the Commission recognises the reality that has existed since the Treaty of Rome first came into force. It is again a relatively minor change confirming current practice. The president does play a political role. He is more than a civil servant, but is substantially less than a political overlord. At the end of the day the Commission carries out decisions reached by the Council. The president remains an appointed, not an elected, figure. Ministers in the Council are national Ministers responsible to national parliaments. The position of member states is totally safeguarded. To say that there is a sudden translation of the President of the Commission into a political figure is surely nonsense. Since we first became members of the European Union, successive governments have appointed senior politicians to be Commissioners. Why did they do so if the Commissioners, and the President of the Commission in particular, were not to have a political role?
My noble friend Lord Bruce asked me to explain what I mean by "political role". I mean a political role in the sense of presenting and implementing policy, offering advice and opinions and dealing as an institution of the European Union with each of the member states and the other institutions of the Union. That is a political role; almost all nominees to the Commission have been politicians, and it is a political task that they carry out. However, at the end of the day, the political responsibility rests with the Council of Ministers, and the Council of Ministers is responsible to its national parliaments and in certain respects to the European Parliament.
Far from being an anti-democratic move, there is another change in this part of the treaty which relates to the increased democratic accountability of the Commission and consultation with the European Parliament as regards appointments to the Commission. This is a package, not for a federal Europe, not for a superstate, but for a more democratic Europe, a more efficient Europe, a Europe which is more prepared for the challenge of enlargement.
I may not be able to convince my noble friend Lord Stoddart and others that their constructs do not indeed flow from those changes. However, I hope the noble Lord will accept that I have given sufficient explanation, and that this amendment, requiring further explanation
1208
to Parliament before this Bill can be passed, is unnecessary. I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend has not convinced me one bit. Indeed, I have been impressed with some of the arguments that have come from the other side. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, fundamentally disagrees with paragraphs 40 and 41 in the same way as I do. Those paragraphs are not about a Europe of nation states. They represent a further turning of the ratchet towards a federal Europe. If the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is worried about that—and he is not as sceptical about Europe as I am—then I am entitled to take comfort from that. The noble Lord has reached the same conclusion as I have, although we take a slightly different view on the whole concept of Europe, and that has to be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as I expected, believes that the new proposals are perfectly all right. Since the Liberal Party takes a federalist view, I suppose they are all right because they are federal in their concept. But we should make no mistake about it, in a Europe of nation states it is the national parliaments that have democratic legitimacy. It is they that are elected directly by their own people, and they have the final say. They cannot, and should not, hand over any of their real power of sovereignty to another body for decisions to be made not by their own nationals but by the nationals of 14 other states. Therefore, while I understand the noble Lord's point of view, this is nevertheless a recipe for a federal European state.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that the new procedure under paragraph 40 comes nowhere near the sort of procedure that would be found in a genuinely federal state? In the USA, for instance, there is no question of the governments of individual states being asked to take part in the election of the President.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, my Lords, but we are talking about federal states. Here we have the European Parliament, which can veto the appointment of the President of the Commission, a decision which has been agreed by all the national leaders presumably with the consent of their national parliaments. That weakens the democratic accountability of this Parliament, and particularly the House of Commons. That may very well be all right for the federal system, but not for a Europe of nation states.
The noble Lord also mentioned the president in relation to the appointment of Commissioners. He said that the president will have a say. Nobody objects to the president having a say. But under these articles, he has a veto. That is the problem. He does not merely have a say; he is not being consulted. If the article stated that he was to be consulted, nobody would be concerned about the matter. But he does in fact have an effective veto, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke.

1209
My noble friend says that he still considers those matters to be minor managerial adjustments. I have to say to him that if they are mere managerial adjustments, why can they not be dealt with administratively? They may need alteration later if they are merely managerial adjustments. Once they are in the treaty, we have to have unanimity before they can be altered or taken out. So even on my noble friend's argument, it is very unwise to put such matters into the treaty.
My noble friend says that it is not feasible that the President-elect of the Commission would use his power of veto. How do we know? We are not futurologists. It may well be different once the President of the Commission has been appointed. What if the president does not like a particular representative, such as Mr. Kinnock? If he had had those powers when Mr. Kinnock was appointed, what would we have said if he had blackballed Mr. Kinnock? It is feasible for the President-elect of the Commission to use his power of veto, but I do not think it is a power he should have.
Finally, in relation to the political role of the President of the Commission, as I have already said, what goes into the treaty is what will be interpreted by the Commission and the courts. When we talk about having a political role and giving political guidance, we think we know what we mean. We think that politics is about making political decisions. The impression given by the article is that the President of the Commission will in future make political decisions. I believe—and I hope that many other people believe—that political decisions are for elected political leaders and elected parliaments, and not for appointed functionaries.
I shall press the amendment to a Division and I hope that noble Lords will support us in the Division Lobby.
5.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 97.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dartmouth, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Denbigh, E.

Annaly, L.

Denham, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Attlee, E.

Dundee, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bethell, L.

Falmouth, V.

Biffen, L.

Feldman, L.

Birdwood, L.

Flather, B.

Blatch, B.

Fookes, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gage, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Burnham, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Byford, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnock, L.

Kintore, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Colwyn, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cranborne, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Liverpool, E.

1210

Long, V.

Rawlings, B. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Rees, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rennell, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Renwick, L.

Marlesford, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Rowallan, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Monson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mountevans, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Moynihan, L.

Sudeley, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Swansea, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Swinfen, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Torrington, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Vivian, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Weatherill, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wilcox, B.

Plumb, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Maddock, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Avebury, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Berkeley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Borrie, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Burlison, L.

Monkswell, L.

Calverley, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Carlisle, E.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Newby, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Norton, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donoughue, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gallacher, L

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gillbert, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Russell, E.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sewel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hayman, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hoyle, L.

Taverne, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Judd, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kennet, L.

Whitty, L.

Levy, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Linklater of Butlerstone, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Moynihanmoved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING
(". A Minister of the Crown shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in accordance with paragraphs 6, 13, 26, 31 to 33, 44, 45, 52 to 55 and 57 of Article 2 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.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to speak at length this evening on qualified majority voting. The Committee looked into this in considerable detail, particularly in relation to the constitutional implications. At that stage I outlined my view that certain agreed areas, such as the single market, would bring real benefits to the peoples of the member states.
There has been a clear need for majority voting to ensure that decisions are taken in a timely and effective way. That is not because there is virtue in majority voting per se; there is not. Between nation states, consensus is always preferable in principle, but sometimes majority voting has been necessary to provide effective and, above all, uniform implementation of a single set of rules for a common policy, the underlying objectives of which have already been agreed.
I believe that the case has been made for making it easier to override the objections of member states. The burden of proof is on those who advocate more majority voting to explain why it is needed. I indicated that I do not believe the Government have succeeded in making a case for the so-called sensible extension of QMV to which they agreed, which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, claimed would greatly benefit this country and the decision-making process both immediately and in anticipation of enlargement. He did not explain how, but at least we have the opportunity today to learn from him.
I turn briefly to the new power of co-decision granted to the European Parliament by the Treaty of Amsterdam which was only raised briefly in Committee. At that point I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty; he is quite right. The co-decision procedure was introduced in Maastricht and we do not object to it in principle. We recognise that it enables the European Parliament to exercise democracy directly within the European institutions. However, in practice, it also enables the European Parliament to exercise a veto over decisions of the Council.
We recognise also that in most areas co-decision has been extended to those areas where QMV will now apply in the treaty, so we are not objecting that co-decision alone constitutes a loss of sovereignty. We object to the extension of QMV and, by definition, the extension of the co-decision procedure on this occasion. The treaty extends the co-decision procedure to 23 areas in total—eight new provisions and 15 existing ones. Co-decision now applies broadly to where there is majority voting, so the European Parliament now has equal decision-making rights to those of European Ministers in all areas decided by QMV, which in fact amounts to most of the European Union's policy areas.
1212
That means that the European Parliament now has the power of veto and the ability to check the decision-making of the Council of Ministers in important areas such as social policy; employment and incentive measures; public health and transport policy. Parliament is now in a position to insist on modifying Council measures in accordance with its view in all those areas. Those are major new powers for the European Parliament, as is confirmed by an internal briefing note produced by the European Community on 7th July last, which stated;
"The European Parliament made two major gains at the conference to become a genuine co-legislator and a full arm of the European legislature alongside the Council".
First, the co-decision procedure has been considerably extended, essentially along the lines of the principles suggested by the Commission in its report of July 1996 whereby any instrument of a legislative nature should be adopted under the co-decision procedure between the European Parliament and the Council. The co-decision procedure is nothing short of a veto over decisions of the Council of Ministers handed to the European Parliament, and the Government agreed to that veto in 23 new areas.
It is important this evening that we hear from the Government the justification for those new powers. Can the noble Lord tell us what impact it will have on the role of the national parliaments and how we will benefit from any weakening of the powers of the British Parliament? Can he assure the House that, with that massive extension of co-decision taken together with the European Parliament's new powers to approve the nomination of the President of the Commission, we are not in danger of weakening the direct link between member states and European decision-making as qualified majority voting replaces unanimity, as the European Parliament is able to veto more and more and as we lose the ability to secure our own choice of Commissioner—an issue we have just covered extensively under the previous amendment?
It is against that background that in 1997 the Conservative manifesto contained a pledge,
"to defend the rights of national parliaments and oppose more powers being given to the European Parliament at the expense of national parliaments".
Can the noble Lord also guarantee that the European Parliament will not use the co-decision procedure to enhance its status at the expense of the substance of legislation? The Prime Minister concluded his remarks to the House on his return from Amsterdam with the statement,
"We said that we would … make [Amsterdam] more relevant to the concerns of the peoples of Europe, and we did".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/97; col. 316.]
I have difficulty with that. Can the Minister tell the House how Europe can be more relevant to the peoples of Europe when they have less say because their veto has been taken away; when they have less control because more power has gone to the European Parliament at the expense of national parliaments, and when they have less say because more power has gone to unaccountable judges in Brussels?

1213
It is important to examine the role in which this Parliament appears by some who have argued the case to have become less than a beneficiary of these new powers; indeed, it is strongly argued that the European Parliament has become the beneficiary of these new powers. Does it deserve the 23 areas of veto and its new powers over the appointment of the President of the Commission? What will be the effect of the European Parliament having those new powers?
We are considering that against the recognition that the European Parliament is a young institution which already plays a significant role in the European legislative process. But it is not a parliament in any Westminster sense of law-making. Indeed, its democratic credentials, which again were debated at some length on the previous amendment are, one can argue, tenuous. A voter in the United Kingdom—or even all the voters in the United Kingdom—have reasonably little influence on the composition of the whole parliament or its policies.
When one reflects on the turnout in the European parliamentary elections—well known to everyone here—the results are interesting. In many cases, the turnout is hardly surprising since many Members of the European Parliament failed to turn up to the sessions of that parliament. A few years ago, the Sunday Times—as noble Lords will recall—investigated the evidence that MEPs were not compelled to appear for plenary sessions. The survey found that a French Conservative failed to register at all; a French Socialist and an Italian were present for only one day out of 58; two more Italians (a Christian Democrat and a Socialist priest and journalist) attended twice.
The article went on to say that,
"Many of the absent members may be ill, some may be dead. But the Parliament's administration was unable this weekend to produce a list of those who have died since the last election in 1989".
It is not wholly surprising that there has not been overwhelming support for the impact of the European Parliament. What hope can we have—perhaps the Minister can assist on this—that the situation will be improved after the forthcoming elections?
Moreover, the Government themselves have clearly had a less than favourable opinion of their own MEPs, who have had a track record of pushing a radical socialist agenda in Europe, which is very different from the one propounded by New Labour. Since June 1994 these MEPs have established patterns of playing what are undoubtedly irresponsible party politics in Europe, voting for intrusive, bureaucratic and extremist policies, earning epithets of "infantile" and "incompetent" from the Prime Minister himself. Having taken positions substantially to the left of the New Labour leadership in the UK, Labour MEPs have proved to be a large and painful thorn in the side of the Prime Minister's attempts when as Opposition leader he was seeking to modernise the Labour Party at home. Their behaviour in Brussels and Strasbourg has marked them out as advocates of the high spending and interventionist policies of old Labour.
1214
Indeed, the words of David Martin, the former leader of the Labour MEPs, sum up their views neatly:
"A socialist superstate is exactly what we do want to create".
We considered at an earlier stage some examples to support this argument—the Clause 4 fiasco and the Labour MEP suspensions. There are, as noble Lords on both sides of the House know, many such examples. I think it would be wrong to rehearse them again today, but I believe the point I made was a strong one. No doubt the Minister, in his usual courteous way, will also comment on that very point.
In conclusion, I should like to know how the Amsterdam Treaty achieves the objectives which the Government said it would by the extension of QMV. Let us be clear about exactly what Amsterdam does. First, it creates a significant transfer of decision making from the member states of the European Union to the European Parliament. While the power of the member states is weakened by extending QMV in 15 new areas, plus five areas included in the social chapter, the power of the European Parliament is increased, giving it a veto in 23 new areas. Secondly, as I have already demonstrated, Amsterdam allows the Commission to become politicised. The president is now nominated by the European Parliament, individual Commissioners are subject to approval by the president and the Commission is to work under the political guidance of the president. In short, the European Parliament is able to influence the political agenda of the entire European Union.
Taken together, it is clear that these changes are a considerable alteration of the balance of power between Brussels and member states and between the Council of Ministers and Parliament. The power exercised in the European Union is, and should be, a delicate balance between national parliaments, national governments, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. If the Government have agreed to extensions of power to the European Parliament, which the Commission says they have, will the Minister tell us from whom that additional power has been taken? Has it been taken from the Commission? No, it has been taken from national governments and national parliaments; and I would argue, in this instance, for nothing in return. Therefore, I look forward to hearing why. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on this amendment we reach a major distinction between the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches with regard to the role of the European Parliament. Indeed, if there is a direct conflict between accepting the idea of democratic control over the European Community—I use the word "community" advisedly as part of the Union and not the whole of it—then the role of the European Parliament is central to that. There is no direct way in which the specifically European legislation under the Community can become fully accountable to a single national parliament. However, as is clear from later amendments, it is the view of the Liberal Democrat Benches that there is no zero sum gain, that both the national parliaments and the European parliaments can

1215
have greater strength and power of scrutiny over the Acts of European legislation, and that there is no necessary conflict between them.
I am pleased to see that Her Majesty's Government have taken steps to strengthen the powers of national parliaments to scrutinise European legislation and have not seen that as being in conflict with the strengthening of the decision-making powers of the European Parliament. Strengthening the power of the European Parliament does not subtract from the powers of national parliaments over Community legislation—that is to say, legislation initiated by the Commission and agreed to by the Council of Ministers. What it does is to limit the powers of the Council and the Commission by making them both responsive to a parliamentary institution. I therefore believe that there is a strong case for saying—my colleagues on these Benches share this view—that the processes of decision making in the European Community part of the European Union should be made much more transparent, much more simple and much more well known and for that to happen we will need to strengthen the role of the European Parliament.
Let me pause for one moment to set out what Amsterdam fundamentally did. It reduced the processes of decision making from a confusing shambles of many, many such processes basically to three. Those three were assent, to a convention or a treaty; consultation, which applies where the matter lies largely outside the remit of the European Parliament; and co-decision making, where in effect the parliament exercises a veto. There are still one or two areas where the complicated process of the so-called co-operative procedures still obtains; and the sooner those turn into the co-decision procedure the better for everyone.
I cannot see how any argument can be made for maintaining the extraordinarily complex and confusing structure of decision making that existed before Amsterdam. Having said that, it is also right and proper that the European Parliament should exercise a veto in the areas where no other veto by a parliament effectively exists. I find it extremely strange that those noble Lords who have advocated democracy all the way through these long debates do not seem to perceive that the elected European Parliament is itself a democratic institution.
I fully share the criticisms that some have made. For example, I fully share the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, of some individual members of the European Parliament who see fit to be absent from parliament for periods of time and who appear to think they have a right to sit in parliament and to give us the benefit of their views without effectively representing their constituents. I have to say that that is not unique to the European Parliament. Would that it were so. It is not a good reason for not making the European Parliament as effective a democratic institution as possible.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, the whole point of the European Parliament is that there are not any constituents.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Earl, I find that puzzling since I know many people who engaged in voting at the last
1216
European elections for members of the European Parliament. I do not quite agree that they have no constituents. My view is rather the opposite of the noble Earl's. The sooner they realise they have, the better for everyone.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I must apologise for some imprecision of language on my part. There are no European parliamentary constituencies outside the United Kingdom. As a consequence of the Government's legislation, at the United Kingdom European elections in 1999 there will be no parliamentary constituencies here either. In that sense, there are no constituents. There are just a mass of party lists. Hence, there is very little connection between the electors of Europe and the members of the European Parliament.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I take the noble Earl's point. I was assuming that by "constituents" he meant "electors"; and electors there certainly are.
I wish to resume my theme just for a moment. I shall not detain the House for very long. The other part of what I want to say concerns the responsibility of the European Parliament with regard to some matters that have been brought within its purview by the Treaty of Amsterdam. The veto has been extended primarily by the change in decision making, which is entirely to clarify the way in which it is done. It has also extended into certain areas, one of which is the environment. There must be a strong case for having some qualified majority votes in the area of the environment. Indeed, I found it interesting that earlier in the debate there was passionate argument about the fact that Spain could actually veto a change in the Schengen arrangements on her own because she had managed to have included a clause as regards unanimity. I understood that a number of noble Lords believed passionately in the principle of unanimity. One cannot have it working one way and not another.
In my view—and I shall conclude on this note—there are certain crucial cross-border issues which affect all member states of the European Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, understood that about the single market. Her Majesty's Government understand that about certain aspects of environmental and social policy. I do not see any great conflict between these two on issues of the kind that go well beyond the scope of any individual national parliament, including our own. It must be right and proper that there should be a straightforward, transparent and democratic decision-making structure.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, when the Minister replies can he say a word about the Conference of European Affairs Committees which is mentioned in the protocol in the treaty? During the previous parliament there was a good deal of debate about the way that representatives from these committees from the national parliaments, which included both Houses in our case, could, when meeting together, exert some kind of linkage or influence on the proceedings of the European

1217
institutions and on the whole process of European law-making and decision-making. It was felt that that would fill a gap.
It was rightly pointed out—as indeed it was pointed out during debates in your Lordships' House this very Tuesday—that however much scrutiny we have and however detailed our examination of legislative proposals, directives and regulations from the Commission, possibly in this House the real problem is not at the precise legislative stage. The real problem about engaging national parliaments in the European policy-making process lies in the need for national parliaments and their representatives to be more involved in the initial processes which give birth to the Commission recommendations to the Council of Ministers and to the regulations and directives which sometimes descend on a surprised House of Commons or your Lordships' House or which, in many cases, bypass the national parliamentary procedures altogether and leap straight from the Commission into our national laws and our statute book.
That is where the "aggro", if I may use that word, arises. It is the feeling that the whole European legislative machine is rolling forward in an unaccountable way. As the noble Baroness reminds us, there is the European Parliament and it has its role to play. But the European Parliament is a curious arrangement. It does not have Ministers to hold to account. Many of the representatives in the parliament do not have constituents. When one asks whether they have constituents and ask what they are saying, they look very surprised and say that they have not arrived by that process.
So, however much one wants to see the European parliamentary system play its part, it cannot really ensure the thread of legitimacy that ought to run from the top; that is, people and voters in the nation states down to the ultimate servants of the system which are the institutions at the bottom. I know that many people like to put that triangle the other way up, but I put it with people at the top. That system cannot ensure that that thread is continuous and legitimacy is maintained. That is why some of us in the previous parliament urged that at least in some areas there was a coming together of the Conference of European Affairs Committees—whether legislative committees or foreign affairs committees was a matter for debate—or other specialist committees in transport and education which might provide a better way for national parliaments to involve themselves in the initial thinking and the initial mixing, long before the cake is baked, when the ideas are put forward which subsequently lead to legislation. It would be very good if the Minister could say more on that subject which is mentioned in detail in the Amsterdam Treaty.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may add a short footnote to the speech of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. I agree with every word she said. What she really brought out is that those who criticise the Bill are making two incompatible objections. On the one hand
1218
they are objecting that the European Union is supranational; on the other they are objecting that it has a democratic deficit. They cannot have both of those objections at once for reasons that my noble friend explained very clearly. If they want to tackle the democratic deficit they must do it through the European Parliament which is, of its nature, supranational. So they are making two incompatible objections. Which one are they going to give up?
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, who made so notable a maiden speech yesterday, that if he follows proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, he may find that we have a little more in common than he believes.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wish to make a small point which is really a question of elucidation. In the protocol on the role of national parliaments, provision is made for a six-week period between eliciting the proposal and it being adopted. In that time it has to be made available to the European Parliament and the Council. That is excellent. But I cannot understand why, if we regard six weeks as appropriate in such cases, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, is suggesting, in her Amendment No. 16 on parliamentary scrutiny, only 10 working days for a national parliament. Perhaps I have misunderstood something. It seems curious. National parliaments need the time much more because they have to translate the consequences in terms of cost benefit analysis and everything else. I wonder why there are only 10 days for national parliaments whereas there is provision for six weeks for the European Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as usual, I listened with great interest to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I do not know whether she was here at the time, but I invite her to recall an occasion recently when the member of the Government representing the Home Office was putting forward a Bill through this place for the regulation of the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament. He was doing his very best to prove that Members of the European Parliament are nothing like Members of Parliament as we understand them.
He made a brave point. He said that they did not have contact with constituents to the same degree that we have in elections in this country. He gave them the status of "representatives" rather than legislators. I invite the noble Baroness to consider that and to read the speeches made by the noble Lord who spoke for the Home Office.
I ask her to take into account another factor. It is becoming dangerously easy to equate an election carried out on the basis of party lists as being the same, and carrying the same democratic connotations, as the election of a Member selected by local constituents or the constituency party within the district they hope to represent. I suggest to the noble Baroness and to the House that we are in very considerable danger of equating, in almost precise, meaningful terms, an election on the basis of a party list, particularly where it

1219
is a closed one—which is the situation in many cases in Europe—as being of the same democratic nature as an election from constituencies.
It is a long time ago, but when I first joined the Labour Party I went to the occasional summer school organised by the illustrious father of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He was Sir George Shepherd. I was warned of the dangers of what he described as "democratic centralism". He said, "Bruce, my boy"—because I was young at the time—"that is the doctrine of the Communist Party". What does it mean? It means that the policy is determined at the top and that those below are required not to argue about it but to accept it and propound it. I begin to detect in our affairs in Europe a tendency towards that, too. I detect a tendency for similar institutions to try to pass as here credible examples of "democracies". In the UK, let alone in Europe, I detect a return to Leninism which is dictation of policy from the top with all the rest below in the party requiring to conform.
Under the party list system in the main it is the party machine that is responsible for selection. If an individual is not on the party machine approved list—there have been occasions when I have been dangerously close to going outside it—he does not stand very much chance of getting into Parliament. Yet our Parliament has always been enriched by the degree of independence among its Members.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has to my pleasure made a number of comments with which I agree, but since they relate to proceedings on a future Bill perhaps I may defer that pleasure until the appropriate moment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene because I was not here for the beginning of the debate. However, thanks to the electronic wonders of the Palace, I listened to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I wondered whether the Government intended to reply to his remarks about the role of Parliament in relation to Amendment No. 10 or Amendment No. 11 and those grouped with it. If it is the former, I shall sit down again very rapidly, perhaps having first taken the opportunity to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that single-Member constituencies are not always in the hands of the electorate but rather in the hands of the party chairman of that constituency.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in introducing this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said (if I paraphrase him correctly) that where agreements between independent sovereign nation states were contemplated, consensus—as opposed to coercion—was always the best path to try to follow. In effect QMV by definition leads to coercion and opens the floodgates to yet more cynical horse-trading, examples of which we have seen month after month, year after year.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, declared that the Treaty of Amsterdam had introduced a total of 23 new or modified areas to which QMV was to be applied. My brief lists a total of 27. One way or the other, I can identify only three areas in which the application of
1220
QMV would be of benefit to this and other countries and disadvantageous to no honest person; namely, countering fraud, the preparation of statistics and transparency. Many of the other areas may appear to be superficially innocuous, but could be twisted and turned against us as has happened in the past, notably over matters such as the 48-hour week.
I would have thought that one of them would be unattractive to any country which wished to remain an independent sovereign nation state. I refer to the implementation of decisions under a common foreign and security policy. If a nation cannot make its own decisions in that area in perpetuity, what is the point of it remaining an independent sovereign state? For this and other reasons, I fully support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not spend a good deal of time on the question of qualified majority voting and that he took a somewhat more pragmatic attitude to it than perhaps was the case at earlier stages of this debate, and certainly earlier in the history of the Conservative Party. I believe that the Conservative Party was just as pragmatic and sensible when negotiating treaties with an extension of QMV as the Labour Government were at Amsterdam. The Single European Act extended QMV to 12 new areas. Maastricht extended QMV to an extra 13 new areas. At the time, most of them appeared to be very sensible and now have total support across Europe. The extension of QMV at Amsterdam was substantially less than that, and in my view that was also very sensible.
If the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, challenges me to prove that it is sensible, I make the general point that some extension of QMV is probably sensible in preparation for enlargement. Indeed, his noble friend Lady Rawlings almost made that point last night. I take research and development as an example. If R&D policy were always subject to veto by, say, Spain or one of the newly arrived member states, we would not achieve very much in that field that would benefit Britain. As I pointed out in Committee, earlier this year Spain threatened to block the R&D framework until it was satisfied about its future receipts under the structural funds. In the event, Spain removed that threat. However, had Spain persisted, that would have been an excellent example of the way in which QMV could be in the interests of Europe and Britain—and especially of British industry and British universities securing a European framework for R&D.
We believe that the extension of QMV within the Treaty of Amsterdam is helpful. We shall not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about its extension to the social chapter and in the field of the environment, but we believe that it is important. I believe that there is a consensus in this House that the extension of QMV to measures to prevent fraud is a very important decision flowing from the intergovernmental conference. Earlier, my noble friend Lord Bruce gave the example of Greece which vetoed the investigation of fraud in the tobacco trade. This provision removes the ability of the Greek Government in those circumstances to veto such moves.

1221
We also agreed to the extension of QMV to transparency, with which I believe most Members of the House agree.
But it is right that in a treaty between sovereign nations certain areas should remain subject to unanimity. We retained unanimity, as we said in the manifesto, in keys areas of national interest, such as taxation, the Budget, foreign policy, defence and immigration. We are not in the business of extending QMV for its own sake, any more than we are in the business of dogmatically resisting it. I believe that the extension of QMV at Amsterdam was defensible and sensible.
However, I was surprised by the noble Lord's almost root-and-branch attack on the European Parliament. It was a slightly strange attack, for throughout much of the passage of this Bill the noble Lord has objected to the lack of democracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, heard only half of it. The noble Baroness has represented her nation, party and constituents in the European Parliament, as have other noble Lords in this House, on the basis of a democratic vote, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and others have pointed out. Admittedly, the noble Lord's attack on the European Parliament seemed in part like some of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Bruce, to be more concerned with the internal affairs of the Labour Party. I am always happy to debate the internal affairs of the Labour Party, of which I have some experience, but I must inform the House that Clause 4 (in its existing form or its previous form) is not part of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Therefore, I do not believe that it is particularly relevant to this debate.
We support co-decision because, contrary to what I believe to be the stance of the Opposition, the European Parliament is an essential part of the democratic process in the European Union. The extension of co-decision is a limited but sensible enhancement of that democratic role. It does not enable the European Parliament to propose a measure or to insist upon a proposal proposed by the Council, but it ensures that it cannot go ahead in the areas now subject to co-decision without the approval of the European Parliament. The noble Lord refers to that as a veto; I call it democratic decision-making. In most cases, it relates to areas in which there is an extension of co-decision to which qualified majority voting applies.
This is not an issue of transferring powers or sovereignty from the national parliaments to the European Parliament. It is a question of decisions which are already being taken by majority vote at European level being subject to a degree of national democratic accountability. It is not at the expense of national parliaments. If anything it is at the expense of the Commission and the Council.
The European Parliament is an essential element of European democracy. It is not an alternative to strengthening the role of national parliaments, which we will debate in the next amendment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, this is not a zero sum game. It is quite the opposite. The two are
1222
complementary and mutually enhancing. We strongly support both the extension of the European Parliament's powers and the new protocol on national parliaments.
Additional points were raised by other noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, raised an issue which is really more adjacent to the next amendment and if she does not mind, I will leave it until that discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, raised the question of co-operation between national parliaments at earlier stages of preparation of European legislation. This is an important point, which also is germane to some extent to the next amendment. The Amsterdam Treaty envisages an enhanced, institutionalised role for COSAC—which deals with co-operation at parliamentary level. It will meet together and have a non-binding, consultative but important role, in assessing the way in which European legislation is being developed. The noble Lord wishes to see this extended further to specialist committees. This is a useful point which we ought to assume in our consideration of the role of national parliaments.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, at the end of the day it will not be 15 or 26 national parliaments which provide the detailed scrutiny of European legislation in the first instance, but the European Parliament. It is important that we do not cast aspersions on the democratic nature of the European Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord Bruce and others have done. It is true that the turn-out in European Parliament elections has been relatively low compared with national parliament elections. It has, however, been higher than that for a whole range of democratic institutions in this country and across Europe. It is not healthy or sensible for us to impugn their democratic status by suggesting that that of itself proves that the European Parliament is not part of the democratic accountability of the European Union.
A more positive approach to the European Parliament will lead to a greater status for it and a greater degree of transparency, accountability and democracy in the European Union as a whole.
There are differences between ourselves and the approach of the noble Lord. On QMV there are no differences in principle but differences at the edges. In relation to co-decision, there might be a difference in principle on various points, but the Conservative Party, particularly in a year when it is preparing for European elections, may come to express a greater appreciation of the role of the European Parliament in the coming months than the noble Lord is prepared to do today.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in drafting my remarks this afternoon, the European elections were not in the forefront of my mind, but the exchange that we had during Committee stage was. The debate that we have had this evening has been one of the best during these lengthy proceedings. It has crystallised the views that are held on all sides of the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, began by pointing out that we have polarised, different views on one or two of these issues. We do. I respect her for

1223
holding her views; I disagree with them. I have attempted to put the arguments as clearly as I can as regards my position. So be it. That is the case. If we are not going to meet on this issue, I am pleased that we meet on other issues of foreign policy.
I did not make a root and branch attack on the European Parliament. I might have gently pointed to the antics of some MEPs—you would not expect me to do otherwise. There is plenty more material on that subject but, in the interests of progress on the Bill, it is best to leave the matter and not return to it in the context of this Bill.
I was, I hope, pointing out that there are many areas where historically, as the Minister has pointed out, there is agreement about the benefits of QMV. Where there is a single purpose, where there is a clear purpose to achieve a specific objective—and I mentioned the single market—it is important that majority voting is used to ensure that those decisions are taken effectively. I made that point to begin with. I may be in disagreement with some noble Lords on that point but, for once on this Bill, I am in agreement with the Government Front Bench.
I was trying to state that it is very important when you extend QMV for the Government to come before the House to make the case for that extension—and to make a case in each and every area—because there is, unquestionably, the issue of the transfer of sovereignty and power. One can argue whether it is from the Commission to the Parliament or from one national parliament to the European Parliament but, when you accept that there are new areas where you extend decision-making to QMV, it is important for the Government to come before the House and defend that extension. As in Committee, my argument this evening is that that case has not been made on the specific cases. To that extent I am being as pragmatic as I can be, despite the noble Lord's chiding in that context.
As for co-decision, I was not objecting. When the noble Lord has had the opportunity to read Hansard tomorrow, he will reflect that I was not objecting in principle to co-decision. I recognise fully that the European Parliament is enabled to exercise its role more effectively and democratically within the European institutions where the principle of co-decision is recognised. What I have done is reflect in some detail on QMV and the areas of QMV that concern me.
I can add very little more to this debate. As I said at the outset, it represents one of the most constructive exchanges of view in this area that we have had. I disagree with the Government and I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in the specific point that she made at the outset of her speech.
I do not intend to press this amendment to a vote. I am grateful to the Government and to noble Lords on all sides of the House for participating in a debate in which I knew we would not come to agreement. I do not think there is any benefit at this stage in dividing the House and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON ROLE OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
(". A Minister of the Crown shall, no later than 1st June 1999 and at annual intervals thereafter, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the action taken by the Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union annexed 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.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will recall that I dealt very briefly with the essence of this amendment in Committee.
Will the Minister explain the origins of this extraordinary protocol? Just who is responsible for producing it? Under what conditions was it produced?
Your Lordships will recall from the diaries of Mr. Alan Clark, now the MP for Kensington and Chelsea, and Mr. Lamont, who was sometimes Chancellor of the Exchequer and attended Council meetings from time to time, the rather realistic and graphic descriptions of how Council business was discussed—for example, the recumbent or otherwise attitude of some of those attending, the doubt as to whether some were awake at the time, and one or two other matters—which placed the Council in rather an unfavourable light.
I am not for the moment suggesting that this applies now. I suggest that all members who attended the council meeting at which the text of the treaty and the protocols were agreed were alert people, bent on arriving at a solution and determined to meet the requirements of their countries in so far as possible and on a normal give-and-take basis.
When I last discussed this matter with your Lordships, I indicated that one of the preambles exhibited a less than vigorous attitude towards the provision of information to the members of the national parliaments. I should like to read it in order to refresh your Lordships' memories. It states:
"DESIRING, however, to encourage greater involvement of national parliaments in the activities of the European Union and to enhance their ability to express their views on matters which may be of particular interest to them".
According to those who drafted the protocol, that was the main purpose.
I may be wrong, and once again I may be out of step with the Government I am pleased to support. However, I did not and do not take that attitude in regard to information provided to us by the European Commission. I thought that one of the principal purposes was to enable parliaments to advise their own Ministers on what they thought about proposed legislation. It was not merely a matter of passing interest; it was because under parliamentary government, to which most of them are strangers, it is customary for members of parliaments to want to be fully informed in order to advise their governments and if necessary—and perish the thought—occasionally to rebel in order to establish their will. That is why I am curious to know how the provision originated.

1225
My second inquiry relates to what the Government propose to do about it. The protocol states:
"All Commission consultation documents (green and white papers and communications) shall be promptly forwarded to the national parliaments of the Member States".
I want to know what is the Government's concept of the word "promptly". I do not wish to refer to domestic matters too much, but from time to time I have been in correspondence with government departments here and have been promised prompt responses. "Prompt" may mean as much as four or five months, even in our domestic affairs. I wonder at what understanding they arrived in order to determine what was meant by "promptly".
Paragraph 2 of the protocol states:
"Commission proposals for legislation"
and this has a certain resonance with a comment I made earlier—
"as defined by the Council in accordance with Article 207(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, shall be made available in good time so that the Government of each Member State may ensure that its own national parliament receives them as appropriate".
Paragraph 3 states:
"A six-week period shall elapse between a legislative proposal or a proposal for a measure to be adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union being made available in all languages to the European Parliament … subject to exceptions on grounds of urgency".
All that sounds a little vague. What I want to know, and what the House may be interested to know, is exactly how the Government propose that the protocol shall be adhered to principally by the Commission. What sanctions do they believe they have to demand that proposals are sent to them in good time so that they can be considered by their parliaments? What arrangements have they come to with other members of the Council who may or may not think on similar lines? I would have thought that we wanted something a little more definite.
For a time I was a member of the Select Committee on European legislation. I will not bother to relate to the House the history of my participation in that committee or the circumstances of my departure. But from time to time we were hampered—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will agree—by lack of information provided in good time. Indeed, the noble Lord complained eloquently and most efficiently to the various parties in Europe in order to have that difficulty rectified.
These are important matters. It is not only a question of getting information to us on time but also of bringing to a halt the flood of proposed legislation which the European Commission, as a trained bureaucracy, knows very well we cannot possibly scrutinise before it is enacted in law. I refer your Lordships, for example, to the latest progress of scrutiny document issued by the House of Lords on 1st May. It sets out a list of the various proposals and communications received from the European Commission on which explanatory memoranda have already been prepared by the
1226
government department concerned and which it will not send for scrutiny and recommends should not be scrutinised at all.
That is reasonable because the committee knows quite well that even if the members of the sub-committees of the European Community Select Committee in this place were doubled they would not get through all the documents at all promptly. In the three weeks up to 1st May, 60 such items were not sent to any sub-committee or to the Select Committee; they were passed through as not requiring scrutiny.
Your Lordships may have different views; all our priorities are different according to our preferences, our subjects and possibly even our skills. But if your Lordships look at List A in the progress of legislation document you may believe that it would have been a good idea if such-and-such a document were sent to the committee and scrutinised. It illustrates that even now the flood of communications—perhaps proposals for decisions, directives or regulations—coming to the British Parliament is too much for it to deal with.
Do not let us kid ourselves. The Commission is a bureaucracy, and I have had a long experience of them in business and elsewhere. I know that one of the easiest ways of overwhelming your adversaries is to flood them with so much work that they cannot possibly deal with it. It happens in professions and in associations in exactly the same way and that is what is being done by the Commission.
We are not free from blame in this matter, I regret to say. I must be fair because there are deficiencies in our own parliamentary institutions which match some of the decisions of the bureaucracy in Brussels. For example, on 28th February the Annual Report and Statement of Assurance of the European Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1996 was passed through on the nod late at night at about a quarter past ten without examination by Parliament. That hardly indicates a degree of devotion to duty of Members of another place. There is another one too with regard to the budget itself, about which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made representations because we did not get the documents in time to consider them. On 25th November 1997 at 10.15 p.m. the following Question was put without debate:
"That this House takes note of the European Community documents Nos. 10153/97, the draft general budget of the European Communities for 1998, and PE262.699, the European Parliament's proposed amendments to the draft general budget of the European Communities for 1998; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.
Question agreed to".
That means that we ourselves, as a British Parliament, will have to pull up our socks a little as well and look at these matters on which we demand particulars and on which we have a right to have particulars.
Noble Lords may feel that I am too particular about these matters. It is a very old saying but the price of liberty is, of course, eternal vigilance. And before we make political judgments, judgments which affect our citizens not only in this country but elsewhere, it

1227
behoves us to be provided with the information and the documents enabling us to reach a balanced and true judgment. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it may be to the benefit of the Report Stage of this Bill if I speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 briefly at this stage so that we can take part in the general debate. Then, of course, they will be moved separately.
I should make it absolutely clear that in my view Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 address themselves to the issue of how Parliament can most effectively deal with European legislation. I believe that a report would be unnecessary because one could almost issue the first report immediately. I intend, in the few moments which I shall take, to try to do that.
If one goes back first to the issue of legislation under the Community part of the European Union, that is to say the part which falls within the non-intergovernmental areas, so-called pillars 2 and 3, there has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, pointed out, a scrutiny machinery set up in this House which I believe has been one of the most striking developments of this House's functions in recent years. It has been most effective.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I have had the great honour to be a member of one of the sub-committees of the European Communities Committee. It is an excellent development of Parliament's powers and a most effective way to have Parliament's views brought to bear on European legislation.
I have also had the pleasure of going with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to a meeting of other parliamentary groups looking into the issue of scrutiny. I heard how effectively and brilliantly he has put forward the way in which scrutiny is conducted by the Houses of Parliament in this country and how that has influenced other countries.
Over recent years there have been a series of reports by committees of this House dealing with the issue of the scrutiny of European legislation. I take just a couple of examples. The 27th report contained a long list of the ways in which scrutiny is delayed, held up or made difficult. The problems range from explanatory memoranda not showing up to drafts of documents not appearing. And, in many, many instances, the responsibility lies, unfortunately, with our own government departments.
The same 27th report gives an example of an important piece of legislation concerned with the environment. It was presented to the sub-committee on 27th November but the Minister was obliged to explain that the matter had already been decided a few weeks previously. Not even a draft had reached the sub-committee.
There are, unfortunately, recent examples, even under this Government, of similar somewhat—how can one put it—"high-handed" treatment of sub-committees. Frankly, it is not in our interests, if we care about democratic scrutiny, to make sure that this machinery does not work well. Fortunately, the Government have
1228
taken the matter very much to heart. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to the protocol and did so, I thought, in somewhat critical terms. The protocol is a very substantial achievement. The fact that the protocol says that all Commission consultation documents, both green and white, should in future be forwarded to national parliaments for their consideration goes a few steps towards meeting the extremely powerful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. The noble Lord said that it was important that these matters were discussed before decisions were taken upon them and not, as so often, after those decisions had effectively been made. To have Green and White Papers coming before national parliaments is an important element in ensuring that the views of national parliament are taken much more seriously into account.
I draw attention also to the six-week period now laid down in the protocol. That is a huge step forward. We now have six weeks before any Council can reach a decision and during which the documents must be made available to the Council and to the national parliament.
With respect to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, it is the case that the six-week period could largely apply to a national parliament if our own Government got the document to us fast enough. It will be laid before our own Government in the Council of Ministers within the same requisite six weeks. The reason why my amendments refer only to 10 working days stems from the miserable experience of all too many documents that became totally stuck in a government department. I am allowing, frankly, three and a half weeks for them to be stuck in government departments before they have to be laid before the scrutiny committee of the respective Houses. I consider that not an ungenerous amount of time.
The second substantial achievement appears in the European Communities Committee report called Enhancing Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Third Pillar. The report draws attention to the wholly unsatisfactory absence of any effective scrutiny over an area of intergovernmental legislation here which directly affects in one area after another the liberties of the individual. Anyone who has studied carefully the sections dealing with Europol and other aspects of internal security will know how sensitive such material is. I was appalled to discover how extraordinarily weak the accountability in this area was. It seemed that we were spending all our time seeking to ensure that it did not drift towards the Community pillar but doing very little indeed to establish the rights of our Parliament to be heard on these matters.
I share as emphatically as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, a sense that Parliament has a significant role to play. In that document, the sixth report, noble Lords drew attention to the importance of a formal scrutiny reserve on intergovernmental documents—specifically, in this case, internal security. They drew attention to the need for the Government to refuse to agree any adoption of such legislation within the intergovernmental structure of the Council of Ministers unless the scrutiny reserve had been removed.

1229
Many of your Lordships know how much they have been concerned about that and how much it has been pressed over recent years. It was therefore a delight for me to see that in her memorandum, the President of the Council, the Leader of the House in another place, brought forward two very striking commitments.
The first commitment is that:
"The Government undertakes, subject to certain exceptions, not to give agreement to the Council of Ministers to any proposal in which either House has not completed scrutiny—the so-called scrutiny reserve".
That applies specifically in that area to the intergovernmental pillar. She went on to say that the scrutiny reserve would apply to documents deposited in both Houses for scrutiny under the intergovernmental pillars.
Those two commitments by the President of the Council extend very substantially the ability of this House and of another place to scrutinise crucial legislation affecting individuals in this country and the liberty of those individuals. It is crucial that we support the President of the Council in what she is doing. It is crucial that we follow this up.
I do not intend to press either of the amendments to a Division. It would be wholly inappropriate to do so because the Government have already taken very long steps—much longer steps than their predecessors—in the very direction which my colleagues and I wish to move. I congratulate them on what they have done. It substantially strengthens the role of Parliament. I hope that the Government will respond to what is essentially a probing amendment to establish how far we can now go and what they hope for from the Modernisation Committee in another place. That is why I have tabled the amendments. Again, I should say how glad I am that we are moving in that direction as quickly as we are doing.
7 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, it may be appropriate for me to intervene at this stage and say a few words on this important subject, which is the bread and butter of my daily life these days.
I hope that I can stay until the end of the debate and I apologise if I cannot. However, I must catch the last train back to the South West this evening. Normally, in the circumstances, I would have stayed overnight but I must be back in London on Sunday for the start of the COSAC meeting which we are hosting on Sunday evening, Monday and Tuesday of next week. I shall return to COSAC in a few moments.
I have heard some interesting remarks in the last few moments from all sides of the House. I overheard, as it were, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, through my monitor, talking about parliamentary scrutiny, and I listened with interest, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby.
1230
Matters have improved over the past few years but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, they are far from perfect. One of the issues which the noble Lord did not stress in what he said was the synergy between the two Houses of Parliament. One must remember that the other place provides a different form of scrutiny. It vets each document and decides whether it is of political or legal importance. If it is, it is passed either to a Standing Committee or to the Whole House. Finding a slot to debate the issue thereafter is a matter with which we all have difficulty. That is the case also in this House in relation to reports from your Lordships' Select Committee. Particularly later in the year, it is difficult to find a slot so that matters can be debated at a reasonable time. Such matters tend to get pushed to the back of the queue after government legislation, which is quite understandable.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned the number of A-list matters which do not normally go to the sub-committees for scrutiny. However, a sub-committee chairman, assisted by the clerk and the legal support that we have in the Select Committee, can always have such measures brought back for further consideration if it is felt that there is something that the system has missed.
In your Lordships' Select Committee, we are looking to focus on those matters which we can consider in depth and on which we can look outside for expert witnesses who are prepared to come and give their time and wisdom to our sub-committees. As your Lordships may know, there is a report being considered at the moment by Sub-Committee A on the central bank. When that is published fairly shortly, it will be seen that the list of witnesses is most impressive—Mr. Eddie George, Herr Tietmeyer, Mr. Duisenberg, M. Trichet and so on. It is a list of the great and the good in central banking. Those people are prepared to give up their time to answer questions because they recognise that your Lordships' Select Committee is serious and produces serious reports. That is our role: to look at issues in depth. The House of Commons tends to take a horizontal approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is quite right in terms of the timing of documents coming to Select Committees or to Parliament. It is not quite as simple as all that because the tendency is to say, "We want to have the document as soon as we can". One may then find oneself becoming involved in in-depth scrutiny and then suddenly find that the document is changed completely; that there is a new draft; or that its terms have changed. While I accept that it is better to be in at the early stages rather than to be too late, an awful lot of time and effort can be wasted if there is a significant change in the draft directive before the committee.
I believe that the question of the six weeks is one of the most important features of the Amsterdam Treaty for this House. Our Select Committee and our colleagues in another place recommended that there should be a four-week period and, to their credit, the Government managed to extend that to six weeks. There are provisos. There may be exceptional circumstances.
At present, as our presidency reaches its latter days, there is a tendency by Ministers to say, "I must have this cleared by next Tuesday because I want it to go

1231
before the energy council", or it may be the agriculture council and so on. That is on the increase and must be decreased. I have had some slightly terse correspondence backwards and forwards with Ministers in the past few weeks. Although I had hoped that the British presidency would set an example to other countries and future presidencies, I am not at all sure that that has been achieved. However, we shall have a postmortem when the presidency is finished and I shall continue my correspondence with the Lord Privy Seal, which noble Lords may already have seen in the publication of letters to Ministers. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has been helpful and understanding and he has used his clout to make sure that Ministers understand the position, as has Mrs. Ann Taylor in the other place. But things are still not satisfactory. I understand the temptation for Ministers and their staff to want to chalk up successes during the course of a presidency but that must not be at the expense of parliamentary scrutiny.
I turn now to the Conference of European Affairs Committees, which is known by the French acronym of COSAC. As I said, that is meeting on Monday and Tuesday of next week. The view has been expressed by the British delegation on many occasions—and it is my view—that there is a limit as to how formal that can become. There was a lot of pressure from the French National Assembly and Senate to try to formalise that; to have formal votes; and to produce documents from COSAC. I have believed always that that is a mistake because if you are sending three people from each chamber of each parliament across Europe, you cannot pretend that they are representative of the parliament. Once you go down that road, they will become representatives of the government. We know that in certain countries, the way in which their democracies work, even now, they are representatives of the government. But at least on the part of this country and the Scandinavian countries in particular, they are certainly not; they are representatives of the parliament. Indeed, in the case of some of the Scandinavian countries, they actually mandate their Ministers before they go to meetings of the European Council. I am not suggesting that we go down that road, because it seems to me that it could delay matters interminably if we all did so. Nevertheless, it means that there is proper scrutiny to a degree that we do not know in this country.
So, here we have this strange body of people from right across Europe. I believe that it is useful for exchanging ideas on how to keep our governments on their toes. To that end, in the COSAC which is due to take place on Monday and Tuesday, we have on the agenda a paper from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, dealing with the European Central Bank, which my noble friend Lady Williams will introduce. We shall also have a paper from my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire on scrutiny of the third pillar.
As my noble friend Lady Williams has already said, the third pillar scrutiny is perhaps more important than anything else we do, because the European Parliament cannot scrutinise third pillar matters as they are entirely matters for the Council. If we do not do it, no one will. In the main, these are subjects which are very close to
1232
the whole area of human rights. Therefore, I believe that we have a special responsibility and that we are starting to do it quite well, especially through Sub-Committee F, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Moreover, we want to encourage other parliaments in the European Community to do the same and, in that way, to bear on the Council through Ministers to ensure that it abides by the rules.
One of the problems with the Council has been its refusal to allow documents to be released. There was a time when it was impossible to get the agenda. Indeed, there was a time when, after a meeting, the agendas were all burnt. However, things are improving from that point of view. One recent route has been through the European ombudsman. He is not someone about whom one hears much; indeed, I do not know that he has been mentioned in the whole of this arena. Nevertheless, there have been recent findings by the European ombudsman which have begun to open up access to the Council of Ministers and the documentation. Although the Commission comes in for much criticism, the culture of secrecy in the Council has been much greater than in the Commission.
I have intervened in this debate to say that I believe matters have been improved. However, governments really do have to abide by the new rules and ensure that, when they attend Council meetings, they are not brow beaten into accepting things that have not been completely scrutinised by their Parliaments.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I must frankly confess that the remarks I made during the debate on the last amendment would have been more suitably addressed to this one. I can only plead that I was carried away by the eloquence of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in her remarks about the European Parliament, into issues related generally to parliamentary control over the activities of the European Union. However, without tedious repetition, I should like to say, first, that many of the queries that I raised have been marvellously eliminated by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in his intervention. Indeed, he described the progress that the COSAC concept is making.
As regards the second and third pillars, especially the third pillar, the noble Lord rightly said that, because we are dealing with intergovernmentalism, there is no European parliamentary role. The European institutions are not equipped to call to account the decisions reached on the intergovernmental basis and we have a real task in strengthening our own democratic methods of examining such matters.
The noble Lord also rightly said that our Parliament is not like other parliaments in that we cannot just produce people who can claim to represent something called, "the views of Parliament". Indeed, every Member of the other place represents himself. They are equal in that sense and have very interesting views, but they do not represent Parliament and never can. So there is a difficulty there which I can recall being conscious of in relation to representatives of other parliaments. They sometimes spoke as though they carried a mandate of a very authoritative kind—sometimes they did—from

1233
their parliamentary groups and committees. Therefore, I hope that we can hear more from the Minister about how he or she sees the COSAC concept developing.
There is one route that I hope we will not follow. In the late 1980s, I seem to remember being summoned to something called a parliamentary assise in Rome where groups from all the parliaments of the EU member states gathered with a view to developing the role of national parliaments. However, when we got there, the whole thing had already been fixed, hijacked and arranged by the European Parliament and by some officers of the Commission. We were rapidly told that we could not even sit in parliamentary groups but that we must sit in party groups. That removed the whole point of the exercise and we came away deeply disappointed. Therefore, I hope that no one will attempt again that kind of approach which merely had the tone of satisfying the grumblings of national parliaments and actually hoped that they would all go home without noticing. We did grumble and go home; but it seemed to us that national parliaments must play a stronger role in the areas that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, so eloquently and clearly described.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I hesitate to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on an issue which is so peculiarly his own. However, I should like, first, to add my support and feeling to the issue of timing. I believe that the strength of our committees lies in the fact that they take evidence; but evidence takes time to assemble. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government—I welcome the way that they have succeeded in this so far as regards obtaining a much longer time—are prepared to insist in Council that, if by the time six weeks have expired there are still important matters to be established, no one should be forced into making a decision. That is particularly true in issues like cost/benefit analysis, as we found in the committee on which I had the honour to serve.
The other problem that we encountered, which is another aspect of the same thing, is that of transparency. So many of the specialist committees refused—and, indeed, continue to refuse—to give the reasons for the recommendations that they had made or even, in many cases, to say who made them and their competence to do so. I know that this Government, and the previous one, certainly intended to secure much greater transparency in the Amsterdam Treaty. I can remember report after report in the committee on the environment, stretching back for six years at least, where we had to say every single time that we were unable to establish why the recommendations were made, by whom and what their competence was. Therefore, we cannot stress too strongly that scrutiny which ultimately has to say, "We didn't have the facts", is not, in the end, scrutiny. That point must be stressed to a very considerable degree.
I am also somewhat disturbed by a few words in paragraph 3 of the protocol on national parliaments
1234
regarding the provision of information; namely that such provision is,
"subject to exceptions on grounds of urgency".
I—and, I believe, every committee—would need very considerable evidence to show why the "urgency" made it impossible to provide the information. One does not make decisions of national importance without knowing why. I simply wanted to stress that, although I am pleased that the amendment urges the period of six weeks, I am depressed by the noble Baroness's probably accurate assessment that, if we are to get any sense in terms of explanation from the department, another fortnight at least would have to elapse. It is quite unreal to consider major issues in the time-scale proposed.
Therefore, on the grounds of the need for transparency and for a truly responsible scrutiny, which actually rests on full knowledge of the facts, we must hope that our Government will be able to be extremely strong in Council. I see absolutely no reason why— I think of such provisions as the quality of water—there should not be a much longer period of time given to the consideration of many of the directives before decisions are required.
Lord Monson: My Lords, one remembers well when this treaty was first published what a warm welcome everyone gave to this measure—be they Euro-enthusiast, Euro-sceptic or something in between—to provide a greater role for national parliaments. Here at last was something which we could all agree was an unmitigated good thing. Good thing it may be, but the more one examines it the less meaningful and significant it appears, which is not to deny that it still produces some benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has explained to your Lordships how parliamentary scrutiny has improved over recent years and months quite independent of the treaty. What the treaty appears to do—which may be of some use, of course—is to dot a few i's and cross a few t's. What, after all, are the primary purposes of any national parliament? The first is to legislate. The individual national parliaments will still have no power to legislate on purely Community matters.
The second primary purpose of any national parliament is to hold the Executive to account. It was only yesterday in an excellent five-hour debate that the vital importance of Parliament being able to hold the Executive to account was emphasised time and time again by noble Lords from all quarters of the House. Of course, as regards the EU, national parliaments will have no real powers in this regard either. For that reason I believe that this amendment—so well introduced, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—is well worth considering.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I have listened to all the speakers in this interesting debate. First, I support the general thrust of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in seeking more information from the Government on the important Titles V and VI. Despite my relative disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I believe that the Government now in power should look carefully at ways

1235
and means of ensuring that the national Parliament of the United Kingdom plays its full part in the Council, Commission and Parliament of the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, expressed surprise that the Treaty of Amsterdam should chivvy national parliaments to consider material that they should already be considering. He said that in his view the European Union produces more material than we can get through. That is perhaps a little ambivalent.
In my experience in the other place on European Standing Committees A and B and on the Employment Select Committee I found, sadly, that the material given to committees was insufficient and was presented in an untimely way. That did not enable us to function properly. I was particularly interested in the social chapter which reflects the major strides the European Union has taken for women, low-paid workers, the disabled and ethnic minority workers—the kinds of people without whom the famous single market could not operate at all. It was galling to discover that other national parliaments had been involved over months and years in discussing the social chapter with the Commission. Our Parliament and our Employment Select Committee had not done so because we had neither knowledge of the meetings nor the relevant information. That material had been kept in the Whips Office of the then government in the House of Commons. I believe therefore that scrutiny and analysis of information are called for now so that we can be confident that in the future we shall be able to contribute as fully as other national parliaments have done in matters which affect our people, through subsidiarity.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the protocol on national parliaments is a small bone tossed to national parliaments to try to assuage their doubts about this matter. When we talk about scrutiny that is all we are talking about. What I am concerned about is accountability. All this protocol gives us is six weeks to scrutinise some difficult and complicated legislation which is proposed. Frankly, I am not impressed. Six weeks is not always sufficient, bearing in mind the examination which must take place. What is more, when that scrutiny by Parliament has taken place, and when Parliament has made its decision known, Ministers can then go off to Europe and do exactly as they like. That may be scrutiny, but it certainly is not accountability. I would much prefer us to do as Denmark does—some people may not prefer this—namely, to hold our discussions and to mandate Ministers before they go to Europe to make decisions supposedly on behalf of Parliament. However, in actual fact they make the decisions on behalf of themselves. I give an example.
I, too, served on the European Communities Committee. The members do an enormously good job and work hard. Those who sit on Sub-Committee E probably do the hardest work of all because they are inundated with "legalities" and documents which they strive hard to understand. Generally only judges, Law Lords and barristers can understand those documents. I served on that committee. We examined a directive on consumer protection. We sat long hours and worked hard. We summoned countless witnesses. In the end we decided that the directive was not good enough and that our
1236
present arrangements were rather better. We recommended against adopting the directive. What happened? The Government completely ignored what we said and they proposed the opposite of what our committee had suggested. That scrutiny did not do much good, did it? I fear that much of the scrutiny and much of the work that is carried out by the Select Committee in this place and in another place is non-productive. Unless we are to have accountability, all the work we do is largely wasted.
I remember when I worked for the Central Electricity Generating Board we had what was called a local advisory committee. I was once a member of it and then I became the secretary of it. We had long discussions with management and we advised them from the point of view of ordinary working people. The management said they had listened to what we had said and had reached a decision which was usually the opposite of what the working people had recommended.
I repeat that I am not impressed by this protocol, particularly when so much more power and influence have been given to the institutions of the European Union through the Amsterdam Treaty. A far greater power of co-decision has been given to the Parliament. Much more power has been given to the Commission, as we heard in our earlier debates, although perhaps not so much to the Council. Nevertheless, the institutions of Europe have gained more power and we have been thrown this little bone of two weeks' extra scrutiny. Frankly, it simply is not good enough. As I said in an earlier debate, and have said no doubt from the point of view of some noble Lords ad nauseam, gradually our power in this Parliament and the powers of the House of Commons are being eroded. They are being transferred from this Parliament, from the people of this country, to institutions which in the last analysis the people do not control. It is not good enough. I hope that we shall vote on the amendment. Small though the concession is, as my noble friend proposes, we should have a proper report as to what it means.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I support the new clause. It is such a reasonable request that I am sure the Government will find it in their wisdom to accede to the arguments deployed so eloquently by noble Lords in favour of it. I wish to say a few words on the role of national parliaments. Unsurprisingly, it has become something of a theme throughout our deliberations on the Bill. I shall then focus specifically on points made by the Minister in Committee.
I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness's reassurance that she considers the principal source of democratic legitimacy in the European Union to be national parliaments. In Committee, she pointed to the fact that it is to national parliaments that governments are answerable, and that it is with national parliaments that the people most readily identify. I also welcomed her commitment to reinforcing the role of national parliaments in the context of the European Union; and her confirmation that the treaty will provide a stronger role and a clearer voice for national parliaments, in particular since there have been occasions during these

1237
proceedings when some of us have had good cause to question, or even to doubt, the Government's position on this point, not least in our lengthy debates on qualified majority voting.
As I said in Committee, it is not a matter in respect of which there we have any difference of principle with the Government—another good reason why the Government should accept the amendment. I wish to make it clear again that that is the case. I believe that there is a good deal of common ground between us on the matter. We welcome the fact that the treaty includes measures to permit better scrutiny of Community legislation by national parliaments. Our debate in Committee was a timely opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—I do so again this evening, not least following his insight, and his useful contributions to this stage of our proceedings—and the work of the Select Committee which considers European legislation. Many of the measures we are considering today had their origins in the important work that they carried out.
Nevertheless, two important issues were raised during our debate on the protocol, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington focused, relating to the role of national parliaments in the European Union. I believe that matters relating to the starting point for the six-week period of notice and the issue of urgency were not fully debated in Committee. I put precise questions to the Minister on both issues. I fear that I was not as happy as the noble Baroness would like me to be with either of her two answers. I therefore take this opportunity to return to the specific issues I raised.
First, I asked the Minister to be specific on the starting point for the six-week period of notice. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, sees this as an important step forward in its own right; and it is. I should like it to go further. I argue that we need to be absolutely clear when the starting point for the six-week period of notice will be between the depositing of Commission consultation documents before the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers and the date on which they are to be discussed in the Council. I wanted an assurance that that will be the date when the relevant documents reach national governments. This is a critical point and relates to the possibility of a delay in transmission. National parliaments have control over national governments. They do not have control over the European Parliament and the Council as a whole.
The Minister was clear in her answer. She stated that the six-week scrutiny period will begin when the document is received by the Council Secretariat after which it will be translated and distributed to member states. I appreciated her clear argument as to why that is the case. I recognised that the period was extended from four to six weeks to enable those additional two weeks to be used for the delivery of such documentation. I was grateful that the Minister recognised that it is an important issue. Although I was not wholly clear about her reference to the electronic pilot transmission project, it sounded as though it was a serious step in the right direction.
1238
No doubt the Minister will be unsurprised to learn that I am somewhat disappointed in my hope that the six weeks will start when the documents arrive at Westminster. The critical issue to take into account is not so much the date on which the documents are received by the Council Secretariat, but the date on which Westminster receives its copy. If we knew that delivery of documentation from the Council would be speedy, efficient and reliable, we should be far more confident. Much of my concern on the issue depends on whether or not we can find a mechanism to ensure that Westminster receives the paperwork well in advance of consideration by the Council, and preferably on a specific date.
On the question of sufficient time for scrutiny, my noble friend Lady Park made a valuable point about the problem of the incomplete nature of information arriving from the Commission. If documents arrive without vital information, as sometimes they must do—the noble Baroness quoted cost/benefit analysis in this context—it is important to recognise that extra time is then spent on consultation and hearing evidence from the relevant agencies.
Scrutiny must be done properly so that a serious recommendation can be made to the Government. It is a necessary part of the process. That fact must be taken into account when determining an appropriate period for scrutiny by national parliaments. I fully endorse my noble friend's comments and reflections and join in urging the Minister to take this dimension into consideration—although I know the Minister needs no urging about the importance of time for due consideration of documents.
I echo the comments made by my noble friend Lady Park. I asked about the exception to the six-week rule for national parliamentary scrutiny on the ground of urgency. I wanted to know who would define an exception on the ground of urgency. I wanted an assurance from the Minister that it is essential that that provision is tightly defined to avoid the exception becoming the norm; and that there should be a requirement for the Council to state formally the ground for urgency.
I fully understand that it is difficult to give precise hypothetical examples for the future. But the thrust behind my question was not so much to request a detailed list of exceptions on the ground of urgency, but rather to seek an assurance that Parliament will know the moment the Council has determined that a subject is an exception on the ground of urgency so that it can be aware that the procedure outlined on the six-week rule would be waived.
In the context of the memorandum published by the President of the Council in January setting out the Government's four proposals, which has been sent to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I ask the Minister to give due weight to the arguments put forward during debates in Committee, and to the importance which the Opposition attach to the need for the Council to be required to state formally and immediately when it decides that there will be an exception on the ground of urgency.

1239
I appreciate that I have asked some specific, detailed questions on an important part of the work done by the Government in negotiation. I am sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in clarifying the points that I have raised and giving assurances where I have requested them. To reiterate, I welcome the Minister's assurance that the Government intend the provisions of the new protocol to strengthen the role of national parliaments in ensuring democratic legitimacy; likewise, that they intend them to help to rectify weaknesses in our national scrutiny system—important points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in that context; and that they will build on the new provisions in separate proposals to update and strengthen our national arrangements.
As in Committee, my remarks underpin this important point. On these Benches we believe that national parliaments remain the primary focus of democratic legitimacy within the European Union, for it is they that hold national Ministers to account. In moving this amendment, the noble Lord has given the House the opportunity to receive regularly a report, to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, so that we can assess how effectively the issues that we have raised in this debate have been delivered and bring new ideas forward as a result of the report which will be debated. When, I hope, rather than if, the noble Lord presses this amendment to a vote, I assure him that he will have my support.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have had a very good debate on these amendments. I shall do my best to answer the points that noble Lords have raised. I shall cover all three amendments, Amendments Nos. 11, 15 and 16.
I assure the House, as I did on Tuesday, that the Government are determined to build a European Union that is more open and more democratic. The Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and, in particular, national parliaments all have a part to play in this effort. We believe that national parliaments are the principal source of democratic legitimacy in the European Union, as I reiterated in the debate on Tuesday. We must therefore reinforce the role of national parliaments, nationally and at the EU level. I do not believe that there is a single Member of this House who has spoken on these matters this evening who would disagree.
During our debate on Tuesday I described the steps that we take nationally to facilitate scrutiny of EU issues, and how we plan to build on that. I shall return to that matter when I respond to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 on parliamentary scrutiny. However, perhaps I may turn first to Amendment No. 11.
At the European level, Her Majesty's Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that the protocol on national parliaments, which is the subject of Amendment No. 11, provides the right way forward. For the first time the role of national parliaments is recognised in a legally binding form. The protocol strikes the right balance between preserving the efficient conduct of business and allowing proper scrutiny. We
1240
have to bear both of those matters in mind. Proper scrutiny is extremely important, as I have emphasised. But so, as I am sure all noble Lords would agree, is the necessity for the efficient conduct of business.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, the protocol's main feature is a new legally binding minimum period of six weeks between the circulation of a proposal and a Council decision on it, except in genuinely urgent cases. That will greatly facilitate scrutiny by national parliaments. The protocol also provides for an enhanced role for COSAC. It is of a non-binding consultative kind only, as COSAC wanted.
Two specific aspects of the protocol were raised when we discussed it in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, reiterated them. The first is the starting point for the six-week period; the second, how to define genuinely urgent cases.
On the first point, the period begins when a text reaches the Council Secretariat. That is clear. It would be impractical to start the clock when, say, it has reached all capitals. Arrangements for that are for each member state, and vary from one to another. So the point the noble Lord makes about starting the clock at that point, is simply not a practical option. Instead, we ought other ways to ensure that a reasonable minimum period was preserved. I am pleased to say that in negotiation we succeeded.
The average time taken for texts to be translated and sent from the Secretariat to capitals has fallen sharply over the past two years, from 40 days to 14. That is an improvement, but it would still consume two weeks of the scrutiny period. We therefore argued, and partners agreed, that the period must be extended to six weeks. This means that national parliaments will still have about four weeks to study draft legislation—the minimum suggested when the Westminster Select Committees, including the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff s, first proposed the idea. So we believe we have met that point.
The second point raised by the noble Lord related to exceptions for genuinely urgent cases. It is right to make provision for such cases, as I am sure the noble Lord himself would agree. We do so in our national scrutiny system. There may be cases where sanctions measures are needed rapidly against a third country, or an environmental or health crisis may demand a swift response.
But there are two potential risks: first, if it is too easy to invoke the period, that full scrutiny will be by-passed without good and proper reason; second, if it is too difficult, that one country can block a genuinely urgent measure for its own ends.
The protocol therefore includes a provision to lessen both risks. The Council must state specific reasons in the Act for invoking the urgency clause. The same majority is thus needed to invoke the urgency clause as to approve the Act itself.
The new protocol will greatly strengthen the role of national parliaments in scrutinising EU business. We support the protocol strongly and are determined that it should work effectively. We believe the provisions I have described should ensure that it does.

1241
There may be one or two noble Lords who are still worried on this point. So perhaps I may give your Lordships a further assurance. The Government will keep the operation of this under review. If we see any instances of the abuse that I have described as one of your Lordships' worries, we will raise the matter with our partners and will seek appropriate action. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will also take a very close interest in how that works. The Government will respond to any reports that his committee, or its counterpart in another place, may make on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised a couple of additional points. He asked how the protocol originated. The protocol was originally tabled before this Government came into office. I hesitate to speculate on whose hand actually held the pen that originally put the document into being. What we can say is that it clearly reflects the views of the Committee of this House chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
The noble Lord also asked how we can enforce the protocol. The protocol is a binding commitment. It will be open to a member state to challenge before the ECJ an Act adopted in a way that breaches the terms of the protocol.
I hope that I have been able to say enough to your Lordships to explain why the Government believe that this amendment is so unnecessary. It is for that reason that the Government oppose it, and I urge the House to do the same.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. The intention of the amendment is to strengthen existing parliamentary scrutiny. We sympathise with that desire. We are committed to enhancing Westminster scrutiny procedures. That will reinforce the Amsterdam Treaty provisions I have just described to strengthen the role of national parliaments in the EU. We therefore welcome the positive spirit in which the amendments have been tabled. However, we do not believe that they offer the right way forward in practice.
I described on Tuesday the steps we had taken to keep Parliament informed and to encourage discussion of EU issues. We have also undertaken to deposit all legislative proposals, and other texts, in Parliament within two days of their receipt, and not to agree them until parliamentary scrutiny is complete. As a result, in the great majority of cases Parliament has several weeks at least to consider new legislative proposals.
The existing system does not cover all EU documents and does not work in every case. We have therefore made the proposals which I described on Tuesday to strengthen the system. We propose to extend it to cover the second and third pillars as Amendment No. 16 proposes. Meanwhile the Amsterdam Treaty provides for a minimum six-week period for national parliaments to examine new proposals. Even with a two-week delay for the text to be translated and reach capitals, that exceeds the 10-day period in the amendments.
Our proposals and the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty go far beyond the position under the last government. I hope that the noble Lords who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Benches will welcome our
1242
readiness to strengthen the system we inherited. Where we differ from those who tabled these amendments is over the idea of regulating those matters in primary legislation. Such business has traditionally been covered by convention and by standing order. We believe that there are good reasons to continue with that, particularly given that that route allows greater flexibility.
The scrutiny reserve resolution illustrates the point well. It allows exceptions for documents that are urgent, trivial or confidential. Ministers may agree such proposals before clear scrutiny, but must explain why to the House at the first opportunity. The Amsterdam Treaty also allows exemption of urgent business from the minimum notice period. In this case the reason for that urgency must be stated in the Act.
I note the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to the failings of government departments in meeting their obligations under the scrutiny process. I believe that generally the record is improving, but I accept that we must strive for the highest level of efficiency and accuracy. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government have ensured that all departments dealing with scrutiny business have reviewed their procedures in an effort to meet the test.
I was grateful for the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I am sure that the whole House welcomed his expertise on the issue. I can assure him that the Government are determined to ensure effective scrutiny. It is particularly appropriate that he should have intervened in the debate in that way. I fully agree with him that COSAC should not have the status which would allow it to appear to represent national parliaments. That was why we supported the protocol which gives COSAC a non-binding and consultative role.
I hope that I have been able to answer the major points of difficulty raised by your Lordships in support of the amendments and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness for having replied in such terms in this debate. It appears that we are completely at one. She has emphasised the importance of our national parliament and in non-party terms. It is important for me because I have tried throughout my political life to fight precisely for that: the British Parliament reflecting British democracy. It seems, therefore, that we are at one.
The Minister gave an indication that she intends, and that the Government intend, to ensure meticulous observation of the provisions of the protocol. Therefore, there is no division between us. It is a completely non-party matter. There is no reason why the provision should not go into the Bill. It would be a completely non-controversial clause. It has the complete support of Ministers. In case there might be marginal difficulties lower down the bureaucratic line, the fact that the provision is incorporated in the Bill itself, would be an added authority to make quite sure that the will of the political leaders of the country becomes all-pervasive. The provision would then be enshrined in an Act of Parliament.

1243
So in the spirit of complete unanimity between myself and the Government —which is pretty unusual in these fields—I had rather hoped that the Minister would immediately accept the amendment. That would call old Bruce's bluff. However, it has not gone that way. So, with the utmost friendship, I regret that I shall be unable to withdraw the amendment. I ask for the support of the entire House, both Front Benches and all Back Benches, for the amendment.
7.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 66.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Liverpool, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monson, L.

Burnham, L.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Moynihan, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northbrook, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Norton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fookes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Gage, V.

Rawlings, B. [Teller.]

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rennell, L.

Howe, E.

Selborne, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Wharton, B.

Kintore, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Berkeley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Borrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carlisle, E.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Levy, L

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Linklater of Bulterstone, B.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dholakia, L.

McNally, L.

Donoughue, L.

Maddock, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mishcon, L.

Gilbert, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Goodhart, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Nicol, B.

Hacking, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hanworth, V.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Razzall, L.

Haskel, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hayman, B.

Russell, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sandwich, E.

Hoyle, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

1244

Strabolgi, L.

Whitty, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Winston, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before five minutes past nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Patient Pack Initiative
8.5 p.m.
Earl Howerose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will support patient organisations, doctors and the pharmaceutical industry in promoting the patient pack initiative.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a simple definition of a "patient pack"—for those who are not aware of it—is medicine that is user friendly. A patient pack is one that has been prepared by the manufacturer rather than one made up from bulk supplies by the pharmacist. It is a pack which is of a size appropriate to the specific course of treatment and one which includes all the approved labelling and user information which may be necessary for the patient to get full benefit from the medicine.
Why should that be desirable? All too often medicines dispensed by the pharmacist in little brown bottles are taken home and then, out of ignorance, consumed incorrectly either in the wrong dosages or at the wrong intervals, or both, with the patient frequently omitting to finish the course. Not only does that fail to achieve the desired outcome for the patient; it is also wasteful and expensive for NHS budgets.
If instructions are misunderstood and a course of treatment is followed wrongly, the results may well be a return visit to the GP and repeat prescriptions, neither of which would be necessary if the medicine had been taken properly in the first place. The main benefits which spring from a patient pack are that the patient, because he is better informed, is more likely to take the medicine safely and correctly. Repeat prescriptions and waste are more likely to be eliminated and quality control of the medicine can be assured.

1245
How significant are the problems I outlined? One indicator is a recent OPS survey which found that more than 40 per cent. of medicines prescribed had no information on the label about the length of time over which the medicine should be taken. It is no wonder perhaps that surveys which appear from time to time in relation to unused medicines suggest that large amounts of such medicines are thrown away every year because the patient failed to read the instructions properly and did not finish the course, had simultaneous courses of different lengths and wasted what he did not need—or thought he did not need—or simply did not understand that every course of medication needs to be completed.
The other side of the problem relates to over-prescribing. In 1993 the National Audit Office found that 14 per cent. by value of the items on multiple item prescriptions appeared to be excessive in terms of the underlying clinical requirement. Either way, its estimate was that up to £60 million worth of medicines dispensed in England each year may not be fully used.
Patient packs, every one of which contains a leaflet telling the user in simple terms everything he needs to know in order to understand his treatment and use the medicine properly, are a major step forward in reducing waste and wrong dosages and in improving awareness of possible adverse reactions. They bring benefits also to pharmacists. Up to 40 per cent. of a pharmacist's time is spent physically counting and repacking medicines. That leaves him commensurately less time in which to do what many would regard as his principal job; namely, giving advice and guidance to his customers. That advice and guidance can itself prevent waste and promote better compliance to the obvious benefit of the patient.
Those advantages for the patient pack have been widely acknowledged for a number of years. In 1995 it was agreed by all the major organisations involved in the delivery of healthcare in the UK—doctors, pharmacists, the pharmaceutical industry and the Department of Health—that an initiative to introduce patient packs as the standard method of dispensing all medicines should be commenced over a three-year period.
In the light of that agreement, the UK based pharmaceutical industry made a substantial investment in the equipment necessary to enable patient packs to be produced. Unfortunately, however, nearly three years on, not all is well. The initiative, though it is still proceeding, is faltering. It is doing so not because anyone has had second thoughts about the merits of the patient pack as a concept—if anything the reverse is true—but because the Department of Health expressed worries about the implementation of the project and, significantly, its cost.
The noble Baroness will, I hope, accept from me that it is not my purpose in this debate to cast a party political slant on the subject under discussion, but it is a matter of acute disappointment to many people that the present Government should have chosen to resile from the clear commitment of the previous administration to give unequivocal support to the patient
1246
pack initiative. Indeed, there are many who think that it is an extraordinary thing to have done in the face of the EU directive, due to come into force at the end of this year, which will oblige the UK to supply patients with information leaflets about their medicines and clear and accurate labelling on all packs.
Personally, I do not believe that there can be any better way of complying with that directive than to manufacture and supply medicine in a patient pack. That is because some of the information is safety related and can only be provided by the manufacturer; for example, the batch-specific information which identifies the production run and governs the expiry date. The idea that pharmacists could simply keep a stock of loose leaflets in the shop to hand out to customers as and when needed fails to meet that important requirement, quite apart from imposing a gigantic shelf-space problem for pharmacists.
It is worth taking a moment or two to scrutinise the department's current position. It is saying, as I understand it, that the introduction of patient packs will bring with it unwelcome complexity in terms of the changes to dispensing rules that are needed. I simply do not understand that point. The changes to dispensing rules are quite straightforward. Their aim would be to enable a pharmacist to round up or round down the quantity of medicine dispensed to match the size of the patient pack.
The real issue here is the need to educate both doctors and pharmacists in what they should now be doing. But that complication is hardly a show-stopper. Doctors and pharmacists have already been on the receiving end of a large amount of information designed to encourage a rapid shift to patient pack prescribing and dispensing. Any mismatch between prescribing patterns and pack sizes will not be a major difficulty and there is agreement among pharmacists that it is less complex for them to dispense using the bounded rounding rules than to continue to split packs of medicine inappropriately.
The department's other concern is cost. It has assumed that the whole programme of conversion to patient packs will involve a transition period lasting three years, during which costs will rise. In a Written Answer in another place last December from the Minister of State, Tessa Jowell, the net costs for the family health services and the Prescription Pricing Authority of implementing the previous government's proposals were put at about £60 million over the next three years. The pharmaceutical industry does not understand this calculation or its underlying assumptions. Those calculations which the department has shared with the industry suggest that not only are they a worst case—perhaps even an impossibly worst case—but that they omit altogether any savings arising from the two main benefits of this initiative.
The first of the benefits relates to generic medicines. There is a perfectly valid concern that the price of generic medicines that are switched across to patient packs will go up. It is certainly true that more generic medicines than branded medicines have still to come on board the scheme and costs will indeed rise more markedly for this group of drugs. But the real question

1247
is how much difference patient packs will make to the overall drugs bill for the NHS. The introduction of patient packs for generics will almost certainly enable more GPs to feel confident enough to prescribe generic products in circumstances where they would have prescribed a branded product before. As little as a 1 to 2 per cent. swing from branded to generic use would give a net saving in one year equal to the estimated costs of the entire patient pack initiative over three years. And that is before any account is taken of the savings to be generated from a reduction of waste.
I hope the Minister will not say that the reduction of waste cannot be relied on with certainty and is therefore a matter of speculation. For obvious reasons it is impossible to quantify such savings with any precision. But if it is true, as I mentioned earlier, that £60 million worth of medicines is thrown away every year, the scope for a very dramatic improvement is clear.
I should be grateful if the Minister would give us her own perspective on these issues. Does the department accept that significant savings are in the offing from the introduction of patient packs to offset—indeed, substantially offset—any additional costs? If she does not feel able to answer that question today, will she agree to allow representatives of the industry to sit down once more with Ministers and with DoH officials to look at the whole issue again? It is not too late to do so. The industry expressed its grave misgivings about the department's costings as soon as it saw them and it feels that it has not been given the opportunity to go through them in detail with officials.
The end that we should have in view is that all parties—industry, healthcare professionals and the Department of Health—should work together to ensure that patients benefit from the new regime which the European directive was designed to usher in. The regrettable fact is that this initiative, which is all about better care for patients and is supported by numerous professional bodies and patient organisations, cannot succeed as it should without the Government's backing. That backing, as the Minister will know, needs to include an amendment to prescribing and dispensing regulations. I believe that the barriers to agreement are not insuperable and I hope very much that the Minister will feel able to approach this matter again in her customary constructive spirit to the ultimate benefit of patients.
Lord Winston: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he clarify one point. He referred twice to £60 million of drugs being thrown away. Is that the basic NHS cost of prescribed drugs or is it based on retail prices, as there is a considerable mark-up in chemists' prices?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I understand it, the figure was estimated by the National Audit Office and relates to the cost to the NHS of the drugs that are thrown away.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my noble friend has admirably set out the case in favour of the patient pack initiative and has raised a number of questions for
1248
the Minister to reply to. I share his concern that what started three years ago as an agreed, collaborative rolling programme, with the Department of Health giving what has been described as "unequivocal support", seems now to be bogged down because this Government are now refusing to make the necessary changes in the regulations. That is what is really required of them.
I only want to add three points to the case made by my noble friend. First, there really can be no doubt whatever that to give every patient supplied with a prescription drug a full information leaflet is of great benefit to all concerned. Patients and their carers now, perfectly reasonably, demand more information. They want a clear statement of the benefits and a note of the possible side-effects of drugs. They want advice on storage and on the length of the treatment. For their part, doctors can assume that every patient will get the required information in a readily understandable form, which he or she can study at leisure. It is well recognised that patients do not always remember what is said to them in the doctor's consulting room. Pharmacists can dispense in an easily identifiable pack with the information already enclosed. As my noble friend said, the system should reduce the quantity of loose tablets and capsules stored, not always safely, in bathroom cabinets at home, which should not only reduce waste but should prevent the accidental poisoning of children.
My noble friend mentioned the EU directive which will require us to ensure that essential information is provided to patients. If this is to be given effect to, the Government will have to take the steps necessary to ensure that this country complies. The patient pack initiative has until now been seen as the way ahead. My first question to the noble Baroness is this. Do the Government still accept this case; and if not, why not? If they do, why do they not get on and deal with it?
My second point—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Winston, in his place—arises from the report published by the Select Committee on Science and Technology a week or two ago entitled Resistance to Antibiotics. There is much said in that report about the need to ensure compliance with prescribing recommendations.
I had the honour to serve on that committee, as indeed did the noble Lord. We said at paragraph 2.47,
"The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has addressed this problem in a valuable document entitled From Compliance to Concordance".
It is a very interesting study. We went on to say,
"The RCGP observe that compliance can be encouraged by drug and regimen design, and by patient information, on which there is recent EU legislation which they support. The ABPI are 'particularly keen' on improving compliance by means of new formulations; and they support the Patient Pack Initiative on patient information".
We have some fairly convincing evidence to support that statement in the report from the evidence presented to us by the Royal College of General Practitioners at paragraph 3.7. They said,
"We also support better provision of written information and instructions to patients in line with recent EU legislation and we support the recent initiatives of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain in respect of compliance/concordance".

1249
The ABPI also gave us strong evidence. This is all in the context of avoiding the continuing build-up of resistance to antibiotics. They pointed out in their evidence that,
"Antibiotic resistance is a global problem and"
needs "better education". They said,
"The Patient Pack Initiative will ensure that all patients will receive a patient information leaflet with all their medicines. The leaflet for antibiotics will remind patients that they should take the medicines as prescribed and must finish the course even though they may well feel better. The reason for this will also be explained.
When the report was published the Government made it clear that they regard the whole problem as a desperately serious issue, as indeed it is. The committee was very alarmed by much of the evidence that we heard. I suggested that we might call our report, "How can we stop the bugs winning?". How can we avoid going back to the horrors of the pre-antibiotic age? The committee indicated that the patient pack initiative can help in that battle and yet here, almost at the first hurdle since the report was published, we have the Government dragging their feet and refusing to work with the industry and the professions to make the PPI effective.
My last point is that I believe it is really a matter of good faith. In 1995 the Department of Health, at ministerial level, gave the pharmaceutical industry what it describes as "an unequivocal assurance" that the scheme had the department's support. On the basis of that assurance, the industry has spent millions of pounds in gearing itself up in order to be able to implement the initiative only now to find, three years later, that the department is resiling from its commitment.
Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness how the Government will ensure compliance with the EU directive which, as I understand it, is binding on us and has to be effective by the end of this year? Can they not, even now, come clean and give the industry and all the professions involved, who support this initiative, as my noble friend made clear, the assurance that they, the Government, will play their part in implementing this initiative?
I regard this as a sorry tale of a government apparently reneging on a clear promise made to those with whom the 1995 agreement was concluded after 18 months of negotiations. It is not too late to make amends and I hope that the noble Baroness will tell the House this evening that that is exactly what they are going to do because I believe we should expect nothing less.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will have rejoiced with me if she saw the recently published annual report of the World Health Organisation which stated that more people reached the age of 50 in Britain than anywhere else in the world. Five years ago the WHO cited the Government's policy for the health of the nation as a model for other countries to follow. I would not for a moment claim that 18 years of Conservative Government is solely responsible for the healthiest middle aged population in the world.
1250
Likewise the pharmaceutical industry, which is recognised globally as being outstanding in its development and manufacture of therapeutic products, would not claim that it has been responsible for achieving this cadre of energetic and healthy 50 year-olds.
But I believe that we would all acknowledge that its contribution has been immense, not least in the field of HIV and AIDS, a field in which I know the Minister has extensive knowledge and expertise. It is wonderful to see these young people who were previously doomed to die, now living and working, leading almost normal lives, thanks to the ingenuity and the investment of drug companies in producing effective combination therapies.
However, medication, if not treated responsibly, can be exceedingly dangerous. As my noble friends have said, its use does require a partnership between patients, doctors, pharmacists, manufacturers, the MCA, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and the Government.
Close working between all parties is essential and from the patient's point of view there is a very strong wish for better communication, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin has said, and a thirst for knowledge on the efficacy and side effects of the medication prescribed, which is, of course, why the patient pack initiative is so crucial. This in no way erodes the duty of care that doctors have in carrying out their prescribing, but it is essential for safety both in use and manufacture.
The Minister, after a year in government, will have discovered the difficulties of introducing any new initiative, especially where the Treasury has an interest. In my experience there is hardly a nook or cranny in government in which the Treasury does not have an interest.
My noble friend Lord Howe has raised the issue of costs so I am not going to go into those in detail, but simply ask the Minister, as he has done, on what basis the department has reached its figures. There is a suspicion that they are based on a worst case scenario and that in itself has been exaggerated. We really do not know whether there is a solid foundation for these estimates. I am not suggesting that the figures are at all false, but we need to know on what they are based. I did give notice earlier today to the Minister that I was going to ask these questions. I hope that she will be able to go into some detail to help us understand how the figures are made up.
The Minister will be aware also that the industry, frustrated by the Government's procrastination, has recently announced its decision to go ahead to introduce patient packs itself, and that is not surprising since it has invested many millions of pounds in this initiative. Therefore, it would be understandable if the Government felt that there is no need to lay the necessary regulations.
But there are two points that I wish to make here. The first is the safety of patients and, secondly, the European dimension. When the initial launch took place two or three years ago, there was strong support from not only the bodies which had a direct interest such as the BMA, the ABPI, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and so on, but also from seven of the leading voluntary

1251
organisations: the National Osteoporosis Society, the Parkinson's Disease Society, the Depression Alliance, the National Eczema Society, the British Epilepsy Association, the National Asthma Campaign and the Patients Association.
I mention all these organisations because they are highly respected for their integrity and professional approach and represent a vast number of patients. These organisations have continued to campaign for the patient pack initiative on the grounds of safety, saving on wastage, non-compliance and repeat visits to the GP. They also make the very cogent argument that if the packs contain information on the availability of confidential helplines, they will be able to give advice and answer the queries which some patients find too embarrassing to ask their doctor.
Perhaps I may give an example of HRT for osteoporosis. I know that some women, once they are prescribed that medication, go home and then think, "If I am taking this drug and I have a period, will that mean I could get pregnant?" That person may be far too shy to go back and ask her doctor, whereas an anonymous osteoporosis nurse, at the end of a helpline, would be of enormous value in answering her concerns. I do believe that men taking HRT are not worried about this particular issue, but they also have very real worries. Information on helplines accompanying the medication, would be of enormous value to patients.
Since the pharmaceutical industry is going to introduce these packs and leaflets of its own volition, there is a danger that the Government may feel that the issue has evaporated. But that is a non sequitur as the pharmaceutical industry cannot cover all prescriptions and it will miss around 20 to 25 per cent. a year. In percentage terms this does not sound much but it represents about 125 million prescriptions a year which is a huge amount. That is why it is essential that the Government should produce the necessary regulations.
Both the ABPI and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are anxious that some discretion should be built into the regulations so that common sense can prevail. With the cutting of packs there is no guarantee that leaflets will not be separated from the medication to which they belong. The cutting of packs anyhow is a nonsense if it can be avoided.
There are a number of very good reasons for the patient pack initiative, many of which have been or will be raised in the debate. But there is also the requirement referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkin to comply with the European Council Labelling and Leaflet Directive which comes into force in January 1999. In a Written Answer on 12th December of last year the noble Baroness's honourable friend the Minister of State, Tessa Jowell, said:
"We … are considering whether it will be necessary to implement the European Council Labelling and Leaflet Directive by other means".—[Official Report, Commons; 12/12/97; col. WA 736.]
Can the Minister inform the House whether in the intervening five months the department has reached a conclusion on that matter? If there are other means can she outline them? Listening to those who are involved in this issue, there is a genuine desire to resolve it in
1252
partnership with the Government. Perhaps the Minister can be generous tonight and give an undertaking that her door will be open to all those who are anxious to see this matter concluded and that she will work closely with them in the spirit of partnership so extolled by the Government.
Dr. Peter Read, the recently retired and distinguished president of the ABPI, has stated:
"Patient packs are the best, simplest and most convenient method of ensuring that patients get full details about their medicine. This has been standard practice throughout Europe for many years now, and I can see no justification for continuing to deny it to large numbers of people in this country".
I say amen to that.
Finally, I have a cutting from Tuesday's edition of the Daily Telegraph which bears the headline, "Ministers to get a 'school report—. The article went on to explain the plans drawn up by the Cabinet Office to monitor the performance of Ministers. None of us can have any doubt about the competence of the noble Baroness, but if she is to receive an alpha plus I believe that she must lay these regulations before the House. I believe that from the point of view of the National Health Service and those who are involved in this issue she will certainly get top of the class.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for tabling this Unstarred Question as not only does it give us an opportunity to discuss the important subject of the dispensing of drugs but also to touch on one or two of the wider issues relating to the part that drugs play in the health service as a whole. When the initiative on patient packs was launched in 1995, four advantages were highlighted—compliance, assurance, safety and effectiveness—and there can be little doubt that these are objectives worthy of support. The initiative also took account of the EC directive that came into force in 1994 which sets out in detail the information that should be available to patients when drugs are dispensed.
However, nothing is ever as simple as it may appear at first sight. At present, the majority of branded drugs are pre-packed and accompanied by the appropriate information. This is not always the case with generic drugs. One of the considerable impacts on the NHS drugs bill is caused by the difference in cost of branded and generic drugs. If every generic drug were blister-packed, for instance the 75 milligrams of aspirin which is taken to prevent coronary heart disease, the cost would become prohibitive. On the other hand, there are other drugs where the advantages of pre-packing outweigh any additional cost that may be incurred; for example, where medication is prescribed for high blood pressure. Hypertension is asymptomatic, but the drug therapy can make the patient feel dizzy and unable to sleep at night. Compliance is essential to prevent further cardiac problems and other organ damage. A patient pack which has the days of the week printed on it would encourage the patient not to miss a dose. Therefore, it is very important that the campaign to provide drugs in patient packs where this is known to have considerable advantages is vigorously pursued.

1253
My noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Jenkin and Lady Cumberlege have emphasised most effectively the importance of the patient pack initiative. Rather than repeat what has already been said, I take a minute or two to describe a pilot scheme involving regular repeat instalment dispensing which is now running in Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Authority of which I am chairman. This is one of five schemes supported and funded by the Department of Health. The scheme has several purposes: first, to involve the pharmacist more directly in the continuing drug treatment of individual patients; secondly, to increase compliance; and, thirdly, to prevent waste. In the authority nine GPs and 240 patients have been recruited to the pilot scheme. Our pilot is slightly different from the other four in that patients may take their prescriptions to any pharmacy in the three boroughs. This means that there is 100 per cent. participation in the scheme by pharmacists, although those who operate within the catchment areas of the nine practices will obviously be most involved.
Under present arrangements, if medication is prescribed for six months the patient is usually issued with a prescription for one to three months, depending on individual practices' repeat prescribing policy. The patient will then go back to reception at the surgery for a repeat for a further three months without necessarily seeing the GP.
Under the pilot scheme, the difference is that the patient is issued by the GP with an initial prescription and five repeats, all with a distinctive identification. As each prescription expires, the patient returns to the pharmacist and together they complete a patient assessment form. The next month's medication is then issued and this is repeated until the six months are up. If the patient is having problems, these are discussed with the pharmacist who can take one of three courses of action. He can try to persuade the patient to continue with the medication, or agree with the patient that it is right to stop the medication, or refer the patient back to the GP. The pharmacist receives a fee for each intervention and the trial runs for six months.
The data that has been returned so far from the Prescription Pricing Authority indicates that already savings can be identified. However, it will not be until October, when data covering the whole of the six months is received and analysed by the authority, that it will be known what effect the scheme has had on the prescribing pattern. After the project ends in June there will be meetings with patient and GP focus groups and a full report will be written up by the beginning of next year.
Already a number of benefits can be identified. For instance, the scheme creates an incentive for pharmacists to monitor medication and not issue drugs where that is inappropriate. It also has benefits for the patient. Regardless of whether or not it is rolled out nationally when the results of all the pilots are known, it is a system which would lend itself very well to being operated by individual primary care groups. The co-operation and enthusiasm that patients, GPs and pharmacists are all demonstrating is most encouraging.
1254
I have spent some time describing this pilot, although it is not directly connected with patient packs, because it is another way of increasing patient understanding of the drugs they are taking and compliance with their drug regime. It seems to me to be a very good way of increasing the involvement of our highly skilled body of pharmacists in direct patient care.
Although waste has already been referred to, I should like to remind noble Lords that 10 per cent. of the total NHS budget goes on funding drugs. Historically, this percentage has been rising despite the rise in the total NHS budget. Of all drugs issued, 64 per cent. are for repeat prescriptions. Of that 64 per cent. it is calculated that 50 per cent. is wasted. This is a staggering amount. Any initiative which not only reduces waste of NHS funds but increases patient compliance—non-compliance has the double effect of reducing benefit to the patient and wasting resources—must be vigorously pursued.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin used the word "concordance". It has been drawn to my attention that that word should now be used instead of "compliance" because "concordance" more accurately reflects a sense of partnership and co-operation between patient and doctor or pharmacist.
Another factor that increases pressure on the budget is the coming on stream of expensive new drugs. This is probably occurring on an unprecedented scale. For instance, my health authority has recently received a request for the funding of a new drug with life-saving properties to treat a rare condition. At the moment, that drug could cost up to £300,000 per year per patient. The benefits to the patient versus equity and opportunity costs are still being calculated in this case. New drugs such as Orlisat for the treatment of obesity, and the much publicised Viagra, will add to funding pressures and difficult decisions which could involve rationing will have to be taken. Progress in drug technology is controlling hitherto uncontrollable symptoms and extending life. At the same time new drugs are becoming available at ever-increasing cost to the NHS.
There is so much that can be done to advance the four factors set out in the case for patient packs, with considerable benefit to patients, but also with the effect of directing the budget in a way which prevents waste. I hope that all sensible proposals will be listened to, and pilots that prove successful will become widespread practice.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Alderdice it falls to me to welcome the debate which has been stimulated by the noble Earl, Lord Howe's Question.
I come to this matter with a lack of prejudice born of ignorance. I have become increasingly sceptical as I read the sort of material, which has clearly been used by other people, about the Minister's stated reasons for putting into question the introduction of patient packs to which the previous government committed themselves in 1995. It is bad practice in this kind of case to renege on commitments made by previous governments.

1255
Obviously you cannot keep everything, but if you have a situation where large numbers of partners—including the companies which produce the drugs—have been involved in taking a decision, which has been confirmed by the department, and has resulted in them taking actions affecting their own businesses, and then the whole thing is put into doubt, it is a marginal case but it is not an attractive way of conducting government.
This is particularly so in the case where the Government have committed themselves to the standing programme of their predecessors which contained, no doubt, an element for the expenditure which it was then anticipated would be involved in pushing this initiative further. There is a question over this whole action.
Earlier speakers, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles of Moulton, have all made out very clearly the advantages of this particular approach of patient packs. Without going through it all in detail, it aids prescription and dispensing of medicine. The packs provide not just the right dose which the patient requires, but the information which enables the patient to take control of his own use of that medicine and to understand why he should complete the course. That is a particularly important point which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made because of his particular knowledge. The need to complete courses of antibiotics is something of which some of us are aware, but many people are not.
There is a safety element in the home in that it reduces the amount of left-over and unlabelled bits of medicine lying about in people's houses. There is an element of the reduced cost to the health service in as much as there is greater efficiency in the dispensing of medicines, in the prescription of medicines, and there is therefore less waste.
Dispensing chemists are not obliged to spend large proportions of their time counting pills and can therefore spend more of their time performing the other part of their job which is advising the customers who come to their shops and counters for their prescriptions as to how they can best use the information and the drugs with which they are being supplied.
Noble Lords would not expect me to underestimate the importance that the use of such packs would have in enabling the UK to comply with the 1994 EU directive on drug labelling and leaflets, an initiative which the previous government supported. This could ensure that the UK met the deadline for that compliance.
A number of reasons have been put forward as to why the Government might have changed the approach of their predecessor. The one that strikes most strongly is the question of cost. Is it the cost of £60 million to £67 million over four years which has deterred the Government from continuing with this agreed approach to solving a particular range of projects? I have seen some material with some information about government costs in this connection—obviously that material is not very detailed—and I support the questions asked by other people about what the basis for these calculations has been.
1256
I spent 12 years in local government and I learned—as many hundreds of thousands of people have before me and, no doubt, many more thousands since I left—that when you read a paper provided by officers you should ask yourselves not only whether you agree with what is in that paper, but what has not been included. When you are providing a rationale for taking or not taking decisions, normally the officers provide a cost benefit analysis. The financial benefits of this particular approach have been clearly outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Howe; I will repeat only one of them. If clear labelling of all the generic medicines, and the accompanying of those medicines with the correct information, were to increase the proportion of generic medicines prescribed by only 1 or 2 per cent., you would much more than offset the cost, on an ongoing basis, of the introduction of this pack system. One has to ask why the cost benefit of this new system has not apparently been considered, at any rate not recently.
My second question is directed at the value-for-money concept. Even if there are some costs associated with the patient pack approach, is not the value which the approach brings worth at least some cost? We are not talking about better value for no money at all but better value for money in public services.
My final question is if the Minister is unable to reassure the House that the patient pack initiative will go ahead in a co-operative way between the Government and other partners rather than by the decision of one partner how do the Government propose to meet the EU directive in time and in an orderly fashion?
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for raising this Question and to those other noble Lords who have taken part in this short but nonetheless interesting debate.
The brief answer to the noble Earl's Question is that the Government, of course, support the intentions of the European labelling and leaflet directive. We particularly always support provisions which enable patients to have a better understanding of the treatments they are being offered and, in the case of medicines, the medicines that they are using. However, we do not support the details of the complex and costly plans developed by the previous administration, which have become known as the patient pack initiative. The present Government cannot justify diverting large sums of money from the NHS budget to meet the additional costs involved in these plans. We believe, to put it simply, that as far as possible NHS resources should be spent on direct patient care.
I find it somewhat extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, should be surprised and see it as almost politically unacceptable that the Government should change health service policy this area. I am almost tempted to ask them whether they regard it as dishonourable that we move to dismantle the GP fundholder system in which many people under the

1257
previous administration had a vested and large interest and under which many commitments were given by the previous government—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I did not suggest that it was dishonourable. I said that it was a marginal case and not very desirable.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps "dishonourable" was the stronger language used by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, with respect, I said that it was a breach of faith. And that it most certainly is. The Minister has been the most ready to defend every action of the Government by reference to their manifesto, but there was nothing in the Labour Party manifesto about this.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hesitate to enter a long debate on this not totally central point of the discussion. But, frankly, what is agreed between officials and Ministers in a previous administration does not in any way constitute a faithful commitment to a subsequent administration.
It is worth reminding your Lordships of the present state of play as regards this issue. The basic requirements of the European legislation have already been introduced into British domestic law. It is the case that in most other member states the directive has been simple to implement because medicines are placed on the market in pre-packed packs with patient information sealed into them. In this country, our pharmacists are required to dispense precisely what a doctor prescribes and not to dispense packages of fixed size with a fixed number of pills chosen by the manufacturer rather than by the doctor. The question has therefore been how best to ensure that patients in this country receive the information which they should have and which now by law they are entitled to have.
For many medicines, the question is already answered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, pointed out, according to the pharmacy industry's information—I refer to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry 1997 annual report—more than 80 per cent. of medicines are already available in patient pack form and 67 per cent. of prescriptions are dispensed in this way. Where possible, the Department of Health has been working closely in partnership with the industry and the professions to match pack sizes to appropriate treatment lengths to avoid waste and additional costs.
However, over many years NHS patients have benefited and continue to benefit from so called generic medicines. The suppliers of these medicines have kept prices low by supplying them in bulk to pharmacists. Pharmacists then dispense them in the exact amounts shown on any prescription in small containers. It is therefore in respect of those medicines that we need to be sure that patients receive proper information leaflets on compliance or concordance, dosage and other relevant matters. They need that information when they receive their medicines.
1258
The previous government developed a complex and costly set of proposals—those which we have discussed tonight as the so-called patient pack initiative—in an attempt to cope with the situation. Plans were based on detailed changes to pharmacists' dispensing rules with a view to moving rapidly to a situation where manufacturers' packs could be routinely dispensed for every medicine. The Government's analysis of the money which would be diverted from direct patient care to meet the additional costs associated with these plans would have been up to £60 million extra over the first three years of any scheme and some £15 million a year after that.
I am well aware that the industry has challenged these figures which were provided to it in detail by officials last November. However, the industry has been invited to provide its own detailed costings, but it has not yet done so. The noble Earl was kind enough to inform me that he might raise the issue of sufficient discussion between the department and the industry on these costings. I took the opportunity of his early warning to consult with officials in the department. Frankly, they expressed incredulity at that accusation. Without referring to detailed diaries they suggested that they had had at least half a dozen meetings on this issue with members of the industry. The accusation of lack of information may therefore be somewhat misplaced.
As the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, asked me to detail some of the costs and explain how they were arrived at, I am delighted to do so. I apologise to the House if it may seem somewhat detailed. Officials at the Department of Health wrote to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and other groups in November last year with an explanatory note on the costings. The projected cost of the proposals had an overall figure of about £60 million. Those were the figures for the plans developed under the previous government.
The main cost component was an increase in the price of generic drugs. The industry has said that it would have to increase its prices if it were producing medicines in small patient packs rather than in bulk supplies. The industry apparently reached an agreement with the previous government that the cost increase would be up to £25 million.
The alleged justification for these price increases was that there would be a corresponding saving of around £25 million in the allowance paid to pharmacists and dispensing doctors for repackaging medicines; the so called "container allowance". But the actual savings would have been much less than that, according to the department's analysis, and would have been around £16 million to £18 million by the end of the implementation period. This is because pharmacists would relatively often have needed to break the packs in order to meet doctors' prescriptions. Even with some degree of rounding, obviously within clinically acceptable bounds, there will remain a number of cases where the amount the doctor prescribes is not sufficiently close to an available pack size to justify rounding. The net effect of these two factors—the price

1259
increases and the container allowance savings—would, it was estimated, have been a cost to the NHS of around £8 million by the end of the implementation period.
The other main cost elements were, first, some upward drift in the quantity of drugs dispensed in the NHS as a result of the proposed rounding rules at an annual cost of between £2 million to £5 million. In essence, there would have been more rounding up for acute medicines than rounding down. Secondly, there would have a pharmacists' compensation claim of £9 million for residual stock which became unusable as a result of a switch to patient packs. It was estimated that the cost would be £3 million a year during the implementation period. In addition, increased operational costs for the Prescription Pricing Authority to administer the complex new dispensing and reimbursement rules for pharmacists and dispensing doctors were estimated to be around £3 million a year.
It was estimated that the total cost would have been just under £20 million, with these major components, by the end of the implementation period, or around £15 million once the compensation for residual stock was no longer payable. During the implementation period, the analysis showed that the average annual cost would have been slightly higher, primarily because reductions in the container allowance would have lagged behind increases in prices.
I am sorry if the explanation has been drawn out and long-winded, but I was asked for the details and I am happy to give them. It is important to emphasise that the costs were associated with a particular set of proposals which we inherited from the previous government; the so called patient pack initiative. There is no inherent reason why the price tag has to be attached to having a greater number of prescriptions met by patient packs and certainly not to providing patients with the right information when they need it.
Progress is being made on several fronts. As already mentioned tonight, the pharmaceutical industry, through its representative body, the ABPI, announced last month that it would be moving in any event into patient packs because, as it said in its press release when it made the announcement, it had not struck a deal with the Department of Health. We welcome this—not that it has not struck a deal but that it is moving ahead under its own steam.
The size of the packs which it seeks to introduce has to be determined primarily on the basis of clinical decisions by doctors. As I said earlier, what a GP prescribes should be determined by what is right for the patient and the NHS rather than simply a marketing decision by the manufacturer. We will, of course, encourage close working between industry and the professions to facilitate that.
We are also willing in principle, and this is in the light of the noble Earl's request to me to be constructive, to consider some rounding rules, perhaps downwards, within clinically acceptable limits. But for the foreseeable future there will continue to be a bulk supply of some medicines. To ensure that these medicines are dispensed with appropriate labels for pharmacists and leaflets for patients, the Medicines
1260
Control Agency will shortly be starting a consultation process on regulations. The NHS needs to be certain that manufacturers and suppliers are providing sufficient quantities of the right quality information.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat that for the Government and the health service the important principle is that patients must get the information they need and the medicines they want in a form which is most clinically and cost effective.
We will indeed work with the manufacturers and suppliers of medicines, with the clinical professions and with pharmacists to achieve what we see as this common aim. But we do not intend to spend up to £60 million of public funds to underwrite a commercially very successful industry to comply with the legal requirement to market its products in a safe and appropriate way.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I thank her for that detailed reply on the costings. Some of the elements that she has mentioned have been challenged by the industry. I have the correspondence here but I think it would be inappropriate to go through that tonight. Perhaps I may also ask her if she would answer my question about complying with the EU directive, especially in the light of the comments made by her honourable friend, Tessa Jowell, as to how the Government propose to get over this problem. She said that the Government are considering whether it will be necessary to implement the European Council labelling and leaflet directive by other means. Can the Minister say what those other means are?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the question of the challenge to those costs which I mentioned as being something the industry has taken up with the department. However, I should like to repeat that it has not come up with an overall figure of its own to counteract that.
On the issue of the alternatives I hope that in the later stages of my remarks when, for example, I spoke about the Medicines Control Agency consultation on regulations and on our willingness to consider in principle the possibility of rounding down prescriptions in order to extend their use, I gave some indication of the direction of travel on implementing the directive.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 9.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.3 to 9.5 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Moynihanmoved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause—
RE-WEIGHTING OF VOTES IN THE COUNCIL
(". No provision 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 which extends the procedure for co-decision-making with the European Parliament shall have effect in the United Kingdom until the re-weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers anticipated in Protocol 11 to that Treaty has been agreed upon and implemented.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12 standing in my name. I have tabled this amendment because of the paramount importance the Opposition, and indeed the Government, rightly attach to enlargement of the European Union, as the historic and moral challenge of our generation—a sentiment which I know is shared across all sides of this House.
The present union, its institutions and mechanisms, were designed nearly half a century ago for six states. No one expects these to serve effectively a Europe of the 21st century in all its diversity. To fulfil the mission of enlargement—and it is a mission—difficult issues must be addressed and difficult decisions made, including the re-weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers. Without re-weighting, the smaller member states will have power disproportionate to their populations, enabling them to outvote the larger member states. That situation will only worsen as the European Union is enlarged to include the smaller states of central and eastern Europe.
The proposed new clause delays the extension of powers to the European Parliament until agreement is reached on overall institutional changes which the Government failed to achieve at Amsterdam. As I made clear earlier today, I do not wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the advance in the powers of the European Parliament is an important gain in its own right, certainly not in comparison with the need for the institutional changes required for enlargement. Nor can I understand how the Government can claim to have increased democracy in the Union when they failed to address the issue of re-weighting the votes in the Council of Ministers, which would more closely relate each country's influence to the size of its population.
A major goal of this IGC—perhaps the major goal—was to reform the European Union's institutions in order that they should continue to be effective after further enlargement. As I have said before, if Amsterdam had a raison d'être, an idea behind it, a purpose to achieve, it was the acknowledgment that Europe does not end at the Elbe and that institutional changes and reforms were necessary to pave the way for enlargement. We are all agreed on that. The re-weighting of votes is not just necessary; it is vital before the process of enlargement can succeed.
1262
In the present voting system, the United Kingdom, like France, Germany and Italy, wields 10 votes out of 87. Yet those four states represent more than two-thirds of the European Union's population. Democratic legitimacy demands that the relative influence of the more populous states is increased. At present, the system gives one vote for every 200,000 Luxembourgers but only one vote for every 8 million Germans or 6 million people in the United Kingdom, France or Italy. Without reform, the bias against the more populous member states, which are also the largest net contributors to the European Union budget, will become even more pronounced with the accession of more, mainly small, states. Malta has only 400,000 inhabitants, Cyprus 700,000 and Estonia, 1.5 million. A European Union of 27 members containing all the current candidates for accession would include 15 with populations of fewer than 10 million people, about the size of Greater London, and only six, including the United Kingdom, with populations of more than 30 million.
Clearly, the bigger the European Union becomes, the more necessary it will be for states like our own to ensure that any risk of QMV is based on a weighting of votes which reflects the population of individual member states.
The present voting system gives rise to the possibility that small states will be given overweening power and we are drifting towards a situation in which, if many more states enter the European Union, we might have Germany, Britain or France or Germany, Britain and Italy voting together and being voted down by the combined weight of all the other member states despite the fact that in population terms, nothing like an adequate majority would have been achieved.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord will agree that a system which allows countries representing a significant percentage of the European Union's population or the major net contributors as a group to be outvoted would not be acceptable to the United Kingdom. Given the late hour at which the matter was discussed in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, understandably, did not wish to burden the Committee with the mathematics which the Government will use to determine acceptable criteria for re-weighting. But perhaps today he will comment on the two broad approaches which have been suggested for overcoming the present bias; namely, either changing the number of votes within the current system or the introduction of a second voting criterion.
Given that other less tangible factors beside population, such as the sovereign right of even the smallest states to have a say and member states' global political responsibilities, are also relevant in achieving a sensible balance for determining relative influence, does the Minister agree that, of the two broad approaches that I have mentioned, it would be by far the better solution for this country and for the Union as a whole to reflect those wider considerations of sovereignty and global political responsibilities by changing the number of votes within the current system rather than by introducing the second voting criterion?
The issue of re-weighting votes in the Council of Ministers was raised by the former Prime Minister, John Major, during the Greek presidency. He was

1263
rightly concerned that the qualified majority voting should not continue on the present basis whereby votes in an electoral college are given to individual member states rather arbitrarily in a way that bears no relation to their population. So as to avoid being accused of excluding the Scandinavians and others from membership, it was agreed at the informal Foreign Affairs Council in Ioánnina in March 1994 that the IGC would discuss the arrangements for majority voting, and notably the weighting of votes in the system.
Prior to the conclusion of the IGC at Amsterdam, the Foreign Secretary was unequivocally bullish in his confident assertion that he had the negotiating skills to secure voting reform in the Council of Ministers when he told another place:
"I believe we can look forward with confidence to obtaining more votes for Britain and the larger countries from the Amsterdam summit. Enlargement could create the perverse outcome of the three largest nations, with the majority of the population of Europe, not having a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers. We have every reason to believe that we shall emerge from Amsterdam with an agreement that will give Britain greater weight in the Council of Ministers".
But, as the House knows, despite the Foreign Secretary's confidence, he failed at Amsterdam. The final text of the treaty demonstrates that this issue proved too controversial for his negotiating skills.
Protocol 11 on the institutions, with the prospect of enlargement, represents the fruits of his negotiation and is a bad apple or an unripe lemon, if ever there was one. In fairness, however, the Foreign Secretary attempted to rally and said that he was,
"pleased to say that we have had it explicitly written into the treaty that the issue of the rebalancing of votes in the Council of Ministers must be addressed before any further enlargement takes place".
Why, when prior to the summit the Foreign Secretary was so confident that he would return with the key institutional reforms necessary for enlargement, does Article 1 of the protocol simply state the requirement, apparent since the last enlargement took place in 1995, to reweight the votes in Council and to adjust the present number of Commissioners?
The immediate effect of Protocol 11 is to postpone changes to the size and composition of the Commission and to the voting weights in Council to a later date. It also provides that, when further enlargement takes place, the Commission shall comprise one national of each of the member states. This has committed the Union to reform of the Commission; but, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, very helpfully explained in Committee, only if greater influence is given to Britain in the Council of Ministers' weighted voting, as we are one of the countries which will lose our second Commissioner.
As I understand it, Britain's position has always been that we would agree to give up our second Commissioner provided that we were compensated through vote reweighting. On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, sought to confirm that that was still the Government's position. He quoted Article 1 of the protocol; namely, that the Commission
1264
will consist of one Commissioner per member state on enlargement, but only if,
"by that date, the weighting of the votes in the Council … has been modified in a manner acceptable to all member states".—[Official Report, 16/2/98; col. 111.]
However, the only problem—and your Lordships will appreciate that I wrestled with this as I drove home late at night after the Committee considerations—is that I was sure that the Minister had missed out nine key words from his quote. The full text in the protocol reads that the provision will only apply,
"provided that, by that date, the weighting of the votes in the Council has been modified, whether by reweighting of the votes or by dual majority, in a manner acceptable to all member states".
Therefore, in the context of the full quote, I should like to ask whether the loss of our second Commissioner by the year 2003, to which the Government agreed is in fact compensated for by a watertight, legal guarantee to reweight the votes in Council.
Naturally, I turned to the memorandum of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which, I regret to say, did not inspire confidence in me on the point. It said:
"The major institutional issues of vote reweighting and reform of the Commission were not resolved by the Amsterdam Treaty. Instead, the Protocol envisages a move towards one Commissioner per member state to take effect only on the next enlargement of the Union and provided that a satisfactory vote reweighting formula can be agreed at the same time, notably compensating larger members'".
Therefore, can the noble Lord confirm that we are committed to giving up our second commissioner in a legally binding protocol, upon which others may indeed rely in the Court of Justice, in a treaty which actually only envisages a satisfactory vote reweighting formula? Can the noble Lord also confirm that there is no specific commitment in the protocol to the reweighting of votes in the Council of Ministers, and that the future arrangements envisaged provide for either a reweighting of votes or the incorporation of dual majority into Council decision-making? Does the Minister accept that the latter is not an acceptable solution for Britain?
The Minister of State in another place insisted that he would not agree to our second Commissioner being removed without reweighting. We on these Benches strongly support that stance. But why, then, did he agree to the inclusion of an alternative to reweighting; namely, the use of dual majority in the treaty text? The Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and the noble Lord have on several occasions recorded their bitter disappointment that no further progress on the institutional reforms necessary for enlargement was made. We share that disappointment. Indeed we on these Benches share not just that sense of disappointment but also the alarm that has been echoed throughout the central and eastern European applicant nations.
Until Committee stage it was not clear why no progress had been made. During our debate in July the noble Lord said that at Amsterdam agreement was near. Last July the explanation of the failure to reach agreement was as follows. The noble Lord said:
"We failed on the institutional side to agree the size of the Commission or the reweighting of votes but we came close to agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked me why. One slightly flip answer is that we did not reach that item until four

1265
o'clock in the morning. It may be that the heads of government or other states were not quite as alert at that point as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister".
To be completely fair to the noble Lord, in Committee he substituted for that flip explanation a rather more sober and thought-provoking one. He told the Committee that when the Government came to the negotiating table there was already deadlock on the linked questions of the size of the Commission and the weighting of votes on the Council, although the Government did their best to broker a deal in six weeks. That is a little different from the Foreign Secretary's brimming confidence prior to the Summit that a deal would be reached. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told us that with a little more time agreement might have been reached on the issue of institutional reform.
What lead did the Government take at Amsterdam and what trade-offs did they demand so that the treaty could contain those necessary institutional changes to hasten enlargement to the east? Although no progress was made at Amsterdam, and despite the deadlock on the linked questions of the size of the Commission and the weighting of votes in the Council that the noble Lord described, he is optimistic. He does not think that it will be,
"such a colossal problem for the existing members of the European Union to achieve agreement even though ultimately there was no consensus at the summit".
Nor is he of the opinion that the present impasse will delay the enlargement process. But given that the Government's explanation for the lack of progress relies largely on the dearth of political will amongst other member states—notably not the United Kingdom in this context—and deadlock in the Council of Ministers as a result of the intransigence of other partners, will the noble Lord give the House some more detail as regards the reasons for his optimism that the issue will shortly be smoothly resolved? I sincerely hope that is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who has considered this matter in detail, has also said that he does not envisage a further IGC will be needed to enact the necessary treaty revisions. I am concerned about that because as I read Agenda 2000 it recommends a further IGC to deepen political integration and reform Europe's institutions before enlargement takes place—interestingly enough it mentions an objective of the generalised introduction of qualified majority voting. As Protocol 11 effectively postpones the need to take any decisions on the forms of voting weights and Commission size until a new member is on the threshold of joining, when and in what form does the noble Lord envisage such decisions will be made?
I hope the House will forgive me for having gone into this matter in such detail. Finally, what lead did the Government take in ensuring that further progress was made on institutional reforms at the Luxembourg Summit in December? Where do we go from here? That is of critical importance in the context of this amendment. The presidency conclusions last December were largely dedicated to setting out the timetable for the accession negotiations which we are all proud to have begun under the British presidency. But the
1266
absolute prerequisite for enlargement of the Union was given only in one sentence which states that,
"the operation of the institutions must be strengthened and improved in keeping with the institutional provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty".
Was that what the Minister of State meant when he told another place that the Government would continue to pursue institutional reforms which would,
"be one of the issues that would be taken forward from the conclusions which will, we hope, be reached at the Luxembourg Summit in December"?
Again the Minister's optimism was not sufficient to persuade his European colleagues.
It is to seek answers to this question that I have analysed the issue in some detail. I apologise to the House for going into that detail. However, it is critically important that these issues are resolved: the re-weighting of votes; enlargement; and the institutional changes that we all hope to see come out of Amsterdam.
It is against that background that I have tabled these questions to the Minister in the context of this amendment. I am grateful to the House for listening to me for so long on this point. I hope that some of the many questions I have asked will be able to be answered at the conclusion of the debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I see no reason for the noble Lord to apologise for having detained the House even at this late hour on a matter of extreme importance. He spoke about it in a knowledgeable and helpful way, and I agree with a great deal of what he said. I shall be brief in my remarks because I do not think there is need to go over the same ground.
It is vital to reform the institutional structures as we move ahead to further enlargement. We all recognise that if the next six countries—the so-called first wave—were to join the European Union it would be difficult to run the institutions. If the second six were to join the Union, it would be almost impossible in any effective way to run the institutions of the Union well. I do not put too fine a point on it in saying that most people will agree that with 15 members states it is already difficult to find jobs of adequate weight for all the commissioners. One does not tell a story out of place by saying that there is a good deal of jockeying to decide which responsibilities commissioners will have, since clearly some tasks have more heavy, weighty and significant responsibilities than others.
As regards the consensus which has begun to form around the idea of one commissioner for each member state, I regret that it removes what I believe is the excellent principle that certain of the large countries should have commissioners drawn from different political parties. In the United Kingdom, it has become the custom that one of the two commissioners comes from the leading opposition party and the other from the government party. In Germany, one of the two commissioners normally comes from the junior partner in the coalition. The idea that the commissioner should not necessarily be of the same party as the government of the country is valuable. In many ways it is an

1267
example to countries which do not understand that people from different parties can share a common patriotism towards the country of which they are part.
I should like to see commissioners becoming junior ministers to other commissioners so that we can develop a greater degree of integration within the Commission than exists at present. That is the way things are going. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan said, if they go in that direction, it is essential that there should be a re-weighting of votes. From these Benches, we somewhat prefer the idea of a dual voting system. We think it important that the populations of the member states should be reflected in the decisions made. That requires a system under which there is weighting for population as well as the existing weighting of votes. That is vital because of the disproportionate contributions to the budget made by different member states, and the probable increase in weighting of responsibilities that will occur if we move towards a common foreign and security policy, even in a limited way.
I do not wish to detain the House further. It is an issue which Amsterdam hardly had time to more than pass by. It will be a major responsibility for either the next IGC or some European Council in the next few years. What is clear is that we need to resolve this issue as soon as possible, otherwise it will be a difficult issue in the centre of the enlargement discussions, and I think all of us would regret that.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, while I cannot disagree with anything my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, he observed that most of the applicant states are small. That is true of countries such as Slovenia and Estonia. However, I should remind the House that the population of Poland is between 40 million and 45 million. When it is compared to the other countries in Europe, it cannot really be described as a small country.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will recognise, I have some sympathy with much of what he has said. The fact remains that the amendment he asks us to agree would prevent the UK from ratifying the Amsterdam Treaty until agreement had been reached on the re-weighting of votes in the Council. As such, it would delay not only progress in Europe, but progress on enlargement.
I understand the concern in the House that we were not able to reach agreement. Her Majesty's Government accept that that was disappointing. When we came to the negotiating table, after 1st May last year, there was some degree of deadlock on this matter, and the Dutch presidency decided strategically to leave the matter until the endgame of negotiations at Amsterdam. At Amsterdam, both the Dutch presidency and ourselves did our best to broker a deal. Given a little more time, we might even have reached agreement. I think I can say that we ought to have reached agreement. Ultimately, however, there was no consensus, and no definitive reforms were written into the treaty. That is a disappointment, but not a disaster. We did make some
1268
progress. We have come away with a protocol setting out the mechanisms by which those outstanding issues will be resolved in advance of the next enlargement of the Union.
I accept much of what the noble Lord says in relation to the need to change the voting systems prior to enlargement. However, I shall not be drawn tonight on the arithmetic or the different systems. I note that the noble Lord, speaking for the Official Opposition, seems to favour a system based on the existing weighting system; and I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, seems to favour, on balance, a dual system. Either approach could safeguard Britain's relative position. Therefore they will be subject to further negotiations.
I draw the attention of the House to the terms of the protocol. Article 1 states that when the next enlargement takes place, the Commission will comprise one national of each member state, but only provided that the weighting of votes in the Council has been modified to increase the relative clout of the large member states. The noble Lord suggested that in my previous quotation from the protocol I missed out nine words. He is of course right. But either way, my final words—namely, that it would increase the clout of the large member states—apply, whichever route we take.
We consider that that protocol represents in the circumstances a sensible deal. We have agreed to surrender a second British Commissioner. I understand the anxieties of the noble Baroness. Nevertheless, we believe that on balance it is sensible to do that, but only if there is an acceptable change in the voting system. Amsterdam recognises for the first time explicitly in the treaty that the weighting of votes in the Council is inequitable and needs adjustment.
Moreover, there were other changes in the Amsterdam Treaty—I would argue, on qualified majority voting; on flexibility; and on the limit of the size of the European Parliament—which were designed to prepare the way for enlargement. However, in order to achieve the enlargement challenge, our first priority is to get the Amsterdam Treaty effectively out of the way and to achieve ratification in all 15 member states. When that is secured, we can start focusing and finding a political agreement to settle the outstanding issues of vote re-weighting and Commission size.
The noble Lord argued that this failure at Amsterdam puts at risk the whole enlargement process. We do not believe that to be the case. I went into some detail on Tuesday night to say that we have already launched the whole process of enlargement. The agreement at Amsterdam has allowed that to happen. The issues of Commission size and voting weights would have to be addressed anyway in accession negotiations. Any new member state means changing the voting weights. All member states will have to examine the issues, just as they had to at every previous enlargement.
However, Article 2 of the institutions protocol states that at least one year before the membership of the Union exceeds 20 following the accession of five new members, an IGC would be convened to review the composition and functioning of the institutions. That

1269
does not mean that we are committed to another major comprehensive root-and-branch analysis of the institutions of the Union. We are talking about the leftovers from Amsterdam; not about an unlimited re-examination of the institutional structure of the Union. It is therefore a limited exercise. It is technically an intergovernmental conference and will require treaty changes, but it is a limited exercise. We believe that it can be achieved relatively easily—not entirely easily because political deals will have to be done—but it can be achieved simply if it is limited to those objectives.
We believe that it can take place well before any accession of a new member state. There is talk of it happening during the German or Finnish presidency next year. Perhaps that is true; perhaps it will take a little longer, but it will take place before there is any accession of a new member state.
The fact that Amsterdam did not involve substantial moves towards solving the issues is not a problem in terms of engaging in the enlargement process; nor should it be a problem for us now in agreeing to the ratification of the treaty. The amendment would prevent us ratifying the treaty. The noble Lord's objectives of resolving the issues and moving into the proper enlargement process are worthy ones which we on these Benches share. However, if the amendment were carried, it would slow us down, if not entirely prevent us ratifying the treaty. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He displayed greater support for the arguments I was deploying than I anticipated this evening. That in its own right will lead me to withdraw the amendment in a moment because I see the power of his argument with regard to the amendment. To be fair, I was aware of it from the outset.
1270
The points that the Minister made are important and will be studied in detail. I have only one brief observation to make at this stage. I believe the Minister is being over-optimistic in believing that an IGC which he now defines as a "technical IGC" will necessarily, in the context of what he has said, become a limited exercise. I have a feeling that on this subject the chances of such a technical IGC being a limited exercise are slim. However, I may be being a little cynical at this late hour of the evening. Perhaps the noble Lord is right; we shall see.
Having made that passing observation, I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply and for his support for the many points raised. He did not go into detail on all the questions I asked; nor, sadly, into the mathematics. I was looking forward to that. Those reflections apart, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her comments and observations on the matter. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 17 not moved.]

Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Social Security Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to and with the remaining amendments agreed to with amendments; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before ten o'clock.

  Firearms Compensation: Fraudulent Claims
  Firearms Compensation: Fraudulent Claims
  Data Protection Bill: Transitional Exemptions
  Data Protection Bill: Transitional Exemptions
  Northern Ireland: Firearms Control Legislation
  Northern Ireland: Firearms Control Legislation
  Welsh Assembly: Draft Transfer of Functions Order
  Welsh Assembly: Draft Transfer of Functions Order
  Turkey: Human Rights Abuses
  Turkey: Human Rights Abuses
  US Ballistic Missile Defence Systems on UK Territory
  US Ballistic Missile Defence Systems on UK Territory
  Cancer: Speed of Access to Treatment
  Cancer: Speed of Access to Treatment
  Amalgam Fillings
  Amalgam Fillings
  Fertility Treatment: Costs
  Fertility Treatment: Costs
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Legislation
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Legislation
  Adoptions
  Adoptions
  Gulf War Veterans: Pensions Assessment
  Gulf War Veterans: Pensions Assessment
  Rail Property Ltd: Property Sales
  Rail Property Ltd: Property Sales
  London: Referendum and Council Elections
  London: Referendum and Council Elections
  Minewater Pollution
  Minewater Pollution
  Construction Industry, London: Deaths
  Construction Industry, London: Deaths
  Park Lane and Upper Brook Street: Works
  Park Lane and Upper Brook Street: Works
  Independent and State Schools: Partnerships
  Independent and State Schools: Partnerships
  Scottish Parliament: Standing Orders
  Scottish Parliament: Standing Orders