Sitting of 2 November 1998

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

    Redundant Land
    Mr. Ian Bruce: If he will make a statement on the disposal of redundant MOD land (a) generally and (b) with specific regard to HMS Osprey on Portland. [55877]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): My Department keeps the size of the defence estate under continual review. Any property that is declared surplus to operational requirements is sold, as soon as possible, on the open market, with the benefit of planning permission.
    My Department is considering alternative uses to which the HMS Osprey site may be put. Our title to part of the land at HMS Osprey allows prescriptive rights of purchase to the Crown Estate, to which it originally belonged. A disposal strategy for those parts of the site that are not subject to these prescriptive rights is in progress. No final decisions have yet been taken.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the Minister for his visit to Portland and his attention to the problem. As he knows, I wrote to him as soon as he took office to ask whether it was necessary to close the air station and whether the site could be put to an alternative use. I was told that there was no alternative use. At least three companies are willing to buy the site and create jobs, but they have been told that they cannot even talk about making a bid until March next year. I would be happy if the Minister came forward with an alternative MOD use, but it is not good enough that, at this late stage, the Ministry is halting all its negotiations with the Crown Estate, among others.
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that he has raised the issue with me, as has the local council. I thank him for his kind comments on my visit to Weymouth and Portland, where I had an excellent meeting with the local council, chaired by Councillor Kay Wilcox. I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that we have to explore every other possible defence use for the site. Given the concern expressed by the community, which has rendered enormous service to the Ministry of
    540
    Defence and the armed forces for many years—indeed, centuries—I have asked the Department to try to speed up the process to ensure that the site is returned to productive use, in one way or another, as soon as possible.
    Ms Jackie Lawrence: May I refer the Minister to the site of Trecwn in my constituency, which was declared redundant by the previous Government, and sold earlier this year? Have any discussions taken place between the Ministry of Defence and any company or individual about the possible storage of nuclear waste, including decommissioned nuclear submarines, at the site?
    Mr. Spellar: We are aware that the company that bought the site has submitted to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology some proposals for the management of radioactive waste. However, the Committee is not due to report for 12 months, when we will publish a White Paper proposing a national strategy. After that, local council planning permission would have to be obtained. My hon. Friend will know that Pembrokeshire county council has revealed that it is implacably opposed to any proposals to store nuclear waste of any type at Trecwn. The matter is no longer in our hands, as the previous owner, but is in the hands of the various radiological regulation agencies and the local council. Both the local council and the local Member of Parliament have made their views clear.

    Eurofighter
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What is the estimated interval between the entry into operational squadron service with the Royal Air Force of the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft and its equipping with beyond visual range air-to-air missiles. [55878]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Eurofighter will enter service armed with the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile—AMRAAM—AIM-120B as its beyond visual range air-to-air missile. A competition is being run for the development and production of a next-generation beyond visual range air-to-air missile, but that will not enter service until a few years after Eurofighter.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is no hiatus between the entry into service of Eurofighter and its equipping with a genuine beyond visual range air-to-air missile, such as that provided by Raytheon, the American competitor, or by Meteor, the European solution? If an interval is caused by Treasury parsimony or a German defence review, can it be filled by an extended range version of AMRAAM, so that the Royal Air Force squadrons do not suffer a lack of capability?
    Mr. Robertson: Obviously, we would not want any gap in capability, but it has long been recognised that there will be a gap between the first delivery of Eurofighter in 2002 and the BVRAAM currently being examined. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one bid, but there are two, and each is being assessed in the normal way. The implications of using one system rather than the

    541
    other will be examined carefully. We intend to maximise the value of Eurofighter when it comes into service, and its weaponry is therefore of acute importance.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some sense of a stitch-up over BVRAAM, and that it is suggested that political expediency, rather than strategic merit, is governing his Department's thinking? Will he assure competing bidders that their competing merits will be the sole criterion in determining the BVRAAM programme?
    Mr. Robertson: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is no question of a stitch-up. Two bids have been made, and they will be assessed in the normal way. The only criterion that matters is the equipping of the Eurofighter with the best possible weaponry.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), he will acknowledge that the final bids are between a British BVRAAM and an American BVRAAM. Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, if the Ministry of Defence decided in favour of the American product, it would be possible for the United States of America to block the sale of the Eurofighter—the Typhoon—to third countries under certain circumstances, and that that would be damaging to British industrial and security interests?
    Mr. Robertson: I wish to make it clear that one bid is European, from Matra BAe, and the other is American. We are assessing both bids using the usual criteria. We hope to announce the outcome of the competition in 1999. All the factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and the previous questioners will be taken into account.

    British Beef
    Mr. David Kidney: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of the supply of British beef for the United Kingdom's armed forces. [55880]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I am pleased to advise the House that our food supply contractor, Booker Foodservice, is buying from British sources 100 per cent. of beef for consumption by our forces based in the United Kingdom. That follows agreement by the European Commission to proposals from me and my colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to allow access to intervention stocks of high-quality British beef at competitive prices. We are unable to use British beef for our forces overseas at the moment because of the continuing ban on the export of British beef.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that news, which was even better than I had expected. It will be welcomed by all farmers, especially those in the two branches of the National Farmers Union in my constituency. On their behalf, and in view of my right hon. Friend's emphasis on the quality of British products, may I push the boat out by asking whether he can achieve the same for British lamb for the British armed forces?
    Mr. Robertson: I wish that we could do so. British lamb is the best in the world. I used to help to rear it, and
    542
    I want British troops to eat it. I hope that the industry will compete to get it on troop canteen plates. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who has spent a lot of time and energy on this matter. An attempt was made to procure a substantial forward buy of British lamb, but that was not successful as the industry was not capable of coming forward with it. Urgent discussions continue with the farming industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission. We shall ensure that we use every effort to put the maximum amount of British lamb on British forces' plates.
    Mr. Robert Key: Of course that is good news and we welcome it, but why has it taken so long? It was first negotiated with the commission back in February and an agreement was announced in the House in June. Six months on, fresh beef is still not to be used; the meat is out of the intervention stocks. What about getting on with British lamb? The Meat and Livestock Commission, the National Farmers Union and the contractor are willing to vary contracts and do their best with lamb. What is holding up the sale of British lamb, because at present none is used by British forces?
    Mr. Robertson: I know that the public get a bit tired of being reminded that a Conservative Government were in power 18 months ago, but that Government put in place the procedures that we are having to use. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has used his energy and ingenuity to make substantial strides, despite the straitjacket that he inherited. At the start of October, the intervention stocks were released and now 100 per cent. of British troops are being supplied with British beef.
    The discussions on British lamb continue, but we are up against the fact that the bulk of British lamb in this country is provided fresh or chilled while the Ministry's requirement is for frozen lamb. We are discussing with the contractor and the industry the best way to get the maximum amount of British lamb on to British forces' plates.
    My hon. Friend's efforts in other areas have been particularly successful: 100 per cent. of the pork and 50 per cent. of the bacon used by British forces is British. We are trying to ensure that, within the constraints of value for money for the British taxpayer, we do the best for British farming we can.

    Cadet Units
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What proposals he has to encourage cadet units. [55881]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): The Government recognise the value of cadet forces to both civilian and military communities. As a further demonstration of our commitment to encouraging cadet units, we intend to make a modest increase in their funding.
    Mr. Waterson: Does the Minister share my pride that, this Sunday, many of the Remembrance Sunday services that I and hon. Members will attend will have present not only regular and Territorial Army units but local cadet units? Has he estimated the cost of providing alternative accommodation for cadet units that use TA centres that are to be closed?
    Mr. Henderson: I very much share the hon. Gentleman's pride in the way in which our cadet forces

    543
    attend our various commemoration services, including the commemoration of Armistice day this Sunday. I took great pleasure in attending the Trafalgar day celebrations a couple of weeks ago with them. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce, a statement will be made to the House on the Territorial Army. It will include mention of the provision made for cadets. The costings on that are not yet finalised, but we gave a commitment in the debate on the strategic defence review that any cadet unit that was displaced would be reallocated to a location at least as good as the one that it left.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Although I welcome the increase in resources for the cadets, may I raise the case of the redundant minesweepers Kellington, Pagham and Iveston, the last of which is in my constituency in Tilbury dock, and is looked after by the training ship Boxer? I understand that the Ministry of Defence wishes not to renew the leases on the vessels to the cadets but to sell them to the cadets. I urge my hon. Friend to use his good offices to ensure that any sale price is a token one, bearing in mind the invaluable benefit that countless youngsters have received from the opportunity of spending time on the vessels, which would otherwise have to be towed away because they are totally redundant. They are looked after proudly by the naval cadets. I hope that my hon. Friend will use his good offices to ensure that they remain in the stewardship of the cadets.
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I assure him that the Government greatly value the contribution of those vessels in encouraging cadet units around the country, including his constituency. I am reviewing whether it is possible to continue the existing arrangements or whether we should try to sell them to the cadet forces. I am taking into account all factors, including health and safety, and practicability.
    Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frame): Will the Minister look at links with the Territorial Army in areas where the TA unit is the only Army presence in a county, as in the case of the Somerset and Cornwall Light Infantry? Will he also look at the increasingly irrelevant and outdated distinction between local cadet forces and the independent schools' combined cadet forces? Do we want such a distinction in the present day armed forces?
    Mr. Henderson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that any relocation that takes place because of changes announced in the Territorial Army review will be on the basis that existing cadet units will be placed in accommodation that is at least as good as their present accommodation. That is just as true in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as it is throughout the country.
    I want to encourage all cadet units in the three services to maximise their input and to seek to recruit as many young people as they can. That will benefit not only the communities where those young people live but our recruiting plans for the three armed services.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: What plans he has for the Territorial Army in the Aldershot constituency. [55884]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): A statement on the future of the Territorial
    544
    Army will be made once Ministers have had a chance to consider the matters that have already been discussed by officials, including those matters that concern the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Howarth: We have been assured for the past two weeks that the Government will make a statement. This is a matter of great concern not only in my constituency but throughout the country. Is the Minister aware that his lack of decision making on this matter is deeply unsettling to Territorial Army units? I hope that the Minister can give me an answer before I go on an exercise with the 10th (Volunteer) Battalion the Parachute Regiment in two weeks' time.
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman might like the Government to rush into a decision, but territorials throughout the country, especially in his constituency, would not want us to do so. Extensive consultations have taken place with units throughout the country, including in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The general guidelines, which were well debated in the House two weeks ago during the strategic defence review debate, were made clear to TA units and other interested parties locally, and the prime motives of the review were emphasised. How the objectives will be implemented locally has been the subject of consultation, and we shall make a statement to the House once the matter has been assessed.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Although I accept the Government's good faith, does the Minister not realise that uncertainty over the proposals is damaging to morale and that some units are experiencing a haemorrhage of both officers and men? Why do the Government not open the books, publish the detailed proposals, declare a six-month moratorium and allow us to have a properly informed debate about the future of the TA?
    Mr. Henderson: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises that question with the best of motives, but the consultation process has been widely received throughout the country and suggestions have been made on how the changes can be implemented. That is the proper way to proceed. A statement will be made once we have assessed what the consultation has thrown up.
    Mr. John Maples: The Minister complacently accuses us of trying to rush him into a decision. No decision can have hung around for longer than this one. He seems to be totally unaware of the delay's dreadful effects on motivation in the Territorial Army. Communities are desperately worried about the closure of TA halls. Moreover, the secrecy with which everything is being done has made matters much worse. Will he ensure that definitive announcements are made as soon as possible and that we do not have to wait until a convenient moment when they can be buried in the Government's news management agenda?
    Mr. Henderson: Of course the announcements will be made as soon as possible, but, unlike the previous Government, we believe in consulting people about our proposals before making a decision that we announce to the House.

    Asbestos (Compensation)
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on compensation arrangements for service personnel and former service personnel who suffer from asbestos-related conditions contracted before the amendment of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. [55885]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Compensation arrangements for service personnel and former service personnel who suffer illness as a consequence of exposure to asbestos are the same as for those killed, those injured or those who develop a disease from any other cause related to their service. The non-retrospective repeal of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, on 15 May 1987, by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 gave service personnel the right to claim common law compensation from the Ministry of Defence. Compensation arrangements for former service personnel for illness caused before the repeal of the 1947 Act is paid in the form of a war pension and other allowances by the War Pensions Agency of the Department of Social Security. The Government's arrangements for compensating former service personnel are broadly comparable with those for former civilian MOD employees.
    Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sense of injustice felt by many who are now being diagnosed as suffering from asbestos-related conditions such as mesothelioma, which is invariably fatal and invariably painful, and results in the rapid onset of symptoms leading to death? Does my hon. Friend agree that that sense of injustice is highlighted by the 1987 Act? People who were exposed to asbestos before 1987, but are experiencing symptoms now, may feel somewhat hard done by in comparison with people who have suffered other injuries since 1987.
    As my hon. Friend knows, I have campaigned on this issue for some time, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson). Will my hon. Friend try to devise a method of compensating, in particular, those who are suffering from the most disabling asbestos-related conditions?
    Mr. Spellar: I recognise the difficulties and distress suffered by those who have contracted this awful disease, but my hon. Friend must accept that there are complicated interlocking relationships between the war pension, the war widow's pension and compensation arrangements—and, indeed, between asbestos-related and other diseases. The Ministry of Defence is considering those matters, but there are no easy answers.
    I understand that my hon. Friend discussed the issue with the last Minister for the Armed Forces, and that my hon. Friend the current Minister will meet him soon to try to unravel some of the problems.

    Recruitment (Ethnic Minorities)
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What are the latest figures for recruitment to the armed forces from Britain's ethnic minorities. [55887]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): Between 1 April 1998 and 31 August 1998,
    546
    the latest date for which figures are available, 147 armed forces recruits came from the ethnic minorities, representing 1.7 per cent. of the total intake. The latest figures for MOD civilians show that, between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998, 117 recruits identified themselves as being of ethnic minority background, representing 1.4 per cent. of the total intake.
    Dr. Iddon: My constituency has an unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent., higher than the Bolton, the north-west or the national average. We also have a large Asian community, but I have yet to meet a member of that community who has joined the armed forces. Has my hon. Friend conducted any detailed and serious research to find out why members of the Asian community are not joining the armed forces? Is the reason cultural, a fear of discrimination, or what?
    Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of armed forces recruitment in areas where there is high unemployment among black and Asian people. Both black and Asian people have the opportunity of a first-choice career in the armed forces. A number of studies have been carried out to establish why both black and Asian people are reluctant to join the forces, and those studies are continuing. We have tried to make changes where possible, and to convey to members of the black and Asian communities that they can have a good career and a good education. We have also given them a guarantee that all possible action will be taken to outlaw discrimination and racism.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Is the Minister aware that the only substantial adult organisation that attracts a large number of people from ethnic minorities into uniform is the Territorial Army? In many territorial units, recruitment from ethnic minorities amounts to 15 or 20 per cent. Indeed, there is an officer from an ethnic minority in the 5th Battalion of my local regiment, the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment. May I suggest to the Minister that, if he wishes the Army as a whole to be closer to the community, hitting its part-time community element in the way that the Government plan will ruin his best intentions?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Territorial Army makes a valuable contribution in attracting both black and Asian people into the armed forces at all ranks. It is a factor that I have taken into account in the review and an important factor in the footprint. I think that, when the decision is announced to the House in due course, the hon. Gentleman will find that it has been a main determining factor.

    Demining
    Mr. John Smith: What steps his Department is taking to encourage humanitarian demining. [55888]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Following my announcement a year ago, good progress has been made in increasing the assistance that the Ministry of Defence provides to humanitarian demining, notably through the establishment of a mine information and training centre at Minley and through the gifting of surplus military equipment to the Halo trust. To maintain the momentum, my Department recently organised a seminar to consider what more the armed forces might contribute.
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. What help is he giving to support United Nations initiatives in this sector? Does he think that there is any scope for developing new demining technologies through the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the UN's role in demining. Demining those parts of the world that have become contaminated by these weapons is a serious issue, into which the UN is putting all its efforts. To help it, a senior officer has been loaned by the MOD to the UN to provide specialist demining expertise to its humanitarian mine action programmes. We hope that that will have a major effect on what the UN can do.
    My hon. Friend is also right to point to the way in which technology might be able to deal with some of the problems. DERA has already produced an effective and cheap system to destroy mines without having to use high explosives. The device is called FireAnt and it is hoped to produce it commercially in the near future. I believe that that will make a serious contribution to alleviating one of the most serious legacies of wars.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the unarmed military observers in Kosovo oversee humanitarian demining operations? If so, are contingency plans in place for their withdrawal in the event of attack? Will the implementation of such plans require a resolution of the UN?
    Mr. Robertson: The verification mission that will go to Kosovo will have no role whatever in supervising or getting involved in humanitarian demining. It will, of course, face a hazard that was put in place by the Belgrade authorities in certain locations in Kosovo: they have put mines there. The verification mission will obviously take judicious care.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the time has come when the ingenuity that has gone into making land mines can apply to their demining? Does he envisage a further special role for the expertise of the Royal Engineers?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman of course has substantial military experience, which brings authority to his remarks on these matters. I have taken the strong view that military expertise in this sector is unequalled and that, if it can be shared in the humanitarian sector, it will do a lot of good in dealing with a problem that mankind increasingly faces. The Royal Engineers have expertise in this sector, which we have already used, but I am ensuring through the mine information and training centre at Minley that we bring together all the components in the
    548
    British Army to ensure that they contribute. I have found no greater enthusiasm than among the military for dealing with this, the legacy of wars.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Richard Page: If the final reduced Territorial Army establishment will include civilian support staff and non-regular permanent Staff. [55889]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): Following the current restructuring exercise, the Territorial Army establishment will be reduced to approximately 40,000. Civilian support staff and non-regular permanent staff will not be included in that figure and their establishments will be considered separately.
    Mr. Page: I thank the Minister for that answer. It is, of course, very sad that the TA is to suffer such a savage attack. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is back in the borrowing business and as it seems apparent that, if rumours are to be believed, TA units covering the 7th (Volunteer) Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment in Hertfordshire—at Hertford, Dunstable and Hemel Hempstead—are to be closed, affecting civilian staff as well, will the Minister approach the Chancellor and ask for a little of that borrowing to maintain a TA presence of some sort in Hertfordshire? A county of that size should have a TA presence.
    Mr. Henderson: As I have already said to hon. Members today, we shall be looking at the footprint of the Territorial Army throughout the country, and will consider the hon. Gentleman's points in relation to his area. I cannot say any more than that; he will have to wait until the statement is made. However, I assure him that consideration will be given to the question of civilians and non-regular permanent staff, as I acknowledge that they do important subsidiary and support jobs for the Territorial Army.

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. David Atkinson: If he will make a statement on the progress on the millennium readiness of computer systems relating to the defence and security of the United Kingdom and its allies. [55891]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The Ministry of Defence has a comprehensive programme for addressing the impact on defence capability posed by the potential failure of computer systems over the millennium period and beyond. That includes both rectifying MOD systems and developing contingency plans where necessary.
    Substantial progress has been made on fixing MOD systems. About 35 per cent. of those systems that require rectification have already been corrected and we expect 80 per cent. to be fixed by autumn 1999. In addition, we are working closely with our allies to raise international awareness of the issue.
    Mr. Atkinson: In the light of that comprehensive reply, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that

    549
    Britain and its NATO and Western European Union allies will not be rendered defenceless by the millennium bug, as was originally feared a couple of years ago? Can he guarantee that the millennium bug will cause no problems for defence-related information technologies? If he cannot give that guarantee, will he ensure that contingency plans are put into place, and that they are thoroughly tested in time for the millennium?
    Mr. Robertson: Few Departments are more aware than the MOD of the dangers and problems that might arise with the millennium. Indeed, few countries in Europe have, so far, done as much as Britain to deal with the problems. My Department is spending £200 million addressing the problems for technology that could arise over the year 2000.
    I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances for which he asked, as we are taking the matter extremely seriously. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement has a specific and long-running interest in the issue and I have made sure that the problem of the year 2000 is on the agenda for every Defence Council meeting.

    Gulf War Syndrome
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What assessment he has made of recent evidence relating to Gulf war syndrome. [55892]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): We continue to keep new information about Gulf veterans' illnesses under review. It is encouraging that recently published scientific research is making progress on this subject and I look forward to seeing the first results from the epidemiological studies of UK Gulf veterans at around the turn of the year.
    Dr. Gibson: Is not the evidence a long time coming? We have been raising the issue in the House for more than a year. Does not the evidence point towards one common biochemical activation of molecules, which is induced by different chemicals either singly or together? Might that not have different clinical outcomes in individuals? Has not the time come to pay up and to prevent other people from being subjected to those dangerous chemicals?
    Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which deals with an important issue. We owe a heavy debt to those who served in the Gulf on our behalf. There are a number of interesting developments in research and I anticipate that three pieces of British research will be published in the coming months. There are also interesting pieces of research in the United States, in particular from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, which continues to cover new ground. It believes that it is close to defining what sort of illnesses are being suffered by those who served in the Gulf. I look forward to being able to assess the various pieces of research when they are available to me, around the turn of the year. It is essential that, where there is illness, we try to identify the causes and how to remove them, as well as dealing with other important questions.

    Defence Establishments (Shoeburyness)
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the future of the defence establishments at Shoeburyness. [55893]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The Horseshoe barracks, old ranges and Gunners park at Shoeburyness have been declared surplus to Ministry of Defence requirements and are being prepared for disposal. A draft planning brief has been agreed with the borough council and has been issued for public consultation. The MOD still has a requirement for the new ranges at Shoeburyness, and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is seeking to enter into partnership with industry to operate those facilities. It is hoped that such a partnership will create new employment opportunities at Shoeburyness through increased exploitation of the site for non-defence purposes.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As DERA's rather surprising decision—supported by the Government—to change its policy on the new ranges will lead to an unemployment increase in an area that already has a high unemployment rate, will the Minister assure the House that the Department will work closely with Southend borough council to ensure that the land that becomes available will be used for attracting useful job opportunities to the area?
    Mr. Spellar: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The borough council is keen to obtain local views on the matter and will review the draft planning brief in the light of any comments received. We are working in co-operation with the council, and will be working closely with it precisely because we want the site to be returned to useful economic use and to offer employment possibilities.

    Royal Hospital, Haslar
    Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the future of the Royal hospital, Haslar. [55895]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): The future of the Royal hospital, Haslar is still under review. We shall make an announcement when final decisions have been made.
    Mr. Viggers: Is the Minister aware that it is not only my constituents who are aghast at the threat hanging over Haslar? Many hon. Members from both sides of the House, members and former members of the Defence Committee and service personnel are horrified that the Government cannot confirm that Haslar's role will be continued. Does he realise that we must have a centre of excellence in the defence medical services, and that even Government publications have said that uncertainty would be the worst of all options? Will he confirm Haslar's role soon?
    Mr. Henderson: I hope to be able to confirm Haslar's role soon. However, as the hon. Gentleman is aware from our previous correspondence, a major gap in medical provision in the armed forces was identified during the previous Government's period in office. We have been

    551
    trying to put that gap right, so that we can guarantee that we have the back-up support necessary when our forces go into battle. We have to have the right number of consultants, nurses and ancillary staff based in centres of excellence—to which staff are attracted, and at which they receive the right training and provide essential services. I have an implementation team examining the matter, on which I hope to be able to make an announcement soon.
    Laura Moffatt: Is it not important that we get the issue absolutely right? The defence medical services suffered an enormous blow under the previous Government. Although there are great difficulties at Haslar, and there will be much discomfort until the issue is settled, is it not crucial that, this time, we get it right?
    Mr. Henderson: I agree with my hon. Friend, who clearly makes her point that the problem has existed for a long time. I am not saying that the previous Government did not attempt to address the issue. However, they were unsuccessful in making long-lasting proposals to meet the well-identified shortcomings. It is crucial that, this time, we get it right, which is why I have asked an implementation team to examine the options.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: As other hon. Members have said, the problem with the Royal hospital, Haslar exemplifies the difficulties generally with the defence medical services, and specifically with Territorial and reserve medical forces. What will the Government do about preserving the strength of the Territorial defence medical services?
    Mr. Henderson: Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important issue. Shortcomings in our medical provision were identified under the previous Government, one of the main areas being the Territorial Army. By any estimate, the TA is thousands short in the necessary provision. One of the central features and guiding principles of our review of the TA is that we should try to put that right. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a key point, and he will find that, when a statement is made to the House, it will have been well taken into account in our proposals.

    United Nations (Peace Support Operations)
    Mr. Barry Jones: What steps the Government are taking to improve the United Kingdom's ability to contribute to the United Nations peace support operations in the future. [55897]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I announced, as part of the strategic defence review, our intention to sign an agreement with the UN that will boost our military support for its operations in future. The new memorandum of understanding, which will be signed by March next year, will revise and update our existing declaration under the UN standby forces arrangements. It will include those capabilities that we have strengthened as a result of the SDR and that are most relevant to UN needs: more and better-equipped rapid reaction forces, additional strategic lift and improved logistics support.
    Mr. Jones: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply, may I acknowledge the
    552
    distinguished contribution that he and his Department make in support of the UN in that important sphere? In his efforts to have even better military support, has it crossed his mind that he would have a better force at his disposal if he had some 40 to 50 of the Airbus future large aircraft at his command? May I urge him to consider that and tell him that, if he did, my constituents would help build that aircraft?
    Mr. Robertson: As ever, I admire my hon. Friend's ingenious way of promoting the interests of his constituents, which he always does with enthusiasm, dedication and complete justification. As it strengthens the future additional strategic lift capability of the Royal Air Force, the future large aircraft project is very much in our sights for long-term supply. It will become increasingly important in terms of our commitment to the UN, because it is clear that, yet again, Saddam Hussein is intent on engineering another confrontation with the UN. Force was an option in February this year and brought a climb-down by Saddam. Force must again be an option on this occasion because, regrettably, it seems to be the only thing that Saddam understands. He still represents a threat, not only to his neighbours and to the region but to international stability. The international community must stand united and firm in making sure that he complies with yesterday's unanimous view of the UN Security Council.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in recognising the role played by the Territorial Army and other reserve forces in peacekeeping operations in, for example, Bosnia, and in congratulating them on that role? Will he confirm that, with the cuts envisaged in the SDR, this country will be able to meet its commitments in respect of the TA and other reserves in future operations?
    Mr. Robertson: I believe that we shall be able to meet those commitments much more efficiently. I visited our troops, including the TA reserves, in theatre in Bosnia last week. I was enormously impressed by their bravery, skill and dedication in rebuilding that country. The whole purpose of the restructuring and updating of the TA is to make sure that the TA can play an even bigger and better part in the sort of operation that it has carried out so well in Bosnia.

    Archer Communications Project
    Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the future of the Archer project. [55898]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I am pleased to announce that we have now signed a contract worth £185 million with the Bowman prime contractor, Archer Communications Systems Ltd., for the next stage of the Bowman programme. This will cover further risk reduction work, the completion of system definition, initial system integration and initial conversion planning. Subject to satisfactory progress by Archer, it is intended to place a production contract in late 1999. This marks a major commitment by the Ministry of Defence to Archer and to the delivery of the Bowman system.
    Mr. Gapes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider the remarks that I made in the debate on the

    553
    strategic defence review last week about the award of the local area sub-system contract to Thomson rather than to British Aerospace? That has caused some unhappiness in my constituency, where we have excellent facilities and where people are willing to play a full part in the future of the Archer programme as it develops. I hope that the Government will support the future development of the facility in Ilford.
    Mr. Spellar: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his assiduous lobbying on behalf of the plant in Ilford and his constituents. British Aerospace and Racal are not only the prime contractors, but were involved in the local area sub-system competition. Therefore, it is fair to say that they would have made a proper evaluation on technical grounds and in terms of value for money. The excellent manufacturing facility in my hon. Friend's constituency is well recognised not only by us, but by the manufacturers.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Recess Dates
    Mr. Mike Gapes: What plans she has to ensure that recesses in the autumn and spring coincide with school half-term holidays. [55913]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government proposed to the Modernisation Committee that we should attempt to arrange business to allow constituency weeks to coincide with school half-term in February and October.
    Mr. Gapes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Did she see the large number of children, including my own, who were in the House for part of last week because the House came back on 19 October and half-term was the week after? I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would be grateful for better long-term arrangements that might allow us to spend time with our children instead of parading them around the Tea Room and other places in the building.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it clear in the latter part of his remarks that he did not consider that a good idea, as I was not quite sure at the beginning. We are taking all issues into account and certainly will bear in mind concerns such as those he expressed. However, he will recognise that, although the Government have made a proposal to the Modernisation Committee, as yet, the Committee has neither agreed nor reported the matter to the House.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I sympathise with the right hon. Lady's general point of view, but is not the most important thing about the parliamentary programme that it should give right hon. and hon. Members a proper opportunity to hold the Executive to account and to scrutinise the business placed before the House? Although we would welcome a more
    554
    structured parliamentary year, we would not agree to anything that inhibited the rights of hon. Members on either of those fronts.
    Mrs. Beckett: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is the purpose of the House to hold the Government to account and scrutinise parliamentary business properly. It is an error that some of the suggestions that have been made for improving the way in which we handle business in the House are sometimes described in other terms. The underlying motive of those who seek, in some cases to preserve and in other cases to change and modernise our procedures, is to preserve scrutiny. Some might argue that, much as they enjoy spending time with their children, attempting to do so and at the same time to hold the Government to account may not be easy.

    National Parliament Office, Brussels
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What plans there are to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to establish a National Parliament Office in Brussels. [55916]
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady rightly draws attention to the recommendation of the Modernisation Committee. I understand that some work is being done by the House authorities on the implications and the practical problems associated with it, which no doubt will be reported to the House in due course.
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that answer. Given the greater powers afforded the European Parliament by the Amsterdam treaty and the desire of the House—and, I believe, the Government—for greater co-operation, mutual understanding and partnership between the House and the European Parliament, does the right hon. Lady agree that such an office should be set up as a matter of urgency to train our very able officers in the House to prepare for when the Amsterdam treaty comes into force?
    Mrs. Beckett: It is important that we should do everything that we can to improve the liaison between the European Parliament and this Parliament. In particular, we should use whatever channels we can to get advance information for hon. Members so that we can be well aware of what is being proposed, the full implications for the House and how we should respond. The proposed National Parliament Office would be one means to achieve that, but it is not the only proposal.

    Summer Recess
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans she has for reviewing the length of the summer recess; and if she will make a statement. [55917]
    Mrs. Beckett: The length of the summer recess is one of the issues that the Modernisation Committee can consider in its inquiry into the parliamentary calendar. As the House knows, the length of the summer recess is affected by several external factors and I do not envisage any change in the immediate future.
    Mr. Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not healthy in a democracy for the Government to enjoy a holiday from scrutiny that amounts to the best part of three months every summer? A possible solution, which may also meet the concerns of those who want us not to sit during half terms, would be for us to sit for a couple of weeks in early September and then not sit during half terms.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of my hon. Friend's views. I understand his anxiety to ensure that the House properly holds the Executive to account. However, as anyone who has ever considered changing such arrangements has discovered, there are eminently sound and practical reasons for the shape of the parliamentary term as it has emerged. Changes frequently cause substantial inconvenience not only to Members of Parliament and their ability to hold the Executive to account, but to other organisations, such as political parties that hold party conferences.

    Prime Minister's Questions
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations she has received on the arrangements for Prime Minister's questions. [55918]
    Mrs. Beckett: I have received occasional letters about the content of Prime Minister's questions, but no recent proposals to alter the arrangements.
    Mr. Amess: Now that we have 18 months' experience of the new-style Prime Minister's Question Time, will the right hon. Lady consider reverting to the original arrangements? Is she aware that many hon. Members feel that the weekly visitation means that the Executive are no longer being properly scrutinised? There is also some frustration that, although the Opposition keep asking questions, they receive no answers.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that those who believe that a return to the previous system would be better are allowing their prejudices to triumph over an examination of the facts. Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister got rid of the preamble, there is far more—probably almost twice as much—substance in the answers than there was before. My right hon. Friend has missed only one Prime Minister's Question Time since May 1997—when the Belfast agreement was being negotiated. He has also made more statements to the House than his predecessor over a comparable period. Those who are insinuating that the Prime Minister comes to the House less often or is less accountable have not studied the facts.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider the number of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition. His six in succession tend to be repetitive and miss the point. If we want a sharp, clear exchange of views, perhaps short, sharp questions, limited in number, are the solution.
    Mrs. Beckett: I certainly would not venture to give advice to the Leader of the Opposition on how he should conduct himself. I know from experience that that post requires considerable skill.

    Standing Committee for the English Regions
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: What plans she has to set up a Standing Committee for the English regions. [55920]
    Mrs. Beckett: The Standing Orders already provide for a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, although it has not met for many years. I am considering whether the Committee might serve a useful purpose in future and how it might be convened.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted to hear that. With the establishment of regional development agencies and the possibility of regional devolution, we are clearly moving in a regional direction. It would be useful if each English region—particularly Yorkshire and Humberside, which is the best of them and has a population equal to that of Scotland and problems that are, in many respects, more severe than those of Scotland—should have its own Committee to study its problems.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the strong regional loyalties in the House. As I say, I am considering whether changes can be made to improve the scrutiny of business. As we all agree, that is what we are here for.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If such a Standing Committee were established, would its locus be to find out how regional governments can possibly be paid for without demanding extra from the taxpayer, as has been claimed? Does the right hon. Lady agree that people do not want regional governments in England? Would that not cost the taxpayer money? Is it not another example of jobs for the boys?
    Mrs. Beckett: As no one has the smallest intention of forcing regional government on anybody, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are interesting but not precisely relevant.

    Modernisation
    Gillian Merron: If she will make a statement about progress in modernising the work of the House. [55921]
    Mrs. Beckett: Better information for Members of Parliament is being provided through improving the content of the Order Paper, normally giving advance notice of business two weeks ahead, and publishing, from the start of next Session, the new-style explanatory notes

    557
    for Bills. On Wednesday, the Social Security Committee reported on pre-legislative scrutiny of the first Bill published in draft, on pension sharing on divorce. The House has approved a report on conduct in the Chamber, to dispense with some of our outdated practices. The parliamentary calendar is being considered by the Modernisation Committee. The report on improving European Union scrutiny procedures will be debated soon.
    Gillian Merron: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Given the Government's commitment to
    558
    family-friendly policies, will she give the House some idea of development in that area, other than the very welcome reference to half-term holidays?
    Mrs. Beckett: The balance that the House is striving to achieve between better and more productive scrutiny of Parliament's business while wishing, of course, to do as we encourage others to do and to promote family-friendly policies, is one with which the Modernisation Committee is, struggling almost even as we speak.

International Financial System
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With permission, I should like to report to the House at the earliest available opportunity the terms of a new agreement reached on Friday by Finance Ministers and central bank governors of the Group of Seven countries to reform and strengthen the international financial system. A full copy of that and a statement by the Heads of Government, setting out the agenda for further action, is available in the Vote Office.
Tomorrow, I shall present to the House the pre-Budget report, with its detail on the domestic economy. However, the financial crisis that swept Asia last year and reverberated around the world has revealed long-standing weaknesses in the international financial system, which G7 Ministers agree must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Our predecessors had to meet the challenge of ensuring economic stability in an era of national economies. Our generation must meet the challenges of ensuring stability in the era of a global economy, in which each economy can directly affect the prospects of every other. The new way forward is sensible global financial regulation, credible crisis prevention, orderly mechanisms for crisis resolution and a sure foundation in minimum standards and best practices that all countries adopt to participate in the international financial system.
That is directly relevant to the United Kingdom economy. It is everybody's business, not only because we are dependent on trade in goods and services with other countries—the Asian crisis, for example, cut in one single year UK exports to Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines by more than 50 per cent.—but because, in countries such as ours, as we have seen, a weak financial system or inappropriate economic policies in one country put at risk another country's financial system and threaten people's savings or investments, and eventually, their companies or jobs. That is why it is in everyone's interest to support a new mechanism for crisis prevention and resolution, a new transparency in the global financial order and a new process of financial regulation.
The G7 Ministers' statement reaffirms that the balance of risks in the world economy has shifted from concerns about inflation to concerns about growth. In the last month, interest rate policy has been adjusted in Japan, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Denmark, Italy and again in the United States. The G7 statement issued on Friday reaffirms our commitment to create or sustain the conditions for strong domestic-demand-led growth and financial stability in each of our economies. The authorities will continue to be vigilant in the light of the shift in the balance of risks on a global basis.
In our statement, each continent has agreed to make a contribution to creating the conditions for stability and growth—Japan with banking reform, Europe with structural reforms to tackle unemployment, and America by promoting growth with low inflation. In the case of Latin America, we welcome the policy commitments that the Brazilian Government have made, and we will work with the international community to support them. All of us must act to avoid a retreat into protectionism.
560
As well as measures to deal with short-term instabilities, we need action to reform the financial architecture. For 50 years, our policies for regulation, supervision, transparency and stability have been devised and developed for a world of relatively sheltered national economies with limited capital markets. Now that markets transcend national boundaries, we must create for global markets systems for supervision, transparency, regulation and stability that are as sophisticated as the markets with which they have to cope.
G7 Governments have therefore concluded that the international architecture devised in the 1940s for the economies of the 1940s is no longer adequate for the challenges of the 1990s, and that we need new rules for the global financial system. In the statement, each G7 country has now agreed to adopt and apply codes of conduct founded on minimum standards and best practice. These are new disciplines and undertakings that each country is prepared to accept as a condition of its participation in the international system.
In monetary and financial policy, we are agreed on the need for greater openness, and that each country should specify its objectives for monetary policy. We are agreed that each country should identify responsibility for achieving those objectives, and for reporting and explaining monetary and financial policy decisions. We are agreed that these standards should be set down in an internationally agreed code of conduct that all countries are prepared to accept.
We have committed ourselves to complying with the code of conduct of good practice on fiscal transparency that has been drawn up by the International Monetary Fund. Similar standards of transparency are required in the private sector. By spring next year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development will complete work on a code of principles on sound corporate governance and structure. By early 1999, we will also have in place a plan for internationally agreed accounting standards.
Those codes of conduct in monetary policy, fiscal policy and corporate governance will mean radical changes in the way in which financial markets function. They will help to produce an environment in which financial markets can operate better. They should reduce the risk of future failures and mean that, when failures do occur, the financial system is robust enough to withstand them. By improving public understanding of why and how decisions are made—and by making sure that the right long-term policies are in place—the codes will help to build public understanding and support for the policies that are necessary to deliver economic growth and prosperity.
Proper implementation of the codes of conduct should be a condition of IMF and World bank support. Immediate action to promote transparency in these areas should be key components in any reform programme which the IMF and World bank agree in coming months. The IMF and the World bank must themselves be more open and accountable, with a presumption in favour of releasing information and external audit of their performance.
We have agreed that there should be new undertakings on social policy, too. The G7 statement underlines the importance of policies that protect the most vulnerable—the real victims of financial crises, whose pain is very real

561
indeed. That is why the G7 Governments have agreed that there should be general principles for good practice in social policy. These should serve as a guide to best practice by individual countries, and there must be, as a matter of immediacy, a new World bank emergency facility to provide additional funding on special terms to the most vulnerable groups in society.
On global financial regulation, the G7 Governments have now agreed to support the establishment of a process for strengthened financial sector surveillance, using national and international regulatory and supervisory expertise. That will be used in the IMF's regular surveillance of individual member countries.
We will bring together the key international institutions and those national regulatory authorities that are involved in financial sector stability to co-operate and co-ordinate their activities in the management and development of policies to foster stability and reduce systemic risk. They will be able to exchange information more systematically on risk in the international financial system.
Dr. Tietmeyer, the president of the Bundesbank, has agreed to consult the relevant international bodies on the reforms. I want an international memorandum of understanding to establish a proper division of responsibility between regulators and international authorities.
In the G7 statement, we also commit ourselves to strengthening the regulatory focus on risk management systems and prudential standards in financial sector institutions, and, in particular, to examining the implications of the operations of leveraged international financial organisations, including hedge funds.
A fundamental problem has been a lack of transparency and poor standards of disclosure by some financial market participants. The Basle committee on banking standards will look at that important issue when it considers an international standard of best practice for transparency and disclosure. An agreed international standard of best practice would act as a benchmark both for financial institutions and for their regulators.
The United Kingdom is clear that financial institutions that deal with hedge funds must take into account all proper prudential standards and requirements of disclosure—proper due diligence procedures are essential. We also believe that, as part of the review of capital adequacy rules, the Basle committee needs to examine the appropriate treatment of banks' exposures to hedge funds to ensure proper recognition of the risks.
As Howard Davies, the chairman of the Financial Services Authority, has emphasised, managements of financial institutions have a responsibility to ensure that circumstances never arise in which personal relationships with potential counterparts could get in the way of appropriate due diligence. He said that there must be complete transparency in senior management's personal investments in counterpart firms to avoid any suspicion of conflicts of interest. I fully endorse those remarks.
In their statement, the G7 Heads of Government said that they would examine not only the operation of highly leveraged operations of offshore institutions but how they can encourage offshore centres to comply with internationally agreed standards. That is of particular
562
importance for the United Kingdom, because Long-Term Capital Management was registered in the Cayman Islands.
The Government are committed to improving standards of regulation and regulatory co-operation in our overseas territories and to implementing the European, G7 and other OECD initiatives to tackle unfair tax competition. We will not allow high-risk hedge fund speculation by a few to translate into wider risks for the many, and destabilise the financial system on which we all depend for prosperity.
Through international examination of transparency in hedge funds, proper due diligence procedures, potential conflicts of interest and dissemination of standards to offshore centres, Governments can play their part in minimising the implications of future sudden and systemic disturbances.
G7 Ministers are agreed on the need for a new procedure for crisis prevention and tackling contagion. The central element is an enhanced IMF reserve facility, which would provide a contingent short-term line of credit for countries pursuing strong IMF-approved policies. That facility could be drawn on in times of need, and would entail appropriate interest rates along with shorter maturities. It could be complemented, in individual cases, by bilateral contingent financing, and it would be accompanied by appropriate private sector involvement.
The G7 countries have also agreed on the need for a better long-term mechanism for international authorities to work with the private sector and national authorities in handling debt rescheduling at times of potential crisis. We are asking the private sector to adopt collective action clauses to facilitate more orderly work-out arrangements, and we will consider the use of such clauses in our own sovereign and quasi-sovereign bond issues.
We are asking the World bank, in co-operation with the IMF, to work to put in place effective insolvency and debtor-creditor regimes and, we are asking the IMF to consider lending into arrears, under carefully designed conditions and on a case-by-case basis. We want the private sector to build on its experience with some emerging market countries in developing new, market-based contingent financing mechanisms. We will now support the more active use of loan guarantees to encourage greater private-sector involvement in emerging market financing.
Following the welcome United States Congress decision, we call for the IMF quota increase and the new arrangements to borrow to be implemented as soon as possible. Together, they will provide additional IMF resources of $90 billion to ensure the stability of the international financial system.
Globalisation has happened. We must now make it work in hard times as well as good. As we have shown, we need not new institutions, but new rules and disciplines. I want to thank other G7 Ministers and central bank governors, and Heads of Government who have backed this work all along, for working through this new agreement.
Taken together, the reforms that we have agreed—global financial regulation, new codes of conduct for transparency and mechanisms for crisis prevention and crisis resolution, backed up by the resources that those need—represent the first steps and now set the agenda for what will become the most radical restructuring of the

563
international financial architecture since its creation in the 1940s, making us better equipped to tackle the challenges of the 1990s and the century ahead. I commend this detailed statement to the House.
Mr. Francis Maude: That statement was less about the global financial architecture than about distracting attention from Britain's looming downturn and the Chancellor's four basic blunders, which created it. Not once did he admit that there is a problem, and not once did he admit his responsibility for it. The House will have thought it surprising that, although the Chancellor announced this morning to the Confederation of British Industry a date for proposed British membership of the euro and the establishment of a parliamentary body to prepare for it, he has not found time to announce it to the House.
In view of the concern that the Chancellor expressed in the agreement about the performance of domestic financial regulators, will he give an absolutely clear undertaking that the financial services Bill that would create Britain's financial regulator will be in the Queen's Speech, or confirm that the legislation is in such a mess that he is not in a position to include it?
How does the Chancellor square the greater openness and disclosure about which we have heard much—including the repeated use of the word "transparency", in the belief that constant repetition makes it true—with the impenetrable thicket of changed definitions and fiddled statistics with which he has surrounded our public finances? The central point that the Chancellor failed to address was that the IMF was set up to encourage national Governments to pursue sensible economic policies. His predecessors in the previous Labour Government know that only too well.
Today's economic downturn in different parts of the world is primarily due to different domestic policy blunders in each country. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how British businesses are supposed to cope with £40 billion of extra taxation and regulation? Is he merely going to say that they all have to sharpen up their act, while he lectures the world about their deficiencies?
Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs has said:
"the UK is teetering on the brink of recession".
Will the Chancellor tell the House what he is doing to avoid such a recession? Has he not read the surveys that put Britain at the bottom of the European growth league for next year? Is he aware that the poll of forecasts published by The Economist shows British growth of less than 1 per cent. next year, while even Australia, which is heavily dependent on Asia for its trade and prosperity, is set to grow by 2.2 per cent?
When will the Chancellor stop lecturing others, and tell us what he intends to do here in Britain to prevent our sliding into a recession that will have been made in Downing street?
Mr. Brown: I knew that the Conservative party wants to opt out of Europe; it now seems to want to opt out of the whole world. When we have an agreement that has been signed by Governments of right and left throughout the world; when the central banks in America, Europe and Japan recognise the need for action; when growth in world trade is set to fall by two thirds this year, from 11 per
564
cent. last year to the 4 per cent. forecast for this year; and when 25 per cent. of the world is in recession, it ill befits the Conservative party to fail to examine the need for fundamental reforms in the international financial system.
We supported the previous Government when they considered heavily indebted poor countries and international debt and when they went to Lyons to sign an agreement tackling unemployment. I believe that, on reflection, Conservative Members will think that all-party support for an agreement signed by everyone from Alan Greenspan and President Chirac to the Prime Minister of Japan and the new President of Germany would be a more sensible approach.
Let me deal with the right hon. Gentleman's individual points, such as they were. He says that constant repetition of "transparency" will bring no answers in itself. That is precisely why all countries have now agreed to follow a code of transparency. It would have been far better if the previous Conservative Government had taken the action that might have avoided some of the crises in the first place.
Yes, it is true that the International Monetary Fund was set up primarily to deal with balance of payments crises affecting individual national Governments, because of the risk that they would spill over into other national economies; but the world has changed since 1945, and we are dealing with global financial markets that need supervision and transparency not only nationally but globally. It is hardly surprising that central bank governors and international regulators are prepared, despite the shadow Chancellor's advice, to meet and consider big reforms in the international financial system.
When the shadow Chancellor sees the result of the work being done by the Basle committee, the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to reach agreement on a new mechanism for financial regulation that can spot problems before they arise in individual economies; deal with some of the current gaps in the regulatory system; and spot some of the difficulties that arise from the international operation of hedge funds, he will think twice about pouring cold water on a very sensible idea.
The crisis resolution system—the special facility of the IMF—was an idea originally proposed by America as a temporary facility to deal with crises arising from current events, and the House agreed the funding of the IMF behind it last July, so it ill befits the Conservative party to oppose a measure that is of good use to the international system.
When Japan has to nationalise many of its banks; when the public sector is buying shares in private companies in Hong Kong; and when the United States has had to mount a rescue operation for a hedge fund that was exposed to $1.3 trillion, it ill befits the Conservative party not to take seriously the problems of our international system. I hope that, on reflection, it will think again.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his role in getting the G7 to provide the £90 billion has been widely applauded? Will he say something about the problems of contagion of perfectly respectable economies from some of those in crisis, and in particular about some of the hedge funds? We are dealing with very large sums, and at times of

565
variability in the markets concerned, it is difficult to control them. What plans does he have, or might he think of having, to monitor such funds?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I agree with him that the issues are complex and detailed. The Conservative party should face up to that when it examines the issues.
The crisis prevention facility—the supplemental reserve facility, which has been set up by the IMF—is designed so that countries pursuing sound economic policies are not brought down by international events beyond their control. The emergency facility and the resources behind it should be accompanied by bilateral help from individual countries willing to contribute and a serious contribution from the private sector, which should now play its part—on this as on other issues—in helping to resolve some of the crises that arise from the operation of the financial markets.
On hedge funds, I assure my right hon. Friend that the measures that I have outlined this afternoon—including a code of standards, the examination of dependent territories and rules of capital adequacy—are being pursued urgently. The Financial Services Authority is taking a great interest in the issue, as is the Basle committee, which brings together all the banks, and I am confident that, although it is difficult to deal with the problems caused by the operation of hedge funds, those who invest in them will be prepared to follow codes of conduct requiring higher standards of transparency and disclosure.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I welcome the Chancellor's statement and his recent work on trying to tackle global market turbulence. Does he agree that we in the United Kingdom have a responsibility to address our domestic problems as part of the solution, including getting down our overvalued pound and exchange rates? He mentioned the monetary and fiscal codes included in the G7 agreement, but will he consider the connection between the two? In his Budget statement, will he undertake to avoid any fiscal easing, to make it possible for the Bank of England to bring down interest rates in accordance with the approach that he advocated on his summer tour of world capitals?
We all wish to see greater stability in the exchange rate. I welcome the Government's proposal for a parliamentary committee to prepare for the single currency, and, whatever difficulties the official Opposition have with the issue, we will be happy to co-operate. However, does the Chancellor accept that serious private sector preparation for the single currency will not happen unless there is evidence of serious public sector commitment to joining it? The two must go together.
The Chancellor pointed out the fall in exports to Asian markets, but does he accept that we trade more with the Netherlands than with the whole of Asia, Russia and South America combined? In those circumstances, he cannot blame our current problems on difficulties in those regions, and he must pursue an action plan at home to bring down our uncompetitive exchange rate and high interest rates.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being more generous than the shadow Chancellor in
566
recognising that international issues must be addressed. The Conservative party seems to want to fail to recognise that. I will address the exchange rate issues again tomorrow, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the exchange rate is now 10 per cent. below its peak. It was DM3.10 at one point, and is now below DM2.80. The dollar exchange rate has barely changed in the past three years.
It was announced some time ago that the Government were preparing a draft national changeover plan for the single currency. The Conservative party is, of course, free to use one of its Opposition days to debate its new policy on the European Union, and I would enjoy that very much.
Individual national economies have been severely affected by what has happened around the world for two reasons. First, although trade with Asia is smaller than trade with other continents, trade as a whole, which was growing by 11 per cent., is now growing by 4 per cent. Secondly, $3 trillion has been wiped off stock exchanges around the world, which is the equivalent of 10 per cent. of world GDP. That is unlikely not to have an effect on confidence in individual countries and people's ability to make decisions about investment.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to understand that the combination of the downturn in world trade—arising initially from what happened in Asia, but affecting Russia and eastern Europe and Latin America, and now affecting some decisions being made in the United States—and what is happening on the stock exchanges, has had a powerful effect on the world economy and on confidence. I want us to steer a course of stability, but we must ensure that the world economy is also in a position to steer such a course. That is why we need major international financial reforms. I hope that, when the Conservative party grows up, it will welcome them.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Does the Chancellor agree that the British Government, and our friends in the G7 countries, are acting so that nation states can come to terms with their own economies and seek to deal with the financial contagion of speculation that has spread across the world? Long-Term Capital Management was able to raise $100 billion on $4 billion of capital. At one point, it was $3 trillion in debt. Japanese banks were not regulated properly, according to the Basle agreement. Derivatives trading has stripped the world's economies of good money made by manufacturers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has said today puts the emphasis back on the real economy, on manufacturing, on services, on sales and on exports by getting a grip on the financial economy?
Mr. Brown: I agree that, if a Japanese bank fails or a Korean industrial company is unable to continue its investment, there will be an effect on jobs in the United Kingdom. If a Japanese manufacturer, or even an American or Latin American one, cannot maintain investment, that too affects our ability to invest and to create jobs.
People are coming to recognise that events in individual economies, and the fragility of the banking systems in some developing economies, can have a powerful effect on the world economy. To deal with that is not just in the interests of one country; it is in the interests of all. That is

567
why global financial regulation is a central issue. It was not an issue when capital flows were so small in the 1940s, but it is bound to be an issue in the 1990s, and that is why the international financial institutions must be reformed.
Mr. John Townend: I have been in the House for 20 years, and I have never heard a statement from a Chancellor that contained so much waffle and so little detail. Is not the right hon. Gentleman's statement basically a diversionary tactic that will give him an alibi tomorrow when he will announce to the House that our growth rate next year will be way under 1 per cent. while growth rates in France and Germany are way over 2 per cent? Is not that due to the failure of his economic policy of spending too high, taxing too high and imposing too much regulation, which has forced the Bank of England to keep interest rates sky high, and has created a growing depression? The right hon. Gentleman talked of transparency, but there is none in the European Central bank, which he is keen to join. Will he advocate that the bank's minutes be published? How much will his package cost the British taxpayer?
Mr. Brown: I do not know what has happened to the Conservative party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Answer? The hon. Gentleman made a statement of prejudice against the world, and he failed to recognise that what happens in Britain is affected by what happens round the world. If he were criticising a statement that I had made without the agreement of our G7 partners and of central bank governors, that would be all very well.
However, I have worked on the statement with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve bank in the United States, Alan Greenspan, the governors of all the central banks in Europe, and the Finance Ministers of those countries. That includes Ministers of right-wing views and left-wing views, all of whom agree that international financial reform is necessary. The only people who do not agree with that, it seems, are in the Conservative party.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and I pay tribute to the expert, confidence-inspiring way in which he set about it—[Laughter.] Oh yes, people all over the world will wish to thank the British Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he has done.
May I ask about a tax on speculative flows? Is that idea completely ruled out, or might it perhaps be on the agenda at some future point?
Mr. Brown: The key problem of a tax on speculation is how it would be applied, given the numerous financial centres that exist. We think that disclosure is the better answer to some of the problems that have arisen from the effects of speculative activity around the world, when it has become excessive. People must disclose the activities in which they are engaged, there must be proper international bodies that can deal with managing disclosure issues, and there must be proper standards that people have to follow.
568
I believe that even the Conservative party will see that that is the proper way forward. It wants to keep laughing, but we are talking about an international crisis that has left scores of millions of people in poverty. I wish that it would recognise what is happening around the world.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Chancellor accept that he has a problem in the growing gap between income and expenditure, and that, at the heart of his statement, despite all the appeals for private sector support, is an announcement that the Government will commit more money to the International Monetary Fund? Will that commitment increase his problem by increasing public expenditure, or will it not count as public expenditure? If it does not, would it not be more honest if it did?
Mr. Brown: In the traditions that have been followed by Governments of both parties, the contributions to the IMF count as coming from foreign exchange reserves. Our IMF quota has been voted by the House. America was the last country that had to make a decision on whether to go ahead with it. There has been a great welcome around the world for the American decision that makes it possible to create the new reserve facility. Under the previous Government, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems to have become very unpopular on the Conservative Benches, supported these measures. I think that, on reflection, the Conservative party will again support them, but it is a pity that it cannot do so today.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Chancellor accept that, in any other forum in Britain, what he said would have been welcomed unanimously as sheer common sense? His two major points—the vulnerability of developing nations and the problem of debt, and the need for transparency in the IMF and the World bank—are surely self-evident. If people cannot be persuaded of the social and moral grounds that underscore his arguments, cannot we point out that economic interdependence means, for example, that, because of the meltdown in Asia, 1 million fewer Asian tourists are using the services of the British tourism industry than previously? On transparency, can he assure us that, with Oxfam and other non-governmental organisations, he believes that there should be separate representation at both the IMF and the World bank?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has long taken a great interest in development. I agree with what he says about transparency and the effect of what is happening all around the world on European economies. The agreement sets up a new emergency World bank facility that can give additional help to the poorest groups, particularly in Asia. The World bank is investing an extra $17 billion to help deal with social problems in Asia: 2.5 million children in Indonesia are being helped; a special employment programme is being developed in Thailand; in Korea, special adjustment finance is being provided. All those things are necessary to avoid not only unemployment but, in some cases, starvation. I hope that the whole House supports the measures.
Sir Teddy Taylor: One of the key recommendations in the statement is the

569
reduction of European Union unemployment, which is now at the horrifying level of about 10 per cent., and more than 20 per cent. in some countries. Will the Chancellor say exactly how that is to be done? In light of the firm assurance by all G7 members that they are totally opposed to protectionism, will he say that the Government will wholly oppose the common agricultural policy, which is the greatest protection racket ever devised by man?
Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government propose to reform the common agricultural policy. Conservative Members should welcome the fact that there is growth in Europe, and that the projections are for higher growth next year than in America, for example. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like it when Europe is growing, and they do not like it when Europe is not growing. Europe is set to grow next year. The employment action measures that we propose to adopt in Britain to deal with the structural problems of youth and long-term unemployment are increasingly being adopted in Europe. That will help to bring down unemployment.
Mr. Harry Barnes: In an economic crisis, the weakest go to the wall first. In this case, the weakest are some of the world's poorest nations, which are looking for the removal of their international debt. Will the debt rescheduling measures that my right hon. Friend mentioned—new rules for the IMF and the World bank—begin to tackle that problem?
Mr. Brown: At the recent meetings of the IMF and the World bank in October, the United Kingdom proposed a number of measures that would help to get more countries into the debt reduction process. We are confident that, if action is taken both by them and by the world authorities, all countries can be part of the debt reduction process by the millennium.
We suggested a measure whereby post-conflict countries, particularly in Africa, which face the double burden of debt and an economy destroyed as a result of war, could get special help to ensure that they are part of the debt reduction process as well. I assure my hon. Friend that what the Churches and voluntary organisations throughout the UK and Europe are pressing for—action before the millennium on debt relief that genuinely helps people in difficulty, particularly in Africa—is part of the programme that the UK is pushing.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Before we set another unnecessary hare running, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), as he seemed to, that financial services are not a real service industry, even if they require regulation?
Mr. Brown: No, I did not say that, and I do not think that it was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend should not pay a great deal of attention to the nervous laughter from the Conservative Benches when he was making his statement, because that party was responsible for seeing Johnson Matthey go down the pan to the tune
570
of several hundred million pounds; they sat on their hands while the Bank of Credit and Commerce International lost £14 billion; and they did nothing when Barings lost £800 million. They are the Nicky Leesons of the political world. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although words like "codes of conduct" and "intervention" are well-meaning, if we are to tame the casino economy there must be some binding measures as well?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the Conservatives' record. If they do not believe in international financial regulation, it is doubtful whether they believe in national financial regulation. All G7 countries have agreed to follow the codes of conduct and the intervention that we propose, and there is now a timetable for action. At the beginning of next year, agreements on a number of those issues will be put into practice, and any further work will be completed by the next G7 summit. That is a record not only of moving the issue forward as a result of the financial crisis, but of trying to resolve quickly issues which, on reflection, Conservative Members should have resolved long ago, when they were in government.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Chancellor mentioned the need to reduce unemployment across Europe. Does he agree that those measures should be business led, and that it is not the role of Governments within the European Union to attempt to create jobs? That should be left to the business community.
Mr. Brown: I agree that businesses create jobs and prosperity, and that is exactly what I would say in every discussion I have. However, the hon. Lady must recognise that welfare to work would not have happened without government. The private sector often needs the Government's lead in helping with training and job opportunities for people who have been left out. We now have 140,000 young people in the welfare-to-work programmes under the new deal. I hope that the hon. Lady's remarks mean that she, at least, will welcome that on behalf of the Conservative party.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, because it offers a firm platform for collective action by the new Governments of the left in Europe to promote growth and employment. However, can he assure the House that, in future, IMF packages will secure jobs and employment in the target countries, not simply bail out banks for risks that they should never have taken? Will he also assure us that Britain's offshore tax havens will have a firm regime of disclosure and transparency, of the kind that he wishes to see in the rest of the world?
Mr. Brown: I can say that we are looking at exactly that, in relation to the offshore independent territories.
As for the IMF, it is true that last year's initial programmes relating to countries such as Indonesia have been found not to be appropriate. That is why there must be more openness and more external audit in regard to what the IMF does, and I believe that some of the decisions that we have made will facilitate the process.
Mr. Michael Jack: In the early part of his statement, the Chancellor mentioned a number of actions

571
that countries and groups of countries were expected to take in order to comply with the international agreement. Will there be a country-by-country timetable for such action? What sanctions will be imposed on countries that do not comply with that international requirement? Without a timetable and without sanctions, it will be a worthless and toothless agreement.
Mr. Brown: Countries will report what they have done by the time of the next G7 summit. As for sanctions, we propose that, when the IMF produces its national reports on individual countries, it should report on what has happened to, for example, reforms of the financial system. So there will be a timetable for reports, and sanctions in the form of publicity about what has gone wrong.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Chancellor keep a wary eye on our national clearing banks and other financial institutions, so that what has happened with hedge funds in the past does not happen again? When the financial institutions caught a cold in connection with third-world debts, the property boom and one or two other speculative enterprises in the 1970s and 1980s, they promptly recouped the money from customers in the United Kingdom, both industrial and private. Perhaps the Chancellor will keep an eye on them, because we would not like a repeat of something that caused so much damage to the personal and industrial economic health of the country.
Mr. Brown: I agree that it is important for our banks to service the needs of businesses in the best way possible, and the Government will keep that under continuous review. As for hedge funds, we intend to implement the initiatives that I have suggested this afternoon. I will report to the House later.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Chancellor realise that the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation will not be amused by his refusal to answer questions about the way in which his actions are exacerbating the effects of the decline in the world economy? Will he now answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)? Will he tell us exactly why the Australian economy, which is more dependent on the Asian economy than ours, is growing at a rate of 2.2 per cent., while the United Kingdom economy—which, by his own admission, is less dependent on the Asian economy—is growing at a rate of only 0.8 per cent.?
Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the British economy has been growing at an average of more than 2 per cent. over the past year. I shall give the figures tomorrow.
The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures relating to employment, which show that more people are employed in Britain than ever before. As for unemployment, which is another measure of bad performance, we have 400,000 fewer people unemployed.
572
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Australian Government are as interested as the British Government in reforming the international financial system. It seems that the only organisation that is uninterested in reform is the Conservative party.
Mr. Chris Pond: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the statement of the principles of social policy that have been agreed through the G7.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm—especially in the light of his last few words—that the country's employment record has been rather better lately than the record of the last Government, from whom we inherited the largest proportion of workless households in the European Union? Will he also confirm that it is understood by all members of the G7, on both right and left, that decent social standards are a precondition for economic progress, and that social justice is not an alternative to economic prosperity?
Mr. Brown: We have held discussions about the code of social policy, not simply with the G7 and the IMF but with the Commonwealth countries. They, too, are interested in how we can establish internationally agreed principles of social policy that can guide their peoples' behaviour. I like to think that we can make some progress on that, in terms not just of international debt, but of laying down social standards that all countries are prepared to adopt.
In view of what is happening in Indonesia—which I visited only a few months ago—and in Korea, Malaysia and many other Asian countries, the sooner we can secure agreement on what can be done to help in these difficult social times, the better. I assure my hon. Friend that, although I can, of course, make my party political points about the Conservatives' record on unemployment, it is more important to us to make progress throughout the world in dealing with some of the major social problems.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Chancellor said that the IMF quota increase was agreed in July by the House. In fact, it was put upstairs in a Standing Committee, where there was an almost farcical exchange, with very little understanding by the Government of what had been agreed. Billions of pounds of British taxpayers' money is at risk here. Will the Chancellor acknowledge that, in future, all IMF quota increases should be taken on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Brown: I am happy to debate the issues of international financial institutions sensibly, and I hope that the whole Conservative party will join that debate when we have it. On the IMF quota increase, it is correct that, in Committee before the summer recess, we approved the UK share of the quota increase. It is also true that we approved in Committee last year the steps that the UK needs to take to participate in what are the new arrangements for borrowing.
I agree that these are important issues, but I think the hon. Gentleman would want Britain to continue to be the fourth biggest shareholder in the IMF, and to play our full part in the international institutions, and would want Britain's influence to count throughout the world. That depends on our playing a full part in the international

573
financial institutions, and not on some cheap party political point saying that we should not pay our share of the quota.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when he discussed these matters with his G7 colleagues, one of the matters that might have been discussed was how to promote such policies internationally? Will he confirm that the Conservative party has decided to get rid of the torch symbol and instead adopt the ostrich in its approach to these matters?
Mr. Brown: I know that, because the Conservative party failed in government, it wants to think that every Government will fail internationally, and is cynical about what can be achieved; but my hon. Friend is right. Progress on dealing with some of these international problems over the past few months has been important. We must go further, and make more progress on these issues. That cannot be done unless the G7, central bank governors and Finance Ministers work together and we can galvanise the IMF and World bank into action. I would have hoped that there would be all-party support for that throughout the House.
Dr. Vincent Cable: May I add my support for the international economic initiatives, but specifically ask about exchange rate stability? Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm the written answer that was given to me by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury a few days ago—that, since the Government came to office, the pound sterling had appreciated by over 10 per cent. in real terms, when we take into account different rates of inflation and the movements of all currencies, including the dollar; in other words, the pound sterling is over 10 per cent. less competitive?
Mr. Brown: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the figures. When we came to power, the pound against the deutschmark was, if I remember rightly, 2.79; it is now less than 2.79. For a time, it was up further. It has now come down 10 per cent. In relation to the dollar, the pound and the dollar have not changed a great
574
deal over the past two or three years. I have understood the concerns of exporters in these matters, but I keep saying to the House, and I will repeat it: the bigger concern of every part of industry would be if we were ever to return again to the boom-bust conditions that were left to us by the Conservative party in the early 1990s.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Would not the Chancellor's statement this afternoon have been greeted with greater credibility if he had stopped blaming everyone else except the Government for this country's economic woes? Why did he say in public during the summer that the growth target that he announced in the last Budget had been revised downwards from 1.7 to 1 per cent? Why did he tell this morning's "Today" programme rather than Parliament that our borrowing was being increased to a staggering £22 billion? When will he take some proper measures to help manufacturing industry, and to save some of the jobs that are being lost in his constituency and elsewhere?
Mr. Brown: I do not know what question the hon. Member has been given to ask, but let me say that America is revising down its growth forecast, Japan has revised down its growth forecast, and Europe and Latin America are revising down their growth forecast. Every country is having to revise down its growth forecast as a result of what is happening throughout the world. The Conservative party wants to opt out of the world. We are part of a global economy, and the sooner it recognises that, the better.
Mr. Tim Collins: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question he dodged earlier? If he believes in transparency on monetary policy, why has he not criticised the refusal of the European central bank to publish the minutes of its meetings? He has lectured Conservative Members on foreign policy, but has he not noticed that Germany has not a new President, as he said earlier, but a new Chancellor? That is something that Britain needs, too.
Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman wants to be accurate, he will acknowledge that I have criticised the European central bank and asked it to have transparency in its operations. The hon. Gentleman should be correct rather than wrong in his assertions.

Personal Statement (Mr. Ron Davies)
4.26 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to make a personal statement.
Last Monday evening, I made a severe error of judgment in failing to protect my personal safety. I became the victim of what was for me a frightening and shocking crime. I reported the matter to the police, and the process of law will now take its course. For that reason, I shall make no further comment on that aspect of the matter. However, I offer my heartfelt apologies to the House for any embarrassment that I might have caused.
On Tuesday morning, I explained to the Prime Minister what had occurred, I apologised for it, I offered him my resignation, and he accepted it. I want to place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for his personal support and solicitude over the past few days, which have been of very great comfort to me.
The events of the last week have been unremittingly agonising. I could not have got through them without the love and support of the two people most dear to me—my wife Chris and my daughter Angharad. Without the constant support of a few other very close friends I cannot imagine how I could have got through this nightmare, and I offer them my heartfelt and most profound thanks. I also want to thank many other close friends for their endless patience in the face of a constant barrage of media pressure. I am grateful for the messages of support from former ministerial colleagues, Members of both Houses—from both sides—and the public at large.
The shock, for me, of the events of last Monday, and the sadness of my resignation, have been added to by media intrusion into my private life, reporting as fact a stream of rubbish. Rumour and lies have been asserted as truth. The whole of my adult life has been pored over for something that could be twisted to suit the present prejudice.
576
Ultimately, this arbitrary abuse of power is an attack not just on me, but on all our rights. The right to privacy belongs to all citizens. The victims of crime, even if they are in public life, cannot be excluded from that. We all have rights; we also all have responsibilities, of course, and that applies to the media. The media have the right to freedom, but they must carry the responsibilities to exercise that right judiciously.
In my childhood, I learned a very hard lesson at a very early age—one cannot allow powerful people to bully the weak or to abuse their own power. How willing will the next victim of a crime be to report it; how eager will people be to stand for public office in the knowledge that one mistake might result in the whole of their lives being picked over and twisted out of all recognition? How can it improve democracy if our lives in this House, our influences and our relationships, were all laid out for public titillation? We are what we are. We are all different—the product of both our genes and our experiences. Members of Parliament are no different from the society that we represent.
Since I became the Labour party spokesman for Wales in 1992, the creation of a new democracy for Wales has been for me a personal commitment and a political responsibility. I know that the process that I started will go on, creating a more tolerant, more open and more mature way of conducting politics. My experience in the past week could not have provided me with a more vivid demonstration of the need for such a tolerant and understanding society. The support that I have received from colleagues, from ordinary citizens and, indeed, from the Welsh media reassures me that that is a vision that is widely shared.
Not for the first time in my life, I have been badly beaten and hurt. I believe that my defences are strong enough to see me through this very trying time. From adversity, of course, can come strength. That will be so in my current circumstances. I worked hard to change the face of politics and government in Wales. I am now more determined than ever to see those changes through.
I am very grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and for the attention of the House.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Journalists (BBC)
4.30 pm.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You and other hon. Members are very much aware of the reliance that we place on a free journalistic corps—on the fact that journalists must be absolutely free to report on what hon. Members and others do. Can you suggest what we might do to protect journalists in the BBC against an absolutely unjustified trammelling of their freedom which seems, on the face of it—if we can believe the reports—to result from some high-level cronyism between elements in the Government and elements in the senior level of the BBC? The matter surely must concern you, Madam Speaker, as much as it does other hon. Members. Will you say what can be done about it?
Madam Speaker: I concern myself with many matters in the House, and try to give useful and beneficial guidance to hon. Members. However, on those matters, I think that we must all act in accordance with our own consciences.

Security and Intelligence Agencies
[Relevant documents: The Intelligence and Security Committee's Annual Report (Cm. 4073) for 1997–98 and the Government's reponse (Cm. 4089).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I should say that I had intended to place a time limit on Back Benchers' speeches in this debate, as there is great demand to speak in it. However, we are starting in good time, and I leave the House to discipline itself for once.
4.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Thank you, Madam Speaker; I shall take your words to heart.
Today's debate is a piece of parliamentary history. This is not the first report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but it is the first time that Parliament has had an opportunity to debate one. It is not so long ago that Governments would not officially recognise the very existence of the Secret Intelligence Service—or I6, as it was popularly known—and in those years it would have been inconceivable that Parliament should debate its functions. Even the location of the agency's headquarters was protected information. It is perhaps a measure of the new openness that, when I last visited those headquarters, I noticed that the nearest bistro has been named Miss Moneypenny's"—which is an interesting case of fiction invading real life.
It is a consequence of the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee that we are able to have this debate at all. The first report of the new Committee fully justifies the new mechanisms of scrutiny. It sets out the work programme of the agencies with clarity, and also raises openly, but responsibly, discussion of areas of legitimate public concern, particularly relating to the personnel management of the agencies and the files on individuals held by them.
The Committee's work necessarily is not in the open. It would sharply inhibit the candour with which its questions were answered if it met in open session. Some hon. Members may imagine that, because the Committee meets and takes evidence in private, it provides an easy life for its witnesses. I should disabuse the House of that idea. As one of those who has given evidence to the Committee, I can assure the House that the fact that the meeting takes place in private does not in any way diminish the acuteness of the questioning, which is just as testing as any in front of the press.
I thank all members of the Committee for the hard work that they have put into the report. Their effort is all the more appreciated as, by definition, it cannot lead to the public recognition that might attend membership of a Select Committee. The success of the Committee owes much to the experienced hand of its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). The House is fortunate to have in the Chair of the Committee a Member who has had extensive experience, in Northern Ireland and at the Ministry of Defence, of the work of the agencies. As the report of the Committee stresses, the frankness with which the agencies are able to respond to

579
its scrutiny is crucially dependent on the relationship of trust between the agencies and the members and the Chairman of the Committee.
The Government welcome the report. Our published response to the report has already demonstrated that we find ourselves in agreement with the bulk of the Committee's recommendations, although there are some which are for the House itself, not for Ministers, to progress. I would begin with the very lucid observations in the foreword to the report. I would agree with the Committee that the three agencies are operating in an environment that has changed dramatically over the past decade.
For the first 40 years after the war, the role and justification of the three agencies was self-evident. Europe, and indeed much of the world, was divided into two armed camps, with a very real risk of hostilities between them. Today, three of our former potential enemies in the Warsaw pact are becoming firm allies in NATO. Almost a dozen of the countries of the former communist bloc are democracies on the threshold of membership of the European Union.
We are fortunate to be living through a period of such exciting and historic transformation in our continent, yet there remain security threats to our country, some of which have become more serious over the same decade in which the cold war has receded. The cold war provided a world order of a kind, and not everything that has happened since its disappearance has been either predictable or welcome.
The conflicts in the former Yugoslavia continue to bring home to us the dangers to regional peace from the revival of a narrow ethnic nationalism. The recent strategic defence review confirmed that British forces must be ready for deployment on a variety of missions to keep the peace and to ensure humanitarian relief. Accurate and reliable intelligence will remain as important to those missions as it ever was to the defence of the central front of NATO. Moreover, the increased communication and speed of transfer of equipment and technology which comes with globalisation brings with it challenges as well as opportunities.
Increased mobility creates new opportunities for the drugs trade, which is now second only to the oil trade in value. The revolution in the transfer of knowledge creates new problems of preventing access to the technology required for weapons of mass destruction; and terrorists today can conduct their campaigns on a global horizon, not just on a national stage.
We have sought to give new priority to combating the global concerns of drugs, terrorism and proliferation, and I want to put on record my appreciation of the vigorous and imaginative way in which the three agencies have responded to these fresh priorities. It is of course essential to the continuing success of the agencies' work in these spheres that I cannot disclose to the House their specific successes, of which I know from my own experience. The nature of what they do means that they cannot boast of their achievements if they are to remain effective, but let me assure the House that they have scored real achievements.
The work of the agencies is of major importance in fighting the menace of the drugs trade. The intelligence that they provide to the law enforcement agencies helps us to go further up the supply chain, targeting the barons
580
rather than the underlings. In the past three years, the agencies have contributed to more than £200 million worth of drugs being seized and dozens of criminals being arrested.
The work of the agencies is also crucial in frustrating the ambitions of those regimes that are trying to acquire the technology for nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Without the intelligence from their monitoring, we would never have the accurate information needed to apply diplomatic pressure or to secure effective international agreement to discourage proliferation; nor would we be able to disrupt covert attempts to acquire such technology. They are also vital to the fight against terrorism. By keeping us alert to the preparations of the terrorists and by helping us to frustrate those preparations, they have saved lives from the hands of the terrorists.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way. Although none of us would wish to decry the work of any of the three agencies, does he accept that because the Intelligence and Security Committee was set up by the Government and reports to the Prime Minister, it is different from the Select Committees? Does he further accept that Select Committees retain the right to call on any of the agencies that may be concerned specifically with the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee—for example, in respect of drugs, which would concern the Home Affairs Committee? Matters of foreign affairs which are the responsibility of the Foreign Affairs Committee would be another case in point.
Mr. Cook: I would anticipate that the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee might wish to make an observation on that later. However, I would correct the right hon. Member on one point: the Intelligence and Security Committee was set up by Act of Parliament. It is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and we are laying before Parliament the report that it submitted to him. That is right, and it gives Parliament the proper opportunity to exercise scrutiny.
The involvement of other Select Committees will be a matter for review on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis where it may be appropriate for those Committees to intervene on intelligence matters. However, it does not seem to me that there is much merit in maintaining an Intelligence and Security Committee—with the specific task of building a relationship of trust with the intelligence agencies in order to carry out the job of scrutiny—if the same job is then done by Select Committees. A Select Committee that wished to intervene in those matters must be carrying out a clear and distinct job.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I happily give way to my hon. Friend, who I believe is a member of the Committee.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have listened with great care to my right hon. Friend. Is it not the truth that if the Committee were to be a fully fledged Select Committee, many of the arguments that have taken place would not be necessary in future?
Mr. Cook: Possibly the one that we have just had would not need to take place in future, but I can assure

581
my hon. Friend that there would be many others. I believe that he has not yet commanded a majority on the Committee for his proposal that it should transform itself into a Select Committee. Of course it must be a matter of judgment—ultimately the judgment of Parliament as to whether it wishes to amend the legislation—but I am sure that Parliament would be wise to reflect on whether, in the move to greater openness that would be made with becoming a Select Committee, some of the candour and openness with which the agencies can co-operate with the present Committee would be lost.
Mr. David Winnick rose—
Mr. Chris Mullin rose—
Mr. Cook: I shall give way, but at some stage I need to proceed with my speech on the report.
Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in opposition, we made proposals for more openness and voted accordingly? Does he further accept that as long as there is a lack of proper parliamentary accountability, as is the current position, regardless of the existence of the Committee, the controversy will continue in one way or another? The way to resolve it is by allowing the type of scrutiny that we proposed in opposition.
Mr. Cook: We did commit ourselves to more openness, and today's debate is an example of our being more open than any previous Administration. Moreover, our work on accountability for the Secret Intelligence Service shows that we are willing to be more open. As the House will be aware, I have ordered a report to be prepared by historians in response to a parliamentary question on the Zinoviev letter which will put more into the public domain than has yet been revealed.
The current Administration have no need whatever to be apologetic about our record on openness in regard to the intelligence and security services. On the contrary, we have taken steps that no previous Administration have taken, but at the same time we have to be careful that we create mechanisms of scrutiny that will actually work and will not result in the process being so open that the agencies cannot co-operate with them in the same way as they co-operate with the present mechanisms.
So far, I have discussed the work of the three agencies as one single effort. That makes sense because they co-operate fully together, and the intelligence assessments which we see as Ministers can draw on the work of all three agencies. I also wish to give a few examples of their separate work.
The Security Service leads the intelligence war against terrorism related to Northern Ireland. Its work with the police has led directly to the disruption of major terrorist attacks and the arrest and conviction of many terrorists.
Last year, six Provisional IRA members were convicted of planning to blow up six of the main electricity substations feeding London. Had the terrorists succeeded, there would have been immense disruption to the lives and prosperity of the people of London.
Since 1996, the service has supported the law enforcement agencies in the fight against organised crime. That co-operation has already resulted in success.
582
One example is the conviction last year of a major criminal on a firearms offence. The Security Service played a key role in bringing him to justice.
Similarly, GCHQ has given vital support to our military in every crisis since the second world war. That is as true today as it was at the time of the cracking of the Enigma code. We have well over 50,000 troops deployed in more than 20 different operations around the world. Some of them operate in conditions that are anything but safe. The intelligence provided by GCHQ helps them cope with volatile and dangerous circumstances. Our troops in Bosnia, for example, get intelligence from GCHQ that enables them to work more effectively and safely.
GCHQ also has a key defensive role. It is one of the world leaders in developing information technology that is safe from attack. The Government secure intranet launched in April was a good example. So was the GCHQ-designed Brent secure telephone, which is both highly effective and the cheapest totally secure telephone system ever produced. In a world in which information is increasingly the single most important commodity, the ability to protect computers from attack is a fundamental requirement for our national security. The work of GCHQ will help ensure that Britain can go into the information age with confidence and, as a result of current investment, GCHQ will be able to face that future in a modern building on a single site in place of the present two sites.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Cook: I had rather anticipated that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) would wish to intervene, but I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend hopes to catch your eye, later Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Foreign Secretary recognises the force of what the Committee said about how undesirable it is that such an enormous project of tremendous importance to Cheltenham and the surrounding area should have been overseen by no fewer than four different director-generals.
Mr. Cook: I felt that on one arithmetical problem, the Committee slightly overegged it. To be fair, the fourth director was in post for five years, which is a reasonable period. However, I acknowledge that there have been three directors over the past two years. Of course, there is a balance to be struck. It would indeed be desirable that directors should remain at GCHQ for longer. On the other hand, over the past two years the present Government and the previous Administration, who were responsible for the first of those three appointments, have sought to make sure that those appointed as directors were people of the highest calibre and potential. It is a matter of record that people of high potential and high achievement tend to get poached for promoted posts, and the fact that two of those three have departed for posts of permanent secretary is a tribute to their calibre.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue to make sure that GCHQ continues to receive top management of the highest calibre; and I hope that we can now have a period of stability to see the project through. The project is not just the work of one man or woman as director. It is the work of a team. Expertise has remained available throughout that period.

583
GCHQ and the Security Service have been opening up. Both have publicly advertised for recruits and both now have websites. The Security Service has produced a booklet describing its work. However, the third agency—the Secret Intelligence Service—must remain secret. I cannot be as frank with the House about its successes as I have been about those of the other two agencies.
Those who work with SIS overseas often risk their lives so that our lives may be safe. Their effectiveness and their lives depend on their identities and work remaining out of the public eye. Their ability to gather intelligence depends on the confidence that their sources have in the absolute trustworthiness and discretion of the service. Their international links depend on their sister services in other countries knowing that when they hand information to SIS it will remain secure.
For all three agencies to perform their work adequately, they must be adequately financed. The function and structure of the agencies were separately examined in the recent comprehensive spending review. We concluded that there was a real and continuing need for the work of the agencies. If they are to do their job, they must have confidence that they will be resourced to fulfil the tasks that we place on them. I am pleased that the comprehensive spending review has halted the decline in the resources available to the agencies and enabled them to face the future with confidence. That is in contrast to the past five years, during which the budget of the agencies declined by nearly one third.
I particularly welcome the care and attention that the Intelligence and Security Committee has paid to issues of personnel management. All three agencies depend wholly on their staff. For each, their staff are their key asset. When they join they sacrifice some personal freedom. The agencies depend on the loyalty and discretion of their staff. In return, we need to make sure that there are proper arrangements in place to deal with their problems and grievances.
I am glad that the Committee recognised the valuable work done by the staff counsellor. We share the Committee's view that Sir Christopher France has an important role. The Government also share the Committee's anxiety that staff should, as much as possible, enjoy the same rights as other employees, including access to industrial tribunals. As we have already said, we are reviewing whether and how it might be possible to give access to a tribunal for those sensitive cases that are currently excluded from such arrangements.
The Government have already demonstrated their commitment to the rights of the staff who do important national security work. One of our earliest acts was to restore to staff at GCHQ the right to belong to an independent trade union. Three of those who lost their jobs because they refused to lose their union membership are now back at work at GCHQ.
Mr. Nigel Jones: Will the Foreign Secretary accept the thanks of all the people of Cheltenham—particularly the 14 who were fired for keeping their trade union membership—for the fact that the Government kept their promise to remove the ban on GCHQ trade unions soon after taking office?
Mr. Winnick: Are the Tories embarrassed?
Mr. Cook: I do not think that my hon. Friend addressed that question to me.
584
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cheltenham for that comment. I know from what the 14 people concerned have said that they appreciate what we have done. As one of them has said, we have righted a wrong that lasted for too long.
The Committee is right to pay attention to personnel management, because this is not just an issue of ensuring that we treat fairly those who are dedicated to the national interest. It is also vital for the security of the agencies that they detect—and when possible resolve—staff dissatisfaction before it leads to disaffection.
At the height of the cold war, a major threat to the security of the agencies was the possibility of the corruption of a member of staff by bribery or blackmail. Although that threat may have receded, a new one has arisen. Today, the extravagant rewards that can be gained from an exclusive deal with a newspaper or book publisher can provide a bigger payout for disloyalty than the KGB ever offered. Moreover, it does not necessarily come with the same insistence on accuracy that the KGB might have required. It therefore remains vital that the agencies be vigilant in recruiting their staff and maintaining the motivation of their officers.
The members of the Committee are familiar with the difficulties caused to SIS and the Security Service by former members of staff who present a cocktail of fact and fiction as a portrait of the work of the services. Considerable investment has been made to reduce the possibility of such cases in future by improving the vetting and recruitment procedures and strengthening the monitoring of staff in post.
The secrecy that is essential to the work of the agencies means that most of our constituents are not aware of their real work. They are left to form their impressions of the three agencies from the word processors of novelists and the cameras of Hollywood. Those impressions are not always entirely accurate. It may be challenging for the Intelligence and Security Committee to correct all those false impressions satisfactorily. Nevertheless, by providing a candid and sober account of the work of the three agencies, the report restores some balance. Our constituents pay for the three agencies. They must have access to an honest explanation of why it is important that their money should be invested in them.
That is why it was right to commit a day of parliamentary time to debating the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I commend the work of the Committee to the House and I look forward to working with it to ensure that we get the right balance between operational secrecy and parliamentary scrutiny for these three pillars of our national security.
4.56 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: I pay tribute to the men and women who carry out, on behalf of us all, some of the most difficult, delicate and dangerous duties that any servants of the Crown are asked to discharge. I speak as shadow Foreign Secretary, but for four years, as Home Secretary, I had responsibility for the Security Service. In that capacity, I acquired detailed knowledge of the activities in which the personnel of that service engaged, through general briefings and through the ability to follow the course of particular investigations that comes with the duty to authorise warrants. I was left in no doubt about the enormous risks run by those whom

585
we charge with such responsibilities on our behalf. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to them and to members of the other agencies for their work.
There can be no doubt about the continuing need for that work. In the introduction to its latest report, the Intelligence and Security Committee refers to the threats to this country and to the peace of the world that have arisen in the aftermath of the cold war. The report asks starkly:
"Was not the Cold War, in its awful way, a form of rigid security system that has now collapsed, and have not new developments and technology and 'globalisation' produced their own dangers?"
Without any trace of nostalgia for the cold war, few, if any, hon. Members would decline to answer that question in the affirmative.
The next paragraph of the report identifies some of the threats, including the enormous increase in the instability of the world and the breakdown of what had previously appeared to be stable sovereign entities into separate states, often riven by ethnic enmities. The consequent need for peacekeeping or humanitarian missions places a premium on the product of intelligence services. The new world order, which was hailed with such optimism just a few short years ago, has since degenerated into a discord of disorder.
Despite welcome developments in Northern Ireland, the threat of terrorist attack remains. Growth in the activities of serious criminal organisations, centred on the drugs menace and associated with large-scale money laundering, has continued apace. Many such organisations have access to resources that dwarf the entire national incomes of many sovereign states. Their sophistication is formidable. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a danger that we ignore at our peril. The need for this country to have efficient, effective intelligence services at its disposal is as great as ever.
Efficiency and effectiveness can be helped by proper scrutiny arrangements. The increased accountability that such arrangements bring can promote the better working of the agencies as well as, of course, providing all the advantages of greater openness and democratic control. That is why the previous Government introduced arrangements in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 which included the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Its latest report does much to inform today's debate. I am happy to join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the Committee, and particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who has chaired it with such distinction since its inception.
The way in which the Committee has discharged its responsibilities in both the previous Parliament and this one has given the lie to the doubts that were expressed by some who now sit on the Government Benches. The present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for example, asked in respect of the Intelligence and Security Committee:
"Are not we…supporting what is, to all intents and purposes, becoming a charade?"
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke against the presence on the proposed Committee of former Cabinet Ministers. He said:
"Those people will be seen to be against any type of oversight of the security services."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 March 1994; c. 267–72.]
586
I hope that, in winding up the debate, the Home Secretary will acknowledge that those objections were misconceived, and will distance himself from those comments.
That is the background against which we must consider some of the issues raised in the report that are relevant to today's debate. Yet another tragic murder over the weekend, and the acknowledgement of responsibility for it by what might be a new terrorist grouping, reinforce the need for continuing vigilance by the Government as a whole and the security services in particular in respect of events in Northern Ireland. The work that has been done on combating Irish terrorism in recent years has been, in the full and literal sense, absolutely heroic. It must continue; it will not be assisted by the continuing release of those who have been convicted of the most brutal crimes without any decommissioning of paramilitary arms.
The report contains a brief and necessarily curtailed reference to Iraq. Again, events over the weekend underline the importance of continued vigilance. The threat to world peace from Iraq is acute, and we must combat it by all legitimate means at our disposal. The contribution of the security services must continue.
The Committee's programme of work refers to its intention to pursue questions of intelligence policy in relation to recent events in Sierra Leone in the light of the findings of the Legg report. The House will recall the difficulty faced by the Foreign Affairs Committee in trying to question the Foreign Secretary on the subject. At every stage, information had to be squeezed out of Ministers and officials. The process was as prolonged and painful as drawing teeth without an anaesthetic.
The arms-to-Africa affair evolved into a constitutional confrontation between the Executive and Parliament. The Foreign Secretary attempted to put into practice a new constitutional doctrine that, if he orders an internal inquiry, which is held in private, it should take precedence over and, indeed, displace the role of Select Committees. In view of that, will my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater tell the House a little more about the Committee's plans in that regard and what progress, if any, has been made?
One of the most significant changes in recent years in the Security Service has been the additional responsibilities entrusted to it concerning serious organised crime—a change made when I was Home Secretary. I therefore read with particular interest the information in paragraph 17 of the report, and look forward to the results of the further work that the Committee intends to undertake in the area. I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us a little more about the Security Service's work in that area in his winding-up speech. Like the Committee, I very much welcome the new priority given by the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ to their work against drug trafficking.
The Committee highlights several other issues in its report. Its recommendations on finances seem very sensible. The new form in which information was presented to the Committee is helpful, and may be helpful to Ministers. I agree, too, that formal provision should be made for the disclosure of information and reporting by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Committee, in consultation with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It would be desirable, where practicable, for

587
the National Audit Office to carry out further value-for-money studies into the agencies' activities. Will the Home Secretary tell us to what extent that has been taken forward since the publication of the Committee's report?
The Committee's recommendations on personnel management issues are especially important. It is clearly crucial, as the Committee said, that every effort should be made
"to address and resolve potential disaffection at an early stage."
The Committee makes other recommendations on the subject, of which the most interesting is that employees of the agencies should have access to industrial tribunals. The Government have said that they are examining the proposal. I suspect that it will prove to be necessary for the Secretary of State to retain the power to issue a certificate where necessary to prevent an individual from having access to a tribunal, although it may nevertheless be possible to adapt several of the Committee's recommendations and, indeed, adopt them. I would support such a move. Has any further progress been made in implementing the proposal?
Conservative Members will watch with interest the effect of the Government's decision to restore trade union rights at GCHQ, conscious of the fact that, before the decision to withdraw those rights, 10,000 man days had been lost to strike action. As a result of the previous Government's general trade union reforms, the entire climate of industrial relations in Britain is very different. That difference in climate may well be sufficient to prevent a return of the sad, strike-torn days that led to the ban. I certainly hope so.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary would not want to mislead the House, but by just giving the figure of 10,000 man days, he has created an entirely sad picture. Will he say how many people work at GCHQ and over what period the days were lost? For instance, we could be talking about 1,000 employees losing only 10 days each—but over what period? It is not good enough to make such a statement without justifying it.
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Gentleman's premise. The 10,000 man days lost through strikes at GCHQ were 10,000 fewer man days devoted to protecting the defences of the country and reinforcing them with valuable intelligence activity. That is the point at issue.
Mr. Winnick: The ban was imposed on 26 January 1984. Is the shadow Foreign Secretary aware that, after the Falklands war, GCHQ employees were greatly praised by the director-general? Does that not show that, once again, GCHQ employees carried out their work properly? Some 18 months after that lavish and justified praise, the ban was imposed. Do the Conservatives plan to restore the ban, should they return to power?
Mr. Howard: There is no inconsistency whatever in the two points to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Of course employees of GCHQ did excellent and important work during the Falklands war. Of course it was right to pay tribute to that work. Of course it was wrong to have 10,000 man days lost through strike action. There is no inconsistency in those propositions.
588
The one area where the Government appear to differ from the Committee relates to the need for an independent element of scrutiny in reviewing files for destruction. The other recommendations of the Committee in respect of files and personal records have found greater favour with the Government. I have noted the reasoning behind the Government's reply, which is set out in paragraph 16 of their response to the Committee's report.
I have also read the report of the Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) earlier this year, and the Home Secretary's reply to it. In that debate, the Home Secretary delivered a comprehensive snub to the then Minister without Portfolio—now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—who was reliably reported to have called for the destruction of his own files. In view of that Secretary of State's admitted membership in his youth of the Young Communist League, the House may well consider his call for the destruction of his files a piece of gut-wrenching hypocrisy. I appreciate that a number of my hon. Friends will have views on that proposal, and I want to hear them before coming to a firm view.
The Government are rightly more sympathetic to the Committee's decision to have available some investigative capacity of its own. We look forward to seeing how that matter develops.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was informed that an attack was to be made on him before it was done as I believe is usual in the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is entirely a matter for right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. Howard: I am happy to allay the anxieties of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). I did cause a message to be passed to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make sure that he was fully apprised of the position.
Mr. Robin Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell me.
Mr. Howard: I did not do so because, to the great pleasure of the House, I know that when I oppose the Foreign Secretary across the Table he will be present in the Chamber in his usual place, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to give him notice.
The activities of the intelligence agencies in a democracy must be the subject of proper scrutiny. With the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee—and the holding of this debate—that scrutiny has seen significant advances in recent years. Her Majesty's Opposition will play our full part in that scrutiny process in an appropriately responsible way.
5.12 pm
Mr. Tom King: Whatever our views may be on the operation of the intelligence agencies and of our need to scrutinise them, it is right—I speak on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee—to pay tribute to those who work for the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service and GCHQ. As a former President of the

589
United States would put it, those people often put themselves in harm's way for our security. I certainly join in the tributes that have been paid to the staff of those agencies by the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
As Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I welcome this first such debate, which is part of the parliamentary system and part of our parliamentary accountability. The Committee has a different structure. It is not a Select Committee, but a Committee of parliamentarians with responsibility for oversight of the intelligence and security agencies.
I appreciate the presence in the Chamber of the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary because, with the exception of the Prime Minister, they are the only people who can answer the debate by virtue of the nature of their responsibilities and the direct responsibility of the intelligence and security agencies to them. Much of their work cannot be delegated to more junior Ministers. Therefore, it is right for the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to be here for the debate.
This is the first such debate, but it is the Committee's third report. However, it is the first report of the new Committee in the new Parliament. I have had the privilege of chairing the Committee throughout its years of existence, and I am grateful that a number of the Committee members were in the previous Parliament, so we have had a continuity of membership. I could not, for political reasons, say that we have had a welcome infusion of new members. However—granted that there would be a change of membership—I am very grateful to the old and new members for the role that they have played in what I am conceited enough to believe has been a successful and effective Committee. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and to my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary for the kind words that they have expressed to me personally and to the Committee.
This is the fullest report that we have produced as a Committee. I should like to express my thanks to our staff—led by Jonathan Allden—for the role that they have played throughout the past year. They have a lonely and independent role, because they are on secondment from the Cabinet Office and owe their allegiance to the Committee, a separate body. It is not the easiest of roles, and I am extremely grateful to them—as are the other Committee members—for the way in which they discharge it.
I owe an apology to the House, and to the wider public, for the content of our report, in the sense that—by nature of the reports that we publish—certain parts become totally unreadable because it is impossible to publish certain matters. The presence of asterisks in the most interesting places is perhaps best exemplified by the financial charts at the end of the report, which I insisted should appear. Someone suggested that we should just publish a summary but, with the support of the Committee, I insisted that the full charts appear.
Although not a single figure appears, the charts illustrate clearly that we had all the figures and the details. That was not the case in the first years of the Committee. It is a further illustration of the extension and evolution of the Committee's role that all those figures are now
590
available. By looking at the headings, hon. Members at least know the subjects that we considered, including details, in terms of the SIS and the Security Service for example, of the payments to agents for information, and the different categories of information that we investigated and examined.
We are grateful in that respect for our relationship with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—who is in his place—for his Committee's co-operation, and for his support in ensuring that the Intelligence and Security Committee had access to information. We are grateful to him also for encouraging the full co-operation of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the NAO.
In our unanimous report, the Committee referred to a fundamental question, which was addressed by both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary: do we need the agencies any more? Is it not true that, for the past 45 years or so, the structure of the agencies has been concentrated on tackling the biggest threat that we faced—the threat of a major world power, in the shape of the Soviet Union, intent on the subversion of the western democracies and posing a threat to our democratic institutions, our existence as a country and the continuity of our alliances?
After the collapse almost overnight, of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, the problems that faced Russia as an independent country caused people to ask whether the threat had ceased to exist and whether we needed the agencies to continue in the same form. Many suggested that the agencies had invented new threats to justify their existence.
The Committee examined those assertions as fully as we could and, as the Foreign Secretary said, the Government considered the matter in the comprehensive spending review, in which we took a close interest and played a part. The Government concluded that expenditure on the agencies should continue to be much the same as before, recognising the fact that new threats had taken the place of old threats.
Probably the biggest threat is the risk of proliferation—a major preoccupation of the SIS—in nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities, especially because missile systems have increasing ranges and may be within the reach of some undesirable and unstable regimes.
The threat posed by the collapse of old structures is most clearly seen in the former Yugoslavia. If we are to play a part in peacekeeping—in Bosnia or in Kosovo—asking British people to go unarmed to monitor difficult situations, the very least we owe them is the best possible intelligence of the dangers that they may face.
I have read only the brief headlines of Sir Michael Rose's account of his time in Sarajevo but, when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he was a brigadier commanding one of the brigades, and I should expect him to confirm that the dangers that he faced in Northern Ireland—during what was, in many respects, a hairy time—were as nothing compared to some of the risks, uncertainties and hazards that arose as a result of the violent and unstable elements in the former Yugoslavia.

591
The Foreign Secretary rightly paid tribute to the Security Service for its outstanding work in preventing what would have been two significant and hugely damaging IRA attacks in this country. However, the current extent of international terror is a sobering thought. Hon. Members may have read in our report the surprising fact that, on average, every month, there are 60 international terrorist incidents of one sort or another in the world. Those attacks may not impinge on us directly, but British citizens may be affected through hostage taking or other threats to our interests.
The increase in the drug trade and in international crime has been given a nasty new dimension by gangs from Russia, some of which include former KGB members. Their viciousness and their involvement in that nastiest of cocktails—drug trafficking—pose problems of a scale that we have not previously experienced.
Another new development, to which we referred only briefly in our report, is information warfare. Growing public concern about the millennium bug—a self-inflicted injury—has drawn attention to the wider problem. It may seem a harmless accident when a 17-year-old in Ealing hacks into the US Department of Defence computers on nuclear structures, or when innocent people amuse themselves by hacking as a hobby, but such techniques can be used as an instrument of aggressive activity by one nation state against another. That emphasises the importance of GCHQ's advisory role in securing our organisations and information structures against such attacks.
The Committee examined how the agencies allocate effort and decide on their priorities—in general, we supported their decisions. We also consider new issues—for example, what happened in Sierra Leone—as they arise. In that case, we examined the criticisms that were made about the lack of intelligence and the amount of support that was given to our high commissioner in an extremely difficult situation, involving not only the evacuation and safety of British citizens but relationships with outside companies and mercenaries.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe asked me to report on the interest that the Committee has taken in the matter. We have heard from Sir David Spedding, the head of SIS, and we have taken evidence from the chief of defence intelligence. We hope shortly to take evidence from Mr. Penfold, the high commissioner in Sierra Leone, and we shall consider the intelligence aspects of that affair.
Sir Peter Emery:Before my right hon. Friend leaves that subject, will he consider a matter that I do not think has arisen in the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee? Security matters are of considerable importance to the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is responsible for looking at the conduct of the Foreign Office. The Committee, of which I am a member, will hear from the head of MI6 later this month but our invitation to security services involved with the Foreign Office has been declined.
Should not Select Committees be able to co-operate with the intelligence and Security Committee, so that, when a Select Committee is unable to obtain information, the matter could be passed to that Committee with its special relationship with Government? The Intelligence and Security Committee could then report to the Select
592
Committee, so that the Select Committee would not be debarred from information that might be vital to its inquiry.
Mr. King: I shall speak about our role in oversight at the end of my speech; it may be relevant to my right hon. Friend's point.
A matter of particular interest—it has been the focus of the Committee's work this year and previously—is internal security in the agencies. The story has not been entirely happy on either side of the Atlantic. The most spectacular betrayals have been in the US—they led to the betrayal of British agents, too—but, as the Foreign Secretary said, and as the Committee identified, failures in security are no longer a result of ideological commitments. A deep commitment to the communist cause was the background to the famous British traitors and spies of earlier generations. Now, people are more likely to be seeking funds because they have financial or personal problems. The United States has also suffered as a result.
Secrets must be protected within an agency. People who give information to intelligence agencies are risking their lives. They will not do so if they believe that the agencies cannot be trusted not to disclose their name, address or background. One does not have to live in Northern Ireland to know what happens to people who inform. People will not take risks unless they are confident that the information and their identity will be protected. That is why that matter must be taken so seriously.
In some cases, we have lost information and secrets have been divulged—there has been a straight betrayal with the passing of information. People have breached their contracts, and the Official Secrets Act, in return for money. Staff have become disaffected because of grievances of one sort or another. The Foreign Secretary referred to two recent cases. People may, or may not, have been seeking payments from national newspapers for information or hearsay. Some cases have been the result of lax internal discipline and a failure properly to safeguard and classify information. Whatever the reason, all the cases matter.
The Committee has been trying not to chase after individual hares but to consider the fundamental issues that must be tackled. We have been, and will continue to be, critical of the agencies' attention to matters as elementary as personal security, such as random searches of people leaving buildings and ensuring that documents are secure. We have mentioned that problem in three successive reports. The most spectacular and awful CIA traitor carried shopping bags full of documents away, but no one checked or searched him. The result was the destruction—and execution—of the CIA network in the Soviet Union at the time, which endangered the life of Mr. Gordievsky, who was bravely passing on information.
We must not forget personal security and the boring business of continual vigilance, random searches, checking on people's concerns and taking an interest in people's personal circumstances. If an agency employee is divorced or has marital or financial problems, that may be a matter of national security concern. It is a difficult balance to strike. Agency employees are entitled to reasonable personal privacy. We cannot make their lives totally intolerable. With the benefit of hindsight, we can

593
see that incidents in this country and in the United States have shown that someone should have realised that there were problems and identified them. That is why the report deals also with recruitment, as care must be taken to ensure that people are suitable for employment in the agencies in the first place. Employees should be monitored so that stress and personal difficulties can be identified before they pose serious problems. There should be proper counselling.
If all else fails, people should be entitled, as far as possible, to the sort of employment rights that others expect to enjoy. I am glad that the Government have responded positively on that. That is why we recommended the setting up of some form of tribunal to replicate as closely as possible an ordinary industrial tribunal. It might have a lawyer as chairman, with the membership including an employer and a trade union representative. Surely and certainly in this country we can find people patriotic and trustworthy enough to hear any secret that the Committee can hear and deal with it in such a tribunal without prejudicing the information.
The Foreign Secretary and shadow Foreign Secretary mentioned files, but I shall leave that subject to my colleagues, as many have taken an interest in it.
GCHQ has considerable capabilities and it is no secret that they have increased substantially. New challenges exist, since new technology is also available to some pretty nasty and dangerous people, not least drug traffickers and some of the big new organised criminal gangs. GCHQ must have accountability structures that ensure that systems authorising the proper interception of communications match up to the new challenges. We must also ensure that the privacy of the individual, to which all law-abiding citizens are entitled, is properly protected.
GCHQ is a massive organisation with extremely sophisticated equipment. It has to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week without a second of interruption. That is the nature of its undertaking. However, it is planning to move, and not all transfers of public or even Government activities have been a seamless robe. The organisational challenge of the GCHQ move is massive, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has pointed out, and the Committee makes no apology for drawing the Government's attention to that fact.
Oversight has been a process of evolution. The Committee is a strange animal—like no other Committee in the House. It is a Committee of parliamentarians, but we report not to Parliament but to the Prime Minister, who tables our annual report for debate here. We are not a Select Committee and we have our origins in the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The Committee was established at the same time as it was first admitted we had the Secret Intelligence Service, and the SIS and GCHQ were given a statutory basis, barely four years ago, which seems incredible when one looks back through the history of the CIA's activities.
The two agencies came in from the cold. They were perhaps fearful that parliamentarians might not be entirely reliable: that they would become caught up in party political warfare or point scoring between Members of Parliament and that secrets would leak out. Committee members realised that, whenever a Bill is enacted, the
594
legal arrangements set out therein are only the bare bones on which one has to build. We have taken the trouble to study other oversight bodies. The American system is massive. The Inspector General of the CIA has a staff of 140. Its former director, Jim Woolsey, told me that, during his three years in office, there was not one day when he did not have to give evidence on Capitol hill to one committee or another. We did not want to follow the model of oversight on that scale.
One or two countries are still managing to proceed heroically with no oversight whatever: one of them is not far from the channel tunnel; but I understand that it is considering the matter at present. Others set up oversight committees to which they appointed all the difficult squad who had made speeches about intelligence agencies and did not believe in them in the first place. The intelligence agencies made jolly sure that they told those people nothing, so there was inadequate oversight and open warfare.
We have recognised that we work within the ring of secrecy. We inevitably, have, a close relationship with the agencies, and I hope that we have established a measure of mutual respect, but not a cosy relationship, as that would prevent us from doing our job. We expect to be told everything and to have every question answered unless there are clear and obvious reasons—of national security or secrecy, as narrowly defined as they can possibly be—why such information should not be made available.
We do not expect the agencies to hide behind a narrow interpretation of the law, because to do our job we need the clearest possible picture. We try to ask only what is relevant to our purposes, and I believe that we have succeeded in ensuring that the information is kept secret. We have sought not to destroy or undermine the agencies but to ensure, in their own best interests, that their performance at all times matches the standards that the public expect of them.
The public often see the agencies as sinister bodies that are out of sight and out of ministerial control, operating in a world of their own. Public support can be fragile: on the occasions that the Foreign Secretary mentioned, there were banner headlines thanking God for our security services, and people were full of praise, but when something goes wrong and there is an allegation of a mistake, misunderstanding or compromise involving the agencies, people are quick to believe the worst.
Our job is to try to bring some balance and ensure that we can investigate when there are serious grounds for public concern. That is why we have proposed an investigative arm: in certain circumstances, we need the ability to verify. When a situation arises that gives serious cause for public concern, the public often react to a statement by the head of an agency by saying, "He would say that, wouldn't he?", and if Ministers merely repeat an assertion from an agency head whom the public suspect of putting his agency's interests first and defending its position, the necessary public reassurance is lacking.
We shall not be able to help matters unless we can say that we have investigated the allegations, with full access to all the relevant information, and that we are satisfied either that a charge needs to be answered or that the charge is merely malicious and unfounded. Then we can speak with the unanimous, all-party voice of our Committee, which will carry the authority that the agencies are entitled to expect.

595
I am grateful for the Government's positive response. We shall see how we go, because I well understand the nervousness and uncertainties, but I believe that an investigative arm is the correct next step in the development of oversight. It will be good for the agencies and attract public support and give our reports the authority that they need to meet any circumstances that may arise.
Oversight is the heart of our work. We need to have appropriate openness and oversight of a world of activity that is necessarily secret and essential to our country's ultimate security. We have made a start down that road; I do not pretend that we have reached the end of it. That is the sensible way of proceeding, and I believe that the existence of the Committee and its successive reports will create some public confidence and awareness that there is accountability in the agencies, that they serve our country well and that the systems under which they operate are appropriate to their activity.
5.45 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: On behalf of all the Committee members, I pay tribute to the Chairman for his extremely hard work. His knowledge of the ins and outs of Whitehall has been invaluable in achieving what we all regard as an evolutionary process. I know that he would confess that, on occasion, he has been a little irritated with me when I have wanted to proceed a bit more quickly with that evolutionary process than was possible under the previous Government;, but now we are moving apace. Members of the Committee are unanimous in their desire to make progress on oversight.
Some of us—although not the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Minister for Defence Procurement—who served on the Intelligence Services Bill when it was outed are present today; the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who is here, was then one of the Foreign Office Ministers responsible for the legislation. The Government of that time were very brave in outing the security service with the Security Service Act 1989 and then the Intelligence Services Act 1994, but they were a little hostile to some of our suggestions.
Some of my hon. Friends may be anxious to reproduce some of the words that I uttered in 1994 promoting the idea of a Select Committee; perhaps I can pre-empt them by drawing attention to the fact that the Government accepted only one of dozens of amendments, if not more than 100, that I tabled on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition of the day. That amendment increased the Committee from six to nine, which was a very wise step. The easiest way to describe the rest of my experience is that it was like running up against a brick wall.
The Government of the day were determined to move. I remember speaking to a senior member of MI6. I said, "I suppose you wrote this Bill, Sir Colin." He replied, "No, I didn't write it, but I did give a job description." That was the extent to which the agencies co-operated. It is important to remember that the agencies wanted a system of oversight, and co-operated in developing it. That was as far as we could go in those days. Since then, a critical development has been not only that the agencies trust the Committee, but that we are beginning, in some ways, to trust them.
We must also have the trust of our parliamentary colleagues, because without it we cannot properly oversee the agencies. At the press conference last week, a
596
gentleman from the press asked whether we regarded ourselves as poodles of the agencies. I jumped in, with my big mouth, and said, "Yes." Everybody clapped and reported my comments, but they did not say that I added that we could be regarded as poodles if the present system continued.
One of my colleagues answered the question by saying that he was nobody's poodle, but he could have added that, under the present system, nobody would know whether we were poodles, because we get only the information that the agencies want to give us. We have a question and answer system, and we can investigate, but if the agencies hide behind reasons of national security or the risk of endangering the lives of agents in operations, we have to accept that and go no further. In that sense, we cannot perform our task of oversight properly, but the system is evolving and slowly moving forward.
As the Chairman of the Committee has said, one of the most important aspects of the report is the Committee's realisation that it is necessary to extend our powers, within the parameters of the present Act and the ring of secrecy, to include an investigative arm. We must develop that aspect of our work, but it is not intended that every member of the Committee should charge into MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and demand to see the books and lists of agents.
One suggestion is that the Committee should use someone who operates, or has operated, within the ring of secrecy to act on the Committee's behalf. That would protect the secrecy that the agencies require to carry out their work, but the Committee could be confident in its conclusions if, for example, any allegations were made about an agency's conduct.
Fellow parliamentarians should not think that we do not have heated debates on these contentious issues. We have long and difficult discussions on how the Committee's role should develop. We have had strong debates on the possible adoption of a Select Committee style for our proceedings.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who intervened at some length, is not in his seat now, but I can tell him that we have examined whether the Committee impinged on the functions of the Foreign Affairs Committee over the issue of Sierra Leone. All we are interested in is whether the intelligence systems worked. The Committee is not concerned about the politics of the incident, but we want to discover whether the Foreign Secretary, the High Commissioner and the other politicians involved were in receipt of fresh intelligence at the critical times.
There is obviously an interface between our role and the role of the Home Affairs Committee, which has a general responsibility in the area of crime. The previous Home Secretary asked the Home Affairs Committee to consider whether MI5 should be involved in the investigation of serious and organised crime, and it concluded that the police should be the body that investigated crime. However, MI5, with its peculiar talents and abilities which are not available in the police force, should be available to help.
If we cannot harness every aspect of the state against drug traffickers and other evildoers, what hope is there for our communities? Some have suggested that there is jealousy between different Committees, but I say that we must work together. The virtue of using MI5 in the

597
investigation of serious and organised crime is that it has abilities and qualities that allow it to take a long-term view. It does not have to bring the criminals to account and follow them through the judicial process, because that is the responsibility of the police and others, such as Customs and Excise. For the Committee to do its job properly, it must evolve slowly along those lines.
Mr. David Davis: The hon. Gentleman kindly referred to my involvement in the original creation of the Committee. Now that I am not fettered by ministerial shackles, I can say that it was always my understanding that the Committee would develop and grow into the job. I strongly support the Committee's proposals for an investigative power, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the example he just gave of the overlap between the Committee's responsibilities and those of the Home Affairs Committee clearly demonstrates the specific powers that his Committee already has? That shows the experiment's worth.
Mr. Rogers: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more positive back in 1994 and given us the benefit of his wisdom during the passage of the Act, because we have lost four or five years; but I accept his conversion with good grace.
The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) is not in his seat—although I think he poked his head in a little earlier—but I recall his arguments early in the Committee's life about whether intelligence should be a free good. [Interruption.] I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, who is present after all.
I was impressed when I first joined the Committee by the range of the work that the intelligence agencies undertook, which is used by other Government Departments in pursuit of their functions. The right hon. Gentleman rightly asked whether such work could be done by other people more efficiently, and we had lengthy debates about the issue. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, some of whom have lost their seats, for the work they did.
The Committee started from scratch, and even now is still involved in a learning process. Our work load is so heavy that we have had to divide the responsibilities. I know that other colleagues will speak about specific issues, but I wish to make the point about the Committee's evolution because I have been involved from the beginning. I have been especially concerned about changes in priorities, given recent geopolitical changes.
The development of new priorities, and a change of emphasis in the work of the Committee since the end of the cold war, has made it content that the agencies should operate within the general parameters of the law with proper accountability and warranting. During our discussions in the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, in which we had considerable help from John Wadham and Liberty, we covered the peculiar area of warranting. We considered actions that might be illegal and for which, in certain circumstances, a warrant might be required. The Committee was satisfied by its dealing with the heads of the services that the agencies act circumspectly in those circumstances.
598
My final point concerns defectors and dissatisfied people, a matter of long discussion in the Committee, to which I am sure some of my colleagues will wish to refer. The Foreign Secretary and the Chairman of the Committee were quite right to emphasise that chequebook treason—there are no other words for it—is prevalent today.
One person wrote to a newspaper to say that we had not sought to protect whistleblowers, like himself, who spoke out in the public interest. I am wary of those who claim to be whistleblowers in the public interest, but who accept £80,000 or £100,000 or a contract to write a book. If they are speaking in the public interest, let them not go into the marketplace to sell their souls and their country's secrets for money.
If the individual to whom I have referred had wanted to speak purely for the love of country, there are mechanisms by which he could have done so. I accept that the mechanisms are not perfect, and the Committee has considered that point. We have suggested industrial tribunals. Perhaps the Home Secretary would consider the whole structure of the security commissioner and the bodies that exist in this area. Perhaps they need modernisation to meet changing aspects of chequebook treason. We must bring the mechanisms up to date. If people want to act in the public interest, they need not accept money for it.
It will not always be possible to prevent treachery or betrayal of national security. It will not always be possible to prevent jeopardising the lives of colleagues, agents who are operating in dangerous situations. The Committee's responsibility is to set up systems to allow people to have, for whatever reason—a defect in their personalities, perhaps, or simply the fact that they cannot cope with the job into which they have been recruited—a sympathetic hearing outside the agency. That would allow them to feel that they could do something. If we can set up such systems, we shall have a better overall system of oversight and accountability.
6.2 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I join other speakers in paying tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the Chairman of the Committee, and to the staff of the agencies for their work. Some of that work is courageous, and some shows outstanding skill and dedication. Much is extremely valuable, done with commitment to the welfare of the whole community, and often with a full awareness of values that matter to me, such as civil rights and liberty. Many employees of the agencies are fully aware of those values, which form a part of their own thinking.
There is no doubt about the need for and the value of intelligence, if it is well used. I say, "well used", because an awful lot of money and intelligence has been wasted over the years. One need think only of the years running up to the Falklands war to realise that effort can be wasted and intelligence not properly used. If used properly, intelligence saves lives, prevents acts of war or terrorism and arms us against the dangers of those acts. It helps us to catch highly dangerous terrorists and criminals. It can prevent costly errors.
Threats continue, even though the cold war is over. Espionage continues among those who have traditionally practised it—including Russia. Instability in parts of the

599
former Soviet Union is worrying. A proliferation of nuclear and biological capacity has resulted partly from the break-up of the Soviet Union, and partly for other reasons. British troops find themselves in extremely dangerous situations, in which they deserve intelligence support. Drugs and crime on an international scale are issues on which the agencies can make a valuable contribution, although they are not the bodies primarily responsible for dealing with those problems. The threats of information warfare are serious. There is always a continuing threat of betrayal of our defensive capacity.
To Liberal Democrats, the world of intelligence is by nature both important and challenging. Intelligence protects civil rights about which we care. It also impinges seriously on those rights, using methods that deny some element of civil rights such as invasion of privacy. It permits Governments to undertake actions and policies without public knowledge. It may allow actions to be taken which, if widely known and discussed, would not have public approval.
Secrecy can allow agencies to pursue their own agendas independently of Government, perhaps because of excess of zeal or because of partisanship within an organisation—the charge levelled against MI5 during the Peter Wright controversy. MI5 has a legal position different from that of other agencies, because it is not merely tasked, but makes its own judgments about what the threats to the state are.
Most of the charges were based on a much more heavy-handed approach to matters of domestic subversion than is contemplated nowadays. They are part of history more than of the present, as the law specifically precludes the agency from acting in the furtherance of the interests of any political party. The situation has changed significantly since those allegations were made, although the possibility exists nevertheless.
In secret, inefficiency can flourish and resources can be wasted. We must find a way to scrutinise the service without destroying secrecy. That is difficult. In some areas of operation, to disclose the existence of an activity is to make that activity's continuance impossible. I do not see why an individual whistleblower or a member of a committee should take it upon himself or herself to decide that an activity is unacceptable and should be ended, and to make an announcement or put a story in a newspaper. Such a decision must be taken by more than one person, and we need a means at every level by which actions may be tested by a range of people with possibly differing opinions. Our current mechanism is a genuine and valuable attempt at that.
While on the subject of secrecy, I want to ask one question. Is there an unnecessary culture of secrecy, and does the secrecy go too far? Certainly, that has been so in the past. The existence of the agencies was once denied, as other hon. Members have said. While we pretended that we did not have an intelligence service, the Russians knew perfectly well that we did, and they knew all its principal managers, too. People wrote books about the agencies. There were factual books and fiction: often there was more fact in the fiction, mainly because some of it was written by ex-employees of the agencies. It was absurd that we pretended that these organisations did not exist.
The culture has changed, partly under the impetus of cases and anticipated cases under the European convention on human rights. It is welcome that we now
600
recognise the existence of the agencies, and that they must be scrutinised, but the Committee had to show that it can be taken into the agencies' confidence. The Committee has shown that it does not leak. Former members of agency staff, and even ex-Ministers, have done more to leak the work of the agencies than anything done by the Committee.
The culture of secrecy owes more to a desire to protect sources in dangerous circumstances than it does to an instinctive wish not to have people knowing about the agencies' work. The idea that, "Your identity is safe with the British," is a valuable byword in the difficult world of intelligence gathering. The Ames case, in which many American agents were compromised and met an awful fate—thankfully, no British agents did—explains the obsession with secrecy that sometimes goes beyond what most would think sensible. It is a way of communicating to those who might help this country, in dangerous situations, that their secret is safe with us. One can understand that, but it cannot be an absolute bar to mechanisms of effective scrutiny, or to the public knowing things that it is reasonable they should know.
Is the present formula right, of a Committee of parliamentarians within the ring of secrecy reporting to Parliament through the Prime Minister? We have always advocated a specially chosen parliamentary Select Committee, possibly a Joint Committee of both Houses. The present Committee is a Joint Committee with only one representative from the upper House.
It remains our objective to obtain a body that is a Select Committee of this House, but it can never be the same as other Select Committees. I have advocated that for many years, first in a lecture in 1968. I took part in debates, and introduced motions, in favour of some such committee structure in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The Liberal-Social Democratic party alliance tabled an Opposition day motion in favour of such a committee in 1986. It took an awful long time to get to where we are. In 1986, I said that existing Select Committees
"clearly cannot be the exact model for a body that must operate in a much more restricted way."—[Official Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 985.]
If we moved immediately to a Select Committee, what advantage would we gain? The main issues are direct reporting to Parliament and the ability to call for persons and papers. If it was a Select Committee that reported directly to Parliament, I do not think that there would be a significant difference from what happens now.
The Committee's reports come before Parliament formally with deletions. Such deletions would have to be made by some mechanism, even if they did not go through the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is forced to pay attention to the parts of the report that are not published as well as to those that are. It is open to the Committee to report to the Prime Minister on an issue on which it cannot report to Parliament at all, because every aspect of it requires the protection of secrecy.
I am not sure that any great gain would be made in respect of reporting to Parliament, but what about the power over persons and papers? If a Select Committee was carrying out the role, the same arguments that confront many such Committees would be encountered, but more often. The authorities would have recourse to

601
the argument that something was "advice to Ministers" or that there were "operational reasons". One or other would be used frequently.
The mechanism suggested in the report, adding an investigative capacity to the existing Committee, is likely to take us further forward, at least in the short term, than an immediate move to a Select Committee. Indeed, I think that we would take a step backwards in the short term if we were to move to one now.
I say that without prejudice to the possibilities of getting to that destination in future. The confidence that has been built; the fact that we do not need a legislative change—or even a change to the House's Standing Orders—to take the steps advocated in the report; and the Government's favourable response lead me to believe that, if the objective is immediately to get more effective scrutiny, we will serve it better if we get on with that task now and leave the Select Committee issue for a later date.
The investigative capacity is important, because it is not possible to deny some of the assertions put to the Committee, or give firm reassurance that all is well on some matters, without being able to check the papers fully. Such a capacity is not foreign to our system. The commissioners who review the carrying out and issuing of warrants for interception have such a capacity. It has caused no problems. They make judgments based on careful review of the detailed papers. There are no barriers to their examining papers, and one has greater confidence in their judgment because of it.
I shall briefly consider Government communications headquarters at Cheltenham, though my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) will understandably seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not least because many of his constituents are employed there.
GCHQ is an important place for Cheltenham. I hope that it can stay there, where it has such strong community support and is closer to the homes of the thousands who work there than any other site would be. I share my hon. Friend's welcome for the Government's reversal of the ban on trade unions. The ban put GCHQ on the front pages of newspapers all over the world—not a sensible thing to do with a sensitive institution that likes to get on with its work with the minimum of publicity. The decision backfired dreadfully on the Government who took it, and on the country's interests.
I intervened on the Foreign Secretary to point out that it is ludicrous that, at the time of the biggest ever GCHQ investment decision, there were four directors. None was removed for incompetence—they retired or were promoted. What business, confronted with such a major investment, would do that at such a stage? That suggests to me that the Government's promotion policy, of grabbing whoever it can for whatever job, without regard to the institutions they are managing, is not sensible.
On warrants, I remain of the view that giving authority for interception of communications and intrusion into people's property and private lives should be a task for a judicial or independent body, not a Minister. The sanction for such intrusion is more appropriately given by someone who is not part of the Executive and does not have Executive responsibility. We have accepted that principle, and fought for it, in respect of the use of such powers by the police. In the closing days of the previous Parliament,
602
a fierce battle took place. My right hon. and hon. Friends in both Houses can claim credit for insisting on a judicial form of examination of authority for warrants for such intrusions.
The long-established system for the Security Service and the intelligence service is that Secretaries of State give the permission. I know what care they attach to that, how they examine cases individually and do not delegate. The Committee examined them very thoroughly on the matter. However, the final process of approval should have an independent judicial element: a review not merely of the process as a whole, as happens now, but of the decisions when they are made. That is the practice in many other countries.
I have two concerns on files. First, there should be more protection for individuals on whom files may be held. The Committee says in its report that it wishes to do more work on that. It is a serious matter, but I hope that concern will be less fevered, because there is no longer a practice or policy in the Security Service of investigating broadly political subversion as it was viewed in earlier decades, when persons present became the subject of files. Nevertheless, it is a matter of such importance that we should seek ways of getting more protection.
Secondly, the Government are plain wrong in their response to the proposal for independent review of files that are to be destroyed. They are records of how the service operated, and may have individual liberty implications. In their otherwise constructive response to the Committee's report, the Government state:
"the Government does not believe that the process of reviewing files for destruction would be assisted by independent scrutiny."
Their argument is that it would not be appropriate because
"it would involve second guessing decisions that the Service is required to make".
That is not true. It is not second-guessing the service's operational decisions but deciding whether a file on a decision that the service made years ago should continue to exist, the service having decided that it has no further need of it. That is not second guessing, but a decision about an historical record which should be independently taken. The danger is that the service could, knowingly or unknowingly, destroy evidence that would demonstrate both the good and the bad things about its previous work, which would be wrong.
I draw my final comment from the report of a royal commission set up in Canada, which published a report in 1981 on "Freedom and Security under the Law", setting out the principles that should govern the Canadian security service. Four of the five principles that it set out were that the rule of law must be paramount; that the means of investigation must be proportionate to the gravity of the threat; that the need for investigative techniques must be weighed against the damage that they might do to personal freedom and privacy; and that, the more intrusive the technique, the higher should be the authority to authorise its use. Those are good principles. By and large, they are practised in our three agencies, but they could be written in larger and brighter letters, or incorporated into the agencies' mission statements.
The use of intrusive methods should be limited to special or overriding circumstances. The carrying out of operations of which only a few people are aware can be justified only in exceptional circumstances. The

603
mechanisms by which those matters are examined should be equal to the difficult task, in terms of both oversight and how the Executive handles them. Such principles could usefully be added to the vocabulary of statements that govern our services. The rule of law should be paramount; the means should be proportional to the gravity of the threat; we should weigh the techniques that we use against the damage that they might do to freedom and privacy; and, the more intrusive the technique, the more carefully it should be scrutinised.
6.21 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome this debate, which is another small step towards rendering our intelligence and security services democratically accountable, and I look forward to its becoming an annual event. I also welcome the gradual removal of some of the unnecessary mystery that has surrounded those organisations in the past, particularly the detailed statement on 29 July by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the number and status of the files held by the Security Service. One must pinch oneself to recall that my right hon. Friend was once identified as a potential subversive and was once, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, the subject of such a file. It must be satisfying now to find himself in charge of the Security Service—a responsibility that he takes very seriously.
I welcome the latest report from the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is a serious piece of work. May I make it clear that, although I am critical of the mechanism by which the security and intelligence services are accountable, nothing that I say should be read as a criticism of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and hon. Members on the committee, who were obviously working conscientiously within the powers available to them. People who serve on such committees sometimes have the distressing tendency to go native after a while. Parliament should be constantly on the alert for symptoms. I have been listening carefully to this afternoon's debate, in which one or two speeches occasionally strayed a little close to going native, but nobody could actually be accused of it thus far.
Today I shall address only one issue: whether the existing arrangements are the appropriate mechanism for rendering the security and intelligence services accountable in a mature democracy. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say at the outset that, provided that they are properly managed and accountable, the intelligence and security services have an important and legitimate function in a democracy. The difficulty has been that, until the advent of the ISC, no one outside the services had a clue as to whether they were properly managed. To put it mildly, such snippets of evidence as emerged from time to time did not inspire confidence. Political oversight was always a fiction in the past. It was always ludicrous to imagine that, with the best will in the world, the Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary, let alone the Prime Minister, had time to take a close interest in what the agencies got up to.
For the purposes of today's argument, however, I am prepared to accept that MI5, at least, has cleaned up its act in recent years. Some time ago, a former Conservative Home Secretary remarked to me that a great deal of dead wood had been cleared out since the scandals of the 1970s and early 1980s. I was glad to hear that because
604
there was certainly no shortage of dead wood. I am less sure about MI6. I may be wrong and I make no allegations, but it is hard to believe that MI6 had no hand in reinstating the regime in Sierra Leone, which is now busily murdering its enemies. If I am right, one cannot help wondering who authorised it, as it does not seem to have been the Foreign Secretary.
If the public are to have confidence in the security services, it is important first to be certain that they are protecting democracy rather than attempting to subvert it, as they have done in the past. Secondly, we must be confident that we are getting value for the considerable sum—currently some £700 million; I hope that no more is hidden away in other budgets—that taxpayers contribute to the upkeep of the Security Service. We want reassurance that that expenditure is all strictly necessary, especially given that the cold war has ended and, with it, a considerable part of the services' reasons for existence.
It was an unlucky coincidence that, just as the Berlin wall fell, both the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service moved into lavish new headquarters on either side of the River Thames. Furthermore, if the war in Ireland is over—I appreciate that it is much too early to say yet—another large part of their work load will disappear. In such circumstances, there should be scope for a little downsizing, to use a phrase that is popular in the City of London.
I am glad to see from figures published in the report that some savings have already been made. There is always the danger that the agencies will invent new tasks, or expand into areas into which they should not expand, in order to make work for otherwise idle hands.
Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend has made some fairly sweeping statements without giving illustrations. Would he care to give us some to support his generalisations?
Mr. Mullin: I am not sure what my hon. Friend is referring to, but if it is expansion into other areas, I suppose that one possibility is expansion into serious crime. It only requires vigilance; I am not making a big deal of it. In 1996, I served on the Committee that considered that authorised that expansion, and the authorisation was very general. The crime that the service was, in theory, allowed to become involved in investigating was not all that serious, but I am sure that what it actually investigates is, and that the number of officials involved is relatively small.
Mr. Rogers rose—
Mr. Mullin: I am sorry, but other hon. Members want to speak this afternoon. My hon. Friend asked me to offer an illustration. My response is simply to say that the authorisation in the Bill was a little general.
Public confidence requires rigorous scrutiny, and it is Parliament's job to provide it. The question is: do we have it? As I have made clear, I do not wish to cast aspersions on the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and his colleagues, who are doing as good a job as we could hope for with the powers that they have been given. However, are those powers adequate, and is the relationship with the agencies correct? Reading between the lines of the ISC's report, and having listened to what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said, I see that the Committee itself

605
appears to have doubts. For example, at paragraph 58, it says that it cannot express a view on the effectiveness of the commissioners and tribunals
"since we have not had access to the material to enable any judgment to be made."
At paragraph 65, the Committee says that it has not yet formed a view on whether its existing status is adequate. I was glad to note that, in a section headed "Further evolution of the UK oversight structure", the possibility of changing the Committee's remit in due course was left open.
I welcome all that. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), said, it is an evolutionary process, and we are all learning as we go along. For what it is worth, it is my firm view that the Committee's existing powers are inadequate. It is a fundamental principle in a democracy that those who spend public money and exercise power should account to an elected Parliament. The Select Committee system ensures that the work of every Department is scrutinised by Members of Parliament, who are, in theory at least, appointed by Parliament, and can be removed only by Parliament. Each Committee employs its own staff, and each has the power to summon people and papers as it sees fit. Although that power rarely needs to be used, it defines the relationship between a Committee and the Department whose activities it is responsible for scrutinising.
The relationship between the Intelligence and Security Committee and those whom it is supposed to scrutinise is entirely different. First, this Committee's members are appointed not by Parliament but by the Prime Minister, who can remove or fail to reappoint them as he sees fit. Secondly, it does not employ staff of its own, but it is serviced entirely by officials in the employ of the Government. Thirdly, it has no power to summon people or papers; it must take what it is given. How can there be effective scrutiny when the body that it supposed to be the subject of such scrutiny can ultimately decide what will and what will not be disclosed?
I realise that some will protest—indeed, I have heard several people say this during the debate—that everything is working smoothly so far. That may well be so, but the new arrangements have never really been tested. We have not yet experienced a crisis: we have not had a Zinoviev letter, an operation Clockwork Orange, a "Spycatcher" or a miners' strike. In any event, we may have to wait for years before some disaffected ex-employee of one of the agencies reveals that things were not going quite as smoothly as we all thought at the time.
It is essential to get the mechanism right at the outset. After that, everything else will fall into place. I firmly believe that the ISC should be a Committee of Parliament, appointed by Parliament, with the same powers and facilities as a Select Committee. That is the only way to create public confidence in the integrity of the security services. When the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked what the Committee needed, one thing that he did not mention was public confidence. I am referring not just to what is actually happening, but to its perception in the world outside. I do not think that the importance of that should be overlooked. There would, of course, have to be special arrangements recognising the need for secrecy and security, but that is not an insuperable problem, and should not be used as an excuse for doing nothing.
606
I might add—others have mentioned this—that, until not so long ago, my view was the official Labour party view. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which set up the ISC. I vividly recall that, at that time, the position of our Front Benchers was that oversight of the security services should be the responsibility of a parliamentary Committee. I have a list of quotations from Labour spokesmen, some of whom are now senior members of the Government, espousing exactly the view that I am now advancing. I shall not embarrass anyone by reading out those quotations, although I am tempted to do so; but let it not be said that my view is held only by a small minority of extremists.
My point—and it is a matter of record—is that the security services have run rings around all previous Labour Governments. Past Labour—and, for all I know, Conservative—Home Secretaries, Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers have been systematically misled, and even spied on, by the very agencies of which they were supposed to be in charge. I do not allege that that is happening now, but the only way to be sure that it never happens again is to set up an effective system of parliamentary accountability—and that we do not yet have. Such a system is also in the interests of the security services, which will never entirely enjoy public confidence until they are properly accountable. If they are wise, they will not stand in the way of proper accountability.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware, the Home Affairs Committee has long taken an interest in the matter. Our first report on the accountability of the security services was published four years ago, under a previous management. In this Parliament, we have raised the matter with my right hon. Friend several times, and I am grateful to him for not ruling out the possibility of change. I urge him to keep the door open, for the issue will not go away for as long as the present inadequate arrangements obtain. I realise that the Government have other priorities for the time being; I only hope that we will not wait until some future scandal makes change inevitable.
6.34 pm
Mr. David Davis: I, too, praise the agencies that the ISC oversees. They have done a great deal in the past to defend the country's freedoms and civil rights, and, no doubt, will have to do the same job equally effectively in the future.
I did not intend to comment specifically on the committee's work, but I want to respond to what was said by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I have considerable respect for him, but in this instance I think that he is wrong. I was one of the Ministers who brought the committee into being when the Bill that became the 1994 Act was going through its stages, I have been a customer of the agencies in the past, as a Minister, and—somewhat unusually—I have even appeared before the Committee. I can testify that it was not a comfortable or an easy process, but a process that demonstrated that the Committee was after the truth, and, in the widest sense, concerned with the country's interests.
I am very much in favour of what has happened so far. I compliment the Committee on its operations and, in particular, the effectiveness of its Chairman, my right hon.

607
Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), during its first four years. I support the arguments put by my right hon. Friend and the Committee's members, including the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), recommending the committee's development through its investigative capability. I feel that such progress would have no down side and a considerable up side, and would add to a public confidence that is already well established.
What I want to say is narrow in scope. It relates principally to points raised about the National Audit Office and its actions in support of the Committee. As such, it will be dull in comparison with the Hollywood, not to say James Bond, references of the Foreign Secretary—although, by the standards of the auditing profession, it will be unbearably exciting.
On page 10 of its report, in paragraph 21, the Committee says:
"We were told … that no value for money project work in respect of the Agencies had been carried out over the past few years".
That, although accurate, gives a slightly unfair impression. The financial audit of what are, effectively, the public accounts of the agencies dates back only to 1995, and it is the financial audit that often provides the understanding, insight and, indeed, intelligence to make a good value-for-money exercise possible. It takes a little while for that to develop. There is also a problem of limitations on capacity to which I shall return shortly.
On page 11, in paragraph 23, the Committee says—and I wholeheartedly agree—that
"there should be a specific obligation on the Agencies to inform the NAO"—
the National Audit Office—
"of material items of expenditure";
and that
"the arrangements for the disclosure of information by SIS, approved by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, should be brought as far as possible into line with those of the Security Service, specifically in providing for the C&AG to be given the reasons for any refusal to provide him with information".
I consider that a wise proposal. Although it is pretty technical at this stage, because there has been no such occurrence, it will be useful in the future.
In the same paragraph, the committee states that
"in view of our own statutory responsibility to examine the Agencies' expenditure, formal provision should also be made for the disclosure of information and reports by the C&AG to this Committee, in consultation with the Chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee."
The Government accepted that, and I agree entirely with their proposal. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has said, we have had informal discussions on the matter.
We should not, however, have too high expectations of value-for-money studies. In intelligence and security matters, value for money is no magic wand. Normally, it depends on a determination of whether the maximum value has been obtained for the minimum cost. That means that we have to assess the value of what is produced. The "value" half of the equation is difficult to assess with intelligence and security. It is rather like research and development. Once, when I worked in that sector, I was told that some hits justify a lot of misses. The same rule applies here.
608
What is more, the value of the information, even with a hit, is difficult to assess—even more difficult than in commerce. Take the example even of the apparently hard technical data that the agencies sometimes bring up. We know—certainly my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater will know from previous experience—that, on occasion, we can demonstrate the saving of hundreds, even thousands, of lives in wars in living memory; so clearly value has been obtained there, value beyond price, but with narrow exceptions, even that sort of technical data depends on information about intentions or deployment.
I pose a hypothetical example to demonstrate my case. Let us imagine that the agencies find that a foreign power has a nuclear, biological or chemical missile system that is capable of attacking a British city. If we determine that there is an intention to use or to deploy it as a threat, that information is invaluable—again, valuable beyond price because it will save thousands or millions of lives—but if there is no intention to deploy or no clash of interest, it is interesting to us, but of little national value.
In these days of military stretch, decisions on soft data are necessary. We cannot make decisions that take into account every possible risk; we know that already. Also, in these days of international uncertainty, those decisions are, by definition, difficult and it may be impossible to demonstrate whether they are right for several decades afterwards.
Today, we could probably make a decent assessment of the intelligence gathered in the 1970s through to the early 1980s. I am not sure that we could make a proper assessment now of intelligence that was gathered between, let us say, 1985 and 1995, so it is difficult to assess the value of the information that we get. It is even more problematic in those areas—this happens quite commonly with the agencies—where soft data are used in judgments in conjunction with much other public data, or much other data obtained by normal means. That means that, for the National Audit Office's actions to help the Committee, value-for-money studies will tend to focus on cost control, on coming to the conclusion that we have obtained whatever it was that we wanted at the minimum possible cost, with no wastage; the very point that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has made.
I have discussed this with the Comptroller and Auditor General. There are appropriate value-for-money studies that might deliver some useful information for the Committee—the House will understand if I do not elaborate on them—but I say as an aside that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater pointed out some of the problems that some agencies in other countries have had with excessive bureaucracy: a sort of sclerosis of the agencies involved. I would be wary of trying to second-guess absolutely everything that is done because we might then destroy the flair of the agencies.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman has an important role in these matters. It may be that a productive intelligence can be secured at a fraction of the cost simply by looking at open sources. The question that we have to ask ourselves is: how can we be absolutely

609
sure that, in securing that intelligence, the cheapest means of securing it has been used? That is very much a matter for the National Audit Office.
Mr. Davis: I absolutely agree; that was my point about obtaining the intelligence at minimum cost. It is what I refer as to as the Mossad rule. The previous head of Mossad once commented that he was not going to spend Israeli taxpayers' money or risk the lives of his agents on obtaining things that were on the front page of Al-Ahram, the Arab newspaper. It is a well-taken point, but my point is that that is not strictly a value-for money exercise; it is a cost-effectiveness exercise.
There is one other area of value for money that might deliver significantly more than what I have discussed already: comparison with other allied services abroad. That would require international agreement, but I could think of three or four other services that might be interested. However, such an idea, if it were possible—and I do not know whether it is—would require a separately financed exercise.
I say that because it is not the entire National Audit Office that is engaged in this process. By definition, this is a process that uses a small cadre of the NAO—those who are cleared to the level necessary. To extend that cadre would be expensive and would need funding.
In this assessment process, the tasking of the agencies is important. Crisp, clear tasking leads to sharp and effective operational management and facilitates after-the-event evaluation. Soft or tardy tasking makes it harder, and occasionally impossible, for the agencies to act.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman referred to the Falkland Islands war. I refer the House to paragraph 311 of the Franks report, which points out only too clearly that late tasking created problems for the intelligence assessment there—as it turned out, the tasking change was too late because it was only six months before the operation.
Effective and clear tasking allows good management. It also makes it possible to devise and measure cost-effective delivery—the very point that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised—in which process the NAO will play its part in helping the agencies and the Committee to do their job: to protect this nation and defeat the enemies of the realm.
6.46 pm
Yvette Cooper: The Intelligence and Security Committee report is broad in scope. I want to concentrate on only two issues—oversight and personal files—while joining in the tributes by other hon. Members to members of the agencies, who work hard on our behalf and are frequently unrecognised.
In the 1994 Richard Dimbleby lecture, Stella Rimington, former Director-General of the Security Service, said:
"Accountability lies at the heart of the tension between liberty and security".
She could just as easily have said "between democracy and secrecy", because democracy holds that we must hold public organisations openly to account, while good intelligence saves lives; secrecy saves lives.
610
Inevitably, we cannot hold our secret agencies to account by the public, press and Parliament in the ordinary way, but that is all the more reason why those who are charged with oversight and who have responsibility to look into what the secret agencies are doing really have the power to do the job properly on behalf of everyone else. There are gaps in our system of oversight—in particular, in the ISC's access to information about what the secret agencies do.
At the moment, information is provided by agency chiefs and by Ministers at their discretion, which raises a difficult point: how can we have proper oversight if the very people whom we are supposed to be overseeing are determining what information we get? That severely jeopardises the Committee's ability to pronounce with authority on important intelligence issues. Credibility demands knowledge and knowledge demands the power to verify—the power to check what is going on. Until now, the ISC has not had that power, and that reduces its credibility in the public mind, as well as in Parliament's mind.
None of that means that I suspect the agencies of any wrongdoing; it means simply that we on the Committee lack the ability to pronounce with confidence that all is well. We cannot come to the House, put our hands on our hearts and say that all is well, because we do not have the power to know.
A good oversight committee will never be able to answer all the questions that are raised by hon. Members about the secret agencies or their work. It may never be able to answer questions about all the issues that it is investigating. That is inevitable. However, colleagues in the House should be able to feel confident that someone is investigating issues on their behalf and has the power to do the job properly, even if ordinary Members of Parliament are not able to get the answers themselves. At the moment, colleagues cannot do that, but they should be able to do so. It is possible, without jeopardising national security or secrets that we need to keep, to move to a better system of accountability. That is why the ISC's investigative arm is so crucial. It is worth thinking through the objections and the likely objections, because we must make the investigative arm work in practice. Although there has been a great deal of positive discussion today about that investigative arm, we have not yet made it work in practice.
The first objection that people raise is that a security risk is involved—that information that the Committee demands may jeopardise the lives of agents or threaten the security of sensitive operations. That does not fit with the facts. We should consider the experience of other countries. The German oversight committee has the power to call for papers and for people to testify before it. In the United States, the congressional intelligence committees have a right of access to all the information that they require. So, too, does the Canadian oversight committee, the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Those committees do not leak. When we visited them, the agencies and the committees told us that, with just one exception, there had been no security breaches from their oversight committees.
There is also a precedent in the United Kingdom as the commissioners have full access to information. They have full access to all the files that they want to see and anything else that they want to look at to do their

611
job. If commissioners for the agencies can be trusted not to abuse their power, surely a group of politicians should be trusted to do exactly the same.
The second objection, and I have heard this raised, is that the existing system of accountability is already adequate—that the ISC may have limited powers, but there are also commissioners and tribunals. It is argued that agency chiefs answer to Ministers and Ministers answer to Parliament and that a complicated system of accountability is in place. The problem with that argument is that it does not stack up to an adequate system of accountability. It simply is not acceptable in a modern democracy for the agencies to be answerable only to the Executive, especially given their growing technical power to invade people's privacy and look into their lives. Where they have so much power, they must, for the sake of public confidence, also be answerable to Parliament.
Ministers must also answer to Parliament for their security decisions. The ordinary process of ministerial accountability to Parliament will never work for security issues. We cannot have Ministers at the Dispatch Box answering parliamentary questions on security issues, and we would be horrified if such a system were ever to start. However, in the absence of that, we must have a credible and powerful system of parliamentary oversight, even if that cannot be done by the whole House. Without some sort of Committee, neither Ministers nor agencies will be properly accountable for their decisions.
Colleagues have argued that we should go further and set up a Select Committee. I think that that would be a good idea, but we must remember that such a change would not of itself magically solve the problem of access to information, which is the issue at the heart of the debate. Existing Select Committees are routinely denied information on the ground of national security. The Canadian oversight committee is not a parliamentary committee, but it is more credible than Britain's ISC because it has greater access to information and can act as an independent check on what the agencies are doing.
There is an issue surrounding the lack of independent checks in Britain that goes far wider than the ISC and accountability to Parliament. It is about the principle of external independent checks on organisations that have had a long tradition of self-regulation. At the moment, agency chiefs report directly to Ministers, but the secret agencies' tradition of autonomy and self-regulation means that that is often the sole point of Executive accountability, as Ministers and their civil servants rarely go beyond the agencies' doors. Commissioners check whether it was legal for Ministers to sign a particular warrant, but who outside the agencies checks whether operations are actually carried out in accordance with those warrants? Who checks whether operations are well managed? Who outside the agencies checks the wider issue of compliance with the law?
Obviously, we cannot have a system under which absolutely everything that the agencies do is checked in that way, but who outside the agencies checks any of it? In principle, the commissioners could do that, but as Lord Justice Stuart-Smith made clear in his annual report this year:
"It is not my function to review operations."
I hope that Ministers will consider the tradition of self-regulation of secret agencies, because I believe that it is out of date. That applies not only to secret agencies,
612
but to any organisation operating in the modern world. It is not a criticism of the secret agencies; it is simply an argument for proper independent checks that can improve efficiency and act as a spur to improvements. After all, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment does not rely on self-regulation for schools; he sends in the Office for Standards in Education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health today argued for an independent external audit for doctors. The US, Canada and Australia have inspectors-general to fulfil that function in their secret agencies. It is something that the Committee has said it will consider further, but Ministers should pursue in more detail the issue of Executive oversight.
Of course, it is vital that such checks do not become over-bureaucratic, but it is possible to have effective independent checks that work for the benefit of the secret agencies and make them better able to perform their functions for the sake of all of us. Such a system is not just in the interests of democracy; it is in the interests of the agencies themselves. A credible oversight system would give them more cover. It would give the ISC the ability to defend them, to take some of the flak and to object to some of the more ludicrous allegations that will inevitably arise and will not go away, no matter what sort of oversight system we have.
I want briefly to raise the question of personal files—in particular, the destruction of the old subversive files, where the same principle of independent checks applies. The ISC has argued that there should be an independent check on those files that the Security Service has decided it does not want any more and should be destroyed. It appears that the Government have rejected that recommendation and I strongly urge Ministers to reconsider. If the only objection to independent checks is that they are too bureaucratic, we should keep all the files. They should be put in a vault or microfiched; we must not destroy those old subversive files for good simply on the say-so of the Security Service.
The Government's response states:
"the decision to retain or destroy a file must be an operational one."
However, that is only part of the story. I accept that only the Security Service can make the operational decision whether it still needs to retain a file and continue to use it, but, once the service has decided that it does not need it, there is an historical—not operational—decision to be made. History is not an operational decision. There is absolutely no reason why only the Security Service should be capable of deciding whether something has historical significance for the future. In fact, for the sake of the credibility of history, someone other than the Security Service should make that decision.
It is controversial stuff. We have all heard the allegations about the monitoring of so-called subversives in the 1970s and 1980s. For all I know, none of it may have happened. On the other hand, all sorts of outrageous things may have happened. The point is that future generations have a right to know what happened and how the organs of the state behaved. They have a right to be able to learn from that and to know that what they are looking at is the entire record. They need to be confident about that. For the sake of credibility, it should not be the Security Service that decides that. Future historians should never be able to say that the service was given a licence to write its own history.

613
There are all sorts of other issues about individuals' rights to see their files if the Security Service has decided that they are now redundant and should be closed. It is too difficult an argument to go into in detail tonight; it is a matter to which the Committee has said it will return. Important issues are involved—files that the Security Service has decided are redundant should not be destroyed without there being at least some consideration of whether it is possible to consult the individual involved on what should happen to his or her files.
I welcome today's debate. We have certainly come a long way since the mere existence of MI5 and MI6 was denied. I believe that, sooner or later, we will travel much further. We will have to improve our system of accountability, for the sake not only of democracy but of the very secret agencies that the United Kingdom needs to function and to protect our modern democracy. If we do not improve our system of accountability, those agencies' capacity to operate in the national interest will be threatened.
7.9 pm
Mr. Nigel Jones: I am delighted to be called to speak in this important debate. As hon. Members have already said, the headquarters of GCHQ is in my Cheltenham constituency. Moreover, it is the town's largest and most important employer.
Since implementation of the Intelligence Services Act 1994—I served on the Standing Committee that
scrutinised that Bill—the Intelligence and Security Committee has made regular visits to Cheltenham to visit GCHQ. I pay tribute to the work being done by the Committee, and echo Committee members' tributes to the dedicated personnel working in our intelligence and security services, especially at GCHQ.
I wish to speak primarily to paragraph 8 of the Committee's report. However, I should like first to mention the now-ended ban on trade unions, which has been. mentioned already in the debate by the Foreign Secretary and other hon. Members. Once again, I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Government for ending the trade union ban at GCHQ, thereby ending a disgraceful episode in which the loyalty of dedicated employees was questioned.
Each January while the ban was still in operation, on the anniversary of its imposition, trade unionists, Members of both Houses of Parliament and ordinary, decent citizens used to meet in Cheltenham to march through the town to protest against the ban. Since I was first elected to the House, in 1992, I have marched shoulder to shoulder with campaigners to end the ban. For five years, I had the privilege of addressing great rallies, at one of which I shared the platform with the late John Smith. Four great party leaders have shown solidarity in redressing the great wrong of the ban—John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Lord Steel of Aikwood and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
We met to support especially each and every one of the 14 loyal trade unionists who were sacked from GCHQ for sticking to their principles and wishing to belong to a trade union. Many of those 14 are my constituents, and they are very special constituents. They are Mike Grindley, Graham Hughes, Brian Johnson, Alan Rowland,
614
Gerry O'Hagan, Dee Goddard, Bill Bickham, Alan Chambers, John Cook, Clive Lloyd—a distinguished local councillor—Roy Taylor, Barry Underwood, Gareth Morris and Robin Smith.
Of the 14, 13 were involved in supporting our armed forces during the Falklands conflict, and every one of them was positively vetted. The previous Government claimed that they were a threat to Britain's security, although they did not make that claim when those people were working their socks off helping our troops in a war and providing crucial, round-the-clock support in hugely difficult conditions. The previous Government also did not make that claim at the end of the conflict, when they honoured those people.
The ban on trade unions was a shabby act, and the new Government have put it right. Mike Grindley, Clive Lloyd and their friends—all 14 of the trade unionists—are about as subversive as a bunch of bananas. I thank the Government for keeping their promise to remove the ban on trade unionists at GCHQ.
Hon. Members will know that the previous Government decided to proceed, under the private finance initiative, with new accommodation for GCHQ. The remit was to consolidate GCHQ on a single site, and there were three options—to consolidate on one or other of the existing two sites, at Oakley or Benhall, in Cheltenham, or to build on a new site within the Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury triangle. Soon after taking office, the new Government confirmed their intention of proceeding with that PFI, to the surprise of many people, including me. I must admit that I am still not convinced that using a PFI is a good idea in a service that is as vital to national and international security as GCHQ. However, the argument is over, and the PFI will proceed.
The local community has felt left out of the decision-making process because of the confidential nature of the bidding process. Some of the consortiums bidding for the contract were better than others and tried to keep local people informed, whereas others were downright cowboys—although some of my constituents have used the expression "sharks". Rumours were rife, causing considerable alarm and anxiety to local residents, especially those living near GCHQ, Oakley. Local councillors and I did what we could to alleviate the concerns.
Sadly, however, some mischief makers seemed determined to undermine the chances of GCHQ remaining in Cheltenham. At one stage, I found it necessary to tell a journalist that the wild stories that were circulating were "pie in the sky" and would never happen. Fortunately, he used the expression in the headline of his article. Even more fortunately, my comments have proved to be correct. The director of GCHQ found it necessary to take the unprecedented action of writing to the local newspaper to try to calm the rising hysteria. It was a sorry chapter, which, fortunately, has now come to an end.
Last month, the Government announced that they had decided against building GCHQ's new accommodation at Oakley. I support that decision. The Oakley site was far too cramped, and the roads were not suitable to cope with a doubling of office traffic. Currently, during rush hours, queues build up, particularly along the A40 London road, at Sixways, in Charlton Kings, and on other roads leading to GCHQ, Oakley.

615
The Government have announced also their decision on the successful consortium. GSL—which includes Tarmac, BT and Group 4—submitted an attractive circular design, with a central open courtyard, for the Benhall site in Cheltenham. On the land to be released—all of Oakley and part of Benhall—there are outline plans for a science park, perhaps a hospital, housing, retail facilities and a public centre. Needless to say, the circular design for the new accommodation has been christened "the GCHQ doughnut".
Unfortunately, when announcing the preferred developer, the Government did not announce the site. Instead, they have rather confused the issue by saying that the doughnut would be built either on the Benhall site or over at Brockworth, in the Gloucester business park, in the Tewkesbury parliamentary constituency. I should explain briefly why the Benhall option should be chosen. I should also like to urge the Government to make a decision quickly—today, if possible—to end speculation on the matter.
On the GCHQ PFI project, in paragraph 8 of its report, the Intelligence and Security Committee states:
"The challenge of ensuring no interruption to operating capabilities during this reorganisation is a daunting one, which will require the highest levels of management skill."
The Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), eloquently expressed the importance of that point.
The Government currently own land at Benhall that is within the GCHQ's boundaries, which will allow new accommodation to be built alongside existing offices. Therefore, there need be no interruption of or conflict with the vital work done there. Many talented employees working at GCHQ tell me that they wish to remain in Cheltenham. The vast majority live in or near the town. Visiting American security officers who occasionally visit Cheltenham have said that they think it is "unthinkable" that GCHQ should leave Cheltenham. Frankly, it would be disastrous if GCHQ left.
I have been told that GCHQ's work force is the equivalent of one quarter of Cheltenham's entire work force. Estimates show that, with the multiplier effect, GCHQ and its staff annually contribute more than £200 million to the town's economy. The people who work there contribute not only through their high street spending but in various other ways. They contribute to sports clubs and to voluntary and arts groups; some are school governors and a few are even local councillors. I was told last night that Cheltenham's Bach choir is made up mainly of GCHQ employees. If GCHQ moved out, property prices would fall, shops would close and many jobs would be lost.
There is also an important environmental reason for building the GCHQ doughnut at Benhall. A large majority of GCHQ personnel live in Cheltenham. If the new accommodation were built at Brockworth, the staff would need to travel to and from the new site every working day, many of them along busy and narrow roads. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of extra vehicles would use the A46 through the delightful village of Shurdington. According to one estimate, an extra 5 million miles would need to be travelled each year.
I understand that, under the terms of their contracts, GCHQ employees would be reimbursed for up to three years for the additional costs of travel. I shall let hon. Members work out for themselves how much that would cost the taxpayer.
616
The Government claim to be environmentally aware. Indeed, each Government Department has appointed a green Minister, and I support the thrust of that policy. I therefore find it impossible to believe that the Government are considering using taxpayers' money, which is always in short supply, to force GCHQ staff to waste their time travelling millions of extra miles to and from work, using non-renewable resources and adding to air pollution. How would that policy fit in with the Government's obligations under the Kyoto agreement? One of my constituents is the country's leading environmental campaigner, Jonathon Porritt. I discussed the issue with him last week, and he was horrified to hear what was being considered.
Another key point to bear in mind is that the people of Cheltenham, whom I have the honour and privilege to represent, want to continue the long and successful partnership between the town and this vital Government installation. I pay tribute to the councillors and officers of Cheltenham borough council who have bent over backwards to help GCHQ during the PFI process. On 12 October, the chairman of the council's policy and resources committee, Councillor David Lawrence, asked the council to approve a resolution welcoming
"the selection of GSL as the preferred developer"
and urging the Government to
"accept the Benhall option".
That motion was carried unanimously.
In order to gauge local opinion, I sent a letter and survey to thousands of people living near the Benhall site. I pointed out the importance of GCHQ and the fact that development would take place at the site whatever the decision over GCHQ. My office has received bucketfuls of responses, and 97 per cent. of the people responding want GCHQ at Benhall.
By contrast, the people of Brockworth say that they do not want GCHQ. Brockworth parish council chairman Jim Hunt is reported in the Gloucester Citizen as saying:
"I'm dead against it. It would be a horrible blot on me landscape".
Other councillors have also said that they do not want it. Councillor Mike Matthews said that traffic was a concern:
"We all know what the traffic is like now. It would be worse. There wouldn't be any jobs created for people in Brockworth".
Councillor Colin Gomersall said:
"There would be chaos on the roads. We said 'yes' to Gloucester Business Park because it would bring jobs to the locality but this is a dead duck."
Councillor Barry Morris said the council had been kept in the dark about the proposal. He added:
"I think we should write to Tewkesbury Borough Council to express our dismay mat we knew nothing about the prospect of GCHQ moving to Brockworth."
I understand from a constituent that the water table on the Brockworth site, formerly used by the Gloucester Aviation Company, is no more than a metre below the surface. He writes:
"The geology of the site reveals alluvial lias clays. These sub-soils have the ability to absorb large quantities of water, expanding to double or triple their size. The downside is that when they dry out they contract in similar proportions, from where they get the name 'shrinkable clays'.
Modern construction methods can overcome the worst effects of these clays on normal rectangular buildings, but it must be a major concern for the potential distortion of an annular form of the proposed doughnut."

617
What my constituent is saying is that the Brockworth site is not suitable for a circular design like the GCHQ doughnut.
The decision for the Government should now be easy. The people of Cheltenham want GCHQ; Brockworth does not. The Benhall option in Cheltenham ties in with the Government's green agenda; Brockworth does not. The employees of GCHQ want to stay in Cheltenham; they do not want to waste time travelling to Brockworth. The Benhall site in Cheltenham is structurally sound for the circular design of the new GCHQ; Brockworth is not.
I urge the Government to announce, sooner rather than later, that Benhall is to be the home for a successful future for GCHQ.
7.15 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I warmly welcome this debate. I have been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee for only 15 months. Before that appointment, I must confess to an underlying unease—a healthy scepticism—about the security services. Indeed, in the 1980s, I hunted with the hounds over the Wright affair and played my part in embarrassing the Government of the time.
Following my experience of the past 15 months, I feel greatly reassured. I have "been in", "seen much" and "pondered at length", and I am much reassured by what I found and by the conversations that I have had with people in the services. Some people might say that I was "going native"—a phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—but I assure him that I am not. All members of the Committee observe the performance of others, and I do not think that my fellow Committee members could accuse me of going native. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, that the nature of my questioning was little different from when I was on the PAC. My colleagues can be reassured that, along with others, I play my part.
I hope that the agencies are reassured by today's debate. In my view, they should welcome the report, as I do. It is an excellent report, especially in its reference to the investigative arm which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, is critical to the workings of the Committee. The Committee needs teeth, and that is the route that we must take.
I must pay one or two tributes at the outset. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) for his very important work on industrial relations, work that is of some historical significance. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford for the excellent work that she did on files, and to the Chairman of our Committee, who I believe has been an excellent Chairman and who adds credibility to the work that we do. I mean that most sincerely.
I pay tribute to the service heads who have painstakingly set out to reassure the Committee within the terms of the legislation. I pay a special tribute to the work of agency personnel, whoever they are and wherever they are in the world. Their names I know not, but I would
618
like them to know that their work and dedication have been an inspiration to members of the Committee as they carried out their duties. However, there is a hole in the way we work, and a big hole in the report, and that is the status of the Committee. I shall comment almost uniquely on that aspect of the debate.
I do not believe that oversight is fully credible while the Committee remains a creature of the Executive—and that is what it is. The problem at the moment is that the Committee considers its relationship with the Prime Minister more important to its operation than its relationship with Parliament. I strongly dissent from that view and find the arguments in favour of Select Committee status utterly overwhelming. So what are they?
First, we live on the threshold of an era in which our civil liberties and freedoms will be the subject of increasing pressure as the state strives to maintain collective responsibility. It is an exercise in which states throughout the world are involved. Curiously, closed circuit television adequately illustrates my point. Civil libertarians were hostile to its introduction. Now they simply talk of safeguards and regulation. The demands of society for protection against the excesses of criminal activity have crowded out arguments over the intrusion of camera surveillance on our lives. In such conditions, one has to be beef up systems of regulation, safeguard and oversight. Those systems need to command public support, confidence and trust. I do not believe that the ISC, despite the good intentions of its membership and the witnesses that come before it, as a creature of the Executive, can possibly meet those tests.
Secondly, the Committee needs new and increased powers to call persons and papers and to communicate with other Committees. There are times when the information that comes our way should, in certain circumstances, be referred to other Select Committees. It would enable them to carry out their inquiries. That does not mean that security will be in any way breached because mechanisms can be introduced to ensure that that does not happen for the release of material.
It is already acknowledged that the Committee needs the power to report directly to Parliament and the argument has been well rehearsed this evening. I believe that we need the power to take evidence under oath. Select Committees have that power, yet we do not. Without going into any details, it is fair to say that there are times when the Committee might receive assurances on issues where, if those assurances were given under oath, we might have the confidence—under present circumstances, with the approval of the Prime Minister—to make statements that would be extremely helpful during the course of public debate and in the exercise of reassuring the general public.
We need the power to take evidence under privilege. Technically, if a person appeared before the Committee today, he could libel another person because he would not be protected by privilege. The Committee has none of the powers that are accorded to witnesses giving evidence to parliamentary Committees.
Above all, the Committee should have the power to hold witnesses in contempt if they deliberately mislead the Committee—[Interruption.] Does the Chairman of the Committee wish to intervene? I see not. If Parliament knew that the Committee had the ability to take evidence

619
under oath and to hold witnesses in contempt in the event that they were deliberately to mislead, it would substantially increase the credibility of any reassuring statement that the Committee makes.
The arguments are not new; they have been rehearsed at length on a number of occasions in the past, most notably during the passage of the 1989 and 1994 legislation. Those supporting Select Committee status included the noble Lord Hattersley, speaking from the Front Bench. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), intends to go into greater detail about what was said at the time. Other supporters included the noble Lord Randall, who also spoke from the Front Bench, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who in 1993 made a number of fascinating speeches that make most interesting reading. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North will read them. The noble Lord Richard, speaking from the Front Bench in another place, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) also made positive speeches in favour of Select Committee status. Indeed, in 1989, the entire shadow Cabinet, including my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, voted for Select Committee status. I have a copy of the Division list. The entire Labour membership of the Committee today that was in the House at the time all voted for Select Committee status, so we are not arguing new principles this evening.
Some say that legislation is required to accord Select Committee status, but that is not my understanding—a resolution of the House will suffice. We could establish a Select Committee to carry out fully the functions of the ISC by using existing arrangements within the House, simply carrying a resolution. Of course there would be a residual ISC in place by way of the legislation, but that would need to meet only once a year for five minutes to fulfil its function.
I recognise that there is strong opposition, which is to be found everywhere. Some argue that the fact that the Committee reports directly to the Prime Minister gives individual members of it additional clout, kudos, weight or importance in the political world. I strongly reject that view. Others argue that no way can be found to restructure the practices and procedures of the Select Committee so as to ensure Executive influence for reasons of national security over material that it may seek to publish. That is simply untrue. A resolution of the House could require that the Committee sought the approval of the appropriate agency before reporting to the House. The resolution could further provide that, in the event that a dispute arose between the agency and the Committee over the publication of information or evidence in a report to the House, the matter of the dispute could be referred to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his decision and the Committee could be required to comply with the decision of the Prime Minister. If, in unforeseen circumstances, the Committee or any member of it were to threaten to breach the Committee's rules of procedure as approved by the House, it would always be open to the Leader of the House, on the instruction of the Prime
620
Minister, to dissolve the entire Committee or remove any member of it on a resolution tabled on one day which took effect on the next. There are adequate provisions.
Mr. Rogers: I accept what my hon. Friend says and there is a great deal of substance to his argument. However, the issues involved are a little more complicated than those of a general Department of State. For instance, the relationship between our allies in matters of national security and defence has to be considered, as does the interrelation between GCHQ and the National Security Agency in America. In so many ways, there is a nexus of relationships. If that were disentangled, perhaps the argument for Select Committee status would be more valid, but at present it is not as simple as dealing with an ordinary Department of State.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is arguing that, by implication, accountability to the legislature means a wider form of accountability to Members of Parliament.
Mr. Rogers: No.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is how I understood his intervention. That is invalid if resolutions of the House suitably circumscribe the powers of the Committee, which is what the argument is about. We can carry resolutions that make the Committee as hermetically sealed as any structure that currently exists. We are told that such a Committee could not be prevented from taking evidence in public session if that were the wish of the Committee. A resolution of the House could introduce a general prohibition on the Select Committee taking evidence in public session. It could further place a requirement on the Committee to seek the permission of the appropriate agencies and the Prime Minister in conditions of dispute if it wished to take evidence in public.
It is argued that, while a Select Committee is neither more nor less likely than the ISC to leak, it would have the right to publish reports in a way that would prove prejudicial to the interests of national security. A resolution of the House could introduce a general prohibition on the Select Committee publishing reports. It could further place a requirement on the Committee to seek the permission of the appropriate agency, and the Prime Minister in conditions of dispute, if it wished to publish a report. Safeguards would be available for every eventuality.
As prime ministerial appointees, members are currently responsible for reporting collectively to the Prime Minister. It is argued that such limited powers to report would not be possible if the Committee were appointed by the legislature. There is no reason why the resolution of the House should not stipulate the procedure to be used in the publication of reports. It could require the Committee to publish its reports subject to sidelining by the Prime Minister for reasons of national security, as currently happens.
It is also argued that a move to a parliamentary arrangement would lead to greater pressure on Ministers to be accountable as witnesses to a parliamentary Committee structure, with less emphasis on agency heads giving evidence. That argument is not supported by an examination of practices in some of the House's other

621
Committees. In my 11 years on the Public Accounts Committee, Ministers never attended as witnesses. I am not advocating a prohibition on Ministers attending. Ministers would be no more likely to attend a House Committee than the ISC. With hearings being held in private, there would be no additional pressure on Ministers to attend.
The most remarkable argument is that a lack of secure accommodation in the House would make it impossible to conduct inquiries, take evidence and deliberate in secure conditions. We have been to all parts of the world recently and seen parliamentary Committees working perfectly. The relevant House authorities manage to find secure arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda may have been alluding to the fact that dealing with foreign powers and the agency involves trust. The problem in this particular instance is not the structure, but the people. With the right membership, a parliamentary Committee is no more likely to leak than the ISC. If the right people are selected, there will not be a problem. I remind those on the Committee—this is the first open debate that we have had; I welcome that—that we have to grasp the nettle, because there is an expectation among our colleagues that the system should work. We may be satisfied that it works, but they are not. They do not believe that it is credible. Journalists ring us all the time and we all give them the same answer: "We are not in a position to talk about those matters publicly." For us, that is all right, but they have no confidence in the structure set up in the 1994 legislation. Let us change it and build a system that commands public confidence.
7.35 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: When I look at the extensive gaps on the Benches on both sides of the House, I feel like the last man monitoring subversion in MI5. I believe that even he is now out of a job.
It is always a privilege to listen to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I do not always agree with what he says, but his comments are always thoughtful and well considered, and deserve to be taken seriously. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) about the importance of retaining MI5 files when the Security Service might be minded to destroy them. She outlined the main reasons. I shall not repeat them, but I am pleased to endorse them.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said, I initiated an Adjournment debate on that issue on 25 February. I am pleased to see that paragraph 40 of the report says that there should be safeguards against MI5 using file destruction to rewrite the historical record. There should also be safeguards to prevent politicians from doing the same.
The foreword to the report is a two-and-a-half page summary of the rationale for the continued existence of the SIS, the Security Service, and GCHQ. It is the finest distillation of all the reasons why those services are essential to the nation in the future, just as they have been in years gone by. Emphasis is laid on regional wars, aid and peacekeeping, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, computer security and chemical and biological weapons.
622
I pay tribute to those in the SIS and the CIA who were responsible for bringing to the attention of the world community in 1993 the way in which the Russians, who had signed the 1972 biological weapons convention, had systematically flouted it for 20 years, redoubling their efforts to produce deadly bacterial weapons when other nations were honouring the agreement.
However, I find the foreword a mite over-generous in one respect. It says at the start:
"For more than 40 years, the United Kingdom and its NATO allies endured the threatening environment of the Cold War. The genuine menace of an aggressive world power, seeking to subvert and dominate Europe and the wider world, gave abundant justification for substantial defence, intelligence and security structures. In this climate, the case for foreign intelligence and internal security was generally accepted."
I am put in mind of an occasion as recent as April 1989, right at the very end of the cold war, when no fewer than 29 hon. Members saw fit to sign an early-day motion calling for the abolition not only of MI5 but of special branch. I am pleased to note that none of them has been appointed to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I have sometimes been accused—not least by the honourable and ever-genial Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase)—of re-fighting the cold war in some of my speeches and interventions. We would be very foolish when considering the security and intelligence services' future role not to look at the cold war and the lessons it has for us.
Several points in the Committee's report give me grounds for concern. One is that, when the report concentrates on vetting, it says in paragraph 47:
"there may be files on individuals under the age of 55 because they joined an organisation which was categorised as subversive possibly 20 years ago, and these files may still be used for vetting and other purposes. However, no such files would be opened on somebody who joined the same organisation today."
That is a little naive. Many of the organisations that were subversive 20 years ago will no longer be around for people to join; they collapsed with the demise of the Soviet threat. There is no comparison between people who joined an organisation 20, 10 or 15 years ago, when that organisation may have been organically linked to the Soviet Union, such as many of the Soviet front organisations, and people who join a similar organisation today even though the Soviet threat has disappeared.
I am concerned that paragraph 17 of the Government's response to the report says:
"the Government's policy is that the Service"
—the Security Service—
"will no longer surface records in the vetting context purely on account of membership of organisations hitherto considered subversive."
Does that really mean that, if, for example, someone were being considered for appointment to a senior position in NATO, no attention whatever would be paid to whether he had previously been active in organisations classed as subversive at the height of the cold war? The fact that such checking apparently does not happen at least clears up a mystery for me about one person—an academic—who I know was appointed to a senior position in NATO

623
despite being actively and prominently involved in seeking to undermine NATO's position at the height of the sensitive argument over European missiles.
Mr. Rogers rose—
Dr. Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
Mr. Rogers: No, I am walking out on the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Dr. Lewis: The problem with MI5 dealing with subversion was that its task was much easier in war than in peace. In war, as we now know, the Security Service succeeded in the incredible task of taking control of the German spy network in Britain by means of the double-cross system and the XX committee. The German spy network was so fully controlled that not only was no effective espionage carried out in this country, but when the time came for London Controlling Section planners to work out the strategic deception that would fool the Germans on D-day, German agents in this country were used as the conduit for disinformation, which was fed to the Nazis and undoubtedly saved many lives.
It is more difficult to trumpet the achievements of the security services in peacetime. One tends to wish that they would be a little more forthcoming. For example, in 1961, when Colin Cross was writing his account—definitive at the time—of the fascist movement in Britain, he was still unable to say for certain that the fascists had been funded during the 1930s by Mussolini. It should not have taken the security services until November and December of 1983 to reveal special branch and Security Service reports that show that Mosley had indeed been the paid stooge of Mussolini for part of that period.
Similarly, I do not know, even to this day, whether the Security Service realised that, at least from 1958, right through until at least 1979, the KGB was financing the Communist party of Great Britain. Certainly, throughout all those years, leaders of the Communist party of Great Britain angrily denied that anything of the sort was going on. The fact came out not as a result of a revelation from the Security Service's archives, but when researchers who were looking through the archives in Moscow found reports of payments—in one year as much as £100,000—to Reuben Falber, the bag man for the Communists at the time.
I understand the security services' need for reticence when they are touching on matters that could relate to party politics. Much of the debate until now has inevitably been a mixture of generalities and structural recommendations. I should like to describe a few examples that might illustrate the difficulties that arise when people who belong to the security and intelligence services must make decisions about action and intervention.
During the second world war, in 1944, MI5 tendered a report to Cabinet Minister Herbert Morrison on the Trotskyist movement in Britain. It was remarkable for its comprehensiveness. It especially identified a man called Edward Grant—Ted Grant, as he later became better known—the editor of Socialist Appeal, as the leading organiser of Trotskyist subversion during the war. Strangely enough, that man was still active when, in the
624
1970s, the Revolutionary Socialist League—the direct successor to the organisation with which he had been involved during the war—began infiltrating the Labour party as the Militant Tendency.
The question that one must ask is whether it is right for a security service to intervene when a democratic political party is being infiltrated by people who are subversive. I am delighted to say that, 10 years after I tried to help the Labour party to kick out activists of the Revolutionary Socialist League in the 1970s, the Labour party finally got round to doing it itself.
It is very strange that one can still look back at events in the 1980s and try to criticise the Security Service for taking an interest, but forget the interest that the security services took in the 1970s in the undermining of the Labour party by people who were trying to get revolutionary communists into Parliament on the back of the Labour ticket, which was finally confirmed by the all too belated expulsions from Labour's ranks.
Perhaps a more immediate example is that of the Soviet propaganda front organisations, such as the World Peace Council, the World Federation of Scientific Workers, the World Federation of Trade Unions and all the others that were set up in the late 1940s and 1950s to carry the Soviet propaganda message into battle against NATO and western countries. Those front organisations were banned by the Labour party for many years, because they were communist fronts. In 1972, the proscriptions were lifted, and suddenly, once again, the security services had a dilemma. What would they do if an activist in a political party were also an activist in an organisation that is an acknowledged instrument of a potential adversary?
To give the House the flavour of my point, I shall cite what the Foreign Office said at the United Nations about the World Peace Council. In a report in 1981, the Foreign Office said that the spokesman for the World Peace Council had said that his organisation represented hundreds of millions of people. The World Parliament of Peoples was presented in the literature of the World Peace Council as a kind of rival to the United Nations itself. However, the Foreign Office said, the grand facade of the World Peace Council was no more substantial than a Hollywood film set. The report said that the World Peace Council was a disguised instrument of one country's foreign policy. It was a wolf in sheep's clothing, and its clothing had begun to look very threadbare.
During the confrontation of the nuclear debate in the 1980s, an organisation came into existence which was a sub-front of the World Peace Council. It was called Generals for Peace. Generals for Peace consisted of eight former NATO senior military officers, half of whom were in their own right members of the World Peace Council. They were identified at the time as people who were engaging in an operation that was directly aimed at western strategic interests, and they were being orchestrated by a man called Dr Gerhard Kade, who was well known to be active in the Soviet front network.
When the cold war came to an end, those of us who had been denounced for trying to point out what Generals for Peace and the World Peace Council had been up to in this respect were somewhat heartened to

625
see a report from a felicitously named former Stasi agent called Gunther Bohnsack, who had spent 26 years in the active measures department of East German intelligence. He confessed that Generals for Peace had been
"conceived, organised and financed by the Stasi."
This had created
"a real power that was in line with Moscow's ideas",
and was
"controlled through intelligence services in Moscow and east Berlin."
Last year, the former head of the Stasi, General Markus Wolf, confirmed the truth of that.
There are those who say that there is no role for the security services in monitoring subversion and the past affiliations of people who may yet be appointed to sensitive posts. I should like to know what they expect of somebody who has been involved with an organisation that turns out to have been actively in the pay and control of a foreign hostile intelligence service. [Interruption.]
Some hon. Members want to know the direct relevance of all this; it relates to the aspect of the report which says that, in future, the Committee should have a further investigative capacity. Paragraph 69 says that the Committee lacks the ability to investigate directly different aspects of the agencies' activities:
"Without such a capability, the Committee cannot make authoritative statements on certain issues … We … intend to introduce this capability in the coming year."
If the role of the Committee and its investigator is to guard against abuses by the security and secret services, quis custodiet ipsos custodes—who will guard the guardians?
Paragraph 26 of the report states that there will be more vetting of agency staff, more random searches and close checks, so that nobody employed by the agencies will be likely to do anything to undermine their security. I suggest that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Committee, with its extra powers, wishes to take to itself the right to look absolutely, totally and deeply into individuals and cases being conducted by the security services, the Committee itself will have to do something to ensure that its own security is beyond reproach.
I have given examples of the dilemmas faced by the security and intelligence services when they find their inquiries into potentially hostile organisations leading them back towards a political party. Let us imagine what the security services' dilemma might be if they were faced with the prospect of looking at a Member of Parliament who had, for example, sponsored a defence fund for the Trotskyist paper Militant when it was threatened with a libel action by a fellow Labour Member of Parliament; who had described the US air raid against Gaddafi as American state terrorism against Libya; who had welcomed a campaign to have Porton Down closed, thus depriving Britain of its chemical and biological defence research centre; who had supported Cuba and congratulated it on the 30th anniversary of Castro's communist revolution; who had praised the World Peace Council's own bogus Kremlin-organised peace congress in Copenhagen in October 1986; or who had backed a front for North Korean propaganda organisations.
626
The problem that would face the security services if they were looking into something of that sort is that they would find themselves investigating at least two members of the Intelligence and Security Committee itself. The security services will face a paradox—they must try to preserve their complete impartiality towards political parties, while doing their duty to follow the trail of hostile organisations, wherever it might lead.
I thank the House for its indulgence in hearing my speech. I look forward to hearing in particular the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), whose own organisation, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, had a number of very close links with the front organisations which I have mentioned—and on that point I conclude my remarks—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks, let me make it clear that he will not impugn the activities of any hon. Member, and he will not make any remark against any serving Member of this House. The organisation to which the hon. Lady belonged is a legal organisation, and it is her own business.
Dr. Lewis: If I may conclude—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has concluded his remarks. I am telling him what he will not do.
7.56 pm
Ms Joan Ruddock: I congratulate the Committee on the report, and associate myself with the comprehensive opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Because of time, I intend to concentrate my comments strictly on the subject of personal files. I intend to speak of the past—not, I hasten to add, because I want to dwell in it, but because I think that it has direct relevance to this debate and to any future investigations that the Committee may undertake.
In 1979, I was Labour's parliamentary candidate for Newbury, where I lived at the time. At the end of that year, NATO announced that American missiles would be sited in Europe. Some months later, the Ministry of Defence organised a ticket-only public meeting on Newbury racecourse to explain why the cruise missiles should be sited at Greenham common. I spoke for the local opposition. For me, it was a mere accident of history and geography, but the consequences of that time have cast a long shadow over my life.
It was a very different time—a time of cold war, when, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said in the introduction to the report:
"the case for foreign intelligence and internal security was generally accepted."
But then, as now, ordinary citizens thought that they had the right to free speech and peaceful protest. In 1984, the then Home Secretary, Leon Brittan—speaking of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—appeared to agree. He said:
"There is no doubt that peaceful political campaigning to change the mind of government and of the people generally about nuclear disarmament is an entirely legitimate activity."

627
So how did I lose my right to legitimate dissent? How did I end up—as I believe I have been—the subject of MI5 surveillance? I do not know if there are files on me or not, but I have been frequently named in that context.
In March 1985, Cathy Massiter, an MI5 agent of 12 years' standing who had left the service two years earlier, made statements in a television programme that she reiterated in a lengthy sworn affidavit. She has never been prosecuted. What I have to say derives from that affidavit.
At that time, the Security Service operated under the 1952 Maxwell-Fyfe directive, which I believe defined subversive activities as those that threaten the safety or well-being of the state or that are intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy through political, industrial or violent means.
Despite the history lesson that we have just heard from the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), I understand that, when I joined CND, MI5 did not believe that it was a subversive organisation—indeed, CND could not possibly have met the criteria that I have described. I was a long-standing member of the Labour party, and I worked for a well-known and respected voluntary organisation. Speaking about me, Cathy Massiter said:
"it was fully recognised by the Service that she had no subversive affiliations and therefore she could not be recorded under any of the usual subversive categories."
However, as she said, the service was not deterred. It took advantage of the fact that CND was an open and democratic organisation, with the highest ethical standards. We had no personal scandals, despite repeated attempts to smear individuals. There was no Russian gold, and we famously sent back the donations from a numbered Swiss account.
We gave interviews freely to anyone who asked. When I gave one to a Soviet journalist, I unwittingly provided MI5 with—according to Cathy Massiter—the opportunity to record me as a contact of a hostile intelligence service.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In May 1982, was not the hon. Lady a member of the delegation that travelled to Moscow to meet the Soviet arm of the World Peace Council? Sally Davison, one of her colleagues in that delegation, said that the difference between CND and the Soviet peace committee was that the Soviet Union was in favour of peace.
Ms Ruddock: I speak only for myself. Because CND was open and democratic, it was willing to engage in discussions with other organisations. At no time in the Soviet Union did we fail to put our case for disarmament equally, east and west. The debate is not about the virtues of nuclear disarmament—all hon. Members will have their own views on that. I want carefully to deal with the report.
Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that CND, of which I was not a member, produced a pamphlet that condemned totalitarian rule in the Soviet Union, making it clear that the activities in which she and her colleagues were engaged could not take place there? How, therefore, can CND be described as a Soviet front organisation?
Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. Indeed, members of the democratic movement in the Soviet Union told us how much they had learnt from the way in which we conducted ourselves.
628
As I said, Cathy Massiter alleged that I was recorded as a contact of a hostile intelligence service. I will never know whether the journalist was a KGB agent, but, frankly, it hardly matters. Central to the debate is the claim that someone who did not fit the rules for scrutiny was put under security surveillance on a pretext. I had no redress then—and I have none today—for the slur on my character and integrity.
Secret surveillance was not the end of the matter. In March 1983, the then Secretary of State for Defence established a special unit—DS19—inside the Ministry of Defence, with the solely political purpose of combating CND's campaign. Miss Massiter testified that she was required to compile a report based on her MI5 files for DS19. That was a clear breach of the Security Service's duty to remain free of party political bias and influence.
Between 1981 and 1986, I was frequently subjected, as a direct consequence of my involvement in CND, to frightening and intimidating behaviour. I shall never know whether those events related to MI5, but I feel certain that my privacy—and that of my family—was systematically invaded, and my character, impugned, with absolutely no justification.
Did that happen to me? Does it still happen today? Could it happen tomorrow? The Committee must ask those questions for us, and it is clear that it is willing to do so. I share the concerns expressed in paragraph 40 of the report, which my case illustrates.
According to Cathy Massiter, my file grew and grew. It contained, she said, special branch references to my movements, products of mail and telephone intercepts, and police reports recording my appearances at demonstrations and public meetings. I believe that I should have the right to see that file. Indeed, before I heard the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I was going to say that I believed that I had the right to have it destroyed.
The Committee's report makes no such recommendations about access, but, in paragraphs 50 and 51, it acknowledges the need to consider such matters. It says that more than 250,000 personal files still exist. I am not suggesting that my case is typical, but I suspect that it is not unique.
Changes in the law and the creation of the Intelligence and Security Committee should ensure that there is no repetition of the events of the 1970s and 1980s. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford asked, how can we have effective oversight if the people we are supposed to oversee decide how much information we receive? I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiments behind that question, and I welcome the Committee's proposals for a new, independent investigative arm.
The events that I have described belong to another time, but, even if my file had been closed a decade ago, I would still be angry that it had been compiled in the first place—solely because I was at the centre of an open and democratic organisation, which had massive public support and which was engaged in peaceful protest.
The charge that I was an enemy of the state was so patently absurd that I had thought that it had long been dismissed. However, The Mail on Sunday now says that I was one of the nine people singled out as "security risks" before the previous two general elections.

629
I have never been a security risk. I was and am a loyal citizen of this country, who has done nothing more than campaign for causes in which I believe. If there is any file on me that suggests otherwise, that file contains a falsehood, and I should have the opportunity to correct it.
The rights to free speech and protest are fundamental democratic rights. Take them away, and we lose our ability to defend all the other rights and freedoms that are dear to the House. I very much welcome the Committee's report. I regard its work as one of the important checks and balances that protect those freedoms.
8.8 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will forgive me if I do not cover the areas that she mentioned. Clearly, she listened to what was said earlier about the proceedings of the Intelligence and Security Committee as regards personal files.
I want to cover two areas that the Committee has considered since I joined it in July last year: personnel management and oversight. The Committee has been studying personnel management since it was set up, investigating recruitment, the adequacy of vetting procedures and the handling of disaffected staff. As a relatively new member, I am pleased—as are most members, I think—that changes in personnel management in the agencies are in line with policies and practices in the rest of the public sector and that they are evolving year by year through the use of best practice. For example, the agencies are developing measures to increase personal responsibility for career development. Career progression is no longer likely to be made solely because it is one turn's to move up the ladder, which is not the best way to promote people's careers in any institution. I am sure that it causes resentment if people believe that they are ready for and have earned that next step, but are not promoted. Some people in the agencies had become disaffected as a result.
Recently, we looked into that matter in detail, primarily because of the disaffection that has been reported in the newspapers in the past 12 months. The Committee looked into individuals and bodies inside and outside the agencies that have responsibility for handling the problems of disaffected staff: the individual's line manager, the grade manager in the personnel branch, training or security staff, occupational psychologists, and personal and financial counsellors, in addition to a range of managers. Also, we met welfare staff who are employed by each of the agencies, who are very approachable.
I, and other Committee members, were impressed at the experience and commitment of the professionally trained groups whose role inside the agencies has been to give advice and counselling on employees' problems. Of course, their personal problems vary. The agencies give me great confidence in the way in which they work with staff members who feel that they have not been looked after properly for one reason or another.
In addition, we studied the role of external staff counsellors. We took evidence from Sir Christopher France, and the report states how many disaffected staff cases he has handled. However, in many of the cases that we have read about in the media, the individuals involved
630
have not sought to have what they believed to be a wrong put right from within the agency, which is a great problem. The staff counsellor outside the agencies has a reactive role when dealing with disaffected employees. He cannot seek people with problems. His door is open if people choose to walk through it, but many of the people who end up in the media after they have left the service do not choose to walk through his or any other door. The agencies see that as a great problem, as many hon. Members would agree it is. The Committee thought that the staff counsellor could perhaps have a more proactive role with people who have left the service and are dissatisfied with their situation.
The Committee also considered access to employment tribunals for people who felt that they had been wronged in the workplace. Indeed, that was one of our recommendations and we all agreed that it ought to be possible to constitute a tribunal of members and staff qualified to serve as an industrial tribunal and to deal with secret material. I am pleased at the Government's positive response to that recommendation. They are considering it. However, not many of the cases that come into the public domain would be served by such a tribunal. If someone chooses not to go to a tribunal and goes instead to the media—whether by writing books or selling articles to the newspapers—there is little that we or the agencies can do about it.
The status of oversight and of the Committee have been mentioned. Members will have read that there is a difference of opinion about the latter and about whether the ISC should be a Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) argued that case, saying that the evidence for it to have such status was overwhelming. I feel quite underwhelmed by the debate on the matter. I do not do so because I am worried about status—I am not a status politician or a status person, and I do not feel that our appointment by the Prime Minister gives us some great and grand role and that all wisdom is ours. Having spent 15 months on the Committee, I can say that on occasion it is not ours at all, so I do not buy that argument.
On the question of how we operate as a Committee within the "ring of secrecy", which is a broad brush, but under the Official Secrets Act, I have worked on two Select Committees and have now spent 15 months as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I realise that it would be difficult for our Committee to be a Select Committee. For example, where would we meet? The public can be removed from Select Committees, but that is done only rarely. Our Committee has no public gallery and most of our questioning and information gathering would preclude that. I suspect that it would be difficult to find a Committee Room in the House in which evidence could be heard in confidence without spilling over into the Corridor. So, there are logistical problems. Some hon. Members think that it would be an easy operation, but because of the very nature of the evidence that we take and the people we interview, we would inevitably end up in the room in the Cabinet Office where we take evidence now, doing so under the same conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington ended his remarks by saying that what matters is the nature of the people on the Committee and I agree, but that is true of the Committee now. It does as good a job as any Select

631
Committee could do. So, we should not spend too much time arguing that it should be a Select Committee without considering what it does.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's reasons for rejecting my argument. He gave two reasons, which were logistical—where the Committee could meet and whether conditions would be secure—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be addressing the Chair.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is my hon. Friend saying that, if we could find a secure location in the House, he would change his position? I listened carefully to what he said.
Mr. Barron: Let me finish. The direct answer to that question is no.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the other answer?
Mr. Barron: It is a great pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, is no longer sitting next to my hon. Friend. In his speech, which I thoroughly enjoyed, he said that the Committee has to take what it is given—that is not my experience; we ask for and receive some materials that are not offered to us—and that it has no powers to call for papers and witnesses. I might disagree with that, but I would not want the Committee to have the power to call for papers. There are some papers that no one should be able to see, because of the dangers of certain information ever getting out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South also said that Select Committees, in theory—he smiled when he said that—are appointed by Parliament. I know why he smiled, because I suspect that, like me, he got a phone call last May about what Select Committee he wanted to be on and, perhaps, whether he wanted to chair one. I had such a phone call from the Executive, but I am pleased to say that I turned down the request and have been able to sit on the Intelligence and Security Committee for the past 15 months, where I have learnt a lot more about intelligence and security than, with all respect, I would have learnt by questioning my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or other Ministers. We see many things in the ring of secrecy that we would not see if we were a Select Committee.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I put it to my hon. Friend that, irrespective of the smile of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the power rests with Parliament, because we can object. When we were in opposition, I blocked the membership of a Select Committee of a Conservative Member, and in the end his nomination was withdrawn; so we are in a position to exercise that power when Parliament itself decides who should be on the Committees.
Mr. Barron: I will not rehearse what happened with the two Select Committees that I served on, but I do not think that the decisions were taken in the Chamber; they were more likely taken in the Whips Office.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very interesting, but it is straying outside the terms of our debate.
Mr. Barron: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
632
It has been suggested that the Committee should have an investigative arm so that we can consider certain matters in detail. I hope that people in the security and intelligence agencies realise that we do not want a roving brief to allow us anywhere in those agencies. We want to be able to send someone into an agency to investigate a specific matter when we feel that to be warranted.
Many events might trigger such an investigation—I do not want to speculate how many times a year that would happen; it might not even happen at all—but we, like many other parliamentary Committees, work on a parliamentary timetable, and events that should be investigated quickly often happen when we are not here in London. We could not easily reconvene the Committee for such an investigation, which is why we should strengthen our powers to enable us to send someone who is independent of the agency to look at papers and reassure us, we hope, that whatever allegation has been made is not true.
At present, all or most of the allegations made against the agencies go unanswered. I can understand that, because once they started responding to one question, that would beget the next and the next, and the process would run out of control. It would be difficult for the agencies to be more open with the general public in that way, so it would help if we had the right to send in an individual to consider a specific issue, after which the Committee could make a public statement.
In the past 15 months, I have had an insight into areas that would have been completely closed to me before. I was as sceptical as the next person about the security agencies and what they do for the country, but I have been greatly impressed by the way in which they operate both inside and outside the country and by the advice that they give. The people in the agencies are the most professional people I have ever met.
If the Committee strengthened its oversight, we would be able to tell people that the security and intelligence agencies are doing positive things on our behalf, for the good of the country; then more of the general public would recognise that.
8.26 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I apologise for missing about an hour and a half of this debate. I was attending a meeting with the Speaker on modernising the House of Commons to make it more effective in examining the Executive, which is not a million miles from the subject in hand.
I congratulate the Government on holding this debate, because it is not long ago that we were told that it was not possible to debate these issues. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, only four or five years ago MI5 and MI6 did not exist in any statute. It always struck me as odd, as I remember saying 10 or 15 years ago, that two of the most famous security services in the world—admittedly, that fame is largely owing to Ian Fleming's James Bond character—had no statutory existence.
Those intelligence agencies were created at a time when the House had begun to lose some of its effectiveness in holding the Executive to account. I support the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for the Committee to be a normal Select Committee, subject to the

633
constraints that he rightly set out, because when we refuse to do that we send out the message that we do not have confidence in our Parliament. That is why other countries have a conventional scrutiny system.
The members of the present Committee are good people and they are doing a good job but, because they were appointed under the relevant statute to answer to the Prime Minister, they are a group of parliamentarians who have been asked by the Executive to keep the Executive under observation. The Select Committee system is there to hold the Executive to account more effectively, and that is why it should always be used to represent the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) rightly drew attention to the fact that the Whips have an enormous say—ultimately, the real say—in deciding the membership of Committees. Things could go off the rails, as they occasionally do—[Interruption.] Quite right; it is very rare. Increasingly, however, people are questioning that position and they have reason to do so.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I request my hon. Friend not to be modest and to state who he is, for the record and so students outside who may read our debates are aware of it? He is the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour party, representing two-thirds of the House of Commons. I am sure that his comments tonight reflect the views of many of the members of the parliamentary Labour party.
Mr. Soley: This matter is open to discussion in the parliamentary Labour party and in the Conservative party. Many Labour Members would not agree with what I am saying, although many would. The important point is that over the past four or five years we have moved so dramatically. We were told that we could not discuss the issue and, indeed, if we went to the Table Office, we were told that we could not table a question on it. No one, least of all me as chair of the parliamentary Labour party, is going to pretend that the party system does not play a crucial role in ensuring the governance of the country. It always has and it always will, but a delicate balance must be struck between the rights of the party and the rights of parliamentarians. As the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, I have to be aware of that balance and take it into account in my judgments.
Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend accept that this issue has never been the subject of debate in the parliamentary Labour party and that we have never voted on it? He speaks in a personal capacity tonight, not on behalf of the parliamentary Labour party.
Mr. Soley: Of course that is so and I did not introduce the subject of the post I hold.
Mr. Rogers: He is going on about it.
Mr. Soley: I ask my hon. Friend to listen to what I am saying, especially as he intervened. The position is not as stark as he maintains and there are arguments on both sides. All I ask him to do is to listen to the argument and bear in mind that all the things we were told could not take place four years ago—the tabling of questions,
634
debates such as this and reports by parliamentarians on security services—are now all happening. Change does happen and the House is an agent of change.
The confidence of Parliament is critical. In the last century, when Parliament was at its greatest, it would not have accepted a situation in which the Executive could set up bodies that then answered to them. Parliament would have resisted that, but we lost that attitude at about the time of the first world war. I have already mentioned the difficult balance between the rights of parties—the need for parties to maintain unity to be able to govern—and the rights of parliamentarians to hold the Executive to account, which is, after all, this place's final purpose.
My next subject is slightly tangential, but crucial to the work of the Committee. Several hon. Members have referred to the actions of disaffected members of the security services and others in the civil service in passing secret information into the public domain. They have done so for two reasons, either because they have a resentment against the security services or want money—Peter Wright and "Spycatcher" is the classic example—or because they felt it was right to reveal information in the public interest. The two cases that I have in mind have nothing to do with the security services directly—one is Clive Ponting and the other is the rather sad case of Sarah Tisdall, the 23-year-old who was sent to prison, having given information to The Guardian.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Blame The Guardian.
Mr. Soley: If I remember rightly, The Guardian lost an action on the matter, but the point is that the Official Secrets Act—and Labour party members have long argued this—needs a public interest defence so that we can differentiate between those who reveal information for money or fame and those who do it because they see it as a public duty. Clive Ponting and, probably, Sarah Tisdall, fall into the latter category, but Peter Wright does not. I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider whether we should, in the future, change the Official Secrets Act so that the courts have a much clearer guide to differentiating between those who reveal information because they are disaffected or want money and those who believe that they have a right to do so because of legitimate public interest in democracy and the rule of law. We must never forget, when discussing the security services, that we are discussing a vital arm of the defence of the state. I have always, and without reservation, held that the security services are necessary in any modern state. They are there to protect the very democracy and rule of law that brings us here and if we ever allow that fact to get out of focus, we will go wrong.
I turn now to the issue of personnel management. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and his colleagues on picking up that issue. It came to my attention some years ago and it highlights the wider problem of how the agencies are set up and operate. In Shepherd's Bush where I held my walk-in advice surgeries at the time I used to get a wide variety of local people, but I was surprised one evening when a person came to see me and, after a short discussion, it became apparent that he was an MI6 officer, as they were then called. His problem had to do with the classic situation of being grossly discontented with the way in which the service operated. Having spent some time with him, then

635
and on another occasion, I took the matter up with the then Home Secretary, now Lord Hurd. I was told some time later that the matter had been investigated by management and it was felt that it had been properly handled. The person involved did not know that and neither did I. Indeed, I am now satisfied that it had not been properly handled, because another incident took place a year or two later—which also came about partly through my advice surgery—that suggested to me that management in the security services was failing badly.
The various efforts that have been made to deal with staff problems are very important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley mentioned. We must take into account staff who have personality or social problems, such as drinking or family problems, as well as those who feel seriously aggrieved about their treatment as employees by the agency. Such people feel they have no voice and can end up, bizarrely, tootling down the Uxbridge road to see their local Member of Parliament. I am all for people seeing their local Member of Parliament, but there has to be a better way to deal with the issue. At the time, the man who came to see me had no alternative and he dealt with the problem responsibly. At the end of the day, he and I felt that it had not been adequately addressed.
My final point is on the question of files. The former Under-Secretary of State for Women, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) spoke powerfully about the issue and made the case as well as it could be made. Her speech should be sent round to schools as a good introduction to civics.
I have a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary relating to—I think—paragraphs 46 and 51, which deal with summaries on candidates for election. I have no reason to believe that those matters are inappropriately dealt with as a rule, but I am concerned that hon. Members on both sides of the house have, to my certain knowledge, had regular dealings over many years with political representatives of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. The previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was courteous enough to tell me that he could assure me that my phone was not bugged. I had not asked about it, and was not troubled by it, but he offered the information. I was aware, therefore, that that thought existed, and it was clear that bugging happens in limited circumstances.
I am anxious to know, therefore, that any information held on a Member of Parliament, or on anyone who stands for election, is judged properly. If one believes—as, to be fair, many Conservatives did—that it is necessary to talk with political representatives of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, even at the height of violence, it is important to be able to do so with confidence that one's phone is not being tapped. That matter is retrospective now, but it is profoundly important.
Members of Parliament must be able to talk to people who are not wanted by the police for any criminal offence freely and without fear that they are being recorded and might be considered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford has said, a threat to national security. There is a delicate balance to be struck. I know of cases, in the recent history of Parliament, of individuals who would have had real concern about that. I raise the point because several
636
of us, myself included, were involved in talks supported by the then Government involving representatives of paramilitary groups. I always drew the line at talking to anyone whom I knew to be wanted for a criminal offence of any kind. I would, however, talk to anyone who was elected, or who represented a legal organisation.
The Committee deals with crucial areas concerning the importance of Parliament, management structure and how we deal with elected representatives. We should never lose sight of them.
8.42 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I want to raise only two matters that arise from my long experience as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. That experience was long only because we were not successful in winning elections, which meant that the Opposition were able to elect the Chairman of the PAC. The two matters are fraud, and the ability to investigate areas of security and sensitivity.
There is a clear danger of fraud wherever there are security matters. Obviously, not many people can be involved in making decisions, even financial decisions. An extreme example of that occurred in the Metropolitan police. There was a fellow named Williams who had authority to place orders and to make payments. He was buying helicopters. The police did not want the criminals to know that they had that kind of surveillance, so Williams was given that power. He pocketed £5 million, went off to Scotland and bought most of a village and a hotel. He lived the life of a lord, and everyone assumed that a wealthy relative in Norway had provided the money. Every Sunday, he returned to London to cover his tracks.
That is the sort of case that can happen. It is very difficult to uncover such cases when there are matters of great secrecy, so there must be proper procedures, no matter how important security is. It is obvious that one person must never be made responsible both for placing orders and for receiving the money. Less obviously, there must be some investigation from outside. In that case, the investigation was made by the Comptroller and Auditor General, a marvellous institution that both does the audit and understands what is going on. In the Ministry of Defence, people from the National Audit Office are placed permanently to see what is going on. Some information filters through to the PAC, rather more filters through to its Chairman, and that is enormously important in giving an understanding of how the system works, and allowing rules to be laid down for procedure.
Another case was that of Al Yamamah, a £20 billion contract with Saudi Arabia, which was investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General. How should we handle matters of such sensitivity? I informed the Committee of the matter, and it allowed me and the senior Conservative Member of the day, Michael Shaw—now Lord Shaw—to act as the full Committee. We pursued the matter together. If there had been any fraud or bribery in the Ministry of Defence, there would have been no question of secrecy. We would have let that be known in order to preserve the standing of the public service in general. In fact, there were matters concerning certain overseas individuals that we thought might be disadvantageous to our continuing with that important contract. We were able to assure ourselves that there was nothing more than that.

637
The PAC has long been in favour of the ability to pursue public money wherever it may go. We do not have that power now and we did not have it then. I hope that the Committee may get that power at some future stage. It was discussed in 1983. Following public money wherever it goes happens in the United States of America and other countries.
My other point relates to the security services—MI5 and MI6 in short. We considered their two buildings, about which I shall not comment much except to say that I wish they were not quite as obtrusive as they are. There should be a certain amount of discretion not only in the services, but in their buildings. The one on the other side of the Thames is almost a disgrace, although that is a personal observation that has nothing to do with my former position as Chairman of the PAC, which ended last year.
I was concerned when we investigated the buildings. I read a secret report from the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I could see that there had been an overspend that had not been reported to the House. There were certain reasons for the overspend, and certain security implications into which I cannot go. However, the fact that there were overspends on both buildings should have been known. Until I ceased to be Chairman of the PAC, I was pursuing the matter to make sure that it was known. Unfortunately, the general election intervened, and my role on the Committee ended.
The crucial point is that there is a need for an investigating arm. There is the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the Intelligence and Security Committee needs someone to perform that role. It needs a highly respected and responsible person who has the approval of Government and Parliament and who is able to undertake investigations. Knowing our civil servants and public-spirited individuals, it would be astonishing if we could not come up with one or two names of people who could undertake such activity.
No one can deny that are several things going wrong in our security services. There have been too many reports of one sort or another. While the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) can undertake certain investigations—I pay tribute to his valuable work—that facility is limited. We need someone inside the bodies concerned to help us find out what is going on. The person with that responsibility must have the respect of people generally. I hope that the Committee will return to this matter in due course.
8.49 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: It is clear from the debate that the House values the third annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are all grateful for its work. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) brings much experience to it and he and its other members have served the House well.
There can be no argument about the importance of the work of the security services. The report recognises the huge value of their work when it is successful. As many, including the Foreign Secretary, have noted, in the main it is by definition not sensible or practical to focus attention on their successes. The report is valuable and contains much useful material on personnel management
638
and on the compilation, retention and destruction of personal files. I, however, wish to discuss the security services' priorities.
There are clearly many valuable things that the security services can do, but resources are limited. The end of the cold war provides a great opportunity. Understandably, most of the focus of the media has been on the new work that they are doing on drugs and crime. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary values that work, where they are able to contribute.
I want to concentrate on other areas. The report's preface states:
"Moving British forces on humanitarian or peace-keeping missions into dangerous and untested territory requires the best possible intelligence on the local situation, and a close watch on what may be rapid and threatening changes in very volatile circumstances. Britain's involvement in such activities has also resulted in new terrorist threats to British interests."
We are proud of the contribution of our forces to peacekeeping—the Foreign Secretary mentioned Bosnia—but the work of the intelligence services in that respect is crucial and should be strongly supported.
My second point concerns the growth of international terrorism. There is huge growth in world aviation, and that will continue. That means more threats to aircraft, to mention but one aspect of international terrorism. If the intelligence services can contribute to reducing the number of hijackings, that would be an important service.
Thirdly, the preface mentions the important matter of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other horrific modern weapons capable of huge destruction. If the intelligence services can increase our knowledge, especially of those countries that are developing such capabilities, it must be of immense potential value to our people.
Supporting our forces, international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are by definition areas of great international interest. It follows that our intelligence agencies work with other agencies. That is how it should be. There are established democracies like ours with viable services, and by working together, they can achieve more. However, hard decisions must be taken on the priority and resources allocated to those activities.
On page 9, the report gives a figure for total expenditure of around £700 million. Paragraph 19 states:
"Figures for the individual Agency budgets are not at present published. The Committee believes that the fullest information should be published wherever possible, and will be discussing further whether there could be greater openness in this area."
All power to its elbow.
We know that, by definition, the intelligence services must be treated differently. No one wants transparency that compromises their work, but although decisions on the priority attached to different activities are for the agencies and the Government, Parliament and the broader community should also be able to participate. I hope that the committee will be able to provide more information and more of a breakdown of the resources allocated to different activities so that we can all contribute to the development of a set of priorities that commands the broad support of Parliament and the country.
We all hope that the significant sum of money still allocated to combating terrorism associated with Northern Ireland will come down; it is too early to say. If it does,

639
we can have a constructive debate on how that money can be effectively used to help further the benefits that the security services have the potential to bring to our people.
8.56 pm
Mr. David Winnick: This has been a good debate marred only by the characteristic contribution of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). He went to great lengths to tell us that the World Peace Council was a Soviet front organisation, but as everyone in politics and, I assume, in this House, knew that from day one, it was not startling news.
Whenever there is a call for greater accountability of the security services, the fear is always expressed, as it has been to a limited extent today, that that would undermine the work being undertaken. That was the excuse for retaining the ban on unions at GCHQ from the beginning of 1984. Labour opposed that ban and promised that once we were elected, it would go, as it did within days of our victory last May. Would anyone suggest that in the months that have elapsed since, its work has been in any way undermined by the fact that people have the right, which they should have in a democracy, of belonging to a trade union and having the union recognised by management?
In the not-so-distant past, any form of parliamentary Committee was opposed. It was long argued that it would be wrong for parliamentarians to be involved in examining the work of the security services.
In the 1983 Parliament, when I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee—I am again a member of that Committee—it was decided to look into the work of the special branches of the police. As far as I know, it was the first time that that had ever been done by a parliamentary Select Committee. Critics outside argued that we should not do that, as the special branches worked closely with the security forces. However, we did. Our report was not unanimous; it was a majority-and-minority report, but no one suggested afterwards that the work undertaken by special branches was undermined as a result of our inquiry.
There has been a tendency to question whether such work should be undertaken. As I have said in the past, I have never doubted that even if there were no terrorism in Northern Ireland, from Republican or Loyalist sources, or even if international terrorism did not exist, the work of the security services in a democracy such as ours would be essential. Moreover, I know of no democracy, let alone dictatorship, where such work is not undertaken in some form or other.
Those involved in extremist organisations that want to undermine and, if possible, destroy parliamentary democracy should be targeted. Who would suggest that the National Front, the British National party or other such organisations should not be targeted? No Labour Member would suggest that extremists on the ultra left who carry out activities that are not meant to advance the cause of parliamentary democracy should not be targeted. How far they should be targeted is a matter of judgment for the security services, but I have never disputed the fact that such work is necessary.
It is important, however, that the security services should carry out such work with the clear understanding of what they are about. The former Under-Secretary of State for Women, my hon. Friend the Member for
640
Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), explained what happened to her as a result of being involved in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. She quoted Cathy Massiter, a former MI5 employee, whom even Conservatives, I believe, respect for the manner in which she spoke out. She concluded that much of the work that she was doing was simply wrong, and said:
"Anyone who was on the Executive of the National Council for Civil Liberties"—
now known simply as Liberty—
"who worked for the organisation, was an active member to the degree of being, say, a branch secretary of the organisation, would be placed on permanent record and routine inquiries were instituted to identify such people and police inquiries were sought."
These people were not extremists. Indeed, it can be argued that they did a useful job in defending our civil liberties. How can what happened possibly be justified?
In an Adjournment debate on 21 December 1983, I raised the case of a constituent of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler).Mrs. Madeline Haigh made no secret of the fact that she was a CND activist. She wrote to the press and was, as far as anyone could tell, a perfectly law-abiding person. However, police investigations took place and she was lied to. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, I see, nods his head. The reply that he received was not the truth. Being a determined person, Mrs. Haigh wrote again to her Member of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman—he was a Minister at the time—carried out his constituency duties in a proper manner. He wrote again to the chief constable and received a different reply, which showed that the police had lied to his constituent.
Incidentally, I do not wish to pre-empt Thursday's debate, but the point can be established that once a Member of Parliament is elected, he serves all his constituents, not necessarily according to policy. I doubt whether Mrs. Haigh voted for the right hon. Gentleman. As we all would in such circumstances, he carried out his duties and no one can criticise him. The case caused much concern, which is why I raised it at the time.
As we know, since the early 1980s commissioners and tribunals have been established. One argument that is constantly advanced is that those commissioners and tribunals should be able to avoid some of the abuses that have occurred in the past, but paragraph 58 of the ISC report points out that none of the tribunals has found in favour of a complainant. The decisions of those tribunals may well have been justified, but I wonder whether such commissioners and tribunals could be relied on to be the custodians, or guardians, in circumstances in which abuses could occur in the security services.
Mr. Rogers: As my hon. Friend will remember, when we served on the Standing Committee considering the Bill that became the 1994 Act, we were given statistics showing that, during a period just before 1994, some 51 cases had been referred to tribunals, and none of those tribunals had found in favour of a complainant.
Mr. Winnick: Indeed. Paragraph 58 also states that, as the Committee had had no access to the material involved, it had been unable to make a judgment. That is entirely understandable.
I welcome the Committee's conclusion in paragraph 69 that it wants "an additional investigative capacity". I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to tell us whether the Committee will be given the necessary powers.

641
Perhaps engaging in a bit of mischief making, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) predicted that I would quote what had been said by Front Benchers and other Labour Members in opposition. I shall not do so, because it would serve no purpose; but I will say that, in opposition—certainly around 1994, when we were discussing these matters—we took the view that there should be some sort of parliamentary Select Committee rather than what was being proposed, namely the ISC.
I do not challenge the contention that, in government, it is possible to change or at least modify one's opinion, but I must tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that I should be happier if the Government did not close their mind to the possibility of a Select Committee. No one is suggesting that my right hon. Friend will tell us tonight that such a Committee will be formed, but I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration.
Let me make two final points. First, I do not believe that this issue will go away. The fact that debates such as this take place—like other hon. Members, I have initiated them in the past—demonstrates that it is an on-going issue. Secondly, although some have opposed the establishment of any parliamentary Committee, no one—not even the hon. Member for New Forest, East—has today challenged the existence of the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), despite all that has been said in the past.
I very much doubt that, if and when a parliamentary Select Committee comes into being, anyone will stand up in the Chamber and say that it should no longer exist. In other democracies, the security services are subject to much more parliamentary accountability, and I personally will not be satisfied until ours are too. We have taken the initial steps, and we have had a useful debate today. As I have said, I hope to hear from my right hon. Friend words that will encourage me to believe that, in the not-too-distant future, we will have the parliamentary accountability that we said we wanted when we were in opposition.
9.8 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: This has been a valuable and exclusive debate, although perhaps not quite as exclusive as it looks at the moment. I congratulate the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, many of whom have spoken, on the way in which the Committee has been accepted and is trusted by the security services. In particular, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) on the way in which he has led the Committee. We are fortunate to have a man of his experience and integrity as its Chairman.
In the debate, there were two features of particular significance. First, there was general agreement that, even though the old iron curtain may have been brought crashing down, there was still a need for the security services; that point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). It has not been a matter of the security services inventing new threats or new roles for themselves. Those threats were already there to be tackled. In particular, there was the threat of organised crime and of drugs.
642
Secondly, there was a recognition generally throughout the debate that special circumstances applied to the security services in respect of secrecy. Throughout the world, people will not take risks unless they are confident that every effort will be made to preserve their secrecy. Every reasonable effort must be made to do that, including personal management of the services themselves.
There was less agreement on how those principles should be put into practice, particularly on the nature of the committee that should oversee the security services. Several Labour Members—the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for Walsall, North and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley)—argued for the Committee to be a Select Committee of the House. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South pointed out that at one stage the Labour party said that that was its policy.
I am glad to say that I am entirely unencumbered by such a pledge, which is just as well. In any case, I would not accept the argument, because I am persuaded more by the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis): the way forward is to seek to develop the present structure—to add, as the report proposes, an investigative capacity to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
That is a sensible step forward. That is the way in which to proceed. The Committee has the confidence of the security services. That is important because, without it, it would be easy for the shutters to come down. We all know that that is true. We all know how these things work, but an investigative capacity would enable the Committee to dig deeper.
A strong case has been made with regard to the destruction of personal files and the introduction of some form of independent check. The point was made by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). There are two issues. There is the issue of operational use, and the security services are the only people who can decide that. However, there is also, if I may put it this way, the requirement of history. It would be a great mistake if files were destroyed that could throw light on policies and, sometimes perhaps, on personalities at the time. The Government should look at that matter again.
Another point that was raised—[Interruption.] May I have the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for a moment because it was raised by him in the debate, but not taken on? He referred to the three security agencies and asserted:
"It makes sense because they work so closely together."
If that does work as perfectly as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, it is fairly unusual in Whitehall.
Mr. Straw: Not now.
Sir Norman Fowler: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that. However, I would find that defence more convincing were it not for the Pinochet case, where

643
it is clear that the Home Secretary had not the first idea of what the Foreign Secretary knew. The Home Secretary makes my point in a wonderful way, and I rest my case. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater that this area should again be examined very deeply, as that obviously would have the thorough endorsement of the Home Secretary.
In looking at the recent history of the security services, especially in regard to subversion, we need to recognise that many of those whom the services had to investigate in the past were members of parties and organisations that made no secret of their wish to undermine parliamentary democracy. I in no way refer to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock). However, there was no doubt about the objectives of some of the organisations, for example, the Communist party of Great Britain, which set great store by seeking to infiltrate and manipulate organisations such as trades unions. It achieved only negligible support at the ballot box, but sought to gain an influence that was far out of proportion to that. Such activity was a legitimate subject for attention by the Security Service. It was of concern not only to the last Conservative Government, but to successive Governments.
All that is history. Now, the major effort of the Security Service is aimed at terrorism, both in Northern Ireland and internationally. That point was made well by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), with whom I am glad to be debating again. Terrorism plotted to cause terrorist outrages overseas. We all hope that the new position in Northern Ireland will lead to a reduction in the work of the Security Service. However, at the moment, there is no reason radically to reduce the resources going to that area. It would be a vast mistake to lift our guard too early. There is still a range of breakaway groups that presents a huge challenge.
Intelligence gathering against terrorists is difficult and often dangerous work. Many of those who work in this area risk their lives. As the former head of the Security Service, Stella Rimington, said in her Dimbleby lecture, they do it from a sense of public service and a firm belief in the rule of law and the democratic system. There have been major losses as a result of that work, such as the helicopter crash in 1994. I was with the then Prime Minister in Downing street when news of that crash came through. We have much cause to be grateful to those who work for the Security Service, often in very difficult and dangerous circumstances.
Mr. Peter Viggers: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I have not been here during the debate, having fulfilled a long-standing commitment in my constituency.
As I am a former Northern Ireland Minister and a member of the Defence Committee, hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I have occasionally come into contact with the security services. I want to pay tribute to their professionalism and dedication. Individuals carry heavy personal responsibility, often at an early age. It is a worthy commitment and long may first-class people come forward to fulfil it.
Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to his work in the Northern Ireland Office.
644
Important points on accountability have been very much rehearsed in this debate. However—this is my main concern—we must also address other vital issues, such as the agencies' effectiveness, and whether the agencies realise their full potential to do good. The one point on which everyone seems to be united is that the security services have a vastly important role in tackling organised crime, especially the drug trade. Effective operations undoubtedly make full use of intelligence in combating professional crime. Indeed, in the past 10 or 15 years, use of intelligence by police has been one of the most significant developments in fighting crime.
In his introduction to the Committee's report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater states:
"In recent years there has been a growth in serious organised crime, funded significantly by the world-wide trade in drugs. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the removal of barriers to travel from those countries let loose dangerous new criminal groups, often including ex-members of the KGB and other intelligence and security services. They have a substantial involvement in drugs and money laundering and, increasingly, in the traffic in illegal immigrants".
At paragraph 4 of the Government's response, the Prime Minister states:
"The Government welcomes the Committees's strong support for the increased priority the Agencies are giving to counter-drugs work. We shall continue to harness the invaluable contribution which they make to this important task."
We all agree on the challenge. However, I tell the Home Secretary that it would be a tragedy if the Prime Minister's words were simply the usual generalisations that Ministers tend to make about organised crime and especially about drugs. I heard the Foreign Secretary's statement about £200 million-worth of drugs being recovered in the past three years. Although that is good, personally, I remain to be convinced that our efforts are adequate to meet the increased challenge posed by organised crime.
I returned recently from the United States, where I saw the work of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The DEA was created in 1973 as a response to increased cocaine processing in south America and heroin refining in south-east Asia. It not only is the lead agency for domestic enforcement of federal drug laws but has sole responsibility for co-ordinating and conducting crucial drug investigations abroad. The DEA is determined to tackle the source of the drugs trade, and the very powerful criminal organisations that are behind the exploitation. Essentially, the DEA performs the very task that everyone has in mind for the security services, particularly the SIS.
The United States is much better resourced than the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, some indication of the emphasis that it is placing on the fight against drugs is provided by the fact that the DEA has a staff of 7,500, with 340 special agents in foreign countries, laboratories and 100 aircraft performing surveillance work. That gives some idea also of the challenge that the United States faces.
The United States operations against the drugs trade are relevant to our operations. Although it may not always be the same criminal organisations from the same parts of the world attempting to bring drugs into the United Kingdom—and too often succeeding—the type of threat is very much the same: exploitation of the public by entirely ruthless and professional criminals.
International developments sometimes have consequences for us. South America, for example, is displacing south-east Asia as the major source of heroin

645
in the United States. What happens to the heroin from south-east Asia? It goes to a developing market in Asia; it has also meant a new concentration on Europe.
Increasingly, organised criminals are trafficking not only one drug but any number of drugs for which there is a demand, or for which they think a demand can be created. By any standard, it is a serious and professionally organised operation. It is a brutally organised trade. We have now recognised, by statute at least, that we face very much the same kind of threat.
The SIS and GCHQ can now, by statute, be involved in combating serious crime. I do not share the view of Liberty that those organisations' powers are too wide. Liberty says that they can cover "relatively minor crimes" such as robberies. It depends on one's view of minor crime, but it had not hitherto occurred to me that robbery fell into that category.
The Security Service Act 1996 gave the Security Service the function
"of acting in support of the prevention and detection of serious crime".
I support the legislation's aim, but I am still sceptical about the resources that we are devoting to tackling organised crime. My understanding is that the Security Service is able to devote only a very small percentage of its resources to that. It is difficult to make a complete and accurate assessment of the figure, given the asterisks that appear in the report in place of the relevant sum. I think that I know the figure, but I shall not reveal it. In any event, the service spends only a small proportion of its resources on tackling crime. If one accepts the nature of the challenge, as I do, that proportion needs to be increased. We shall need to return to the issue of whether the effort that we are making is adequately resourced, or even whether it is given sufficient priority within the Budget.
This has been a welcome and valuable debate. The activities of the intelligence agencies must be subject to proper scrutiny—no one seeks to deny that—and the Committee deserves to be congratulated on its work. We must now develop that work but, above all, the aim must be to make the agencies as effective as possible because they have a continuing and invaluable role to play.
9.26 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): When the Intelligence and Security Committee was established, there were twin anxieties. There was an anxiety in the House that it would be a weak substitute, or patsy, for a proper, full-blooded Select Committee. The opposite anxiety, among the intelligence agencies, was that the prospect of a Committee of parliamentarians, if not a parliamentary Committee, would mean that the ring of secrecy, which was patently so important for the operation of those agencies, would be compromised and that their work would thereby be undermined. As experience has shown, both anxieties proved misplaced.
We have had a good debate not only on the ISC's work over the past year but, effectively, on its work in the four years since it was established. I shall deal in a moment with the proposals that have been around for a long time for changes in parliamentary scrutiny, but we know that,
646
under the excellent chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), members of the Committee, who come from all parties, have done their job properly, as Parliament intended. The Committee has effectively scrutinised the work of the intelligence and security agencies. I have appeared before the Committee twice. The experience of giving evidence to the ISC is no more comfortable than giving evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is as it should be.
Given the anxieties that I mentioned, the paradox is just how much the agencies have benefited from the establishment of the ISC. As a result of the establishment of the ISC, there is now a group of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have knowledge and expertise about the operation of the agencies, but who approach the issue with independence of judgment. That is hugely to the advantage of the agencies, given that there is such widespread support and admiration for the important work that they do.
My hon. Friends the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who used to represent Hammersmith—it was better in the old days when he and I were up for that seat and, happily, he got it—all raised the question of whether we should replace the ISC with a Select Committee. Let me make a number of observations before not closing the door on the idea.
First, we should give the ISC time to develop. All members of the Committee supported the proposal that the ISC should have its own investigative capacity. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said, we said in paragraph 21 of our response that we intend to consider that request
"as sympathetically as possible and discuss with the Committee any necessary strengthening of its staff."
So we understand the case for that. A separate investigative capacity would obviously enhance the role of the Committee, and in the long run would be an important protection for the agencies.
Secondly, although I do understand the important points of principle to which my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South and for Workington referred, there is an important difference in principle between a Committee established by the House—we all know that it is exactly the same in practice—and one established by Act of Parliament with appointments to it by the Prime Minister. If we are to continue discussing the issue, it is important to recognise that, in practice, the way in which any Select Committee would operate, if it were to operate effectively, would be little different from the way in which the ISC operates in terms of the ring of secrecy and there having to be some prior vetting—ultimately by the Prime Minister—of what is published in the Committee's reports and so on. That said, we do not close the door for ever on the idea of a Select Committee. We want to see how the new developments that are now in train work out in practice.
Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend said that the existence of the ISC has been to the advantage of the security agencies, although originally they had reservations. Is it not a possibility that a Select

647
Committee, with the restrictions that obviously would be necessary, would give the security agencies even more confidence? Is that not worth considering?
Mr. Straw: That is a seductive argument and it is certainly worth considering. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I shall leave the matter where I have just left it, which is that we should look to the strengthening of the operation of the ISC, which is only four years old. That is but a blink in the 1,000 years of Parliament's history—a matter that, no doubt, we shall discuss again on Thursday. Let us watch with care.
I shall now deal with the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in addition to what he said about the ISC becoming a Select Committee. First, he asked about serious crime and organised crime, a point to which the shadow Home Secretary also referred. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely right to introduce what became the Security Service Act 1996. We supported the provision to extend the role of the Security Service into serious and organised crime. As paragraph 17 of the report states, during the period covered by the report, there have been 24 separate taskings of the Security Service in respect of serious and organised crime. I have seen a great deal of the service's work and believe it to be a valuable addition to the law enforcement effort against serious and organised crime. The Security Service brings expertise not currently available in the police or Customs and Excise.
The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), and the former Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked about resources and value for money. The National Audit Office has undertaken some value for money studies of the work of the agencies. That is very important. The NAO should have the fullest possible access to the work of the agencies.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne rightly reminded us that, if we take secrecy too far, we reduce internal accountability in the agencies. What happened in the Metropolitan police is a dismal story of an absence of the most basic systems for separating those who ordered services from those who paid for them.
The shadow Home Secretary asked about resources. As paragraph 19 of the report shows—this is not too partisan a point—the resources available to the services dropped significantly between 1994 and 1997–98. For a variety of reasons, some good and some not so good, the figure fell from £855 million to £707 million, then to £693 million last year. We are increasing the figure to £743 million for the next three years. Of course there is never as much money as has been sought, but that is a verity at all times for Governments and agencies. We believe that the services have adequate resources.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe raised the point about access by staff to industrial tribunals. Work is in hand on that. We shall report to the House when the work is complete.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater made a wide-ranging speech in which he raised the importance of improving the agencies' internal security. That was reflected in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and the sage remarks of my hon.
648
Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). The issue is how to nurture and treat the staff of the agencies, while ensuring that we spot any staff who are becoming disaffected before they are tempted down the road of chequebook treachery—in the resonant phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda—which we see too frequently.
The service recognises that internal security has to be improved. Paragraphs 26 and 27 say that the Committee will return to study that in further detail. That is important, because this is a good example of the work of the ISC complementing the work of the agencies. The process of cross-examination and demanding more scrutiny of those internal procedures should raise the standards of internal security.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked about warrant signing—an old chestnut if ever there was one—and whether, rather than by Secretaries of State, warrants should be signed by commissioners along the lines of the commissioners established under the Police Act 1997. I should make two observations. The first was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who said that the process of scrutinising and signing applications for warrants is one by which any holder of my office is able, day by day and week by week, to hold the agencies to account. It was not until I started on the process that I understood just how important it is as part of the line of accountability. It is not like having a meeting from time to time. The fact that warrant applications come through routinely and that one has the power to say yes or no to them means that the service must make a proper case for its operation and that the Secretary of State has responsibility to ensure that the law and its requirements are properly complied with. Behind any signature on the warrant, almost resting on one's shoulders, is the shadow of the interception commissioner, who is at present Lord Nolan. In my experience, Lord Nolan and his staff are very thorough.
Secondly, although I do not want to rehearse all the debates on the Police Bill that we had in the run-up to the election—even though I would be very happy to do so—I must point out that the argument at that stage was about the kind of system for authorising warrants other than that of a Secretary of State. It was generally accepted—certainly on both Front Benches—that, had any Secretary of State or putative Secretary of State been rash enough to volunteer to take over warrantry for intrusive surveillance as well as for interception, there would not have been an argument either at this end of the Palace of Westminster or the other. It was precisely because that was not on offer that we had to make other arrangements.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) rightly refered to some important issues on behalf of his many constituents who work at GCHQ and, indeed, on behalf of the town of Cheltenham. GCHQ is dominant there both as an employer and in its rather questionable architecture. Other hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred my involvement—I say only partial—in the fact that there have been four director-generals of GCHQ in the past three or four years. I seek exoneration. I should point out that the present permanent secretary to the Home Office, David Omand, in respect of whose appointment as director-general of GCHQ I played some part, served for slightly longer than I have been Home Secretary. That, at least from the point of view of Conservative Members,

649
is a period that cannot come to an end too quickly. I cannot speak for David Omand's predecessors or successors.
Other issues that have been raised in the debate include the question of the holding of files. On 29 July I disclosed what I said I was going to in the Adjournment debate in February. Getting on for 300,000 files of one kind or another are held by the Security Service, although most of them are now closed. How those files are disposed of is very important. I am absolutely clear about one thing, which I made clear in the debate in February and again in July: no individual on whom a file may be held should have any say over whether a file should be disposed of.
It is extremely important to people's civil liberties as well as to a study of the history of this country that objective criteria should be laid down, which the Security Service should be able to follow. It is for that reason that we have asked the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Public Records, under the chairmanship of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolf, with the help of some very distinguished historians, to look at the criteria to be laid down. Their report will—I think—be made available to me just before Christmas.
Mr. Beith: Will the Home Secretary look again at the logic, or lack of logic, of the Government's response to this point? It is simply not the case to say that it would be second guessing if there were independent scrutiny of which files were to be destroyed. That will be long after operational decisions have been taken.
Mr. Straw: I shall look again at that matter and come back to Committee members.
Sir Norman Fowler: Does that mean that the Home Secretary will look again at the position of an independent check, because that is what is being urged?
Mr. Straw: Yes. The Committee has urged that there should be some kind of independent check in respect of files that have long ceased to have any operational value. The question whether a file is operational or not must be a matter for the director-general. There is then a separate question of whether a file that has had no value for many years should or should not be disposed of.
The first stage is that we are getting advice from the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee. The second issue is whether there should be any independent scrutiny of the decisions made about the disposal of the files. The Committee said one thing, and the Government have
650
raised the issue of second guessing. Many representations have been raised this evening about whether we should think again and—without pre-empting our second thoughts on the matter—I am happy to take it away and think again.
Before I conclude, I shall refer to one other matter—the role of the commissioners and the tribunals. As the report makes clear, there have been a number of complaints to the tribunals and commissioners over the years but, so far, none of those has been successful. That could lead to the conclusion that the tribunals—despite the fact that they are chaired by eminent jurists—are simply there to whitewash the operations and poor practices of the agencies. On the other hand, it could mean that the internal processes of the agencies are sufficiently thorough so that—at least up to now—it has been quite appropriate that none of the complaints has been substantiated.
I believe that it is very much the latter, and not the former, that is the truth. In terms of interception, what has been striking to me—as someone coming entirely new to my role as one of the few Secretaries of State dealing with warrants—is how thorough the process is. Therefore, I am not surprised that no complaint has been upheld, and long may that continue. The interception of communications is, in principle and in practice, a serious violation of people's civil liberties, and it should take place only when the narrow criteria laid down in legislation are complied with.
I finish where my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary began—by paying tribute to a number of people. First, I pay tribute to the Chairman and the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for the thoroughness of their work and for their independence of judgment, which shines through this report. Secondly, I pay tribute to a small group of officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office who are very often unsung but have the important task on behalf of Ministers of monitoring the work of the agencies.
Thirdly, I pay tribute—and express the thanks of the whole House—to the staff of all the agencies. They do very important work—important to the security of this nation, important in terms of our economic well-being and important in trying to make our society safe from serious crime. Those are dedicated people who, because of the nature of their work, cannot speak for themselves. It is right today that Parliament and the House of Commons has spoken for them, and has recognised the value, importance and integrity of their work.
Mr. Mike Hall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Millennium Tower, Portsmouth
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall]
9.48 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise an issue that is important for the people of Portsmouth and south Hampshire; indeed, I am sure that people in much of the United Kingdom will be interested to know about it. I am also delighted that we have a few extra minutes, as the hon. Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) have said, either to me or to the local newspaper, that they want to contribute to the debate—we would have been stretched if we had had only 30 minutes.
In March 1995, no one in the area opposed the decision by Portsmouth and Gosport to make a bid for funds for a landmark project. The bid offered a great opportunity for jobs, not only in the short term—in construction and in the many different aspects of the scheme—but in the long term, as a result of the development of new and existing attractions. As the then leader of Hampshire county council, I strongly supported the bid; indeed, I convinced my colleagues on the council to invest a great deal of money in the schemes, particularly in those in Gosport.
The schemes were put together in such a way that the community and many members of the council had little real input. They were dreamed up by people who had their vision and then brought other people in. No one can deny that those involved in the initial concept formed a close-knit circle—that may be how such ventures have to start, and I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with it. However, at every stage, the public, especially in Portsmouth and Gosport, should have been brought in on the act—they needed to have a positive and meaningful share in the proposals. That did not happen.
There could be few doubts about some aspects of the project. Someone needed to step in to redevelop the older and more rundown areas of Gosport, particularly the former service establishment at Priddy's Hard. Realistically, only the millennium package would provide the opportunity for such investment.
There was also a need to rekindle development in the less rundown former Ministry of Defence establishments in Portsmouth. The Mary Rose, HMS Warrior, HMS Victory and the naval museum needed to be rejuvenated so that the heritage area could sustain the number of visitors that we had come to expect and that it had come to depend on. For the area, the millennium package was vital.
It was suggested that we needed something to spark the imagination of the Government, the nation and—most important—the Millennium Commission. The small team came up with the idea of a tower, although no one then knew what it would look like. We saw artists' impressions of cross-channel ferries sailing by the tower through a gigantic arch of water created by water cannon across the harbour between Portsmouth and Gosport. It all looked very nice.
I had been in local government in Portsmouth for nearly 30 years, and was leader of Hampshire county council. I had been a trustee of the naval museum and the Mary Rose, and had been actively involved in raising money
652
for all the projects in the heritage area. Indeed, I had convinced the local authority to give the best part of £1 million to help the heritage area. However, I doubted whether a tower would be a viable proposition in that area, for reasons that I stated loud and clear.
To succeed, a tower would need to attract visitors, but the area contained a number of competing activities—people with limited resources would have to choose what to spend their money on.
As I know from family experience, towers can be divisive. Some people like to go up them and some do not. In a family of four, two may want to go up and two may not, as I found with my family. What does one do?
A day out in the heritage area is a wonderful experience, but it is not cheap. One needs the best part of the day, and the entry fee for a family of four plus buying a small snack at lunchtime costs £60 or more. Not too many families can do that very often. The tower would be another attraction in the area. It will have to be self-sustaining and viable and will need an awful lot of visitors.
I raised strong objections to the tower, which was first suggested in March 1995. Construction should start in a few months, but the planning application that is before the city council tells us nothing.
On Friday, I asked the planning officer to tell me what the tower was to be made of, what colour it would be, what maintenance would be necessary and how long it would last, but he could not. He said that we would have to learn all those things between now and when the planning committee meets. We must bear in mind the fact that the council has just signed a deal with the Millennium Commission to build the tower at a cost of £23 million. How can anyone be so specific, if we do not know what the tower is to be made of? When the concept was first agreed nearly three years ago, the Millennium Commission was to have a 35 per cent. share, but it has now increased it to 68 per cent.
The history of the concept is interesting. The then Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), visited Portsmouth—it was one of many visits, as she passed the site whenever she went to her holiday home on the Isle of Wight, and I am sure that she greatly enjoyed the trip out of Portsmouth harbour—and made great play of the fact that the tower should be of national and international significance. She likened the competition that should be held to design it to that held when Trafalgar square and Nelson's column were created. I think she said 144 people submitted bids to build the column and create the spectacle in Trafalgar square. She felt that Portsmouth deserved a similar competition. However, we did not have it.
Well-known architects such as Sir Norman Foster, Michael Wilford, who took over from James Stirling, and Santiago Calatrava, who built the Barcelona Olympic tower, all expressed interest in the concept, but none was asked. The city council and the developers offered the people of Portsmouth and the surrounding area three options. The developer visited me in my offices in Parliament street, and told me that he did not like one of the three. He told me which one he preferred, and said that the third had been included to give people three choices.
Funnily enough, the private sector developer, Berkeley, did not get the design that it wanted, as the public chose the spinnaker. However, the public were not asked

653
whether they wanted a tower at the entrance of Portsmouth harbour. They were simply asked which one of the three designs they preferred.
No one objected to any of the other aspects of the millennium scheme. Many of them, such as the boathouse project, Priddy's Hard and the millennium walkway, are essential to the growth of the areas concerned, and the potential is enormous, but most people in Portsmouth, when asked about the tower, say that it is a waste of money. I would have said so had I not been a member of the council. I would have said that the money could have been better spent on hospitals, schools and many other things.
I had dozens of letters asking me to get the commission to spend the money on other things, but we were not offered a choice. The city council said, rightly, that the commission had made it clear that the money was for a tower, so a tower it had to be.
At the same time, the Ministry of Defence was releasing the Gunwharf site at HMS Vernon, and it was intended that the tower should be part of the development. The millennium scheme and the development of Gunwharf were so interwoven as to be inextricable. I asked the Ministry of Defence about the disposal of the Gunwharf site. I am very disappointed—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Mr. Hancock: The reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence said:
"Offers for the Gunwharf site were sought on the basis of open market value and took into account the Planning Brief for the site previously provided … The bid chosen was considered to provide the best value for money. I am withholding information on the details of the sale receipt under exemption 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."
I find that outrageous from a Government who came into office saying that were for open government. How on earth can the sale receipt for a piece of public real estate be withheld? What on earth can be the commercial significance of that disposal?
Berkeley got the prime site that it wanted. Until March, April, May this year, Berkeley was expected to build the tower. The city council was stupid enough to sign an agreement with the Millennium Commission saying that it was committed to building a tower, without having Berkeley signed up to build it. Once the commission had us on the hook and had checked the projects that Berkeley, the city council and others had submitted, I started to query the figures. I was told that the figures had been put together professionally, and that Berkeley, the city council and, more important, the commission were happy with the figures.
I have written well over 200 letters to the city council, the commission and others, to try to get the answers to questions, but those answers have been difficult to come by. I am a member of the city council, and I have not been able to get straight answers without writing at least three times, on some occasions, with the same question.
When I challenged the figures, I was told that there was nothing wrong with them. I wrote to the Millennium Commission on 11 February asking what it thought of the
654
figures, given that the tourism market was very vulnerable. The commission had always maintained that its role was to be extra vigilant with public money. I wrote to the chief executive to tell him that I would be raising these points, and he had the opportunity, if he had wanted to, to contact me today.
The chief executive of the commission wrote:
"The testing and assessment of the visitor impact of the various proposed projects, and the impact of each project on the others, is primarily a matter for the Renaissance promoters. As you know, an assessment has been done, it was put to your local authority some time ago. It is the Commission view that that assessment was reasonable."
The commission allowed the development to continue, but it did not know that, at the same time as that letter was being written to me, Berkeley, the developer, had told the city council that it no longer believed the figures.
In July, Berkeley wrote to the city council:
"During the course of our discussions, however, we agreed to work in co-operation with Portsmouth City Council and to be helpful as possible in terms of helping Portsmouth to secure the building of the Tower … we offered a contribution of £3 million".
They were offering £3 million because they wanted to walk away.
In the same letter, the developers say:
"At that meeting we made it absolutely clear to you that we considered that the visitor numbers produced by Deloitte & Touche for the Tower were badly flawed and that the Tower was not financially viable."
Those people were set to make millions of pounds out of the development, with the tower right next door as the landmark project. The developers had verbally committed themselves, and certainly the city council innocently believed that they were going to build it. However, the developers walked away once they had scrutinised the same figures which the Millennium Commission assured me—and, I suspect, their commissioners and the Secretary of State—had nothing wrong with them. The developers were even prepared to offer £3 million to the city council as a consolation.
We were then left with no private finance, except for the £3 million, and some land for the scheme. What could the city council do next? Where could it get the money? Nearly 200 press releases have been issued by the city council about the project since 1995. The amount of spin that has been put on the tower project would make Shane Warne, the Australian spin bowler, look professionally inept.
Within weeks, the press releases contradicted themselves. One week it was claimed that 4,000 jobs would be created, and the next it was 3,500. Ludicrous claims were made, including that the Fine Arts Commission was to be consulted on the design of the tower so that we would not get a second-rate design. It has never been asked in three years for its opinion on the tower. Why not? Press releases sent out by the city council claim that the Fine Arts Commission would be a key player in ensuring that the tower would be the best we could have.
We were left with no private money, except for the £3 million, and a very difficult problem for the city council. It tried to attract other private finance. It could not do so, so it went back to the Millennium Commission, which suggested the downgrading of the whole scheme from more than £40 million to £38 million. The water

655
feature was felt to be impossible to achieve and the only satisfactory alternative was a mobile water cannon mounted on a barge. The Millennium Commission felt that that was unacceptable, so it turned it down. Car parking was reduced, and sculptures and other landscaping around the heritage area were removed from the plan.
The Millennium Commission said that it would put more money into the tower, the cost of which escalated from 35 per cent. of the project to 68 per cent. That meant that the tower would cost the largest sum of any single project in any landmark scheme. The commission is basing that investment on the assurances given by Portsmouth city council. I know that the city council wants the tower to succeed, and I do not want to see it left in a mess. I represent too many people who find it hard enough to get through the week, without having to pay bigger bills to fund any unsuccessful aspect of the project. Once it is started, there is no alternative to success.
Two Secretaries of State have visited the area, and they were both enthralled by the concept. Both have given substantial support, although one would have liked to see a competition and the other, the current Secretary of State, did not seem to be too interested in any criticism of, or possible liabilities arising from, the scheme.
The purpose of the debate tonight is to try to obtain from the Minister firm assurances for the people I represent that she will not allow Portsmouth city council to be left holding a very expensive baby, in the short, middle or long term. We are talking about a 500 ft-plus tower that people can go up and down, costing £23 million. The project remains to be built, and the original concept was for design, building and operation in a single package by a single partner of the city council—Berkeley Homes. None of that has happened. Now, the tower will, for the first time, be in the ownership of the city council. That is an amazing and enormous liability for the next 50, 75 or 100 years. No one expects the tower to come down in 25 years. It will be there for a significant period, and it will be an continuing liability.
Portsmouth city council is negotiating with two types of people. It needs someone to build the tower for £23 million, and I have been assured that there is a good chance of a fixed-price contract. The council is also seeking someone to operate the tower at no cost to the council. I wish it luck. Anything short of that would be totally unacceptable. The Government must see that that cannot be allowed to happen. When the Public Accounts Committee discussed landmark projects, it said that no local authority should be left with a continuing liability, as that would be unfair, and not sensible.
If building begins and the finances do not run according to plan, I want the Millennium Commission or the Government to support the costs. There is no guarantee that the tower can be built for £23 million. We do not even know what it will be made of. Will it be steel and concrete? Will it be concrete alone? We do not even know what will be on the outside. What we do know, however, from our experience in Portsmouth at three schemes—a housing development at Portsdown park, the Pyramid leisure complex and the Tricorn development—is that building projects can cost local authorities a great deal of money and heartache. The people of Portsmouth will not
656
forgive the council, any of the city's politicians or the Government if the scheme goes wrong, leaving them holding a very expensive baby.
As the agreement stands, the Millennium Commission can step aside like Pontius Pilate, self-righteously saying that its job is to protect public money, and that, once an agreement is made that the city council should deliver the project, its obligations to safeguard public money and the interests of the people of Portsmouth cease. Portsmouth city council would be left alone to be responsible, because it had signed an agreement to build the tower.
The tower is too important to be regarded as a matter for a political row between colleagues, as the hon. Member for Gosport has suggested in the local paper. What I am saying is too important to be dismissed as waffle or grandstanding, as it has been by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North in the local paper. The matter is important because people have not been consulted, except by way of press releases that contradict themselves over a three-year period and that, in some cases, give nothing but misleading information.
Portsmouth has significant problems relating to education, social services, housing and many more policy areas. Every precious pound that can be squeezed from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is needed to fund local government services. We need every penny we can get. The city succeeds because of its successful ferry port, but nothing should be allowed to jeopardise our fragile financial situation, and we are no different from Gosport or any other local authority area in that. We must maintain the stability of our finances, and that can be done only if someone gives some assurances that will remove the burden from Portsmouth city council.
If we have to have a tower—and I am not convinced of the need for it—it must be something of which we can all be proud. It must not require other things to be added to it to make it viable, so that it is something short of an Alton Towers feature. It should be publicly accessible, it should be something that we can be proud of as a nation and the people of Portsmouth should not have to pay for it in years to come. I hope that tonight the Minister will lift much pressure from me and, potentially, from the people of Portsmouth.
10.14 pm
Mr. Syd Rapson: I have a different story. Although the tower is not in my constituency, the city council covers a tightly knit area. I represent the people of Portsmouth as much as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) does. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and I speak with the authority of the local authorities involved in the scheme.
I have been a local councillor for as long as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South. We are local government people as well as Members of Parliament. I believe in local government. I believe that democratically elected local government has the right to decide planning for local people. It is not the job of Parliament to try to overcome that, as if we are the guardians of everything that goes on and can overrule what people want locally.
The project was originally dreamed up as a landmark scheme. The tower and the water fountains were an important part of the scheme that was chosen. Berkeley

657
did not do enough investigation into visitor numbers. It is basically a building company. When it did its homework, it found that the numbers were not quite correct. The city council had to re-evaluate the scheme, which it did recently with the support of the Millennium Commission. The commission crawled all over the figures to ensure that everything was absolutely correct.
The commission insisted that the city council underwrote the cost of the scheme. The city council did that, although it has operators ready to guarantee to underwrite the commercial risk involved. Delicate negotiations are going on, which is why things are kept fairly confidential. The city council has a millennium sub-committee, which has all the information, with a representative of the Liberal Democrat group on it. All the information is with local councillors.
The scheme is viable. An operator is ready to come in to run the tower. I must explain one confusing point. The original idea was that a company would take on the whole scheme and had to build a tower that would cost a considerable sum. It had not worked out the figures and has drawn back, offering £3 million back. The package has been rearranged with commission money and other moneys. The tower will be built within the money envelope that we now have. The only difference is that the operator does not have to find the money for construction, only for operation. It can do that.
This is a local government issue. We have total confidence in the scheme, which is well supported by the people of Portsmouth. It should be considered in that context. It is a worthwhile project, which should be supported by all.
10.17 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was fortunate to obtain this debate, in which I intervene with his consent. It was particularly good of him to allow that, because he knows that my view is not exactly parallel with his.
The Portsmouth harbour millennium project is very important to the whole Portsmouth-Gosport area. It will involve the development of walkways with retail opportunities around the museums and the characterful Portsmouth harbour area, with its naval and civilian yachting movements. It will develop the defence heritage area of Portsmouth harbour. If successful—I am confident that it will be—it should result in the sort of project that has been so successful in places such as Barcelona, San Antonio and Philadelphia.
It is a big project, involving £81 million, of which about half will be provided by the Millennium Commission. We hope that, whereas in the past people have visited the Portsmouth area specifically for one purpose—perhaps to see Victory, Warrior, of which I am proud to be a director, or the submarine museum—the scheme will develop into the sort of project that people will visit not for a day but for two or three. There is overwhelming support for the tower's spinnaker design, to which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South referred. The local newspaper said:
"without the tower, the whole project collapses into meaningless rubble. It is the focal point, the beacon that will lure visitors to the revitalised harbour area."
658
That is a strong way of putting it, but the tower is an important part of the millennium project. It is a symbol of the imaginative plan that is so important to the Portsmouth harbour area and the whole of south Hampshire. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that she gives her full backing to completion of the project.
10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) for the opportunity to put the record straight regarding Portsmouth city council's support for this exciting project. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for confirming the project's importance to Portsmouth, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), who has long been a supporter of the project, and who illustrated his firm wish to see it succeed.
I must emphasise, first, that local authorities are independently elected bodies, answerable for their policies to their electorate. It is for each authority to decide whether the scope of its powers is wide enough to carry out a particular activity. Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 allows authorities to incur expenditure up to specified limits if, in their opinion, it is in the interests of their local area.
It is also important to remember that the renaissance of Portsmouth harbour is a Millennium Commission project, not a Government initiative. As the House is aware, the commission is a politically independent body, and the Government do not wish to compromise that independence. The detail of the project and the associated contractual negotiations remain matters for the Millennium Commission and the grant recipient.
In September 1995, the commission awarded a grant of £40 million to the project, against an anticipated total cost of £86 million. The renaissance of Portsmouth harbour is an ambitious development, incorporating many individual projects. The scheme emphasises public access to the harbour water front, linking the communities of Portsmouth and Gosport, and promoting the area's maritime history. It focuses on creating an international maritime arena that will provide leisure opportunities for local residents and visitors alike.
The project was developed by the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Partnership, a consortium of local authorities and businesses. It has been led by Portsmouth city council on behalf of Portsmouth Harbour Renaissance Ltd. At an early stage in the appraisal process, the Millennium Commission identified the project as having the potential to become one of its landmark developments. Combined with the scheme's complex nature, that fact led the commission to work in partnership with the applicant during the development stage.
Tonight's debate, however, concerns specifically the construction of the millennium tower. The tower has always been a key element of the project, integral to its success. In March this year, local people unambiguously selected the spinnaker design as the preferred design concept, and outline planning permission was secured. The intended cost of the tower—some £22 million in total—was to be met partly by the commission, which would contribute £9 million, and partly by the Berkeley group.

659
In July, Berkeley decided to reduce its cash contribution from some £10 million to £3 million, although it remained committed to a contribution in kind of £4.3 million to provide the necessary infrastructure. That decision created a funding gap.
Portsmouth city council has now agreed, if necessary—I stress the words "if necessary"—to underwrite a portion of the commercial risk of the tower's operation. I understand that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South takes issue with that decision. It is not unreasonable to ask why the city council should choose to invest in a scheme which the Berkeley group apparently did not find attractive.
Fortunately, I am able to answer that question. In July, Berkeley undertook a review of the business plan, and decided that the anticipated income projections from the millennium tower did not justify the level of capital expenditure that it was committed to provide. That was partly because the initial business plan had incorporated a number of commercial enhancements to the tower—restaurants, and so on. However, the spinnaker design—which, as the hon. Member for Gosport pointed out, was chosen by local people when they were consulted—does not include those elements; it is an architectural piece, a landmark.
Mr. Hancock: Have the Minister's officers at the Millennium Commission told her that there are proposals to enhance the tower? Have they told her that there could be a rollercoaster going around the base of it, or up part of it, and that there might be some sort of exciting ride as well? That would reduce what the Minister has just described as a free-standing piece of architecture to something that might have to be continually upgraded to keep people coming.
Is the Minister aware that the viability figures that she mentioned have now been reduced by nearly 300,000 in terms of the number of visitors?
Janet Anderson: I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall be able to answer his questions. If I do not, he is at liberty to write to me, and I shall answer them then.
Berkeley's decision is not the issue here. It is perfectly reasonable for a commercial company to choose to withdraw from a project if it does not appear that substantial returns will accrue. Portsmouth city council, however, is a body with different priorities. It exists not to make a profit, but to promote the best interests of the local population. The city council strongly believes that the scheme in its entirety will have significant benefits for the local community. The most conservative analysis suggests that it will increase the number of visitors to the
660
area, create additional employment, and raise the profile of Portsmouth, both within the United Kingdom and abroad.
Furthermore, the decision to underwrite the project merely makes explicit an implicit undertaking that was always part of the project's business plan. As a partner of Portsmouth Harbour Renaissance Ltd., the city council was party to an implicit underwriting of the entire scheme. It formalised that commitment to provide the Millennium Commission with additional security, although it is unlikely that it will ever be called upon to honour it.
Portsmouth Harbour Renaissance Ltd. is currently involved in complex negotiations to find a replacement commercial operator for the tower. It and the Millennium Commission have every confidence that such an operator—one who shares their view that the millennium tower is an integral part of the harbour renaissance scheme—will be found. It is regrettable that, at such a delicate stage in this exciting project's development, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South should see fit to push into the public domain the subject matter of such sensitive negotiations.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
Janet Anderson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have only a few minutes left, and the hon. Gentleman said that he wished to hear what I had to say.
I hope that what I have said will reassure him, but let me make one final point to provide him with yet more reassurance. The leader of the council has given me an absolute assurance that, in the very unlikely event of the council's ever having to underwrite the operating costs of the millennium tower, there will be no question of its front-line services being cut as a result.
The hon. Member for Gosport mentioned a leader in the 2 October issue of the Portsmouth paper The News. Let me repeat part of what that paper said:
"when the Portsmouth South MP gets his teeth into something, he doesn't let go. But he is as wrong about the harbour's millennium tower now as he has been all along … Mr. Hancock never wanted the tower but he has lost the argument and it is time he accepted it."
The Government's opinion in this matter is straightforward. We believe that the Millennium Commission has made the right decision in agreeing to support the renaissance of Portsmouth harbour project, and we hope that the negotiations will soon be resolved in the interests of the people of Portsmouth and Gosport. We invite the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South to join us in that desire.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Attorney-General what changes he proposes for the Crown Prosecution Service's cash and running costs limits for 1998–99. [58160]

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Class VIII Vote 4 will be increased by £8,253,000 from £220,673,000 to £228,926,000 and the gross running costs limit for Class VIII Vote 4 will be increased by £4,153,000 from £216,767,000 to £220,920,000.

  The cash limit increase of £8,253,000 includes funding to meet the transitional costs of the internal reforms set out in the Glidewell report "The Review of the Crown Prosecution Service", published in June 1998 (Cm 3960).

  It also provides for further rationalisation of the department's estate and the implementation of a number of criminal justice initiatives including those arising from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  The increases will be offset by a transfer of £1,153,000 from the Home Office, the take up of £1,800,000 of the department's end year flexibility of £3,400,000, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36, and a charge of £5,300,000 to the Reserve. It will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October 1998. [58000]

  Clare Short
  Shortly.

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the Government's policy on working to eradicate the practice of female genital mutilation in developing countries. [57534]

  Clare Short
  Female genital mutilation is both a health and a human rights issue. It contravenes several United Nations Conventions. The Government's policy is to try to persuade countries where the practice occurs to take steps to reduce and eventually eliminate it. Most Governments oppose it, and welcome assistance from donor partners to change attitudes within their countries. In other cases, we try to exert influence through quiet 300
  diplomacy and by providing support to strengthen laws against harmful traditional practices. Supporting efforts to help women exercise their human rights is a key part of the Department for International Development's (DFID) strategy.

  At the 1998 session of the UN Commission on Human Rights the UK co-sponsored a resolution—"The elimination of violence against women"—which called upon states to eradicate traditional or customary practices, particularly female genital mutilation, that are harmful or discriminate against women, through the development and implementation of national legislation and policies prohibiting such practices, the prosecution of perpetrators, awareness-raising programmes, education and training.

  Care for the consequences of female genital mutilation in poorer countries is extremely limited. Many complications go untreated. We are seeking to help in three main ways:
  by ensuring wide awareness of the issue;
  by funding research;
  by supporting activities and projects designed to change behaviour in the long term; for example, we finance local and regional workshops to identify priorities at field level to which donors can respond.

  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which young girls' and women's health projects have included education on female genital mutilation in each year since the endorsement of the 1994 Cairo Plan of Action by the UK Government; which NGOs have carried out those projects and in which countries; and what was the total amount of funding for these projects in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [57535]

  Clare Short
  This information could not be fully collected in the time available. I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library of this House.

  Russia
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid and assistance the United Kingdom has given to the Russian people following their recent currency crises. [57929]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development continues to provide bilateral technical assistance to Russia via the Know-How Fund. This extends across a range of economic and social sectors. We also continue to contribute via various multilateral agencies, in particular the EU/Tacis programme. In addition, we are monitoring carefully the need for humanitarian assistance this winter. With our G7 partners we are encouraging the Russian Government to adopt appropriate economic policies to allow a resumption of IMF and other financial flows.

  Sudan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's current relationship with the Government of Sudan with regard to aid projects. [57765]

  Clare Short
  We do not provide aid through Government of Sudan channels. Our bilateral development programme was terminated in 1991. Our substantial
  301
  programme of humanitarian assistance, £34 million since January including our share of EC assistance, is channelled through UN agencies and international non-government organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross. Some small project grants are provided direct to local grass roots organisations.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what provision has been made in her Department's budget in the financial years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 as a result of the privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [57612]

  Clare Short
  Some of the anticipated proceeds from the sale of CDC were taken into account in the provision agreed for the aid programme in the Comprehensive Spending Review announced in July. The precise level of proceeds received from the sale will depend on the prevailing market conditions. It would not be appropriate for market and commercial sensitivity reasons to give estimates of likely proceeds.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's budget will be made available to UK-based non-governmental organisations, in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02. [57610]

  Clare Short
  In 1998–99 about 6 per cent. of the Department's bilateral aid programme budget will be channelled directly through non-governmental (NGOs) and civil society organisations by means of the Joint Funding Scheme and support for Voluntary Service Overseas. NGOs are also contracted by the Department for International Development (DFID) to deliver projects within country programmes; these arrangements are handled within regional programme budgets, and it is not possible to give a total figure.

  DFID's annual resource allocation exercise, which is now under-way will determine future allocations within the aid programme. The outcome of this exercise will be reported in the Departmental Report in April 1999.

  Partnerships
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries referred to in paragraph 16.5 of the Comprehensive Spending Review (Cm 4011) in which she currently considers that(a) her Department is able to involve itself in a partnership to eradicate poverty; and (b) those where it is not possible to involve the host Government in an effective partnership. [57611]

  Clare Short
  The White Paper on international development which we published a year ago set out this Government's plans for helping to reduce world poverty by working in partnership with poor countries which are themselves committed to poverty reduction.

  It is not helpful and would be simplistic to try to list countries with which partnership may or may not be possible. We provide an analysis of progress in each country where we have a significant programme within
  302
  the framework of the country strategy process. Completed country strategy papers are publicly available. They outline in detail our view of the prospects for development and partnerships.

  Health Education
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals the Government have to increase investment in family planning and sexual and reproductive health to match the planned increases in the overseas aid budget. [57194]

  Clare Short
  We wish to pursue focused investment and action that contributes directly to poor countries' attainment of the international development goals. Strengthening health systems' capacity to meet basic needs—including reproductive health needs—will be a priority theme for new expenditure.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what priority the Government give to adolescent sexual health education and services within its human development targets set out in the White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty. [57195]

  Clare Short
  The White Paper sets out our intention to help ensure that all people, whether younger or older, are able to access and benefit from sexual and reproductive health care information and services. We know that young people are particularly vulnerable to sexual infection and dangers associated with pregnancy. Our approach will increasingly emphasise and respond to their needs.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Fuel Tax
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on car usage arising from the fuel tax escalator. [56728]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The fuel duty escalator will have some impact in reducing vehicle mileage but its main purpose is to reduce fuel consumption and hence carbon dioxide emissions, the main greenhouse gas. By 2010, overall fuel duty increases from 1997 to 2002 under the escalator of on average at least 6 per cent. real increases in fuel duty each year are estimated to result in carbon dioxide savings of between 2 and 5 million tonnes of carbon and traffic reduction of around 12 billion kilometres, most of which arises from reduced car use.

  Cell Powered Vehicles
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to prepare for the introduction of fuel cell powered vehicles. [56730]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have a number of programmes to encourage the production and use of fuel cell vehicles, such as the Department of Trade and Industry's Advanced Fuel Cell and Foresight Vehicle programmes. In addition, we are encouraging local authorities and business to look at cleaner vehicles and fuels in order to help to meet our environmental
  303
  objectives, including the national air quality strategy objectives. Further support for the introduction of fuel cell powered vehicles, for example, support for new fuel infrastructure, would depend upon how the technology and the market develop and which fuel or fuels emerge as the main fuel source for fuel cell vehicles.

  Dual Carriageways
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of miles of dual carriageway road per unit area for each county. [56742]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information required for this question will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Area Cost Adjustment (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contribution the area cost adjustment made to the amount of standard spending assessment which Hertfordshire received in respect of(a) all services, (b) education, (c) police and (d) personal social services in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98. [56836]

  Ms Armstrong
  A table showing these figures for each local authority in Hertfordshire has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress with transport provision for visitors to the Millennium Dome. [56921]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Good progress is being made on all aspects of the transport arrangements for the Dome. In particular, the Government welcome London Transport's recent appointment of Bechtel to manage the completion and commissioning stages of the Jubilee Line Extension. It is now planned to open the new line in three stages: first, from its eastern terminus at Stratford to the Dome at North Greenwich by the late Spring of next year, adding the next section through to Waterloo by late Summer and the final section through to Green Park by late Autumn, which will still be in good time for the opening of the Millennium Experience at the turn of the year.

  City Cruises which will be providing river boat services from central London has placed orders for four new boats. The contract to build the new pier at the Dome has been let. London Central has been selected to operate the Millennium Transit bus service between Charlton railway station and the Dome via the Millennium Village. Railtrack is planning to improve the station and Greenwich will improve the road to provide a new bus turnaround facility. Part of the journey to the Dome will be over a segregated busway which it is proposed will incorporate electronic guidance.

  Waterways
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government are taking to encourage more freight to be transported on United Kingdom inland waterways. [56429]
  304
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are keen to encourage greater use of inland waterways, where that is a practical and economic option. The Department currently gives Freight Facilities Grants for inland waterways schemes where freight would otherwise have gone by road. The Department will be re-examining the rules of the scheme to try to encourage more applications for inland waterways. The budget for the Freight Facilities Grant was increased this year by one third to £40 million.

  In addition the Department—as stated in the Government's White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone"—is working to update planning guidance on transport which will encourage more freight to be carried by water. Local authorities in their development plans will be expected to consider opportunities for new development which are served by waterways; and to give better protection to sites and routes, both existing and potential, which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choices, including water transport.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government are taking to encourage more leisure and tourism activities on United Kingdom inland waterways. [56430]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government believe the waterways are a substantial asset and have an important role in a number of areas such as leisure and tourism, heritage, amenity, conservation, regeneration and transport. We want to raise the profile of the waterways and increase their potential. We intend to publish in the next few months an inland waterways policy paper.

  It is estimated that over 10 million people visit the waterways each year, representing a total of over 280 million informal visits. Within these figures there are: 1.6 million private pleasure boaters, 350,000 holiday hire boaters, 1.5 million pleasure trip boaters and 4.6 million angler visits. The inland waterways generate an estimated £10 million each year in water-related tourism expenditure, and £2.78 million in hire boat expenditure. It is estimated that 63,000 people are employed in water related jobs.

  The Government-sponsored British Tourist Authority (BTA) is actively promoting the waterways of Britain and Ireland. The campaign, involving partnerships with the main waterway industry operators, local authorities and National Tourist Boards, is promoted through most of BTA's 46 overseas offices. BTA's brochure 'Waterway Britain and Ireland' presents waterway travel as an alternative, sustainable way of touring the British Isles.

  The day-to-day management and operation of the inland waterway network rest with British Waterways, the Environment Agency, the Broads Authority and a range of other public and private bodies. The three main navigation authorities work closely with BTA, regional and national tourist boards and with the private sector to promote leisure and tourism opportunities on their respective waterways.

  The Association of Inland Navigation Authorities, which represents around 30 authorities, is finalising a strategy for the inland navigations of the United Kingdom.
  305
  This will include objectives for the navigation authorities to meet in relation to developing tourism and leisure opportunities on the waterways network.

  The Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council is undertaking a report to demonstrate ways in which the waterways in West Yorkshire can be developed for tourism, leisure and community use.

  Railway Crossings
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the statutory consultation requirements and the statutory safety requirements that need to be put in place before a railway foot crossing can be transferred from manned to unmanned status. [57073]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  If a railway authority proposes changing a railway foot crossing to unstaffed status, it must request the Secretary of State to make an Order (which would specify the necessary safety arrangements) authorising the change in status, and notify each local authority in whose area the crossing is situated of the proposed change, allowing not less than two months for those authorities to make representations to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must take account of any representations received before deciding whether or not to make the Order.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations Railtrack has made to him about its involvement in the Channel Tunnel Rail link project.[57190]

  Dr. Reid
  Following the announcement in the House on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70, by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister of revised arrangements for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, officials have had intensive discussions with Railtrack and other parties involved in the CTRL so as to conclude the various agreements which flow from the June announcement.

  Housing Ballots
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will reassess his policy on housing ballots in the light of the CitySide HARCA and Poplar II HARCA ballots; and if he will make a statement. [57040]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under Schedule 3A to the Housing Act 1985 (as inserted by section 6 of and Schedule 1 to the Housing and Planning Act 1986) the Secretary of State shall not give his consent to a proposed housing stock transfer if it appears to him that a majority of the tenants do not wish the transfer to proceed.

  The local authority seeking consent will accordingly need to demonstrate that it has carried out adequate consultation and provide evidence of tenants' views. Although a ballot is not a statutory requirement, we believe that a properly conducted formal ballot is probably the best way in which an authority can satisfactorily demonstrate that a majority of tenants are not opposed to the transfer.
  306

  Poplar II HARCA (Tower Hamlets)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received a formal bid from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in respect of the Poplar II HARCA. [57041]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The London Borough of Tower Hamlets made a bid for a grant for the Poplar II transfer under Round 2 of the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund in December 1996. Funding for the scheme was approved in February 1997. A formal application for consent to transfer was submitted on 27 October 1998.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes he plans to make in the membership of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. [57099]

  Mr. Meacher
  The new membership of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee will be announced shortly. The composition of the new Committee will be in line with the membership template set out in the reply given to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on 16 July 1998,Official Report, columns 243–44.

  All
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give a breakdown of the timescale for the dualling of the A11 from the Fiveways Roundabout Great Barlow to Thetford. [57068]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's review of the roads programme, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", confirmed that, although work on this scheme was not sufficiently advanced for inclusion in the Targeted Programme of Improvements, preparatory work would continue.

  Further programming of work on schemes following the roads review is currently being considered.

  Railway Services
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the average lateness of those Great Western trains which are categorised as late in the most recent statistics produced by OPRAF. [57078]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  OPRAF's figures show what proportion of Great Western trains arrive at their final destination more than 9 minutes 59 seconds late. This is a general indicator of their overall performance, although we know that some services may be much later than this. Great Western is subject to an incentive regime which penalises it £250 if trains are 20 minutes late, £500 if 30 minutes late or partially cancelled (e.g. terminating short of final destination); and £1,000 if a service is cancelled entirely. Details of payments under this system appear in OPRAF's quarterly performance bulletins. It is not possible to provide performance data in more detail than in the Bulletin because of commercial confidentiality.
  307
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will revise the framework for penalties on Railtrack for under-performance; and if he will make a statement. [57685]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The incentive regime which operates between train operators and Railtrack, and which gives Railtrack the incentive to provide effective and reliable infrastructure, is part of the track access contracts under which operators gain access to the infrastructure. The charges and penalties which apply under those contracts were set by the Rail Regulator in 1996 for a period of five years; they are being reviewed by him and new charges will be set from 2001.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) percentage of train delays and cancellations due to (i) failures attributable to the train operating companies and (ii) failures attributable to Railtrack, for the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [57688]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The industry makes use of information relating to the attribution of responsibility for delays and cancellations between the operator of the service, other operators using the network, and Railtrack. This information is required to drive incentive payments regimes which operate between the parties, to incentivise each to avoid causing disruption and delay. It is commercially confidential.

  Bus Fuel Rebate Scheme
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will extend the bus fuel rebate scheme to vehicles involved in non-profit making community transport schemes. [57191]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The long-standing purpose of the bus fuel duty rebate scheme is to assist services which (among other criteria) are available for the general public and are registered with the Traffic Commissioner as local bus services. We have no present plans to extend the scheme's scope.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the procedure of westerly preference for incoming flights to Heathrow Airport. [57417]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House on 24 July 1998,Official Report, column 1413, in which I said that we intend to invite views on modifying the operation of westerly preference at Heathrow at night in the second-stage consultation paper on night restrictions, to be issued shortly. There are no plans to review its use during the day.

  Retail Stores
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many superstores and supermarkets of the single storey uncompartmentalised warehouse type of(a) over
  308
  2,000 square metres and (b) over 4,000 square metres were built in (i) 1990 to 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 1998 to date. [57674]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information in the form requested is not available; however the number of shops and restaurants in England and Wales with a floorspace of over 500m2 was published in the 'Commercial and Industrial Floorspace Statistics 1995'. The survey showed that, for the year 1994, the total number of hereditaments by this description was 24,100.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to repeal the present legislation in respect of compulsory competitive tendering; and what plans he has to introduce best value for local authority service delivery. [57677]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are committed to introducing a new duty of best value for local authority functions, and abolishing compulsory competitive tendering (CCT), as soon as Parliamentary time is available. I cannot pre-empt the Queen's speech on the substance of the legislative programme for the next session of Parliament. Ahead of primary legislation, we have established a programme of best value pilot projects and we have relaxed existing CCT regulations to encourage all local authorities to adopt best value practices now.

  Barnet Football Stadium
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will publish the correspondence and notes of meetings between the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), Ministers of the Crown, civil servants and Government agencies relating to the Barnet football stadium planning application; [57539]

  (2) what correspondence written by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) about the Barnet football stadium planning application was put before the planning inquiry inspector; and who submitted the correspondence to the inspector. [57540]

  Mr. Caborn
  No. Because the inspector has not yet reported to the Secretary of State, the hon. Member should approach the inspector through the chief planning inspector. There were no meetings. The Government Office for London put the correspondence before the inspector.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which(a) Ministers of his Department and (b) parliamentary private secretaries (i) have seen papers and (ii) were present at meetings, concerning the impact of the Barnet football stadium (1) on traffic on the M1 and A1 within the M25 area and (2) on the local environment. [57558]

  Mr. Caborn
  A Departmental submission was seen by me, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friends the Minister for London and Construction and the Minister for Transport in London. Parliamentary private secretaries did not see it.
  309
  There were no meetings. The submission dealt with the possible traffic and environmental consequences of the development.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on those Government departments or agencies which were consulted with regard to the Barnet football stadium planning application; and which Government departments or agencies made representations to the public inquiry. [57560]

  Mr. Caborn
  Local planning authorities are under a duty to consult certain statutory consultees on planning applications made to them and they include some government agencies. When considering whether to call in this case, we did not consult on the matter. At the inquiry representations were made by the Highways Agency, the Environment Agency and London Transport.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has made to(a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department on planning applications outside his constituency area since 1 May 1997; and if he will identify the nature of each application. [57559]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has received representations from my hon. Friend on three planning issues outside his constituency. One relates to the development of Barnet Football Club, one to the Belmont Riding Centre in Barnet and the third was made on behalf of his constituents concerned about proposed limestone quarrying at Nettleworth Farm, Boon Hills Farm, and Williamwood Farm in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

  Home Improvement Agencies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the impact of proposals to cease earmarked funding of home improvement agencies in favour of an adjustment to the revenue support grant. [57634]

  Ms Armstrong
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 29 October 1998,Official Report, column 254, to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon), about the impact of the proposals on local authorities in our recent consultation paper on the funding of home improvement agencies; and to my reply of 29 October 1998, Official Report, column 255, to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) announcing our decision on this.

  Urban Task Force
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes there have been to the membership of the Urban Task Force since its establishment. [58096]

  Mr. Caborn
  [Pursuant to his reply, 29 April 1998, c. 128]: I would like to announce a change to the membership of the Urban Task Force. Stuart Lipton, Chief Executive of Stanhope Property Developments, has
  310
  stepped down to an advisory role due to time pressures. He has been replaced by Phil Kirby, the Head of British Gas Properties, who was previously a member of one of the Task Force's three Working Groups.

  Anthony Mayer, Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation, has been appointed Vice-Chairman of the Task Force.

  Integrated Transport White Paper
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 1.28 of the Government's White Paper "A New Deal for Transport", by what means he intends to put greater emphasis on listening to transport users. [57686]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have learnt a lot about people's attitudes to transport and its impacts on the environment and the economy through surveys such as the British Social Attitudes survey carried out by Social and Community Planning Research. We intend to build on this through further surveys, consultation and research projects and by encouraging Rail User Consultative Committees, the National Federation of Bus Users and the London Regional Passenger Committee to contribute fully to the Government's objective to improve services for passengers. My Department will be issuing a number of documents over the next few months, seeking views on specific policy measures raised in the Transport White Paper. The new Commission for Integrated Transport will bring together all interested parties, including transport users, to make recommendations to Ministers, and at the local level, local authorities will be consulting widely with local people, businesses, transport operators and community groups when drawing up their local transport plans.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 1.43 of the Government's White Paper "A New Deal For Transport", what is the value of freight grants committed in the year 1997–98; what is his latest estimate of the value of freight grants in each subsequent year for which figures are available; and when he plans to extend freight grants. [57691]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1997–98 we doubled the freight grants budget to £30 million and this was substantially taken up. We have increased the funds available in 1998–99 to £40 million and to date £32 million of this has already been committed. Still further funds will be made available for an increase in the freight grants budget in future years, if there is a demand.

  We intend to bring forward legislation to extend the freight grants regime to include coastal and short sea shipping once a consultation on the details of the scheme has been carried out and a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 1.21 of the Government's White Paper "A New Deal For Transport", if he will establish targets for(a) investment in public transport and (b) the increased number of people using public transport over the next five years, broken down by transport mode. [57690]
  311
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Increased investment in public transport, involving public and private sectors, is an essential part of our integrated transport strategy. As well as our plans for Government expenditure on public transport announced following completion of the Comprehensive Spending Review, new public-private partnership will lead to substantial additional investment in transport infrastructure. We will also give local authorities powers to introduce congestion charging and workplace parking levies, which will produce guaranteed streams of new funding for investment in transport improvements locally.

  Local authorities will be required, as part of their local transport plans starting next year, to set targets on transport indicators looking five years ahead. It will be for local authorities to determine which targets to set, but these are likely in many cases to include targets for the increased use of buses and rail. Building on that, the Government will be asking the Commission for Integrated Transport to provide advice on the setting of national transport targets, including for public transport use.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 1.36 of the White Paper on the future of transport, what plans he has to set noise standards for(a) motorways, (b) trunk roads, (c) other urban roads and (d) other rural roads; and if it is his intention that money should be spent on existing roads to make them quieter. [57687]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As the White Paper explains, the European Commission has proposed a framework Directive on environmental noise to harmonise methods of calculating noise exposure so that targets and action plans could be developed, initially by Member States but eventually at EU level. It would be premature for us to consider the possibility of setting noise standards until this work is further advanced.

  In "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" we announced that in future, whenever a trunk road needs to be resurfaced, and where noise is a particular concern, we shall ensure that the most appropriate noise reducing surfaces are used. In addition to this, we intend to establish new criteria for providing noise mitigation for serious noise problems on existing trunk roads and a ring-fenced annual budget for this work. We will make a further announcement about this in due course.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the damage being caused to ancient pathways and rights of way; and what recent representations he has received on this subject. [57877]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department keeps no records of damage to ancient pathways or rights of way. Highway authorities are responsible for ensuring that rights of way are kept in good order.

  We receive about 3 representations each month from members of the public and interested organisations about damaged caused to public rights of way.
  312

  Sellafield
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received from the Environment Agency draft determinations of applications by BNFL for variations to some of the radioactive discharge authorisations at Sellafield and to allow the mox plant there to come into operation. [58022]

  Mr. Meacher
  Draft determinations on these applications were delivered to my Department today. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library. Members of the public who wish to obtain copies of the documents can do so by contacting the Environment Agency.

  Requests have been made to Ministers to call in the applications for their own determination. These requests are being considered carefully and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will announce their decisions as soon as they are able to do so.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October. [57997]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Shortly.

  Policy Proposals (Quality of Life)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what methods of measurements and from what base lines his Department employs in assessing the quality of life implications of policy proposals; and how these were selected. [55767]

  Mr. Meale
  DETR uses a range of measures to assess policy and other proposals, which include economic, social and environmental indicators consistent with relevant guidance from HM Treasury and other Government Departments. Quality of life relates indirectly to these measures and may depend on a range of factors. In the context of DETR's policy areas, relevant examples are the quality of housing, accessibility considerations with respect to transport services, the health impacts of air quality, and the concept of amenity, which has several applications.

  Housing (Young People)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what improvements he is planning to housing provision for 16 and 17 year-olds who are no longer able to live in the parental home and who are not in paid employment. [57555]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Code of Guidance on Allocation of Housing Accommodation and Homelessness is
  313
  currently under revision and will provide more advice to help local housing authorities develop effective strategies to assist single homeless people including young people. The guidance will make clear that careleavers with very few exceptions should be regarded as "vulnerable" and considered under the homelessness legislation. Homeless 16 and 17 year olds who have no back-up support should also normally be regarded as vulnerable. In addition, housing authorities will also be advised that they should consult social services departments on the position of 16 and 17 year olds, with their consent. I hope local authorities will make good use of this guidance.

  We have also established the Youth Homelessness Action Partnership to bring together senior representatives of central government, local government and the voluntary sector. The Partnership's key tasks are to: produce an agreed definition of youth homelessness; and estimate the numbers involved; identify what works in tackling and preventing youth homelessness; and disseminate good practice to all the key players. The Partnership will also contribute towards the evaluation of the impact of Government policies on youth homelessness. The work of the Partnership will be underpinned by research to be commissioned by my Department later this year.

  A130
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce a decision on the PFI bid for the improvement scheme for the A130; and if he will make a statement. [57492]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are considering the Essex County Council proposals for the A130 at the moment. We will announce a decision when we have reached conclusions about the project.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those countries which(a) have agreed, (b) have failed to agree and (c) have not responded to his statement of 10 June 1998, Official Report, column 580, on multilateral agreements on 3rd and 4th freedoms at regional airports. [57533]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Of the 74 bilateral partners to whom open access to regional airports has been offered 11 have accepted it. The 11 are:Bahrain, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Fiji, Jamaica, Jordan, South Korea. Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar and Turkmenistan.

  The regional access offer has been rejected by 12 bilateral partners. These are:
  Armenia, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malawi, Moldova, Mongolia, Myanmar (Burma), Saudi Arabia, the Seychelles, and Yemen.

  The following countries have not yet responded to the offer:
  Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Brunei, Chile, Congo. Cöte d'voire, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana,
  314
  Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrghyzstan, Lebanon, the Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, the Philippines, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

  In addition, holding replies or requests for further information or for discussion of the offer at air services talks have been received from Australia, Hong Kong SAR, Kenya, Namibia, and Oman.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the new international routes to regional airports that have been agreed consequent upon the Minister's statement on the liberalisation of access to regional airports on 10 June. [57532]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The only new routes to UK regional airports which have so far been agreed as a result of the regional access offer announced on 10 June are routes between UK regional airports and Jamaica. The air services arrangements with the other ten countries who have accepted the regional access offer already allowed carriers to serve regional points in the UK, but only with limited capacity. Those capacity limits have now either been removed, or will be removed once formal amendments to the air services arrangements have been made.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  North-West Airports
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the number of overseas visitors to Britain who arrived through North-West airports in 1998 to date. [57177]

  Janet Anderson
  The International Passenger Survey estimates that 626,000 overseas visitors to Britain arrived through Manchester airport in the first eight months of 1998. The total number of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom in the year to date is 17,290,000, of which 3.6 per cent. were arrivals through Manchester airport. It is estimated that the vast majority of visitors from abroad arriving in the UK through North-West airports do so through Manchester airport.

  Cinemas
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many towns in the United Kingdom with populations of over 100,000 do not have a cinema. [57291]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department does not compile information of this type. However, a recent report by the European Audiovisual Observatory indicated that in 1996 there were 742 cinema sites in the UK with 2,166 screens.
  315

  Premiership Football
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Office of Fair Trading regarding the Restrictive Practices Court inquiry into the televising of Premiership football being held in January 1999. [57111]

  Janet Anderson
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor other Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have discussed this matter with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Stadium Safety
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment he has made of the effect which the Football Trust's moratorium on grant aid to league football clubs will have on their ability to meet the required standards for safe terracing by the August 1999 deadline; [57157]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the reduction in the percentage of the cost of stadium development which the Football Trust will contribute on the ability of football clubs to meet the required standards for safe terracing by the August 1999 deadline. [57158]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government are committed to meeting the August 1999 deadline for safe-terracing at lower division clubs. One of our first acts in office was to announce a £55 million funding package for the Football Trust. This new funding arrangement includes £35 million to help clubs to meet Taylor-related costs, and involves money from the Lottery and Premier League. These funds are in addition to revenues raised through the Reduction in Pool Betting Duty. The distribution of these funds is a matter for the Football Trust. The Football Trust will treat each application on its own merits, subject to the discretion of its Trustees.

  Review

  Date of commencement

  Date of conclusion

  Date of Secretary of State's response

  Review of Film Policy

  1998

  March 1998

  March 1998

  Review of Project Delivery of the Millennium Exhibition

  May 1997

  June 1997

  June 1997

  Review of the National Lottery, Leading to Publication of a White paper

  —

  White Paper published July 1998

  —

  Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness of Government sponsored museums and galleries

  September 1998

  October 1999

  —

  Review of List of Nationally Important Sporting Events which must be made available on free-to-air terrestrial TV channels

  December 1997

  March 1998

  June 1998

  Eyre Report into future of Lyric Theatre, London (includes review of the Royal Opera House companies and the English National Opera)

  November 1997

  June 1998

  Autumn 1998

  Review of future funding of the BBC

  1999 (announced 14 October 1998)

  End July 1999

  Following public consultation

  316

  Landark Millennium Projects
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what responsibilities the Millennium Commission has to report to Parliament on landmark millennium projects; and what reports it has made to date; [57108]

  (2) what plans he has to account to Parliament in respect of the landmark millennium projects. [57110]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Commission laid its Annual Report and Accounts before Parliament, on 29 October 1998 and has done so every year since its establishment in 1994. The report includes information on capital projects, including those known as landmark projects. As Secretary of State I answer Parliamentary Questions on Millennium Commission business; and both the Director of the Commission and I, as its Chairman, are answerable for its performance before Committees of the House.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will make a statement on progress with each of the landmark millennium projects; [57109]

  (2) which organisations are responsible for continuing costs after 2001 for each of the landmark millennium projects. [57107]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  These are matters for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Department Reviews
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list(a) each review announced by his Department since 1 May 1997, (b) the date of its commencement, (c) the date or proposed date of its conclusion and (d) the date, or expected date of his response in each case. [57307]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The reviews announced by the Department since 1 May 1997 are shown in the table:
  317

  Youth Music Trust
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many representations his Department has received from schools and colleges concerning funding by the Youth Music Trust; [57206]

  (2) how many applications for funding have been received by the Youth Music Trust; and what is their aggregate value; [57207]

  (3) how many meetings of the Youth Music Trust have taken place. [57208]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The Youth Music Trust has yet to be formally constituted as a legal entity. My Department is currently supporting the Chairman-designate, Gavin Henderson, to bring this about. The Trustees-designate have no legal status until the Trust is established, but they are being kept informed of progress, and it is expected that they will shortly meet informally.

  The Department receives a steady stream of representations from a range of bodies and individuals generally interested in the Trust, including a small number of approaches for funding from schools, colleges and others.

  BSkyB (Manchester United)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding BSkyB's offer for Manchester United. [57215]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The Government will look very carefully at any competition and public interest issues which may arise from the proposed takeover of Manchester United by BSkyB. By long standing convention, summarised in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information Second Edition (1997), advice and consultation within Government is not disclosed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is due to announce his decision shortly as to whether the proposed takeover should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many meetings he has had with the task force set up to find alternatives to tobacco sponsorship of sporting events. [57209]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The EU Tobacco Directive provides up to three years for domestic legislation to be implemented, and a further two years for the ban on sports sponsorship by tobacco companies to be enforced. Up to a further three years may be allowed in exceptional circumstances for existing sponsorship of events organised at a global level, provided
  318
  sponsorship levels and associated advertising are reduced. It is against this timescale that the Task Force will work. I will chair the Task Force to help all sports in receipt of tobacco sponsorship to identify alternative sponsors.

  The Task Force has not yet been formally constituted, although I have had an initial informal meeting with sports and business interests and will hold a further meeting later this year when the current exercise to collect sponsorship information from the sports concerned should be completed.

  "News At Ten"
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has made to the ITC concerning the proposal to reschedule "News at Ten". [57212]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: I have made no representations to the ITC in relation to their current consideration of proposals from the Channel 3 companies to revise the weekday evening schedule, including replacing the current news bulletins with programmes at 6.30pm and 11pm. I set out my own views on this issue in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on 5 October as I was aware the Committee was likely to want to conduct an inquiry on this issue which it has subsequently done. As the ITC were then in the process of public consultation on the Channel 3 proposal, my letter was copied, as a matter of courtesy, to Sir Robin Biggam and also to Richard Eyre, Chief Executive of the ITV Network.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the amount of money in(a) nominal and (b) real terms which will be available to the New Opportunities Fund in each year from 1998 to 2005. [57204]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: We are currently discussing with the distributing bodies how to adjust their percentage shares so as to provide the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) with an additional £400 million by the end of the present licence period. Until these discussions have taken place, the annual income assumptions for the NOF cannot be finalised. Beyond 2001, the distributors in the arts, sports, heritage and charities have each been guaranteed 16.67 per cent. of Lottery revenues and, once the Millennium stream comes to an end, the NOF's share will rise to 33.33 per cent.

  Digital Terrestrial Programming
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Independent Television Commission about the limits under the Broadcasting Acts on the provision of digital terrestrial programming; and if he will make a statement. [57972]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Independent Television Commission has had a number of discussions with my officials outlining their concerns over the practical impact
  319
  of those provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (as amended by the Broadcasting Act 1996) which seek to ensure plurality in the provision of programme services to the digital terrestrial television platform during its early years. Following these representations, I am issuing today a consultation paper seeking views on proposals to use my order-making power to amend the current limits in the Broadcasting Act.

  My proposals will continue to ensure plurality and diversity in the provision of programme services on digital terrestrial television but will alter the limits to which the statutory transitional arrangements apply. The proposed changes will reflect the current practicalities of the launch of digital terrestrial television and ensure that it is not impeded simply due to statutory provisions drawn up on the basis of estimates made two years ago of the number of programme services that would be available at the launch of digital terrestrial television.

  I am placing copies of the consultation paper in the libraries of both Houses.

  Sponsored body

  Role

  Title

  First Name

  Surname

  Remuneration (£)

  British Library Board

  Chairman

  Dr.

  John

  Ashworth

  28,363

  British Library Board

  Member

  Hon.

  Edward

  Adeane

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Prof.

  Michael

  Anderson

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Anthony

  Bloom

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Sir

  Matthew

  Farrer

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Rt. Hon.

  Peter

  Hordern

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Rodney

  Leach

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Ms

  Penelope

  Lively

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Bernard

  Naylor

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Mr.

  John

  Riblat

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Paul

  Scherer

  6,839

  British Tourist Authority

  Chairman

  Dr.

  David

  Quarmby

  28,305

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Robert

  Ayling

  7,340

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Alan

  Britten

  7,340

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  John

  Jarvis

  7,340

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Patrick

  McKenna

  7,340

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Des

  Wilson

  7,340

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Chairman

  Lady

  Elspeth

  Howe

  45,210

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Deputy Chairman

  Ms

  Jane

  Leighton

  35,990

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Deputy Chairman

  Mrs.

  Suzanne

  Warner

  35,990

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Ms

  Danielle

  Barr

  14,450

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mr.

  David

  Boulton

  14,450

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Dr.

  Fiona

  Caldicott

  14,450

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mr.

  Strachan

  Heppell

  14,450

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Rev.

  Rose

  Hudson-Wilkin

  14,450

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mr.

  Robert

  Kernohan

  14,450

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mr.

  John

  Lang

  14,450

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mrs.

  Susan

  Lloyd

  14,450

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Ms

  Sally

  O'Sullivan

  14,450

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mrs.

  Sioned

  Wyn Thomas

  14,450

  English Heritage

  Chairman

  Sir

  Jocelyn

  Stevens

  74,375 pr

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Ms

  Amanda

  Arrowsmith

  12,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Mrs.

  Bridget

  Cherry

  12,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Mr.

  Andrew

  Fane

  12,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Lord

  Charles

  Faringdon

  12,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Prof.

  Eric

  Fernie

  12,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Lady

  Elizabeth

  Gass

  12,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  HRH

  Duke of

  Gloucester

  22,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Mr.

  Loyd

  Grossman

  12,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Mrs.

  Candida

  Lycett Green

  12,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Ms

  Kirsty

  McLeod

  12,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Mr.

  Richard

  Morris

  12,160–15,150

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Miss

  Susan

  Underwood

  12,160–15,150

  English Sports Council

  Acting Chairman

  Mr.

  Trevor

  Brooking

  22,343

  English Sports Council

  Vice-Chairman

  Mr.

  Gerald

  Dennis

  13,463

  English Tourist Board

  Chairman

  Dr.

  David

  Quarmby

  28,305

  320

  Departmental Headquarters
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many days he spent at his Department's headquarters in(a) August, (b) September and (c) October. [57203]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: I spent a total of 31 days in my Department's headquarters between August and October 1998. These are divided as follows:

  (a) August: 5

  (b) September: 10

  (c) October: 16.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the remunerated appointments to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department, together with the level of remuneration in each case. [57216]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The information requested is in the following table.
  321

  Sponsored body

  Role

  Title

  First Name

  Surname

  Remuneration(£)

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Peter

  Chappelow

  7,340

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Mr.

  John

  Lee

  7,340

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Mr.

  David

  Lunn

  7,340

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Peter

  Moore

  7,340

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Ms

  Eve

  Pollard

  7,340

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Mrs.

  Jennifer

  Robson

  7,340

  Football Licensing Authority

  Chairman

  Mr.

  Clive

  Sherling

  12,662

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Dr.

  Judith

  Fisher

  230 pd

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Tony

  Gee

  230 pd

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Christopher

  Lewis

  230 pd

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Mervyn

  Sheldon

  230 pd

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Prof.

  Margaret

  Talbot

  230 pd

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Dr.

  Sam

  Thorburn

  230 pd

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Chairman

  Lord

  David

  Puttnam

  22,000

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Chairman

  Dr.

  Eric

  Anderson

  32,708 pr

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Chairman

  The Hon.

  David

  Sieff

  24,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member England

  Mrs.

  Stella

  Clarke

  112,000–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member UK

  Ms

  Amanda

  Jordan

  112,000–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member N. Ireland

  Mr.

  Noel

  Stewart

  112,000–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member Scotland

  Mr.

  Garth

  Morrison

  112,000–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member UK

  Mrs.

  Tessa

  Baring

  112,000–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member UK

  Sir

  Adam

  Ridley

  112,000–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member Wales

  Mr.

  Tom

  Jones

  112,000–16,000

  New Opportunities Fund

  Chairman

  Lady

  Jill

  Pitkeathley

  22,000

  Public Lending Right Registrar

  Registrar

  Dr.

  James

  Parker

  42,338

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  Chairman

  Sir

  Rodney

  Walker

  22,343

  1 remuneration is shown as a range where it is dependent upon changeable factors (membership of committees etc.)

  2 remuneration not claimed

  Note:

  Except where specified, all remuneration is shown on an annual basis

  Abbreviations:

  pd—per day

  pr—per rata

  Cash Limits
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what changes he proposes to make to his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1998–99. [58095]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class X, Vote 1 will be increased by £7,029,000 from £878,787,000 to £885,816,000 and the gross running costs limit increased by £2,243,000 from £28,721,000 to £30,964,000.

  This is to provide for increases in provision of £1,700,000 for the British Library St. Pancras project; £236,000 on the refurbishment of Somerset House for the housing of the Gilbert Collection; £1,500,000 for the refurbishment of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich; a transfer of £1,350,000 from the Department for Education and Employment (Class IX, Vote 1) for awards to dance and drama students; £2,243,000 to meet the general running costs of DCMS, full take up of DCMS/OFLOT running costs end year flexibility amounts as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36.

  The increases will be offset by transfers, savings or charged to the Reserve, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  322

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October. [57999]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Shortly.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of the current level of the concessionary television licence for the blind. [57629]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government have not carried out an assessment of the level of the licence fee reduction for blind people. However, the current concessionary arrangements, including those for blind people, will be examined next year as part of the review of the future of the BBC licence fee after 2002. The issues will be examined initially by an independent review panel which will report to the Secretary of State by the end of July. The Government will then consult on the panel's findings.

SCOTLAND

  School Attendance
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures the Government are taking to ensure that children of school age attend school regularly. [56711]
  323
  Mrs. Liddell
  Non-attendance is a significant problem in our schools, and one which the Government take very seriously. All schools and education authorities are setting detailed targets to reduce non-attendance.

  Often the most successful strategies for reducing non-attendance are those which schools themselves develop, with the support of parents. To share good practice, the Government funded Scottish Initiative on Attendance and Absence published a good practice document "Close to the Mark" last December. The Ethos Network, also funded by the Government, continues to highlight examples of good practice.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve access to NHS dental services in Scotland. [56714]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Dental Access Initiative, launched in August 1997, offers grants to dentists setting up or expanding practices in areas of unmet demand for NHS general dental services. This month I approved an extension of the Initiative to offer grants to NHS dentists with strategies to increase patient registrations in areas of high oral health need.

  Breast Cancer Radiologists
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to secure provision of additional breast cancer radiologists in Scotland. [56713]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Cancer is a priority area for the NHS in Scotland. Diagnostic Radiology is recognised to be a shortage speciality due to expansion in service provision and hence consultant numbers. This issue is being addressed through an increase in training numbers.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56815]

  Mr. Dewar
  As the list is lengthy I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Local Government
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's current estimate of the cost to be borne by Scottish local authorities of spending on contaminated land in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) subsequent years, and of central Government's contributions towards meeting these additional costs. [56958]

  Mr. Macdonald
  As part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, provision of £1.7 million has been made in next year's Scottish local government finance settlement. This will cover the expected revenue costs of site identification and preliminary investigation work associated with the new contaminated land regime. This figure will rise to £2 million per annum thereafter. It is not anticipated that there will be significant expenditure in the current year.324
  The actual cost of remediation will generally fall on those who have caused or knowingly permitted and contamination, or the owner or occupier of the land.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the maximum cost-per-job offered in grant under regional selective assistance in 1997–98 in Scotland. [57044]

  Mr. Dewar
  The maximum cost-per-job offered was £17,000.

  Deaf Jurors
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances a deaf person carrying out jury service is permitted to receive communication support from a palantypist, sign language interpreter or lip speaker; and in what circumstances a deaf juror's interpreter, palantypist or lip speaker may be excluded from a trial(a) in open court and (b) in the jury room. [57600]

  Mr. McLeish
  There is no statutory bar to a deaf person receiving support from a sign language interpreter or lip speaker in open court. However the presence of another person in the jury room to interpret the comments and views of other jury members would not be permitted. Section 99(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that"no other person shall be present with the jury after they are enclosed".

  Combined Heat and Power Plant, Grangemouth
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce his decision on the application submitted by BP Grangemouth CHP Limited on 31 March for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to construct and operate a combined heat and power plant at BP Grangemouth. [58278]

  Mr. Dewar
  Consent for this application was issued on 30 October 1998. My decision was arrived at, after carefully considering all the evidence before me, including the advice of the local planning authority, statutory consultees and all representations received. A copy of the Press Notice announcing this consent together with a copy of the consent letter was placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits and running costs provision for 1998–99 within his responsibility. [58002]

  Mr. Dewar
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, I intend to make changes to 7 voted cash limits, 3 non-voted cash blocks and 6 running cost limits:The cash limit for class XIII, vote 2, Local Government, housing, transport, other environmental services and European Funds, Scotland will be increased by a net total of £100,128,000 from £5,490,737,000 to £5,590,865,000. The net increase reflects a

  325
  transfer of £24,000 from class V, vote 1 for energy efficiency; £70,100,000 for the redemption of Scottish Homes debt from HM Treasury; additional provision of £1,305,000 for Other Environmental Services which is offset by additional appropriations in aid of £615,000 and a transfer from SO/LA1; additional provision for P&O Ferry Services and Caledonian MacBrayne's piers and harbours work of £2,170,000 reflecting take up of end year flexibility; an additional £4,250,000 for Caledonian MacBrayne's capital grant; a net increase of £1,250,000 for Historic Scotland reflecting take-up of end-year flexibility and transfer to class XIII vote 6; an increase in provision of £6,860,000 for revenue support grant for education (higher still) and childcare from class XIII, vote 3 and also includes £2,730,000 for AEF guarantee funding which is a claim on the Reserve; an increase of £190,000 for the Council Tax Collection and Relief Scheme from SO/LA1; a reduction of provision for Highlands and Islands Airports of £3,000,000 which has been transferred to class XIII, vote 6; the addition of £2,670,000 for Welfare to Work; Childcare transferred from class XIII, vote 3; and the addition of £14,924,000 for grants under the Capital Receipts Initiative transferred from SO/CRI.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 3, Education, industry, arts and libraries, Scotland, will be reduced by £2,815,000 from £1,699,322,000 to £1,696,507,000. The reduction takes account of transfers of £180.000 from class IX, vote 1 in respect of the Scottish Qualifications Authority: £6,806,000 from class XIII, vote 4 for the University of Edinburgh Medical School; £27,000 from class XIII, vote 6 for the National Museum of Scotland; £40,000 from class VI, vote 3 for energy efficiency promotional material and £445,000 from class IX, vote 1 for the Scottish University for Industry. Further additions have been made amounting to £513,000 respect of access to the National Galleries of Scotland and additional administration costs arising from the mis-selling of pensions and £153,000 under the end year flexibility arrangements. A total of £6,800,000 has been transferred to class XIII, vote 2 in respect of Higher Still and the provision, planning and development of childcare by local authorities with £2,000,000 being transferred to SO/LA1 in respect of advanced factory provision. In addition, £2,179,000 has been given up to the Reserve following a cash limit breach in 1997–98.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 4, Hospital, community health, family health, other health services and welfare food, Scotland, will be increased by a net total of £83,957,000 from £3,913,650,000 to £3,997,607,000. The increase includes £86,323,000 reflecting the take up of end year flexibility; a transfer of £369,000 from class XI, vote 2 for the cost of services provided by the Medical Devices Agency which were previously funded on a UK basis; a transfer of £6,806,000 to class XIII, vote 3 to meet the essential capital costs of providing teaching facilities as a result of the relocation of Edinburgh University Medical School; a transfer of £20,000 from class XI, vote 1 in respect of patients resident in England who attend a Scottish medical practice; and some adjustments to reflect changes to anticipated appropriations-in-aid. The NHS Trusts' External Financing Limit has also been increased by £11,528,000 from -£24,871,000 to -£13,343,000.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 5 will be increased by £7,953,000 from £663,596,000 to £671,549,000 within which the running costs limit will be increased by £1,567,000 from £147,652,000 to £149,219,000. The cash limit increase includes the take up of EYF entitlements of £3,000,000 under the running costs scheme, £2,000,000 under capital and £1,072,000 under the HPSS scheme. Transfers of £800,000 from class XIII, vote 2 to fund Section 10 grants from ESF, £500,000 from SO/LA1 to fund a new subhead dealing with the Lockerbie trial and £400,000 to fund a new subhead for the millennium volunteers are included. There will also be a number of minor inter and intra-vote transfers.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 6, Scottish Office Administration, will be increased by £11,441,000 from £151,869,000 to £163,310,000. Within this total the running cost provision for Scottish Office Administration is being increased by £9,834,000 as a result of the take up of end-year flexibility and transfers from other votes; the additional running costs provision is required primarily to meet running costs pressures associated with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Provision for capital
  326
  expenditure is being increased by £1,509,000 from £29,521,000 to £31,030,000 as a result of take up of end-year flexibility under the capital scheme and a transfer of £50,000 from class XIII vote 2. This additional provision is required to fund operationally essential IT projects. Provision for other current expenditure is being increased by £98,000 from £4,863,000 to £4,961,000 to finance IT software purchases by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 7, General Register Office for Scotland, will be decreased by £100,000 from £5,577,000 to £5,477,000. Within this total the running cost limit will be decreased by £200,000 to £5,477,000. Within this total the running cost limit will be decreased by £200,000 from £7,703,000 to £7,503,000 due to a transfer to £100,000 to class XIII, vote 6 and a transfer of £100,000 to capital provision. The increase in capital provision by £200,000 from £380,000 to £580,000 is required to complete a major refurbishment of New Register House and for upgrading IT hardware to ensure year 2000 compliance. Appropriations in Aid have been increased by £100,000 from £2,302,000 to £2,402,000 primarily due to increased demand by the public for access to registration records.
  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 8, Scottish Record Office, will be increased by £602,000 from £3,470,000 to £4,072,000. Within this total, the running cost provision will be increased by £402,000 from £3,966,000 to £4,368,000 due to the take up of end-year flexibility. This will fund the internal reorganisation of the Department aimed at delivering future efficiency savings. The increase in capital provision of £200,000 from £432,000 to £632,000 resulting from the take up of end-year flexibility will fund the continuing refurbishment work at General Register House and design work being undertaken on Thomas Thomson House, phase 2.
  The Scottish Office running costs limit will increase by £16,176,000 from £320,315,000 to £336,491,000. The increase results primarily from a transfer of £3,000,000 from class XIII, vote 2, a transfer of £4,000,000 from SO/LA1, a transfer of £1,800,000 from class XVI, vote 4 and the take up of end-year flexibility.

  SO/LA1
  The non-voted cash limit SO/LA1, which covers non-housing capital expenditure by local authorities will be reduced by a net total of £1,618,000 from £369,295,000 to £367,677,000. The reduction reflects a transfer of £5,583,000 to class XIII, vote 2 covering a range of pressures; £500,000 to class XIII, vote 5 for expenses of the Lockerbie trial; £4,000,000 to class XIII, vote 6 for the Scottish Parliament; an increase of £2,000,000 for Borders assistance from class XIII, vote 3 and take up of end year flexibility of £6,465,000.

  SO/CRI
  The non-voted cash limit SO/CRI, which covers capital expenditure on the Capital Receipts Initiative has been reduced by a net total of £14,300,000 from £43,660,000 to £29,360,000. This reduction reflects a transfer of £14,924,000 to class XIII, vote 2 and take up of end year flexibility of £624,000.

  SO/ERDF
  The non-voted cash limit SO/ERDF, which covers European Regional Development Fund expenditure in Scotland will be increased by a net £57,085,000 from £78,187,000 to £135,272,000 in respect of the take up of end year flexibility and a transfer of £800,000 to class XIII, vote 5.

  All increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October 1998. [57987]

  Mr. Dewar
  Shortly.
  327

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total allocation of funding made available to each district council and unitary authority in Wales for each of the years 1990 to 1998; and what was the proportion of the allocation spent in each case. [56517]

  £ million

  1990–91 (a), (b)

  1991–92 (a), (b)

  1992–93 (a), (b)

  1993–94 (a)

  1994–95 (a)

  1995–96 (c)

  Alyn and Deeside

  5.5

  6.9

  8.2

  8.6

  8.9

  9.0

  Colwyn

  4.3

  5.0

  6.2

  6.8

  7.2

  7.5

  Delyn

  4.6

  6.1

  7.2

  7.6

  8.1

  8.1

  Glyndwr

  2.9

  5.1

  5.6

  4.7

  4.7

  4.7

  Rhuddlan

  4.8

  6.7

  7.6

  7.7

  7.8

  8.0

  Wrexham Maelor

  9.2

  15.1

  16.4

  14.1

  14.7

  14.9

  Carmarthen

  4.9

  6.1

  6.9

  6.8

  6.7

  6.8

  Ceredigion

  5.8

  7.0

  8.2

  8.5

  8.7

  9.2

  Dinefwr

  3.1

  4.4

  5.1

  5.0

  5.2

  5.4

  Llanelli

  7.5

  10.2

  11.3

  11.5

  11.7

  12.1

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  6.0

  7.7

  9.3

  9.7

  10.1

  10.2

  South Pembrokeshire

  4.0

  4.7

  5.9

  6.6

  7.0

  7.4

  Blaenau Gwent

  10.4

  14.2

  15.6

  14.0

  14.3

  14.6

  Islwyn

  7.4

  9.6

  10.6

  10.3

  10.6

  10.8

  Monmouth

  5.0

  5.7

  7.5

  7.9

  8.2

  8.3

  Newport

  13.8

  16.4

  19.2

  20.7

  20.4

  20.2

  Torfaen

  8.2

  10.7

  11.9

  12.3

  12.4

  12.3

  Aberconwy

  4.3

  5.4

  6.7

  7.6

  7.7

  7.6

  Arfon

  5.3

  7.6

  8.3

  8.6

  9.0

  9.1

  Dwyfor

  3.1

  4.4

  5.0

  5.4

  5.5

  5.5

  Meirionnydd

  3.4

  4.8

  5.2

  5.2

  5.4

  5.6

  Ynys Mon

  6.0

  8.4

  9.4

  9.7

  10.2

  10.2

  Cynon Valley

  10.5

  11.8

  13.1

  12.4

  12.5

  12.7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  8.3

  10.3

  11.3

  11.4

  11.5

  11.4

  Ogwr

  15.4

  18.8

  20.7

  18.5

  18.5

  19.1

  Rhondda

  13.1

  17.6

  18.8

  16.5

  16.9

  16.8

  Rhymney Valley

  10.2

  13.7

  15.0

  14.6

  14.5

  14.5

  Taff Ely

  8.4

  10.8

  12.4

  13.0

  13.2

  13.1

  Brecknock

  3.3

  4.2

  5.0

  5.2

  5.4

  5.8

  Montgomeryshire

  3.6

  4.2

  5.3

  5.7

  6.1

  6.6

  Radnorshire

  1.6

  1.9

  2.7

  2.8

  2.8

  3.0

  Cardiff

  25.7

  35.6

  41.6

  40.2

  41.2

  41.1

  Vale of Glamorgan

  8.2

  9.3

  11.9

  13.2

  13.2

  13.0

  Port Talbot

  6.5

  8.3

  8.9

  8.2

  8.2

  8.3

  Lliw Valley

  5.9

  7.7

  8.4

  7.8

  7.9

  8.0

  Neath

  7.0

  8.5

  9.8

  9.3

  9.2

  9.4

  Swansea

  21.7

  26.9

  29.8

  29.9

  30.0

  29.9

  Clwyd

  185.3

  205.2

  255.8

  244.4

  254.5

  241.9

  Dyfed

  169.9

  188.4

  233.0

  223.9

  231.3

  220.8

  Gwent

  223.7

  248.8

  298.5

  294.3

  303.4

  266.6

  Gwynedd

  119.3

  128.5

  156.5

  149.2

  153.7

  145.9

  Mid Glamorgan

  269.9

  295.8

  351.6

  353.0

  361.0

  338.9

  Powys

  66.8

  73.0

  87.6

  83.6

  86.3

  83.6

  South Glamorgan

  193.4

  210.6

  253.2

  247.1

  255.5

  243.8

  West Glamorgan

  171.9

  191.5

  235.4

  226.1

  235.8

  225.5

  Total districts

  279.0

  361.7

  412.0

  408.0

  415.8

  420.2

  Total counties

  1,493.1

  1,647.0

  1,985.7

  1,939.4

  2,022.3

  1,763.9

  Total Wales

  1,772.0

  2,008.8

  2,397.7

  2,347.4

  2,418.1

  2,184.1

  328
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The allocation of funding to each district and county council for 1990–91 to 1995–96 inclusive and to each unitary authority for 1996–97 to 1998–99 inclusive is shown in the following tables. The funding for county councils includes police grant for the years 1990–91 to 1994–95, police authorities have been directly funded from 1995–96 onwards. In all cases authorities' spending has been above the grant allocated to them which has principally been funded through the community charge/council tax.
  329

  £ million

  1996–97 (c), (d)

  1997–98 (c), (d)

  1998–99 (c), (d)

  Isle of Anglesey

  52.9

  54.9

  57.7

  Gwynedd

  97.6

  97.9

  101.7

  Conwy

  79.0

  81.0

  86.2

  Denbighshire

  82.0

  76.7

  82.2

  Flintshire

  101.8

  104.5

  113.7

  Wrexham

  86.5

  88.6

  94.0

  Powys

  101.5

  105.4

  109.0

  Ceredigion

  57.2

  56.8

  60.0

  Pembrokeshire

  91.0

  90.8

  95.4

  Carmarthenshire

  130.3

  135.2

  141.8

  Swansea

  168.4

  172.5

  178.5

  Neath Port Talbot

  110.3

  111.4

  116.1

  Bridgend

  94.9

  98.1

  102.5

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  83.2

  84.0

  89.8

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  203.0

  198.5

  206.6

  Merthyr Tydfil

  53.8

  54.2

  56.5

  Caerphilly

  134.1

  134.5

  140.9

  Blaenau Gwent

  64.7

  68.4

  70.7

  Torfaen

  74.5

  75.3

  79.8

  Monmouthshire

  53.3

  56.5

  60.5

  Newport

  103.5

  106.6

  111.1

  Cardiff

  222.2

  218.9

  231.2

  Total unitary authority

  2,245.5

  2,270.7

  2,385.9

  (a) Includes Revenue Support Grant, Share of non-domestic rates and specific grants within aggregate external finance (including police grant)

  (b) Includes community charge reduction scheme grant

  (c) Includes Revenue Support Grant, Share of non-domestic rates and specific grants within aggregate external finance (excluding police grant)

  (d) Includes council tax reduction scheme grant

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to promote the early screening programme for cervical cancer. [56410]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Department is currently working with Velindre NHS Trust in Cardiff to develop the National Service Framework for Cervical Screening Services in Wales, highlighted in the White Paper—NHS Wales: Putting Patients First, published in January 1998. The framework will begin to be implemented for the whole of Wales by 1 April 1999. The current take-up rate for cervical smears is 84 per cent. of women aged 20–64.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the maximum cost-per-job offered in grant under regional selective assistance in 1997–98 in Wales. [57045]

  Mr. Hain
  The highest cost-per-job offered was £15,000.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what amounts he has assisted MIND in Wales in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [57443]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Under the Mental Illness Strategy the Welsh Office has paid or allocated the following grant assistance to MIND in Wales in the financial years 1996–97 to 1998–99:330

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  MIND Cymru1

  185,091

  189,193

  190,492

  Local MIND Groups2

  852,364

  912,135

  924,112

  Total

  1,037,455

  1,101,328

  1,114,604

  1 Grant awarded under the National Voluntary Organisations element of the Mental Illness Strategy and contributes to MIND Cymru's core costs

  2 Grants awarded to local MIND Groups under the Support for People with Disabilities Grant Scheme and for 1996–97 and 1997–98 the Local Voluntary Organisations (LVO) element of the Mental Illness Strategy. From 1998–99 the LVO scheme was replaced by the Local Mental Health Grants Scheme which is administered on behalf of the Welsh Office by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. Grant awards to local MIND groups are project based and cover a number of activities including drop-in facilities; befriending services; provision of supported accommodation and advocacy services

  Cash Limits
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he is proposing to make to the(a) voted and (b) non-voted cash limits for his Department and the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales for the current financial year. [58155]

  Mr. Michael
  Subject to Parliament's approval of the related Supplementary Estimates, I propose the following changes:The cash limit on class XIV, vote 1 will be increased by 1,307,000 from £41,428,000 to £42,735,000. This increase reflects the take up of £2,000,000 of capital end-year flexibility amounts as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36, for arterial drainage and coast protection schemes and the transfer of £693,000 to class XIV, Vote 3 for Tir Gofal start-up costs.
  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 2 will be increased by £6,713,000 from £833,063,000 to £839,776,000. This increase mainly reflects the take-up of end-year flexibility amounts for schools capital of £2,357,000 (including £991,000 of windfall tax resources); an increase in the budget for Regional Selective Assistance of £5,217,000, a transfer of £1,045,000 to class XIV, vote 4 for health related training and a transfer of £293,000 to class XIV, vote 3 for the National Childcare Strategy.
  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 3 has been increased by £17,094,000 from £397,101,000 to £414,195,000 and the running costs limit will increase by £6,124,000 from £73,613,000 to £79,784,000. This increase results mainly from the take up of end-year flexibility amounts totally £14,900,000. Of which £2,820,000 has been allocated to the Central Government Roads Programme, £4,028,000 to cover slippage on local authority road scheme, £428,000 to Cadw, £1,000,000 to cover the costs of the North Wales Child Abuse Inquiry and £500,000 to the Mental Handicap Strategy. There are also a number of transfers in and out of the vote including £693,000 from class XIV, vote 1 for Tir Gofal start up costs, £200,000 from class IV, vote 2 for cattle passports and £293,000 from class XIV, vote 2 for the National Childcare Strategy.
  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 4 has been increased by £23,389,000 from £2,093,541,000 to £2,116,930,000. This increase mainly reflects the take up of end-year flexibility amounts to meet the revenue costs of Health Authorities (£12,960,000) and the identified capital requirements of NHS Trusts (£17,000,000); the transfer of £8,000,000 into the provision for non-cash limited family health services; the transfer of £1,045,000 from class XIV, vote 2 in respect of health related courses; a transfer of £185,000 from class XI, vote 2 in respect of the Medical Devices Agency evaluation and £210,000 transferred from class IX, vote 1 relating to

  331
  students taking higher education courses in professions allied to medicine. The Trust external financing limit has increased by £18,368,000 from £4,308,000 to £52,676,000.
  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 5 has been increased by £80,000 from £2,449,735,000 to £2,449,815,000 to cover the costs of the review of Standard Spending Assessments.
  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 6 has been reduced by £2,448,000 from £10,216,000 to £7,768,000. The increases are mainly as a result of savings in the nursery inspections programme which has been partially offset by an increase in running costs and the running costs limit has been increased by £323,000 from £3,147,000 to £3,470,000.
  The non-voted cash limit local authority capital cash limit WO/LACAP has been increased by £3,003,000 from £370,441,000 to £373,444,000. This increase reflects the take up of £6,385,000 of end-year flexibility mainly to meet slippage on projects supported under (i) Transport Grant (£2,506,000), (ii) Strategic Development Scheme (£2,054,000), (iii) Capital Challenge (£1,372,000). The increase is offset by a reduction of £3,382,000 in the provision for local government reorganisation costs due to lower than expected claims from local authorities.
  The non-voted housing cash limit WO/TC has been reduced by £1,168,000 from £74,364,000 to £73,196,000 as result of a transfer within class XIV, vote 3 of supported housing revenue grant from the housing to the personal social services sections.

  The increases will be offset by transfers or charges to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the overall level of planned public expenditure.

  Welsh Cancer Registry
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the names of the individual consultants who worked under contract to the Welsh Cancer Registry from 1992 until the Registry was closed in 1996. [56375]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  No consultants were employed by the Wales Cancer Registry from 1992 to 1996.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October. [57988]

  Mr. Michael
  Shortly.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Services (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the availability and provision of court services in rural areas. [56844]

  Mr. Hoon
  Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates' courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future and number of magistrates' courts in their area are for the relevant MCC to determine. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure when such a proposal has been made by a local MCC. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of 332
  the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In the absence of an appeal, however, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.

  The Court Service is responsible for all civil and the higher criminal courts and is required constantly to monitor and review the viability of its court network. Factors taken into consideration include the role played by the court in providing a service to the public in that area, and the effect and implications of providing an alternative for its current users. The criteria for considering the case for and against closure as set out in the Departmental Accommodation Plan are: the condition of the existing accommodation; the availability of facilities; the frequency of judicial visits and waiting times; the facilities provided by the alternative court; and the capacity of that court to cater for the additional work; and distances and public transport considerations. In general, the Court service must look to improve services to an area overall.

  Magistrates
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase the representation of ethnic minorities among lay and Stipendiary Magistrates; and if he will make a statement. [56723]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor requires his Advisory Committees on the appointment of lay magistrates to identify the ethnic composition of their areas and to make strenuous efforts to recruit suitable persons to reflect that composition. A survey of lay magistrates (excluding those in the Duchy of Lancaster) conducted in 1997 indicated that 4.1 per cent. classified themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority. In 1997 the percentage of appointments from the ethnic minorities was 6.5 per cent. Vacancies for acting Stipendiary Magistrates and Stipendiary Magistrates are open to all who are statutorily qualified and applications from members of ethnic minorities are positively encouraged.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to issue guidelines on cultural, racial and self awareness training for lay magistrates. [56724]

  Mr. Hoon
  In 1997 the Lord Chancellor approved a major change in the way lay magistrates are trained. In future they will have to demonstrate, through appraisal, performance against a range of required competencies in order that they will be able fully to discharge the full implications of the Judicial Oath. These competencies include: knowledge of different cultures, ethnic minority communities, disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, discrimination and its impact, relevant equality legislation, an understanding of labelling, stereotyping, language and cultural differences, body language and one's own conditioning and personal prejudices.

  This new approach to training is being implemented by Magistrates Court Committees over the next 12 months.

  As part of the resources for achieving the attainment of these competencies the Judicial Studies Board, in conjunction with the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO), has produced an Equal Treatment training pack which has been supplied to each MCC and magistrates' training officer.
  333

  Cash Limits
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes he plans to make to the cash and running costs limits of the Lord Chancellor's Department Class VIII, Vote 1 for 1998–99. [58087]

  Mr. Hoon
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class VIII Vote 1 will be reduced by £2,258,000 from £561,119,000 to £558,861,000. The running costs limit will be reduced by £39,000 from £458,100,000 to £458,061,000.

  The reduction to the running costs limit relates to transfers of £485,000 returning to the Home Office owing to the revised timetable for ECHR training under the Human Rights Act 1998 and £446,000 from the Home Office in respect of the Crime and Disorder Bill.

  The cash limit reduction of £2,258,000 relates to transfers of £2,065,000 to the Home Office (owing to revised timetable for ECHR training under the Human Rights Act 1998), £1,338,000 from and £1,251,000 to the Home Office (Crime and Disorder Bill), and £280,000 to Supplementary Credit Approvals non-voted expenditure (as a result of a transfer of funds from Magistrates Courts Current Grant to Capital Grant).

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October 1998. [57998]

  Mr. Hoon
  Shortly.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56794]

  Mr. Hoon
  The following brings up to date the list of non-judicial appointments made to the Lord Chancellor's public bodies which was provided in my Answer to the hon. Member on 15 December 1997,Official Report, columns 44–45. It does not include re-appointments.

  Those not receiving remuneration

  Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace

  A. J. Harding J.P.

  Mrs. C. C. Walker J.P.

  Ms G. D. Johns

  Col. M. W. F. Maxse L.V.O.

  J. E. Mills J.P.

  R. J. Capner J.P.

  Miss A. P. Davies

  Mrs. D. J. Reeves

  Prof. K. C. C. Bancroft

  Mrs. M. Doody J.P.

  J.P. R. B. Jowett

  Mrs. S. R. Skelton

  334

  Mrs. H. E. Riley-Humfrey

  R. M. Greet

  Mrs. A. N. Del Mar J.P.

  J. L. Quinn J.P.

  P. F. Collins J.P.

  C. D. Fleming J.P.

  J. H. Hill. J.P.

  Mrs. C. J. Bays

  Mrs. C. Rees J.P.

  Mrs. L Donnelly J.P.

  T. M. Drake J.P.

  P. F. Percey J.P.

  M. C. Reeve

  Mrs. S. F. Cullen J.P.

  R. C. Dykes Esq. J.P.

  G. B. Wright Esq. J.P.

  Rev. C. O. Weaver M.B.E., J.P.

  Mrs. J. Spencer J.P.

  J. L. Muncey Esq.

  B. D. Parson Esq.

  Mrs. J. E. Child J.P.

  Mrs. H. E. Murray J.P.

  Mrs. J. M. Anthony J.P.

  S. J. Telling Esq.

  Mrs. K. J. Hay J.P.

  Mrs. W. Copson

  M. A. Ager Esq., J.P.

  J. Allbut Esq., J.P.

  Mrs. R. L. Fleet J.P.

  Mrs. J. E. Osborne J.P.

  Mrs. M. E. Williams J.P.

  Mrs. L. Heycock J.P.

  R. C. F. Williams Esq.

  G. Cowie Esq.

  D. H. Barton Esq.

  Mrs. B. Jackson

  D. Jones Esq., J.P.

  M. J. Offord Esq.

  Mrs. S. Marwa J.P.

  B. J. Griffin Esq., J.P.

  Dr. C. B. T. Hill

  D. J. Noble Esq.

  His Honour Judge Spence

  Mrs. M. J. Best J.P.

  Mrs. S. J. Eagle J.P.

  Mrs. A. F. Whiting J.P.

  Miss J. M. Corrigan J.P.

  Mrs. E. G. North J.P.

  Mrs. S. J. MacLoughlin J.P.

  W. D. March Esq., J.P.

  P. G. Dick Esq., J.P.

  H. A. Rudebeck Esq., J.P.

  Mrs. J. Arnold

  M. Griffiths Esq., J.P.

  Mrs. D. M. Woodmore J.P.

  Mrs. J. M. E. MacGregor J.P.

  J. Starmer Esq., J.P.

  J. Findlay Esq., J.P.

  335

  M. Ward Esq., J.P.

  Mrs. P. Meredith-Hardy J.P.

  I. Clinch Esq., J.P.

  Ms Y. Batliwala J.P.

  C. Smillie Esq., J.P.

  R. G. Harper Esq., J.P.

  Mrs. L. Cator

  K. Shuttleworth Esq., J.P.

  R. Grummett Esq.

  N. Osmond Esq.

  J. Shrigley Esq.

  Mrs. P. Tuner

  Mrs. G. V. Barrett J.P.

  Mrs. S. M. Eadon J.P.

  Mrs. G. M. Matthison J.P.

  Mrs. D. Papidas

  Mrs. Y. Cornell

  Mrs. S. A. Sloan

  S. H. C. Verdon Esq., J.P.

  N. S. Matheroo Esq., J.P.

  Mrs. P. M. Dedman J.P.

  Miss A. Khan

  B. C. Willett Esq., O.B.E., J.P.

  R. Ryatt Esq.

  H. C. Vickery Esq., J.P.

  R. D. K. Harris Esq.

  Mrs. B. H. M. Gorham J.P.

  R. J. Bond Esq., J.P.

  Mrs. C. M. Bruce J.P.

  Mrs. A. Ashton J. P.

  Mrs. C. Harris

  T. Bottomley

  E. Rimmer J.P.

  D. Smith J.P.

  G. Williams J.P.

  T. A. Hughes

  Mrs. A. Jones J.P.

  Mrs. L. Gapper J.P.

  Mrs. S. M. May J.P.

  A. E. Brown J.P.

  Mrs. H. Bennett J.P.

  Mrs. S. L. Crabtree J.P.

  K. S. Khangura J.P.

  Mrs. J. A. Blackburn K.P.

  Mrs. M. Domjan J.P.

  A. A. I. Ebrahim J.P.

  B. Pearson

  M. L. Pearson J.P.

  Mrs. T. Waters J.P.

  Mrs. D. R. Matthews J.P.

  Rev. B. A. Lees

  Mrs. L. Slavin J.P.

  D. Camsell

  J. S. Elliott J.P.

  R. Todd

  Mrs. J.M. Barrablough J.P.

  Mrs. M.M. Carroll J.P.

  B. R. Outlaw J.P.

  336

  R. Robinson J.P.

  B. Halliday J.P.

  H. A. S. Daurat J.P.

  P. J. Clifton

  Mrs. L. A. Falkous J.P.

  Mrs. M. A. Walker

  Mrs. A. M. Bradshaw J.P.

  T. L. Johnson J.P.

  T. Moran J.P.

  Mrs. A. B. Palmer

  S. M. Stringwell J.P.

  Mrs. J. L. Frankland J.P.

  A. W. Garbutt J.P.

  Mrs. P. A. Prince

  Mrs. A. Bolter

  Mrs. K Nawaz J.P.

  D. G. Barrett

  H. D. Hill J.P.

  Mrs. J. M. Worth J.P.

  J. Bancroft J.P.

  Mrs. D. M. West J.P.

  A. R. Sykes

  T. G. Prosser J.P.

  T. C. Davies J.P.

  M. G. Johnston

  W. G. Hughes

  Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax

  P. J. Mayfield Esq.

  J. C. R. Clarkson Esq.

  Mrs. M. W. Morris

  Mrs. P. M. Bailey

  C. W. L. Bosher Esq.

  T. B. Dunn Esq.

  C. Lewisohn Esq.

  R. S. Joseph Esq.

  J. R. Hubbard Esq.

  A. Stewart-Richardson Esq.

  M. E. Acland Esq., J.P.

  M. R. A. Nicholls Esq.

  Mrs. N. M. A. Pollock

  J. Francis

  C. G. Washington M.B.E.

  J. Garner

  Mrs. J. M. Davidson

  E. E. Greenhalgh J.P.

  Advisory Council on Public Records

  Ian Coulson Esq.

  Professor the Earl Russell

  Andreas Whittam Smith Esq.

  Mrs. Gillian Hughes

  Baroness Trumpington

  Civil Justice Council

  Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls

  Stephen Cragg

  Professor Robert Dingwall

  Hilary Heilbron Q.C.

  Henry Hodge O.B.E.

  337

  Vicky Ling

  Professor Martin Partington

  Judge John Sessions

  Owen Tudor

  Ashton West

  Vicki Chapman

  Carlos Dabezies

  District Judge Godfrey Evans

  Lord Justice Henry

  Ashley Holmes

  Michael Napier

  Sir Richard Scott, Vice-Chancellor

  District Judge Monty Trent

  Tim Wallis

  Marlene Winfield

  and David Gladwell and Peter Jacob, who are both Civil Servants in the Lord Chancellor's Department

  Insolvency Rules Committee

  The Hon. Mr. Justice Evans-Lombe

  Mr. Registrar James

  Chief Bankruptcy Registrar Buckley

  District Judge Dowling

  Family Proceeds Rule Committee

  District Judge Rachel Evans

  Mrs. J. M. Roberts

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  Mr. Leslie S. Allamby B.A.

  Advisory Committees for the Appointment of General Commissioners of Income Tax (NI)

  Mr. C. G. Jenkins F.C.A.

  Mr. B. R. Johnston O.B.E., B.Sc.

  Mr. G. P. McGrath

  Mrs. M. H. McClure

  Mr. G. R. Perrin B.A.

  Mr. R. W. L. Scott F.R.I.C.S.

  Board of the Judicial Studies Board

  Mr. Don Manley. J.P. (Mr. Manley J.P. receives an attendance fee)

  Mr. Karamjit Singh

  Those receiving remuneration

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct Lord Justice Mark Potter (draws his judicial salary)

  Council on Tribunals

  R. J. Elliott Esq.

  Mrs. S. R. Howdle

  Legal Aid Board

  M. Barnes C.B.E., Esq.

  P. Hollingsworth Esq.

  Mrs. S. Hewitt.

  Telford County Court
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how much the proposed new extension at Telford County Court will cost. [56456]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no plans to build a further extension at Telford County Court. However, a reconfiguration of the current office space and hearing 338
  rooms is being investigated at a projected cost of approximately £400,000. This work is mainly as a result of the Civil Justice Reforms and only in part to meet the possible transfer of work from Shrewsbury.

TREASURY

  Unemployment
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women counted as unemployed according to the International Labour Organisation's criteria are not currently in receipt of jobseeker's allowance or any other form of unemployment benefit; and what were the figures in each case in each of the last five years. [57082]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Phyllis Starkey, dated October 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on unemployment.
  Estimates of the number of men and women who are ILO unemployed but not claiming unemployment benefits for the period Spring 1992 to Summer 1996 are published in Table 7.5 of the April 1998 issue of Labour Market Trends which is available in the House of Commons Library. On average over the period, 84% of ILO unemployed men and 41% of ILO unemployed women were claimants. The proportion of ILO unemployed who were claimants dropped from 72% in 1992 to 66% in 1996.
  The figures are derived with reference to both the claimant count and Labour Force Survey results using a methodology based on the results of a study which linked the two data sources. These results cannot be applied after Summer 1996 because of the changes in the benefit system. The ONS is carrying out a second study to decide whether reliable estimates can be produced for the period following the introduction of the Jobseeker's Allowance. The results of this study will be published in Labour Market Trends early next year.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when and for what reasons Nigeria was removed from the list of countries eligible for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [57694]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is no definitive list of countries that will be eligible for debt relief under the HIPC initiative. Eligibility for the initiative is determined on a case-by-case basis. Criteria used to determine the eligibility of a country include being entitled to World Bank assistance only for the International Development Association (IDA), and the unsustainability of its debt burden even after the full application of traditional debt relief mechanisms.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecast for world economic growth was originally used to calculate the debt sustainability ratios of countries in the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative; and what assessment he has made of the impact of revised forecasts for growth on the Government's forecast for debt sustainability. [57695]
  339
  Ms Hewitt
  A country's debt burden is considered unsustainable for the purposes of the HIPC initiative if the debt to exports ratio (in Net Present Value terms) is above 200–250 per cent. after the application of all traditional debt relief mechanisms. This ratio is not itself dependent on any particular rate of world economic growth. In as much as the level of world economic growth affects a country's exports, however, it will impact on the denominator of this ratio.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps will be taken to revise the debt sustainability ratios used in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative to take account of revised estimates of world growth for 1998. [57696]

  Ms Hewitt
  At the recent meeting of the Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, it was agreed that there would be a comprehensive review of the HIPC initiative as early as 1999. UK Ministers urged that this review should include consideration of current debt sustainability criteria.

  EMU
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the national currency reserves of member states proceeding to stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union will be(a) deposited and (b) subsequently available for use by the European Central Bank; if those amounts will be published; and what authority within the Central Bank will be required for them to be used. [57485]

  Ms Hewitt
  Article 30 of the ESCB Statute states that the individual contributions of the national central banks of participating Member States to the foreign reserve assets of the European Central Bank shall be fixed in proportion to their shares in the subscribed capital of the ECB. Under Article 29 of the ESCB Statute, this provides for weightings based on relative population and national income.

  In July, the Governing Council of the ECB decided on the size of the initial transfer of foreign reserve assets to the ECB from the national central banks of participating Member States. The initial transfer of foreign reserve assets will total approximately 40 billion euro. This amounts to around 10 per cent. of the total foreign reserve assets held by euro area Member States at end-September 1998. The remaining reserve assets will be the responsibility of the national central banks, subject to Article 31 of the ESCB Statute.

  Article 105(2) of the EC Treaty provides that the European System of Central Banks will hold and manage the foreign reserves transferred by participating Member States and may use these reserves to conduct foreign exchange operations. Under Article 9.2 of the ESCB Statute, tasks conferred upon the ECB may be implemented by the ECB either through its own activities or through the national central banks of participating Member States. The respective roles of the ECB and the euro area central banks in foreign exchange policy issues is a decision for the ECB's governing bodies: the Governing Council and the Executive Board.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what body will act as lender of last resort in(a) each individual EMU member and (b) Europe as a whole when the European Central Bank comes into operation. [57460]
  340
  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the then Economic Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), on 9 June 1998,Official Report, column 496. The position as set out in the EC Treaty has not changed.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the(a) policy and (b) operational decisions of the European Central Bank will, after 1 January 1999, be the responsibility of its (i) Governing Board, (ii) Executive Council and (iii) Presidency. [57462]

  Ms Hewitt
  The responsibilities of the Governing Council, Executive Board and President of the European Central Bank are set out in Articles 12 and 13 of the Statute of the ESCB—Protocol No.3 to the EC Treaty. This includes some discretion for the Governing Council to delegate certain powers to the Executive Board.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the main items of income and expenditure of the general budget of the European Community and the contributions and receipts of the United Kingdom, for each year since 1973 calculated at 1996 prices. [57458]

  Ms Hewitt
  This information can be found in various readily available published sources. The main items of income and expenditure of the general budget of the European Community can be found in the Overview to the 1999 EC Preliminary Draft Budget (SEC)98 800. Information on the United Kingdom's gross contributions, abatement and public sector receipts for the period 1986–87 to 1997–98 can be found in Departmental Reports of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments from 1992 to 1998. Information relating to the years 1985–86 back to 1973–74 can be found in "The Government's Expenditure Plans" from 1979 to 1991. Copies of all these documents are available in the House of Commons Library. An updated list of GDP deflators will be placed in the House of Commons Library, enabling comparison in 1996 prices.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards future negotiations relating to the British rebate from the EU. [57415]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Commission's Own Resources report (7 October 1998) notes:"even after the rebate, the UK remains a larger net contributor to the EU budget than Member States with a higher capacity to pay".

  Against this background the Government are satisfied that the UK abatement remains fully justified. As the Prime Minister told the House on 17 June 1998, Official Report, column 368,
  "we shall maintain the United Kingdom budget rebate".

  Departmental Spending Plans
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral statement by the Economic Secretary of 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 75, what is the size (a) in absolute terms and (b) as a percentage of each department's spending head of the margins to cover uncertainties built into departmental spending plans. [57594]
  341
  Mr. Byers
  Table 4.4 of the "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report" (Cm 3978) showed surpluses on current budget, over and above the balanced position that is necessary to achieve the golden rule. There are additional elements of caution built into the projections from the reserve within DEL and the AME margin in the public spending plans. Figures for departmental spending plans were published in the Comprehensive Spending Review (Cm 4011).

  Dividend Tax Credits
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in respect of the repayment of dividend tax credits to non-taxpayers; and if he will make a statement. [57121]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 26 October, Official Report, column 37.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost to public funds of claims by employees and the public for compensation in respect of(a) personal injury and (b) employment protection in the latest available year. [56766]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The information is not held centrally.

  Young People (Cardiac Disease Deaths)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department collects data on the number of young people who have died from cardiac disease; and if he will make a statement. [57135]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 2 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of young people who have died from cardiac disease.
  The ONS collects data on all deaths registered in England and Wales and these are published annually by cause, quinary age-group and sex in the ONS publication "Mortality statistics: Cause, England and Wales" Series DH2, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.
  The ONS does not have a standard definition of what constitutes a "young" person. However, in 1997, the latest year for which figures are available, 316 people aged under 30 died from diseases of the heart.

  Suicides (Agricultural Workers)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides have been recorded amongst farmers and other agricultural employees in each of the last 10 years. [57663]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  342
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Maclean, dated 2 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on suicides amongst farmers and other agricultural employees.
  The information requested is shown in the table below.

  Suicides amongst farmers and other agricultural employees in England and Wales, 1988–1997

  Year of occurrence

  Farmers, horticulturists, farm managers

  Other agricultural employees

  1988

  60

  36

  1989

  45

  32

  1990

  49

  33

  1991

  54

  31

  1992

  47

  32

  1993

  50

  35

  1994

  44

  29

  1995

  41

  17

  1996

  36

  35

  1997

  42

  25

  The data relate to persons aged between 16 and 74 at the time of their death. Occupation is not coded for deaths to those aged 75 and over.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each overseas trip which he has undertaken on official business over the last four months, giving in each case the(a) destination, (b) purpose, (c) duration, (d) means of transport, (e) individuals accompanying him, (f) cost and (g) dates; and if he will make a statement. [57542]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 22 October 1998,Official Report, column 1200.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of revenue raised as landfill tax is paid by local authorities. [57894]

  Ms Hewitt
  This information is not held by HM Customs and Excise.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October 1998. [57994]

  Ms Hewitt
  The hon. Member did not table a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 7 October.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 16 September to the Financial Secretary on behalf of his constituents Mr. and Mrs. Hibbert. [57528]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 26 October 1998.
  343

  Jobs Package
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the implementation of a Europe-wide jobs package; and if he will make a statement. [57493]

  Ms Hewitt
  I, along with my ministerial colleagues, discuss employment matters with our counterparts in other member states from time to time.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed in the cash limit and running costs limit for the Inland Revenue in 1998–99. [58269]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class XVI Vote 4 will be increased by £97,284,000 from £1,633,425,000 to £1,730,709,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £84,284,000 from £1,726,296 to £1,810,580,000.

  The vote is eligible for a cash limit increase of £28,084,000 running costs and £1,968,000 capital in respect of end year flexibility amounts as announced by my right hon. Friend the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36.

  In addition there are increases in the cash limit of £46,000,000 running costs for preparatory work on the introduction of income tax credits and work on other measures announced in the March 1998 Budget, and £12,000,000 running costs and £11,032,000 capital to upgrade the department's computer systems.

  Offsetting these increases is a transfer of £1,800,000 to the Scottish Office, class XIII, vote 6 in respect of a reduction in the forecast need for development work on income tax in Scotland.

  All the increases other than that relating to the interdepartmental transfer will be charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on problems of overstretch in the armed forces, with particular reference to the future of the Territorial Army. [55882]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Strategic Defence Review concluded that we must match the commitments we undertake to our planned resources. This, together with our commitment to achieve full manning for all three Services, will relieve overstretch. Our proposals for the Territorial Army will allow them to be used in a wider and more flexible way. In areas such as medical services, where there is a particular shortage of Regular personnel, we are looking at substantial increases in the number of Territorial Army personnel.
  344
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army centres he proposes to close; and how many of them have ancillary army cadet corps units. [55901]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security of tenure of the TA centre in Haslucks Green road in Shirley in the Solihull constituency and its future use as the parading venue of navy, army and air cadets. [55907]

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Territorial Army in Sussex. [55883]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  An announcement on the future of the Territorial Army will be made shortly.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of funding changes on the effectiveness of the Territorial Army. [55910]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The new arrangements for the funding of the Territorial Army, which will come into effect in April 2000, are designed to improve the administration of spending on the TA. We do not anticipate that there will be any adverse impact on the operational effectiveness of the TA as a result of the changes.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the role of Territorial Army units in aiding civil authorities in their own areas in times of disaster. [56831]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Territorial Army units are able to provide military aid to civil authorities within their local areas, as an adjunct to their main roles. The links forged with local communities are being taken into account in the current review of the future structure of the Territorial Army.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he will take to ensure that the establishment of medical units and field hospitals in the Territorial Army is up to strength and has the appropriate mix of skilled doctors and nurses. [56826]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It is my Department's aim that all Territorial Army medical units and field hospitals should be fully complemented with appropriately skilled medical personnel. A review of Army medical services is currently underway and will address a number of issues, including current recruiting difficulties.

  Ethnic Minorities (Recruitment)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest figures for recruitment to the armed forces among ethnic minorities. [55900]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) in the House today,Official Report, column 546.

  Defence Medical Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the funding of the Defence Medical Services. [55902]
  345
  Mr. George Robertson
  Following the Strategic Defence Review, significant additional funding, some £140 million, has been made available to enhance the operational capability of the Defence Medical Services and address problems in the Defence Secondary Care Agency. Specific measures include:

  Operational Capability

  addressing current personnel and equipment shortfalls across the three Services as a matter of priority;

  procurement of a 200 bed primary casualty receiving ship, with a second one available on contract at longer notice if required;

  ensuring that an additional 800 field hospital beds are available at guaranteed higher readiness; along with their appropriate surgical and other support;

  the enhancement of the Army's Regular ambulance evacuation capability;

  the establishment a Regular operational medical supply organisation;

  the provision of an additional Regular RAF aeromedical evacuation flight and 18 air escort flights;

  the enhancement of our capability to provide Regular medical support for deployed operating bases and support helicopters;

  Defence Secondary Care Agency

  the recruitment of approximately 250 hospital specialists, nurses, technicians and other personnel to bring the Agency up to establishment;

  funding to enable potential recruits to be medically evaluated more quickly by specialists when required;

  the enhancement of the community psychiatry service.

  Naval Air Repair Organisation
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there will be a full audit of the new business scheme at present being used by the Naval Air Repair Organisation prior to the organisation being integrated into the new Defence Aviation Repair Agency. [55903]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans for the audit of the business scheme used by the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation to take place before the vesting of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency scheduled for 1 April 1999. The new system is operational but the project cannot be closed until the outstanding mandatory requirement for year 2000 compliancy is met. Firm plans are in place to achieve compliancy by February 1999.

  A post-project evaluation will take place in the latter half of 1999, within six months of project completion.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to promote global nuclear disarmament. [55905]

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to promote global nuclear disarmament. [55777]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Government set out their comprehensive approach towards nuclear disarmament in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in July 1998. Many of the national measures announced in the SDR will help 346
  lay the ground for UK participation in multilateral negotiations when the conditions are right. In addition, since May 1997 the United Kingdom has:

  ratified the Treaty of Raratonga (South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone) in September 1997;

  ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in April 1998;

  agreed strengthened international safeguards arrangements for the UK with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in September 1998, following international agreement of model strengthened international safeguards arrangements for non-nuclear-weapon states in May 1998;

  played an active role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Strengthened Review Process in preparation for the next Review Conference in 2000;

  engaged in international consideration at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva of security assurances to Non-Nuclear-Weapon States;

  worked for the successful agreement at the Conference on Disarmament in August 1998 on the opening of negotiations on a treaty to prohibit the production of fissile material in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

  continued consultations with regional states of South East Asia aimed at moving towards UK signature of the relevant protocols to the Treaty of Bangkok (South East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone);

  entered into discussions with the states of Central Asia on establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in their region;

  played a leading role in co-ordinating the international response to the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May 1998;

  contributed nationally and through the European Union to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO) to assist in full implementation of North Korea's international safeguards obligations; and

  continued to make a major contribution to the IAEA's efforts in Iraq.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress the Government have made towards multi-lateral nuclear disarmament since May 1997. [56028]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Government set out their comprehensive approach towards nuclear disarmament in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in July 1998. Many of the national measures announced in the SDR will help lay the ground for UK participation in multilateral negotiations when the conditions are right. These include the reduction in the size of our deterrent; greater transparency about our nuclear and fissile material stockpiles; placing fissile material no longer required for defence purposes under international safeguards; reprocessing of spent fuel from the defence Chapelcross reactors under international safeguards; beginning a national historical accounting for fissile material produced; and beginning a programme to develop UK expertise in verifying the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. In addition, since May 1997 the United Kingdom has:

  ratified the Treaty of Raratonga (South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone) in September 1997;

  ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in April 1998;

  agreed strengthened international safeguards arrangements for the UK with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in September 1998, following international agreement of model strengthened international safeguards arrangements for non-nuclear-weapon states in May 1998;

  347

  played an active role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Strengthened Review Process in preparation for the next Review Conference in 2000;

  engaged in international consideration at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva of security assurances to Non-Nuclear-Weapon States;

  worked for the successful agreement at the Conference on Disarmament in August 1998 on the opening of negotiations on a treaty to prohibit the production of fissile material in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

  continued consultations with regional states of South East Asia aimed at moving towards UK signature of the relevant protocols to the Treaty of Bangkok (South East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone);

  entered into discussions with the states of Central Asia on establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in their region;

  played a leading role in coordinating the international response to the nuclear test conducted by India and Pakistan in May 1998;

  contributed nationally and through the European Union to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO) to assist in full implementation of North Korea's international safeguards obligations; and

  continued to make a major contribution to the IAEA's efforts in Iraq.

  Duchess of Kent's Hospital, Catterick
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide additional funds to Northallerton health services to offset the impact of the reduction of services at the Duchess of Kent's hospital at Catterick. [55909]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are no plans to transfer funds from my Department to Northallerton Health Services, following the reduction of services at the Duchess of Kent's Hospital, Catterick.

  It is the responsibility of the North Yorkshire Health Authority to provide and allocate their own resources for civilian patient care in their area.

  Education and Training
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to improve education and training opportunities for service men and women and their dependants. [55911]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We already provide a wide range of education and training opportunities for Armed forces personnel. My "Learning Forces" initiative extends from recruitment to resettlement and beyond, and includes improvements in Service children's schools. It will be a major contribution to the Government's commitment to improving educational opportunities.

  Serco Denholm
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to modify the operation undertaken, on behalf of his Department, in the firth of Clyde by Serco Denholm. [55879]
  348
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Serco Denholm provides the Royal Navy with parts services in the Firth of Clyde. We are at the early stages in considering with Serco Denholm whether the vessels operated by the company on behalf of my Department can be utilised more extensively.

  Archer Communications Project
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Archer Communications project. [55894]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave earlier today,Official Report, column 552.

  Defence Diversification White Paper
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the Government's White Paper on Defence Diversification. [55908]

  Mr. Spellar
  We hope to publish the White Paper on Defence Diversification shortly.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the number of British service personnel who were within range of the fallout from the demolition of the Iraqi nerve agent dump at Khamisiyah after the Gulf War in March 1991; how many British service personnel could have been exposed to nerve agents following the demolition of the dump; what work is currently being carried out to re-assess these figures; who is carrying out this work; when this work started and when it is expected to end; if this work is being carried out in co-operation with the United States Government; and if he will make a statement. [55332]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In September 1997, the US Department of Defense (DoD) published a report on the work it had undertaken to try to model the possible dispersion of nerve agent from the demolition of Iraqi chemical munitions at the Khamisiyah ammunition storage facility by US forces in March 1991. This report included a series of maps for successive days showing the theoretical dispersion plume of low concentrations of nerve agent arising from the Khamisiyah demolitions, as predicted by DoD computer modelling.

  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has been keeping in contact with the US authorities on this issue. After the DoD announcement, the MOD obtained a data package from them which allowed UK officials to construct maps on which the known locations of UK units could be plotted in relation to the DoD modelled plume. The initial work on these maps was completed in late 1997, following a trawl of available information as to the location of UK units on 10 and 11 March, which are the days when the DoD modelled plume was at its most extensive. This work was further updated in May of this

  349
  year on the basis of further research into British unit locations. Overall, this established that on the critical two days, the following UK unit location data are available:

  10 March

  11 March

  Total UK units in Theatre

  175

  175

  Locations known1

  67

  72

  Recent locations known2

  51

  47

  Possible locations known3

  39

  38

  Locations not known4

  18

  18

  1Specific location information for the unit is available for the days in question.

  2Specific location information is available for the unit some days prior to 10/11 March, in effect the last known location before 10/11 March.

  3Some information is available for the unit which suggests a possible location for it on or about 10/11 March.

  4No useful location data for the unit are available for the period around 10/11 March.

  This location information is incomplete because UK units and formations officially returned to peacetime reporting procedures, and ceased to record location as a matter of routine, 1200 hours on 8 March (in fact, research has shown that some units ceased wartime reporting as early as 28 February).

  Given that the first two stages of work had left a high degree of uncertainty as to many unit locations, it was decided to seek alternative sources of information in order to establish if the location data could be improved. This process is still under way and it is not possible to say when it may be completed or what the outcome may be. However, so far no major improvements in the data have been achieved.

  The DoD modelling of the possible Khamisiyah plume is based on a series of worst case assumptions and has a number of limitations. These have been highlighted in the recent report on Gulf War Illnesses by the Special Investigation Unit on behalf of the US Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs.

  In view of the current limitations of the available location data on UK units and of the DoD modelling, at present the MOD is not able to give a realistic assessment of the number of UK Service personnel who might have been subject to possible exposure to nerve agent as a result of the Khamisiyah demolitions.

  The DoD modelling predicts that personnel within the plume could have received a brief and low level exposure to nerve agent. Current medical evidence suggests that long term health problems would be unlikely to result from exposure to such low levels, although US authorities are funding several research studies to investigate this further.

  In response to two questions asked in another place last October, the MOD has been undertaking a review of events concerning a particular UK unit, 32 Field Hospital, and the Khamisiyah incident. This review will include a detailed assessment of the significance of the nerve agent exposure predicted by the DoD modelling.

  Trident
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the conventional forces assigned to 350
  protect Trident (a) permanently and (b) in an emergency, indicating the annual operating costs of each in the last year for which figures are available. [55371]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There are no conventional forces operating permanently in protection of Trident. The force elements which we assume for planning purposes to have a role in support of Trident are listed in Annex B to the Strategic Defence Review Supporting Essay on Future Military Capabilities (Essay Six) against Military Task 27—Nuclear forces.

  These forces are in practice routinely engaged in a variety of training and other tasks whilst being held at varying levels of readiness for support of Trident. Those designated as "committed" are at short notice; those designated "contingent" are primarily provided for other tasks and would be called upon in support of Trident only in an extreme emergency.

  The annual operating cost of "committed" forces is estimated at around £125 million. (This figure also includes an element for six Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and one survey vessel, which are not considered major force elements for the purposes of the force structure tables in the SDR Supporting Essay). For the reasons given, this figure is not attributable directly to Trident, nor does it represent the potential saving if the Trident role were discontinued. The annual operating cost of the forces with a "contingent" role is around £176 million.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the reduced day-to-day alert state of UK Trident missiles referred to in the report on the Strategic Defence Review involves physical changes to the missiles or their guidance systems. [55868]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: No physical changes to the missiles or guidance systems are involved; UK Trident missiles have been detargeted since 1994. During the Cold War submarines on deterrent patrol were routinely at Quick Reaction Alert, able to fire their missiles within a few minutes. With the single submarine on deterrent patrol now at several days notice to fire, the Commanding Officer has greater flexibility in the day-to-day operation of the vessel and is able to carry out the secondary tasks announced in the Strategic Defence Review without compromising the security or the effectiveness of the deterrent.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum number of warheads with which UK Trident missiles have been(a) tested and (b) deployed. [55986]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: To reveal the number of inert re-entry bodies carried during Trident test firings, or the number of live warheads deployed on individual Trident missiles on UK submarines would give a harmful insight into the capabilities of our deterrent. Therefore I am withholding the answer under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Trident submarines are on patrol; what are the total number of war heads in service; and on what target the warheads are directed. [57689]
  351
  Mr. George Robertson
  We have only one Trident submarine on deterrent patrol at a time. Its missiles are detargetted. Concerning the total number of warheads in service, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 167.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department's estimate of the costs of building and equipping two new aircraft carriers is accounted for within(a) the Strategic Defence Review and (b) elsewhere. [55798]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The affordability of the defence equipment programme is assessed through an annual Long Term Costing process, covering a rolling 10 year period. In line with the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review, provision has been made for those costs of the future carrier programme which fall within this period. It is my firm intention that future Long Term Costings will contain provision for costs which fall outside the current Long Term Costing period.

  Aircraft Spare Parts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF aircraft of each type have been used to provide spare parts for other aircraft in each of the last three years. [56051]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  "Cannibalisation" of aircraft for parts is a recognised procedure practised by air forces around the world. If an aircraft is undergoing maintenance and is not available for flight, parts may be taken from it to keep other aircraft serviceable, thereby ensuring that the maximum number of aircraft are available with the minimum number awaiting spares deliveries. Stringent procedures are in place to ensure that cannibalisation does not adversely affect air worthiness.

  Defence Secondary Care Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average finished consultant episode cost for the Defence Secondary Care Agency for 1997–98; what was the equivalent figure for 1996–97; what target was set for 1997–98 for this indicator; and what was the performance against target. [56039]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Major General C. G. Callow to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 November 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the average finished consultant episode for the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA) as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the DSCA.
  The estimated average finished consultant episode (FCE) for the DSCA for 1997/98 was £2580. The systems required to calculate this cost were not in place during 1996/97, the first year of the Agency's operation. Therefore, no comparable figure for that year is available. For 1997/98 the Agency was set the target of reducing
  352
  the average FCE by 3% during the year. This target was not achieved. The final outturn figure for 1997/98 was 1% up on the first quarter of that year.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the ability of the Defence Secondary Care Agency to deliver the requirement to supply medically trained personnel to meet the operational needs of the commanders in chief during 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [56066]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Major General C. G. Callow to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 November 1998:
  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what assessment has been made about the ability of the Defence Secondary Care Agency to deliver the requirements to supply medically trained personnel to meet the operational needs of the commanders in Chief's during 1998/99. This matter falls in my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  2. It is my Key Target One, from within the personnel resources provided to the DSCA by the single Services, to meet 100% of the Commanders in Chief's requirements for secondary care trained personnel for operational deployments. We met the target in 1997/98 and we continue to do so during 1998/99.
  3. We have recognised, however, that the difficulties faced by the single Services in recruiting sufficient uniformed personnel for the Defence Medical Services will influence greatly our own ability in maintaining our Key Target one performance. Senior military and MOD staff are aware of that position and Minister of State (Armed Forces) has asked for further advice, from the Department, on a number of DMS issues.

  Pilots
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RNAS personnel are currently undergoing training to become pilots. [56751]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  175 Royal Naval Air Service personnel are currently undergoing pilot training.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fully trained pilots have requested to leave the RNAS in each of the last five years. [56753]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of trained Royal Navy Pilots applying for premature voluntary release in each of the last five years is as follows. Some who applied for release subsequently withdrew their applications before their due exit dates.

  Year of application

  Number of application

  1993–94

  2

  1994–95

  8

  1995–96

  24

  1996–97

  22

  1997–98

  27

  Meteorites
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the possible threat to defence satellites presented by the Leonids meteorite shower; what steps it has taken; and if he will make a statement. [56926]
  353
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) has assessed the possible damaging effects that the Leonids meteor shower could present to defence satellites. Indications are that direct impacts with the spacecraft are unlikely to penetrate its skin, but may cause some non-catastrophic erosion of its outer surfaces and solar arrays by sand-blast effect. However, electrostatic interference could introduce anomalous events within the spacecraft electronics. Since it is not possible to remove the spacecraft from the threat, actions are in hand to minimise the possibility of damage. Firstly, to reduce the risk of collision, it is intended to offset the solar arrays to present the smallest practicable cross sectional area during the period of the Leonids shower. Secondly, the operating teams will be reinforced with system experts to manage any electronic problems, and they will closely monitor the spacecraft status prior to, during and after the shower.

  The actions being taken to protect defence satellites from the Leonids shower are commensurate with the risk and will themselves not interrupt military communications operations.

  Beef and Lamb
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on the purchase of British beef and lamb in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 to date. [56488]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given in the House today,Official Report, columns 541–42, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances nuclear weapons are held as a necessary processing margin or for technical surveillance purposes. [55869]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: My Department always needs to hold a processing margin of nuclear weapons to ensure that the required number of weapons are always operationally available. Similarly, technical surveillance—in which weapons are periodically removed from the stockpile, stripped down and analysed—is a normal part of our nuclear weapon stewardship programme to guarantee safety, reliability, and performance.

  Submarines (Radiation Alerts)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many radiation alerts there have been on Royal Navy submarines in each of the last 10 years. [57163]

  Mr. Spellar
  The term "radiation alert" is not a definition used in submarine operations. The lowest category of nuclear accident is defined "as an event which is likely to lead to, or has resulted in, the release of fission products from the fuel".

  There has never been an accident of this nature, or by implication an accident in a higher category. In the event of an incident on board a nuclear powered submarine that causes serious concern for the safety of the reactor plant, or which is considered could result in a radiation hazard, the MOD Nuclear Accident Response Organisation would
  354
  be alerted and activated. Whilst we exercise the procedures in place to deal with such an event, there has been no occasion when these have been required for a genuine incident.

  Army Pilots
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army personnel are currently undergoing training to become pilots. [57189]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As at 1 October, a total of 116 Army personnel were undergoing training to become pilots.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Army and (b) RNAS pilots have completed training in each of the last five years. [57165]

  Mr. Doug Henderson

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1997–98

  (a) Army pilots

  37

  62

  58

  78

  80

  (b) RNAS pilots

  133

  29

  37

  37

  24

  1This figure is an estimate based on available records

  Next Generation Light Anti-tank Weapon
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the selection of bidders for the Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon. [57168]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon, known as NLAW, will comprise a man-portable, shoulder launched, short range light anti-armour weapon. An Invitation To Tender for the competitive Project Definition stage of the project was issued on September last year and bids have now been received from Matra BAe Dynamics UK Ltd., Bofors Anti-Armour AB and Dynamit Nobel Gmbh. These bids are currently being assessed with contract placement expected early in the new year.

  Military Detention Centres
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military detention establishments there are in England and Wales; and if he will list them. [57436]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  One. The Military Corrective Training Centre at Colchester is used for all three Services. The Army has in addition 24 licensed Custody Facilities which can be used for short periods of detention.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women were serving sentences in military detention centres in England and Wales on 1 October. [57435]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 1 October 1998 there were(a) 139 male and (b) 2 female detainees at the Military Corrective Training Centre, Colchester which is the sole military detention centre in the UK.

  Scots Guards Regiment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons in the Scots Guards Regiment were born in(a) Scotland, (b) the remainder of the United Kingdom, (c) the Republic of Ireland and (d) elsewhere. [57589]
  355
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following table shows the places of birth of members of the Scots Guards by the locations specified:

  Place of birth

  Number

  Scotland

  474

  Remainder of the United Kingdom

  272

  Republic of Ireland

  0

  Elsewhere

  38

  Total

  784

  Irish Guards Regiment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons in the Irish Guards Regiment were born in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) the remainder of the United Kingdom, (c) the Republic of Ireland and (d) elsewhere. [57587]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following table shows the place of birth of members of the Irish Guards Regiment by the locations specified:

  Place of birth

  Number

  Northern Ireland

  166

  Remainder of the United Kingdom

  417

  Republic of Ireland

  3

  Elsewhere

  91

  Total

  677

  Welsh Guards Regiment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons in the Welsh Guards Regiment were born in(a) Wales, (b) the remainder of the United Kingdom, (c) the Republic of Ireland and (d) elsewhere. [57579]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following table shows the place of birth of members of the Welsh Guards Regiment by the locations specified:

  Place of birth

  Number

  Wales

  513

  Remainder of the United Kingdom

  170

  Republic of Ireland

  0

  Elsewhere

  25

  Total

  708

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Royal Irish Regiment in Northern Ireland; how many members are(a) full-time and (b) part-time; how many full-time members have (i) resigned and (ii) joined the regiment this year; and how many part-time members have (1) resigned and (2) joined the regiment this year. [57580]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The current strength of The Royal Irish Regiment in Northern Ireland as at 30 September 1998 is 2,627 full-time, and 1,961 part-time, members.
  356
  The number of members who have resigned or given their intention to resign between 1 January and 30 September 1998 was 75 full-time and 131 part-time. Recruitment to the Regiment was 77 full-time and 131 part-time members.

  Falkland Islands Garrison (Meat Purchases)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the policy of the military garrison on the Falkland Islands in relation to the country of origin of lamb and beef purchased for its use. [57469]

  Mr. Spellar
  The procurement of food for the Armed Forces is contracted to Booker Foodservice and this includes supply to our personnel stationed in the Falkland Islands. Our contractor is currently unable to supply British beef to any of our Armed Forces outside of the UK because of the continuing EU export ban. The beef provided is, therefore, predominantly Australian, New Zealand and Uruguayan in origin with a small amount from Brazil, Ireland and Belgium. Some 65 per cent. of the lamb supplied is sourced from New Zealand and Australia with the remainder from Uruguay.

  My Department and our contractor have been working closely with farmers' representatives and the Meat and Livestock Commission since the beginning of the year to ensure that every opportunity to buy British meat at competitive prices explored. All of the beef being bought for our Forces in the UK is now British in origin, following agreement by the European Commission to allow access to stocks of British beef in intervention. We are actively pursuing opportunities to purchase British frozen lamb and this includes offering to commit to substantial forward buy to encourage competitive pricing.

  Explosives (Brecon)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department will publish its report on its investigation of the removal of explosives from Army camps in the Brecon area and the subsequent explosion on 1 September 1997 in Brecon. [56373]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Board of Inquiry into the theft of explosives from the Infantry Training Centre Wales has reported. As is customary, I am withholding the report of the Inquiry itself under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. But I will write to the hon. Member with a summary of the findings of the Board.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October 1998. [57989]

  Mr. Spellar
  Shortly.

  Surface Ships
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what budgeted receipts for the sale of Royal Navy surface ships are included within the Ministry of Defence capital
  357
  receipts projections for (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000; which ships are involved; and what are the total budgeted capital receipts. [57525]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Receipts for the sale of RN surface ships were forecast at £10.5 million in 1998–99 and £36.4 million in 1999–2000. The Ships concerned are as follows:

  1998–99

  HMS Arun

  HMS Blackwater

  HMS Itchen

  HMS Spey

  HMS Battleaxe

  HMS Brazen

  HMS Brilliant

  1999–2000

  HMS Battleaxe

  HMS Brazen

  HMS Brilliant

  HMS Birmingham

  HMS Orkney

  HMS Beaver

  HMS Boxer

  HMS London.

  The forecast for all Naval capital receipts (including the above) was £29.7 million in 1998–99 and £84.9 million in 1999–2000.

  HMS Vernon
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what account he took in his consideration of bids for the HMS Vernon and Gunwharf site in Portsmouth of the contribution proposed by the bidder to the Millennium Landmark Project for Portsmouth Harbour; [57895]

  Public bodies

  Appointments

  Architects Registration Board

  Miss C. Higgins

  Mrs. B. Kelly

  Ms M. Street

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  Dame Pauline Neville-James

  Baroness Young of Old Scone

  Mr. R. Sondhi

  Mr. A. Young

  Sir Francis Bland

  Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Mrs. S. Cosgrave

  Professor Brian Edwards

  Professor J. Harper

  General Medical Council

  Mrs. R. Atma

  Mr. J. I. Davies

  Ms S. Leggate

  Rabbi Julia Neuberger

  Mr. J. C. Morton

  Mr. R. Yates

  General Osteopathic Council

  Miss A. Jones

  358
  (2) how much the Government received for the disposal of the HMS Vernon and Gunwharf site in Portsmouth; what was the highest bid received; and what criteria were used to select the successful bid. [57896]

  Mr. Spellar
  The contribution or cost of the Landmark Project, which is taken to refer to the 'Millennium Tower', had no bearing on the consideration of the bids received for the sale of the Gunwharf site.

  Offers for the Gunwharf site were sought on the basis of open market value and took into account the Planning Brief for the site previously provided by Portsmouth City Council. The bid chosen was considered to provide the best value for money. I am withholding information on the details of the sale receipt under exemption 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr.Chope
  To ask the President of the Council what progress has been made in ensuring millennium compliance in the systems of central Government and their agencies. [55919]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The results of the last quarterly review which I announced on 9 September showed that good progress is being made by departments and agencies in tackling the year 2000 problem.

  The returns showed that more than half of Departments and Agencies have completed 50 per cent. or more of the necessary work on business critical systems. In a fifth of cases, this figure was higher than 90 per cent.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Council if she will publish the names of those people she has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56788]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Those appointed by the President of the Council are as given. None of the individuals listed is remunerated.
  359

  Public bodies

  Appointments

  Heriot-Watt University

  Convocation

  Mr. J. Miller

  The hon. Lord Johnson

  Mr. N. Kuenssberg

  Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  Governing Body

  Mr. W. Banks

  Mr. A. Buxton

  Dr. D. Chatterji

  The hon. Sara Morrison

  Loughborough University

  Court

  Professor J. Hutchinson

  Dr. D. Clark

  Mr. P. Williams

  Visitor

  The right hon. Sir Frank Cooper

  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee (PHSC)

  Baroness Dean of

  Thornton-le-Fylde

  Queen's University of Belfast

  Board of Visitors

  Lord Lloyd of Berwick

  Mrs. J. McIvor

  Sir William McCollum

  Emeritus Professor W. Black

  Royal College of Art

  Court

  Mr. K. Grange

  Registered Homes Tribunals

  Panel of Experts

  Mrs. S. Adams

  Dr. A. Admani

  Mrs. C. Alford

  Mr. M. Attenborough

  Dr. A. Banerjee

  Mr. M Bishop

  Mr. C. E. Boman

  Mr. R. Brookes

  Mr. D. Browne

  Mr. J. Churchill

  Mr. K. Coleman

  Mr. K. Dainty

  Mrs R Doidge

  Mr. W. Dowridge

  Mrs. S. Entwistle

  Mr. J. Fisher

  Mrs. T. Galletly

  Ms S. Gilhespie

  Mrs. L. Gladwin

  Miss D. Graham

  Mrs. D. Grassie

  Mr. G. Harper

  Dr. M. A. Ishak

  Mr. M. Jobbins

  Mrs. N. Kelly

  Mr. A. Kendall

  Dr. S. Kumar

  Mrs. J. Lowcock

  Dr. A. Martin

  Mrs. S. Mead

  Dr. N. Merali

  Mr. R. Mills

  Mrs. M. Nash

  Mrs. E. Newby

  Dr. R. K. Prasad

  Mrs. A. Ross

  Mr. R. SeQueira

  Mr. D. Stanley

  Dr. P. Tiplady

  Dr. C. Treves Brown

  Professor J. Tunstill

  Mrs. D. Tyler

  Mr. C. E. Wakefield

  Mr. R. Ward

  Mr. F. Watts

  360

  361

  Public bodies

  Appointments

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  Council

  Mrs. R. Berry

  Mr. J. Scudamore

  Mr. P. Staines

  Royal Holloway and Bedford New College

  Council

  Mr. D. Beever

  University of Birmingham

  Council

  Sir David Hannay

  University of Buckingham

  Academic Advisory Committee

  Professor Paul Langford

  Visitor

  Lord Neill

  University of Hull

  Court

  Mr. J. Gwinnell

  Mr. M. Hollingberry

  Mrs. S. Smith

  University of Leicester

  Court

  Dr. H. Couper

  Baroness Braye

  University of London

  Council

  The right hon. The Lord Woolf

  Mr. P. Sober

  University of Salford

  Court

  Mr. A. Strachan

  University of Stirling

  Conference

  Mr. J. Geddes

  Mr. G. Simmers

  Ms Margaret Milne

  University of Surrey

  Court

  Mr. K. Taylor

  University of Sussex

  Court

  Mr. M. Burrell

  Ms G. Rebuck

  Professor B. Supple

  University of Ulster

  Court

  Mrs. M. Breslin

  Lord Glentoran

  University of Wales, Aberystwyth

  Court

  Mrs. E. Jones

  Mr. D. Prosser

  University of Wales, Cardiff

  Council

  Sir Peter Phillips

  UMIST

  Court

  Mr. K. Becket

  Mr. G. Galley

  Miss D. Gibbins

  Mr. D. A. Robson

  Victoria University of Manchester

  Court

  Ms D. Peters

  Col. J. Timmins

  Mr. A. Watson

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the President of the Council if she intends to make any changes to the 1998–99 cash and running costs limit for the Privy Council Office. [58112]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class XVIII, Vote 3 will be increased by £179,000 from £2,708,000 to £2,887,000 and the gross running costs limit reduced by £374,000 from £2,734,000 to £2,360,000.

  The increase is accounted for by the taking up of an amount (£179,000) under end year flexibility arrangements as foreshadowed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36. The decrease in the gross running costs limit reflects the transfer of £553,000 to the Cabinet
  362
  Office (Class XVIII, Vote 1) in respect of funding for the UK Anti Drugs Coordination Unit, as partially offset by the full take-up of end year flexibility.

  The increase will be met by a charge on the Reserve, and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  EU Members of Parliament
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Council if she will take steps to increase support for liaison between hon. Members and members of national Parliaments of EU member states. [55912]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am looking at ways of making the EU travel scheme more flexible and hope to make an announcement in due course.
  363

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the President of the Council if she will publish details of her ministerial responsibilities. [56674]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As President of the Council, I am responsible for the work of the Privy Council Office. As Leader of the House of Commons, I uphold the rights and privileges of the House. I chair the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.

  I am responsible for the arrangement of Government business in the Commons and for planning and supervising the Government's legislative programme. I chair the Ministerial Committees on the Queen's Speeches and Future legislation (QFL), Legislation (LEG), the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Health Strategy (HS(H)) and the Ministerial Groups on Food Safety (MISC1) and on the Millennium Date Change (MISC4). I am the Cabinet Minister responsible for overseeing preparations for addressing the Millennium bug. I also sit on a number of other Cabinet Committees and Sub-committees.

  Together with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, I also act as spokesperson for the Government.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Organisations
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the name of each known terrorist organisation connected with terrorism in Northern Ireland indicating the number of members of each organisation(a) serving a prison sentence and (b) on remand; and if she will estimate the number from each organisation she expects to be released under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Sentences Act by (i) 30 September 1998, (ii) 31 December 1998, (iii) 31 March 1999, (iv) 30 June 1999, (v) 30 September 1999, (vi) 31 December 1999, (vii) 31 March 2000, (viii) 30 June 2000 and (ix) 30 September 2002. [55026]

  Mr. Ingram
  The names of each known terrorist organisation connected with terrorism in Northern Ireland, as proscribed under Emergency Provisions legislation are as follows:

  The Irish Republican Army (IRA)—includes Real IRA, Provisional IRA and Continuity IRA

  Cumann na mBan

  Fianna na hEirann

  The Red Hand Commando (RHC)

  Saor Eire

  The Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF)

  The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF)

  The Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)

  The Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO)

  The Ulster Defence Association (UDA)

  The Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF)

  The Continuity Army Council.

  The information in respect of subsections (a) and (b) of the question is shown in Table A. This is drawn from the prison population as at 26 October 1998.
  364
  The information in respect of subsections (i) to (ix) is shown in Table B. It provides an estimate of the releases that the Secretary of State currently estimates to take place in each of the specified periods. This is drawn from information received by the Secretary of State as at 14 October 1998 from the Sentence Review Commissioners to whom prisoners apply for early release.

  Information is held in relation to the perceived paramilitary association of prisoners, where applicable, for management purposes. It should be noted however, that with the exception of HMP Maze where links are more clearly defined, this information is based on a combination of factors including the offence, sympathies and associates. The figures do not include prisoners who are regarded as only having either Loyalist or Republican sympathies.

  Table A

  Prison

  PIRA

  INLA

  UDA

  UVF

  UFF

  LVF

  RHC

  Maze

  Sentenced

  106

  24

  65

  57

  0

  11

  0

  Remand

  6

  2

  8

  8

  0

  8

  0

  Maghaberry

  Sentenced

  12

  8

  26

  17

  6

  8

  3

  Remand

  4

  6

  11

  7

  0

  3

  1

  Magilligan

  Sentenced

  6

  2

  12

  11

  1

  0

  0

  YOC

  Sentenced

  2

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Remand

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  136

  43

  123

  104

  9

  30

  4

  Table B

  PIRA

  UDA

  UVF

  UFF

  RHC

  Determinate sentences

  Up to 14 October 1998

  42

  18

  11

  2

  —

  14 October 1998–31 December 1998

  39

  20

  13

  1

  1

  1 January 1999–31 March 1999

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1 April 1999–30 June 1999

  5

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1 July 1999–30 September 1999

  4

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1 October 1999–31 December 1999

  8

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1 January 2000–31 March 2000

  5

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1 April 2000–30 June 2000

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1 July 2000–30 September 2000

  19

  8

  12

  4

  1

  Total

  126

  55

  39

  10

  2

  Lifer sentences

  Up to 14 October 1998

  11

  9

  7

  1

  —

  14 October 1998–31 December 1998

  6

  9

  9

  —

  —

  1 January 1999–31 March 1999

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1 April 1999–30 June 1999

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1 July 1999–30 September 1999

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 October 1999–31 December 1999

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1 January 2000–31 March 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 April 2000–30 June 2000

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 July 2000–30 September 2000

  31

  11

  8

  —

  1

  Total

  58

  32

  26

  1

  1

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) each known terrorist organisation connected with terrorism in Northern Ireland, (b) the number of members of each such organisation in prison in Northern Ireland, (c) the number in each organisation serving (i) a life sentence, and (ii) another indeterminate sentence and (d) the number in each group convicted of murder or attempted murder. [55025]
  365
  Mr. Ingram
  In response to subsections(a) and (b) of this question I would refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the previous question, subsections (a) and (b).

  The information requested in subsection (c) of this question is shown in the Table. This is drawn from the prison population as at 26 October 1998. All of the prisoners in the table are serving mandatory sentences, either life imprisonment or detention during the Secretary of State's pleasure, for the offence of murder.

  Information is held in relation to the perceived paramilitary association of prisoners, where applicable, for management purposes. It should be noted, however, that, with the exception of HMP Maze where links are more clearly defined, this information is based on a combination of factors including the offence, sympathies and associates. The figures do not include prisoners who are regarded as only having either Loyalist or Republican sympathies.

  Life

  SOSP

  Total

  INLA

  7

  0

  7

  PIRA

  28

  1

  29

  UDA

  20

  2

  22

  UVF

  21

  1

  22

  UFF

  5

  0

  5

  RHC

  1

  0

  1

  LVF

  4

  0

  4

  Terrorist Acts
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each month in 1998 and for each police division the number of(a) arson attacks and (b) other attacks causing damage to property owned by (i) each religious denomination in Northern Ireland, (ii) Orange halls, (iii) GAA, (iv) community halls and (v) AOH halls indicating the terrorist organisation to which the police attribute each attack; and in how many cases in each group the police have failed to make any attribution. [53672]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table illustrates the number of attacks on property in each police division during the period 1 January to 30 September 1998.

  Attacks on Orange Halls, Chapels, GAA/AOH Property

  Police Division

  Churches

  Chapels

  Orange Halls

  GAA/AOH

  A

  1

  —

  —

  —

  B

  5

  —

  1

  —

  D

  2

  1

  5

  —

  E

  2

  —

  —

  —

  G

  —

  1

  1

  —

  H

  1

  1

  4

  1

  J

  1

  3

  3

  —

  K

  2

  2

  5

  —

  L

  2

  —

  3

  —

  366

  Attacks on Orange Halls, Chapels, GAA/AOH Property

  Police Division

  Churches

  Chapels

  Orange Halls

  GAA/AOH

  N

  3

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  P

  1

  3

  3

  —

  Totals

  21

  12

  27

  2

  Note:

  The RUC normally make attribution for incidents to particular groups by taking into account the physical evidence available and/or intelligence information and/or claims of responsibility. Where attribution may be determined by any of these means, it is not RUC policy to make this known except where it is specifically in the public interest to do so, for example the Omagh bombing.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each month from January 1997 to the end of September 1998 for each RUC division the number of(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings, indicating the numbers attributed by the RUC to (1) the Provisional IRA, (2) the INLA, (3) CAC, (4) other Republican terrorist groups, (5) the UDA, (6) the UFF, (7) the UVF, (8) the LVF and (9) other Loyalist paramilitary organisations. [53673]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between 1 January 1997 and 30 September 1998 there were 263 paramilitary style assaults and 130 shootings, as set out in the tables.

  The RUC attribute these statistics generically to Loyalist and Republican groups. In some cases the police are unable to attribute individual attacks to a particular group. In the absence of a claim of responsibility, they can consider only the physical evidence available or intelligence information. Where attribution may be determined by any of these means, it is not RUC policy to make this known except where it is specifically in the public interest to do so.

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults 1 January 1997 to 30 September 1998—monthly breakdown

  1997

  1998(to 30 September)

  Month

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  January

  7

  12

  5

  3

  February

  12

  14

  7

  8

  March

  7

  11

  6

  3

  April

  5

  6

  6

  1

  May

  7

  4

  8

  3

  June

  2

  1

  8

  11

  July

  8

  5

  7

  7

  August

  4

  4

  11

  2

  September

  5

  7

  9

  2

  October

  6

  4

  —

  —

  November

  8

  7

  —

  —

  December

  7

  3

  —

  —

  Total

  78

  78

  67

  40

  Note:

  1998 statistics are subject to minor amendment in the light of further information becoming available.

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings 1 January 1997 to 30 September 1998—monthly breakdown

  1997

  1998 (to 30 September)

  Month

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  January

  8

  1

  5

  7

  February

  3

  —

  —

  4

  March

  8

  —

  1

  4

  April

  4

  1

  3

  4

  367

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings 1 January 1997 to 30 September 1998—monthly breakdown

  1997

  1998 (to 30 September)

  Month

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  May

  2

  1

  4

  1

  June

  6

  2

  4

  9

  July

  2

  11

  4

  1

  August

  5

  1

  4

  1

  September

  3

  1

  2

  —

  October

  1

  1

  —

  —

  November

  2

  2

  —

  —

  December

  2

  5

  —

  —

  Total

  46

  26

  27

  31

  Note:

  1998 statistics are subject to minor amendment in the light of further information becoming available.

  President Clinton
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of RUC Personnel and other associated overtime due to the visit of President Clinton to Northern Ireland in September. [56656]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC manpower costs associated with President Clinton's visit amounted to approximately £1.18 million, of which £475,000 related to RUC overtime.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October 1998. [58001]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bankruptcy Law
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to amend the law on bankruptcy; and if he will make a statement. [56179]

  Dr. Howells
  When parliamentary time permits it is intended to introduce legislation to extend the power given in Section 421 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to enable the revision of the Administration of Insolvent Estates of Deceased Persons Order 1996 as well as provisions touching on the liquidation of companies and the disqualification of directors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is developing proposals for a review of the scope for further change. The terms of this review will be announced in the Competitiveness White Paper.

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the Government's Opportunities bulletin list of(a) contract notices and (b) contract awards, what factors underlie the disparity in the numbers of (a) against; and (b) where a full list of contract awards can be found. [56934]
  368
  Mr. Mandelson
  Contract Notices published in the Official Journal of the European Community which are also published in Government Opportunities are required for all priority services and supplies where the estimated value is above £104,435 and for all works above £4,016,744. Contract award notices are required for all contracts issued as a result of these notices as well as for all residual services (which do not require a contract notice) where the value is in excess of £155,993. This accounts for the disparity in the number of contract notices and contract awards. There is no full central list of contract awards.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many civil servants, expressed in full-time equivalents, are employed in his Department on issues relating to his responsibilities for the New Millennium Experience Company and its activities. [57018]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: Policy responsibility for the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has remained with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Twelve officials within DCMS support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and me on issues relating to the Millennium celebrations including the Millennium Experience.

  Fraudulent Invention Promoters
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he plans to take in relation to the activities in the United Kingdom of fraudulent invention promoters. [57075]

  Dr. Howells
  I am aware of concerns about the commercial activities in the United Kingdom of companies which offer to develop and promote inventions internationally.

  However, I am not aware of any evidence that any company engaged in this type of business is acting fraudulently.

  Should any evidence be drawn to my attention I shall ask for it to be passed to those authorities responsible for investigating allegations of fraud.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the likely impact on British competitiveness of the Working Time Directive. [56912]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: An assessment of costs and benefits of the Working Time Directive was made, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Any cost of implementing the Regulations needs to be compared with the benefits of helping to combat stress and absenteeism by ensuring workers receive proper rest. The CBI estimate up to £25 billion was lost in 1996 due to absenteeism. This unregulated absenteeism can damage the productivity of the workforce and the competitiveness of British industry.
  369

  Football Televising
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Office of Fair Trading regarding the Restrictive Practices Court inquiry into the televising of Premiership football being held in January 1999. [57112]

  Dr. Howells
  None. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no role in the process of referral to the Restrictive Practices Court of agreements containing significant restrictions on competition. That is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. Nor does the Secretary of State have any role in decisions taken by the Court.

  Chile
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the number of British jobs dependent upon trade between the United Kingdom and Chile. [56570]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: UK trade in goods with Chile during 1997 totalled nearly £600,000. Both exports and imports were spread across a wide range of sectors, with machinery of various types heading UK exports and non-ferrous metals being Chile's main export. However, no figures are available showing the number of jobs in the UK dependent on trade with Chile.

  Latin America
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of which Latin American country his Department has appointed export promoters; and if he will list individually the total expenditure each incurred in the financial year 1997–98 and their individual budgets for the financial year 1998–99. [57027]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: My Department currently has appointed Export Promoters for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.

  The financial figures requested are as follows (rounded up):

  £

  1997–98 expenditure

  1998–99 budgets

  Argentina/Chile/Uruguay/Paraguay

  77,000

  62,000

  Brazil

  76,000

  140,000

  Mexico

  64,000

  67,000

  Peru

  nil

  42,000

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the budgets he has allocated in the financial year 1998–99 to each country under his Department's Link into Latin America trade programme. [57026]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: In 1998–99, the countries covered by the 'Link into Latin America' campaign have been allocated a total promotional budget of £780,000. This includes a budget of £440,000 for a targeted export initiative for Brazil, in the context of Mercosur, arising out of the recommendations of the 1997 Export Forum report. The remainder of the budget is spread
  370
  across multi-country events and other market specific activities. In addition, the Department provides support for activities such as trade missions to and overseas trade fairs in Latin America through a range of other more general schemes.

  Silver (Lion Mark)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, columns 1048–49, on silver, if imported silver will be permitted to be submitted to assay offices for the lion stamp; and what the legal and commercial status of the lion stamp will be. [57454]

  Dr. Howells
  It is proposed that, following amendment of the Hallmarking Act 1973, articles made of imported silver which are submitted to United Kingdom Assay Offices could be struck with the lion symbol. However, only those articles which met the same standards required of products made in the UK could be struck with the lion symbol or any of the other traditional pictorial symbols. The legal status of the lion symbol will remain unchanged in that it will continue to indicate a specific standard of fineness (sterling) for articles made of silver. Since the standards applicable to such articles will remain unchanged after the implementation of the amendments to the Act, I do not consider that the status of the lion symbol will be in any way diminished.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was first informed of the arrest of Senator Pinochet. [57431]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I read of the arrest of Senator Pinochet in the press on Saturday 17 October.

  Cash Limits
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes will be made to the cash and running costs limits for 1998–99 for(a) his Department, (b) the Office of Fair Trading, (c) the Office of Telecommunications and (d) the Office of Electricity Regulation. [58093]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates:(i) the cash limit for class V vote 1—Department of Trade and Industry: programmes and administration—will be increased by £18,683,000 from £1,268,190,000 to £1,286,873,000. This net increase results from:
  (a) the take up of running costs and capital end year flexibility (£18,830,000) as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36;
  (b) an adjustment of £303,000 in respect of capital charge adjustments incorrectly attributed to DTI, which should have been attributed to OFGAS (Class V Vote 9);
  offset by:
  (c) a transfer of £450,000 to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class VI Vote 5) to cover the costs of a new service in respect of the Health and Safety Executive's enforcement of the Working Time regulations and the capital requirements of the Government Offices.
  Within this total, the gross running costs limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be increased by £11,069,000 from £349,172,000 to £360,241,000. This change comprises the take up

  371
  of running costs end year flexibility and the adjustment to the running costs limit consequential on the re-attribution of the capital charges to OFGAS.
  The take up of the Department's running costs and the capital end year flexibility (£18,830,000) will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure;
  (ii) the cash limit for Class V Vote 2—Department of Trade and Industry: science—will be increased by £30,000,000 from £1,338,497,000 to £1,368,497,000. This net increase results from:
  (a) the partial take-up of capital end year flexibility (£5,000,000) as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36;
  (b) additional provision amounting to £25,000,000 covering the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council's subscription to CERN for work on the Large Hadron Collider Programme, the increase of student stipends from various Research Councils, contributions to the set-up costs of new programmes at the Medical Research Council, and increased provision for the Swindon Research Councils Pension Scheme.
  Both these increases will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure;
  (iii) the cash limit for Class V Vote 7—Office of Fair Trading— will be increased by £2,361,000 from £21,731,000 to £24,092,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £1,640,000 from £19,301,000 to £20,941,000. These changes reflect the extra resources required to meet commitments carried forward from 1997–98, to carry forward projects which were planned in previous years but not completed, and to undertake work on the new competition legislation. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure;
  (iv) the cash limit for Class V Vote 8—Office of Telecommunications—will be increased by a nominal £1,000 from £1,000 to £2,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £481,000 from £10,468,000 to £10,949,000. These changes, which include additional capital provision of £921,000, reflect the extra resources required to cover the cost of implementing the review of OFTEL's organisational structure and give effect to the end year flexibility carry forward of £139,000 on running costs announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 4 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36. Although there will be an offsetting increase of £1,401,000 in additional appropriations in aid, the token net increase of £1,000 will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure;
  (v) the cash limit for Class V Vote 10—the Office of Electricity Regulation—will be increased by £939,000 from £1,000 to £940,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £1,800,000 from £20,000,000 to £21,800,000. These increases reflect the additional resources required by the Director General of Electricity Supply for the engagement of consultants to assist in preparing for the review of electricity trading arrangements and for additional staff to strengthen regulatory capabilities as well as additional capital expenditure amounting to £244,000 for computer equipment for new staff and for projects connected with the review of electricity trading arrangements. Part of this increase will be offset by an additional £1,105,000 in appropriations in aid as a result of increased electricity licence fees. The balance of £939,000 will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Late Payment Directive
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the EU Directive on Late Payment will require revision to the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. [57541]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are working closely with the European Commission and other Member States to ensure that small businesses are paid promptly in both domestic and European markets.
  372
  The contents of the proposed EU Directive are still the subject of discussions between the European Parliament, the European Commission and Member States. Until these discussions are completed, it is not possible to predict what effect it will have on our own late payment legislation.

  Manchester United
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reference he has made to the Office of Fair Trading concerning BSkyB's bid for Manchester United; and if he will make a statement. [57514]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 29 October that he had decided, in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, to refer the proposed acquisition of Manchester United plc by British Sky Broadcasting Group plc to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received from(a) the public and (b) institutions concerning BSkyB's proposed takeover of Manchester United. [57516]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received some 200 representations and petitions concerning BSkyB's proposed acquisition of Manchester United. The great majority of these were from individual members of the public.

  Artists' Resale Rights
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on Droit de Suite for artists and writers. [57921]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are concerned that the Commission's proposal for a Directive to harmonise artists' resale right (droit de suite) could drive Europe's international art market offshore with the loss of thousands of jobs without bringing any significant benefit to artists. UK auctioneers and dealers, alone, stand to lose fees of up to £68 million per annum and up to 5,000 jobs. The Government, therefore, will continue robustly to oppose the proposal.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October 1998. [57990]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Shortly.

  Copyright
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to extend copyright to electronically stored information; and if he will make a statement. [57876]

  Dr. Howells
  United Kingdom copyright law (the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (1988 c. 48)) already includes material stored by electronic means. The UK is supporting work at EU and international level to
  373
  ensure that similar protection applies in other countries. The proposed EC Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society would establish this across the EU, and we are pressing for early agreement on this Directive.

  Mock Auctions
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to bring forward proposals to protect consumers who attend one-day sales and mock auctions. [57770]

  Dr. Howells
  The problems consumers experience at one-day sales and mock auctions are currently being investigated by this Department and the Office of Fair Trading in co-operation with the Trading Standards Organisations with a view to proposals being ready by the end of the year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Religious Persecution
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what provisions exist for the recording of the incidence of offences motivated by hostility based on the victim's membership of a religious group; [56840]

  (2) what guidance he has given to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service regarding assaults and other offences motivated by hostility based on the victim's membership of a religious group; [56839]

  (3) what is his assessment of the prevalence of assaults and other offences motivated by hostility based on the victim's membership of a religious group. [56838]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my right hon. Friend made clear during the report stage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, on 23 June 1998,Official Report, column 892, we believe that most—possibly almost all—cases of assault, and other offences, which appear to have a religious element will also have a racial element.

  Whilst there is no specific procedure for recording religiously motivated crime, the police, under the racial incidents monitoring scheme, will record any incident in which it appears to the investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any other person.

  The Code of Practice for Crown prosecutors states that, provided there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, there will be a public interest factor in favour of prosecution where the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim, including where the offence was motivated by discrimination against the victim's religious beliefs. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance to its staff on the racially aggravated offences contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Home Office guidance to the police on these offences also refers to religiously motivated crime. A copy of that guidance will be placed in the Library.
  374
  We undertook during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act to monitor the effectiveness of the racially aggravated offences. In addition, the Home Office is commissioning research into the nature and extent of religious discrimination in England and Wales.

  Asylum Seekers
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct his officials to cease to certify asylum claims under section 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, solely on the basis of the asylum seeker's country of origin. [56463]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We plan to abolish the "White List" provision when the opportunity for legislation arises but, in the meantime, we shall continue to operate it subject to due scrutiny of the circumstances of individual cases and the continuing review of conditions in the countries of origin of asylum seekers, as explained in paragraph 9.10 of the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" (Cm 4018).

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the European Parliament's proposal to change the European Convention protocol on asylum seekers to provide for temporary asylum. [57473]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government accept that there would be benefits in member states co-ordinating their response in the event of a future mass influx of displaced persons, but we have some concerns about the Commission's proposal. These concerns centre on its general inflexibility, and in particular the restrictions on member states acting differentially or independently while a particular regime is in force. These issues are still under discussion in the relevant European Union fora.

  Immigration
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to implement his policy, set out in the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer" towards people from abroad whose marriages break down within one year due to domestic violence. [56462]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The details of this concession are still being finalised. I shall make an announcement when this work has been completed.

  Police Dogs
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instigate measures to ensure the highest standards of welfare for police dogs under training. [56957]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am of course concerned that police dogs undergoing training should be provided with the highest standards of welfare and I am assured that this is provided in the majority of cases.

  All general-purpose police dogs should be trained along the lines set out in the Home Office Police Dog Training and Care Manual, which emphasises that training should be based on 'Praise and Reward'. The manual explains the need for self control on the part of the handler and stipulates that

  375
  'a handler should never resort to physical punishment in training the dog'.

  I understand that all police forces have access to an independent veterinary officer. Some forces have recently received visits from both the RSPCA and the National Canine Defence League, who were given full access to all training facilities.

  A number of forces entertain visitors to their premises, or hold open days, when visitors may see dogs being trained first hand.

  I am unable to comment on the court case involving police officers from Essex Police which is sub judice.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department has issued on action required under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 by(a) the police and (b) other authorities on domestic violence. [56953]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Act requires local authorities and the police to work together in partnership with other agencies and the community to conduct local crime and disorder audits, and to develop and implement strategies for reducing crime and disorder in their area.

  Domestic violence features significantly in a number of areas in England and Wales. We have therefore stressed in Home Office "Guidance on Statutory Crime and Disorder Partnerships", at paragraph 1.50, that we expect local crime and disorder partnerships to identify the level of domestic violence in their area and to develop and implement strategies for reducing it.

  The guidance points out that partnerships should work together with any existing inter-agency domestic violence forum in their area, and states that we expect both the police and local authorities to consider how to co-operate locally with interested parties.

  A copy of the guidance is in the Library, and it is also available on the Home Office website:http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cdact/index.htm.

  Fraudulent Invention Promoters
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action police fraud specialists are taking in respect of the activities in the United Kingdom of fraudulent invention promoters. [57076]

  Mr. Boateng
  Fraud is a criminal offence and the police investigate all complaints of this nature that are put to them.

  I am not aware of any inquiries currently being undertaken by central fraud squads into fraudulent invention promoters. Should evidence of criminal activity by such companies be drawn to the attention of the police, they will be Investigated fully.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policies the Prison Service has adopted with regard to the provision of facilities to assist disabled people to visit prisoners. [57335]
  376
  Mr. George Howarth
  The provision of facilities for visitors is the responsibility of each establishment. The Prison Service has advised governors that, in considering the facilities which should be made available locally, the conditions in which visits take place, and the treatment of visitors, are no less important than the number and length of visits. The specific facilities which are available to assist disabled people to visit prisoners throughout England and Wales are being reviewed as part of the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in accordance with the Government's implementation timetable.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many nationals of(a) Morocco, (b) Mozambique, (c) Nepal, (d) Pakistan, (e) Peru, (f) the Philippines and (g) Romania applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57322]

  (2) how many nationals of (a) the Dominican Republic, (b) Ecuador, (c) Egypt, (d) Eritrea, (e) Fiji, (f) Gabon, (g) the Gambia and (h) Ethiopia applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57326]

  (3) how many nationals of (a) Iraq, (b) Ivory Coast, (c) Jordan, (d) Kenya, (e) Kuwait, (f) Laos and (g) Lebanon applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57324]

  (4) how many nationals of (a) Georgia, (b) Ghana, (c) Guyana, (d) Haiti, (e) India, (f) Indonesia and (g) Iran applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57325]

  (5) how many nationals of (a) Afghanistan, (b) Albania, (c) Algeria, (d) Angola, (e) Armenia, (f) Azerbaijan and (g) Bahrain applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996

  377
  and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57330]

  (6) how many Zambian nationals applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to Zambia before their visa expired in (a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996 and (d) 1997; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57083]

  (7) how many nationals of (a) Liberia, (b) Libya, (c) Macedonia, (d) Madagascar, (e) the Maldives, (f) Moldova and (g) Mongolia applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57323]

  (8) how many nationals of (a) the Sudan, (b) Syria, (c) Taiwan, (d) Tanzania, (e) Thailand, (f) Tunisia and (g) Turkey applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57320]

  (9) how many nationals of (a) Russia, (b) Rwanda, (c) Saudi Arabia, (d) Senegal, (e) Sierra Leone, (f) Somalia and (g) Sri Lanka applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57321]

  (10) how many nationals of (a) Cameroon, (b) the Central African Republic, (c) Chad, (d) China, (e) Columbia, (f) the Congo and (g) Djibouti applied

  Table 1

  Applications for entry clearance for temporary purposes, and numbers issued 1994–1997

  Country of Application

  Applications received

  Entry clearances issued

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Algeria

  6,630

  2,430

  2,450

  2,660

  6,100

  2,430

  2,450

  2,660

  Angola

  1,140

  1,250

  1,380

  1,490

  1,080

  1,170

  1,230

  1,360

  Armenia

  1—

  1—

  240

  670

  1—

  1—

  230

  630

  Azerbaijan

  580

  1,130

  1,620

  2,350

  2—

  1,120

  1,390

  2,340

  Bahrain

  4,000

  4,280

  14,110

  13,220

  3,900

  4,190

  14,060

  13,130

  Bangladesh

  15,690

  14,220

  13,810

  13,120

  11,240

  9,680

  9,940

  9,460

  Belarus

  1—

  1,720

  6,770

  7,520

  1—

  1,640

  6,560

  7,280

  Bulgaria

  10,260

  12,590

  13,230

  14,780

  9,950

  12,230

  12,230

  13,890

  378
  for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57327]

  (11) how many nationals of (a) Bangladesh, (b) Belarus, (c) Benin, (d) Bhutan, (e) Bulgaria, (f) Burundi and (g) Cambodia applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum; [57328]

  (12) how many nationals of (a) Yugoslavia, (b) Ukraine, (c) Vietnam and (d) Yemen applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of those visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired, based on information collected centrally and locally; and how many applied to remain permanently in the United Kingdom or for political asylum. [57319]

  Kate Hoey
  The available information is given in the tables.

  Entry clearance data are available by country of application only, which is not necessarily the country of the applicant's nationality. There were no entry clearance issuing posts in Afghanistan, Albania, Benin, Bhutan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Gabon, Haiti, Iraq, Laos, Liberia, Maldives, Moldova, Rwanda or Somalia in 1994–1997 and residents of those countries have to apply elsewhere.

  No data are available on the numbers of persons who return to their country of nationality before their leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom expires.

  Information is not available on the number of holders of visas for temporary purposes who apply for asylum or for settlement. The information in Table 2 on grants of settlement includes persons who entered the United Kingdom with a settlement entry clearance; and the data on asylum applications include persons who held no entry clearance.
  379

  Table 1

  Applications for entry clearance for temporary purposes, and numbers issued 1994–1997

  Country of Application

  Applications received

  Entry clearances issued

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Cambodia

  1—

  30

  60

  1—

  1—

  30

  60

  —1

  Cameroon

  1,030

  1,420

  1,440

  1,740

  860

  1,130

  1,180

  1,460

  China

  20,420

  22,370

  28,370

  33,300

  20,020

  20,280

  26,350

  28,040

  Colombia

  140

  120

  200

  14,640

  140

  120

  190

  14,200

  Congo Dem. Rep. (formerly Zaire)

  610

  610

  950

  670

  440

  480

  800

  510

  Dominican Rep.

  1—

  1—

  1—

  420

  1—

  1—

  1—

  380

  Ecuador

  180

  160

  130

  1,660

  170

  140

  110

  1,440

  Egypt

  23,640

  25,200

  30,110

  28,690

  22,260

  24,080

  28,500

  26,980

  Ethiopia

  4,490

  3,930

  4,870

  4,990

  2,890

  2,950

  4,510

  4,590

  Fiji

  260

  220

  740

  730

  260

  220

  740

  710

  Gambia

  700

  1,150

  2,770

  2,960

  640

  1,000

  2,200

  2,230

  Georgia

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,470

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,440

  Ghana

  15,960

  17,490

  18,830

  18,470

  11,550

  12,270

  13,140

  13,760

  Guyana

  290

  310

  1,430

  1,530

  290

  220

  1,220

  1,330

  India

  102,790

  115,280

  126,810

  133,980

  92,300

  103,340

  113,460

  120,910

  Indonesia

  25,980

  29,020

  31,870

  31,890

  25,910

  28,760

  29,930

  30,070

  Iran

  23,670

  22,930

  18,550

  20,390

  21,010

  18,130

  14,140

  15,440

  Ivory Coast

  1,140

  1,860

  1,850

  2,030

  840

  1,360

  1,550

  1,710

  Jordan

  8,900

  9,640

  10,300

  9,490

  8,770

  8,830

  10,080

  8,660

  Kenya

  2,270

  2,750

  18,440

  17,420

  2,100

  2,050

  17,260

  16,280

  Kuwait

  8,140

  8,310

  42,630

  40,440

  7,310

  7,020

  39,580

  38,430

  Lebanon

  10,790

  11,020

  7,880

  7,930

  9,740

  10,620

  7,340

  7,480

  Libya

  890

  580

  280

  580

  760

  570

  250

  750

  Macedonia

  50

  160

  260

  260

  2—

  160

  260

  260

  Madagascar

  290

  290

  280

  320

  290

  280

  280

  320

  Mongolia

  500

  640

  550

  580

  450

  510

  460

  570

  Morocco

  6,180

  7,530

  7,970

  7,010

  5,180

  6,520

  6,910

  5,930

  Mozambique

  550

  540

  530

  640

  540

  540

  520

  620

  Nepal

  1,760

  2,120

  2,400

  3,060

  1,480

  1,870

  1,880

  2,620

  Pakistan

  63,290

  63,940

  59,230

  50,070

  47,850

  45,520

  42,130

  37,120

  Peru

  250

  170

  2,930

  3,350

  230

  170

  2,870

  3,260

  Philippines

  13,290

  16,460

  19,680

  20,390

  12,380

  14,580

  17,600

  18,690

  Romania

  14,360

  16,550

  21,120

  18,700

  13,200

  15,820

  20,060

  17,170

  Russia

  103,150

  113,490

  118,730

  108,160

  100,460

  102,940

  109,150

  104,820

  Saudi Arabia

  50,430

  52,910

  51,430

  55,400

  47,700

  49,150

  48,750

  53,060

  Senegal

  840

  910

  980

  1,380

  640

  820

  860

  1,160

  Sierra Leone

  1,480

  3,210

  2,430

  590

  1,060

  2,260

  1,960

  460

  Sri Lanka

  9,620

  10,050

  11,340

  11,780

  7,420

  8,680

  10,370

  11,200

  Sudan

  4,970

  4,560

  3,920

  3,350

  3,320

  3,630

  3,130

  2,730

  Syria

  5,100

  5,290

  5,500

  5,730

  4,690

  4,680

  4,980

  5,210

  Taiwan

  52,380

  53,520

  53,080

  50,130

  52,380

  53,520

  53,080

  50,180

  Tanzania

  780

  760

  6,920

  6,870

  650

  680

  6,390

  6,500

  Thailand

  45,270

  50,690

  51,780

  41,850

  44,350

  49,860

  50,250

  39,280

  Tunisia

  6,040

  7,860

  7,800

  7,180

  5,620

  6,600

  4,870

  5,390

  Turkey

  41,480

  50,200

  64,760

  64,140

  37,150

  45,900

  59,850

  57,080

  Ukraine

  16,530

  18,830

  23,640

  22,380

  14,530

  16,690

  21,590

  19,540

  Vietnam

  620

  1,040

  1,230

  1,180

  580

  830

  1,150

  1,250

  Yemen

  3,220

  4,770

  3,200

  3,700

  2,820

  3,600

  2,440

  3,220

  Yugoslavia

  3,210

  10,320

  13,790

  13,550

  2,930

  9,420

  12,970

  12,740

  Zambia

  1,280

  1,130

  3,860

  4,010

  1,160

  1,030

  3,620

  3,730

  1 Not available

  2 Not applicable—no entry clearance facilities available in that country

  Table 2

  Grants of settlement and applications for asylum 1994–1997

  Nationality

  Grants of settlement1,2,3

  Applications4 for asylum

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Afghanistan

  60

  90

  170

  325

  580

  675

  1,085

  Albania

  10

  10

  20

  30

  9—

  9—

  105

  445

  Algeria

  400

  440

  400

  370

  995

  1,865

  715

  715

  Angola

  30

  40

  30

  60

  605

  555

  385

  195

  Armenia5

  3—

  10—

  3—

  3—

  9—

  2—

  5

  35

  Azerbaijan5

  10—

  10—

  3—

  3—

  9—

  9—

  *

  15

  Bahrain

  10

  20

  20

  30

  9—

  9—

  10

  5

  Bangladesh

  2,960

  3,250

  2,690

  2,820

  9—

  9—

  645

  545

  Belarus5

  3—

  3—

  10

  10

  9—

  9—

  *

  35

  Benin

  10

  10

  10

  10

  9—

  9—

  5

  5

  380

  381

  Table 2

  Grants of settlement and applications for asylum 1994–1997

  Natonality

  Grants of settlement1,2,3

  Applications4 for asylum

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Bhutan

  3—

  10—

  3—

  3—

  9—

  9—

  5

  10

  Bulgaria

  100

  140

  200

  160

  235

  480

  305

  545

  Burundi

  3—

  10—

  10—

  10—

  9—

  9—

  60

  85

  Cambodia

  3—

  3—

  10

  3—

  9—

  9—

  *

  *

  Cameroon

  60

  70

  90

  80

  75

  85

  105

  175

  Central African Rep.

  10—

  10—

  10—

  3—

  9—

  9—

  *

  9—

  Chad

  10—

  10—

  10—

  10—

  9—

  9—

  *

  5

  China

  930

  1,060

  1,120

  1,140

  425

  790

  820

  1,945

  Colombia

  260

  280

  260

  230

  405

  525

  1,005

  1,330

  Congo

  3—

  10—

  3—

  3—

  9—

  9—

  75

  90

  Congo Dem. Rep. (formerly Zaire)

  70

  120

  90

  90

  775

  935

  680

  690

  Djibouti

  20

  20

  3—

  3—

  9—

  9—

  5

  *

  Dominican Rep.

  30

  30

  30

  30

  9—

  9—

  435

  1,205

  Ecuador

  30

  40

  30

  40

  9—

  9—

  435

  1,205

  Egypt

  290

  270

  320

  320

  9—

  9—

  20

  40

  Eritrea

  10—

  3—

  10

  20

  9—

  9—

  135

  125

  Ethiopia

  310

  170

  130

  200

  730

  585

  205

  145

  Fiji

  20

  30

  30

  20

  9—

  9—

  10—

  10—

  Gabon

  3—

  3—

  10

  3—

  9—

  9—

  *

  5

  Gambia

  60

  100

  110

  90

  9—

  9—

  245

  125

  Georgia5

  10—

  3—

  10

  20

  9—

  9—

  5

  30

  Ghana

  1,490

  1,690

  1,840

  1,180

  2,035

  1,915

  780

  350

  Guyana

  190

  170

  180

  160

  9—

  9—

  15

  5

  Haiti

  10—

  10—

  3—

  3—

  9—

  9—

  10—

  10—

  India

  4,400

  4,550

  4,320

  4,270

  2,030

  3,255

  2,220

  1,285

  Indonesia

  90

  90

  90

  80

  9—

  9—

  *

  5

  Iran

  990

  1,110

  1,700

  1,040

  520

  615

  585

  585

  Iraq

  570

  530

  1,560

  1,600

  550

  930

  965

  1,075

  Ivory Coast

  20

  40

  40

  30

  705

  245

  125

  70

  Jordan

  160

  150

  110

  150

  9—

  9—

  25

  15

  Kenya

  480

  460

  540

  430

  1,130

  1,395

  1,170

  605

  Kuwait

  10

  30

  20

  40

  9—

  9—

  25

  25

  Laos

  10—

  10—

  10—

  10—

  9—

  9—

  10—

  10—

  Lebanon

  280

  400

  660

  630

  215

  150

  145

  160

  Liberia

  20

  10

  20

  60

  140

  390

  330

  205

  Libya

  120

  70

  110

  120

  9—

  9—

  65

  100

  Macedonia

  3—

  10

  20

  20

  9—

  9—

  15

  20

  Madagascar

  3—

  10

  3—

  10

  9—

  9—

  5

  5

  Maldives

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  9—

  9—

  10—

  10—

  Moldova5

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  9—

  9—

  *

  20

  Mongolia

  10—

  10—

  3—

  3—

  9—

  9—

  15

  25

  Morocco

  500

  430

  460

  400

  9—

  9—

  5

  10—

  Mozambique

  10

  20

  10

  10

  9—

  9—

  5

  10—

  Nepal

  40

  60

  50

  60

  9—

  9—

  70

  55

  Pakistan

  6,140

  6,220

  6,170

  5,480

  1,810

  2,915

  1,915

  1,615

  Peru

  100

  100

  80

  110

  9—

  9—

  25

  15

  Philippines

  790

  980

  920

  810

  9—

  9—

  125

  65

  Romania

  120

  190

  270

  220

  355

  770

  455

  605

  Russia5

  140

  310

  410

  470

  595

  795

  205

  180

  Rwanda6

  3—

  10

  3—

  3—

  80

  155

  80

  90

  Saudi Arabia

  60

  40

  40

  30

  9—

  9—

  5

  5

  Senegal

  10

  10

  30

  10

  9—

  9—

  15

  5

  Sierra Leone

  410

  430

  550

  450

  1,810

  855

  395

  815

  Somalia

  1,290

  650

  640

  920

  1,840

  3,465

  1,780

  2,730

  Sri Lanka

  1,810

  1,340

  2,120

  1,540

  2,350

  2,070

  1,340

  1,830

  Sudan

  140

  150

  360

  2,180

  330

  345

  280

  230

  Syria

  70

  100

  110

  120

  9—

  9—

  35

  50

  Taiwan

  20

  40

  60

  80

  9—

  9—

  10—

  5

  Tanzania7

  180

  230

  210

  140

  165

  1,535

  225

  90

  Thailand

  480

  460

  500

  420

  9—

  9—

  15

  25

  Tunisia

  100

  80

  90

  70

  9—

  9—

  25

  20

  Turkey

  1,850

  1,140

  3,710

  4,210

  2,045

  1,820

  1,495

  1,445

  Ukraine5

  20

  40

  80

  100

  9—

  9—

  235

  490

  Vietnam

  30

  30

  30

  50

  9—

  9—

  10

  10

  382

  383

  Table 2

  Grants of settlement and applications for asylum 1994–1997

  Nationality

  Grants of settlement1,2,3

  Applications4for asylum

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Yemen

  170

  150

  150

  110

  9—

  9—

  60

  35

  Yugoslavia8

  370

  420

  440

  330

  1,385

  1,565

  1,030

  2,260

  Zambia

  150

  190

  220

  180

  9—

  9—

  30

  30

  1 Excluding grants of settlement on arrival

  2 All settlement data are rounded to three significant figures or to the nearest 10 if less than 1,000

  3 Negligible (i.e. five or fewer)

  4 Figures are rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2, and exclude dependants

  5 Identified as Total Former Soviet Union until July 1996 when the individual countries became separately identifiable

  6 Data for 1994 are from September onwards

  7 Data for 1994 are for May to December only

  8 Data are for the Total Former Yugoslavia

  9 Not available

  10 Nil

  Immigration Holding Centres
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what submissions he has made to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions on the working of UK immigration holding centres. [57187]

  Kate Hoey
  No submissions were made. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited the United Kingdom during the week commencing 21 September 1998 to find out more about the United Kingdom's policy and practice on the detention of asylum seekers. The Group will report back to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights next spring. It is the Government's policy to co-operate fully with all of the Commission on Human Rights' independent monitoring mechanisms.

  Pit Ponies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the use of pit ponies in the UK. [57160]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Department has received a letter and petition from the Fforest Uchaf Horse and Pony Rehabilitation Centre. A reply was sent by my officials on 30 October 1998.

  The Coal and Other Mines (Horses) Regulations 1956 set out the requirements about the use of horses and ponies in mines. The Mines Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, which is responsible for enforcing the legislation, say that they have found no evidence of the maltreatment of any horses and ponies used in mines.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Fire Component)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken and what progress has been made by his Department in addressing the concerns of fire authorities about the aspect of the fire calls element of the standard spending assessment known as the perverse incentive. [57046]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The fire service standard spending assessment formula has been considered each year by a Standard Spending Assessment Sub-group, chaired by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The local authority representatives on 384
  the Sub-group have not themselves this year initiated any proposals for changes to the indicator for fire, false alarm and certain special service calls in the fire service formula. However, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have put forward options which would amend the basis of calculation and thereby reduce the volatility of the indicator. Decisions on the formula for 1999–2000 will be announced later this year.

  We are committed to a fair distribution of grants to local authorities. This is why the Government are, in partnership with local government, establishing a three year programme of research to examine whether there is a better way of determining the distribution of revenue support grant than the present arrangement for standard spending assessments.

  UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for Her Majesty's Government to accede to the First Optional Protocol to the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [57410]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government announced on 3 July 1997,Official Report, column 221, that they intended to review the United Kingdom's position under various international instruments. This includes whether to accept the right of individuals to submit complaints to the United Nations Human Rights Committee under the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We expect the review to be completed by the end of the year.

  Mohammed Rasul Khan
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the application for leave to remain by Mohammed Rasul Khan, reference K350692, will be determined. [57309]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The application, which was received on 12 October and validated on 28 October, has been considered and officials will shortly be writing to Mr. Khan saying that it has been granted.
  385

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children aged 15 years or below are currently being held in prison. [57637]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Provisional information shows that there were 203 persons aged 15 years in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 September 1998.

  On that date, there were also 44 young people held under a secure training order—a sentence for persistent offenders aged 12–14 years on conviction—who serve the custodial part of their sentence in a secure training centre or in local authority secure accommodation but not in Prison Service establishments.

  Other persons aged under 15 years are remanded to local authority accommodation. Information about these is published in a Department of Health publication entitled "Children accommodated in secure units" (reference A/F 97/21). This information is presented on a financial year basis, with the last report covering the year ending 31 March 1997.

  Parenting Orders
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements his Department has made to monitor the effect of parenting orders. [57638]

  Mr. Boateng
  Pilot schemes have been set up in nine different areas. These were announced on 3 June 1998,Official Report, column 219.

  The pilots will help to identify good practice in implementing a number of the new youth justice measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, including the parenting order. The pilots began on 30 September and will run for 18 months.

  The pilot schemes are being evaluated by a team of researchers form Sheffield University. The evaluation will provide information about the use of the parenting order, the outcomes of the order and practice in delivering and supervising the order.

  Development Land (Sale)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Metropolitan Police's procedures are in respect of local consultation when proposing to sell open land for development. [57545]

  Kate Hoey
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that, like other land owners, he looks to planning procedures to provide appropriate local consultation for the development of land that he intends to sell.
  386

  Metropolitan Police (Land Sale, Wanstead)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure(a) that the Metropolitan Police consult local residents about their proposed sale of land in Wanstead and (b) that the land remains open land. [57546]

  Kate Hoey
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that the Metropolitan Police are disposing of the land at 23–30 Wanstead High Street, not developing it. As such, it is for the new owners of the land to undertake any appropriate local consultation for their planned development.

  Although there has been no formal consultation with local residents, representatives of the Metropolitan Police met a delegation of local residents in August who were protesting about the proposed sale of the land, which is an enclosed site where two houses have been demolished. They explained the reasons for selling the site, and listened to the residents' concerns. A local public inquiry, into the application for a mixed development of shops and flats, is due to be held on 1 December this year, when a planning inspector will hear objections, from local residents and others, before making a recommendation to the Secretary of State.

  The use to which the land is put, including making it an open public space, will throughout be subject to planning permission.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 21 September on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Biswas. [57527]

  Kate Hoey
  The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), wrote to the right hon. Member on 30 October 1998.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), of 10 August on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Patrick. [57538]

  Kate Hoey
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replied to the right hon. Member on 28 October 1998. He regrets the delay in doing so.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 19 August, on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Davidson. [57537]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to respond to the right hon. Member shortly.
  387

  Obscene Publications
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of legislation relating to obscene publications. [56096]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Obscene Publications Act 1959, as amended, has shown itself capable of reflecting changing standards and of adapting to developments in technology. The Government are determined to ensure that the criminal law is effective in protecting people from harmful material and, with this in mind, keep the legislation under review.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, for publishing obscene literature, in the last year for which figures are available. [56098]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provisional data for 1997 show that 189 offenders were convicted in England and Wales under section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 as amended by section 1(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1964. Information on the type of obscene matter (book, magazine, Internet etc.) used for such an offence is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prevent obscene publications from reaching young people. [56099]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are determined to protect young people from potentially obscene material by ensuring the effectiveness of the existing law.

  All publications—including material available via the Internet—are subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which makes it a criminal offence to publish an obscene article; that is, an article which in the view of the court has a tendency to 'deprave and corrupt' those likely to read, see or hear it. In the first instance, it is the responsibility of the police to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation, and that of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to prosecute those alleged to be responsible for the publication.

  In respect of material which is not potentially obscene but which may, nevertheless, be unsuitable for young people, the Government support non-statutory schemes, such as the voluntary Code of Practice under which newsagents refuse to sell 'adult' magazines to persons under the age of 18, and the Teenage Magazine Arbitration Panel which oversees a binding set of guidelines on how editors of teenage magazines should deal with sexual matters.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the police in investigating the publication of obscene literature. [56100]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, it is the responsibility of the police in individual 388
  cases to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation, and that of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to prosecute those alleged to be responsible for the publication.

  Under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the police are also granted certain powers of search and seizure with respect to obscene articles.

  Three police forces have units dedicated to the investigation of obscene publications: the Metropolitan Police Service; Greater Manchester police; and West Midlands police. These units investigate the production and distribution of pornography, including pornography on the Internet, supervise licensed and unlicensed sex shops, supervise divisional obscene publication cases and provide advice in relation to obscene publication matters to other forces. Police operations are increasingly targeting mail order and duplicating premises in order to tackle the problem at source.

  Children's Literature (Classification)
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a body to classify the suitability of literature for children in the same way as films are classified. [56097]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government recognise the importance of protecting children from unsuitable material. The criminal law, booksellers, publishers and parents all have a part to play. The criminal law, through legislation such as the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955, protects children from material which is likely to deprave or corrupt them. Responsible booksellers generally place children's books in a designated area within the store, thus reducing the possibility that children—or their carers—would seek to purchase age-unsuitable material. In addition, publishers of teenage magazines have developed a binding set of guidelines dealing with the portrayal of sexual matters. It is also a responsibility of parents to guide their children's reading and to guard against their exposure to unsuitable material.

  The Government believe that this offers the best approach and that the establishment of a body to classify works of literature would be likely to pose immense practical problems, given the number of such works which are available and which are produced each year.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1998–99 cash and running costs limits within his responsibilities. [58109]

  Mr. Straw
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary token Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class VII, Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) will be reduced by £2,588,000 from £4,836,378,000 to £4,833,351,000 and the running costs limit inside the control total will be increased by £3,981,000 from £1,883,450,000 to £1,887,431,000.
  389
  The changes in the cash limit are the net effect of the following transfers: £193,000 from the Cabinet Office, Class XVIII, Vote 2 in relation to Communications Electronics Security Group charges; £1,153,000 to the Crown Prosecution Service, Class VIII, Vote 4 and £1,648,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department Class VIII, Vote 1 in respect of costs relating to the Crime and Disorder Act; £14,000 to the Scottish Office, Class XIII, Vote 5 and £4,000 to the Northern Ireland Office, Class XV, Vote 1 in respect of the European Year Against Racism. The Supplementary Estimate will also cover transfer of responsibility for the Freedom of Information Unit from the Cabinet Office, Class XVII, Vote 1.

  The increase in the running costs limit is the net effect of payments of £3,500,000 from the Metropolitan Police, £442,000 from the Cabinet Office, £95,000 from the Welsh Office for information services and from the Northern Ireland Office for legal services and £39,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  The increases will be offset by transfers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Persistent Young Offenders
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) those dealt with by the youth court and (b) all juvenile offenders fall within the definition of persistent young offenders. [57512]

  Mr. Boateng
  Specific figures are not available for the number of persistent young offenders dealt with in the youth court. However, in 1997 in England and Wales a total of 79,151 persons (provisional figures) aged 10 to 17 were found guilty of offences in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court combined—including the youth court. Also, an exercise carried out in 1997 to establish the average length of time taken to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence identified a total of 16,090 occasions on which persistent young offenders were dealt with. Taken together, these figures, which are on a broadly comparable basis, suggest that persistent young offenders account for 20 per cent. of occasions on which young offenders were dealt with by the courts in 1997.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the basis and methodology of the calculation of the benchmark figure of 142 days, against which progress to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders will be measured; what progress has been made to date; and what definition will apply of persistent young offenders. [57513]

  Mr. Boateng
  The calculation for the baseline figure of 142 was based on a representative sample of almost 1,500 occasions during 1996, at which slightly over 900 persistent young offenders were sentenced for almost 4,500 offences across England and Wales. The dates on which the sampled persistent young offenders were sentenced were obtained from the Police National Computer, Phoenix. Because Phoenix does not generally hold information on arrest dates, arrest dates were 390
  surveyed directly from police forces. For offences where there was no arrest, dates of laying of information were collected instead. The arrest to sentence time for each occasion on which a persistent young offender was sentenced was then calculated as follows. The date of arrest for the sentencing occasion was defined as the earliest date of arrest (or date of laying information where there was no arrest) related to the offences for which a sentence was passed. The time from arrest to sentence is then the difference (in calendar days) between the date of sentence and the date of arrest. The national baseline was calculated as the mean arrest to sentence time for the sampled sentencing occasions.

  The data for 1997 show signs of improvement. The annual figure for 1997 as a whole shows a reduction to 141 days, while improvements from 1 May 1997 reduced the average time to 138 days. To monitor progress towards the pledge the Government have put systems in place to produce regular data on the time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders. These will produce usable data from late 1999.

  The Government have asked all youth courts to set up fast-tracking schemes for persistent young offenders, and last month set demanding performance targets for all stages up to and after trial. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will also enable statutory time limits to be set in cases involving young offenders.

  A persistent young offender is defined as a young person who has been sentenced on three or more separate occasions by any criminal court in the United Kingdom for one or more recordable offences, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against him for a further recordable offence.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October. [57995]

  Mr. Straw
  Shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate his Department has made of the total level of fraud in the payment of incapacity benefit; [55936]

  (2) how much fraud has been detected in the payment of incapacity benefit in each of the last three years. [55942]

  Mr. Denham
  Tackling fraud and abuse is a top priority for the Government. Operational issues are the responsibility of Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  391
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gordon Marsden, dated 28 October 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the total level of fraud in the payment of Incapacity Benefit (IB) and how much fraud has been detected in the payment of IB in each of the last three years.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Benefits Agency's (BA's) Benefit Review Programme aims to estimate how much benefit is being paid incorrectly, including fraud and establish causes of incorrect payments. To date Benefit Reviews have been carried out on Income Support (twice), Unemployment Benefit, Housing Benefit (twice), Retirement Pension, Invalid Care Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Child Benefit/Child Benefit (Lone Parent), but not on IB. Consequently, no formal assessment of the level of fraud in IB is currently available.
  Information about the amount of fraud detected in individual benefits has only been separately collected since April 1997. In 1997–98 the BA saved a total of £1,918 million as a result of anti-fraud activity. Savings to IB comprised £7.4 million (or 0.4%) of this total figure.
  However, there is a difference in the level of fraud detected by investigative work and the level of fraud estimated by the Benefit Review programme. Benefit Reviews estimate the total amount of incorrectness, including fraud, within a particular benefit. A random, but statistically valid, sample of customers is selected and a review of their circumstances is carried out. Therefore, whilst savings figures from investigations demonstrate what fraud has actually been detected, Benefit Reviews estimate the levels of fraud and incorrectness in the benefits reviewed.
  The BA is undertaking a range of projects and initiatives all of which are designed to achieve a sustained reduction in the level of fraud across the benefit system. The Government's recent Green Paper "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: Securing the Future" sets out a comprehensive strategy for tackling fraud in the wider context of welfare reform.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who are currently waiting to attend an incapacity benefit appeal tribunal in the West Midlands have been waiting(a) one month, (b) two months, (c) three months and (d) six months and over. [57058]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, at the end of June 1998, the number of people waiting to attend an Incapacity Benefit Appeal Tribunal lodged with the Birmingham local office of The Independent Tribunal Service, totalled 2,498. Of these, 213 have been waiting less than one month, 870 between one and three months, 540 between three and six months and 875 over six months.

  Source:
  Appeals—Data supplied by Analytical Services Division (ASD) from the Independent Tribunal Service Generic Appeals Processing System.

  Pensions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of equalising retirement benefits for United Kingdom state pensioners resident in other countries. [55802]
  392
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners, with United Kingdom pension rights, living abroad have had their pensions frozen; and if he will estimate the cost of upgrading these pensions. [56227]

  Mr. Denham
  Around 450,000 pensioners living abroad receive a basic UK State Pension which is frozen, either at the rate paid on leaving the UK or, if already living abroad, at the rate when first awarded.

  The total annual cost of uprating frozen UK basic State Pensions paid overseas to the rate paid to pensioners resident in the UK would be £275 million.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Pensions Review will examine the pension claims of those pensioners living abroad. [56228]

  Mr. Denham
  The Pensions Review has received a number of representations from pensioners and organisations representing pensioners who live in countries where basic UK pension rates are not uprated in line with pensions paid in the UK.

  As there are competing demands and constraints on Social Security spending in the United Kingdom, it would be wrong to raise expectations that uprating UK pensions paid abroad is likely to attract priority in the current circumstances.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners with United Kingdom pension rights are currently living abroad. [56230]

  Mr. Denham
  Around 840,000 pensioners living abroad receive a United Kingdom basic State Pension.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 25, on pensioner incomes, by what means hon. Members may obtain statistical information on the incomes of pensioners prior to 1979. [57660]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department's Pensioners' Incomes Series datasets start with 1979. Consistent datasets for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department does hold a copy of the Households Below Average Income 1961 to 1991 dataset created by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It has not been used to analyse pensioners incomes. It is Government Statistical Service practice to use only datasets created within Government Departments or under the direction of Government analysts for answering questions that require fresh analysis.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the date of publication of the Pensions Review. [56229]

  Mr. Denham
  As set out in the Green Paper "New Ambitions for our country: A New Contract for Welfare" (Cm 3805), we will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year. There will then be a period of further consultation before final proposals are developed.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many asylum seekers are currently claiming
  393
  benefit in the United Kingdom; from which countries they came; and how much benefit they are being paid each month. [55872]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table. There is an overlap in the figures provided as most claimants receive both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Numbers and average monthly amounts of benefit paid to an asylum seeker in May 1997

  Benefit

  Number of recipients

  Average monthly amount of benefit(£)

  Income Support

  45,000

  255.90

  Housing Benefit

  36,000

  356.90

  Council Tax Benefit

  21,000

  42.00

  Notes:

  1. The number of recipients are rounded to the nearest thousand; average amounts to the nearest 10 pence.

  2. The average monthly amount of benefit is calculated by multiplying the average weekly amount by 52 and dividing by 12.

  3. Asylum seekers cannot be distinguished from other urgent case payments.

  4. Information refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  5. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit figures relate only to those claimants also in receipt of Income Support.

  6. A later approximate figure of 42,000 asylum seekers claiming Income Support is available, from the February 1998 QSE. However, the May 1997 figure has been used in table to ensure the data are comparable with the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit data.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, 5 per cent. sample, May 1997.

  2. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample of claimants also in receipt of Income Support, May 1997.

  A breakdown of asylum seekers currently claiming benefit by country of origin is not available. However,

  Appeals heard and decided in 1995 (last six months only)

  All appeals

  Decided in appellants' favour

  Total

  Oral

  Proportion without oral

  Total

  Oral

  Paper

  Incapacity Benefit(IB)(All Work Test (AWT))

  3,038

  n/a

  n/a

  1,471

  n/a

  n/a

  IB AWT proportion of All IB 89.5%

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AWT (not IB)1

  578

  n/a

  n/a

  219

  n/a

  n/a

  AWT (not IB)1 proportion of All Income Support/Severe Disablement Allowance

  1.3%

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Appeals heard and decided in1996

  All appeals

  Decided in appellants' favour

  Total

  Oral

  Proportion without oral

  Total

  Oral

  Paper

  Incapacity Benefit (IB) (All Work Test (AWT))

  38,473

  n/a

  n/a

  18,026

  n/a

  n/a

  IB AWT proportion of All IB

  92.5%

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AWT (not IB)1

  9,574

  n/a

  n/a

  3,509

  n/a

  n/a

  AWT (not IB)1 proportion of All Income Support/Severe Disablement Allowance

  20.6%

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  394
  copies of the Home Office monthly asylum statistics and Home Office Statistical Bulletins, which show the rate of asylum applications by country, are placed in the Library.

  Policy Proposals (Quality of Life)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what methods of measurements and from what base lines his Department employs in assessing the quality of life implications of policy proposals; and how these were selected. [55769]

  Mr. Denham
  This Department uses a range of measures to assess policy proposals and their implications for both customers and staff. The methods of measurement and base lines are selected as appropriate in the context, and in accordance with relevant guidance from HM Treasury and other Government Departments. Most social research projects commissioned by the Department are concerned, directly or indirectly, with collecting data on quality of life. Examples include routine monitoring through customer satisfaction surveys and the Family Resources Survey, as well as specific evaluations of national programmes and pilot studies to test new initiatives.

  Benefit Appeals
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals relating to(a) incapacity benefits, (b) income support and (c) severe disablement allowance determined by social security appeal tribunals concerned the all work test for incapacity for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98; what proportion of the appeals in each benefit category for these years related to the all work test; what proportion of all work test appeals in each benefit category for these years were determined without a oral hearing; and in how many all work test appeals for these years the claimant was at least partially successful, in (1) appeals determined after an oral hearing and (2) appeals determined without such a hearing. [55746]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  395

  Appeals heard and decided in 1997

  All appeals

  Decided in appellants' favour

  Total

  oral

  Proportion without oral

  Total

  Oral

  Paper

  Incapacity Benefit (IB) (All Work Test (AWT))

  46,441

  n/a

  n/a

  20,301

  n/a

  n/a

  IB AWT proportion of All IB

  91.8%

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AWT (not IB)1

  13,493

  n/a

  n/a

  4,736

  n/a

  n/a

  AWT (not IB)1 proportion of All Income Support/ Severe Disablement Allowance

  35.3%

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Appeals heard and decided in 1996 (first six month only)

  All appeals

  Decided in appellants' favour

  Total

  Oral

  Proportion without oral

  Total

  Oral

  Paper

  Incapacity Benefit (IB) All Work Test (AWT)

  31,394

  24,478

  22.0%

  12,749

  11,913

  836

  IB AWT proportion of All IB

  90.1%

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AWT (not IB)1

  10,613

  7,226

  31.9%

  3,175

  2,853

  322

  AWT (not IB)1 proportion of All Income Support/Severe Disablement Allowance

  33.7%

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note:

  1. The All Work Test (not Incapacity Benefit) figures are comprised solely of Severe Disablement Allowance and Incomes Support All Work Test cases

  Source:

  DSS Analytical Services Division

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to reply to the letter of 5 October 1998 from the hon. Member for Totnes concerning Mrs. Sally Williams of 3 Icy Park, Aveton Gifford, Kingsbridge, Devon. [55873]

  Angela Eagle
  A substantive reply was sent to the hon. Member for Totnes on 30 October 1998.

  Income Support
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on Regulation 53(1) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987; and what plans he has to revise this calculation. [56288]

  Angela Eagle
  The notional (tariff) income from capital in Regulation 53(1) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 reflects an expectation that people with more substantial savings can make some contribution towards their living expenses from those savings. The tariff is currently applied if a person has over £3,000 in capital, unless they are in a residential care or nursing home, or in certain types of residential accommodation, in which case it is applied only on savings over £10,000. For each £250 of capital above £3,000, but below the upper limit of £16,000, £1 per week is taken into account as income. This formula, which does not represent any assumed rate of interest, avoids the many practical difficulties that would arise if actual income were taken into account. We have no plans to revise this calculation. However, we continue to review the benefit rules as part of our commitment to modernise the Social Security system.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have been(a) denied and
  396
  (b) disallowed disability living allowance in the first six months of 1998; and how many of these were awarded the benefit at appeal. [57043]

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

  Disability living allowance disallowances, terminations, and initial awards on review or appeal: January-June 1998

  Number

  Initial claims disallowed1

  108,944

  Existing awards terminated1,2

  84,636

  Initial awards following review of disallowance3,4,6

  15,400

  Initial awards following appeal against disallowance3,5,6

  6,740

  1 Source: Analytical Services Division, 100 per cent. Data

  2 The figures include terminations for:

  (a) death of claimant

  (b) residence or presence conditions not satisfied

  (c) claimant withdraws from benefit

  (d) Benefits Agency withdraws benefit

  3 Source: Analytical Services Division, 5 per cent. data

  4 Awards following review by Benefits Agency. Figures will include claims disallowed before 1998

  5 Awards following appeal to the Independent Tribunal Service

  6 Figures relate to the six months ending 31 May 1998

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in Derbyshire in 1998, by local authority district, are in receipt of(a) disability living allowance with the various care and/or mobility components, (b) attendance allowance, (c) incapacity benefit, (d) contributory jobseeker's allowance, (e) income-related jobseeker's allowance and (f) income support by premium; and how many dependent children there are in households in receipt of income support, using 100 per cent. administrative counts in each case where available. [57289]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is shown in the tables.
  397

  Number of income-support claimants and their dependents in Derbyshire as at February 1998

  Amber Valley

  Bolsover

  Chesterfield

  Derby

  Derbyshire Dale

  Erewash

  High Peak

  North East Derbyshire

  South Derbyshire

  Total

  All IS Claimants

  5,900

  5,100

  7,800

  17,700

  2,700

  6,300

  400

  5,700

  3,700

  59,000

  Higher Pensioner Premium

  Claimant/Partner 80 or over

  1,400

  800

  1,600

  2,800

  800

  1,300

  1,000

  1,300

  900

  11,900

  Claimant/Partner 60–79

  700

  600

  900

  1,900

  400

  800

  500

  800

  *300

  6,900

  Enhanced Pensioner Premium

  *300

  *100

  *200

  500

  *200

  *300

  *200

  *300

  *200

  2,400

  Pensioner Premium

  500

  *200

  600

  1,900

  *300

  *400

  *200

  800

  *200

  5,200

  Severe Disability-Premium Higher

  *100

  —

  *100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *300

  Severe Disability-Premium Lower

  900

  600

  1,200

  2,000

  400

  900

  500

  700

  *400

  7,500

  Disability Premium

  1,200

  1,500

  2,000

  4,200

  500

  1,300

  800

  1,100

  800

  13,400

  Disabled Child Premium

  *100

  *100

  *200

  *200

  *100

  *100

  —

  *100

  *100

  900

  Family Premium (Lone Parent)1

  1,000

  1,200

  1,900

  4,600

  *300

  1,600

  900

  900

  800

  13,200

  Family Premium1

  500

  600

  500

  1,300

  *200

  600

  *300

  *400

  *300

  4,700

  Carer Premium

  *300

  *300

  500

  800

  *200

  *400

  *200

  *200

  *200

  3,000

  No Premium

  600

  500

  *400

  1,400

  *200

  *400

  *200

  500

  *400

  4,500

  Claimant with 1 or more Premium

  5,400

  4,700

  7,400

  16,300

  2,500

  5,900

  3,700

  5,300

  3,300

  54,500

  Number of Dependants2

  2,600

  3,200

  4,400

  12,100

  1,100

  4,000

  2,000

  2,500

  2,100

  34,000

  1As from April 1997 the Lone Parent Premium was replaced by a higher Family Premium for Lone Parents. Lone Parents may be in receipt of a higher rate premium such as pensioner premium or a disability premium

  2The number of claimants may not equate to the number of households as more than one claimant may reside in the same household

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100 therefore totals may not sum

  2. "—" denotes nil or negligible

  3. "*" denotes figures which are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used only as a guide to the current situation

  Source:

  Figures have been provided by Analytical Statistics Division

  Number of claimants in Derbyshire by local authority in receipt of benefits

  Amber Valley

  Bolsover

  Chesterfield

  Derby

  Derbyshire Dales

  Erewash

  High Peak

  North East Derbyshire

  South Derbyshire

  Total

  Disability Living Allowance

  4,185

  4,601

  4,934

  8,850

  1,680

  3,698

  2,529

  4,051

  2,601

  37,129

  Attendance Allowance

  3,150

  2,470

  2,863

  5,666

  1,686

  2,527

  1,753

  2,451

  1,567

  24,223

  Incapacity Benefit

  1,510

  1,857

  1,859

  2,878

  567

  1,300

  945

  1,398

  831

  13,145

  Contributory Based Jobseeker'sAllowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  Income Based Jobseeker's Allowance

  1,400

  1,600

  2,800

  6,000

  700

  1,500

  1,000

  1,800

  900

  17,600

  Notes:

  1. The number of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance claimants is at 31 May 1998 and is from 100 per cent. data

  2. The number of Incapacity Benefit claimants is at 31 May 1998 and is taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system, and excludes a small number of clerical cases

  3. As at February 1998, there were 3,000 contribution based Jobseeker's Allowance claimants in Derbyshire. A further breakdown by Local Authority is not statistically viable

  4. The estimated number of Jobseeker's Allowance claimants has been rounded to the nearest 100 and is based on a 5 per cent. sample

  Source:

  Figures have been provided by Analytical Statistics Division

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of disability living allowance pay tax at the(a) basic and (b) higher rate. [57704]

  Mr. Timms
  Our latest estimate is that there are around 120,000 current recipients of Disability Living Allowance paying tax at the 20 per cent. rate, 110,000 recipients paying tax at the 23 per cent. or basic rate, and 10,000 recipients paying tax at the 40 per cent. or higher rate. These estimates are based on survey information and are subject to margins of error. The tax rates refer to the highest marginal rates of income tax the recipient is liable to pay.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of non-payment of child benefit to children in residential or foster care. [57636]

  Angela Eagle
  None.
  398
  Child Benefit is paid to a person responsible for a child as a contribution from the State towards the cost of bringing up that child. When a child's accommodation and maintenance is provided by a local authority, to avoid double provision Child Benefit and any linked entitlement to a child dependency addition cease after the first eight weeks. If the child returns home for at least a week, or for two nights a week or more on a regular basis, entitlement is regained.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to his Department of welfare payments paid to(a) a single person and (b) a married man with two dependants who has been made redundant in the last years for which figures are available. [57507]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  399

  Estimated expenditure Jobseeker's Allowance, 1997–98

  £ million

  Benefit

  Total expenditure

  Single

  Couple with 2 dependants

  Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based)

  3,377

  2,213

  280

  Jobseeker's Allowance (contribution based only)

  520

  319

  105

  Housing Benefit with Jobseeker's Allowance

  11,442

  855

  123

  Council Tax Benefit with Jobseeker's Allowance

  2,500

  117

  32

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure estimates for the individual group are a combination of sample benefit data and DSS expenditure estimates for 1997–98. Estimates of expenditure of Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit for those who are not claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) are not included.

  2. We are unable to provide figures on married men with 2 dependants for JSA (c) as dependants' details are not always collected. As such, the figure provided represents all men with partners.

  3. It is not possible to identify the sex of a claimant on Housing Benefit/Council Tax and therefore figures provided represent recipients who have a partner and two dependants.

  4. We are unable to identify claimants that have been made redundant as this information is not recorded on the source system.

  5. Figures are rounded to the nearest million pounds.

  6. There is an overlap in the figures provided as most claimants receive both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  7. Council Tax/Housing Benefit figures exclude JSA claimants receiving nil benefit.

  Source:

  JSA Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1997, August 1997, November 1997 and February 1998–5 per cent. sample. Housing Benefit Management Information System, May 1997— annual 1 per cent. sample.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October. [57991]

  Mr. Timms
  Shortly.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people will be assisted into work under the pilot projects accepted under the first round of bids under the New Deal for Disabled People. [57707]

  Mr. Timms
  The New Deal for Disabled People involves two strands of pilots. The Innovative Scheme strand aims to test ways to help people with a disability or long-term illness, and carers, to move into or remain in work. Through different schemes which deal with a range of disabilities and medical conditions we will learn what works effectively and what is less effective. The ten schemes being funded under the first bidding exercise aim to help around 875 people to move into or remain in work. Further contracts will be announced next year.

  We will also be piloting a Personal Adviser Service in 12 areas. The first six, run by the Employment Service, began in September. The remainder are being put out to open tender and we expect they will start operating early next year. As participation in this New Deal is voluntary, the Government do not have an estimate for the numbers
  400
  of people who will be assisted through the Personal Adviser Service. However, in the pilot areas, the Personal Adviser Service will be available to nearly a quarter of a million people on incapacity benefits. There will be independent evaluation of the pilots and we expect the results to be available by the end of 1999.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Staff
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many ministerial staff in Ministers' offices have been replaced through advance termination of contract since 1 May 1997. [55339]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To the best of my knowledge, there is one case and that is the one referred to in the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 29 January 1998,Official Report, columns 386–89.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals he has to change the 1998–99 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: Administration and Cabinet Office: Other Services Votes. [58090]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates:The cash limit for Cabinet Office: administration (Class XVII, Vote 1) will be increased by £34,937,000 from £119,119,000 to £154,056,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £7,840,000 from £55,063,000 to £62,903,000.
  The cash limit for Cabinet Office: other services (Class XVIII, Vote 1) will be increased by £6,825,000 from £42,531,000 to £49,356,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £5,945,000 from £42,694,000 to £48,639,000.

  This is to take account of the following:
  End Year Flexibility
  As announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36, the Cabinet Office: administration Vote is eligible for a cash limit increase of £24,965,000 and a running costs increase of £13,909,000 in respect of end year flexibility arrangements for capital and running costs. The Cabinet Office: other services Vote is eligible for a cash limit and running costs increase of £1,232,000 under the same scheme, including and amount of £75,000 transferred from the Privy Council Office (Class XVIII, Vote 3) for the Central Drugs Co-ordination Unit.
  This Supplementary gives effect to the increases. The cash limit and running costs limit of the Cabinet Office: administration Vote will be increased by £19,600,000 and £8,544,000 respectively. The cash limit and running costs limit of the Cabinet Office: other services Vote will be increased by £1,232,000. The remaining entitlement of £5,365,000 will be surrendered to the Treasury, to partly offset increased provision for the programme to modernise government.
  Modernisation of Government
  The Cabinet Office has received increased provision of £21,097,000 for the programme to modernise government, which was announced by the Prime Minister in a Written Statement on 28 July 1998, Official Report, columns 132–34. This includes £16,300,000 to the Cabinet Office: administration Vote for combating the millennium bug, a new Centre for Management and Policy Studies, and a relocation project; and

  401
  £4,797,000 to the Cabinet Office: other services Vote for strengthening the Prime Minister's Office, work on social exclusion, strategic communications and constitutional reform, and a new Performance and Innovation Unit.
  Machinery of Government and Other Changes
  The Cabinet Office: other services Vote has taken over responsibility for the Central Drugs Co-ordination Unit from the Privy Council Office (Class XVIII, Vote 3) (increased provision of £553,000, offset by a transfer payment from the Privy Council Office).
  Responsibility for the Freedom of Information Unit has been transferred from the Cabinet Office: administration Vote to the Home Office (Class VII, Vote 1) (a transfer payment of £439,000 to the Home Office, offset by reduced provision).
  The ownership of certain buildings has been transferred from Cabinet Office: administration Vote to the Department of Health (Class XII, Vote 2) (£20,000) and DETR (Class VI, Vote 3) (£147,000).
  Responsibility for the Office of the Minister Without Portfolio has been transferred from the Cabinet Office: other services Vote to the Cabinet Office: administration Vote (a transfer payment of £368,000, offset by increases and reductions to provision).
  The Cabinet Office: other services Vote has received a transfer of £796,000 from the Cabinet Office: administration Vote for jointly administered common services.

  The increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

PRIME MINISTER

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answers of 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 476, and 22 June 1998, Official Report, column 351, for what reason no announcement has yet been made in respect of the co-ordination within Government of animal welfare policies; when he expects to make such an announcement; and if he will make a statement. [56358]

  The Prime Minister
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  Government Residential Property
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Government Ministers currently residing in publicly owned accommodation; and if he will make a statement on the precedents for the use of each property by Government Ministers, the reasons why the properties are so used and total annual cost in each case of the current and previous years of such use. [56376]

  The Prime Minister
  For the terms on which official Government residences are occupied, and the precedent for the use of each property, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her on 9 March 1998,Official Report, columns 19–20. For a list of Ministers currently residing in publicly owned accommodation, I refer her to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 23 April 1998, Official Report, columns 674–75. The list is unchanged except that my right hon. Friend the former President of the Board of Trade now occupies the same official residence in her role as the President of the Council. For details of the costs of maintaining such properties, I refer my hon Friend to the
  402
  answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on 9 February 1998, Official Report, column 17. The cost of maintaining these properties in 1998–99 is estimated to be £1.2m.

  Ministerial Candidates (Security Vetting)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the value of reports from the security services on the potential security risks of candidates for ministerial positions; what opportunities are provided to persons so reported on to respond to those reports; and if he will make a statement. [57472]

  The Prime Minister
  It has long been the practice for the Security Service to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister when forming a Government any significant national security information in its possession which relates to members of the Government party. This arrangement has been endorsed by successive Prime Ministers and I am satisfied that it remains both necessary and proper.

  The recently published annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, established under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the United Kingdom's Intelligence Services, did not criticise or question the probity of this process, but emphasised the heavy responsibility on the Director General of the Security Service to ensure that the information put forward is accurate and related solely to national security. In their response to the report, the Government made it clear that they were satisfied that the Director General took this responsibility seriously and that the arrangements continued to be proper and appropriate.

  It is of course the case that decisions on the formation of a Government remain a matter for the Prime Minister alone.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants were consulted over the decision to arrest General Pinochet. [56782]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: Under section 8(l)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989, the decision whether to issue a provisional warrant in response to a request from an extradition partner is one for the Bow Street Magistrate. This was a strictly judicial matter and therefore properly not a decision subject to consultation with Ministers. The only consultation which did take place was between the Metropolitan Police and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the technical question of whether Senator Pinochet was entitled to diplomatic immunity.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister when(a) he and (b) his officials were first informed that Senator Pinochet had entered the United Kingdom on his current visit. [57432]

  The Prime Minister
  On 16 October.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those ministers with whom he has discussed the arrest of Senator Pinochet and the dates on which the discussions took place. [57429]
  403
  The Prime Minister
  It is the normal convention under this and previous Governments that discussions which take place between the Prime Minister and Ministers are not routinely disclosed. On this occasion, however, it has been made public that I made clear to the Cabinet on 22 October that there should be no discussion at Cabinet, given that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might in due course have to address the issue in a quasi-judicial role.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was first informed that an international warrant for the arrest of Senator Pinochet had been issued; and who informed him. [57428]

  The Prime Minister
  As has been made clear publicly, I was first informed by my office on 16 October.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answers 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 915, on Sudan, if he will discuss with the American Administration provision of (a) anti-TB drugs and (b) chloroquinine and other anti-malarial drugs to the Sudan, in quantities which would have been produced by the E1 Shifa Factory, prior to its destruction. [57979]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom and the United States are substantial donors of humanitarian assistance to Sudan, which includes support for health care activities targeted at the poorest and most vulnerable groups. We are not aware that the provision of essential drugs for these groups has been affected by the destruction of the E1 Shifa factory.

  President Menem
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of President Menem's original article for The Sun newspaper submitted to 10 Downing Street for comment by the Prime Minister's Office. [57974]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The article by President Menem in The Sun on 23 October expressed the views and sentiments of the President of Argentina. As has been made public, the Argentine Government sought advice on the style of their presentation, as I routinely ask of other Governments when I write articles for foreign newspapers.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library copies of his correspondence with the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights on the subject of the proposed Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. [57767]

  The Prime Minister
  The UN High Commissioner of Human Rights wrote to me on 18 June and I replied on 9 July. Copies of these letters have been placed in the Library. Officials from the Northern Ireland Office also met officials from the UN High Commission on Human Rights as part of the consultations with interested organisations on the human rights provisions of the Northern Ireland Bill.
  404

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to change the Cabinet Office: Security and Intelligence Services cash limits for 1998–99. [58084]

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary token Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class XVIII, Vote 2 will be decreased by £237,000 from £708,143,000 to £707,906,000 and the gross running costs limit increased by £148,000 from £375,845,000 to £375,993,000.

  This change is to take on board transfers; £193,000 to the Home Office Class VII, Vote 1; £45,000 to the Foreign Office Class II, Vote 1. £148,000 proposed gross running costs increase is to correct an error in the capital charge adjustment.

  There will be an increase in Appropriation in Aid of £12,249,000 resulting from changes in accounting procedures and a net increase in other current expenditure payments of £11,279,000.

  The increases will be offset by transfers, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Access to Work
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will extend the eligibility criteria for access to work to include(a) councillors and (b) other elected officials. [57635]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 29 October 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking him to extend the eligibility criterion for Access to Work to include Councillors and other elected officials. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Leigh Lewis as Chief Executive of the Employment Service. I am replying in Mr. Lewis' absence.
  Access to Work provides help for disabled people who are in, or, who about to enter, paid employment. It is designed to encourage employers to take on or retain disabled people by meeting some or all of the extra costs resulting from disability. The aim is to help disabled people in activities from which they earn their living.
  The activities of Councillors and other elected officials are not generally regarded as main paid employment. To extend Access to Work to these groups would lead to pressure for help from many other groups who are not in paid employment, but who regard their activities as being of equivalent status. The Access to Work budget is limited and extending coverage in this way would result in less help being available for people entering or in paid employment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 25 September on behalf of his constituents, the governors of Brewster Avenue School. [57529]
  405
  Mr. Mudie
  A letter was dispatched to the right hon. Member on 28 October.

  Broomfield Primary School
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on when he expects to reach a decision on the appeal lodged by Broomfield Primary School, Broomfield, Chelmsford, concerning Essex LEA's direction on admissions to the school. [57769]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Broomfield School has referred to the Secretary of State notices issued by Essex local education authority under section 431 of the Education Act 1996 directing the school to admit five children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a decision on two of the five referrals. The other three referrals relate to children not due to start school until either January or April 1999. My right hon. Friend will be making a determination on those referrals when further consultation with Essex local education authority and local schools has been completed.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October. [57992]

  Mr. Mudie
  Shortly.

  Ministerial Group on Disabled People
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many times the ministerial group on disabled people has met since May 1997. [57639]

  Ms Hodge
  The Ministerial Group on non-benefits issues affecting disabled people has met on three occasions. Its first meeting was in February 1998.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding he currently estimates will be released through the abolition of the assisted places scheme in each year for which forecasts have been made. [57662]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our latest estimate of savings against the previous Government's published expenditure plans is £22 million in the current financial year 1998–99, and £63 million in 1999–2000, with £82 million in 2000–01 and £101 million in 2001–02 assuming that the original baseline figure of £180 million for 1999–2000 is rolled forward. The estimates have been refined to take account of outturn figures for the last academic year 1997–98, and assume falling numbers of assisted place holders over the years in question while continuing the present arrangements for means-testing and fee-setting.

  Working Time Regulations
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice has been issued by his Department to(a) local education authorities and
  406
  (b) schools on the implications of the working time regulations for the employment of (i) teaching and (ii) non-teaching staff. [57705]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department has not issued advice, but the Department of Trade and Industry issued guidance to employers generally in August, and has conducted a public awareness campaign on the implications of the regulations.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made towards meeting the Government's targets on class sizes. [57509]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), on 29 October 1998,Official Report, column 231.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown of the allocation of extra money to reduce class sizes. [57511]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table details the allocations so far made to both Local Education Authorities and Grant Maintained Schools, to deliver our pledge to cut infant class sizes. The respective sums of £22 million in revenue funding and over £45 million in capital funding will provide some 1,500 additional teachers and 600 extra classrooms to enable authorities and schools to make an early start in delivering the class sizes pledge.

  Allocations to reduce infant class sizes

  LEA

  Revenue

  Capital

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  141,850

  Barnet

  146,000

  191,500

  Bath and North East Somerset

  —

  140,476

  Bedfordshire

  —

  743,707

  Bexley

  225,000

  423,000

  Blackburn

  107,000

  268,075

  Blackpool

  73,000

  414,500

  Bolton

  —

  279,859

  Bracknell

  —

  174,000

  Bradford

  625,000

  202,100

  Brighton and Hove

  88,000

  110,000

  Bristol, City of

  —

  203,000

  Bromley

  200,000

  520,000

  Buckinghamshire

  146,000

  160,000

  Bury

  584,000

  1,145,078

  Calderdale

  162,000

  99,875

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  542,660

  Cheshire

  —

  800,775

  Cornwall

  —

  320,000

  Coventry

  452,000

  40,000

  Croydon

  100,000

  369,140

  Cumbria

  146,000

  113,188

  Darlington

  —

  169,580

  Derby, City of

  1,000,000

  878,124

  Derbyshire

  1,160,000

  1,596,938

  Devon

  1,000,000

  575,945

  Dorset

  324,000

  254,000

  Dudley

  —

  373,500

  Durham

  250,000

  167,160

  Ealing

  291,000

  110,500

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  250,000

  85,000

  East Sussex

  116,000

  547,000

  407

  Allocations to reduce infant class sizes Revenue Capital

  LEA

  Revenue

  Capital

  Enfield

  —

  380,000

  Essex

  —

  542,877

  Gateshead

  100,000

  200,542

  Gloucestershire

  —

  238,298

  Greenwich

  —

  80,000

  Halton

  —

  296,800

  Hampshire

  —

  1,025,000

  Haringey

  146,000

  —

  Hartlepool

  100,000

  68,600

  Havering

  —

  76,840

  Herefordshire

  146,000

  65,438

  Hertfordshire

  510,000

  399,400

  Hillingdon

  291,000

  864,198

  Isle of Wight

  135,000

  170,000

  Kent

  —

  850,000

  Kirklees

  500,000

  539,600

  Knowsley

  —

  80,480

  Lambeth

  —

  577,500

  Lancashire

  1,000,000

  1,284,801

  Leeds

  500,000

  320,000

  Leicester City

  584,000

  157,700

  Leicestershire

  291,000

  566,190

  Lincolnshire

  102,000

  317,573

  Liverpool

  —

  84,675

  Luton

  —

  58,500

  Manchester

  —

  817,000

  Medway

  —

  187,620

  Middlesbrough

  146,000

  93,988

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  500,000

  367,381

  Newham

  257,000

  278,141

  Norfolk

  291,000

  470,400

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  518,483

  North Lincolnshire

  675,000

  410,000

  North Somerset

  —

  211,770

  North Tyneside

  —

  351,888

  North Yorkshire

  —

  459,000

  Northamptonshire

  —

  234,371

  Northumberland

  324,000

  224,000

  Nottingham, City of

  146,000

  451,900

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  405,000

  Oldham

  —

  1,111,500

  Oxfordshire

  584,000

  842,485

  Peterborough

  150,000

  —

  Plymouth

  500,000

  —

  Poole

  —

  245,575

  Reading

  —

  92,375

  Redbridge

  —

  320,000

  Redcar & Cleveland

  —

  252,757

  Richmond Upon Thames

  —

  762,000

  Rochdale

  —

  320,000

  Rotherham

  219,000

  85,000

  Salford

  146,000

  139,000

  Sandwell

  1,000,000

  1,158,500

  Sefton

  59,000

  359,048

  Sheffield

  525,000

  —

  Shropshire

  —

  591,000

  Slough

  88,000

  —

  Solihull

  584,000

  942,350

  Somerset

  —

  378,325

  South Gloucestershire

  500,000

  873,414

  South Tyneside

  100,000

  —

  Southend on Sea

  —

  189,800

  St. Helens

  —

  343,875

  Staffordshire

  —

  350,000

  Stockport

  204,000

  189,943

  Stockton on Tees

  —

  384,165

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  150,582

  Sunderland

  —

  55,000

  Surrey

  —

  419,081

  Sutton

  168,000

  453,201

  Swindon

  —

  526,973

  Tameside

  291,000

  —

  408

  Allocations to reduce infant class sizes

  LEA

  Revenue

  Capital

  Telford and Wrekin

  291,000

  328,700

  Thurrock

  —

  80,000

  Torbay

  —

  197,745

  Trafford

  —

  487,333

  Wakefield

  60,000

  764,945

  Walsall

  146,000

  397,455

  Wandsworth

  146,000

  —

  Warrington

  59,000

  332,122

  Warwickshire

  584,000

  168,500

  West Sussex

  —

  825,500

  Wigan

  290,000

  726,300

  Wiltshire

  291,000

  521,674

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  —

  98,800

  Wirral

  —

  202,269

  Wokingham

  —

  414,000

  Wolverhampton

  —

  356,502

  York, City of

  146,000

  116,215

  GM Schools

  680,000

  1,113,038

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes he plans to announce to cash limits and running cost limits within his responsibility for 1998–99. [58113]

  Mr. Mudie
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class IX, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services), Vote 3 (Employment Service), and Vote 4 (Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England), will be amended as follows:

  £

  Class

  Vote

  Existing cash limit

  Change

  New cash limit

  IX

  1

  10,356,420,000

  25,182,000

  10,381,602,000

  IX

  3

  1,739,859,000

  9,999,000

  1,749,858,000

  IX

  4

  131,641,000

  -13,000,000

  118,641,000

  The cash limit for Class IX, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) will be increased by £25,182,000 from £10,356,420,000 to £10,381,602,000. This is the net effect of virements of £3,900,000 and £695,000 from non-cash limited sections of the Vote to sections A and B, £10,000,000 additional cover for capital loans in grant-maintained schools following the ESA95 classification changes, a transfer of £13,000,000 from OFSTED (Class IX, Vote 4) in connection with the Books for Schools Initiative, and a transfer of £13,000 from the Department of Health (Class XI, Vote 2) for the early years policy; offset by transfers of £1,350,000 to the Department of Culture, Media and Sports (Class X, Vote 1) for Dance and Drama under the interim funding scheme, of £201,000 to the Welsh Office (Class XIV, Vote 2) for the University for Industry, of £250,000 to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in respect of capital costs of Government Offices, and of £180,000 and £445,000 to the Scottish Office (Class XIII, Vote 3) in connection with educational qualifications and University for Industry respectively. We have also taken this opportunity to take up

  409
  £264,657,000 (offset by the matching receipts from the EC) of the European Structural Funds end year flexibility announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36.

  The cash limit for Class IX, Vote 3 (Employment Service) will be increased by £9,999,000 from £1,739,859,000 to £1,749,858,000. This increase results from the take up of £10,000,000 running costs end year flexibility, offset by an increase in appropriations in aid due to New Deal recoveries. The running costs limit on Vote 3 (within of the control total) has been increased by £19,500,000 from £758,173,000 to £777,673,000 as a result of the end-year flexibility take up and a virement of £9,500,000 from capital to pay for IT services now supplied by an external provider.

  The non-Voted cash limit DfEE/LACAP has also been increased by £958,000 from £43,982,000 to £44,940,000 as a result of the take up of end-year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36.

  Increases will be offset by transfers and charges to the reserves and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Columbia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to British Petroleum concerning the Company's internal investigation into arms sales and military activity in Colombia. [56259]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I met senior BP personnel earlier this week. One of the matters discussed was the situation in Colombia. I reaffirmed our view that we expect all British companies to operate ethically and transparently. I also made it clear that we expect them to take responsibility for the actions of their subcontractors.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he collects regarding the numbers of people who, having been refused visit visas to enter the United Kingdom, have subsequently been granted visas as a result of a review of the decision by an entry clearance manager. [57333]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Entry Clearance Issuing Posts are asked to keep a record of the number of visit applications which have been refused and subsequently granted as a result of a review by the Entry Clearance Manager. Statistics from our 100 busiest Entry Clearance Posts, which account for 97 per cent. of all applications received worldwide, show that, between January and September 1998, 477 visas were granted as a result of such a review.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 26 and 27 October. [57853]
  410
  Ms Quin
  The information is as follows:

  General Affairs Council, 26–27 October
  The General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 26–27 October adopted the A points listed in document 12161/1/98 and noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its session of 5 October—9 October and listed in document 11721/98. Copies of the documents listing the A points and resolutions will be placed in the House Libraries as soon as they become available.

  Agenda 2000
  The Council considered a Presidency progress report (document 12153/98). Ministers agreed on the importance of meeting the timetable for Agenda 2000 (agreement in March 1999). Ministers also agreed that decisions on whether pre-accession funds released by the accession of new Member States could be reallocated to the remaining applicant countries should be taken by qualified majority. The Council failed to agree the rate at which Community assistance should be given to pre-accession projects, but it approved Commission proposals for 100 per cent. funding of technical support projects, and for up to 2 per cent. of the budget being spent on preliminary Commission studies. There was general agreement on the management of the agricultural and structural pre-accession instruments, and the nature of the Commission's relationship with the EIB.
  The Commission presented its Own Resources report (Document 11666/98) on Member States' contributions to the EC Budget. It proposed various solutions to the net contribution imbalance experienced by some Member States, including the option of co-financing the Common Agricultural Policy.

  Enlargement
  Ministers noted progress in official-level preparation of the EU's negotiating positions, ahead of substantive negotiations with the candidates at ministerial level on 10 November.

  EC Fraud
  The Commission reported on the fraud allegations surrounding the EC Humanitarian Office.

  CFSP High Representative
  The Presidency undertook to talk bilaterally to Member States about candidates, ahead of discussion at the 7 December GAC.

  EU/South Africa
  The Council heard a report from Commissioner Pinheiro on his recent meeting with South African trade minister Erwin. Ministers discussed the outstanding issues in the negotiations on a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and possible ways of reaching a satisfactory outcome by the end of the autumn.

  FRY/Kosovo
  The Council adopted a declaration on a comprehensive approach to Kosovo. The Council condemned action by the FRY authorities against the independent media as demonstrated by the prosecution of the owner and editor of the news magazine "Evropljanin", and by the adoption of the new law on public information. The Council expressed its support for Montenegro. The EU will consider ways in which it can continue to support Montenegro's economy and its drive toward political and economic reform.

  Albania
  The Council stated its support for the new Albanian government. It welcomed the International Conference in Tirana on 30 October. It agreed the EU input into the Conference. It welcomed the supplement to the WEU Feasibility Study on possible options for an International Police Operation in Albania.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Ministers issued a declaration welcoming the Wye Agreement and congratulating Netanyahu and Arafat on their achievement. Tribute was paid to the important contributions of Clinton and

  411
  Albright and to the support of King Hussein. In light of the agreement, Ministers discussed ways to integrate EU work in support of the peace process.

  Burma
  The Council agreed conclusions and a Decision: (a) rolling over the EU Common Position for a further six months; (b) strengthening it by including transit visas and Burmese officials involved in tourism; (c) echoing views of Burmese democratic leaders that tourism to Burma is inappropriate at present; (d) providing for a meeting of EC/ASEAN Joint Co-operation Committee with only a passive Burmese presence.

  Malta
  There was a brief exchange under "Other Business" concerning progress on updating the Commission's 1993 Opinion on Malta.

  EU/GCC Joint Council
  Ministers reviewed relations between the EU and the GCC, and agreed to increase the momentum of negotiations for an EC/GCC Free Trade Agreement. They discussed regional issues such as Iran, Iraq and the Middle East Peace Process, and human rights.

  Association Council with Bulgaria
  The Council considered the functioning of the Europe Agreement, and Bulgaria's preparations for EU membership.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's contribution to the OSCE monitoring force in Kosovo. [55906]

  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to the OSCE monitoring force in Kosovo. [55904]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in the House on 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 954, we shall provide up to 200 verifiers to the Kosovo Verification Mission run by the OSCE.

  Britain is already playing a key role in establishing this Mission. Major-General Drewienkiewicz heads a group of 10 British personnel attached to or working alongside the OSCE in Vienna.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many OSCE representatives are currently stationed in Kosovo. [57964]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There are currently about 25 OSCE representatives in Kosovo. This figure does not include the members of the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission (KDOM) who will be folded into the OSCE mission once it is fully up and running.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British participants there will be in the OSCE contingent in Kosovo; and when he expects them to reach the territory. [57963]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in the House on 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 954, we shall provide up to 200 members of the Mission. We expect the first contingent of up to 50 verifiers, who will initially be accredited to the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission (KDOM), to arrive toward the end of the week.
  412
  Britain is already playing a key role in establishing this Mission. Major-General Drewienkiewicz heads a group of 10 British personnel attached to or working alongside the OSCE in Vienna. Major-General Drewienkiewicz took part in the OSCE's advance party which visited Kosovo and Belgrade between 18 and 21 October.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British participants in the OSCE contingent are currently stationed in Kosovo. [57965]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  At present there is one British secondee to the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission stationed in Kosovo. We expect this to increase to 6 on the ground in 3 November. This is in addition to 3 British monitors in the European Community Monitor Mission/Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission. There is currently a joint FCO/MOD reconnaissance team in Kosovo looking at the practical issues of deploying a further 50 British verifiers by the end of this week.

  Brunei
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what human rights issues were raised with the Sultanate of Brunei during his recent visit. [57521]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During the recent State visit to Brunei, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Bruneian Foreign Minister and raised the issue of progress on modernising the Bruneian Constitution.

  Congo
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo concerning human rights and democratic Government. [57519]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I made clear our wish to work with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to improve the human rights situation and promote democratisation when I led a European Union Troika mission to Kinshasa in June. We continue to raise our concerns about the human rights situation at every suitable opportunity, bilaterally, with our EU partners and in international fora. In particular, our Ambassador in Kinshasa has raised the targeting of Tutsis and possibly civilians of other ethnic groups. He has also made clear our readiness to help with the rebuilding of the country, including support for the electoral process, and that in doing so we are looking for progress towards respect for human rights, democracy, economic reform and the rule of law.

  Kurdish Political Parties
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has held with representatives of the Kurdish political parties in Turkey, Iran and Iraq concerning a negotiated peace; and if he will make a statement. [57518]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have held meetings at Ministerial and official level in October with the leaders of the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, to discuss the agreement they signed in
  413
  Washington on 17 September. We remain strongly committed to supporting Kurdish reconciliation in northern Iraq, and will continue our contacts with these and other Iraqi-Kurdish parties. In Turkey our Embassy maintains regular contact with representatives of the People's Democracy Party (HADEP), as it does with all the major political parties.

  Bahrain
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions about human rights and democratic Government took place with the Government of Bahrain during the recent ministerial visit. [57520]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During my visit to Bahrain in September I had a long meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shaikh Mohammed bin Mubarak Al-Khalifa. Our discussions covered a broad range of subjects, including human rights issues on which I set out the Government's concerns. I welcome Bahrain's efforts to improve its human rights record by signing the Convention Against Torture and allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross to monitor prison conditions. I urged Bahrain to communicate more with human rights NGOs and journalists.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will make available to the Governor of Gibraltar the necessary resources to protect the integrity of British territorial waters around Gibraltar against the incursions of Spanish fishing boats and armed militia. [57640]

  Ms Quin
  We have assured the Governor that HMG will provide whatever support is necessary to protect the integrity of British territorial waters around Gibraltar.

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for reform of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy and the future of the Western European Union. [57962]

  Ms Quin
  At the Pörtscharch informal European Summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear his wish for the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) to be made more effective. He also argued to greater European responsibility for defence, but made it clear that he is open-minded on institutional issues.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1998–99. [58098]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates the following changes will be made.The cash limit for Class II, Vote 2 (Other External Relations) will be increased by £23,592,000 from £212,068,000 to £235,660,000. The increase is required to cover UK
  414
  contributions to certain OSCE, United Nations, and WEU Missions of £23,085,000 and also for transfer of £507,000 from the Department for International Development towards the Know How Fund for assistance to Central and Eastern Europe.
  The increase will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October. [57996]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Shortly.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings during the last two years of the Executive Council of St. Helena where the elected members of the Legislative Council were not in a majority. [57544]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Out of the fifty-six meetings of the Executive Council of St. Helena held during the two years up to 30 October 1998, only that held on 16 June 1998 met when there was not a majority of Elected Members present. There was, however, a quorum on that occasion.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), on 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 81, relating to departmental properties, for what reason the annual running costs for each property in each country are not readily available. [57536]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Details of the annual running costs for each property in the overseas estate are not held centrally. Following the 1996 Fundamental Expenditure Review, geographical FCO Commands and overseas Posts were given the delegated financial authority (except in a few areas) to manage and maintain their portion of the estate. Annual running costs for the overseas estate in 1996–97 totalled £108.7 million of which more than half was for rents and rates. Costings for each property could only be compiled by approaching Posts individually. The UK has 221 Diplomatic Posts world-wide. The overseas estate consists of about 3,900 properties. To provide costs for each individual property would involve disproportionate expenditure of public funds.

  Former Soviet Union (Chemical Weapons)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government have to enable the international community to purchase from countries of the former Soviet Union their stocks of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons so that they can be destroyed. [56473]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Purchasing nuclear chemical and biological weapons would be prohibited under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. We do, however, keep under review

  415
  possibilities for assisting Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union in destroying their stocks of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ensuring safe and secure management of associated materials. Assistance provided to date includes contributing to funding the International Science and Technology Centre, to provide employment for scientists previously employed on weapons of mass destruction programmes. We are currently considering whether we could provide effective national assistance to Russia for destruction of chemical weapons, in addition to the 10–15m ecu allocated under the European Union's Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) programme. We are also studying possible opportunities for collaboration within the G8 framework to dispose of plutonium surplus to defence needs in Russia.

HEALTH

  Autistic Children
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue guidance on services for autistic children. [57057]

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to issue specific guidance on services for autistic children; and if he will make a statement. [57051]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans at present to issue specific guidance on services for autistic children. Guidance on services for children with disabilities, including those with autism, is contained in "The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations Volume 6 Children with Disabilities" published by HMSO in 1991. Local authority social services departments have a general duty, under the Children Act 1989, to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their care who are "in need". To reinforce the provision in the Children Act on children in need, the Education Act 1996 puts a statutory duty upon health authorities and local authorities to help education authorities in the assessment and support of children with special needs. We will keep the need for specific guidance on autism under review.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to collect information centrally on autistic children; and if he will make a statement. [57047]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to collect information centrally about the number of children below the age of five years diagnosed as being autistic. It is for the local statutory authorities to determine the needs of children with autism in their area and work together effectively to ensure that these needs are met.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that every health authority has sufficient funds to develop new services for autistic children; and if he will make a statement. [57049]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authorities are given allocations for hospital and community health services to commission health care for their resident population. It is for individual health authorities to decide the level and type of services commissioned, in partnership with local 416
  general practitioners and through consultation with other agencies and local people, taking account of local circumstances and national policies and priorities.

  Mid Essex Hospitals Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 1998,Official Report, column 1180, what is the nature of the work being done with the North Thames Task Force and the National Patients Access Team to reduce waiting lists in the Mid Essex Hospitals Trust area; and what is the agreed target for reducing waiting lists by March 1999 in the Mid Essex Hospitals Trust area. [57217]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The North Thames Waiting List Task Force and the National Patients' Access Team have been working with clinicians and managers at the trust to achieve a shared understanding of the particular causes of pressure on the trust's waiting lists and are assisting the trust in implementing good practice from elsewhere to help reduce waiting lists.

  The agreed waiting list target reduction for the Mid Essex Hospitals National Health Service Trust is to a list size of 9,738 at the end of March 1999.

  Midwives
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives have(a) joined and (b) left the National Health Service during each of the last two years. [57596]

  Mr. Milburn
  Figures on vacancies for nurses and midwives are collected by the Office of Manpower and Economics and published in the annual reports of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, copies of which are available in the Library.

  St. Mary's Hospital, Newport
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to make an announcement on the remedial works needed at St. Mary's Hospital, Newport, Isle of Wight. [57908]

  Mr. Milburn
  We expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment the Social Services Inspectorate has made of the use and effectiveness of IT within social services departments in order to monitor the targets set in the Joint Guidance on Priorities for the NHS and Social Services. [57628]

  Mr. Hutton
  The targets in the National Priorities Guidance "Modernising Health and Social Services" comprise of some which rely on National Health Service data, some of which rely on social services data and others relating to process which do not require the collection of quantitative data. The quantified targets relating to social services are all supported by existing Departmental statistical collections or by currently proposed collections for the year 1999–2000.
  417
  In 1997, the Social Services Inspectorate published a national overview report of social services department's information strategies. In addition the Department has recently completed a special study of the information which social services departments have at their disposal to inform their commissioning of services for older people. It is anticipated that a report will be published shortly.

  Neuroleptics
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require pharmacy advisers to monitor the use of neuroleptics in nursing and residential homes. [57631]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to require prescribing or pharmaceutical advisers to monitor the use of neuroleptics in nursing and residential homes. The responsibility for prescribing, including repeat prescribing and the prescribing of neuroleptics in nursing and residential homes, rests with the doctor who has clinical responsibility for that particular aspect of a patient's care. An extra safeguard is the responsibility nurses who administer the medication in nursing homes have in assessing for side effects and reporting on the effects to the prescriber.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing homes have been operational in each health authority in each of the last three years. [57632]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of independent nursing homes registered with each health authority as at 31 March for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 is provided in the table. Information as at March 1998 is not yet available centrally.

  Nursing Homes

  Health Authority

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Northumberland

  21

  21

  22

  Sunderland

  33

  38

  43

  N. Durham

  52

  53

  122

  County Durham

  —

  —

  122

  S. Durham

  51

  60

  —

  Tees

  75

  80

  79

  South of Tyne

  25

  33

  —

  Gateshead & South Tyneside

  —

  —

  36

  N. Cumbria

  21

  24

  24

  Newcastle & N. Tyneside

  42

  51

  49

  E. Riding

  41

  45

  45

  S. Humberside

  39

  40

  40

  N. Yorkshire

  134

  131

  130

  Bradford

  90

  91

  89

  W. Yorkshire

  79

  80

  —

  Calderdale & Kirklees

  —

  —

  81

  Leeds

  64

  67

  62

  Wakefield

  23

  24

  24

  N. Derbyshire

  56

  62

  67

  S. Derbyshire

  78

  78

  77

  Leicestershire

  59

  66

  67

  Nottingham

  89

  95

  93

  Barnsley

  31

  31

  31

  Doncaster

  34

  35

  34

  Rotherham

  21

  25

  25

  Sheffield

  38

  48

  43

  N. Nottinghamshire

  55

  57

  56

  Lincolnshire

  130

  131

  131

  Cambridge

  14

  16

  —

  Cambridge & Huntingdon

  —

  —

  24

  N. W. Anglia

  28

  31

  33

  418

  Nursing Homes

  Health Authority

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Huntingdon

  3

  6

  —

  Suffolk

  60

  69

  67

  E. Norfolk

  57

  63

  62

  Bedfordshire

  29

  30

  31

  N. W. Hertfordshire

  15

  14

  —

  West Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  32

  S. W. Hertfordshire

  13

  13

  —

  Barnet

  21

  22

  22

  Hillingdon

  9

  9

  12

  N. & E. Hertfordshire

  25

  25

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  29

  Brent & Harrow

  17

  22

  22

  Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow

  23

  20

  20

  Kensington Chelsea & Westminster

  10

  15

  10

  N. Essex

  63

  70

  65

  S. Essex

  57

  58

  66

  Barking & Havering

  16

  18

  18

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest

  15

  15

  21

  E. London & The City

  —

  8

  12

  New River

  21

  24

  —

  Camden & Islington

  10

  9

  10

  Bromley

  30

  31

  33

  E. Sussex

  149

  152

  140

  E. Kent

  88

  88

  88

  W. Kent

  78

  77

  75

  Bexley & Greenwich

  6

  18

  18

  S. E. London

  33

  35

  —

  Enfield & Haringey

  —

  —

  26

  Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham

  —

  —

  42

  E. Surrey

  40

  —

  —

  Chichester

  58

  —

  —

  Mid Downs

  48

  —

  —

  Worthing

  68

  —

  —

  Croydon

  30

  30

  30

  N. W. Surrey

  36

  —

  —

  S. W. Surrey

  30

  —

  —

  Merton, Sutton & Wandsworth

  53

  52

  57

  Mid Surrey

  29

  —

  —

  Kingston & Richmond

  20

  20

  21

  Western Surrey

  —

  69

  69

  Eastern Surrey

  —

  73

  74

  West Sussex

  —

  179

  175

  Dorset

  158

  155

  144

  Portsmouth & S. E. Hampshire

  63

  63

  62

  Southampton & S. W. Hampshire

  46

  46

  50

  N. & Mid Hampshire

  45

  52

  46

  Wiltshire & Bath

  81

  85

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  66

  Isle of Wight

  15

  13

  16

  Berkshire

  50

  53

  53

  Buckinghamshire

  44

  46

  46

  Northamptonshire

  56

  60

  63

  Oxfordshire

  41

  41

  44

  Bristol & District

  146

  149

  —

  Avon

  —

  —

  163

  Cornwall & Isle of Scilly

  83

  81

  82

  Exeter & N. Devon

  87

  88

  —

  N. & E. Devon

  —

  —

  93

  Plymouth & Torbay

  109

  111

  —

  S. & W. Devon

  —

  —

  107

  Gloucestershire

  139

  141

  137

  Somerset

  66

  68

  78

  Herefordshire

  19

  21

  23

  Worcester & District

  35

  37

  —

  Shropshire

  48

  48

  53

  N. Staffordshire

  32

  36

  38

  Coventry

  16

  18

  16

  Dudley

  28

  28

  27

  Sandwell

  19

  25

  26

  Solihull

  8

  7

  10

  Walsall

  12

  13

  14

  Wolverhampton

  20

  21

  23

  N. Birmingham

  45

  45

  —

  419

  Nursing Homes

  Health Authority

  1995

  1996

  1997

  S. Birmingham

  37

  38

  —

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  82

  N. Worcestershire

  53

  54

  95

  S. Staffordshire

  80

  86

  90

  Warwickshire

  54

  58

  55

  Chester

  26

  —

  —

  S. E. Cheshire

  58

  —

  —

  N. Cheshire

  38

  38

  36

  S. Cheshire

  —

  90

  104

  Liverpool

  77

  73

  68

  St. Helens & Knowsley

  32

  33

  31

  Sefton

  98

  89

  84

  Wirral

  95

  88

  85

  Bolton

  22

  —

  —

  Stockport

  27

  29

  30

  Wigan

  12

  —

  —

  N. W. Lancashire

  80

  79

  78

  E. Lancashire

  71

  73

  76

  S. Lancashire

  42

  42

  42

  Wigan & Bolton

  —

  37

  36

  Bury & Rochdale

  56

  56

  54

  W. Penine

  36

  38

  38

  Manchester

  58

  60

  59

  Salford & Trafford

  54

  55

  49

  Morecambe Bay

  25

  27

  27

  Total

  5,332

  5,541

  5,568

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to put in place a system of remuneration to support the conduct of prescription reviews by community pharmacists in accordance with the proposals made by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. [57630]

  Mr. Milburn
  Our proposals for the future role of community pharmacy within the National Health Service will be published in a strategy document which is being developed. We are looking at a number of ideas including services by pharmacists, which might include reviewing patients' prescription medicines.

  Pharmacy Advisers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacy advisers have been employed by each health authority in each of the last three years. [57633]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested cannot be reliably identified from central data.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the trend in the number of requests for treatment at East Kent hospitals for sexually transmitted diseases arising from the increase in the number of asylum seekers resident in the area. [57547]

  Mr. Milburn
  Most sexually transmitted diseases are treated in genito-urinary medicine clinics which offer open access and confidential services; consequently information on users of these services is limited. The number of sexually transmitted diseases reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service for East Kent is small 420
  and trends are therefore difficult to interpret. Data from 1995 onwards for East Kent do not indicate any clear difference from national trends.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by health authority, the targets for bringing down waiting list numbers. [57739]

  Mr. Milburn
  March 1999 health authority waiting list targets, by National Health Service Region, are listed in the table.

  March 1999 waiting lists targets by health authority

  Health authority

  Waiting lists targets for March 1999

  Northern and Yorkshire Region

  135,007

  Bradford

  10,895

  County Durham

  12,022

  East Riding

  12,610

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  8,650

  Leeds

  15,200

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  8,350

  North Cumbria

  8,550

  Northumberland

  5,200

  Sunderland

  6,600

  Tees

  11,700

  Wakefield

  7,600

  North Yorkshire

  15,880

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  11,750

  Trent Region

  116,246

  Barnsley

  4,700

  North Derbyshire

  10,100

  South Derbyshire

  13,410

  Doncaster

  4,600

  Leicestershire

  17,350

  Lincolnshire

  19,300

  North Nottinghamshire

  8,685

  Nottingham

  12,548

  Rotherham

  4,500

  Sheffield

  11,143

  South Humber

  9,730

  Anglia and Oxford Region

  115,374

  Bedfordshire

  12,110

  Berkshire

  14,230

  Buckinghamshire

  13,620

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  8,800

  East Norfolk

  15,070

  Northamptonshire

  14,990

  North West Anglia

  10,100

  Oxfordshire

  10,744

  Suffolk

  15,710

  North Thames Region

  162,216

  Hillingdon

  4,900

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  4,299

  Enfield and Haringey

  11,456

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  13,007

  Barking and Havering

  12,137

  Barnet

  5,486

  Brent and Harrow

  10,261

  Camden and Islington

  5,895

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  15,196

  East London and the City

  11,818

  North Essex

  24,519

  South Essex

  17,910

  East and North Hertfordshire

  13,772

  West Hertfordshire

  11,200

  421

  March 1999 waiting lists targets by health authority

  Health authority

  Waiting lists targets for March 1999

  South Thames Region

  168,555

  Greenwich and Bexley

  8,505

  Bromley

  6,875

  Croydon

  8,321

  East Kent

  17,155

  West Kent

  27,539

  Kingston and Richmond

  7,100

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  17,865

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  10,812

  East Surrey

  10,128

  West Surrey

  16,689

  East Sussex

  18,700

  West Sussex

  18,866

  South and West Region

  146,502

  North and Mid Hampshire

  10,546

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  9,717

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  15,472

  Isle of Wight

  3,784

  Somerset

  13,000

  Southand and West Devon

  12,644

  Wiltshire

  14,985

  Avon

  21,250

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  11,681

  Dorset

  12,371

  North and East Devon

  12,827

  Gloucestershire

  8,225

  West Midlands Region

  91,650

  Birmingham

  15,000

  Coventry

  4,281

  Dudley

  4,670

  Herefordshire

  2,818

  Sandwell

  4,500

  Shropshire

  7,561

  Solihull

  3,659

  North Staffordshire

  6,173

  South Staffordshire

  14,500

  Walsall

  2,850

  Warwickshire

  10,776

  Wolverhampton

  3,950

  Worcester

  10,912

  North West Region

  172,137

  South Lancashire

  9,495

  Liverpool

  12,029

  Manchester

  11,731

  Morecambe Bay

  6,717

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  9,230

  Salford and Trafford

  12,461

  Sefton

  8,030

  Stockport

  7,328

  West Pennine

  13,604

  Bury and Rochdale

  9,875

  North Cheshire

  9,784

  South Cheshire

  15,347

  East Lancashire

  13,150

  North West Lancashire

  12,980

  Bolton and Wigan

  14,875

  Wirral

  5,501

  England

  1,107,687

  Nurses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by(a) health authority and (b) region, the numbers of current vacancies for nurses. [57738]
  422
  Mr. Milburn
  This information is not collected centrally. Figures on vacancies for nurses and midwives are collected by the Office of Manpower and Economics and published in the annual reports of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, copies of which are in the Library.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be made to the cash limits of his Department in 1998–99. [58086]

  Mr. Dobson
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class XI, Vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England) will be reduced by £166,621,000 (from £31,392,213,000 to £31,225,592,000). This allows for a transfer of £220,000,000 following a re-appraisal of drugs budget requirements and transfers of £5,000,000 to Class XI Vote 2 (Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England) for children's services; £30,000 to Class XI, Vote 2 for the United Kingdom Coordinating Committee for Cancer Research and £20,000 to Class XIII, Vote 4 (Hospital, community health, family health, other health services and welfare food, Scotland) for general practice fundholders' cross border flows. The overall reduction is partially offset by an increase of £56,000,000 in respect of the take up of end year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998,Official Report, columns 131–36 and a transfer of £2,429,000 from Class XI Vote 2 for the Medical Devices Evaluation Service.

  The cash limit for Class XI, Vote 2 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be increased by £55,873,000 (from £1,096,377,000 to £1,152,250,000). This increase allows for a claim on the Reserve of £53,900,000 to support the persons from abroad children's grant; transfers totalling £5,030,000 from Class XI, Vote 1 as mentioned above; a transfer of £20,000 (running costs) from Class XVII, Vote 1 (Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service) for accommodation costs; a transfer of £11,000 (running costs) from Class XIV, Vote 4 (Hospital, community health, family health services and other health services (part), Wales) for the National Screening Committee. The overall increase is partially offset by transfers totalling £3,075,000 for the Medical Device Evaluation Service made up of transfers to Class XI, Vote 1 as mentioned above (£2,429,000), Class XIII, Vote 4 (Hospital, community health, family health, other health services and welfare food, Scotland) (£369,000), Class XIV, Vote 4 (Hospital, community health, family health services and other health services (part), Wales) (£185,000) and to the Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland (£92,000) and a transfer of £13,000 to Class IX, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) for their responsibility for childcare and early education.

  The non-voted cash limit for supplementary credit approvals for personal social services (DoH/LACAP) in England is to be increased by £602,000 from £14,700,000 to £15,302,000 in respect of the take up of the end year

  423
  flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36.

  The Department's gross running cost limit will be increased by £31,000 from £262,915,000 to £262,946,000 as detailed above.

  All increases will either be offset by savings, increased receipts or transfers to or from other Votes or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tabled on 7 October. [57993]

  Ms Jowell
  Shortly.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 17 September on behalf of his constituent Mr. Bishop. [57526]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to the right hon. Member on 29 October 1998.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reply to the letter of 13 October from Anthony C. Walkey, 11 Castle Street, Totnes, Devon about the death of his son at the North Middlesex Hospital on 2 February; and if he will make a statement as to the steps he is proposing to take to ensure that lessons are learnt from the case. [55874]

  Mr. Dobson
  I will reply shortly to Mr. Walkey's letter of 12 September.

  Policy Proposals (Quality of Life)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methods of measurements and from what base lines his Department employs in assessing the quality of life implications of policy proposals; and how these were selected. [55770]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department uses a range of methods to assess the implications of policy proposals, consistent with relevant guidance such as the Department of Health guide "Policy Appraisal and Health", copies of which are available in the Library and other guidance from other Government departments.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many community hospitals there are in Great Britain; and how many are under review; [57497]

  (2) how many community hospitals there were in Great Britain on 1 May 1997. [57498]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested for England is not collected centrally.
  424
  Questions regarding Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of States for Scotland and for Wales.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many community hospitals will close by 1 January 2000; [57494]

  (2) how many community hospitals he estimates there will be in Great Britain on 1 January 2000. [57496]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are committed to modernising the National Health Service and community hospitals can have an important role in this NHS.

  It is not possible to predict what future requirements for community hospitals will be. These will be considered on a case by case basis.

  Questions regarding Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average bed occupancy in community hospitals in(a) England and (b) Oxfordshire in the last 18 months. [57495]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information about bed occupancy is available only by trust or type of trust, not by hospital or type of hospital.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in ensuring that British beef is bought for British armed forces. [55748]

  Mr. Rooker
  Government Departments are generally required to look for best value for money in their procurement decisions and it would contravene the Treaty of Rome to operate a "Buy British" Policy.

  Nevertheless, following a request from the UK, last summer a regulation was agreed in Brussels, authorising the sale of 1,200 tonnes of UK intervention beef to UK armed forces and associated personnel. The MOD's suppliers began taking over this beef in September and, apart from those forces stationed overseas, all new supplies of beef to the armed forces will be wholly British.

  Green Pound Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the signatory countries for the green pound compensation scheme; when he plans to implement the scheme; and from what source he proposes to fund the scheme. [55875]

  Mr. Rooker
  The agrimonetary system forms part of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy. It is used to convert CAP payments set in Ecu into national currencies. Compensation is available for green rate revaluations in certain circumstances, 50% of which can be reclaimed from the EU budget. The Government announced in December 1997 that they would pay a package of aid worth £85m to beef and sheep producers,
  425
  in respect of green pound revaluations that occurred in 1997. All of this £85m package could be reclaimed from the EU budget.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will lift the over-thirty- months scheme weight limit for beef cattle imposed in August 1997. [55922]

  Mr. Rooker
  We currently have no plans to remove the weight limit on payments under the Over-Thirty-Months Scheme. The scheme rules and rates of payment are in any case set not by the Government but by the European Commission.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with farmers about the difficulties in fattening calves sufficiently by the age of 30 months; if he will allow calves of up to 36 months to enter the food chain; on what scientific evidence the age limit was set at 30 months; and if he will make a statement. [56557]

  Mr. Rooker
  In most circumstances, beef production systems can be adapted quite easily to enable producers to finish cattle at under thirty months of age and farmers' leaders have not suggested to us that there is any real problem in doing so. However, the Beef Assurance Scheme, which was introduced in September 1996 in response to representations from specialist breeders, enables Scheme animals to be slaughtered for human consumption up to 42 months of age, subject to very strict conditions.

  The controls were introduced after the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) recommended, on 20 March 1996, that the carcases from cattle over 30 months should also be deboned and the trimmings classified as Specified Bovine Offals (SBOs). The basis for the 30 months age point was that it was half the way through the average incubation period of the disease. Evidence at the time from scrapie experiments in animal models indicated that it was after this point that infectivity was expected to enter the central nervous system (CNS) where the infectivity would rise to much higher levels than in other infected tissues. Consequently, cattle over the age of thirty months were considered to represent a much higher risk to consumers than younger animals. Very few animals below this age showed signs of clinical disease. The then Government went further than the advice to debone and, with the subsequent exception of Beef Assurance Scheme animals, all cattle over 30 months were prevented from entering the food chain. To date, no further scientific information has been available which has caused SEAC to change its advice.

  The Government have at present no plans to modify the rule but, as with all BSE control measures, it is being kept under review. Any decision to change the 30 months age limit will be taken in the light of progress with the eradication of BSE and of further advice from SEAC. The effective operation of the rule is a condition of the Florence Agreement on the lifting of the beef export ban. Any change would therefore require the agreement of the European Commission and other Member States.
  426

  Calf Processing Aid Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which EU countries will continue the calf processing assistance scheme after the EU directive expires; and what plans he has to continue assistance for calf processing after 30 November. [55876]

  Mr. Rooker
  We understand that France and Ireland will continue to operate the Calf Processing Aid Scheme after the obligation to do so lapses on 30 November; Portugal may also do so. As I made clear to the House on 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 89, the Government's current intention is that the Scheme will cease to operate in the United Kingdom as soon as the obligation lapses.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement listing the steps necessary to reintroduce the calf processing aid scheme after it ends in November. [56094]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: The Government would first need to be persuaded that the continued slaughter of calves at taxpayers' expense would be in the best long-term interests of UK agriculture. Second, having no current financial provision for the continuation of the scheme, they would need to agree with the Treasury that funds could be made available. Finally, it would need to inform the Commission of its intention to reintroduce the scheme.

  Farm Subsidies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funding his Department made available for agri-environmental schemes in each of the last three years; and what amounts he expects to be available over the next three years. [56516]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of expenditure on each of the agri-environment schemes in England are contained in the Departmental Reports for 1996 (CM 3204), 1997 (CM 3604) and 1998 (CM 3904), available from the Library of the House.

  The implications of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review for expenditure on the agri-environment schemes over the next three years were explained in the written statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 27 October 1998, Official Report, columns 156–58.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if farmers will be able to have their CAP subsidy paid in euros. [56709]

  Mr. Morley
  The Commission's proposals for the reform of the agrimonetary regime, to take account of the introduction of the Euro, allow for the possibility of operators in Member States not participating in the first wave to receive CAP payments in Euro. In response to UK pressure, the Commission have amended their original text to make the option of Euro payments in non-participating countries a more attractive and workable one.

  We recognise that some farmers and traders in the UK are interested in the option of receiving CAP payments in Euro. At present, we are actively examining the very

  427
  considerable practical and resource implications of such a move, whilst continuing detailed discussions on possible arrangements with the Commission.

  In considering the option of Euro payments, we want to be sure that offering it would not jeopardise the standards of service we currently aim to provide, or increase the risk of disallowance on any part of CAP expenditure administered in the UK.

  Discussions on the agrimonetary regulations are still continuing in the Council.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedure he will follow to achieve the United Kingdom's priorities of(a) retaining relative stability and (b) the maintenance of six and 12 mile fisheries limits. [56633]

  Mr. Morley
  The United Kingdom will continue to work closely with the European Commission and other Member States.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has made to fishermen's federations' proposals for coastal or zonal state management. [56634]

  Mr. Morley
  I have warmly welcomed the joint strategy of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and Scottish Fishermen's Federation on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy as a good basis for discussion.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will bring forward new measures to regulate fur farming; and if he will make a statement. [56499]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's firm intention is to ban fur farming as soon as practicable. However, primary legislation will be required, and any prohibition on fur farming must be implemented in accordance with national and international law if it is to achieve its objective. We are considering how best to achieve that objective. Any Government proposals for legislation to ban fur farming would be subject to public consultation. All current mink farm licensees have been given notice of our intention to prohibit fur farming.

  Horses
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the size of the current black market in veterinary medicines for horses in the United Kingdom; and what assessment he had made of the impact of European Council Directive 81/851/EEC after 1 January 2000. [55805]

  Mr. Rooker
  We do not hold information on a 'black market' in veterinary medicines for horses. Any evidence of medicines being sold or supplied illegally should be sent to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, who will pursue instances vigorously.
  428
  Council Regulation EC 2377/90 requires maximum residue limits (MRLs) to be set for all veterinary medicines used for food producing animals by 31 December 1999. It is a matter for the companies concerned to provide the data to support an application for an MRL. A number of applications for assessment have been received but there are some active ingredients for which the necessary data to support an application for an MRL have not been provided within the deadline laid down by the Council Regulation.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the use, in horses, of sedatives prior to general anaesthesia in preventing perioperative death. [56755]

  Mr. Rooker
  All applications for marketing authorisations for veterinary medicinal products are assessed against statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. As part of this process, the applicant company is required to submit data to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate where they are carefully assessed by qualified specialists. Where appropriate, advice is also sought from the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) which advises Agriculture and Health Ministers on veterinary medicines. No product is approved unless it satisfies the criterion for efficacy.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which pre-operative sedatives used in the UK for horses do not currently have a submitted maximum residual level; how many he expects to have a MRL by 1 January 1999; and how many presently have a submitted MRL. [56752]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are six active ingredients in veterinary medicinal products used as pre-operative sedatives for horses in the UK. Four of these have been included in Annex II (substances not subject to maximum residue limits) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2377/90 as amended. The two remaining active ingredients, acepromazine and xylazine, are currently being assessed.

  Pigs
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size of the national pig herd; what estimate he has made of the likely size of the pig herd over the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [56925]

  Mr. Rooker
  The provisional results of the June 1998 census records a total of 8.1 million pigs in the UK. Although no estimates are made beyond the immediate future, it is reasonable to assume that the number of pigs will fluctuate over the next five years in line with the pig cycle.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates his Department has made of the average level of farm incomes on pig farms over the next six months; and if he will make a statement. [56924]

  Mr. Rooker
  None; indications are that, given the present level of production and market prices, incomes will remain depressed.
  429

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56797]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of appointments made in 1997 were published in the 1998 Departmental Annual Report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Similar information for appointments made in 1998 will be included in the 1999 Report. I will write to my hon. Friend with a copy of this information in advance of publication.

  BSE (Additional Funding)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much additional funding he intends to provide to(a) Gloucestershire County Council and (b) nationally to Trading Standards Services in order to carry out work in connection with BSE. [56783]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: I have no plans to provide any additional funding to Gloucestershire County Council or nationally to Trading Standards Services to carry out their enforcement responsibilities in respect of BSE legislation. Through the BSE Regulatory Forum, however, my officials will continue to work with representatives of local authorities on ways in which improved guidance and co-ordination of enforcement activity can be achieved to ensure the most cost effective use of available resources.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken by his Department to implement the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's recommendation that there should be a prohibition on the use of mammalian meat and bonemeal in feed for all farm animals. [57003]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Amendment) Order 1996 (SI 1996 No. 962), which came into force on 29 March 1996, implemented the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's advice of 20 March 1996 by introducing a prohibition on the feeding of mammalian meat and bone meal to all farmed livestock.

  Farmers (Average Age)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average age is of British farmers; and how this has changed over the last thirty years. [57300]

  Mr. Rooker
  The earliest year for which figures are available is 1975. The age distribution of UK farmers in 1975 and 1995 are given in the table. The estimated average age has increased from 53 years in 1975 to 55 years in 1995.
  430

  Percentage of farmers

  Age range

  1975

  1995

  Less than 35

  9

  6

  35 to less than 45

  19

  17

  45 to less than 55

  27

  27

  55 to less than 65

  27

  26

  65 years and over

  18

  24

  Total

  100

  100

  Source:

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Milk Marque is covered by the same rules as other dairy consortia when negotiating prices for its product. [57302]

  Mr. Rooker
  The whole of the market for raw milk is subject to competition law in the same way as other sectors. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is currently investigating the market for raw milk in Great Britain and is due to report in January 1999.

  Pre-slaughter Tranquillisers
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are in place to establish that meat containing pre-slaughter tranquillisers is not being imported into Britain. [57298]

  Mr. Rooker
  Member States are required to test meat for a wide range of veterinary medicines, including tranquillisers, and are responsible for implementing and policing the relevant Directives in respect of their own national production.

  Any third country wishing to export fresh meat to the European Union must submit residue testing plans to the Commission that provide guarantees which are at least equivalent to the requirements of the Community on EC producers.

  Port Health Authorities in the UK (or local authorities in their absence) are responsible under Directive 90/675/EEC for checking 1% of all imported meat and meat products for residues of veterinary medicines.

  Imported Meat
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of imported animal carcases is tested for the presence of hormones. [57299]

  Mr. Rooker
  All EU Member States are required to have national monitoring plans to detect residues and substances in animal tissues and products, including meat, and to report the results of their monitoring to the European Commission each year. These monitoring plans apply to the production process and, as such, provide the necessary guarantees in respect of products in free circulation in the Single Market as a whole, not just in the Member State concerned. Because of these Single Market rules, checks for the presence of residues in carcases originating in other Member States are not routinely carried out in the UK.

  All meat imported into the EU must originate from approved third countries. Responsibility for approving third countries rests with the European Commission, who

  431
  must take account of information on matters which include legislation on the use, authorisation, distribution and marketing of substances which might be administered to livestock. Inclusion or retention on the list of approved countries is subject to the submission of acceptable monitoring plans which provide guarantees at least equivalent to those provided by EU Member States.

  In addition, the European Commission's guidance on the testing of meat imported from third countries states that at least 1 per cent. of consignments which are subject to physical checks at Border Inspection Posts should be randomly sampled for residues, contaminants and bacteria such as salmonella and coliforms. For red meat, 1 per cent. of consignments subject to physical checks equates to 0.2 per cent. (i.e. 1 in 500) of all consignments. In the year to 31 August 1998, 3.7 per cent. of consignments of all products of animal origin imported into Great Britain from third countries were sampled by the local authorities responsible for Border Inspection Posts. The figures do not separately identify the numbers of checks on carcases or the number of residue checks carried out.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that standards of inspection of imported meat are as high as those at British abattoirs. [57305]

  Mr. Rooker
  All consignments of fresh meat imported into the UK, whether from other EU Member States or third countries, must have been produced in accordance with the harmonised Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC. Among other things, this Directive sets out the licensing, structural and veterinary supervision requirements to be applied in abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores. Slaughterhouses in third countries have to comply with standards at least equivalent to those laid down in the Directive before they can export to the EU.

  Ensuring that all Member States comply with their Community obligations in properly implementing and applying the Directive is the responsibility of the European Commission, whose Food and Veterinary Office carries out regular programmes of inspection visits to all Member States. The Food and Veterinary Office are also responsible for carrying out inspections in the third countries from which fresh meat is imported into the Community.

  All consignments of fresh meat imported from third countries are subject to veterinary inspection on entering the EU to ensure that conditions of import have been complied with and to ensure that they have remained in a satisfactory condition during transport. In line with Community rules, random spot checks at destination may be carried out on consignments of fresh meat imported into the UK from other EU Member States.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safety assessment his Department has conducted on the spreading of condensate from abattoirs on to agricultural land. [57102]

  Mr. Rooker
  Condensate is produced from the steam driven off during the rendering of carcases or offal. Most Tenderers dispose of their condensate to sewers but a small number spread theirs on agricultural land. The spreading 432
  of waste on agricultural land is subject to control by the Environment Agency under the waste management provisions of Part II of the Environment Protection Act 1990.

  In response to concerns about the practice, the Environment Agency commissioned a risk assessment report by independent technical consultants about the safety of condensate spread from a plant. The independent Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee are reviewing the practice, based on the results of the risk assessment and associated work, and we await their advice.

  Badgers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the proportion of cubs born which would be saved as the result of the imposition of a six-month closed season for the culling of badgers; [57549]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the proportion of cubs born which will be preserved by the introduction of a three-month closed season for the culling of badgers; [57554]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of information relating to the effects upon welfare of the imposition of a six-month closed season for the culling of badgers; and if he will list the sources of such data; [57550]

  (4) what factors underlay his statement that a three-month closed season for culling badgers would meet the major welfare concerns about dependent cubs; [57552]

  (5) if he will list the experts he has consulted prior to determining the proposed closed season for badger culling. [57551]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Krebs report recommended that lactating female badgers should be culled throughout the year. Ministers asked Professor Bourne's group to re-examine this recommendation, taking account of comments received on the Krebs report, many of which expressed concern, and views expressed during meetings with a variety of individuals and organisations. The group concluded that badger welfare would be enhanced by a closed season, but that culling would not be a practicable policy option if that season lasted longer than three months. The three months from February to April were selected because, over a period of years, they would offer protection to a greater proportion of dependent cubs than any other three month period, but no estimate has been or can be made of the numbers affected.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department's nature conservation advisers observe a closed season of seven months on the issuing of licences to disturb or exclude badgers from their setts. [57553]

  Mr. Rooker
  Although there is no provision for a closed season under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the Ministry takes the badger breeding season into account when determining licence applications.

  Imports and Exports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the value, in current
  433
  prices, of the United Kingdom's net imports or exports of (a) beef and veal, (b) lamb and mutton, (c) pork and other pigmeats, (d) cereals and other crops, (e) horticultural products and (f) non-meat livestock products for each year since 1975. [57505]

  Mr. Rooker
  The tables show the value at current prices (prices at the time of trade), as recorded by the Overseas Trade Statistics, for imports, exports and net trade for each year from 1975 to 1997 for the following:

  (a) beef and veal;

  (b) lamb and mutton (including the meat of goats between 1975 and 1987);

  (c) pork and other pigmeats;

  (d) cereals and cereal preparations of barley, maize, oats rice, rye, wheat and other cereal crops;

  (e) fruit, nuts and vegetables and their preparations;

  (f) eggs and egg products, and milk and milk products.

  UK Overseas Trade 1975–1997

  £ million

  (a) Beef and veal

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports less Imports

  1975

  93.4

  138.1

  -44.7

  1976

  107.8

  182.5

  -74.7

  1977

  122.1

  237.4

  -115.3

  1978

  150.2

  271.9

  121.7

  1979

  145.0

  321.1

  -176.2

  1980

  201.2

  293.7

  -92.5

  1981

  185.9

  270.6

  -84.7

  1982

  182.6

  282.5

  -99.9

  1983

  285.1

  272.8

  12.3

  1984

  269.5

  245.4

  24.1

  1985

  262.1

  256.9

  5.2

  1986

  243.8

  341.7

  -98.0

  1987

  318.2

  389.0

  -70.9

  1988

  248.5

  482.7

  -234.1

  1989

  303.7

  425.6

  -121.9

  1990

  232.5

  337.2

  -104.7

  1991

  232.7

  370.3

  -137.6

  1992

  265.6

  384.9

  -119.3

  1993

  371.3

  367.9

  3.4

  1994

  500.5

  300.1

  200.4

  1995

  597.3

  338.8

  258.5

  1996

  1148.9

  308.9

  -160.0

  1997

  115.0

  356.9

  -341.9

  1 Exports after March 1996 are re-exports of produce of non-UK origin

  £ million

  (b) Lamb and mutton

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports less imports

  1975

  27.4

  121.5

  -94.1

  1976

  32.7

  133.2

  -100.5

  1977

  54.8

  157.9

  -103.1

  1978

  56.4

  182.2

  -125.8

  1979

  58.2

  173.1

  -114.9

  1980

  55.5

  170.4

  -115.0

  1981

  68.0

  170.0

  -102.0

  1982

  71.1

  248.9

  -177.8

  1983

  83.6

  183.5

  -99.9

  1984

  90.9

  178.5

  -87.6

  434

  £ million

  (b) Lamb and mutton

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports less imports

  1985

  94.5

  195.5

  -101.3

  1986

  127.4

  152.3

  -24.9

  1987

  150.8

  152.2

  -1.4

  1988

  170.9

  136.6

  34.4

  1989

  191.5

  150.3

  41.1

  1990

  178.4

  188.7

  -10.3

  1991

  174.6

  132.9

  41.7

  1992

  216.6

  151.1

  65.5

  1993

  235.9

  199.2

  36.7

  1994

  263.2

  185.6

  77.6

  1995

  312.8

  212.2

  100.6

  1996

  325.5

  268.3

  57.2

  1997

  257.6

  260.3

  -2.7

  £ million

  (c) Pork and other pigmeats

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports less imports

  1975

  4.7

  231.8

  -227.2

  1976

  10.6

  237.0

  -226.4

  1977

  17.1

  283.7

  -266.6

  1978

  14.8

  363.6

  -348.8

  1979

  18.5

  381.5

  -363.0

  1980

  20.4

  400.1

  -379.7

  1981

  20.0

  422.2

  -402.2

  1982

  33.4

  420.4

  -387.0

  1983

  51.1

  403.9

  -352.8

  1984

  49.3

  453.2

  -403.9

  1985

  55.9

  458.3

  -402.4

  1986

  64.6

  462.1

  -397.5

  1987

  53.5

  484.7

  -431.2

  1988

  59.5

  500.0

  -440.6

  1989

  73.0

  642.5

  -569.6

  1990

  71.8

  662.3

  -590.5

  1991

  97.9

  618.1

  -520.2

  1992

  143.2

  652.4

  -509.2

  1993

  130.3

  594.8

  -464.6

  1994

  161.0

  575.2

  -414.2

  1995

  240.3

  755.8

  -515.5

  1996

  273.8

  987.5

  -713.7

  1997

  297.6

  735.5

  -437.9

  £ million

  (d) Cereals and cereal preparations

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports less imports

  1975

  169.1

  612.0

  -442.8

  1976

  134.3

  747.5

  -613.1

  1977

  210.7

  820.4

  -609.7

  1978

  364.8

  674.6

  -309.8

  1979

  264.4

  668.4

  -404.0

  1980

  455.7

  603.2

  -147.5

  1981

  697.8

  565.9

  131.9

  1982

  773.9

  549.9

  224.0

  1983

  740.9

  593.5

  147.5

  1984

  992.7

  629.0

  363.7

  1985

  833.0

  713.2

  119.9

  1986

  1,177.5

  769.3

  408.2

  1987

  813.8

  742.7

  71.1

  1988

  674.8

  751.2

  -76.4

  1989

  951.6

  722.2

  229.4

  1990

  1,061.6

  785.1

  276.5

  435

  £ million

  (d) Cereals and cereal preparations

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports less imports

  1991

  1,102.8

  818.5

  284.3

  1992

  1,203.5

  1,004.2

  199.3

  1993

  1,231.5

  1,013.8

  217.8

  1994

  1,146.1

  984.1

  162.0

  1995

  1,330.7

  1,037.9

  292.9

  1996

  1,603.9

  1,151.2

  452.8

  1997

  1,411.0

  1,268.9

  142.1

  £ million

  (e) Fruit, nuts and vegetables

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports less imports

  1975

  67.4

  690.8

  -623.4

  1976

  84.1

  941.5

  -857.4

  1977

  110.3

  1,107.9

  -997.5

  1978

  132.8

  1,041.3

  -908.5

  1979

  148.5

  1,174.6

  -1,026.1

  1980

  152.5

  1,238.9

  -1,086.4

  1981

  152.2

  1,389.4

  -1,237.1

  1982

  154.0

  1,608.3

  -1,454.3

  1983

  163.2

  1,718.5

  -1,555.4

  1984

  190.8

  1,930.3

  -1,739.5

  1985

  205.3

  2,037.1

  -1,831.8

  1986

  251.7

  2,184.4

  -1,932.6

  1987

  300.3

  2,414.4

  -2,114.1

  1988

  222.3

  2,458.9

  -2,236.6

  1989

  281.2

  2,725.8

  -2,444.6

  1990

  263.7

  2,964.5

  -2,700.7

  1991

  298.5

  3,002.6

  -2,704.1

  1992

  330.6

  3,118.0

  -2,787.4

  1993

  328.3

  3,146.1

  -2,817.8

  1994

  378.9

  3,426.6

  -3,047.7

  1995

  457.0

  3,950.4

  -3,493.3

  1996

  475.4

  4,403.9

  -3,928.5

  1997

  454.8

  4,092.4

  -3,637.6

  Product

  Price

  Unit

  Coverage

  Date of price

  Cereals

  Wheat

  73.10

  £/tonne

  GB

  w/c 19 October 1998

  Barley

  76.10

  £/tonne

  GB

  w/c 19 October 1998

  Oats

  62.20

  £/tonne

  GB

  w/c 19 October 1998

  Other crops

  Potatoes (King Edward)

  150.08

  £/tonne

  England and Wales

  w/c 19 October 1998

  Cattle

  Charolais/X First Quality—18 month steers

  409.82

  £/head

  England and Wales

  w/c 19 October 1998

  Sheep

  Lambs First Quality

  27.63

  £/head

  England and Wales

  w/c 19 October 1998

  Pigs

  Store Pigs—(9 weeks and under 12 weeks)

  14.88

  £/head

  England and Wales

  w/c 19 October 1998

  Livestock products

  Eggs (Intensive)

  29.00

  p/dozen

  UK

  w/c 27 September 1998

  Milk

  20.79

  p/litre

  UK

  August 1998, provisional

  436

  £ million

  (f) Eggs and milk

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports less imports

  1975

  51.7

  522.6

  -470.9

  1976

  115.0

  504.6

  -389.6

  1977

  98.0

  460.3

  -362.3

  1978

  221.8

  510.0

  -288.2

  1979

  226.2

  534.4

  -308.2

  1980

  298.4

  493.7

  -195.3

  1981

  307.2

  592.2

  -285.0

  1982

  325.6

  567.9

  -242.3

  1983

  308.1

  629.2

  -321.1

  1984

  246.6

  604.6

  -358.0

  1985

  281.3

  606.3

  -325.0

  1986

  331.5

  653.2

  -321.7

  1987

  318.8

  663.4

  -344.6

  1988

  389.1

  761.2

  -372.1

  1989

  501.8

  786.4

  -284.7

  1990

  458.2

  913.7

  -455.5

  1991

  451.9

  871.0

  -419.0

  1992

  534.6

  1,111.4

  -576.8

  1993

  646.3

  1,028.5

  -382.2

  1994

  695.8

  1,112.0

  -416.2

  1995

  818.1

  1,105.0

  -287.0

  1996

  742.2

  1,243.2

  -501.0

  1997

  746.8

  1,141.8

  -395.1

  Note:

  The figure for net trade may not equal the difference between exports and imports due to rounding

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise Business Monitors

  Farmgate Prices
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made for farmgate prices in 1998–99 for(a) cereals, (b) other crops, (c) beef and veal, (d) lamb and mutton, (e) pigs and pigmeat, (f) milk, (g) other non-meat livestock products and (h) horticultural products. [57499]

  Mr. Rooker
  Forecast estimates of farmgate prices for the complete period 1998–99 are not published. The latest prices are as set out in the table.
  437

  Product

  Price

  Unit

  Coverage

  Date of price

  Horticultural products

  Apples—Cox's Orange Class 1

  45.60

  p/kg

  England

  w/c 19 October 1998

  Pears—Conference Class 1

  42.83

  p/kg

  England

  w/c 19 October 1998

  Notes:

  1. Egg figures are selected from the monthly Egg Statistics Notice (October 9, 1998)

  2. Milk figures are selected from the monthly United Kingdom Milk Prices Statistics Notice (October 9, 1998)

  3. The prices for the other products are selected from the Agricultural Market Report (week ending 23 October 1998). The report, covering a wide range of agricultural products, is issued weekly and is available in the House of Commons Library

  Intervention Board
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed to the Intervention Board Executive Agency's cash limit for 1998–99. [58156]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for the Intervention Board Executive Board Executive Agency (Class IV Vote I Administration) will be increased by £12,310,000 from £60,194,000 to £72,504,000. This vote is eligible for a running cost increase of £761,000 in respect 438
  of the end year flexibility arrangements, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36.

  The increase is to cover running costs associated with the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) schemes operated by IB and its agents in the United Kingdom; and capital expenditure on IT systems enhancement and development. The running costs limit for the Intervention Board Executive Agency will be increased by £11,448,000 from £57,590,000 to £69,038,000.

  The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

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

Hospital Building: PFI Projects
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the detailed terms of their current hospital developments being funded under the Private Finance Initiative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government are determined to end the secrecy and lack of information which have surrounded proposed PFI projects in the past. All National Health Service trusts are now required to publish their key Private Finance Initiative project documents, which will contain the detailed terms of the PFI scheme. NHS trusts must place these documents at specific sites locally and nationally so that they are freely accessible for viewing by the local community, patients, NHS staff and any member of the public. NHS trusts are also required to place copies of documents for schemes with a capital value of over £10 million in the Libraries of both Houses.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very positive reply, not to mention the Treasury's amazingly speedy response to my Question. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the considerable concerns about PFI: that it may be a live now, pay later solution for the taxpayer; and in particular, it may in the future lead to a squeeze on revenues and cuts in services. Will the Government's commitment to
2
transparency extend to ensuring that in each case, where tender details are published, comparisons are given also with the cost of public sector financing so that the thin end of any very thick wedges may be seen clearly?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord but some work was going on in government even before he tabled his Question on these issues. However, the noble Lord rightly raises the issue about the proper economic appraisal of PFI projects and transparency in relation to that economic appraisal. It must be carried out by comparing on a like-by-like basis the total lifetime costs of the PFI and the public sector options. The results of that appraisal will be published with the full business case so that all can see. Ministers will approve PFI schemes only if they deliver comparable or, as is usually the case, better value for money than the public sector option.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the merits of private finance for hospital building have not always been acknowledged so warmly by her party as they are now and that until comparatively recently senior Labour spokesmen spent their whole time rubbishing the idea? Therefore, for the record, will she summarise what advantages the Government have identified in private as opposed to public financing of hospital developments?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl, with whom I normally enjoy a very civilised relationship, tempts me to point out to him that the support of the previous government may have been large on the side of pronunciations but did not result in a single hospital being started under PFI. In our election manifesto, we said very clearly that we should break the logjam and we have done that with eight major hospital projects worth more than £0.5 billion where work has now been started on site.
However, we have made a crucial difference; that is, we have looked at and assessed the schemes put forward in terms of the health value and benefits which they bring and then have looked at the most appropriate form

3
of financing, rather than allowing the form of financing to determine which projects reached the head of the queue, which, as I know from my own experience, was often the case in the past as regards PFI projects.

Quarantine and Rabies
2.40 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior asked Her Majesty's Government:
With regard to the recent report by the Advisory Group on Quarantine, Quarantine and Rabies, whether they consider it reasonable to expect that it will take up to three years to arrange adequate facilities and administrative and operational structures for the importation of dogs and cats into the United Kingdom without the requirement to undergo quarantine for six months.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoghue): My Lords, the advisory group recommended that changes to the present system of quarantine should not be introduced until an administrative and operational infrastructure was in place and thought that it might take up to three years to do this. The Government are sympathetic to the advisory group's recommendations, but have asked for comments on the report by 31st December. The Government are in the meantime looking closely at the legal, financial and practical aspects, including the timetable, and will decide on the way forward after the public consultation has ended.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what I hope is an encouraging reply. I am sure that he will agree that the majority of people concerned with this issue very much welcome the Kennedy Report. But does he agree that because of the long-awaited risk assessment which has been undertaken, it would be realistic to open one or two admission centres now in order to admit animals which qualify and in order to gain experience of so doing?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the noble Lord is one of the country's most distinguished experts in this field. I not only listen to what he says, but also in the past I have almost always agreed with him. We are looking at the possibility of various kinds of trials. My right honourable friend in another place, in the debate last Thursday, stated that he was looking sympathetically at a number of ways in which we may conduct trials which would assist us. However, it is possible that such an approach may delay the introduction of the new system. I am sure the noble Lord would not want that, and neither would I.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, in light of the strong recommendations in the Kennedy Report and the estimate by the RSPCA that up to 1,000 pets are being smuggled into Britain every year of which barely 100 are detected by the authorities, surely if one or two
4
ports or airports were opened to introduce the recommendations for a passport for pets, the system could be phased in far more quickly than a three-year period.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we do not know how many pets are being smuggled into the country; there are different estimates. The noble Lord's suggestion is sensible and helpful. As my right honourable friend said, we will look at all suggestions of that kind. We are currently conducting a public consultation exercise. The Government will not announce their decisions until after that consultation has been completed. I am quite open-minded on the issue. However, I can report to the House that roughly 90 per cent. of the responses received so far have been in favour of the reforms recommended by the report.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, has the Minister received information, as I have, from the Channel Tunnel and ferry operators that they already have in place facilities to start the new procedure? Given those excellent facilities, will it be possible for the Minister to explain what are the administrative and operational structures that will take three years to put in place?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we hope it will not take three years to put the scheme in place. The possibility of the Channel Tunnel was mentioned last Thursday in another place and my right honourable friend welcomed that; he said that he would look into it. However, I should make clear to the House that the introduction of the new system is not a simple operation. It involves designating ports and airports; having in place microchip facilities for identification; and introducing laboratory facilities for vaccination, confirmation and testing. We must have the facilities to look at every animal at every place of entry and the scheme is therefore quite complex, as the report says.
The Government's position is that we cannot introduce a new system that is any less protective of the public from rabies than the old system. Whatever system is introduced must protect the public and must have been tested and proven to do so. I would not wish noble Lords to underestimate that point. Whether it should or would take three years is a matter of opinion.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that, now that it has become apparent that there is no need for quarantine in the case of an animal which has been vaccinated, there will be a greater temptation for people to smuggle in animals which have been vaccinated and that in itself is a good argument for the Government making as much speed as possible in this matter?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we see the strength of that argument but, until the new system is introduced, it remains a serious offence to smuggle animals into Britain. It is not only an offence, it is also unfair on

5
fellow citizens. Therefore I strongly urge people not to smuggle in animals and, on our part, we will do what we can to introduce any new system as soon as possible.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Minister consider making a special case for expedition in relation to guide dogs for the blind, so as to enable blind people to travel to and from this country with guide dogs? Will he also consider a similar priority for other people suffering from a serious disability, such as multiple sclerosis, who depend utterly on their dogs for freedom of movement? Can that be given urgent priority whatever the general position and the general administrative problems?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the noble Lord has pressed this worthy cause before. I am sympathetic to it. However, I should point out that it is not as simple as might appear to open the scheme to guide dogs. Were it to be open to guide dogs wherever they enter the country the system would have to be in place everywhere. We will look at the possibility of priority or prior entry but it is complicated and may not be possible. However, we will look at it with the same sympathy as that expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, cannot the noble Lord expedite matters where dogs that are vaccinated in this country and microchipped travel to a rabies-free zone in Europe where they are given annual booster vaccinations certified by a vet, and are examined by a vet and given another booster before being returned to this country? When going to some parts of Europe pets have to have the vaccinations in any case.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that is a major part of the new system we are contemplating. At the present time it is not the system we inherited and currently operate.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Kennedy committee would not have made its recommendations if vaccination were not accepted as being absolutely safe and if the technology for electronic identification was not also well proven? Surely in that situation it is not a question of consultation or designing a scheme; it is a question of installing the appropriate technology at ports of entry. Could not the whole job be conducted more expeditiously than appears to be the case?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we hope to do it as expeditiously as possible. As regards consultation, we stated at the beginning that we would have full consultation with the public and with interested parties. Some interested parties oppose the direction in which we are proceeding. Our approach is to have full consultation. We shall then have the backing both of the scientific report and of the opinion that we have consulted with regard to our chosen approach.
The existing system has been in operation for nearly 100 years. We are contemplating quite a radical but, in my view, necessary and belated change. We need to
6
carry people with us. From our point of view, and from the views expressed in this House, I believe that we are certainly doing so.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister advise us whether, when the new regulations are in force, he will consider granting an amnesty to those pets in quarantine kennels at that time which otherwise fully comply with all the regulations that would be required of them?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that is certainly an intriguing question. I shall take that away and consider it.

Iran: Evin Prison
2.51 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, on their next visit to Iran, Ministers will ask to see prisoners on death row in Evin prison.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we and our EU partners regularly raise our human rights concerns with the Iranians, including our concerns about the death penalty. No dates have yet been set for a ministerial visit to Iran, nor any programme discussed. The Government made clear their opposition to capital punishment when they joined Council of Europe partners at their summit on 10th and 11th October in calling for the universal abolition of the death penalty.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her visit to the prisoners on death row in St. Catherine's, Jamaica, was a good way of highlighting our concern about the death penalty there? If a ministerial visit to Iran is arranged, it would be useful if Mr. Derek Fatchett, or whoever travels to Tehran, could apply to make a similar visit to death-row prisoners in Evin. Is the Minister aware that the UN Rapporteur on Iran expressed concern about the great increase in the number of people being executed, which reached 199 in 1997? He felt that if the Iranian authorities would at least report in public on the death penalties being imposed, some measure could be obtained of the justice of the system and whether or not it was used in a political manner.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Fatchett, raised our concern about human rights in general and the death penalty in particular with the Iranian chargé d'affaires in London. He also raised the issue with Mr. Ahani, the director of the Iranian Foreign Affairs Ministry, on his recent visit to London in September. No dates have yet been arranged for any visit by Mr. Fatchett to Iran. All decisions about such visits have to be taken in the light of the prevailing circumstances at the time. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend will consider the most

7
effective way of raising the issue of human rights in general, and the death penalty in particular, if and when he is able to visit Iran.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to tell us how many countries still have the death penalty?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, no. I am unable to give the noble Baroness that information. However, I shall make inquiries and I shall then write to her and place a copy of my answer in the Library of the House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend raise the British Government's concern about the death penalty on visits to the United States of America and make representations about the 3,000 people in the United States on death row?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am the Minister with first responsibility for our relationship with the United States of America. I do, indeed, raise the concern of the United Kingdom about the death penalty with our friends from America. On occasions I have had some frank exchanges with them on the subject.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware—although the point made by the noble Lord is taken—that the United States at least has a system of trials and appeals which is open to the public, whereas in Iran nobody knows how the convictions are secured and in many cases people do not have a right of appeal?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is aware of the varying judicial systems around the world and the differences between them. I understand that my noble friend was raising some particular questions about the United States. I believe that the point he was making—slightly elliptically—was that possibly Her Majesty's Government did not take a robust line on the issue with all countries that have the death penalty. If that is what my noble friend thinks, he is wrong in that surmise. Those questions are raised properly and appropriately.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I wonder whether I could push the Minister on this point. Following the restoration of diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level, what pressure do the Government intend to exert on Iran to ensure the full access of human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and international human rights monitors, and the UN special representative to Iran, Mr. Maurice Copithorne, given the fact that independent domestic human rights monitoring is severely restricted?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the first step is to ensure that we have a full ambassadorial exchange with Iran. As I was able to tell the House last week, that is under discussion at the moment. We hope
8
that the next step will be to arrange a ministerial visit to Iran. Obviously, such a visit—if it is arranged—will be the first ministerial visit to Iran since 1979. There will be many issues to be discussed, including human rights.
The noble Lord raises further questions about such people as Mr. Copithorne and others. Of course, we should like to see Mr. Copithorne have full access to Iran and to have a full discussion about those issues in Iran. However, we can draw some comfort from the fact that Mrs. Robinson will go to Iran early next year and the Iranian Government have agreed that on her visit she should be accompanied by officials from Amnesty International.
Nobody claims that these issues come right overnight. However, Her Majesty's Government hope and believe that they are moving in the right direction so far as concerns Iran.

Motorcycles: Off-road Use
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent or discourage the nuisance and damage caused by the use off the road of unlicensed and uninsured motorcycles, especially where such use depends upon access from the public highway.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we, too, deplore activities that create nuisance to others or cause damage to property. Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 contains prohibitions against using motor vehicles on areas other than public highways without the landowner's consent. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000. Where the landowner has given consent, the land may be used for purposes such as motorcycle racing for a maximum of 14 days in any year. Where there is a threat to amenities, the local authority has the power to withdraw this general planning permission. If unlicensed and uninsured motorbikes are used on roads, the rider may be prosecuted under current road traffic laws.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that this problem causes nuisance in many areas, and sometimes serious nuisance and a great deal of damage, and that that nuisance is frequently caused by the use of untested, noisy, old and unregistered motorcycles ridden by unhelmeted, sometimes reckless and rarely licensed riders? Those riders frequently gain unapproved access to the sites where they carry out that activity. They gain that access from the public highways, bringing risk to themselves and others, and they appear to enjoy complete immunity, despite wholesale breaches of the regulations.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise the situation that my noble friend describes in terms of off-road activities. If the riders are on the road, not only will their vehicles be subject to the Road Vehicles (Construction

9
and Use) Regulations, but there are also substantial penalties for driving while uninsured and without the correct licence for that vehicle, such as £5,000 and £1,000 fines plus disqualification. There are also severe penalties for dangerous driving. As regards use on the highway, the powers are substantial. As I indicated in my initial Answer, that situation is a little more complicated when such vehicles are off the road, even where the landowner has not given permission.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I am a patron of the Trail Riders Fellowship. It has a very strict code of practice. All the bikes that are ridden are street-legal. They are ridden only where it is legal to do so. The fellowship also deplores the fact that there are those who ride illegally. Does the noble Lord agree that it is very difficult indeed to stop such riders? They may not ride on the road and the bikes may be taken on the back of a pick-up truck. They will not have number plates and the bikes may well have been stolen. It is a very great problem. These riders are in a minority. I do appreciate that it is a problem.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always amazed at the pastimes of Members of this House. I had not previously thought of the noble Lord as a scrambler. However, I accept that there are regulated areas for this activity and that there are very respectable organisations which look after these matters. They ensure that the bikes and the drivers involved are safe as regards wearing helmets and ensuring that they are protected for such events.
As regards using the bikes on the road, there are very substantial powers. If they are carried on trailers, then the issue of whether they are stolen or not may arise. There again, the police have substantial powers. The problem is police resources and priorities as regards this issue.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House whether a motorcycle needs to be insured and licensed if it is ridden off-road but on a public right-of-way which does not count as a road?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall probably need to write to the noble Lord. In general terms the position is that public places are covered by part of the Road Traffic Act. Public places include not only public paths but also moorland and common land. I shall write to the noble Lord about the detail.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that most of the people involved in the problem that my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath has highlighted will be the young people in our society who cannot afford to buy bikes in good condition or tax and insure them, can my noble friend advise the House what encouragement the Government give to local authorities to provide facilities for such young people to learn to ride motorbikes in a safe way?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, both my department and local authorities encourage the safe riding of motorcycles and put substantial resources into the training of potential motorcyclists. As regards riding motorcycles which are in an
10
unsafe condition, the duty is on the organiser of a particular event. We encourage landowners who run these events and organisations such as those which have already been mentioned to ensure that the bikes are not only safe but also comply with all construction and use regulations. That applies only in situations where permission is given. The problem that my noble friend Lord Hardy referred to originally was where permission had not been given and where there is a serious problem in certain parts of the country.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me how many prosecutions have been undertaken by authorities over the past 12 months, particularly against those driving without third-party insurance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Earl that information. I shall attempt to do so. I know that it is not possible to obtain statistics relating to off-road offences. But third-party insurance obviously raises a wider issue. There are a number of prosecutions in that regard. I shall let the noble Earl know.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether motorcycles may be ridden on legally-designated public footpaths and whether landowners can give permission to ride motorcycles on public footpaths?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe the answer to that is that it cannot be done in normal circumstances. Again, there may be some qualification and in that case I shall let the noble Earl know.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in view of the damage which motorcycles and other cycles can cause to public footpaths, especially when they run over rather soft moorland, will the noble Lord share his answers to the noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Swinfen by putting a copy of his replies in the Library?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall undertake to do so.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which has been made in another place on international finance.

Scotland Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): 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 Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 87 [Maladministration]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 173C:
Page 41, line 18, leave out from ("authority") to second ("or") in line 19 and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 206L, 206M, 206N, 218D, 223A, 226A, 226B, 226C, 226L and 229B. These are drafting amendments which are designed to provide more user-friendly labels for certain of the Scottish public authorities for which provision is made at various points in the Bill. These amendments do not alter the effect of these provisions in any way. They merely replace the rather complicated references to,
"a Scottish public authority to which paragraph 1 or 2 of Part III of Schedule 5 … applies",
with the more straightforward words,
"Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions".
Part III of Schedule 5 is amended to define this expression, and a reference is added to the index of defined expressions in Clause 119. With that explanation, I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, one of the pleasures that I have experienced since I arrived in your Lordships' House this morning at about 12 o'clock has been to seek to understand the new government amendments which have been tabled since we last considered this Bill on Report. I may be wrong, but these amendments may fall within that category, although more important ones come later.
I have two questions for the noble Lord. First, is the amendment to Clause 87 designed to meet any of the concerns and questions which I raised at Committee stage about that clause? If not, may I gently request a reply to the questions that I posed on that occasion? Secondly, since these amendments are meant to clarify matters, it would be helpful if the noble Lord could give us an example of "mixed functions".
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I would gladly answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, as to whether these amendments deal with his reservations on and criticisms of Clause 87. However, I need to be reminded of what they were. Mixed public authorities are bodies which deal basically with reserved and devolved matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 173D:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
QUEEN'S PRINTER FOR SCOTLAND
(".—(1) There shall be a Queen's Printer for Scotland who shall—

(a) exercise the Queen's Printer functions in relation to Acts of the Scottish Parliament and subordinate legislation to which this section applies, and

(b) exercise any other functions conferred on her by this Act or any other enactment.

(2) In subsection (1), "the Queen's Printer functions" means the printing functions in relation to Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation of the Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament.
(3) The Queen's Printer for Scotland shall also on behalf of Her Majesty exercise Her rights and privileges in connection with—

(a) Crown copyright in Acts of the Scottish Parliament,

(b) Crown copyright in subordinate legislation to which this section applies,

(c) Crown copyright in any existing or future works (other than subordinate legislation) made in the exercise of a function which is exercisable by any office-holder in, or member of the staff of, the Scottish Administration (or would be so exercisable if the function had not ceased to exist),

(d) other copyright assigned to Her Majesty in works made in connection with the exercise of functions by any such office-holder or member.

(4) This section applies to subordinate legislation made, confirmed or approved—

(a) by a member of the Scottish Executive,

(b) by a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions, or

(c) within devolved competence by a person other than a Minister of the Crown or such a member or authority.

(5) The Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament shall hold the office of Queen's Printer for Scotland.
(6) References in this Act to a Scottish public authority include the Queen's Printer for Scotland.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Government Amendments Nos. 173D and 226N are technical amendments, which deal with the printing of and copyright in Acts of the Scottish Parliament, devolved subordinate legislation and other works produced by or in connection with the exercise of functions of, the Scottish Administration.
Government Amendment No. 173D establishes the office of the Queen's Printer for Scotland. The Queen's Printer for Scotland will exercise printing functions in relation to Acts of the Scottish Parliament and devolved subordinate legislation. She will also exercise all Her Majesty's rights and privileges in respect of copyright in what might conveniently be described as "Scottish works". Effectively she will perform the same functions in relation to these works as are presently carried out by the Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament. In fact, to facilitate consistency and coherency of approach, in particular in relation to the publication of statute law throughout the United Kingdom, the holder of the office will be the holder of the office of Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament, who also holds the office of Government Printer for Northern Ireland.
It is necessary to create the office of Queen's Printer for Scotland to ensure that the Scottish parliament and Scottish administration have an appropriate degree of control over the arrangements for the publication of Acts of the Scottish parliament and material produced by the Scottish administration. The Scottish parliament will be able to legislate to confer additional functions on the Queen's Printer for Scotland for example, in relation to the printing and publication of Scottish works. As a Scottish public authority, the parliament could legislate about the funding and receipts of the office and would be able to provide for the Scottish Ministers to give directions in connection with the exercise of her functions.
Amendment No. 226N is a technical amendment to ensure that works produced by the Scottish administration are subject to Crown copyright in the same way as works produced by other officers and servants of the Crown. Paragraph 23 of Schedule 8 to the Bill makes a number of amendments to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Amendment No. 226N amends the definition of "the Crown" in Section 178 of the Act so that it includes the Crown in right of the Scottish administration. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wish to ask a question about subsection (5) of the new clause. Is not the subsection rather anti-competitive; and do the Government expect there to be any challenge over that issue?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have a question which is linked to that of the noble Earl. The noble Baroness has explained—and one can detect it from the amendment—that the Queen's Printer for Scotland is the same person as the Queen's Printer for Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament. Who appoints the Queen's Printer for Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament? Will there be consultation in Scotland about the appointment before the appointment is made in view of the fact that that person is automatically the Queen's Printer for Scotland? What consultation will there be?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I share the concern expressed in the questions of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. As the Minister may know, there is concern, which I share, about the overcharging or charging in respect of what we call parliamentary copyright as well as Crown copyright. As I understand it, this matter is being considered at the moment in a separate consultation in the context of the freedom of information legislation.
My question is whether the Scottish parliament will be the body that decides what is to be done if the monopoly which is being transferred under this legislation were to be abused so that the public were being charged for Acts of the Scottish parliament either at all or at a profit. Who will be the quality controller in the interests of the consumer to ensure that these copyrights are not abused against the wider public interest? Will it be this Parliament, or the Minister, or the Scottish parliament, or some other body?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as soon as I hear the Minister beginning her speaking note with the words "This is a technical amendment", my ears prick up. It is far from a technical amendment. It is a very important amendment. Unless a Queen's Printer was appointed to publish the Acts of the Scottish parliament and the subordinate legislation coming out of it, a question might well arise as to whether it was competent for the courts to have regard to them. So I welcome the amendment which I am sure has been brought forward for very good reasons.
14
However, I have a number of questions to ask. First, can I be clear about what is intended by subsection (1)(b) of the new clause? It states:
"There shall be a Queen's Printer for Scotland who shall…exercise any other functions conferred on her by this Act or any other enactment".
I understand by the reference to the word "her", even though there is a small "h", that the reference there is to Her Majesty. Subsection (1)(b) is very broadly drafted in that there is no limitation on what other functions could be conferred on Her Majesty. It may be that that matter merits further consideration.
Secondly, is there anything in the clause that would prevent the Queen's Printer for Scotland, whether or not he or she is also the Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament, from contracting for the necessary printing and publication of the Acts of Parliament, the subordinate legislation and any other documents covered by Crown copyright, to be put into the private sector? In other words, is there anything in the clause that would make it necessary for all this work to be done by a government department?
Thirdly, I wish to ask what I believe to be a very important question. If the Scottish parliament wished from day one to ensure that all the primary legislation and subordinate legislation either coming out of the parliament or being made by the Scottish executive should be on a computer data base to be available to members of the public, is there anything to prevent that from happening, even though, unfortunately, we have not yet reached the stage where the statute law data base relating to the Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament is available to everyone who wishes to use it? That takes forward the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about people who seek access to documents covered by Crown copyright, and who are not lawyers, who can pay for copies themselves or gain access to computer data bases. I have in mind people who work for charities. They could spend a small fortune getting copies of Bills and because quite frequently, when a Bill is amended slightly, there is no reprint of the revised Bill, they may end up having to buy several large documents costing £10 or £15 each. That may be nothing to a lawyer in private practice but it is quite a lot to a small charity helping the mentally disabled or some other group in society which requires support.
Those are practical questions which arise out of the new clause. It was not possible for me to give any notice of my questions but I hope that we may receive some further information by letter during the course of the week.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I have been asked a plethora of questions. I shall try to answer as many as I can; and where I do not I undertake to write to noble Lords.
In different forms the question was asked, including in the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, how the Queen's Printer is or will be appointed. The Queen's Printer is appointed by virtue of Letters Patent. She is in fact appointed by Her Majesty. The office of Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament is held by a civil servant in the United Kingdom Government.

15
She is appointed by Her Majesty on recommendation by the head of the Home Civil Service. We would certainly expect administrative arrangements to be made to consult the Scottish administration before any future appointments were made.
I shall deal shortly with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. In fact, I am not sure whether he or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, asked whether the printer could contract out the work of publishing Acts to the private sector. I should point out that there is nothing in the Bill which would preclude contracting out the printing of Acts of the Scottish parliament if that was so desired.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked about subsidising the publications. The provision actually facilitates a decision by the Scottish parliament to subsidise the publication of the Acts of the Scottish parliament—the ASPs. Therefore, the Scottish parliament can address the very concerns expressed by the noble Lord.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, raised a question as regards subsection (5) of the clause. What we are doing in this provision is providing a practical solution to ensure a coherent approach to the statute book and legislation generally. That is why we consider it the most sensible way forward to have the same person occupy these parallel, so to speak, posts.
I turn now to the concept of having a computerised database for ASPs. This possibility is being considered, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows. We are doing so in discussion with the current Queen's Printer. I am advised that the practicalities are being examined. I do not believe that I can add anything to that, even by letter. Therefore, I hope that that answer is satisfactory for the time being.
The noble and learned Lord also asked me about subsection (1)(b) of the new clause. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord realises that the "her" refers to the Queen's Printer. That position is at present occupied by a lady—namely, Mrs. Carol Tullo. Therefore, in the case of any further functions being conferred upon the printer by this or any other Act, the reference to "her" relates to the Queen's Printer. It is perhaps unusual, but it is a refreshing change for some of us in this House to find a female holding such a post. That is why the provision refers to "she" and "her". Indeed, subsection (1)(b) will allow the parliament to confer additional functions on the Queen's Printer for Scotland as and when it considers fit. Therefore, with those answers, I hope that the House will agree to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 [Agency arrangements]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 173E.
Leave out Clause 88 and insert the following new clause—
AGENCY ARRANGEMENTS
(".—(1) A Minister of the Crown may make arrangements for any of his specified functions to be exercised on his behalf by the Scottish Ministers; and the Scottish Ministers may make arrangements for any of their specified functions to be exercised on their behalf by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) An arrangement under this section does not affect a person's responsibility for the exercise of his functions.
(3) In this section—

"functions" does not include a function of making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation,

"Minister of the Crown" includes government department,

"specified" means specified in an Order in Council made by Her Majesty under this subsection,

and this section applies to the Lord Advocate as it applies to the Scottish Ministers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 206E when moving this amendment.
Amendment No. 173E amends Clause 88 so as to enable Ministers of the Crown and the Scottish Ministers to make arrangements to exercise functions on each other's behalf, subject to the proviso that the ministerial responsibility for the exercise of a function will not be affected by such an arrangement. The functions concerned must be specified in an Order in Council, and they cannot include functions of making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation. We expect that such arrangements will be used, for example, to permit the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in practice acting through his officials in the State Veterinary Service, to carry out certain functions in relation to animal health and welfare.
The amendment would also delete the existing text of Clause 88, which permits agency arrangements for the provision of "services", because we have concluded that it is unnecessary to have an express provision for that. It is considered that the Scottish Ministers will have sufficient powers to enter into such arrangements and to supply services under the ordinary law. If public bodies and office holders require powers to provide services to the Scottish Ministers on the same basis as they can to Ministers of the Crown, that can be made possible by consequential amendments where it is not permitted by the general glosses in the Bill.
Amendment No. 206E is related to Amendment No. 173E. It amends Schedule 7 to provide that an Order in Council made under the new Clause 88 listing the functions concerned will be subject to type-H procedure—the negative procedure at both parliaments. However, under paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 it would be subject to affirmative procedure if it amended an Act of Parliament.
These amendments provide necessary flexibility in the way in which ministerial functions can be exercised, allowing one administration to draw on expertise and resources in the other. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have just one question about this amendment, which I believe to be one of the new ones. Would it technically be possible for the retained functions of the Lord Advocate to be covered by this new clause, or is that precluded by the provisions in Clause 48?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the noble and learned Lord to know that I did not actually anticipate his question, because I could not see

17
how this particular clause could be set in the context of the retained functions of the Lord Advocate. However, having applied my mind to it over the past few minutes, I can give the noble and learned Lord an unqualified, clear and irrevocable no in response to his question.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that the answer is no. However, when looking at Amendment No. 202B which relates to a new subsection for Clause 100. I wonder whether it might be prudent to have such a provision in this new clause.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that we will ensure that everything is appropriately and properly covered.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, while this provision covers Ministers from both Parliaments representing each other, does it also include the physical presence of Ministers in, say, Luxembourg or Brussels? As the noble Lord knows, there is nothing like, for better or worse, being present at a council meeting in either Luxembourg or Brussels in order to know what is going on, rather than getting it second hand from another Minister. Will the new clause cover that point or is it covered in another part of the Bill?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, that subject is covered comprehensively in other parts of the Bill. The new clause presently under discussion does not relate to that sort of issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Appointment and removal of judges]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 42, line 18, after ("President") insert ("and the Lord Advocate").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 90 deals with the appointment and removal of higher ranking judges in Scotland. Amendment No. 174 deals with the matter of appointment, while the remaining amendments tabled in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, deal with removal.
I turn, first, to the question of appointment. My concern is to avoid any threat to the independence of the judiciary in Scotland after the new dispensation comes into effect. The independence of the judiciary is of fundamental importance in a democracy. Indeed, we are all agreed about that and it is surely unnecessary for me to take up any time of the House by dwelling upon that matter.
In Scotland, after the Scotland Bill comes into force as an Act of Parliament, the role of the higher judges in Scotland will not diminish; indeed, it will increase. It will increase for reasons which were explained fully by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead at Second Reading and elsewhere. The role of the judges will increase not just because the Act itself is likely to increase the scope for judicial review, but also because the Human Rights Act is expected to come into force on 1st January 2000, and of course the Scotland Act creates in Scottish judges a power to declare certain
18
Acts of the Scottish parliament ultra vires if they contravene the provisions of the Human Rights Act. I should explain that I expect to retire from the Scottish Bench at about the time that Act comes into force and therefore I must remind the House that I have an interest, albeit a rather limited one, in the matters dealt with in the latter part of Clause 90; that is, the removal of judges.
The Government are already a party to a great many litigations in the civil courts in Scotland and it is the Government who bring all public prosecutions in Scotland. No one, least of all the Lord Advocate, would dispute that it is of the utmost importance to secure the continued independence of Her Majesty's judges. That most significantly includes independence from any kind of influence, pressure or interference stemming from the executive or indeed from members of the new parliament.
Against that background I can deal briefly with the first of the amendments standing in my name, Amendment No. 174. As the Bill now stands, the First Minister has the power to recommend the appointment of judges. He is obliged under the Bill as drafted to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before recommending the appointment by Her Majesty the Queen of a person as a judge of the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary. This provision is entrenched. It cannot be altered by the Scottish parliament.
As regards the current practice in relation to the appointment of judges—despite what appears to be a power of the political authority to appoint judges—in point of fact what happens is that the Secretary of State for Scotland acts upon the advice of the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate stands back from the political process and seeks to exercise his role as a kind of Minister of Justice. He seeks to make a recommendation of the best person, regardless of that person's political antecedents, whether he has them or not. Therefore the role of the Lord Advocate in this matter is of vital importance in the appointment of judges.
As I said on Second Reading, the understanding between the Government and the Lord Advocate when I was privileged to be a member of the government in the late 1970s was that the Lord Advocate effectively nominated the new judge, but the Secretary of State had a right of veto. I believe that that is still the system; I certainly hope that it is. All that I seek is that this system be preserved when Scotland has its own parliament and executive.
As I understand the statements made by the Government in relation to this and similar matters, the Government are making the assumption—although there is no provision in this Bill—that the new First Minister will follow a practice similar to that of the Secretary of State for Scotland at present and consult with the Lord Advocate. However, that is a dangerous assumption to make. At this stage we can know absolutely nothing about the political or other character of the new executive, the legislature or the First Minister after devolution comes into effect. There is simply no basis whatsoever for assuming that the constitutional

19
conventions that make the United Kingdom constitution work would somehow be adopted in the new Scotland. Indeed it is more than likely that some of them will not be adopted because Scotland is to have a written constitution which will render at least some of these conventions superfluous. They will be overtaken by specific provisions contained in the written constitution which this Bill creates.
Accordingly, I suggest to your Lordships that it is quite unsafe to assume that Scotland will somehow adopt the current system. It may or it may not. There is a palpable risk that the First Minister will exercise greater control over the appointment of judges than the Secretary of State now exercises. I believe there is a greatly increased danger of politicising the judiciary and of political cronyism creeping into the appointment of judges. That is not unknown in the United Kingdom, including Scotland, in this century. It has happened repeatedly in the British Commonwealth of nations and elsewhere. It has even happened in the United States. I am anxious to avoid any increase of political influence in relation to the appointment of judges.
As a member of the International Bar Association and of the Judges' Forum I constantly meet people from all round the world who are disturbed at the fact that judges in their countries are appointed and can be dismissed by the political power. I have to confess that in our own country that is exactly the position. What saves the position in the United Kingdom is that conventions exist which prevent the abuse of that political power. There is nothing at all in this Bill to prevent such an abuse. It is for that reason that I beg your Lordships to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I put my name down in support of this amendment and I endorse everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said. However, I wish to add some remarks in the light of my own experience because, as I mentioned when this matter was raised at Committee stage, I was for seven years the Lord President of the Court of Session. I was closely involved in the process of consultation which under the existing system precedes the making of these appointments.
Although the noble and learned Lord has quite rightly referred to the senior judiciary, the subsection which we are discussing deals with the appointment not only of judges of the Court of Session but also of sheriffs principal and of sheriffs. This brings me to the practical considerations which I suggest strongly underline the point which the noble and learned Lord has made.
The Lord President has great knowledge of what goes on in his own court—that is, in the Court of Session—but he has no staff, apart from one or two people in his private office who assist him with matters of administration and rule-making. Unlike the Lord Chancellor, with whom, incidentally, he shares certain functions, he does not have a department. The figure in the Scottish system who occupies the position of the gatherer of information and the provider of advice is the
20
Lord Advocate who has a department and who retains a great deal of information about the performance of various people throughout the legal system who might be considered for appointment. That is particularly so in the case of sheriffs, bearing in mind that most sheriffs nowadays are appointed to that position after service for a time as temporary sheriffs and after their performance as temporary sheriffs has been monitored.
If the Lord President is being asked to consider the making of an appointment of any of the group who are mentioned in this subsection, the first person to whom he would wish to turn for advice and information is the Lord Advocate, especially in the case of sheriffs and sheriffs principal. As I mentioned previously, if one imagines a discussion between the Minister and the Lord President—leaving aside, of course, the political point which the noble and learned Lord has made—the first question to be asked is what advice the Lord Advocate has to give as regards the people who are being considered for the appointment.
The position at present is that in the making of these appointments the Lord Advocate occupies a pivotal role. I believe it is important, in order that the public can perceive correctly what is being done in the making of these appointments, that his pivotal role should be recognised in this subsection. There used to be—perhaps there still is—a suggestion that the only way to get noticed for appointment to the Court of Session Bench was to appear in the court of the Lord President. I regret that. One recognises that many people have expertise that may not be revealed in the Lord President's Court and which only others who have the luxury of sitting in other courts can appreciate. If the clause were to give the perception that the pivotal figure in the making of these appointments, apart from the Minister, was the Lord President, that would be a false impression. He is certainly there to protect the interests of the judiciary, and he occupies a crucial role in support of the independence of judges. But when it comes to making the appointments, he is a person who is properly to be consulted but is not in the best position to give advice to the Minister.
Finally, in relation to an amendment to be debated shortly, we shall discuss the removal of judges. The crucial stage in securing a strong, independent judiciary is the appointment of judges. Removal is a step of last resort. It is very difficult to achieve. It is time-consuming, contentious and possibly extremely dangerous. It is crucial to the independence of the judiciary and a strong Bench at every level that the system of appointment is properly constructed and that those who are best equipped to secure the correct appointments to the correct offices are directly involved. For those reasons I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as a non-lawyer but someone who is extremely interested in the way in which the law operates in Scotland, and having in the past been a humble honorary sheriff, I wish to ask the House and the Government to pay a great deal of attention to what was just said by two noble and learned Lords who know as much as anybody in the

21
country about what the Government are doing and the dangers thereof in comparison with the way judges are presently appointed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the importance of the appointment of judges in achieving that independence as opposed to the very important function of getting rid of a judge. I agree as I hope will other noble Lords. I, too, feel that the importance of making an appointment is paramount. It must be done in the right way. Not having experience of the process, I can understand the noble Lord's remarks, although I do not know everything about it from the matters in which I have been involved. The people of Scotland hugely value the independence of judges. They are beginning to realise that there is to be some politicisation of judges. Although they do not quite understand how it is to happen, they are beginning to understand that it will happen. They are frightened of that, and very anxious that it should not happen.
If the amendment can do something to secure the independence of judges, the Government should accept it or a similar proposal. I see no reason why they cannot accept the amendment. It is of great importance.
On a small point, sheriffs are included in this clause. Who in fact appoints honorary sheriffs, and will the clause have any effect on them?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, a similar amendment was debated in Committee on 6th October. I offered support to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on that similar amendment and indeed on other amendments. I do so again today. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated that he intended to reflect further on the views expressed in the debate. Those views echoed the points made again this afternoon by the noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Hope.
It is important to bear two matters in mind. The first is that the additional obligation to consult the Lord Advocate which this amendment seeks to introduce into the Bill is entirely without prejudice to subsection (5) of Clause 90. The subsection requires any consultation to take place in addition to any other requirement that may be imposed by virtue of any enactment. It will therefore be perfectly competent for the Scottish parliament, if so advised, to set up some form of judicial appointments board, commission or any other statutory scheme for addressing the issue of who should be appointed, High Court judges, sheriffs principal or sheriffs. This additional requirement is in no sense subservient to the possibility of further steps if that is what the Scottish parliament wishes.
My second observation is this. In the absence of any reason why it would be harmful for the First Secretary to be under an obligation to consult the Lord Advocate—and it is difficult to conceive how there could be any harm from such an obligation—the proposal seems to send the right message to everyone involved in devolution after the Scots parliament is up and running that this Parliament would wish the Lord Advocate, who will be the senior Law Officer in Scotland, to be consulted in the same way as it wishes
22
the Lord President to be consulted. That would seem to build in two valuable safeguards to ensure, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, observed, that the need to invoke the provisions in the latter part of the clause regarding the removal of judges or sheriffs will require to be turned to as infrequently as possible. Therefore I support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the problem referred to affects the whole of the United Kingdom, not only Scotland. It arises because the independence of judges in this country—their appointment and removal—is largely protected by rubbery and elusive constitutional conventions and customs rather than by anything prescribed by law. I looked at Stair's encyclopaedia of the laws of Scotland. There is a volume edited by the learned Lord Fraser of Tullybelton in which he reminds us that judicial independence in Scotland is protected by the Claim of Right of 1689, but in a rather Latin and indirect way. The same is true in a different way in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland.
My first point is that this is a real problem. The way in which we on these Benches propose to address it is much wider than under this Bill. There ought by now to be a proper constitutional judicial commission, independent of the Government and dealing with appointments, discipline and removal in exactly the way or a similar way to that which happens in genuine modern democracies elsewhere in the Commonwealth. I am sorry that that has been put on the back burner by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am also sorry that some senior judges regard that as a threat to their independence when it is intended to be a bulwark against improper direct or indirect executive interference.
I am not in any position to judge whether adding the Lord Advocate as an office holder to be consulted would contribute significantly in alleviating the problem so far as concerns the appointment of judges in Scotland. However, we sympathise with the objective; namely, to do all that we can to strengthen judicial independence as regards appointments, as well as disciplining and removal.
My other point is that, oddly enough—and particularly oddly since this amendment is tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—it is the new Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act, read with the Scotland Act, which will go far to come to the rescue in relation to this particular problem. That is because paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Bill includes as a devolution issue the question whether the purported exercise of a function is, or would be, in breach of a convention right. The relevant convention right is, of course, the right to an independent and impartial court. Were the First Minister or any other office-holder in Scotland to be so foolish as to appoint on a political basis, to make a recommendation leading to a political appointment or to produce a court that lacked the institutional independence of the executive, the effect of Clause 92, together with the schedule, would be to give our courts, and finally the Judicial

23
Committee of the Privy Council, oversight of the matter. It would be a very embarrassing way of doing so, but they would be able to decide that a particular appointment or series of appointments breached institutional independence under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not commend that as the best way of dealing with the problem. It would be much better to have prophylactic safeguards of the kind that these amendments seek rather than a most embarrassing form of judicial review of the appointment of judges by judges.
I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will confirm whether my interpretation of the Scotland Bill, read with the Human Rights Bill, is correct; namely, that there would be effective judicial safeguards were a court that lacked the necessary institutional independence to be appointed as a result of these procedures being abused. If that is not so, it seems to me that the case for this amendment and the other amendments is overwhelming.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, noble and learned Lords were surprised in Committee that we had not specified on the face of the Bill that the Lord Advocate should be consulted on the appointment of judges, and the issue has been returned to today. Similar points have been made today as were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and other noble Lords.
I suggest that the task before the House is to ensure that the Bill contains the fundamental elements of the process for the appointment of judges. We do not consider it appropriate to legislate for every detail of the process, a point to which I shall return when dealing with later amendments. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said, I indicated at Committee stage, in the early hours of the morning, that I would consider the points made, in particular whether there was a case for making an exception and writing on the face of the Bill a requirement of the kind suggested.
The Government have considered the matter carefully but remain unpersuaded that it is necessary to have such an amendment. As I stated at Committee stage, it is unimaginable that the First Minister would not consult the Lord Advocate about such appointments, for three reasons. The first is that the Lord Advocate will remain the senior Law Officer in Scotland and will be in charge of criminal prosecutions. Clearly, he will have an interest in ensuring that the appropriate people are appointed to the High Court bench. Related to that, the second reason is that the Lord Advocate is a member of the executive under the terms of the Bill, and one of his ministerial colleagues will be the First Minister. In the context of a government, it would be surprising if the ministerial colleague responsible for making the recommendation to Her Majesty did not consult the Law Officer. The third reason is the one referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, both today and at Committee stage: that the Lord President, who has to be consulted under the terms of the Bill, would obviously ask the First Minister what the views
24
of the Lord Advocate were. If that were the outcome—and I accept that that is the position which is likely to be adopted by any Lord President—the Lord Advocate's input would come into play at that stage.
The Government believe that it is not necessary to provide for consultation within the Scottish administration and that it should be left for the First Minister and the Lord Advocate to decide between them as to what arrangements are appropriate in particular situations. As has been observed, the Bill makes provision for consultation with others outside the Scottish administration who have relevant advice to offer, in particular the Lord President of the Court of Session. That consultation with the Lord President provides a useful safeguard against the fears, which I suggest are unreasonable and unrealistic, about politicisation of the process which have been referred to this afternoon.
The thrust of the discussion at Committee stage and today was this. If that were the position, why should it not be written into the Bill? I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, accepts that I have identified the matter which concerns him. Noble Lords argued during the first debate on Report that we should not clutter the statute book with unnecessary provisions. In that context, we explained that we disagreed with the arguments put forward at that stage. But in this case the Government do not consider it necessary to dictate when the First Minister should seek the advice of his own Law Officer, the Lord Advocate.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, raised a point concerning the greater politicisation of the process, a point also alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. He said that it would be unfortunate if the process of appointment became overtly political and the bench comprised simply of appointees acceptable to the government of the day. While I am not convinced that that would happen, given the safeguards already in place in the Bill—the fact that the Lord Advocate is a member of the Scottish executive, along with First Minister, and that the Lord President would in all probability indirectly seek the advice of the Lord Advocate by asking the question to which the noble and learned Lord referred—the ultimate sanction would be for this Parliament to legislate for this matter and to take back the devolved issue if politicisation were considered a threat.
To respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I have considered the question of who appoints summary sheriffs. My understanding—I shall notify to the noble Baroness if I am wrong—is that honorary sheriffs are appointed by the sheriff principal whereas temporary and full-time sheriffs are appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State following advice from the Lord Advocate.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He answered a question about the present system. I am already aware

25
of that. My question is whether under the Bill the system will continue as it is. Will the Lord Advocate be consulted and therefore does the clause affect the appointment of honorary sheriffs?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I had not appreciated that that was the question. The Bill does not affect the position of honorary sheriffs. The sheriff principal would still be able to appoint honorary sheriffs if he or she considered it necessary.
I turn finally to the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The first point concerns the position in the United Kingdom in relation to the judicial commission. I appreciate that the noble Lord is anxious that such a commission should be established to deal with appointments not only in Scotland but in other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that that goes beyond the particular amendment and raises much wider considerations than those in the Scotland Bill.
As to Clause 92 and paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 6, the noble Lord is correct in interpreting those provisions as indicating that the European Convention on Human Rights will be incorporated and that the actions of the executive will be subject to scrutiny in terms of those articles. However, I do not share his interpretation insofar as concerns the appointment of a particular judge. If the appointment of a particular judge was considered overtly political I would find it difficult to envisage in the abstract how that matter could be raised in appropriate judicial proceedings. It is very tempting to agree with the noble Lord on the second point, and if I did he might be more sympathetic to my position. It is therefore very tempting. However, I have some reservations.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps he will help me on one simple matter. He said it was unimaginable that the Lord Advocate would not be consulted. I do not understand why, if that is the case, it cannot be enshrined in the Bill, particularly since the noble and learned Lord said in terms that the Bill should contain fundamental points. Since it is unimaginable that in this case the contrary would occur this is one of the fundamental points, the more so since it cannot be said that by the addition of one name one is cluttering up a Bill with unnecessary provisos.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I thought I had explained the reasons why it was unnecessary to incorporate that on the face of the Bill. I listed three reasons. If enshrined in the legislation it would mean that for all time the Lord Advocate was required to be consulted in the face of the possibility of the creation of a ministry of justice. If there were a minister of justice who was legally qualified and had equal knowledge of the senior members of the profession, he or she could perform the role of the Lord Advocate. But if the Scottish parliament wished to make a change of that nature and the Lord Advocate was mentioned on the face of this Bill, the
26
effect would be to require the legislation to be amended in this Parliament as opposed to leaving the matter to Scotland.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I believe he indicated, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, intervened, that he regarded the Scottish administration as being under a duty to comply with the convention. It would very much help to have the matter clarified; it might make the whole amendment unnecessary. Is it recognised by the Government that the Scottish parliament, the Scottish administration, the Secretary of State and the judges themselves are all under an obligation to ensure the independence of the judiciary because of the incorporation through the Human Rights Bill and the Scotland Bill of Article 6 into our domestic legal system? If so, that would make me much more sympathetic to the Government's point of view. I understand his reservations about committing himself to questions of judicial review and legal standing, but it is the obligation in which I am interested. As a result of this legislation is it now a binding constitutional obligation to secure judicial independence in appointment, disciplining and removal?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I believe that I can safely accept that proposition. I agree with it.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I express grave disappointment at the answers I have heard today from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Perhaps I may reiterate the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. This is not a matter of detail but something that is fundamental to democracy: the independence of the judiciary. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hope said, appointments to the higher judiciary are of great importance in safeguarding democratic values. I was more than surprised and somewhat disappointed to hear the Lord Advocate suggest that this Parliament could, if the Scottish executive began to misbehave in this regard, take back the power and make different provisions about appointments. That is an astonishing answer and one that I am surprised the Lord Advocate should make on behalf of the Government at this stage of the Bill.
One important point of detail is that it is almost impossible to detect political influence in appointments. One may see individuals being appointed to the Bench and wonder why they have suddenly climbed the ladder by several rungs and why others have not been appointed but one cannot prove political favour. Therefore, it is impossible to make a case that the First Minister is exercising political favour even if everyone in the profession agrees that that is happening.
There is also the point that it does not have to be done for all time. The Government can table an amendment which would introduce but not entrench the provision that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should be consulted. They could give power in a subsection to the Scottish parliament to repeal the provision if experience showed that to be justified.

27
I am deeply disappointed by the answers. I shall refer later to the constant use of the word "unimaginable" by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate of 2nd November 1998 has no capacity to judge what will be imaginable or unimaginable post-devolution when an entirely different administration may be in office. Therefore, it is difficult for him to give those assurances to the House. I express my grave disappointment but I do not propose to divide the House. We are coming to what I regard as an even more important matter on which I intend to divide the House unless I receive a satisfactory answer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on international finance, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement should be confined to comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

International Finance
4.11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement on the world economy which has been made in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I am reporting to the House at the earliest opportunity available on the terms of a new international agreement reached by Finance Ministers and central bank governors of the G7 countries to reform and strengthen the international financial system.
"A full copy of this and a Statement by the Heads of Government setting out an agenda for further action is now available in the Vote Office.
"Tomorrow I will present to the House the pre-budget report, with its detail on the domestic economy.
"But the financial crisis that swept Asia last year and reverberated around the world has revealed long-standing weaknesses in the international financial system which G7 Ministers agree must now be addressed as a matter of urgency.
"Our predecessors had to meet the challenge of ensuring economic stability in an era of national economies. Now our generation must meet the challenges of ensuring stability in the era of the global economy, where each individual economy can directly affect the prospects of every other.
"And the new way forward for this new era is sensible global financial regulation, credible crisis prevention, and orderly mechanisms for crisis resolution, with a sure foundation in minimum standards and best practice which all countries adopt to participate in the international financial system.
"And this is directly relevant to the UK economy. It is everybody's business, not only because we are dependent on trade in goods and services with other countries—for example, the Asian crisis has in one single year cut UK exports to Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea by around 50 per cent. and to Thailand and the Philippines by around 60 per cent.—but also because—as we have seen—a weak financial system or inappropriate economic policies in one country not only put at risk another country's financial system, but will also threaten people's savings or investments and eventually their companies or jobs.
"That is why it is in every country's interests to support a new mechanism for crisis prevention and resolution, a new transparency and a new process for global financial regulation.
"Our Statement reaffirms that the balance of risks in the world economy has shifted from concerns about inflation to concerns about growth. In the last month interest rate policy has already been adjusted. In Japan, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Denmark, Italy, and again in the United States. The G7 statement reaffirms our commitment to create or sustain the conditions for strong domestic-demand led growth and financial stability in each of our economies. The authorities will continue to be vigilant in the light of the shift in the balance of risks on a global basis.
"In our Statement each continent has agreed to make its contribution to creating the conditions for stability and growth—Japan with immediate banking reform, Europe with structural reforms to tackle unemployment, America to promote growth with low inflation and, in the case of Latin America, we welcome the policy commitments the Brazilian Government has made and we will work with the international community to support them. And all of us must act to avoid retreat into protectionism.
"But as well as measures to deal with short-term instabilities we also need action to reform the financial architecture.
"For 50 years our policies for regulation, supervision, transparency and stability have been devised and developed for a world of relatively sheltered national economies with limited capital markets. Now that markets transcend national boundaries we must create for global markets systems for supervision, transparency, regulation and stability that are as sophisticated as the markets they have to work with.
"And G7 governments have therefore concluded that the international architecture devised in the 1940s for the economies of the 1940s is no longer adequate to the challenges of the 1990s and that we need new rules for the global financial system of the 21st century.
"So in the G7 statement each G7 country has now agreed to adopt and apply codes of conduct founded on minimum standards and best practice: new disciplines and undertakings that each country is prepared to accept as a condition of its participation in the international system.
"In monetary and financial policy we are agreed on the need for greater transparency and openness, that each country should specify its objectives for monetary policy, and identify responsibility for achieving these objectives and for reporting and explaining monetary and financial policy decision. And we are agreed that these standards should be set down in an internationally agreed code of conduct that all countries are prepared to accept.
"The G7 Ministers have also committed themselves to comply with the code of conduct of good practice on fiscal transparency, that has been drawn up by the IMF.
"Similar standards of transparency are required in the private sector. By spring next year the QECD will complete work on a code of principles on sound corporate governance and structure. And by early 1999 we will also have in place a plan for internationally agreed accounting standards.
"These codes of conduct in monetary policy, fiscal policy and corporate governance will mean radical changes in the way governments and financial markets function. They will help produce an environment in which financial markets can operate better. They should reduce the risk of future failures, and mean that when failures do occur the financial system is robust enough to withstand them. By improving public understanding of why and how decisions are made, and making sure the right long-term policies are in place, the codes will help build public understanding and support for the policies that deliver economic growth and prosperity.
"Proper implementation of the codes of conduct should be a condition of IMF and World Bank support. Immediate action to promote transparency in policy making, financial sector reform and corporate governance should be key components in any reform programme which the IMF and World Bank agree in coming months.
"And the IMF and the World Bank must themselves be more open and accountable, with a presumption in favour of releasing information and external audit of their performance.
"And there should be new undertakings on social policy too. An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and the G7 statement underlines the importance of policies that protect the most vulnerable, the real victims of financial crises, whose pain is very real indeed. That is why the G7 has agreed there should be general principles for good practice in social policy in all countries that will now be set down by the World Bank and serve as a guide to best practice.
"But we are also agreed that there must be, as a matter of immediacy, a new World Bank emergency facility, to provide additional funding on special terms to the most vulnerable groups in society.
"Secondly, global financial regulation: the G7 Ministers are now agreed to support the establishment of a process for strengthened financial sector
30
surveillance using national and international regulatory and supervisory expertise, to be used in the IMF's regular surveillance of its member countries.
"To this end, we will bring together the key international institutions and key national authorities involved in financial sector stability, better to co-operate and to co-ordinate their activities in the management and development of policies to foster stability and reduce systemic risk in the international financial system and to exchange information more systematically on risks in the international financial system.
"Dr. Tietmeyer, the President of the Bundesbank, has agreed to consult the relevant international bodies on these reforms and I would like to see an international memorandum of understanding, establishing a proper division of responsibility between regulators and international authorities at the international level.
"In the G7 statement we commit ourselves to strengthen the regulatory focus on risk management systems and prudent al standards in financial sector institutions, in particular to examine the implications arising from the operations of leveraged international financial organisations, including hedge funds.
"In this area, a fundamental problem has been a lack of transparency And poor standards of disclosure on the part of some financial market participants. This important issue will be looked at by the Basle Committee in considering an international standard of best practice for transparency and disclosure. An agreed international standard of best practice would act as a benchmark, both for financial institutions and their regulators.
"The United Kingdom is clear that those financial institutions which deal with hedge funds must take into account all proper prudential standards and requirements of disclosure. Proper due diligence procedures are essential.
"Britain also believes that, as part of the general review of capital adequacy rules, the Basle Committee needs to examine the appropriate treatment of banks' exposures to hedge funds so there is proper recognition of the risks involved. And, as the Chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Howard Davies, has emphasised, managements of financial institutions have a responsibility to ensure that circumstances can never arise in which personal relationships with potential counterparts get in the way of appropriate due diligence. He said that there must be complete transparency in respect of senior managements' personal investments in counterpart firms to avoid any suspicion of conflicts of interest. I fully endorse these remarks.
"The statement from G7 Heads of Government said that they would examine not only the implications of the operation of highly leveraged operations of offshore institutions but also how they can encourage offshore centres to comply with internationally agreed standards. This is a particular issue for the UK because long-term capital management was registered in the Cayman Islands.
"This Government are committed to improving standards of regulation and regulatory co-operation in our overseas territories as well as to implementing the European, G7 and OECD initiatives to tackle unfair tax competition.
"We must not let high risk hedge fund speculation by a few translate into wider risks for the many and destabilise the financial system on which we all depend for prosperity.
"So by international examination of these issues of concern—transparency in hedge funds, proper due diligence procedures, tackling potential conflicts of interest and dissemination of standards to offshore centres—governments can play their part in minimising the implications of future sudden and systemic disturbances.
"Finally, G7 Ministers are agreed on the need for a new procedure for crisis prevention, and tackling contagion. The central element would be an enhanced IMF supplementary reserve facility which would provide a contingent short-term line of credit for countries pursuing strong IMF approved policies. This facility could be drawn upon in times of need and would entail appropriate interest rates along with shorter maturities. The facility could be complemented, in individual cases, by bilateral contingent financing and the facility would be accompanied by appropriate private sector involvement.
"The G7 have also agreed that there also needs to be a better long-term mechanism for international authorities to work with the private sector and national authorities in handling debt problems, including debt rescheduling, at times of potential crisis. We are now asking, first, the private sector to adopt 'collective action clauses' to facilitate more orderly workout arrangements, and we will consider the use of such clauses in our own sovereign and quasi-sovereign bond issues. We are also asking the World Bank, in co-operation with the IMF to work with their members to put in place effective insolvency and debtor-creditor regimes, and, secondly, the IMF to consider lending into arrears, under carefully designed conditions and on a case by case basis.
"We want the private sector to build upon its experience with some emerging market countries in developing new market based contingent financing mechanisms. G7 governments will now support the more active use of loan guarantees to encourage greater private sector involvement in emerging market financing. Following the welcome United States Congress decision, we call for the IMF quota increase and the new arrangements to borrow to be implemented as soon as possible. Together they will provide additional IMF resources of 90 billion dollars to ensure the stability of the international financial system.
"Globalisation has happened. We must now make it work in hard times as well as good. As we have shown, we do not need new institutions, but we do
32
need new rules and new disciplines. And I want to thank other G7 Ministers and central bank governors, and heads of government who have backed this work all along, for working through this new agreement.
"Taken together, the reforms we have agreed—global financial regulation, codes of conduct, and mechanisms for crisis prevention and crisis resolution—represent the first step and now set the agenda for the most radical restructuring of the international financial architecture since its creation in the 1940s, making us better equipped to tackle the challenges of the 1990s and the century ahead. I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for repeating that wide-ranging and extensive Statement. He will agree that to a large extent it represents an agenda for reform rather than reform itself. We shall need to keep closely in touch over the development of the various proposals. One must also consider the extent to which the United Kingdom is setting an example in some of the areas referred to by the Minister.
The key point, described as such in the G7 memorandum, is that the agreement reflects the shared determination of the UK and G7 to modernise financial systems and to put in place new rules and procedures. It states:
"The key point is that the G7 agree that the balance of risk in the world economy has shifted from high inflation to concerns about low growth, and commit themselves to create or sustain conditions for strong domestic demand-led growth".
One cannot help feeling that to some extent the shadow of Lord Keynes, which has been absent from this Chamber for a long time, is to be seen hovering above the Gallery.
More particularly, one is bound to ask whether the terms of reference which the Government have imposed on the Bank of England, a point frequently made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, are appropriate against the statement that I have just made because the balance appears to have been shifted from inflation to growth. Although it is true, as the Minister said, that there have been recent reductions in interest rates, as regards the Bank of England, and more particularly the European Central Bank, one must ask whether the bias in their terms of reference is consistent with what has been set out by the Government.
No doubt we shall hear more tomorrow in the Chancellor's Statement, which has been so extensively leaked in the press today, about the rate of growth in the United Kingdom. No doubt we shall also hear that the reduction in the rate is due to the international situation and so forth. Can the Minister confirm that the latest Economist poll on the economic forecast suggests that the rate of growth in the United Kingdom in 1999 is likely to be less than half not only that of France and Germany but also Australia, which was more severely hit by the Asian crisis?

33
There is a certain amount of jargon in the Statement. I am glad that the Minister agrees with that and no doubt he can clarify a number of issues. I ask him about only one. It is said that there should be more ordinary work-out of debts and effective insolvency and debtor/creditor regimes. It goes on to say that lending into arrears by the IMF will be required. Can the Minister tell us what is meant by lending into arrears by the IMF, since it is a relatively new piece of jargon? It would be illuminating to know what it means.
It is debatable whether the Government have set an example of transparency, not least in regard to the controversy which has raged over the way in which the working family tax credit should be treated in our own accounts.
The issue of fighting protectionism and open free trade is mentioned at great length in the Chancellor's Statement but not to the same extent, if at all, in the IMF and G7 statements.
Finally, I shall concentrate on the real guts of the issue. We are told that there is to be an enhanced IMF supplementary reserve facility, accompanied by appropriate changes in agreements to borrow, et cetera. As far as the American contribution is concerned, is that simply paying up arrears or is it a new additional amount? Does the United Kingdom contribution appear in the comprehensive spending review? Is it a new initiative, or is it something we have already agreed to? Has there been any consideration of extending the system of SDRs, special drawing rights, which played an important part in earlier reforms as far as the bank and the fund were concerned?
We are told that the World Bank will have an emergency facility to deal with the problem of contagion, particularly to help countries which stick to IMF rules. I am not clear whether that is an attempt to stop contagion as far as the patient is concerned or as far as those who might be affected or infected are concerned. Will this new emergency facility help those who are already in trouble or those who are likely to be affected by other actions?
The Statement says that there is to be a report on the work completed, the work in progress and the work to be done. Can the Minister tell us what work has already been completed?
4.33 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, the G7 statement is a worthy statement, although I am not absolutely sure how much it will be worth. It depends on whether the splendid principles of good practice will be applied. However, there are good features about recent developments, some of which are mentioned in the Statement, for example the 90 billion dollar increase in the IMF funds which is very welcome and may help to stop Brazil falling into a state of collapse. The recent prompt action by the Fed was extremely helpful. When we look back on these matters we may find that we owe a considerable amount to Mr. Greenspan. Next to avoiding severe recession in the United States, it is obviously of great importance that the growth of the European Union should be maintained. Does the
34
Minister agree that the best contribution the Government can make lies in the domestic economy, avoiding a serious collapse in our growth? Therefore, the Statement tomorrow will obviously be more important than today's Statement. Does the Minister agree that the top priority must be to enable the Bank to lower interest rates, thereby, together with the lowering of the value of the pound, encouraging investment? Does the Minister not realise that apart from what the Chancellor does tomorrow, the most important contribution by the Government to the long-term stability of investment would be to make the earliest possible commitment to joining the euro? Is it not becoming clearer by the day that that is the essential decision for the Government to face?
4.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to the Statement. Oddly enough, I am more grateful on this occasion to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins than I am to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right in saying that at this stage this is as much an agenda for reform as reform itself. It is clear that the agreement made by the G7 countries last Friday is a statement of intent and a description of what is going to be done rather than a report on work that has been completed. The whole process arises from meetings presaged by a speech of the Prime Minister at the end of September to the New York Stock Exchange subsequently fleshed out by speeches by the Chancellor to the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank and at G7 at the beginning of October. A series of agreements has been reached for short-term rescue and for medium and longer-term institutional changes. In that sense I am not afraid of the description of an agenda.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his recognition of the UK leadership. This is, after all, 1998 and our presidency of G7. We can justifiably say that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor made very good use of our presidency in order to move forward issues of global financial management. Whether or not he meant to pay tribute to the United Kingdom leadership of G7, I should like to do so, as one who is very much on the periphery of these matters.
I was interested, amused and encouraged to hear the noble Lord say that the shadow of Lord Keynes is hovering over this Chamber for the first time in a number of years. There have been occasions in the last few months when it was appropriate to refer to counter cyclical demand management policies, and I have done so. There may be other such occasions in the future. The noble Lord asked whether these issues give rise to questions about the terms of reference given to the Bank of England in its consideration of short-term interest rate policies. The terms of reference given to the Bank are fundamentally price stability and a given inflation rate; and that inflation rate has always been a minimum as well as a maximum inflation rate. To that extent our setting of inflation rate targets applies as much when the issue is growth as when the issue is inflation itself. I remind the noble Lord that the Bank of England Act

35
states that subject to the inflation target, the Bank should encourage the Government's policies of high levels of employment and growth. That is exactly what we are now seeking to do.
The noble Lord asked about current growth forecasts by economists. I may find an opportunity to answer that point on a more relevant occasion tomorrow when we will consider the UK economy in more detail.
The noble Lord asked about the gaps, the setting-up of the additional 90 billion dollars of IMF reserves. The United States payment is the result of a decision made by the United States Congress and is not a payment of arrears. The UK contribution, which is approximately five per cent. of the total either in the quota payments or in new arrangements for borrowing is not, as the noble Lord knows, public expenditure as such. It is a different way of using our reserves and therefore does not appear, as he suggested, in the comprehensive spending review. Insofar as those reserves are used by the IMF, they are compensated; interest is paid on them at the SDR rate. I do not know whether that entirely answers the question about SDRs.
The noble Lord made a very good point about the issue of contagion, which is referred to in the Statement. We are concerned both with those countries which are in trouble and those countries which are likely to be in trouble. To that extent, the width of the agenda put forward by the G7 Ministers and governors is evidence of the concern which we have on both those issues. The noble Lord asked about reporting on that programme of work. It will continue to be reported to Parliament as appropriate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for his recognition of the importance of the 90 billion dollars. He says that the health of the UK domestic economy is the best contribution we can make to international stability. I agree entirely. I hope that when the Chancellor makes his new budget report tomorrow, he will give the same general support to that as I think he has done today.
As regards joining the euro, perhaps the noble Lord should read Ministers' statements made to the CBI conference today.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this Statement is of global significance. I can think of no Statement made in all my years in your Lordships' House which equals it in importance as regards the future of the world economy and world financial systems. It gives one hope that perhaps the normal self-destructive tendencies of the advanced industrialised world will not be allowed to go beyond anything which would imperil our future. Indeed, as regards the references to Lord Keynes, it is worth bearing in mind that Maynard Keynes was much more concerned about world international financial co-operation and the survival of the world than he was about quite minor matters such as contra-cyclical fiscal policy. Therefore, the shadow of Keynes certainly holds over this Statement but in a much deeper way than is sometimes recognised.
36
How do we get from statements of intent to the practicalities? There is reference to codes of practice, codes of conduct and transparency. But who will be responsible and who will be in a position to ask years from now: where are those codes of conduct? Subsequently, whose responsibility will it be to say whether people are operating according to those codes of conduct? Can my noble friend throw any light on that matter and, in particular, on the question of enforcement?
The Statement says that we do not need new institutions but new rules. Coming from the G7, the only comment that one can make is, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" However, will my noble friend bear in mind that a number of people who have thought deeply about these matters are convinced that we need some new institutions and not just some new rules from old institutions, those institutions, in one or two cases, having failed us. I hope that, without necessarily responding to that, my noble friend will bear in mind that it is a very important question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before I respond to my noble friend's interesting and worthwhile points, perhaps I may take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to which I failed to respond earlier. He asked me what lending into arrears meant. It is the practice of providing credit to countries which have enacted a temporary standstill in debt repayment in consultation with their creditors. I hope that that helps.
My noble friend Lord Peston pays, I think, proper tribute to the importance of the Statement. He reminds us of the extent to which we are all members of the international economy. He asks about the extent to which we can make progress without new institutions. I suspect that the phrase "international financial architecture", the cant phrase now in use—I resisted its use on an earlier occasion but I have failed to do so now—is a way to describe something which falls short of a new institution but is a revitalisation and extension of the responsibilities of existing institutions. I suspect that we should do better to concentrate on what international financial architecture is for, rather than the form it takes.
As to how changes will be implemented, many of them are implemented already in the sense that the new reserves for the new agreement on borrowing and the quota increases will be available within the next few months as they are needed. The logjam has been broken, in particular by the United States' agreement to the new agreement on borrowing. It is the availability of finance which brings with it the other changes which are necessary because it provides the cement which holds together the rules which must be imposed. Those rules will be imposed by continued negotiation between the members of G7, both the finance Ministers and governors, in the same way that the agreement itself was achieved, over the next few months. There will be a formal reporting at the next G7 summit in Cologne but in the meantime it has been shown that work can

37
proceed and rules can be introduced without the necessity for complicated and expensive international meetings.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I should tell my noble friend that I welcome the commitment of the UK and others to go for high rates of growth and employment. I do not care terribly whether that is considered Keynesian or Milton Friedmanism or whatever. I just welcome it. My noble friend has not yet responded to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about reconciling the Bank of England Act with that requirement. Despite the fact that my noble friend Lord Peston and I tried to amend that Act to ensure that the Government's growth and employment policies should be at least on a par with policies in relation to inflation, that was not done. The Act as it stands seeks to advise, indeed insist, that the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee must put inflation above the Government's own economic policy on growth and employment, to which they are now even more firmly committed.
Perhaps the Government have in mind, under the terms of this agreement, to amend the Act along the lines which my noble friend and I recommended previously. That would at least meet the commitment which my noble friend the Minister has made so clearly to the House today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, an amendment to the Act is neither desirable nor necessary. I made clear in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the inflation target which has been set is both a maximum and minimum target. In other words, it can be used for the purposes of stimulating growth if that, as appears to be the case in the global economy, is the higher priority rather than keeping down inflation. It is because we have, in addition to the inflation target, the phrase "government policies on growth and employment" that the terms of reference for the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee are still entirely appropriate.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I too welcome the Statement, not least because at last we have recognised that there is a global problem which needs global solutions; and secondly, because at long last there is some recognition that we face a problem of deflation and not inflation with which the present Government have been obsessed during the past 12 months. That relates immediately to the terms of reference to the Bank of England which should and could be changed by operating Section 19 of the Bank of England Act. That allows for new actions, changed terms of reference, in the light of major changes of circumstance.
My short question is this. Is the 90 billion dollar facility a new one or simply the facility for which, for two years—long before the present crisis hit us—the IMF has been asking and which was held up because the United States had not paid its contribution?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's short question is that it is a new
38
facility made possible because, before the United States Congress rose for the election period, it made the extra money available. As to whether or not the IMF asked for it before that, I do not know and will gladly write to my noble friend.
In any normal use of the term, this is a new facility available for the purposes of the IMF. I can only refer my noble friend to previous answers I have given. There is no need for any change in the instructions to the Bank of England. What has proved to be the case is that the formulation in the Bank of England Act is appropriate whether or not the balance of risks has changed. My noble friend complains that we have been obsessed by inflation. We come back to Keynes: "If situations change, we change with them. What do you do, sir?"
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I wish to refer to one aspect of the worthwhile Statement in relation to corporate governance. I do not subscribe to the view that all multinational operations are malign. It is extremely difficult, from past experience, to imagine that provisions for corporate governance will be overwhelmingly supported. Does my noble friend agree that in terms of environment and activities within developing countries, too many multinational operations have not observed the already existing provisions for corporate governance? Why, therefore, does my noble friend imagine that this provision, when refined, will have a more stimulating and progressive effect than has been the experience in the past?
Also, does my noble friend agree that, in relation to multinational companies, there is a pronounced emphasis upon the measure of voluntarism that has to be applied in this case for the new regime to be successful?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend, who knows far more about these matters than I ever shall, is right in saying that multinationals are not necessarily malign. But of course they are multinationals; that is the essence of them. That is why it is essential for us to have consistent policies throughout the developed world—not just the G7 countries but on a wider scale—for corporate governance.
The Statement made by the Chancellor makes clear that the imposition of proper rules for corporate governance is an international responsibility. All multinational corporations must be based somewhere. Unless we have comparable rules, wherever they may be based, then we shall not have the control over their activities which is necessary to achieve the objectives of global governance of the economy. My noble friend therefore is right in moving from government policies to corporate governance issues. I am grateful to him for making that point.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on injecting a note of caution into these proceedings. He correctly pointed out that the agreement among the G7 countries was more in terms of aspiration than the practical steps that have to be taken if those aspirations are to be realised. Clearly, before we approve the rules we need to know what they are. Before we

39
approve the policies we want to know—as he pointed out—how and with what precision they are to be carried out and by whom. It is sensible that matters should have been presented to us in that way. Speaking personally, I would prefer to wait until after tomorrow's domestic budget announcement before passing a definitive judgment on some of the matters quite properly touched upon at the G7 conference.
One principle upon which I should like to go on record is that it is not the formation of institutions that is important. On another occasion I might be tempted to outline a few institutions I could usefully abolish with great benefit to the European and world economy. But that does not arise in this instance and I therefore repeat my congratulations. I do not believe institutions matter. We have to get the policy right and then determine which institutions should carry them out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hesitate to disagree to some extent with my noble friend when he is being so supportive. However, I did not describe this programme in terms of being "aspirations". I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that it was as much an agenda as a description of completed action. But it is a firmly based agenda which addresses both the immediate problems and the longer-term issues.
The agenda consists of a firm commitment by the G7 countries to implement specific reforms with the resources to implement those reforms. It enables them to deal with any potential crisis from new countries facing financial difficulties and, without saying that this will happen to Brazil noble Lords referred to Brazil as a possible example of it. It commits the G7 countries to reform to increase the transparency and openness of the international financial system; to identify and disseminate codes of good practice in policy making; to strengthen incentives for countries to meet those standards of behaviour; and to improve surveillance of the international financial system. That amounts to a great deal more than just aspirations.
Lord Burns: My Lords, I agree with noble Lords in relation to the importance of the G7 Statement in that it seeks both to deal with the challenges and the present situation and also to put in place arrangements for dealing with crisis management in the future. When faced with failures of banks in a domestic context, it has been widely agreed that we should seek to minimise the contribution of the taxpayer and to maximise the contribution of the private sector in the work-out. Can the Minister confirm the interpretation in today's Wall Street Journal that the new IMF facility is also expected to put a great deal of emphasis upon the role that the private sector will perform in problems and not simply leave them to the IMF, the World Bank and the taxpayers of the individual countries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that. In fact, there are three strands to anything that we do for individual countries. One will be the IMF strand, which is an international contribution. The second, referred to in the Statement,
40
is the possibility of bilateral contractual assistance. The third, as the noble Lord, Lord Bums, rightly says, will be the contribution which can be made by the private sector.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, to what extent does the Minister recognise the problem of fractional reserve banking in this situation whereby banks lend out more than they have in the proportion of 10:1 of the reality? That situation would not exist if, as happened under the old thinking, banks were forbidden to lend money without taking a share of the risk.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is surprisingly modest. Many hedge funds, such as long-term capital management, lend out far more than a multiple of 10 of their reserves. It is a very real problem, which is referred to in detail in the Statement. We have to balance the risks, as do the investors concerned, of lending, investing or gambling, if you like, beyond the available reserves, against the undoubted benefits to the global economy of wider credit which have arisen over recent decades. It is a difficult balance to sustain.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, first, does my noble friend agree that although one welcomes the idea of precautionary credit lines, that idea is still far from being properly thought through? What happens if a country is accorded a credit line on the strength of good policy and those policies deteriorate after the credit line has been started? That would put the IMF in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I would not like to be in its place and to have to decide whether or not to withdraw the line of credit.
Secondly, I am not sure whether I heard an answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the role of the World Bank and the new facility. I thought that we were trying to get away from the idea of having the World Bank issue liquidity and were trying to get it to maintain its position as a development financing agency. There seems to have been a change of heart.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may answer my noble friend's second question first. If I gave any suggestion in an answer that we were proposing a change in the role of the World Bank, I did so mistakenly. I do not think that I did so. There have been questions on that point, but I was not conscious of indicating that we expected the World Bank to develop its role in that direction. I think that I gave the same answer when we debated the European Central Bank.
With regard to lines of credit, I do not underestimate the difficulty of dealing with a country which changes its policies once a line of credit is available. The very fact that lines of credit will be followed up by further financing and that that further financing is contingent on continuing with policies which will have to be satisfactory to the IMF is some satisfaction against the kind of dangers that my noble friend fears.

Scotland Bill
5.2 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 90.
[Amendment No. 174A not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No.175:
Page 42, line 35, leave out from ("ground") to end of line 38.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 175, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 176 and 177. They are all interconnected. We last discussed these matters at 1.20 in the morning. This afternoon we are debating them in the wake of discussing other matters of great economic importance.
All these amendments relate to the removal of the most senior judges in Scotland (once this Act comes into force). Again, I emphasise that my amendments are concerned to try to continue to secure the independence of the judiciary, especially its independence from the new executive, including the First Minister who, under the provisions of the Bill, is, in other matters, to have the sole power of appointment.
The reasons why these amendments are important have already been explained to the House both at Second Reading and in Committee. They have also been explained to the Government in correspondence. Indeed, I sent the Lord Advocate a copy of what I called a "briefing note", which I wrote just in case I was unable to be present when the matter came up for discussion today. The reasons underlying the amendments are well understood.
With regard to the removal of judges, when the Lord Advocate replied to the debate in Committee, he suggested that it was "inconceivable" that the First Minister would seek to remove a judge other than upon sound advice. With the greatest respect, that is somewhat circular and extremely naive. It simply begs the question: who decides whether the advice is sound? The answer is that the First Minister decides whether the advice is sound. It is naive to suppose that he is somehow inhibited by receipt of advice in relation to the matter.
The Lord Advocate also then said that it was "unimaginable" that the First Minister would seek the removal of a judge without taking certain steps, although the steps were not prescribed in the Act. He went on to use the expression "beyond belief". Again, those views fly in the face of all experience. Leaving aside the numerous countries where the independence of the judiciary is a sick joke—and there are many of those—there have been recent and profoundly disturbing attempts to interfere with the independence of judges in mature democracies, including the United States and parts of Canada. Concerns have also been expressed about Australia. We would be totally naive to suppose that our new politicians in Scotland will be immune to such temptations—not least because criticisms of judges' decisions are now the meat and drink of our daily newspapers, and populist politicians
42
of whom we have always had our fair share in Scotland are likely to start calling for the removal of judges whose decisions have been criticised in the press, however unfounded the criticisms and however distorted the reporting of the decisions for which the judges have been responsible.
There is a great basis of agreement here and I should like to spell it out as briefly as I can. First, judges who are unfit for office must be able to be removed.
Secondly, there must be some statutory machinery to enable a judge to be removed if, after his unfitness for office has been established, he declines to resign—or even, indeed, if it is considered appropriate that he should be formally sacked, which might be entirely appropriate if he has been found guilty of a serious crime or of an offence involving moral turpitude.
Thirdly, we are all agreed that it is entirely appropriate that there must be formal machinery for the removal and that should be parliamentary. Therefore, the Scottish parliament should have powers such as are contained in subsections (6), (7) and (8) of Clause 90.
Fourthly, we are surely all agreed that the decision as to whether or not a judge of the Court of Session is unfit for office is not one that can be taken by the political executive. We must be agreed about that because it is fundamental to the independence of the judiciary. The Government agree, as can be seen from the Official Report when, in Committee, the Lord Advocate made his position quite plain. He said that the Bill contains minimum requirements, and,
"The Scottish parliament can and should build on these".—[Official Report, 6/10/98; col. 422.]
In other words, the Lord Advocate envisaged that something more must be done. We must separate the responsibility for deciding upon fitness and unfitness from the formal mechanism for removal. It follows that the decision as to fitness or unfitness must be taken by a body which is independent of the political executive.
We in the United Kingdom are bound by certain obligations which require that the body must be a tribunal which is independent and impartial and is established by law. Those are all matters that are plain.
From that basis of agreement, I believe that it follows inevitably that when we are enacting, as we are, a new constitutional settlement, which devolves to an entirely new creation—the Scottish executive and the Scottish parliament—the overall responsibility for the judiciary, it must establish by law the necessary machinery for ensuring that no judge can be removed from office unless his unfitness, if it is in dispute, has been established to the satisfaction of a properly constituted independent tribunal.
The Bill does not do that. I acknowledge that it deals in a satisfactory way with the machinery for formal removal, but it does not create any machinery at all for determining fitness or unfitness before the First Minister places before the parliament a Motion seeking the judge's removal. The Bill, as drafted, requires him only to specify the particular ground of unfitness. It does not require him to prove it or to refer the matter for proof or examination by any independent body.
These questions as to the fitness or unfitness of judges are not easy questions, as the recent case involving Sheriff Stewart showed. That case was before your Lordships' House, ultimately, following a petition for judicial review. It was decided in this House on 22nd January. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, who, I believe, is with us today, delivered the leading speech in relation to that case. It sets forth the history of legislation in relation to the removal of sheriffs, who are not the most senior judges in Scotland. But it has been impossible to remove a sheriff since 1877 in Scotland without an independent inquiry by senior judges into his fitness for office.
In the context of that provision, which is Section 12 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, added to the leading speech. He said,
"The appellant"—
that was Sheriff Stewart—
"also submitted that a power to remove a sheriff from office by reason of inability to perform his judicial functions arising from a defect of character or personality endangered the independence of the judiciary and would give rise to a risk that a judge might be removed from office because there was disapproval of the way in which he decided the cases coming before him".
His Lordship continued,
"I do not accept that submission and am of opinion that the independence of the judiciary is fully protected by the requirement in Section 12 that the two most senior judges in Scotland, the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk, must first undertake an investigation into the fitness for office of the sheriff and then report that he is unfit for office before the Secretary of State can remove the sheriff from office".
That has been the position for 120 years. Even sheriffs cannot be removed without an independent investigation by the senior judges.
The principle behind these amendments has the support of, among others, the Lord President of the Court of Session and all the Scottish judges. The Lord President wrote on behalf of the judges to the Secretary of State on 4th June,
"We have … concluded that it is necessary to build into the Clause the necessary constitutional safeguard of an appropriate inquiry body since otherwise the Bill will not provide the protection of judicial independence, which is necessary".
It was proposed that there should be Lords of Appeal or retired Senators of the College of Justice to constitute the tribunal.
That has the support of the Faculty of Advocates. The submission made by the Faculty of Advocates to the Government said that:
"the tenure of judges should remain such that they cannot be removed from office other than on the basis of fitness or misconduct, and that this should be expressly stated in the legislation".
The faculty went on to say that it was of the view that,
"it is necessary to have some means of determining the fitness of judges that is independent of the political process".
A provision was then sought on the lines of Section 12 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971.
The Law Society of Scotland, in a letter to me dated 6th October 1988, says that it also supports the principle behind this Bill. It refers to the Latimer House
44
guidelines. I need not refer to them in great detail but, essentially, following a meeting in Harare, the Commonwealth heads of government are considering, and will be asked to adopt, proposals drafted at Latimer House in June of this year to the effect that a judge who was at
"risk of removal … must have the right to be fully informed of the charges; to be represented at a hearing, to make a full defence and to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal".
These proposals are to be presented to the next meeting of the Commonwealth heads of government.
It is obvious that one of the persons not attending such a meeting will be the First Minister of the new Scottish executive. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will attend as a head of government. Presumably, he will have to undertake to provide for some such mechanism. So it is important that that should be done now.
I also have support expressed to me in a letter from Lord Murray, who was the Lord Advocate when the Scotland Bill was before this House in 1978. He strongly supports the position I and the Faculty of Advocates have taken. I would also refer your Lordships to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into our own Human Rights Bill. That provides,
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligation or of any criminal charges against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
A good deal has been written about the meaning of those words in the European convention. "Independent" has been declared to be independent of the executive and also of the parties. Professor Harris writes in the leading work, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights,
"Clearly, a member of the Executive is not 'independent'".
He goes on to write about the meaning of the words "established by law" and says the intention is that with a view to ensuring its independence,
"the judicial organisation in a democratic society must not depend on the discretion of the Executive but that it should be regulated by law emanating from parliament".
There is reference to the same concept in the European case of Bryan v. The United Kingdom.
It has been suggested—and it may be suggested again today—that we should simply leave matters to the new executive and to the Scottish parliament to enact appropriate legislation to provide the machinery rendered necessary by Article 6 and by the Latimer House principles. That was suggested by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at 2 a.m. during the Committee stage. I am not quite sure that he meant what he then said. There are problems about it. They are these.
First, there would be no machinery at all for determining disputed questions of unfitness between the time that the executive came into existence and the Act took effect and enactment by the Scottish parliament of any further necessary legislation. I do not believe that the United Kingdom Government would readily fill the gap in relation to what is a devolved matter.
Everyone agrees that any such tribunal should consist of, or include, judges who are not too close to the person who is to be investigated. So my Amendment No. 177 faces up to that problem by giving the First Minister the right to select for membership of the tribunal those who are listed in the proposed new subsection (9); namely Lords of Appeal, Peers of Parliament who hold high judicial office, including retired judges or other suitably qualified members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I doubt very much whether the Scottish executive could confer this right on the First Minister, so it has to be done by this Parliament and not by the devolved parliament.
I have mentioned attacks on the independence of the judiciary. It can take many forms. In Canada there is considerable concern among judges and lawyers generally at attempts by politicians to put pressure on judges by reducing their salaries or cutting their pension entitlement. The Government here have wisely decided to avoid any risk of that happening in the United Kingdom, including Scotland, under the new constitutional dispensation. So Schedule 5 on page 85 of the present Bill says,
"Determination of the remuneration of—

(a) judges of the Court of Session,

(b) sheriffs principal and sheriffs,

(c) members of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and

(d) the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court".

are to be reserved matters. So it seems odd that the devolved administration is not to be entrusted with judicial remuneration, including pensions, but are to be given the power of removal of all those judges without further supervision.
The effect of the Bill is to preserve Section 12. The result is that a sheriff cannot be dismissed from office without an independent inquiry, but a Court of Session judge or the chairman of the Land Court can be so removed. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out at Committee stage,
"The hostages to fortune which are created by allowing procedures to evolve [strictly] by experience are very great [indeed].—[Official Report, 6/10/98; col. 422.]
That is particularly so in this field where it is to be hoped that experience will continue to be as limited in the future as it has been in the past.
There is one other point that I want to make about the Government's response on an earlier occasion to the effect that the Scottish executive or parliament are to be trusted. That is not a proposition that I want to challenge. But, oddly enough, the Government themselves do not exhibit any such trust because Clause 90(7)(b) provides that the First Minister cannot make a recommendation for the removal of a judge unless the number of votes in favour of the motion,
"is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament".
That is a unique provision in this Bill. It is the only one in which the Government say to the new parliament, "You cannot do what you want to do. You can do that only if you have a two-thirds majority of those who have the right to vote". That is an entrenched provision. The logic of it is that the parliament is not being trusted to behave in a proper and ordinary fashion. I can
46
understand why that provision came in. It is the one that is referred to in my Amendment No. 175. I cannot see any reason at all why there should not be even a non-entrenched mechanism in the Bill which could be amended in the light of experience, which would enable judges' fitness or unfitness to be adjudicated upon by an independent and impartial tribunal.
My Amendment No. 175 suggests the removal of the provision which I have just quoted about the two-thirds majority for the removal of a judge. My reason for seeking the deletion of that provision is this. If we accept that the adjudication as to unfitness is to be carried out by an independent and impartial tribunal, then the role of parliament is a purely formal one of rubber-stamping the decision that the person to be removed is unfit. He is not entitled in these circumstances to the protection of a heavily weighted majority such as the clause provides for.
In all the circumstances, I would submit that the Government have simply got this wrong. It is a matter of great importance. I cannot see any difficulty in accepting the proposals which I make or some version of them which the Government themselves could redraft. I would not propose to invite the House to accept Amendment No. 175. If the Government indicate that they are willing to accept the principle behind Amendments Nos. 176 and 177, I should be happy to withdraw Amendment No. 175. Otherwise, I shall ask your Lordships in due course to divide in relation to Amendment No. 176. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I support these amendments. I should like to say one or two things by way of supplement to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. As I have made clear on a number of occasions, I do so against the background of experience. In this particular connection I have two aspects of experience to bring to bear on the problem.
The first is that it was from time to time my responsibility as Lord President to have to consider very carefully with the Secretary of State for Scotland and his advisers the procedures for the removal of judges, and how the procedures in the statute for the removal of sheriffs should be dealt with in a case where the necessity for using them arose. The second is that I shared with the then Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Ross, the responsibility for dealing with the case of Sheriff Stewart, to which the noble and learned Lord referred. It was borne in on me, perhaps more forcefully than ever before, how valuable the sheriff court procedure is for preserving the independence of the judiciary from political interference. I say that because there was political discussion about Sheriff Stewart's position, but it was at the request of the Secretary of State that the matter was dealt with by the judges in order to decide whether grounds for his removal were made out.
There are two aspects to the problem. The first relates to the independence of the judges. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, explained the position much better than I can on that chapter. The other, which was of pressing concern to me as head of the court, was the need for clarity and for certainty as to what to do in

47
these very serious cases where the public interest is so much at the root of the problem and where press scrutiny is so penetrating should things go wrong.
This part of the clause makes two assumptions in looking at the question of removal. The first is that a judge, or the chairman of the Scottish Land Court, may become unfit for office while he is still in post. The second is that if he is unfit for office it will be necessary for steps to be taken by some procedure to remove that person from office.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I regard the first assumption—that a judge may, in the period of the Scottish parliament, become unfit for office—as one that it is proper to make for the purposes of the Bill. Despite our history, which has never encountered one of these problems of removal before, it would be a rash assumption to make that at no time in the history of the parliament could such a problem arise. But let us assume that such a problem has arisen. Let us assume that it is believed that there are grounds for saying that a judge is unfit for office. I believe that the Lord President of the court—the head of the court—is the first person to whom one turns in order to initiate the procedures to deal with the situation. It would be his responsibility to find out the facts as best he can, to offer advice to the judge in question, to offer warnings and perhaps even to advise him to resign. It may be that that advice will be taken. It is only if it is not taken that it will become necessary for further steps to be put in place, with the support of the Lord President, as I assume, in order to secure removal.
I mention in passing that in its present form the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, faces up to the problem that the Lord President will almost inevitably be deeply involved in these problems from the very beginning in offering advice—perhaps offering warnings—and it is quite right that he should step back and that others should be brought in. I fully support the suggestion that Lords of Appeal in Ordinary should be included in the possible range of people who could provide membership of the necessary tribunal. I thought a very important point indeed was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, when he doubted whether this matter could be dealt with by the Scottish parliament, with the limited powers it has under the Bill.
What then of the proceedings? What must one secure if this procedure, in the unhappy circumstances to which I have referred, has to be put into operation? I suggest that there are three qualities which it has to satisfy. The first is that the procedure must be independent—independent of political influence and independent of the senior judge who has the responsibility of taking the preliminary steps. Secondly, it must of course be fair and it must live up to the requirements of the convention. But, thirdly, it must be swift and it must be effective. I believe that in its present form the Bill fails to address any of those three requirements.
So far as concerns the necessity for swift and effective action, let me mention the case of Sheriff Stewart by way of example as to what may occur if one of these contested cases were to arise. I do this not in
48
any sense to criticise Sheriff Stewart who was defending his position, as he was perfectly entitled to do, all the way down the line. But let us just contemplate what the consequences would be if one encountered such a person in the crisis to which this part of the clause refers.
Sheriff Stewart was suspended from duty but he remained on full pay. That meant that there was a vacancy which had to be filled in his local court at public expense. Therefore, double expenditure in a sense was being incurred by paying the sheriff and providing a replacement who could carry out his functions in that court. The operation to secure his removal from the point when the request was made by the Secretary of State to the moment at which the Secretary of State, on advice, placed the matter before Parliament occupied the best part of a year, during which time that expense was incurred. Following that, as he was perfectly entitled to do, Sheriff Stewart challenged the procedure for his removal and, as your Lordships have been told, he took the matter, step by step, up to your Lordships' House, where the matter was resolved by the Appellate Committee.
All these things were perfectly within Sheriff Stewart's rights, but I am bound to say that, if that kind of process had been going on within the Court of Session during my time as Lord President, I should have found it almost intolerable for the good of the court and for the public perception of the administration of justice in Scotland. The court has a limited number of judges and an immense amount of work to do. It cannot afford to have a judge suspended from duty at public expense for a long period, while people search around for the necessary procedures to secure removal.
Further, let us suppose that a challenge is made to the removal process and that that process is tripped up on the way because of some failure in putting together in the crisis the necessary procedures to be secure against challenge. Just imagine the effect of that on the morale of the court and the capacity of the judicial system in Scotland to serve the public interest.
My recollection of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said in the early hours of the morning on the last occasion that we discussed the matter was that he believed that the Scottish parliament could deal with it by legislation in the light of experience. That sounds to me like a recipe for disaster if one considers the situation that one is being forced to contemplate.
We have enough experience now—and I speak having regard to the experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and, if I may be allowed, my own experience—to be able to design a system which will secure the aims to which I have referred. It is far better that we should have that system in place now so that those who are in positions of responsibility and have to take such decisions will have that framework available to them within which to work.
I suspect that there may be some concern which may underline the Government's resistance to the amendment; namely, that by taking the step proposed we would be innovating on the position that obtains at present in England and Wales. It is perfectly true that

49
there is no procedure such as is being suggested to deal with the senior judiciary in England and Wales. However, if that does lie behind the Government's thinking, I have to say with the greatest respect that it is a totally misguided approach to the situation which we now face in this Bill. The reason is quite simple: it is that the Rubicon has been crossed by including in the Bill any procedure at all for the removal of judges.
If it is believed—and I may be wrong—that it is necessary to preserve the judiciary in England and Wales from such a procedure, the question of the removal of judges by bringing the Scottish parliament into the process should have been left out of the Bill. Indeed, we should have been left with the position as it remains today and the senior judiciary throughout the United Kingdom would be in the same position. For reasons which I can well understand, the Government have decided that that will not do and that Scottish judges must be considered and dealt with in Scotland. However, once that step has been taken it becomes inevitable for the necessary procedures to be written on the face of the Bill.
For those reasons, I strongly support the amendments to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has spoken both in principle and, if I may say so, in detail.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I rise to express my very strong support for both noble and learned Lords. They made speeches which were persuasive, compelling and convincing. It seems that there is no adequate machinery under the Bill for removing judges who are considered unfit. I should perhaps make an admission here in that I have served as junior counsel to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in the past. I vividly remember a particular accident case in which most of the witnesses had died. It was not clear which law of which country applied. But, notwithstanding those obstacles, the noble and learned Lord still managed to get a very good settlement for the widow. That may perhaps be a good omen for a successful outcome to our debate this evening.
I am glad to support the noble and learned Lord most strongly. It is extremely important that the independence of the judiciary is appropriately safeguarded. It is a serious matter to remove a judge. I witnessed the case where a sheriff was removed from office by both Houses of Parliament. It was Sheriff Peter Thompson whom I had appeared before and who was a very good sheriff on the bench. However, he would campaign for referenda on constitutional issues and, because he persisted in doing so when he had been asked by the Lord President of the Court of Session to desist, an order was laid before both Houses of Parliament. The end to that sad saga was that the Government chose to employ the use of referenda, which is perhaps most ironical.
None of Scotland's most senior judges has ever been removed. Therefore, it is extremely important that we get this right tonight. I should point out that there are precedents for removing from politicians quasi-judicial decisions, taking them out of the their hands and putting
50
them in the hands of tribunals. Perhaps I may mention one precedent which I believe serves to reinforce the noble and learned Lord's case. During the seven years that I was Home Affairs Minister in Scotland, cases where police officers appealed to the Secretary of State against dismissal would come to the Home Office Minister. He would read the papers carefully, make his recommendation to the Secretary of State and the latter, on the best advice of the solicitors' department, would issue a decision. That law has been changed. Such cases would not now be considered for hours and hours by the Secretary of State and his officials. Instead, they will go to a tribunal. I believe that to be the correct and appropriate procedure.
As a matter of principle, we wish to retain an independent judiciary which will not lightly be tampered with and which will remain highly respected. Supporting the principle of the noble and learned Lord's amendment should achieve just this. I am very glad to confirm that it has the complete support of the Law Society of Scotland.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, support for the principle behind these amendments is surely something that will come from every side of the House. Indeed, I believe that everyone in this Chamber will agree that the maintenance of the rule of law and protecting judicial independence are essential ingredients of a modern democracy. We must be quite clear in all the legislation that we pass that, whatever we do, it does not sap the independence of the judiciary in any way. I should have thought that that would be common ground everywhere; it certainly is on these Benches. That is one of the reasons why we organised the debate last week on the possibility of a constitutional court and the need for judicial independence.
The question is: what is the most effective means of safeguarding judicial independence in the context of this Bill? As I indicated when I spoke earlier, the means that we would prefer would be by creating a standing constitutional judicial commission which would deal with questions of removal as well as questions of appointment and matters of discipline. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has rightly said, that goes wider than the Bill. Indeed, it ought to do so because it should protect the judges in every part of the United Kingdom—that is, in England and Wales and Northern Ireland as well as in Scotland.
As some noble Lords may remember, I was the unsuccessful counsel in an appeal from Trinidad and Tobago when my client, the chief justice, removed one of the judges, Mr. Justice Crane, in breach of the constitutional guarantees written into the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. The reason he won was that there were criteria prescribed in the constitution and there was a proper constitutional commission. Unfortunately, the chief justice himself, showing that judges themselves may sometimes err as administrators, had not complied with the proper procedures. That would be our preferred option, but it is not before the House this evening.
The proposal now put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is for a special judicial tribunal to deal with such matters only in the context of

51
Scotland. It does not arise in Northern Ireland in the same way because judicial removal and appointments will not be devolved to the elected Northern Ireland Assembly. The question which comes to my mind, and upon which I would very much welcome a detailed reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, is whether there are other effective judicial remedies to deal with the hypothetical problem that the First Minister acts outside the purposes prescribed in Clause 90—that is to say, his Motion is not made for the purpose of removing someone who is,
"unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour",
but because of some other punitive or politically partisan improper reason. In that situation would there be an effective remedy by way of judicial review before an independent and impartial court to deal with that?
To take the second example, suppose there were a want of natural justice—this is one of the examples raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—where the case against the judge had not been properly put, is it the Government's view that that would be able to be dealt with by the second principle of administrative law, of fairness or procedural propriety? Thirdly, let us suppose that the means of disciplining the judge were quite excessive and disproportionate, would the Government consider that that would be within the scope of the modern principle of rationality, and that it would be irrational for the First Minister, or a majority of the Scottish parliament, to seek to remove the judge on that basis?
Speaking for myself it seems to me that our principles of administrative law have moved sufficiently far—now strengthened by the Human Rights Act and Article 6—to enable our ordinary courts to provide perfectly effective remedies if there were to be a breach of legality, rationality or fairness. I now mention the only matter which gives me concern about that. The advantage of the tribunal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is that it deals with merits review; that is to say, it can take the decision itself not by way of a supervisory jurisdiction. But, again, it seems to me that the supervisory jurisdiction of the judicial review court has now moved so far forward in developing principles of administrative law that in practice the merits of the First Minister's motion, and of any subsequent decision, could be effectively judicially reviewed. If that is the basis upon which we are legislating, I would reach the conclusion that a tribunal of this kind would not be necessary because ordinary judicial review on that basis would be sufficient.
If, on the other hand, the Government's view was that this was not a remedy that the ordinary courts could provide, speaking for myself, it seems to me that one should put the matter beyond doubt by creating a special tribunal, and, I would say, a special tribunal which in the long run goes beyond the Scottish judiciary. If we cannot be given an assurance of that kind this evening, I hope this measure will not be pressed to a Division to enable us to consider the matter in the light of what we are about to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to see what is the best means of
52
accomplishing an aim which everyone who has spoken—and I am sure everyone in the Chamber—shares; namely, to preserve judicial independence against arbitrary, unfair, partisan or punitive political removal of a judge.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am not sure why the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is not sufficiently keen on this amendment and why he wants to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate suggest other ways that a solution might be found. This is an important amendment. I was not able to be present on the previous occasion at the late hour that this matter was discussed but I have read what was said with care. This amendment seeks to tackle in an extremely sensible way the weakest part of this Bill from the point of view of the public in Scotland, not just the lawyers. The danger of involving the Scots parliament in the removal of a judge in the way proposed in this legislation is great indeed.
The Government tell us—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has, of course, referred to this matter—that their reason for this measure is that the Westminster Parliament has a role (not unlike that which is suggested) in the removal of judges, if and when that is required, and it seldom is. But the point is that Scotland is a different place. Scotland is comparatively small. Edinburgh, where the law proliferates, is small. The Scots Bar is small. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, smiles. She knows her Scotland well and I think that what I say rings true with her. Politicians and lawyers know one another and they meet socially. They gossip, if I dare say that. Many of them are interested in politics. It simply is not difficult to imagine a judge in Scotland making a controversial decision to strike down a Bill, or part of a Bill, which is dear to the hearts of the members of the Scottish parliament, or in some way cutting across some Scottish parliament members' interests, or the interests of their constituents. It will not be difficult to arouse political controversy almost immediately if one criticises a judge's competence. One can imagine the press comment, the gossip in Edinburgh within the law—perhaps it would stretch to Glasgow and even further—and the gossip among ordinary people.
The existing trust in the independence of judges which I referred to when I discussed the previous amendment—that trust is great in Scotland—will be damaged. That will happen whether or not the two-thirds majority is achieved. I can remember the political turmoil in a local authority when an education committee of which I was a member had to achieve a two-thirds majority for the removal of a teacher. We failed to do that but, my goodness, that teacher's life was difficult afterwards! Imagine being a judge after this process has failed to remove him.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, by insisting that a tribunal might be the hurdle which would have to be crossed before the parliament ever considered the matter, has given a good response. It is a good answer in the legal sense and from the public's point of view. People understand how tribunals can settle these

53
matters, and they would accept that. One wonders how anyone in Scotland could conceivably not adopt that idea. I do not know whether a noble Lord from the Government Benches will join this discussion—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is now present—as for a long time there has been no noble Lord present on those Benches, and no one has supported the Government on these matters previously. I do not know whether the noble Lord will do so on this occasion. I know that he is worried about other aspects of the Bill, as he has told me so. As I said, I do not understand how anyone in Scotland could not adopt this idea.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has suggested my next point; namely, that the problems of the Scottish Office and of the Lord Advocate's Department lie outside Scotland. I wonder whether the saga of the students' fees is not about to be repeated. In that case the Scottish Office knew what to do and had the resources to do it but the department south of the Border refused to join in because of what it considered to be a potential knock-on effect for it. It may be that the Government's reluctance to adopt this idea has something to do with problems south of the Border and a fear that there may be a knock-on effect at Westminster. If that is the case, it is a total misreading of the needs of Scotland.
The Government must think again about this matter. It is enormously unwise to stick to their guns. This part of the clause will, above all, lay the Scottish judiciary open to politicisation. The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, must be supported. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, such a change can be made only by this Parliament. It is no good the Government saying that the Scots parliament can do it later. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will support the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, first I must confess that I was removed from shrieval office by resolution of both Houses of Parliament but in somewhat different circumstances when the last Labour government decided that it was no longer appropriate that there should be part-time sheriffs principal. Six of us were removed from office. However, I was in good company. I was removed together with the previous Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and someone else who became senator of the College of Justice shortly thereafter.
At present, the Westminster Parliament is substantially sovereign. I use the word "substantially" rather than "wholly" because of the necessary abdication of that sovereignty in matters where European Community law is concerned—for example, the European Court of Justice directs United Kingdom courts to disapply provisions of primary legislation passed by Parliament. An outstanding example was the decision of the European Court that the Appellate Committee of this House must disapply provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act in relation to shipping vessels registered under the British flag but Spanish-owned. However, in general, the judiciary in the United Kingdom presently has the task of
54
interpreting and applying primary legislation. It does not have the power to question why it was passed or to strike it down.
The position in Scotland under this Bill will be very different. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead lucidly pointed out at Second Reading, the Scottish parliament will have powers limited to those devolved to it by this Bill. Any legislation which it enacts which is outwith those powers will then be subject to challenge and will be brought before the courts in Scotland. That is likely to bring the Scottish courts into collision with the executive and the legislature in a manner previously unknown in the United Kingdom. I make no mention of the impact that the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law will have as well. It is therefore of critical importance that the independence of the judiciary from pressure by the executive and the legislature should be preserved. It is equally important that it should be seen by the public in Scotland to be preserved.
At present, the removal of a judge—always subject to the ultimate approval of Her Majesty—is placed by Clause 90 entirely in the hands of politicians: the First Minister and the parliament. The two-thirds majority presently written into the Bill, if anything, seems to emphasise the important part that Parliament is to play in any such exercise. That is hardly calculated to inspire confidence in the public at large in the independence of the judiciary, least of all in those litigants who happen to challenge legislation or other Acts of the Scottish parliament in the courts.
The temptation to get rid of a judge who may be a first-class judge and a first-class lawyer but who has had what might be termed the misfortune to deal with a number of cases involving the vires of legislation and who has perhaps come down on the side of ultra vires may be large. It will not do simply to say that it is all right and it can be left to the good sense of the First Minister, whoever he is at whatever time. We do not know how the Scottish parliament will develop. This is far too important a matter to be left purely to chance. I suggest that the First Minister, left to himself, will not be suitably qualified to evaluate at first instance the competence of a senior Scottish judge to do his duty.
The removal of the initial assessment of a judge's competence from politicians to an independent tribunal provides a constitutional safeguard which should be written into the Bill. The need for such an important safeguard is far too important a matter to be left to the whims of future Scottish politicians.
At present, Section 12 of the sheriff courts Act has machinery for the removal of a sheriff. My noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead mentioned that point. However, such a sheriff can be removed only after a report in writing to the Secretary of State by the two senior judges, followed by action by the Secretary of State. The initial assessment of a sheriff's inability or ability is made by two senior judges.
That section was considered by the Appellate Committee of this House within the past year. One of the arguments addressed by the sheriff was that a broad

55
construction of the words, "unfitness through inability", was to encroach upon the independence of the judiciary. The answer to that proposition which commended itself to the Appellate Committee was this:
"The two senior judges, who might be considered to be the persons best qualified to assess a sheriff's fitness and to recognise the importance of judicial independence, are thus the bulwark standing between the sheriff and any undue interference by the executive".
I submit that the independent tribunal proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey in this amendment would constitute just such a bulwark.
In conclusion, perhaps I may mention two matters raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope. He stated, and I entirely agree, that the practice and procedure for the removal of a judge must involve independence, fairness and speed. I merely add that it seems to me very important that the tribunal carrying out the function of determining whether a judge is or is not fit should be composed of persons who are qualified to assess that unfitness.
My noble and learned friend suggested that the Government were concerned about the fact that the innovation of a procedure for the removal of judges in the Bill might have some effect in England and Wales. It is a very different situation. So far as we see at present, no English judge is likely to be called upon to consider the vires of legislation passed by the Parliament at Westminster apart from questions on human rights. For those reasons I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in view of the confession so recently made by my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey, perhaps I should confess that there was an occasion when I was a judge of the Queen's Bench Court when a Humble Address was sought in this House to remove me from that office. I had made a wholly justified interlocutory injunction against a sensitive trade union which took it amiss. I am happy to say that Lord Broxbourne, formerly Sir Derek Walker-Smith, came to my rescue by putting down an amendment which provided for the deletion of everything except "That this House" and the insertion of,
"recognises in Mr. Justice Ackner",
and there followed a string of qualities which even my best friends would not have associated with me. When, to my anxiety, he asked for the matter to be debated, the Leader of the House thought that this entertainment had gone too far and it was never put to the test.
Sadly, I cannot claim authorship for the fine words:
"an independent judiciary is an essential safeguard and key element in our constitution".—[Official Report, 6/10/98; col. 417.]
They were the words with which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate began his reply when the matter came before the Committee on 6th October. The need to safeguard the independence of the judiciary is therefore fully recognised. Yet, remarkably, by the terms of the Bill the First Minister is not required to prove that the judge is incompetent in any way. All that the Bill requires is that he should be satisfied that the judge
56
should be removed and that he should specify the ground for the removal. No opportunity is given by the Bill for the judge to appear before an independent tribunal to be given the opportunity to defend himself against whatever accusation is made. I respectfully submit that that is a serious attack upon the independence of the judiciary.
I expect the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to be that judicial review does lie. But, if that is the right answer, I wholly disagree that it is an alternative that we should consider. Judicial review takes time. It can be the subject of appeals, right up to the House of Lords, and that will delay what should be an urgent decision. As has recently been pointed out, with great respect, Scotland is a small place. To bring on judicial review would involve a considerable degree of embarrassment and difficulty.
I wholly support what is proposed in the amendments, with one minor exception, which can perhaps he reconsidered. I do not like tribunals consisting of two judges, particularly when a matter as serious as this is concerned. Have one judge, if you must, or three judges, or five judges; but do not let us have a tribunal that is almost constituted to disagree. I sat as the second judge in a two-judge court with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with whom I had the effrontery to disagree. He agreed with me that a two-judge court was merely a cost-saving mechanism and was undesirable. Cost saving should be no part of the consideration of this matter in the Scotland Bill. I therefore urge that in due course, once what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has proposed is agreed to by your Lordships, some thought should be given to the appropriateness of having an uneven number of judges for this very important tribunal.
6 p.m.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, I am sorry that I have no colourful judicial experience to add to that of the noble and learned Lords who have spoken before me on the matter of the removal of a judge. However, I assume that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would accept all the matters of principle that have been raised in the debate and the desirability of an independent tribunal of some kind in order to resolve the matter. What I suspect is at issue is whether the provision should be inserted in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord may say that it is inconceivable and unimaginable that some procedure will not be put in place in due course. It may be that he will say that he does not wish the Bill to be cluttered up with lengthy amendments of this kind. Those reasons will not do.
In this Bill we are launching a great vessel; we are giving it a captain and a crew; and we are letting it steer its own course into an uncharted sea. We cannot foresee with any confidence how that vessel will conduct itself and in what turns, twists and manoeuvres it may engage. It may well be that all will be well, but one cannot predict that with absolute confidence. There is therefore the greater necessity to provide for these matters at the stage of the launch. No doubt, when the "Titanic" was launched, people said, "It is unimaginable that this ship can sink"; and no doubt many said, "It is unacceptable

57
to clutter up its decks with more lifeboats." I am concerned that in this Bill we should not launch a vessel which is doomed to catastrophe.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, being a layman, I have some hesitation in speaking after the eloquent speeches of so many noble and learned Lords. Perhaps I may call in aid two matters. First, the independence of the judiciary is so important that it should be of concern to those who are not learned in the law. Secondly, to float a little vessel from what may seem an odd part of the compass, when we were negotiating the future of Hong Kong we strongly argued, quite rightly, that the independence of the judiciary was a key part of the system. The system had been such that to dismiss a senior judge was very complicated. It would not have satisfied the desire of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for speed. It required a tribunal and a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I do not believe it had been used for many years. The Judicial Committee had to drop out, for obvious reasons. We argued strongly with China that judicial independence from the executive and from the legislature was crucial. A provision was put into the agreement that there should be an independent tribunal, which would be headed by the Chief Justice, and only after that tribunal had proclaimed would the matter go to the legislature, which had to give its approval. That was agreed with China. It was included in the agreement and is in the mini-constitution of Hong Kong, valid for at least the next 49 years. I believe it is also the case that within the Commonwealth after the late 1950s all new constitutions had some form of independent tribunal.
As a layman it seems to me that judicial independence is crucial and we should establish the right provisions for the future of Scotland that not only work in practice but are seen in advance to be sufficient to guarantee the independence of the judiciary from the executive or the legislature. It does not matter, does it, that the procedure will probably not be used for 50 or perhaps one hundred years? It is not sufficient to revise it when it comes to that time. We need to have in place a provision which is seen to be right by the broad public before this particular vessel is launched.
The amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, do not in any way undermine the main purposes of the Bill, which for my part I support, but reinforce its effectiveness of it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord is able to say that the Government will take account of all that has been said and will either accept the amendment or produce an alternative of their own.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have appended my name to the three amendments that have been spoken to by the noble and learned Lord. My support for what has been proposed remains as strong as, if not stronger than, ever. I am not in the least surprised to learn that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has received a wide range of senior legal support for this proposal from the length and breadth of Scotland.
58
I should like to make two points. In particular I address the argument that this is a matter which can be left to the Scottish parliament itself. First, whatever may be the good collective instinct of the Scottish judiciary not to trespass or to become unnecessarily involved in parts of the political process, I believe that in a very short space of time it is inevitable that a number of disputes will come before the courts which have a political quality that previously they would not have had. It is for that reason that I believe it to be wholly desirable to settle the matter of the independence of the judiciary before there is any risk of such disputes coming before the courts and any challenge being made as to the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
The second reason why I should like to see this amendment on the face of the Bill is that already advanced by the noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Hope. Let us assume that at a future point the Scottish parliament decides that the best way to resolve the matter is along the lines advanced by the noble and learned Lord; namely, that an independent tribunal should be established. If such an approach were adopted the next important issue to be determined would be the composition of that tribunal. If one envisages, as one must, that from the Lord President downwards the judge may be at the centre of proceedings it is virtually impossible to conceive of a composition of a tribunal that is intra vires the Scottish parliament. I believe it is absolutely clear that it would have be along the lines of the three groupings advanced by the noble and learned Lord. I do not believe that the groups chosen by him for the purposes of his amendment are in any way an arbitrary selection of possible candidates; indeed, they are the only ones who would be appropriate to deal with holders of such high judicial office in Scotland.
I intended to say that provisions along the lines of subsection (9) would not be appropriate for the Scottish parliament to legislate upon, but now that we have had the opinion of the noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Hope, that that would probably be outwith the powers of the parliament, the fact that I agree with them may be a rather redundant observation. Nevertheless, it is very important that before the parliament is established we try to ensure the independence of the judiciary. If the fitness of any Scottish judge at the most senior level is to be questioned it is wholly desirable at this stage before the parliament gets under way that we establish and secure the integrity of the judiciary and that if there is to be any challenge it is considered only by a tribunal of the distinction suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am not sure that I am wise to enter into this debate given the presence of so many legal luminaries. Although the University of St. Andrews conferred upon me an honorary doctorate of laws, the only judicial appointment I have ever held is that of a bailie sitting in the police court in Dundee. I do not claim any legal qualifications. I should like to make a very simple point. I understand that as the Bill originally stood a judge could be removed if a majority of the parliament voted for his removal. That was

59
amended by making it a majority of two-thirds. I am not happy about that. Two-thirds would be 86 members of the parliament as presently composed. If it came to a vote and 65 or 70 members voted for a judge's removal he could not be removed because it would not amount to a two-thirds majority. But I suggest that in those circumstances any self-respecting judge would be forced to resign if parliament had shown that a majority of those voting did not believe that he was fit to hold office. Therefore, the two-thirds majority is no real safeguard.
I am minded to vote for this amendment unless my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate can come up with something—perhaps a more simple proposal—which has the effect of enabling a judge to be removed only when it is obvious under the procedure adopted that he is unfit for office. Incidentally, in the past judges have been found to be unfit for office in Scotland but they have never been sacked. Their colleagues have always persuaded them to resign.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope observed, the background to this debate is the fact that when the Bill was first presented to Parliament it contained a clause which dealt with both the appointment and the removal of judges. The clause was necessary because on this issue this devolution settlement follows a different tack from that which gave rise to the Scotland Act 1978. For those of your Lordships who have followed the progress of this Bill through Parliament it must come as a surprise that at this very late stage in the history of the Bill there remains a very major dispute between noble Lords on all sides of the House and the Government. I hope very much that at this late stage we shall at long last see some movement on the part of the Government on these very important issues.
The simple question that arises is: what is objectionable in principle to the proposal in the three amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to which I and other noble Lords have also put our names? No doubt, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, one can raise questions of detail as to whether it should be two or three judges; and perhaps one can criticise other points of detail. But what is objectionable in principle to separating the two stages in the process of removing judges: first, the determination of whether or not there is unfitness; and, second, once that matter has been established, the bringing of that matter before parliament for the appropriate resolution or motion to be moved? That was a point focused upon by the Faculty of Advocates many months ago in its memorandum to the Government, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said. What it says is fundamental to a consideration of these amendments and I repeat it:
"The Faculty is also of the view that it is necessary to have some means of determining the fitness of judges that is independent of the political process".
I believe that to be the nub of the matter, for the very obvious reason that when the Scottish parliament is up and running, either immediately or after a year or two,
60
issues will inevitably come before the courts of the greatest political sensitivity. I give one example. Would it be within the competence of the Scottish executive to call a referendum on whether or not the people of Scotland wished to have independence or to enact legislation to that effect? One can picture the papers the following day if judges in the Court of Session in Edinburgh—or, more likely, judges who are sitting as Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—reach a decision that an Act of the Scottish parliament authorising such a referendum is ultra vires and cannot take place. The press will be full of criticism, not just from politicians but all parts of Scotland. Equally, the press will be full of messages and expressions of support for the judges who will be caught up in a highly political situation. For that reason, I believe that it is essential that the two stages of this process should be set down on the face of the Bill.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, there is a matter which has been puzzling me. While I wholly accept the independence of the judiciary, I am asked to believe that it is necessary for an independent tribunal of some kind to rule on the competence of judges. Independence of politicians, yes, but all the people who are named are not independent of the judiciary. I do not understand how it can come about that the judges are presumed to be so independent they can independently rule upon themselves. The noble and learned Lord mentioned a scenario in which there would be a great furore about the referendum being denied. If the furore was so great, no tribunal composed of judges would wish away that political maelstrom. In my view, neither of those two points has been sufficiently answered for me to support the amendments.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his intervention, which illustrates the point I make. Judges are being pulled into highly political issues. They have to rule on an issue of law. Unless the Bill clearly states what should happen if there are calls for the sacking of the judges concerned—calls from people who may not have studied the history of this Bill, let alone the detail, with the same interest as the rest of us—I perceive there will be difficulty. On the other hand, if there are such calls, the First Minister can say to parliament, "This was decided back in 1998." That is the procedure which will have to be followed. If he could point to something in the Bill then that would serve to quell any calls which would inevitably arise for the removal of the judges concerned.
I return to the first point made by the noble Lord. That is a good example of a matter of detail. I can see the force of the argument that a tribunal could contain a mixture of judicial members and people without legal qualifications. A number of tribunals sit in this country which have such a mixed composition. Such an amendment, if tabled, would fall to be debated on its merits.
The style which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey has followed is already in legislation in the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 which

61
provides for the removal of the sheriffs. The last time we debated this matter I believe the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that that has not given rise to any criticism as to the procedure followed, subject to one comment; namely that it may be unfortunate that the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk are the two judges concerned. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said on more than one occasion, by the time it comes to such an inquiry, the judges are tainted by bias because they have practical experience of the failings of the sheriff concerned. Therefore, it may be difficult for them to stand back and be independent. That is why I believe that the tribunal, as defined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in Amendment No. 177, is an improvement on the provisions in the 1971 Act. I have no absolute view that under no circumstances could lay people be involved. However, I have an absolute view that they should not be members of the parliament or active in any party politics. I am quite sure that an accommodation to that effect could be reached.
I return to the point I was making. I believe that this detail should be on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, may well be correct that principles of administrative law, and other principles, may come to the rescue of the judge concerned to ensure that the inquiry and procedures are fair. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe that we can afford to wait to see if he is correct. Like all noble Lords who are lawyers and have been in practice, occasionally the opinions one expresses on the law turn out not to be the ones supported by the court. I should prefer to see this provision in the Bill. That is why I firmly support the amendments.
Finally, I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I should like to clarify a point which may have been misunderstood. I said that there were three ways of achieving the objective; the first two are by means of statutory tribunal. I raised the possibility as to the effectiveness of judicial review as an alternative approach. I await the Government's reply. However, I see the force of the argument that the best way is by means of a judicial commission or tribunal.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. As I have said, when this matter was last debated I put forward the very argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes; namely that a judge who survived in the sense that only a simple majority was achieved and not the necessary two thirds would be in an impossible position. The noble Lord may well be right that any judge in such a position would resign but I should not want to see that possibility arise.
This matter was debated fully in Committee in the middle of the night. It has been debated fully today. I understand, from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said earlier, that he does not intend to press Amendment No. 175 at this stage. However, if he
62
presses Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 to a vote, I shall support him in the Division Lobbies. I should encourage my noble friends to do likewise.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said, this has been a long and interesting debate. We have rehearsed many of the reservations about the provisions in the Bill for the removal of judges. Those reservations were also rehearsed in Committee over a considerable period, albeit early in the morning.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, acknowledged the many points of agreement between noble Lords who support this amendment and the Government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, acknowledged in Committee that I recognise and place considerable importance on the independence of the judiciary. So we are agreed about that principle. We are also agreed that there must be a workable process for the removal of judges who are no longer competent to carry out their role. I think we are also agreed that robust arrangements will have to be made to determine whether a judge is unfit. In particular, we agreed that in any such case, the grounds for removal should be clearly stated. The only point on which we are divided is how much of the detailed procedure should be on the face of the Bill. In other words, should this matter be settled here and now at Westminster or left to Holyrood?
As I have said, the Government are committed, as I am, to protect the independence of the judiciary. The House should not doubt that we understand absolutely the need for the proper separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. We also recognise that such separation can never be absolute, as this House knows to its great benefit. However, we accept completely that a substantial degree of separation is needed if the legal process is to operate without fear or favour. In recognition of the fact that this is a key issue, we have gone much further than any provision currently in statute by spelling out in this Bill the only grounds on which a judge may be removed. I would invite the House to contrast that with the present position under the Supreme Court Act 1981, which governs the procedures for England and Wales, to which I shall return.
I say to noble Lords who raised the issue of England and Wales that that is not a reason for our resisting the amendment. We do not resist it in case there are repercussions for England and Wales. I assure noble Lord that that has not entered into our deliberations. The reference to England and Wales and the Supreme Court Act 1981 is simply to draw a distinction and to show that in this Bill we set out the specific grounds upon which the First Minister can put a Motion before parliament.
I submit that the task before us is to ensure that the Bill contains the fundamental safeguards required for the separation of powers; in other words, the protections which are essential to safeguard judicial independence. The other side of the task must be to ensure that those safeguards are framed in a way which will stand the test of time. That is an important consideration for noble Lords to bear in mind when considering what to do at

63
the end of the debate. We must be careful that in a relatively short time the provisions may come to be seen as too inflexibly constructed to be able to cope with reasonable changes in the wider world.
I remind the House that the clause is entrenched; it can be amended only here at Westminster. If there are calls to amend the clause in five or 10 years' time because we have failed to leave room for the development of a significant role for, say, a ministry of justice, or a particular committee structure in the parliament, or simply a different type of investigative tribunal—perhaps one including a lay voice—the task here will not have been done correctly today. Indeed, we may build in detail here today which on further reflection, in very short order, we come to think as not right because it has been conceived in relative haste.
The House has doubtless noted that the detailed proposal put forward here already shifts the ground as compared to proposals suggested by noble and learned Lords a matter of weeks ago. For example, on 6th October, at col. 418 of Hansard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, admitted that this might not simply be an issue for determination by the judiciary alone. And yet we have before us this amendment, which seems to entrench that proposal—
6.30 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was offered that particular carrot by me. I was perfectly happy to accept the government amendment under which the determination as to fitness or unfitness was given to persons other than judges. The Lord Advocate did not accept that and the Government showed no willingness to do so. I therefore consulted extremely widely in Scotland and decided that the appropriate amendment for me to table was this one. If the Government want to have a lay element I am perfectly happy to accept it. I should be delighted to welcome it.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, we are considering the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. It is the amendment which he has tabled. I referred to our debate in Committee where the noble and learned Lord intervened when I was replying. He said:
"Does the noble and learned Lord recognise that I accept that there does not have to be a complete adjudication by judges for reasons that are easy to understand? What is required is that there should be an impartial, independent tribunal which may include judges but does not have to include nothing but judges".—[ Official Report, 6/1 0/98: col. 418.]
If that is the noble and learned Lord's position, and if the desire were to secure an independent tribunal, it would have been possible for him to frame an amendment setting up a tribunal which included judges, but not exclusively. The whole point of our exchange is to show that in the course of two weeks the position seems to have shifted.
I submit that our aim should be that Clause 90 should be accepted as a fundamental part of the constitutional settlement. For that reason, it is fundamentals that the clause should contain and no more.
64
The principal fear which has been voiced is that the procedures set out in Clause 90, particularly those for the removal of judges, do not provide enough protection against "political" abuse. I do not agree that this is a fair criticism and I would urge the House to look carefully at the provisions in the clause. Subsection (8) provides that:
"The First Minister shall not make a motion under subsection (7) unless … he is satisfied that the person in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour".
He must be satisfied on one or other of those criteria before he can make the motion to parliament. In the case of the senior judges, the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk, there is the additional safeguard that he has consulted the Prime Minister.
As I have indicated, that goes much further than the Supreme Court Act 1981, which is entirely silent on procedures. There is no mention of the grounds on which a judge may be removed; far less any question of a tribunal. Subsection (8)(a) provides that the First Minister must be satisfied that the person is "unfit for office". Those are strong words. No other reason is admissible or admitted apart from inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour.
Perhaps I may take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It is correct that if the First Minister decided to seek the removal of a judge for any other reason apart from those three, or if he took action which, applying any sense of reasonableness, did not amount to anyone being reasonably satisfied on any of those grounds, there would be a question for the judge to seek judicial review in the courts.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asked about judicial review. Of course it involves delays and there are opportunities properly to appeal to the Judicial Committee of this House. However, is the noble and learned Lord satisfied that even if a tribunal were in place there would be no opportunity for judicial review of the proceedings of the tribunal? If the judge felt aggrieved about the procedure that had been followed could he not seek judicial review of that?
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, I wish to ask a question in respect of subsection (8)(b). The Lord Advocate has a staff behind him. Should not his successor in office be included in that provision? During our earlier proceedings, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, stated that because of the Lord Advocate's staff and his position he held a special place in respect of the appointments of judges, sheriffs and so forth—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as I understand it, we are on Report. It is for the Minister to respond on Report. There may be interventions of a very short nature, as I understand the Standing Orders, but I think the whole House would be grateful if we could get on with the business.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should like to ask a question arising directly out of the earlier exchange. Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate not able to assure the House, in answer to the

65
points I put, that judicial review under the Scotland Bill, read with the Human Rights Bill, will go no further than a review of the legality of purpose; that it will not look at the merits of decisions and review the matter from the point of view of the basic civil right of the judge concerned to natural justice, or the loss of his office, as a valuable right, looked at on its merits? If that is the position, I can support the amendment. I hope that the Minister can assure noble Lords that judicial review would go much further.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I was dealing with the point of subsection 8(a), raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in that context. Judicial review is a very wide remedy and, as I stated earlier, if there were reasons other than the three which are specified, clearly there would be a remedy of judicial review. Equally, if the view was taken that no reasonable Minister could have reached the view that on the information before him the test was satisfied, that would also give rise to judicial review. Of course there are questions of natural justice and that is what I was alluding to in my reference to the possibility of reviewing the proceedings of the tribunal. Questions of natural justice would be a ground for judicially reviewing an administrative decision of the First Minister. I hope that that answers the point.
I have not heard any persuasive account of how a political motive could be successfully dressed up as meeting the clearly limited criteria set out in subsection 8(a). Without such a persuasive account, fears of political abuse are simply not supported by a re-reading of the clause.
Noble Lords should bear in mind that the First Minister will have to be prepared to defend his view before the parliament and even before the courts if a judicial review were, for example, to be raised. No First Minister would embark on this road unless he was very sure of his ground. We have tended to discuss this clause so far as though there were only risk on one side of the equation; namely, that of the judge whose removal might be sought. But there are, it seems to me, very large risks for the First Minister if he attempts to subvert this process.
I invite the House to look at subsection (7)(b) of Clause 90 which requires members representing two-thirds of the seats to support a motion for removal. This point has featured in the contributions of a number of noble Lords. It has been correctly observed that when the Bill was first introduced in another place there was no such requirement; it was a simple majority. I can understand the concerns of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, about the effect on a judge if a two-thirds majority is not achieved. However, the proposal for a two-thirds majority was introduced after consideration as to how judges might be better protected. I understand that it found favour with senior members of the judiciary in Scotland at that time. It was seen as an important safeguard in protecting the judiciary. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, the Lord President, thought that it was an improvement to the Bill.
66
The effect of the two-thirds majority is that 86 people will have to vote in favour of removal of a judge before that could be achieved, and it would require an exceptional degree of cross-party support before the judge could be removed. If we are to amend the Bill for fear of political abuse of power, we owe it to the electorate to make a cool-headed assessment of the political realities of the situation. With great respect, I have gained the impression recently that some noble Lords are concerned that the steady good sense of the people of Scotland is somehow no longer to be relied upon. I did not find the comparisons with the former USSR helpful and thought them slightly over the top.
If ever the time comes when 86 members of the Scottish parliament wish to remove a judge for political reasons and are prepared to risk not only their public standing but also that of the judicial process as a whole, I suggest that we would be facing a constitutional crisis of such dimensions that what is said on the face of the Scotland Bill will, frankly, be neither here nor there.
Furthermore, as I have already noted and as I indicated in Committee, as matters stand judges in England and Wales have only the protection of a motion agreed by both these Houses under Section 11(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. I am not aware that this has come under any pressure for review, nor have I heard any serious suggestion that there has been political abuse of these powers. We are asked to disregard this absolutely crucial point on the grounds that the advent of "devolution questions" and the Human Rights Bill will so dramatically change the relationship between the courts and the Government that the long history of absence of political abuse of these powers ceases to be of any relevance. We are also asked to assume that the introduction of the parliament will void the existing conventions about the use of such powers. That simply is not tenable. The courts have long had, and on occasions have used, the capacity to greatly embarrass on occasion the executive. We should not exaggerate the extent to which the role of the judiciary is going to change, nor the extent to which the political realities which underpin existing conventions will be altered.
I do not seek to suggest that there is no scope to elaborate on what is in the Bill. We intend that the Scottish parliament should be able to add to the procedures which must be observed by the First Minister before he makes his Motion to the parliament. This afternoon and evening and in earlier debates, many distinguished holders of judicial office have made thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions regarding what additions to the process set out here there may be.
This is an important debate. It is one that the Scottish parliament itself is empowered to take forward. But the more we write into the Bill now, the more we limit the ways in which this process can be developed in future. Significant debates which have been opened in this House will, for all practical purposes, be closed down again before they have barely begun. We should be in no doubt that were we to accept these amendments, it would be practically impossible to add significantly to the process for weighing up the case for and against removal. The amendments clearly assign that task

67
exclusively to the proposed tribunal. The two senior members of the judiciary involved would become the gate-keepers, with absolute power to decide whether a case should progress. Once they have opined, there can be no practical role for any other body. Earlier, I touched on the scope for involvement in this debate. It cannot be right for this House to take a decision today that the gate-keepers should be the senior judiciary and no one else.
Further, the amendments do not specify which other procedures the tribunal is to follow. We have heard that there is a need to allow the judge himself to know the case against him and make representations. Those points were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. But the amendments here do not provide that safeguard. Is there to be a hearing at which the judge concerned is to be entitled to be heard? If not, what are the procedures? The Government consider that it would be preferable if the matter could be left in the hands of the Scottish parliament to devise a properly worked-out procedure, rather than adopting a procedure which has not been worked out in detail and which, as a proper solution, does not go far enough.
The noble and learned Lord again referred to the Latimer House guidelines. When we discussed this matter earlier in Committee, the noble and learned Lord mentioned those guidelines. As he has said, they were the product of a conference in June 1998 which adopted a series of principles and guidelines for consideration by the next meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in November 1999. For the present therefore the guidelines have not been formally adopted by any government and I am not persuaded that they ought to influence the way in which your Lordships' House should reach decisions on what needs to go into the Scotland Bill now.
As regards ECHR, the noble and learned Lord referred to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as he did in Committee. Since then, we have considered that point and are satisfied that there is no difficulty on that score. The Government take the view that the termination of office of a judge does not involve the determination of a civil right. That is because the European Court of Human Rights has drawn, in its decisions, a distinction between rights of appointment and termination in the public sector, which are matters of public law, and economic rights, such as rights to payment of salaries or pension, which are matters of private law, giving rise to civil rights. I can give the noble and learned Lord the necessary authorities, if he wishes.
I would urge noble Lords to think carefully about these amendments. I repeat the point I made at the start of my reply. There is not an essential difference between us about the need for the independence of the judiciary and the need for a robust, workable procedure for the removal of judges which is not open to abuse. However, the Government submit that our aim should be that Clause 90 of the Bill should be accepted as a fundamental part of the constitutional settlement and for that reason it should contain no more than it does at present. If we write more into this clause than is strictly
68
required and create an unnecessarily tight straitjacket which causes problems in the future, I am afraid we shall not have done our task properly. The Government accept that there is clearly a significant debate to be had about how the framework in the Bill might be augmented. But if we choose in this House not only to begin this debate but also to end it, we indeed do the Scottish parliament—and I would argue the judiciary itself—a great injustice.
I very much hope that the noble and learned Lords will consider those arguments and withdraw their amendments.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be disappointed by my response. I have a right to reply and I shall be as brief as I possibly can. I shall allow the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to lie where it fell.
I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is now satisfied, having heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, that judicial review is not an adequate way of dealing with the matter because it cannot review the merits.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the propensity of politicians. The most distinguished and in some ways admirable politician of my lifetime was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who came into office in 1932. He immediately tried to pack the Supreme Court with his own appointees because they seemed to him to be standing in the way of his political programme. Therefore, even the best of democrats will interfere with the judiciary if they can.
As regards the details, I do not care whether it is two or three judges. My original amendment provided for two or more judges. Some noble Lords did not like that and so I should be happy to have one judge or three or five judges, whatever is suitable to the Government. It is for the Government to make those proposals. It is not for me to write details of procedures about how judges should be given the opportunity to reply to charges of impropriety. That is not my job. I am here to raise a point of principle and I have sought to do so.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that to require a two-thirds majority is to say, in effect, to the legislature, "You have the power", whereas the present position is that constitutionally Parliament simply rubber-stamps the decision which is taken behind the scenes or, in my system, by a tribunal.
I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, said, and he made the same point in Committee. We do not have to have a body which consists entirely of judges. There may be good reasons for including laymen or making it consist only of laymen. As I said on another occasion, one does not have to be a judge to determine whether a man is dishonest. If a man is beating his wife or molesting children, people other than judges can decide whether he is unfit on that ground. I should be perfectly happy and should welcome a move by the Government to make the tribunal embrace people of that kind.

69
A point was made about the length of my amendments. They are quite modest. I do not suppose that size matters in this context, but my amendment is only 19 lines long. We have already agreed to add 34 lines to the Bill to introduce the Queen's Printer. If the Queen's Printer is worth 34 lines, surely a modest 16 to save the judiciary is not too much.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate says that the question is as regards how much of the detail should be in the Bill. He misses the point. We are perfectly happy with the mechanics of removal. There is no detail at all in the Bill in relation to determination of the question of unfitness. It is that which is lacking and I regret that the Government have failed to see that.
The Government ask how the First Minister could get away with dressing up his particular political prejudices as unfitness. It happens every day. It is happening now in Sri Lanka, where some of the judges who are against the government are facing bogus charges of assault and so on. Therefore, it is quite possible for politicians to come forward with such charges. It is vitally important that judgments on those matters should be made by those who are other than politicians.
Today your Lordships have heard that the Scottish judges, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, retired Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, former Lords Advocate, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and others support these amendments. It is arrogant of the Government to say that they cannot agree and see no need for this provision. I have no troops. I have no Whip to bring people to the House. But I hope that your Lordships in all parts of the House, not least those on the Liberal Benches, who have listened carefully to the argument and taken part in it, will support me. I shall not press Amendment No. 175 because that is necessary if the Government win in relation to the other amendments. I will ask your Lordships to support me in relation to Amendment No. 176. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw mendment No. 175.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 42, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) he has asked an independent tribunal, established under subsection (9) of this section, to investigate and report on whether the person in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour,
( ) he has received a written report from the tribunal, containing a finding that the person in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour and a statement of their reasons for so finding.
( ) he has laid before the Parliament a copy of the written report on the person in question.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 176) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Addington, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Addison, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alderdice, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Attlee, E.

Kingsland, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Balfour, E.

Leigh, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ludford, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Luke, L.

Burnham, L.

Lyell, L.

Byford, B.

McCluskey, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

McConnell, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McNair, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Maddock, B.

Chesham, L

Mancroft, L.

Clancarty, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clyde, L.

Marlesford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Meston, L.

Craigavon, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cranborne, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Crathorne, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Montrose, D.

Dartmouth, E.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Moyne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dundee, E.

Nelson, E.

Dundonald, E.

Newall, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Elton, L.

Northbourne, L.

Falkland, V.

Northbrook, L.

Feldman, L.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Norton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Freyberg, L.

Palmer, L.

Geddes, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gisborough, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Greenway, L.

Razzall, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Harlech, L.

Rees, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Renton, L.

Harrowby, E.

Renwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rowallan, L.

Henley, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Higgins, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Holderness, L.

Seccombe, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Home, E.

Sempill, L.

Hooper, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hothfield, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hughes, L.

Stair, E.

71

Stewartby, L.

Waddington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Waverley, V.

Taverne, L.

Weatherill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Weir, V.

Tope, L.

Westbury, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wigoder, L.

Trenchard, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilcox, B.

Ullswater, V.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ahmed, L.

Alli, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amos, B.

Lockwood, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bach, L.

McCarthy, L.

Barnett, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Biffen, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Blease, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Borrie, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bragg, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Burlison, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Montague of Oxford, L.

Chandos, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Christopher, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Orme, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L

Peston, L.

Crawley, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Eatwell, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sewel, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grenfell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardie, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Haskel, L.

Thornton, B.

Hayman, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Uddin, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Varley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hoyle, L.

Warner, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Whitty, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Islwyn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.8 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 42, line 44, at end insert—
("(9) A tribunal established for the purposes of this section shall consist of two persons selected by the First Minister from—

(a) the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary;

(b) peers of Parliament who hold or have held high judicial office as defined by sections 5(3) and 25 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876;

(c) members of Her Majesty's Privy Council who hold or have held high judicial office as so defined.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows directly upon the one on which we have just voted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 177A:
After Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
ASSISTANCE FOR OPPOSITION PARTIES
(".—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the Parliamentary corporation to make payments to registered political parties for the purpose of assisting members of the Parliament who are connected with such parties to perform their Parliamentary duties.
(2) The corporation shall not make any payment to a party in pursuance of such an Order if any of the members of the Parliament who are connected with the party are also members of the Scottish Executive or junior Scottish Ministers.
(3) But such an Order may, in any circumstances specified in the Order, require the fact that any members who are connected with a party are also members of the Scottish Executive or junior Scottish Ministers to be disregarded.
(4) Such an Order may determine the circumstances in which a member of the Parliament and a registered political party are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as connected.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment confers the power of Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to make provision for the Scottish parliamentary corporate body (SPCB) to make payments to any Opposition political party represented by MSPs in the Scottish parliament to assist those MSPs in performing their parliamentary duties. This money, as an expense of the SPCB, would come out of the Scottish consolidated fund.
It is intended that that should enable provision to be made for payments to Opposition parties in the parliament equivalent to the so-called Short money that is provided for Opposition parties in this parliament. That accords with the recommendation of the committee on the funding of political parties which was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill. It is envisaged that such money paid will be applied by the parties to obtain research and support facilities for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, assistance in the Opposition Whips' Office, and other staff for the leaders of the Opposition parties.
Although the amendment does not give full effect to the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee for the provision of financial support to parties in the Scottish parliament, it provides a mechanism whereby some funding can be provided for Opposition parties in the Scottish

73
parliament until such time as the Neill recommendations are considered fully by the Government and put on the statute book. We believe that it is important to act now as an interim measure so that a mechanism to provide financial support for Opposition parties in the Scottish parliament is in place as soon as the parliament is established.
Amendment No. 206F ensures that an Order in Council under the new clause will be subject to approval by resolution of both the UK and Scottish parliaments. That ensures that the Scottish parliament will have a say on what moneys are to be paid out of the Scottish consolidated fund. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we warmly welcome the new clause which the Government seek to insert. It is unfortunate that the Government have not taken on board all of the recommendations of the Neill committee on this matter. One hopes that in the fullness of time—and not too long away at that—that the Government will take on board all the recommendations of the Neill committee and will not pick and choose between those that suit them and those that do not.
One point slightly puzzles me. Subsection (2) states:
"The corporation shall not make any payment to a party…if any of the members of the Parliament who are connected with the party are also members of the Scottish Executive".
I presume that that envisages a coalition with two parties forming the Government. The "junior partner", if I may call it that, would not be eligible for the money. However, subsection (3) states:
"But such an Order may, in any circumstances specified in the Order, require the fact that any members who are connected with a party are also members of the Scottish Executive or junior Scottish Ministers to be disregarded".
The two subsections seem contradictory. On the one hand, subsection (2) says that if your party is involved in the Government at all, you cannot have the money, whereas subsection (3) says that an order may state that you can have it. I am not sure whether I am reading that correctly, but perhaps the Minister could justify that contradiction.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister does so, I wonder whether I may be very daring and say that I am not in complete agreement with what has been said from both Front Benches. I must confess that I have not read what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, said on this, but I am puzzled about the payments. Are they in lieu of salaries or in lieu of expenses? I find strange the idea that registered political parties should be given that responsibility instead of Parliament and the Government. The parties are not public bodies. They are not statutory bodies although they are to become registered. Parties are not elected by the people; members of various parties are elected by the people. I hope that I may be forgiven for raising that doubt, but I am puzzled. I was relieved when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, when moving the amendment, say, in effect, that the provision is experimental.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I did not say that it was "experimental"; I said that it was "interim". It is nice to hear the iconoclastic, independent voice of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on this. He clearly has not checked his position with his own Front Bench. His noble friends may find that they are losing quite a bit of support in your Lordships' House on this question of the essential work of, and support for, Opposition parties that is necessary in the parliamentary process. We are not talking about payment in lieu of salaries or anything like that. We are talking about money that is made available in both Houses of this Parliament, the so-called Short money. It is made available so that the Opposition can employ researchers and to provide the Opposition Whips' Office with administrative and technical support. It has been in place for some considerable time now and is an accepted feature of the way in which we order our party affairs in parliament. I should have thought that there is no exception to it.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I must admit that when I read the provisions I came up with a similar degree of puzzlement. He is right that it is the intention that a junior party in a coalition executive would normally be excluded from receiving Short money. However, if a party had just a single junior minister involved in the executive, that in itself might be felt not to be sufficient automatically to exclude it from Short money support. That is what the subsections would achieve.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 177B:
After Clause 92, insert the following new clause—
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE CROWN IN DIFFERENT CAPACITIES
(".—(1) Rights and liabilities may arise between the Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Crown in right of the Scottish Administration by virtue of a contract, by operation of law or by virtue of an enactment as they may arise between subjects.
(2) Property and liabilities may be transferred between the Crown in one of those capacities and the Crown in the other capacity as they may be transferred between subjects; and they may together create, vary or extinguish any property or liability as subjects may.
(3) Proceedings in respect of—

(a) any property or liabilities to which the Crown in one of those capacities is entitled or subject under subsection (1) or (2), or

(b) the exercise of, or failure to exercise, any function exercisable by an office-holder of the Crown in one of those capacities,

may be instituted by the Crown in either capacity; and the Crown in the other capacity may be a separate party in the proceedings.
(4) This section applies to a unilateral obligation as it applies to a contract.
(5) In this section—
"office-holder", in relation to the Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, means any Minister of the Crown or other office-holder under the Crown in that capacity and, in relation to the Crown in right of the Scottish Administration, means any office-holder in the Scottish Administration,
"subject" means a person not acting on behalf of the Crown.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which clarifies that legal relations may be entered into between the Crown in right of the UK Government and the Crown in right of the Scottish administration.
The Bill already draws a distinction between the Crown in right of the UK Government and the Crown in right of the Scottish administration. It makes provision for the Crown in both capacities to sue and to be sued.
It is also intended, however, that legal relations should be capable of being entered into between the UK Government and the Scottish administration so as to transfer rights, liabilities and other property between them. It is also intended that, when a UK Minister of the Crown makes an order under Clause 54 requiring some action to be taken by Scottish ministers, it should be possible for Scottish ministers to seek a judicial review of that order and for the UK Minister to seek a court order enforcing his order against Scottish ministers, subject of course to the provisions of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. In other words, it is intended that the UK Government and the Scottish administration should be able to enter into legal relations and to sue each other.
It was thought that, without an express provision in the Bill, the view may be taken that the doctrine of Crown indivisibility would prevent this. Government Amendment No. 177B therefore clarifies the position. It makes clear that the Crown in right of the UK Government should be able to enter into legal relations with the Crown in right of the Scottish administration and vice versa. This puts the Crown in right of the UK Government and the Crown in right of the Scottish administration in the same relationship to each other as they are, or would be, to a subject. In other words, legal relationships can be created and enforced in the courts, subject of course to the provisions of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 as to the nature of remedies which can be granted against the Crown. This amendment makes it clear that the Crown in right of the UK Government and the Crown in right of the Scottish administration would be able to sue each other. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his explanation. When I looked at Schedule 8, I thought that the matter had already been dealt with pretty comprehensively, if somewhat obscurely. The noble and learned Lord mentioned the Crown Proceedings Act and the Crown Suits Act, both of which are to be modified by Schedule 8. Do I understand from his explanation that the Government are now so concerned that the Bill brings about such an attack on the concept of the indivisibility of the Crown that something more substantial is taking place here, or is this just a matter of procedural adjustment to ensure that the Lord Advocate in one capacity does not decide to sue himself in another capacity, which is what I thought that Schedule 8 was trying to avoid? Therefore, when the Westminster Government wish to take legal proceedings
76
against the Scottish executive they get the Advocate General for Scotland to raise such proceedings. I am anxious to discover whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, in his fairly brief speech in support of this amendment, was indicating that something more fundamental is being adjusted in the Bill, and whether there is a matter at which, in future, constitutional lawyers ought to look with a great degree of interest with regard to the constitutional principle of the indivisibility of the Crown.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is difficult for a lay person to understand this amendment. I received it only on Saturday. It was posted on Friday. I had to be here on Monday. This makes it difficult for Back-Bench Peers to examine what are clearly very important amendments. However, I may misunderstand it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I appear to be asking a stupid question. It seems that the Crown can now have two entities. There is the,
"Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom",
as expressed in subsection (1) of the new clause, and there is the,
"Crown in right of the Scottish Administration by virtue of a contract, by operation of law or by virtue of an enactment".
Does that mean that when the Crown gives Royal Assent to Bills the Queen is doing so in a different legal capacity in the Scottish parliament from that which she has when she gives assent to Bills in the United Kingdom Parliament? It sounds as though she now has two entities. Does that affect her capacity when giving Royal Assent?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am not in the favoured position of my noble friend Lady Carnegy. Undoubtedly my copy of the amendments was posted on Friday, but they had not reached me this morning when I left. I saw this amendment for the first time when I arrived today. As my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser suggested, at first blush it is a somewhat unusual amendment although, having listened to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, I can well understand why the view is taken that it is necessary. For that reason I do not oppose the principle of the amendment. But I believe it right that the Government should be aware that it will be necessary to look at the detail over the next few days to see whether what is now brought forward very much at the eleventh hour concerning a fundamental issue will give trouble not only to those of us who sit on these Benches, but also, and more importantly, to those who will have to adjudicate between the Crown in one capacity and in another.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. The Queen is not acting in a different capacity when she gives Royal Assent. I referred to the doctrine of indivisibility of the Crown. Normally one cannot sue the Crown. But because there are different legislatures and executives exercising different functions, and because the Scottish executive or administration may

77
well wish to enter into contracts or other arrangements, for the transfer of property or whatever, with the United Kingdom Government, it may wish to enforce them. I hope that this difficulty will not arise. But if there were a difficulty between the two parties, this amendment would enable one party to sue the other.
Equally, as I said, if a Minister of the UK Government made an order requiring the Scottish parliament to do something and it wished to challenge it, the Scottish parliament could review the decision by virtue of this provision. It would give the ability to litigate about that particular matter just as this provision will give United Kingdom Ministers the ability to litigate about the failure of the Scottish executive to give effect to the order. That is what is behind the order. It relates to any arrangement with the Scottish executive as a whole; for example, a contract or something of that kind.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I would like to be quite clear that there is no suggestion that the Queen gives Royal Assent to legislation passed by the Scottish parliament in a different legal capacity from that in which she gives assent to legislation passed by the Westminster Parliament.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. The Queen is acting throughout as Sovereign of the United Kingdom.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Devolution issues]:
[Amendments Nos. 178 to 191 not moved.]
Clause 93 [Human rights]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 191A:
Page 43, line 27, at end insert—
("(5) Proceedings to which subsection (1) applies may only be brought in an appropriate court or tribunal.
(6) In subsection (5) "appropriate court or tribunal" means such court or tribunal as may be determined in accordance with rules; and "proceedings" includes a counterclaim or similar proceeding.
(7) In subsection (6) "rules" means—

(a) in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal outside Scotland, rules made by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section or rules of court;

(b) in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal in Scotland, rules made for the purposes of this section;

(c) in relation to proceedings before a tribunal in Northern Ireland

(i) which deals with transferred matters; and

(ii) for which no rules made under paragraph (a) are in force,

rules made by a Northern Ireland department for those purposes, and includes provision made by order under section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to amend the provisions of Clause 93 of the Bill, which, as I recollect, was introduced at Committee stage in your Lordships' House. Its purpose is to seek to ensure that the Bill is compatible with
78
the provisions of the Human Rights Bill which, I understand, completed its parliamentary passage last Thursday. The Human Rights Act, as it now is, provides in Section 7 that,
"A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is unlawful [by the previous Section 6] may bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings, but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act".
That was described as the "victim test" on more than one occasion in the debates on the Human Rights Bill.
The practical problem—as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, confirmed last week when we were debating the position of the Lord Advocate himself and the procurators fiscal who serve under him—is that members of the Scottish executive will be required to comply with the convention rights. If they fail to do so, either because a particular act is contrary to convention rights or because a particular failure to act is incompatible with any convention right, they will be liable to be challenged under this Bill as well. Clause 93 is directed to that.
The practical problem is that whereas the Human Rights Bill gives power to the Secretary of State—or the Lord Chancellor in England—power in Scotland for rules of court to be made to lay down which is the appropriate court or tribunal where such proceedings can be raised, there is no similar power in the Scotland Bill. The purpose of my amendment is to include similar powers in this Bill so that parties in Scotland in particular can seek to challenge the act or omission of the Scottish executive or of any official of the Scottish executive on the grounds that it is not compatible with convention rights. They will not have a choice as to which court or tribunal can initiate proceedings unless that choice complies with the rules which have been enacted. In the absence of such a provision there is scope for confusion. That is why I have brought forward this amendment. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I must be thick, but I cannot see any reason for this amendment. It seems to me that the point is taken care of in Clause 7 of the Human Rights Bill. Clause 7(2) of the Bill says that,
"'appropriate court or tribunal' means such court or tribunal as may be determined in accordance with rules".
Clause 7(11)(a) refers to rules in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal in Scotland. Therefore, it seems to me that there is adequate power in the Human Rights Bill, but I have probably missed something.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord explained, this amendment was taken from Clause 7 of the Human Rights Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to probe why we have not made similar provisions here. The reason is quite simple. We consider that it would be inappropriate and incorrect to make such a provision in this Bill.

79
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said during the previous debate, Schedule 6 provides that questions of whether the exercise of a function by a member of the Scottish executive or a failure to act is compatible or incompatible with convention rights is a devolution issue. With one exception, it is not intended to specify the courts or tribunals in which devolution issues may be raised. It will depend on the ordinary law as to what proceedings can competently be brought before a court or tribunal at present. It may be felt that most devolution issues will be raised competently only by way of judicial review in the Court of Session. However, we do not consider it would be appropriate to provide that such issues can be raised only in the Court of Session because Schedule 6 provides for a fast-track procedure for the Law Officers to raise such issues directly in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That has no counterpart in the Human Rights Bill.
Furthermore, the amendments do not have the effect of bringing the provisions of the Scotland Bill into line with the Human Rights Bill because they contain no counterpart to Clause 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Bill entitling a person to rely upon convention rights in any legal proceedings before any court or tribunal.
Clause 93 is intended only to bring the Scotland Bill more into line with the Human Rights Bill in certain limited respects. It is not intended that the Scotland Bill should be brought so completely into line with the Human Rights Bill that it destroys the common procedures for dealing with devolution issues no matter in which legal proceedings they arise and for determination ultimately by the Judicial Committee. However, that would be the effect of these amendments. With that explanation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I should explain that at present I speak only to Amendment No. 191A. As I understood the noble and learned Lord's answer, he appeared to be admitting the possibility that if someone was the victim of an act or omission of a member of the Scottish executive or one of such member's officials and suffered loss, he would be able to raise the appropriate proceedings in, let us say, the sheriff's court irrespective of the fact that under Clause 7 of the Human Rights Bill the appropriate court or tribunal had been designated for the purposes of the Bill in Scotland as being the Court of Session. With respect, that seems to give rise to confusion. I cannot see any good reason why, under one Act, one can start in the sheriff's court; and if one goes under another Act which provides the same remedy one can start only at the Court of Session.
As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, this is a probing amendment. I do not intend to press it to a Division. However, I am surprised, notwithstanding the expressed intention of the Government, repeated on a number of occasions, to bring the two pieces of legislation together so that there is no inconsistency between them, that in relation to this matter we have a
80
quite obvious inconsistency. However, if that is what the Government wish, I do not intend to insist on my opposition. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Diana, Princess of Wales: Memorial Garden
7.35 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the cost of converting Kensington Gardens to a memorial park for the late Diana, Princess of Wales, will be met from public funds if the proposal is proceeded with.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad that so many noble Lords are proposing to speak in this debate on a subject which is of great interest and concern to many people. I favour a memorial to Princess Diana but I believe that the proposals which were put forward by the memorial committee in the summer of this year are misguided and unacceptable. The memorial committee met again on 20th October and, according to newspaper reports, it has had second thoughts. But we do not know precisely what its thoughts are because, as I understand it, it took no decision and issued no statement. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will be able to shed some light on the present position.
We are dealing with a site of outstanding heritage importance. It is listed Grade I in the English Heritage register of parks and gardens of special historic interest. The proposals made by the committee in the summer involved major changes to these gardens, which at present are basically parkland with grass and trees. For the areas south of the palace, the committee proposed the planting of flowers, shrubs and trees and the creation of a woodland wilderness next to Kensington Road and a new gateway from that road; this in an area which at the moment is largely given over to children kicking footballs about. In the Round Pond, it proposed the creation of a very tall jet of water, somewhat modelled, I believe, on Chatsworth. That would have the effect of spoiling the activities of those who sail model boats on the pond, those who fly kites around it and those who picnic around it in fine weather and it would certainly upset the water fowl, not least the water fowl which nest on the rafts of the pond. To the north of the palace the committee proposed a minimum of three new planted gardens and public park and sculpture. So the committee proposed substantial changes in all those three areas.
There was a public consultation in the summer. That, in my view, was inadequate and badly handled, but it did involve an attempt to deliver a pamphlet and questionnaire to 150,000 addresses in the area of London near the gardens. The result of that consultation

81
was quite clearly massive opposition from those people to whom the literature was addressed. There has been strong opposition from the local councils involved, from the two MPs concerned and from a meeting of more than 1,000 people held in Kensington Town Hall in June on a wet night when there was a tube strike. There has been opposition from the 13 residents' associations in the area which have formed the Princess Diana Memorial Liaison Group.
The grounds for opposition, as I see them, are the following. The first, and most important, is traffic congestion. I have before me a letter from Mr. Paul Burns, the chief executive of Keith Prowse International, a firm of many years' experience which will be well known to noble Lords. Mr. Burns says that Keith Prowse, which has offices all over the world, has been approached by many tour operators looking for a focal point from which they could launch tours in connection with the memory of Princess Diana. Because it is now believed that there will be a focal point, people are displaying much more interest in setting up such tours. In his letter Mr. Burns says:
"We would have serious concerns at the likely outcome of the establishment of a Memorial Garden within Kensington Gardens. We believe that such a Memorial Garden would generate very substantial volumes of visitors into an area which, in our opinion, does not have the necessary infrastructure to cope with the likely influx. Nor do we believe it would be possible to develop an adequate infrastructure within the surrounding area".
Mr. Burns has told me personally that if the memorial gardens are created as proposed, then every coach operator in London who is arranging tours would concentrate starting or ending a tour at the gardens, or at least including in it such memorial gardens.
The second ground of objection is that I believe the proposals are inconsistent with the current patterns of use of the gardens. The principles recommended by the Royal Parks Agency, English Heritage and Historic Royal Palaces to the Memorial Committee included the following words as principles to be observed:
"Current patterns of use of the Palace, the gardens and the pond area should be respected".
Moreover, Jennifer Jenkins, who is a former chairman of the Royal Parks Review Group, said in an article in the Evening Standard on 16th July:
"What the document"—
that is, the consultation document—
"fails to address is the current use of the west part of Kensington Gardens. That is lying on the grass, kicking a ball about, eating sandwiches. Every fine evening, every weekend, the area is full of people doing that. Formal gardens are against that".
The third ground of objection is that I believe the proposals are based on a false logic. The former butler of Princess Diana has said that she used to go out in the gardens both walking and running in the early morning and that she loved the gardens. If she loved them, she loved them as they are. We do not know what she would have thought if faced with the proposals which have been put forward by the memorial committee. I believe that the people who visit the gardens would like to see them as they used to be when Princess Diana was alive.
As regards the meeting of the committee on 20th October, I understand, although I may be wrong, that the proposals it is now likely to consider involve reducing the cost from £10 million to £3 million, with the £3 million to be spread across three proposals. That means £1 million for each project. The first proposal is for a walking route from Kensington Gardens to St. James's Park. The second is for the enlargement of the playground and its enhancement with facilities for the disabled. I believe that those two proposals could be acceptable if sensitively arranged.
However, the third proposal is for remedial work in the gardens. That seems to me to be desirable if the work really is remedial—that is, for the replacement of trees which have died or the improvement of the drainage on the paths. But it would not be acceptable if, in practice, it involves the creation of new avenues of trees. If such remedial work is desirable—and I believe that it is—why should it not be done by the Royal Parks Agency out of its budget? If it is done out of the budget of the memorial committee there will be a great temptation to call the gardens the Princess Diana Memorial Gardens. I return to the point made by Keith Prowse. I believe that the latter would be disastrous in terms of causing congestion.
The terms of reference of the committee include the following words:
"The Committee will have regard to the charities and causes which the Princess supported".
Did she support a single garden charity? Indeed, I have not heard of one. However, we do know that she supported many children's charities. That is why I believe that the idea of the Princess Diana Memorial Action Group is a good one. The latter has given great thought to the matter and has suggested treating the improved playground in Kensington Gardens, which I understand is now under contemplation, as a model for a series of improved playgrounds across the country with facilities for the disabled. It would be a suitable follow-up to the public playing fields which were created in memory of George V and are remembered now.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for tabling this Unstarred Question. If I may say so, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord said. I agree that there should be a suitable memorial of some kind for a much admired and greatly loved Princess, but the present plans, with their intrusive nature, are not suitable for Kensington Gardens.
The proposal for a large formal garden to the south of Kensington Palace, extending right down to Kensington Road, would destroy the view of the palace and the whole parkland in this area. I understand the inspiration for this idea comes from the original garden designed for William III in 1691. But this had only a short life as it was replaced in 1727 for George II by the present 18th century open parkland which, with the Round Pond, still survives. In those days, the Palace and its park were out in the country. Kensington was a small village nestling round St. Mary Abbots. Kensington Square to the south,

83
which was built to house members of the court and still survives—I am glad to say; indeed, it is a very beautiful square—was surrounded by fields. Today, the gardens are a precious green space in an extremely busy urban area.
As the noble Lord said, the proposed memorial garden would attract thousands of tourists. Particularly affected would be the adjacent west entrance to the gardens from Church Street and across Palace Green, which has hardly changed since the days when I used to be taken through there as a child when we lived on Campden Hill, and it still retains its semi-rural aspect. Where is it proposed that the dozens of tourist coaches should park? Will these form a solid line right up Kensington Palace Gardens, to the considerable inconvenience of the embassies there and many Kensingtonians? Alternatively, are these coaches to park in beautiful Holland Street and thereabouts which is a residential and conservation area? As the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said, I understand that there is to be a fountain in the Round Pond. The noble Lord did not mention height, but I believe that it will be 300 feet high. Again, that is totally out of character and would make this stretch of water impossible for the children's model boats. The proposal for the peaceful flower walk (which used to be called the baby walk in my youth) to be made into a memorial walk will mean that it will be used by great bands of tourists and its peace and quiet destroyed.
These proposals have caused much opposition from the people who live and work around the park and depend upon it for their fresh air, exercise and recreation. I understand these deep feelings and declare an interest as I resided in Kensington for the first 40 years of my life and still live near the park in Westminster. Notwithstanding the apparent attempt to push the plans through during last July and early August, the holiday period, 15,000 questionnaires were returned, the large majority being hostile. A nationwide opinion poll found that 79 per cent. would prefer the money to be spent on playgrounds, which the noble Lord mentioned, with only 16 per cent. in favour of the garden plan.
The Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster councils and the local MPs are all opposed to the scheme. Although the councils cannot block it, as this is a Royal park, I understand that a public inquiry will be called for if the Government insist on going ahead in the face of public opinion. It would be much better, I suggest, to spend the money on improving the children's playground already to the north of the Palace and on a chain of memorial playgrounds throughout the country, particularly in the most deprived areas of our inner cities. This would surely be more appropriate and more in keeping with the late Princess Diana's charitable work and her ideals.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, in this brief debate we are discussing a proposal to make a major change to one of the jewels of the nation's capital. I suggest that no other capital city has London's wealth of parks, squares and
84
tree-lined streets. This makes London one of the world's most attractive capital cities. At its heart is a necklace of parks linking the great buildings of state at either end: Whitehall Palace linked to St. James's Palace, linked to Buckingham Palace by St. James's Park. That pearl is linked to Green Park, Green Park is linked to Hyde Park, and finally to Kensington Gardens with Wren's great palace. It is unique and indeed I am surprised that this complex, taken as a whole, is not already a world heritage site. After all, Parliament Square is a world heritage site.
However, be that as it may, I suggest we need to be extremely careful about making a major change to this jewel. Hasty decisions made in the heat of an emotional moment may not stand the test of time. In this hugely sensitive case—sensitive because of the weight of emotion on the one hand and the international importance of the site on the other—a long gestation is, I believe, crucial. A gestation of several years would, I think, be appropriate. We have to get it right for the long term. That is the first point I wish to make. In doing so I should also confess—like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—to being a regular user of the park and gardens over at least 30 years. Indeed when Parliament is sitting I journey along that great necklace every day from one end to the other.
Reference has been made to various views. I was particularly impressed by the views—as reported in the press—of the Kensington Society. I am not a member of that society but what contacts I have had with it and with those who officiate in its affairs suggest that both the organisation and the people who run it have great responsibility and authority. They are in a reasoned way completely against the proposals. I think we should take their views seriously. That is the second point I wish to make.
I referred earlier to the need for a long pause before making a major decision. Equally important is the process itself. For example, I welcomed the announcement in the summer that there would be public consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, referred to that. He was critical of the way it was handled and so am I. It seemed to me to leave much to be desired. For example, I thought the questions in the leaflet were perhaps a little tendentious. Moreover, its distribution appeared to have been somewhat erratic. Apparently some local citizens received no leaflets whereas I could easily have filled in dozens of copies which were lying around. I am told that a party of Japanese tourists dutifully filled in the questionnaire. Perhaps that was no bad thing although it is rather important to know who you have consulted.
Nor, I am afraid to say, did I find the exhibition alongside the Albert Memorial much help in fully understanding what was proposed. It seemed to me mostly to consist of blown up pieces from the leaflet. However ill conducted the consultation was, I would be intrigued to know what the results were. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned figures, and perhaps those could be confirmed. No doubt the Minister will do so. A piece in The Times—which I think has been

85
referred to—states that the vote, if one can call it that, was overwhelmingly against. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
As regards the proposals, in so far as we know what they are, I shall make four observations. First, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, about the traffic problem. In my view the park has already reached carrying capacity and there really is not room for any more capacity, except out of season. Secondly, the idea for a garden between the Palace and Kensington Gore is—as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said—not a good one. As he said, the area is much used, especially in spring and summer, for strolling, sitting and picnicking and by children playing. It is important not to lose these activities of quiet enjoyment. It would be wrong to take away from ordinary people these much enjoyed rights.
Thirdly, it is proposed that there should be some sort of screen of trees or bushes shutting off the proposed gardens from the street. That is most insensitive. The view up from Kensington Gore to Wren's splendid façade is one of London's finest eye-catching views. However, the proposal would in effect abolish it. Fourthly, there is a proposal for what I would describe as a large jet d'eau à la Geneva—the other example, I believe, was that of Chatsworth—which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said will be 300 feet high. I have often found the location a rather windy spot. That would result in much spray downwind—wherever that may land—which, as has been said, would put a much enjoyed, old and admired activity of boat sailing out of action. That has been mentioned. I am not even sure whether a fountain 300 feet high would not do some mischief as regards kite flying.
I have mentioned four specific objections; there has been reference to others. The fact that I have not mentioned those other objections does not mean that I do not agree with them. I take no position on the case for a memorial but if there is to be one on the lines of a garden or open space I suggest it should be situated in a place that is crying out for such a thing, and the emphasis should be on young people.
Finally, perhaps the noble Lord can tell the House whether any consultations have taken place with the Royal Fine Art Commission. If it appears that these proposals are likely to go ahead, the opinion of that eminent body would be all important.
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I rise to congratulate my noble friend Lord Blaker on introducing this debate tonight on the proposal for a memorial garden close to Kensington Gardens. I believe that the debate is timely. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, welcomes it as it gives him a chance to say what is happening in this regard.
I should perhaps declare a small interest in that I am a resident in Kensington and Chelsea, although not directly in such a salubrious area as the park. I believe that my noble friend put forward a persuasive and cogent case for the memorial committee to do a complete re-think on where it should be going. I am sure that would give it valuable time with regard to what is,
86
and what should be, a most creative, imaginative and fitting memorial, and not one which starts off life in a bed of turmoil and even public anger.
My main purpose in taking part in the debate is not only to reinforce what my noble friend has said on the serious planning issues that would arise from a large memorial site close to Kensington Palace, but also to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, why there has been so little public consultation with the local authority, particularly as regards the heritage department which I believe is the host department.
The original 20-acre proposal—I assume it now has been dropped, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will state that firmly—has been described to me as a very special area for many young families and an area with a high density of flats. Therefore it is particularly unattractive to them to find that such a lovely, tranquil area could be destroyed. It is no wonder that when one speaks to the chief executive of the borough council, as my noble friend said, following a public meeting of 1,000 people and a local questionnaire to all ratepayers, one finds that the proposal received a thundering "no".
I do not deny that the work of the memorial committee is not a bed of roses. However, the committee could improve its image with more openness. That would be enormously helped if the host government department would issue clear statements as to what is going on, and not merely leave it to the media to pick up reports so that the public and ourselves receive possibly inaccurate information.
In such a situation as this, where there is an attempt to choose an important public site for a memorial, I am a fervent believer in the well-tested planning procedures of our country. If a decision is reached that people do not want, at least they feel that their view has been properly considered.
We know that Crown land, the Royal Parks, the Ministry of Defence and certain other departments, do not require planning permission. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will recall, in 1980 a government circular advised such departments, including Crown land, that they should always go through the process of consultation. That is a very important issue in this instance.
If the memorial committee is eventually to decide on a site close to Kensington Palace, I hope that tonight we shall receive confirmation that there will be a public inquiry, so that these important planning issues can be examined with great care. There is a strong feeling, not only among residents but also among planners, that this area simply could not cope with the impact of such a development. I hope that in future we shall also receive a proper statement from the department responsible for the memorial committee, which will avoid the feeling that closeted discussions go on when an issue of enormous public interest is debated.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I live in beautiful Battersea, so I have no interest to declare. I cannot believe that Princess Diana, who essentially reached out

87
into the grey and tawdry areas of life to bring light to them, would wish to see a beautiful part of London tinkered with rather than beautifying some less attractive area.
The most important reason why this proposal should not go ahead is that it is as undesirable to create a shrine to Princess Diana as it is desirable to have appropriate memorials to her.
8.3 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, most noble Lords taking part in this debate must have suffered a bereavement at some time in their life, either someone close to them, someone in their own family, or in which they had some involvement even as a trustee. I have had that experience myself, and it is a fundamental necessity for time to pass in order to make sensible judgments which benefit all concerned. In the domestic and private area that is essential. When it is a public figure who has died and there are concerns in relation to proper and appropriate memorials, even more time is needed. I am following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I understood him to say that we need much more time to consider what would be appropriate and what would achieve the right consensus.
I do not wish to enter into the details of what is likely to happen to the park under this scheme. That aspect was admirably dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, who introduced the debate, and by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and others. What has been obvious during this debate is the great degree of disagreement as to whether this particular scheme is appropriate, not only for those who live in the close vicinity of the park that is to be developed, but appropriate to the memory of the Princess.
The haste with which the scheme has so far been implemented—apart from being unsuitable in terms of the time needed in order to consider all aspects of it—is the way in which it runs absolutely counter to a number of aspects that are particular to the tragic death of Princess Diana. I refer to the enormous momentum that has arisen in media coverage. It has caused great distress to the family.
There may be great merits in this scheme. However, if it is handled badly and without proper consultation it will not only be a great pity for those who have to live with it, but cause enormous disruption in terms of argument and invective in the press, which will again make it difficult for the surviving family of the Princess. Her two young sons have already appealed for a slowing down and a time during which they are left free of press attention so far as possible. That has been agreed by the press and the other media—although some are sailing pretty close to the wind.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that we shall not go headlong into these projects regardless of the concerns voiced by noble Lords during this debate. It would be a pity if a scheme were to be put in place with which not only the residents disagreed but other elements in the country disagreed, including the family of the Princess. It would create an atmosphere
88
with which the Princess would not have wished to be associated during her life, even though she may have liked some aspects of the scheme.
Some very good suggestions have emerged from the debate. Particular mention was made of the Princess's love of young people. That is an outstanding reason why the present nature of the park should be left in place. It is a place where young people can run about and do as they wish; they can play with footballs, for instance, or lie in the sun. To jeopardise that would go directly counter to our memory of the wish that Princess Diana had for young people; namely, that they should enjoy life as much as possible.
This has been a useful short debate. I hope that the Government will take heed of the timely warnings that have arisen from this interesting Question. I hope that the press will also take note of what has been said. Right and proper concerns have been expressed for a new look and for new thoughts to take place in a rather more extended timetable.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend Lord Blaker for introducing this subject. I agree with much of what noble Lords have said this evening. It seems to me that a right and proper memorial to the life and work of Diana, Princess of Wales needs to fulfil several criteria. It needs to reflect the great feeling and respect felt by so many people for Her Royal Highness. It must somehow be available to be visited by those who do not want to go to Althorp, or who cannot do so, both Londoners and tourists. It needs to be something of which Her Royal Highness herself would have approved. For instance, she went into places that other people had not gone into before; and she deliberately sought out and succoured those with whom no one had bothered before. Perhaps her memorial should reflect that. Most importantly, unnecessary and harmful controversy must be avoided. What memorial can fulfil its purpose if its construction is accompanied by ill-will? Such would sour the commemoration of someone who managed to touch the life of the nation in an almost unprecedented way.
If the memorial is a playground, or a series of playgrounds, as has been suggested, it should be where there is no playground now and where there is palpably a need for one.
I understand that nothing is yet set in concrete. I have spoken to my noble friend Lady Chalker, who sits on the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Committee. She has told me of the immense number of suggestions made, and which are still being made, from all quarters. The committee will eventually decide on its favoured scheme and make a recommendation to the Government. Rumours, of which we have heard a great deal this evening, abound as to greater and lesser schemes in Kensington Gardens. I hope that, if such a scheme is finally agreed, it will take due account of the access problems raised and will be amicably agreed with all those residents who are justifiably concerned about their environment.

89
Like my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I believe that it is too soon to come to any conclusions. Eventually, with good will, the right solution will emerge. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is the second time today that I have stood at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Treasury. The first occasion was the minor matter of the future of the global economy! I have to tell your Lordships that this second occasion is a good deal more difficult for me than the first one. That is not because I have not enjoyed and appreciated your Lordships' contributions, and not because I am not grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. But, as your Lordships are aware, the recommendations to the Government on this matter are made by the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Committee, which, although set up by the Government following the undertaking by the Prime Minister after the death of the Princess of Wales, is an independent committee. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. On the committee are also representatives of the Royal Household and of the Spencer family and Princess Diana's former butler. We do not have any control over what they do or say.
Before I give such answers as I can, I must explain to your Lordships that my difficulty is that the committee has not made up its mind, and has not made a public statement following its meeting on 20th October and has not published the results of the consultation process. When I am asked for the Government's position, as I have been on more than one occasion, I have to say that it is not the Government's position, it is the memorial committee's position, and the committee has not told us what its position is. My answers will therefore inevitably be less than satisfactory. I apologise for that, but there is nothing I can do about it.
The memorial committee has met regularly since January to consider more than 10,000 ideas, received from people of all walks of life, including school children, pensioners, voluntary organisations, local authorities, artists and professional bodies. Having considered the wide array of ideas put forward, the committee's preliminary advice, published in June, was that the Government should take forward proposals in four areas: first, community children's nursing teams supporting children with life-threatening or life-limiting diseases and their families; secondly, an award for young people at secondary school who make an outstanding contribution to the community; and, thirdly, subject to public consultation, a memorial garden in Kensington Gardens.
In addition, Her Majesty the Queen approved a recommendation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a commemorative crown piece should be issued next year in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales. This is the fourth proposal to which I referred. Proceeds from the sale of this commemorative coin will go towards the cost of the other proposals recommended by the
90
memorial committee, including any changes agreed for Kensington Gardens. The literal answer to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is that technically such expenditure scores as public expenditure, but, of course, the charge to the taxpayer is reduced by the amount raised by the commemorative coin for this and the other proposals.
In all these areas the relevant government departments are working out detailed proposals for further consideration by the memorial committee.
The committee met on 20th October to consider the progress of all four proposals. The discussion focused mainly on progress reports on proposals for community children's nursing teams and awards for young people at secondary schools. The memorial committee's recommendation for teams of community children's nurses across the UK caring for children with life-threatening and life-limiting diseases has received wide support, not only from the public, but also from the nursing profession, doctors and charities working in the field. For over 50 years it has been widely acknowledged that the best place for sick children is at home, surrounded by the people who love them. But the availability of care at home for these children has been limited and patchy. The proposal from the memorial committee would provide additional money for NHS-led teams to work with the voluntary bodies already active in this field of care.
An award each year in every secondary school in the United Kingdom for a young person who has made an outstanding contribution to the community will directly benefit and encourage young people, particularly disadvantaged young people in communities across the United Kingdom in ways which were inspired by the contribution of Diana, Princess of Wales. This recommendation, too, has received a great deal of support from bodies active in education, youth and the voluntary field. The Department for Education and Employment is currently tendering to find a body to administer the awards.
The committee briefly discussed the proposals for Kensington Gardens, but no decisions were made. The committee wishes to discuss these proposals further at its next meeting. I do not believe it would be pre-empting its discussions to say that the proposals are expected to be scaled-down in response to local concerns, but I am afraid that it is not possible for me to go into further detail, not least because I do not know any further detail. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, referred to the possibility of a £3 million scheme with three elements: a playground, a walkway and remedial treatment. I have no knowledge of such a scheme. He also made reference to the work being done under a memorial committee budget. There is no memorial committee budget. The expenditure, including net receipts from a commemorative coin, would be government expenditure. Spending by the Royal Parks Agency would be expected to be within the existing DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) spending plans.
Noble Lords have made reference to a network of playgrounds. I can confirm that the Princess Diana Memorial Action Group has proposed a network of that

91
kind and has seen the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to put forward that idea. Noble Lords will understand my difficulty in anticipating future decisions by the memorial committee when that consideration is yet to take place. But I believe that it is important to put this matter in context. In looking for ways to commemorate Diana, Princess of Wales, the memorial committee has always placed greatest emphasis on proposals that continue the work that she started. I believe that that emphasis has been reflected in a number of speeches this evening. The proposal for nursing teams and an award for young people were chosen because of her affinity with young people and her care for the most vulnerable in society.
But the Committee is also mindful that a great many people expect some physical national memorial and that of all the proposals that it has received gardens are among the most popular and appropriate ways in which the public want to remember her. People have chosen Kensington Gardens quite spontaneously as a principal place to go to pay their respects. The number of visitors to Kensington Gardens now runs to about 5 million a year, compared with 2.8 million in 1994. There has been no government or memorial committee action to make that happen; it has happened because people want to go.
Kensington Palace was her home. As we have been reminded, her Butler, Paul Burrell, described how Diana, Princess of Wales used the gardens for running and walking. People will continue to visit Kensington Gardens to remember her. The memorial committee believes that in response it should continue to consider ways in which she can be commemorated there. It will also continue to consider other proposals such as the idea for a network of playgrounds to which I have already referred.
The memorial committee has always recognised that any proposals should command widespread public support before they are implemented. I do not disagree with anything that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said as to that. That was why the committee undertook the consultation exercise at the earliest opportunity to allow local residents, the relevant authorities, including (I hasten to say) local authorities, and the wider public to put forward their views on the proposals at a very preliminary stage of development. I have listened to the criticism of the consultation process. We and the committee were aware of it at the time. No doubt the committee will take into account what has been said this evening.
But the consultation process had to choose between being entirely prescriptive and setting out a complete plan for the gardens, thus closing off the options and doing what in the end was decided upon; namely, to be much less prescriptive and detailed. One is criticised whatever way one does it. Either one has made up one's mind in advance of the consultation or one is not being sufficiently precise about the subject matter about which one is consulting. In any case, detailed plans for significant changes in Kensington Gardens will fall to be considered by the local authorities and residents under the formal procedures for Crown development. For the information of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull,
92
I confirm that that would be in accordance with Circular 18/84. I also confirm that steps are already in hand to commission an environmental impact assessment when proposals are put forward by the committee.
We are aware of all the difficulties that noble Lords have raised. We are aware of the possibility of organised coach tours that may do damage and encourage a greater number of tourists. But these are all considerations that have emerged from the consultation. All I can say to noble Lords is that what they have said this evening will be taken very seriously. I am sure that the Official Report will be available to the committee and that it will want to announce its conclusions before the end of the year. I have every confidence that the memorial committee will, with your Lordships' help, find proposals that can command local as well as national support.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether there would be a public inquiry into any proposal following the decision by the memorial committee, particularly if it involved the area just by Kensington Palace?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that that depends on the scope of the final proposals. As yet we are unaware of it. Clearly, if the proposals were to be significantly scaled down, as I suggested was likely, the demand for a public inquiry would be that much less.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.35 p.m.]

Scotland Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 191B:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause—
REDUCTION OR SUSPENSION OF PROVISION OF ACT OF SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
(" .—(1) This section applies to proceedings in which the party who raises the proceedings seeks an order for reduction or suspension (or other like order) of any provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament or subordinate legislation made, confirmed or approved by a member of the Scottish Executive.
(2) Proceedings to which this applies may only be brought in an appropriate court or tribunal.
(3) In subsection (2) "appropriate court or tribunal" means such court or tribunal as may be determined in accordance with rules; and "proceedings" includes a counterclaim or similar proceeding.
(4) In subsection (3) "rules" means—

(a) in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal outside Scotland, rules made by the Lord Chancellor or the

93
Secretary of State for the purposes of this section or rules of court;

(b) in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal in Scotland, rules made for the purposes of this section;

(c) in relation to proceedings before a tribunal in Northern Ireland—

(i) which deals with transferred matters, and

(ii) for which no rules made under paragraph (a) are in force,

rules made by a Northern Ireland department for those purposes; and includes provision made by order under section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill. It seeks to address a concern expressed by the Faculty of Advocates in a memorandum submitted to the Government some time ago and upon which I have already commented.
The purpose of the amendment is to create rule-making powers which would entitle either the Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State in England or Wales, the First Minister in Scotland or the procedure set out for Northern Ireland in subsection (4)(c) of the new clause to lay down the courts or tribunals in which there should be vested a power to reduce, suspend or otherwise set aside any provision of an Act of the Scottish parliament or any subordinate legislation made, confirmed or approved by a member of the Scottish parliament.
In a memorandum submitted to the Government, the Faculty of Advocates said that the then Clause 93 of the Bill could cause confusion as to the forum appropriate for the challenging of administrative acts and could restrict the scope envisaged by Clause 93(2). The Faculty said:
"Legislation of the Scottish Parliament may be relevant in both England and Scotland and may affect considerable numbers of persons or businesses. It is therefore important that decisions taken in relation to the vires of legislation be consistent and be taken by courts of appropriate authority in each jurisdiction".
Referring to the position in Scotland, it said:
"Having such decisions taken only by the Court of Session within this jurisdiction would promote this interest. It is inherently undesirable that all minor courts and all tribunals should have the power to quash the proceedings of the Scottish parliament".
The Faculty went on to recommend that the Bill be amended. Dealing with the situation in Scotland, it suggested,
"that the power to declare the invalidity of administrative acts and legislation (including those of the Scottish parliament and the Scottish Executive) should remain vested in the Court of Session. The Bill should be amended to indicate that where such matters are raised in proceedings before any other court or tribunal in Scotland, it is appropriate either that the matter be transferred to the Court of Session or that the cause be sisted pending one of the parties presenting an action in the Court of Session seeking the reduction of the relevant legislation. Similar provisions should be introduced relating to the jurisdiction of the English courts"
and obviously other courts of the United Kingdom.
The amendment is designed to make it possible for there to be some control over which courts should exercise a jurisdiction to reduce or otherwise set aside Acts of the Scottish parliament in subordinate legislation. The amendment would not necessarily limit parties in the lower courts in raising devolution issues
94
whether they did so as pursuer or plaintiff in an action or the defender and defendant. But it would prevent the lower courts from pronouncing orders that courts should set aside the Acts of the Scottish parliament or subordinate legislation, assuming that the rule-making power was exercised in the way which I and the Faculty of Advocates believe it should be; namely, reserving such important issues to the higher courts. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the amendment seeks to define the appropriate court or tribunal for proceedings seeking the order for reduction or suspension of an Act of the Scottish parliament or subordinate legislation. In that regard, its intention is similar to the amendment we discussed before the dinner break.
In speaking to the previous amendment, I explained that it would be wrong to make such a provision in the Scottish Bill. Schedule 6 provides that questions of whether the exercise of a function by a member of the Scottish executive or a failure to act is incompatible with the convention rights in a devolution issue. With one exception, it is not intended to specify the courts or tribunals in which devolution issues may be raised.
The appropriate forum will depend upon the ordinary law as to what proceedings can competently be brought before a court or tribunal. For example, if it is competent only to bring an action of reduction in the Court of Session that action would still be competent only in the Court of Session. On the other hand, if an action is competent in another court it would be appropriate to raise devolution issues in that context.
We do not consider that it would be appropriate to provide that devolution issues can be raised only in the Court of Session because Schedule 6 provides for a fast track procedure for the law officers to raise matters directly with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That provision has no counterpart in the Human Rights Bill.
Furthermore, the amendment does not have the effect of bringing the provisions in the Scotland Bill into line with the Human Rights Bill because they contain no counterpart to Clause 7(1)(b) of that Bill entitling a person to rely upon convention rights in any legal proceedings before any court or tribunal. With that explanation, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining the Government's position in response to the concern I raised. I do not see the amendment as being concerned with making the terms of the Scotland Bill compatible with the provisions of the Human Rights Bill. That was an objective of a previous amendment.
I framed the amendment and brought it before the House in order to meet the concern raised by the Faculty of Advocates as to whether it is appropriate that the sheriff court should have power in Scotland—and no doubt the lower civil courts in other parts of the United Kingdom—to reduce, suspend or cost, or whatever other form of order may be competent, the Acts of the Scottish parliament and its elected members.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be aware that actions of reduction are not competent in the sheriff court. However, as a defence to an action raised in the sheriff court it is open to a defender to have a document reduced ope exceptionis. That would apply to an Act of the Scottish parliament or a provision of subordinate legislation made, confirmed and approved by a member of the Scottish executive. It seems to me that the Faculty has a point and therefore I seek to test the opinion of the House.
8.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 191B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 95.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Leigh, L.

Annaly, L.

Lindsay, E.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Blaker, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blatch, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Northbrook, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Northesk, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Palmer, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Chesham, L.

Renton, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Rowallan, L.

Craigavon, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Crathorne, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Fookes, B.

Sempill, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stair, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Sudeley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Waddington, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Addington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dixon, L.

Alderdice, L.

Donoughue, L.

Alli, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amos, B.

Eatwell, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L

Bach, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Falkland, V.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blease, L.

Gallacher, L.

Borrie, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bragg, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Goudie, B.

Burlison, L.

Grenfell, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hacking, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hardie, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hardy of Wath, L.

Chandos, V.

Haskel, L.

Christopher, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Crawley, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hoyle, L.

96

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Islwyn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Sawyer, L.

Lockwood, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McCarthy, L.

Sewel, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maddock, B.

Thornton, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Thurso, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tomlinson, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monkswell, L.

Uddin, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Varley, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Warner, L.

Nicol, B.

Whitty, L.

Orme, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.54 p.m.
Clause 94 [Legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 191C:
Page 43, line 29, leave out ("or expedient").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 191D, 191E and 202YA. These are small drafting amendments which seek to delete certain words in Clauses 94 and 97. In Clause 94 they seek to delete the words "or expedient" in line 29 and the words "or may not be" as they appear in paragraphs (a) and (b).
The order-making powers in Clauses 94 and 97, to which the fourth of the amendments is directed, should be used only when necessary and when an Act of the Scottish parliament or a provision of an Act of the Scottish parliament or any purported exercise by a member of the Scottish Executive of his functions is outwith competence or not a proper exercise of function. It should not be competent for these powers to be used, as the Bill currently would allow, where it is just a question of expediency or, under Clause 94, where there is doubt as to whether or not the Act of the Scottish Parliament or the provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament is within legislative competence or where there is doubt as to whether or not the member of the Scottish Executive has acted within his executive functions.
Such order-making powers may be necessary. I accept that there may be circumstances where it is necessary for such a power to exist and that it should be used, but

97
I do not accept that that should occur in the circumstances that are currently permitted. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the Government cannot accept Amendments Nos. 191C and 202YA. With these amendments the noble and learned Lord is seeking to remove the words "or expedient" from Clauses 94 and 97 which provide for the making of subordinate legislation, subject to procedure in this Parliament, in certain circumstances. The noble and learned Lord's amendments would restrict the circumstances in which such subordinate legislation could be made.
The powers in Clauses 94 and 97 are consequential powers and in both cases the Government consider that the right test is whether such legislation is necessary or expedient. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord does not take issue with the word "necessary" but there is a question as to whether it is appropriate to include the alternative of expediency. We see those words as essential to ensure that these consequential powers may be exercised in appropriate circumstances.
The degree of flexibility provided by Clauses 94 and 97 is important. It would be difficult to demonstrate in all but a narrow range of cases that subordinate legislation was absolutely necessary.
There will be instances where it would indeed be expedient, but not necessary, for subordinate legislation to be made. For example, under Clause 94, an Act of the Scottish parliament might be found to be ultra vires and subordinate legislation could be used to address the situation concerning rights or liabilities. It might not be absolutely necessary that such provision was made, but it would be expedient.
Equally, the Government cannot support Amendments Nos. 191D and 191E which would restrict when the power in Clause 94 could be exercised. We think that it is important that the order-making power can be used if there is a suspected defect in an Act or the action of a member of the Scottish executive. To do otherwise would make it necessary for a court to rule that a provision or action is ultra vires. However, we want to ensure that remedying action can be taken before that event and may even avoid unnecessary judicial proceedings. I can understand why lawyers might be keen to have unnecessary judicial proceedings, wearing their other hats as practising lawyers, but that does not make good sense. I am sure that this power will be exercised with caution and only where there is a good degree of certainty that something really is ultra vires. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I intend to do that very thing. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord did not think that I was wishing to be obstructive in unnecessary legal proceedings; there are more than enough necessary legal proceedings to keep me and my colleagues well occupied.
I accept the force of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said: it may have the effect of reducing the amount of litigation. That is one of the
98
themes to which I have returned on more than one occasion in these debates and I am therefore happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 191D to 191F not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 191G:
Transpose Clause 94 to after Clause 99.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a formal amendment to transpose Clause 94 to after Clause 99. It is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 192:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—
INTERPRETATION OF ACTS OF THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT ETC
(".—(1) This section applies to—

(a) any provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or of a Bill for such an Act, and

(b) any provision of subordinate legislation made, confirmed or approved, or purporting to be made, confirmed or approved, by a member of the Scottish Executive,

which could be read in such a way as to be outside competence.
(2) Such a provision is to be read as narrowly as is required for it to be within competence, if such a reading is possible. and is to have effect accordingly.
(3) In this section, "competence"—

(a) in relation to an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or a Bill for such an Act, means the legislative competence of the Parliament, and

(b) in relation to subordinate legislation, means the powers conferred by virtue of this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 192A not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 192B:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
(" .—(1) In the Bill of Rights, there shall be inserted at the end of Article IX (freedom of speech) the words "; and in this Article, "Parlyament" shall include the Scottish Parliament".
(2) In the Claim of Right Act 1689, there shall be inserted at the end of Article XXV the words "of those Parliaments (including the Scottish Parliament)".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 192D. It raises the issue of parliamentary privilege which was one of the subjects which we debated late in the night on the ninth day of Committee.
As I explained on that occasion, the objective of the amendments dealing with parliamentary privilege is to place the Scottish parliament, so far as is possible, on the same footing as the Westminster Parliament as regards the extent to which the courts will investigate how and why Parliament has acted in the way it has, in particular in the passing of legislation.
In moving these amendments, perhaps it may be helpful to make clear a number of matters. Nothing in the amendments is intended to interfere in any way with the jurisdiction which the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom will have to determine devolution issues as they are defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 and as they arise from time to time in proceedings which come before courts and tribunals.
The first of the amendments was drafted with considerable assistance from senior Clerks in the Public Bill Office, for which I am extremely grateful. Amendment No. 192 is based on Section 26(1) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
In a number of places, the Bill already seeks to protect freedom of speech and the freedom of the Scottish parliament to regulate its own affairs; for example, in Section 21 and Schedule 3, we have powers to make standing orders which are to some extent constrained by certain prescriptions written into the Bill but which are primarily left to the parliament itself to determine. We have Clause 27(5), which was amended last week by Amendment No. 112, when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, explained to your Lordships that the purpose of the new subsection was to prevent the validity of Acts of the Scottish parliament being challenged on arguments directed to the fact that standing orders had not been followed properly or on any other procedural grounds which suggested that a procedural rule of the parliament had not been adhered to. But that was as far as I understood Clause 27(5) to go.
Clause 37 accords to the new parliament, for the purposes of the law on defamation, the absolute privilege to any statement made in proceedings of the parliament and the publication under the authority of the parliament of any statement. As I understand it, that would cover not only members of the new parliament but any individuals who may be called to give evidence or provide information to committees of that parliament during its formal proceedings.
A number of other amendments have been brought forward helpfully by the Government seeking to exclude challenges based on any defects in the election or appointment of particular office holders or members of the Scottish executive. I very much welcome those amendments.
Notwithstanding those provisions, I remain concerned that the Scottish parliament will not enjoy the same privilege as this Parliament. I understand that to be acknowledged by the Government because on more than one occasion the Minister has referred to that fact. Indeed, in a letter dated 16th October of this year, he wrote to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said:
"During debates in Committee on the extent of the Scottish Parliament's privilege I indicated that we were actively considering the matter. We have concluded that we cannot justify attempting to mirror Westminster privileges. Those privileges are very wide ranging and, in certain respects, apply for largely historical reasons. Instead, we consider it more appropriate to protect the Parliament in the same way as the Crown".
100
He then went on to discuss a number of the amendments which the Government have brought forward, I repeat, very helpfully, at this stage.
In his letter, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, did not explain why the Government had concluded that they could not justify attempting to mirror Westminster privileges. As he rightly says, those privileges are wide-ranging and it is certainly true that they have a long history. That is obvious from the fact that in my amendments I have referred to the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right Act 1689 which are understood to found the privileges which this Parliament enjoys.
It is my position that if the Government are not prepared to accord the Scottish parliament the same privileges as the Westminster Parliament, they should explain why that is so. I believe—and my view is shared by many others—that in Scotland at least the voters who vote for members of the new parliament and, after the parliament is elected and sets about its business, the population at large will wish to treat primary legislation coming out of the Scottish parliament, in the form of Acts of the Scottish parliament, in exactly the same way as they treat legislation coming out of Westminster.
It may be that in law and in constitutional theory there are differences between the two forms of legislation, and no doubt constitutional lawyers can spend many hours discussing the reasons for and legal consequences of those differences. But the man in the street will treat them the same and therefore, if at all possible, the courts should be encouraged and indeed constrained to treat them the same.
It may help if I explain why this matter should be dealt with in this Bill rather than left to the Scottish parliament itself. I believe that the definition of the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament which is to be found in Clause 28 of the Bill would not permit the Scottish parliament to pass any Act which would bind courts in any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland to accord its legislation privilege similar to the privilege attached to legislation coming from Westminster. Therefore, if this matter is to be addressed, it must be addressed in legislation enacted at Westminster and this seems to me to be the appropriate time at which to look at the issue.
Perhaps I may give one or two examples of the kind of challenge that I wish to exclude. One would be an attempt to investigate whether or not an Act of the Scottish parliament had been obtained by some fraud, deception or other improper motive either on the part of a member of the parliament itself or a member of the public who had been involved in lobbying parliament or in placing information before its members. A second example may be an attempt to demonstrate that an Act of the Scottish parliament had been passed by the parliament on the basis of a perfectly genuine but completely inaccurate understanding of the relevant facts.
Those are not fanciful examples. In comparatively recent cases which have come before either the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, those issues have arisen. In the case of British Railways Board and another v. Pickin in 1974 the speech of Lord Morris of

101
Borth-y-Gest explained in comparatively short form what the privileges of this Parliament are designed to achieve. He said,
"It must surely he for Parliament to lay down the procedures which are to be followed before a bill can become an Act".
The Government accept that for the Scottish parliament. He went on,
"It must be for Parliament to decide whether its decreed procedures have in fact been followed".
The same applies to the Scottish parliament. The speech continues,
"It must be for Parliament to lay down and to construe its standing orders and further to decide whether they have been obeyed; it must be for Parliament to decide whether in any particular case to dispense with compliance with such orders".
The Government accept all of that in relation to the Scottish parliament, but Lord Morris went on to say this:
"It must be for Parliament to decide whether it is satisfied that an Act should be passed in the form and with the wording set out in the Act. It must be for Parliament to decide what documentary material or testimony it requires and the extent to which Parliamentary privilege should attach. It would be impracticable and undesirable for the High Court of Justice to embark on an enquiry concerning the effect or the effectiveness of the internal procedures in the High Court of Parliament or an enquiry whether in any particular case those procedures were effectively followed".
That arose in proceedings designed to challenge the validity of a private Act of Parliament. In another case of Prebble v. Television New Zealand Limited in 1994 the Privy Council addressed a similar issue and followed the same approach.
So those are not fanciful issues, as is also confirmed by the fact that a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, is currently addressing this whole issue and has taken evidence from a number of senior judges, senior politicians and, indeed, senior officials of both Houses. It appears to be accepted in that committee's discussions that there are instances where the courts are precluded from looking behind what this Parliament has enacted. That is a starting point for its deliberations.
It is desirable that the Scottish parliament should set out on an equal footing with the Westminster Parliament. If, in the course of time, the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, reports and recommends a change in the law on a UK-wide basis, obviously the position as regards the Scottish parliament would need to be examined and altered. If there were an amendment to the privilege of this Parliament, agreed to by this Parliament, I should be content that it should be reflected in an amendment to what will then be the Scotland Act so that the Scottish parliament will be on the same basis.
I object to the fact that the Government are not prepared to mirror Westminster's privileges in the new Scottish parliament. It may not be possible to mirror them exactly, but in principle there should be no difference between the two parliaments. For those reasons, I beg to move Amendment No. 192B.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this is obviously a complex legal matter and one that I do not fully understand. Perhaps I may make a suggestion to the Minister. If he feels able to accept Amendment No. 192B, I think that would be very attractive to Scots as a whole.
I base that view on my experience. A number of years ago, I took through the House a piece of legislation, fixing term days and quarter days in Scotland. In the process, I repealed an Act of the 17th Century. When talking about the House of Lords, I have often told people about that. It interests them to know that it is possible to repeal an Act of Parliament of that date. People are very interested to hear that that can be done. In the future, people may be interested to know that this Bill inserts something about freedom of speech into two such ancient pieces of legislation, the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right Act 1689. If something like that were to be done, it would prove of great interest to people. Perhaps such an amendment would be worth making, provided that the matter that it introduced was acceptable.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, my mind boggles at the legal complexities of this matter. I have two brief points. First, I am intrigued about the history—which is always fascinating—and about how, given that there was an independent Scottish Parliament until 1707, we can amend the Bill of Rights of the English Parliament of 1689. The historical possibility for the lawyers intrigues me.
On the main point, I am intrigued because, not for the first time in these long debates, we now have a Conservative Opposition in this House who appear to be extremely enthusiastic about increasing the status, power and privileges of a Scottish parliament, which they did their best to persuade the Scottish people to reject.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am well known for being generous in welcoming new converts to the cause and I shall not go down the line opened up by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
In Amendments Nos. 192B and 192D, noble Lords opposite are seeking to extend the protection of the Scottish parliament. That is a thread that has run through many of our debates. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to point out the way in which the Government have responded to questions by taking seriously the specific points made by noble Lords opposite and trying to meet them. Now we finish up with a position where the protection afforded to the Scottish parliament, to members of the Scottish parliament and to officers of the Scottish parliament is much more explicit—in a way it is both more explicit and more general—than was the case when we first started to consider the Bill.
I do not think that there is a matter of principle between us on the need to provide effective and adequate protection for the Scottish parliament. Where

103
we differ is in striking where the balance should be. We have considered this issue at some length in earlier debates. We believe that what is now provided in the Bill, together with the amendments proposed to Schedule 4, represent the right approach. We are not attracted by the idea of going down the route which the noble and learned Lord invites us to take.
With Amendments Nos. 192B and 192D the noble and learned Lord has made clear that he wishes to replicate completely the arrangements existing at Westminster for the Scottish parliament. The Government do not agree that that is the right approach. I am conscious that the subject of protection for the Scottish parliament is large and complex. We have made a number of amendments in response to the concerns of noble Lords that the parliament should be able to go about its business without undue interruption from the courts. We have also tabled amendments to Schedule 4 which make it clear that those parts of the Bill which deal with protection from judicial proceedings may be modified by the parliament. I believe that that balance is about right.
We have concluded that we cannot justify attempting to mirror Westminster privileges. That is why we cannot support the Opposition amendments before us tonight. The privileges enjoyed by Westminster are very wide-ranging and rooted in history, as the noble and learned Lord indicated. Some of them flow from the fact that the Parliament at Westminster is the highest court. That would be an inappropriate basis on which to draw protection and privileges for the Scottish parliament, which in no sense can act as a court.
The other problem with following the route which we have been invited to take by the Opposition is that the privileges enjoyed by Westminster are relatively ill-defined and of uncertain scope. That is partly the inevitability of the way in which they relate to the past and have been developed. We do not believe that that is the way to start when setting up the new institution. We are attracted by a different approach which is to be more explicit and precise, as far as we can, as regards protection, as well as giving the parliament itself power to pass legislation on the protection available to it. As I say, we are not attracted to the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord.
I can deal with the two illustrations he used to support his case in contra-distinction to that of the Government. He indicated that an Act of the Scottish Parliament may be open to challenge if it was argued that it had been obtained through fraud or deception and also that the act had been brought about by a genuine and wrong understanding of the facts.
Clause 27(5) makes it clear that the validity of an Act is not affected by any question as regards the background of the legislation. Once enacted, the legislation stands, assuming that the Act was in the competence of the parliament. So I do not see how the courts would accept a challenge on the grounds that
104
the noble and learned Lord has indicated. That is effectively closed off by Clause 27(5), but the noble and learned Lord has a different view.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt too much, but if the noble Lord is in a position to assure me that challenges of the nature I have explained as possibilities would be covered by Clause 27(5), no one would be happier than I. I encourage the noble Lord to continue.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I like to bring happiness wherever I can. On this occasion, I think I can give the noble and learned Lord all the happiness that he seeks. That indeed is our interpretation of the effect of Clause 27(5). So, on that happy note, I think I can conclude my remarks and invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Indeed so, my Lords. When earlier on I invited the noble Lord to explain what was behind Amendment No. 112, I was anxious to see whether it went of its own volition as far as we are now going. I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's explanation which I shall read carefully. However, it does seem that to a large extent it meets my practical concerns. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 192C and 192D not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 192E:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—
COURTS NOT TO REQUIRE LEGISLATION TO BE UNDERTAKEN
(" . No court shall pronounce any order requiring a member of the Scottish Executive or a junior Scottish Minister to introduce a Bill to the Parliament or to make, confirm or approve any provision of subordinate legislation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to introduce into the Bill after Clause 94 a new clause which would prevent any court from pronouncing an order requiring a member of the Scottish executive or a junior Scottish Minister to introduce a Bill to the parliament or to make, confirm or approve any provision of subordinate legislation.
Among the devolution issues which are defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Bill are questions as to whether a purported or proposed exercise of a function by a member of the Scottish executive is or would be incompatible with any of the Convention rights or with Community law and whether a failure to act by a member of the Scottish executive is incompatible with any of the Convention rights or with Community law. For these reasons, I can see that it is possible that in proceedings which are raised before the courts, and in particular before the Scottish courts, an order may be sought requiring a member of the Scottish executive or a junior Scottish Minister to act along the lines set out in the amendment.
I fully accept, because they are devolution issues, that the courts will require to rule on whether the acts or omissions of members of the Scottish executive or junior Ministers have been in accordance with their statutory duties under the Bill. I therefore have no objection to the courts having power to grant declarators to that effect. However, my concern arises in these circumstances. If in an action at the instance of the United Kingdom Government, acting no doubt through one of its Secretaries of State, the court is asked to order a member of the Scottish executive to act in a way that previously he had been unwilling to act, the court would inevitably be drawn into further controversy. No doubt the decision as to whether to grant such an order would be one on which the court would have a discretion. Quite how it would go about seizing itself of the necessary information before it exercised discretion is not entirely obvious to me. But whether or not it makes the order, the very fact that it is asked to make the order could give rise to avoidable controversy.
On more than one occasion Ministers have encouraged us to accept that members of the Scottish executive and junior Scottish Ministers will act in a responsible manner. For my part, I should like to believe that the Government's faith in these future appointees is well founded. I see no reason why it should not be. However, there will be times when people acting perfectly genuinely take a different view from Ministers of the United Kingdom Government and may feel that they are acting perfectly responsibly. I believe that they should be left to make up their own minds as to what to do if a court grants a declarator that they have acted outwith their powers, or that they have failed to act in a manner in which the statutory duties upon them require them to act. Therefore, I do not think that the courts should have the power to go beyond the granting of an order in the same way as the Government, in an earlier amendment which was dealt with on Report, accepted that the courts should not have the power to grant similar orders against the parliament. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the amendment is unnecessary. The answer to it is the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which prevents the court from making an order for specific performance against the Crown. The Scottish Executive will be part of the Crown. Accordingly, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making the position clear. If the answer is as short and as obvious as the response that has just been given, perhaps I should have known it before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 192F:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: PROCEDURE WHERE LEGISLATION IS ULTRA VIRES
(" .—(1) This section applies where in criminal proceedings a court decides that—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament or any provision of such an Act is not within the legislative competence of the Parliament, or

(b) a member of the Scottish Executive does not have the power to make, confirm or approve a provision of subordinate legislation that he has purported to make, confirm or approve.

(2) When a court reaches any decision to which this section applies, it, and any inferior court bound by its decision, shall take account of and act upon any such decision in the conduct of the criminal proceedings in which the decision was made.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we debated this matter in Committee on 8th October. I explained then my position on the amendment at some length and, therefore, I need not repeat in great detail what was said on that occasion. My concern basically was that if, in the course of criminal proceedings, it becomes obvious that there is a valid challenge to either a provision of primary legislation or subordinate legislation upon which a criminal prosecution proceeds, that should be the end of the matter. The court should decide the effect that that successful challenge has on the proceedings and either bring them to a halt or proceed depending upon what view the trial judge takes as to the effect that the invalid provision may have.
In the speech that I made on the last occasion I said that there might be two instances where such a problem might arise. The first is where it in some way justified a successful challenge to the competency of the charge which a particular accused was required to face in criminal proceedings. The second instance was where such an issue affected the admissibility of any evidence upon which the Crown intended to rely. I sought to contrast the situation with what will arise in civil proceedings where, possibly, different considerations may apply.
It is fair to say that, in his reply, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate did not come up with any concrete example as to where it would be appropriate for the criminal court to have the discretionary powers set out in Clause 95, as it now is. In particular, that applies to the discretionary powers to make an order removing or limiting any retrospective effect of the decision or suspending the effect of the decision for any period or on any conditions to allow the defect to be corrected. However, the noble and learned Lord did suggest that there may be exceptional cases where it is appropriate for the court to say:
"Well, there is a defect here but it is a fairly technical matter. it is in the interests of justice that the opportunity be given to remedy it".
The noble and learned Lord then went on to say:
"It is that very exceptional situation that the clause is intended to address. Clearly the clause is mainly directed toward civil cases where people have acted upon certain legislation to their prejudice".—[Official Report, 8/10/98; col. 597.]
On that occasion the noble and learned Lord clearly took a similar line to the one which I take; namely, that other considerations may apply in civil proceedings.
I have considered the matter carefully since 8th October to see whether it is possible to identify exceptional cases where it would be appropriate in civil proceedings for a criminal court to have such discretionary powers. I have been unable to identify any case where that would be appropriate and for that reason I have brought forward this amendment again. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the position of the Government is the same as it was in Committee. When we considered the matter at that time the noble and learned Lord voiced his concerns about the effect of the provision in criminal cases. He could see few reasons why it was appropriate to allow the courts this power in criminal cases. He feared that by giving them this power we risked their exercising the power in a way which might breach convention rights. I said that clearly in criminal cases the power would be exercised, and be exercisable, only in exceptional cases. The very nature of exceptional cases is such that it is difficult to imagine what they would be because they are exceptional.
I understand the noble and learned Lord's concerns but I do not think that his amendment provides us with an appropriate solution. I take comfort from the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, argued on a previous occasion that this matter should be left to the discretion of the courts. The courts will not use this power lightly. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord thought—he is not present at this stage this evening—that the provision as framed was appropriate. Accordingly I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, since the previous occasion on which we discussed this matter I have considered what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said. However, he, like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, could not identify an exceptional case. I have thought carefully about the matter and I intend to insist on the amendment.
9.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 192F) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 87.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Gisborough, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Kingsland, L.

Blatch, B.

Leigh, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lindsay, E.

Byford, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. [Teller.]

Carr of Hadley, L.

Chesham, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Dundee, E.

Montrose, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Northbrook, L.

108

Northesk, E.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Palmer, L.

Sempill, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Renton, L.

Stair, E.

Rowallan, L.

Sudeley, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Wharton, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Addington, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ahmed, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Alderdice, L.

Alli, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Amos, B.

Lockwood, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bach, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Blease, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Borrie, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bragg, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Burlison, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carlisle, E.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Orme, L.

Chandos, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Christopher, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Crawley, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Razzall, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Dixon, L.

Sawyer, L

Donoughue, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sewel, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Simon, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gallacher, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Goudie, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Grenfell, L.

Thornton, B.

Hacking, L.

Thurso, V.

Hardie, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tordoff, L.

Haskel, L.

Uddin, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Varley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warner, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 95 [Powers of courts or tribunals to vary retrospective decisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 192G to 192L not moved.]
Clause 96 [The Judicial Committee]:
[Amendments Nos. 193 to 199 not moved.]
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 45, line 4, at end insert—
("(d) provide such resources to the Judicial Committee as Her Majesty considers necessary or expedient.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment makes provision for adequate resources to be made available to the Judicial Committee so that it can properly meet its responsibilities under Clause 94. No provision is made in the Bill for adequate resources to be made available to the Judicial Committee to deal with devolution issues. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's view as to whether an amendment along these lines is necessary.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment is very similar to one tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, at an earlier stage of the Bill. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, as I hope I reassured the noble Earl, that the amendment is entirely unnecessary. I agree that it is important that the Judicial Committee should have sufficient resources to carry out its duties properly. There is no need to prescribe that on the face of the Bill. The Government of the day will, of course, want to make sure that the Judicial Committee is properly resourced, as is the case currently. I have now given that assurance for the second time.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to reply to a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, when we discussed this matter earlier. He asked whether members are paid for sitting on the committee. I should like to reassure him that they are. Retired judges and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are paid a daily rate of £622 before tax if they sit on the board of the Judicial Committee. It is considered to be part of the duties of serving Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. We would expect expenses incurred to be reimbursed—for example, if the Judicial Committee sat in Edinburgh.
On that basis, perhaps the noble Lord would feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before my noble friend indicates his intention, I thank the noble Lord for the additional information which he has given. I am sure that it will be of great interest to those who will, in the fullness of time, be qualified to sit on the Judicial Committee.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it may perhaps be of even more interest to those who are not qualified to sit on the Judicial Committee.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]
Clause 97 [Power to make provision consequential on Acts of the Scottish Parliament]:
[Amendment No. 202YA not moved.]
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 202ZA:
Page 45, line 11, at end insert ("or made by legislation mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The legislation is subordinate legislation under an Act of Parliament made by—

(a) a member of the Scottish Executive,

(b) a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions, or

(c) any other person (not being a Minister of the Crown) if the function of making the legislation is exercisable within devolved competence.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in view of the earlier comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that when I refer to "technical amendments" his ears prick up, I shall not say that Amendment No. 202ZA is a minor and technical amendment, although in fact it is. Clause 97 allows provision to be made by subordinate legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. It could be used, for example, to make provision in English law to complement something done in an Act of the Scottish Parliament which, because of Clause 28(2)(a), could not amend English law. This might be necessary to provide for cross-border enforcement of a provision in an ASP.
Similar principles apply to subordinate legislation made by Scottish Ministers under powers which transfer to them and by others such as the Registrar General. This amendment therefore extends the power in Clause 97 so that the consequences of such subordinate legislation can be dealt with. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving that clear explanation of why this minor and technical amendment is required. One of the advantages of having a second revising Chamber is that one has many opportunities to table such amendments. I can well understand why this is required and I have absolutely no objection to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Power to adapt functions]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 202A:
Page 46, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) If subordinate legislation under this section modifies a function of observing or implementing such an obligation under Community law so that the function to be transferred to the Scottish Ministers relates only to achieving so much of the result to be achieved under the obligation as is specified in the legislation, references in sections 28(2)(d) and 53(2) and paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to Community law are to be read as including references to the requirement to achieve that much of the result.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall take a little longer to move this amendment than immediate previous amendments. Clause 99 includes a power for an Order in Council, or an order made by a Minister of the Crown, to provide that certain functions can be exercised separately in or as regards Scotland or within devolved competence. Among other things, this will enable the United Kingdom Government to split an international or European Community obligation which is expressed in quantitative terms, such as a target or ratio, in order to facilitate the transfer of part of that obligation to the Scottish Ministers. It also contains provision to ensure that the Secretary of State's powers of intervention under Clause 54 will be available to enforce the Scottish share of an international obligation.
As we indicated to the House at Committee stage, we have been considering whether anything more is required to ensure that the Scottish Ministers implement the Scottish share of a quantitative Community obligation. An example would be an EC quota for livestock subsidies. Noble Lords will recall that for the purposes of the Bill a Community obligation does not fall within the definition of an international obligation. Compliance by the Scottish Parliament and Ministers with Community law more generally would be a devolution issue in relation to which proceedings might be taken by the Law Officers. However, the Scottish share of a Community obligation which has been apportioned using Clause 99 might not itself be thought to be part of Community law. Government Amendment No. 202A deals with this problem. It provides that the references to Community law in Schedule 6, Clause 28(2)(d) and Clause 53(2) are to be read as including references to the requirement to achieve the Scottish share of such an obligation. The effect is that where the Scottish share of a quantitative EC obligation is transferred to the Scottish Ministers it will be regarded as a matter of Community law and can be enforced on the same basis as any other function of the Scottish Ministers in observing and implementing a Community obligation. This is in line with the approach which is adopted in the Government of Wales Act.
This amendment is necessary to complete the provisions which ensure that compliance by the Scottish Ministers with quantitative international and EC quotas can be enforced. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I became slightly lost in the middle of the explanation given by the Minister, although I believe that that was more my fault than his. Possibly I should read what he said. However, as this is Report stage it is more difficult to do that. As I understand the Minister, if for example the Community came to an agreement about pollution emissions which were divided up by a formula—I may have missed what that formula might be—between Scotland and England, Scotland would have to take whatever its share might be of the emissions reduction. But what if the English position was that they were putting out more of the foul substances than a comparative Scottish plant, in other words, the Scottish plant was cleaner than the English plant? The Scottish plant would still have to take a proportionate hit, so to speak, which might be much more difficult to achieve.
Perhaps I am missing something here but I think that there is a problem. This is more of a Committee point but these amendments have come forward on Report. I am not sure whether I can think of an example relating to fishing as it has already been divided into sea areas. Therefore I believe that that will be acceptable. I am concerned with emissions. I am reluctant to go too far into coal burn but electricity plants in Scotland on coal burn are perhaps cleaner than some comparative English plants. But they may have to take a bigger hit, which will be more difficult to achieve than, for example, making the
112
same savings in England. If the noble Lord cannot help me off the top of his head, perhaps he would write to me on that matter.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before the noble Lord responds, my noble friend has a good point. The issue of emissions is something to which I have referred previously. The exact allocation of responsibilities regarding emissions, whether under EU legislation or international obligation, is as yet unclear to me. The point of my intervention is to put down a marker for the last stage which we shall come to in this Bill. As I understand it, as far as electricity is concerned—not just the generation but the transmission—that is something which will remain the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament.
My further understanding is that as matters stand at present. those powers vested in the Secretary of State where it applies in Scotland are exercised not by the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not clear at present as to where these responsibilities are to be divided. Will we see those powers, where they are to be applied in Scotland, exercised by some department other than the Secretary of State for Scotland, so long as he continues to be, or are they to be exercised by some other Secretary of State elsewhere in the Whitehall empire?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may try to respond to the legitimate points made by the two noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, helpfully used the example of emissions. One can see the ludicrousness of a straight pro-rata allocation if, for example, the stage was reached where there were no coal-burning power stations in Scotland and all of them were in England. There is no point in having a pro-rata allocation on that basis. The Scottish share would be something to be negotiated between UK and Scottish Ministers, taking into account their responsibilities and the proportionate contribution that Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom make to the problem being tackled. Therefore, there is a strong requirement to reach a sensible accommodation and agreement.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, asks who at the end of the day will be responsible. Under Clause 54, the Secretary of State has powers of intervention. My understanding is that the Secretary of State would act in this way to require Scottish Ministers to accept and implement the quantitative obligations. If I am not correct about that, I will write to the noble Lord in good time. I do not wish to speculate but we all know that "Secretary of State" means any Secretary of State.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 100 [Agreed redistribution of functions exercisable by the Scottish Ministers etc.]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 202B:
Page 46, line 23, at end insert—
("(4) This section does not apply to any retained functions of the Lord Advocate which fall within section 48(6)(a).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, amendments were brought forward which sought to exclude from the scope of Clause 100 certain functions exercisable by the Lord Advocate. We undertook to consider the matter further and this amendment reflects that further consideration. It provides that the functions exercisable by the Lord Advocate immediately before he ceases to be a Minister of the Crown will not be capable of being transferred to a UK Minister under this clause. This would include functions exercisable by the Lord Advocate in relation to criminal prosecutions and investigations of deaths in Scotland, as well as his law officer functions. As indicated in Committee, we accept that it is inconceivable that such functions should be transferred to a UK Minister and this amendment simply makes the matter clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I welcome the amendment, which reflects the concern expressed in Committee. I can well understand the noble and learned Lord when on this occasion he says that something is inconceivable. However, it is important that it is set out on the face of the Bill and I offer no opposition to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Regulation of Tweed and Esk fisheries]:
Lord Monro of Langholm Lord Monro of Langholm moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 47, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 228. It relates to Clause 118 and highlights the word "Solway". I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for being absent when he discussed the River Esk in Committee. I wish to deal with some of the points which were discussed in order to see whether the issue is any clearer. We are discussing the future management of the River Esk, or the Border Esk—certainly not the North or South Esk, as some noble Lords mentioned on the previous occasion.
The problem has been that during the past 20 years the North West Water Authority, then the National Rivers Authority and now the Environment Agency, has laid claim to the management of the River Esk right to its source. That means 90 per cent. in Scotland and about 10 per cent. in England. As that 90 per cent. flows through my former constituency I have been intimately involved in arguing the case over the years.
There is some misunderstanding, which was highlighted in the debate, in that for only a short distance is the River Esk the boundary between England and Scotland. It is entirely in Scotland to the junction of the River Liddel and shortly below that the whole river flows through England to the Solway. That is why those three organisations from England claim the management of the whole river from its source to its mouth in the Solway Firth.
The important point is that we must decide who will be in charge of the river. Will it start at the national boundary as the Scottish part will be entirely managed
114
by Scotland, as recommended in my amendment, or will there be a joint management of the whole river, which in many ways would be to its benefit?
The problem has been that because the mouth is in England we are not entitled to have a salmon district fisheries board, which in most rivers in Scotland does so much to improve the angling propensities of the rivers through restocking and policing works by the bailiffs. Can the Minister say whether we in Scotland will have total control over the whole river or whether there will be a continuing argument between England and Scotland as to who has the right to manage it? This may seem to be a very parochial point but where I live in Dumfries this river is of immense importance for angling and for many other reasons.
How will this operate from next summer when the authority, I hope, gets control of the river in Scotland and the responsibility for the English part goes to England? And how are we going to look after the financial aspects of managing the river, with or without a district board, and rod licensing for the English or Scottish parts of the river?
On 8th October my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish raised the issue of rod licensing on this river. I have seen the letter in reply from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, which indicates that consultations had been inconclusive. The letter states:
"Consequently the present arrangements under the Environment Agency will continue with the issue of rod licences remaining unchanged".
Does the Minister know what the position is at the present time, because it is extremely fluid? The three authorities in England—the water authority, the National Rivers Authority and the Environment Agency—all feel that legally they have the right to charge for rod licensing throughout the Scottish stretches of the river. I visited the chairmen of the two first boards and argued in depth that it would be quite unfair and that the River Esk would be the only river in Scotland to which rod licensing was applicable and that this would be a national disgrace in terms of a serious impost on local anglers. Those two authorities agreed that they would not push their right by legislation to have rod licensing, but it is still in place. I would like to be quite clear tonight that rod licensing will not be charged by an English authority on a length of the river in Scotland, because the legislation does not make it clear what the jurisdiction will be next summer.
To a degree, the problem has been resolved because, due to the removal of rates on fishing in Scotland, the riparian owners have put that money into managing the river, in exchange for not charging rod licences. However, I should like this matter to be cleared up tonight, if possible. A lot of the fishing is extremely inexpensive, as a result of the good work over many years of the two estates, and pensioners and residents fish at remarkably low cost. It would be a great pity if we were to run into an administrative hiccup because of the changeover of jurisdiction from England to the Scottish parliament.
I hope that we will not wait too long for an answer. In the letter to my noble friend Lord Mackay it was stated that any other decision should be deferred until

115
the outcome of the ongoing review of English salmon legislation. Heaven knows, that has been permanently on the stocks for years and years, particularly in regard to the North East drift nets. When we get the answer relative to English salmon legislation that will go some way to clearing up the problems of the River Esk.
Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, spoke at some length on the problem of the Solway Firth. She indicated that the Bill would establish a fixed boundary for the purposes of defining the border between England and Scotland. I wonder whether she has had any further thoughts as to how that is to be done bearing in mind that the centre of the channel is flexible and moves either side of the Solway Firth from year to year and month to month. It will be difficult to define that centre line. Shall we have a series of buoys? We can hardly expect policemen to go out with sextants and theodolites in order to try to decide what is the latitude and longitude of a national boundary in the middle of a firth.
We must try to find a solution because half netting is an extremely important industry and sport on the Solway. It must be policed and it will be impossible to do that if the policemen are unable to find out exactly where is the boundary between England and Scotland. A prosecution may fail because the fisherman will say he was either in England or Scotland. I wonder whether the Minister has had further thoughts as to how the boundary is to be defined in order to bring peace and quiet to what is the sometimes contentious issue of the Solway Firth.
I should be grateful for some further thoughts on how to resolve the difficulty between England and Scotland. At the moment we do not seem to have reached a happy conclusion despite the consultations which have taken place between the fisheries boards. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I was extremely interested to see this amendment on the Marshalled List. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, for raising the question.
As I understood the quite lengthy debate we had in Committee, the result of that debate and the amendments brought forward by the Government put us in a position in which we should be able to accept the recommendations of the salmon strategy taskforce report of the noble Lord, Lord Nickson. It now appears that that is in some doubt. Therefore, I should be grateful to hear the clarification which the noble Lord, Lord Monro, has asked for. We support the recommendations in that report.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm for moving this amendment. He has explained the position with regard to the Esk in such a way that I need not add any more to it.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness for writing to me on the question of rod licences. I do not believe that she wrote to me about the more difficult question of the shifting sands of the Solway. I am not entirely sure whether the noble Baroness wrote to me on that because
116
I received such a plethora of letters in the summer. I cannot find a letter about the Solway but I could not guarantee that I did not receive one. However, I certainly received a letter on rod licences for which I am grateful. I look forward to receiving the further clarification for which my noble friend asked.
I should like to move the River Esk downstream a little. The channel of the River Esk is not entirely obvious at high tide in the Solway. But is obvious at low tide, as I noticed when I flew over it today. It is ironic that the centre line of the River Esk forms the border between England and Scotland and, as my noble friend Lord Monro said, it can move. Not only can it move but it does so with the passage of time. Therefore, an area of sandbank can be in England at one stage but can end up a few decades later in Scotland and vice versa. As my noble friend explained, that is important from the point of view of knowing which particular country's salmon netting legislation is applicable.
It goes further than that because the estate at the top of the Solway—Castletown estate—has land boundaries which go out into the sea along the River Esk channel and along the River Eden channel until they meet just off Port Carlisle in the Solway.
As the position currently is, everything to the south of the channel of the River Esk is in England. If in fact some other fixed boundary is used other than the central line of the River Esk, it could easily move entirely into England or stay entirely in Scotland. Therefore the normally agreed position up until now as to the legality under Scottish or English law of net fishing in the Solway would change dramatically. Legislation or activities related to the boundary could be important for the estates that march along the Solway and for the people who have the netting rights.
It is important that we know from the Government that, if changes are to be made in the future—whichever government decide to make them; whether it be the Government of the United Kingdom masquerading as the Government of England or the government of Scotland—they will make sure that people on both sides of the Border know what has been proposed and are given an opportunity to respond. Clearly, if it is the Scottish government doing it, the people in England have no representation in the Scottish parliament.
We want an acknowledgement that any observations from people outside Scotland in relation to the Solway will be taken into account in any changes that are to be made and their legal interests will also be taken into account if any decisions are made to move from the more flexible boundary of the central line of the Esk to the fixed boundary which may be incorporated in future legislation.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Monro on this point. It was in the water Act that applied to England and Wales that the catchment areas of the River Esk were brought within the field of the National Rivers Authority. It was in that Act at that time that some of the misunderstandings as to where the boundary is placed were established.

117
Perhaps I may also mention a rather peculiar problem that arises in today's Marshalled List. When we sat last Wednesday an amendment appeared in the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, numbered 204A. It was quite short and read:
"Page 47, leave out line 34".
That line in the Bill reads,
"'enactment' includes one made under this Act".
Normally when an amendment is withdrawn—by whichever side of the Chamber—its number usually remains and after the number, in brackets, the word "withdrawn". Why on this occasion has Amendment No. 204A vanished? It was an amendment of some importance and I believe—here I am on dangerous ground—that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, spoke to that amendment with Amendment No. 140A. On that I may be wrong, but I am extremely curious at this point.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it seems that we do not have the ever-shrinking parliament, but we now have the ever-vanishing amendment. I shall try to sort that out in the course of time.
I recognise that the purpose of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, appears clear-cut and that they are based on his considerable experience and understanding of the position with regard to the River Esk. Clearly, the intention is to bestow on the Scottish parliament competence to legislate on the management, in the widest sense, of freshwater fish in that section of the Border Esk which flows within Scotland. But I fear the amendments misunderstand the purpose of Clause 103 and overlook what is already permissible and intended under the Bill.
Fishery matters which the amendments address are not reserved under the Bill. Consequently a Scottish parliament will be able to take the action which the amendments propose, subject to the limits on its competence set out in Clause 28. Incidentally, the same applies to that part of the Tweed which flows within Scotland.
What Clause 103 seeks to do in addition—and I stress "in addition"—is to provide a framework for both Parliaments, acting jointly, to legislate for the total lengths of the Border rivers and to establish a common statutory framework for fisheries management in those rivers that is the same in Scots law as in the law south of the Border. That represents a recognition—it is an important recognition—that sound and effective management, conservation and exploitation needs to be considered on a whole river catchment basis. At least we are providing the framework. We cannot bring it about in the Bill, but we are providing the framework which will enable a whole river catchment basis to be put in place. That is a useful advance on the present status. On rod charging, I shall have to return to the details and I shall then write to the noble Lord, Lord Monro.
Perhaps I may turn to the great story of the Solway boundary. I used to know the answer to this, but it is a little bit like the Schleswig-Holstein question: of those who did know it, one died, one went mad and the other has forgotten it. I think I am the one who has forgotten
118
it. However, I do have some assistance here. As both noble Lords have indicated, we have effectively had a shifting boundary in the Solway which has considerable implications for the effective management of, in particular, the area's salmon fisheries. It is perhaps difficult to understand a shifting international boundary—or rather, a shifting national boundary—
A noble Lord: My Lords, it will be "international"!
Lord Sewel: My Lords, not if we have anything to do with it!
I announced last year that the Government would be investigating the option of establishing a fixed boundary in the Solway Firth. That was the initiative that my noble friend Lady Ramsay mentioned at an earlier stage. In Clause 118(2) we have provided for establishing a fixed boundary for the purposes of defining "Scotland", as that term is used in the Bill. We shall not directly alter the boundary as it may be understood in common law. However, we shall provide a basis for establishing the jurisdiction of any future laws that may be made for England or Scotland, including any powers or duties that may be necessary to enforce regulations established by Order in Council under Clause 103.
I believe that this measure is welcomed by all responsible bodies in that area. Taken together with the provisions in Clause 103 which allow a clear legal framework to be established for freshwater fisheries management in the area, I believe that in time we shall see a satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues on salmon fisheries management in the Solway Firth. As both noble Lords indicated, there have been long-running problems in that particular area. I am not saying that this devolution Bill for Scotland solves them all, but it helpfully provides a way forward.
Perhaps I may now reply to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. It is an extremely helpful contribution that I am about to make. I understand that the matter was debated last week. Now we have a phrase which will cause some amusement. The amendment was not "actively withdrawn." There is no known reason why it should have disappeared. We shall investigate. I thank the noble Earl most sincerely for his contribution. He may be hearing more later. I certainly hope that I shall. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his good humoured reply. Will he ask his fisheries department to continue negotiating with the MAFF fisheries department so that there is not a complete void next summer. Maybe there will be some light at the end of the tunnel. I appreciate the complications. I have been deeply involved in them umpteen times. We always fall down at the end of the day, but this time we have to get it right. I am grateful to the Minister and his department for the efforts they have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Clause 104 [Subordinate legislation: general]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 48, line 28, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 205ZA:
Page 48, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) The standing orders of the Parliament shall include provision for the exercise of appropriate control by the Parliament over the passage of delegated legislation created by a Scottish Minister by virtue of this Act or under powers conferred by the Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment takes us into Schedule 7 although the amendment itself refers to Clause 104. When I was considering the schedule last Thursday and looking at the various provisions for affirmative and negative orders, as we understand them in this Parliament, I wondered where provision was made in the Bill for similar procedures in the Scottish parliament. I could not find any such provision setting out that secondary legislation had to be dealt with by either affirmative or negative procedures or saying that standing orders had to be devised to deal with secondary legislation along the lines of the affirmative and negative procedures.
The reason why this is important is that in paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 the types of procedure are listed. They include the ones we know about. Perhaps I may just read out one of them, which is Type A. It states:
"No recommendation to make the legislation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft of the instrument—
(a) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament".
That is clear as regards this Parliament. Type E, for example, must be financial. It is an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. Others relate to either House. We know exactly what is meant because the procedures here on how we deal with secondary legislation are well established. It is either by the affirmative procedure which, as noble Lords know, means that the Government have to table a Motion and find time for a debate. In the other place a Division has to be won on that debate if one is called. In your Lordships' House there is the convention that the House is not divided on secondary legislation.
There is the negative procedure under which a vast array of orders are made. Essentially, it is for the Opposition or an aggrieved Member to put down a Prayer saying, "Please annul these." If nobody tables a Prayer, then after, I believe, 40 days, they simply pass into law. That is the negative procedure. It is less taxing because the Government obviously do not have to find time to debate either on the Floor of the other place, in Committee, or in your Lordships' House, the piece of secondary legislation.
As I understand Schedule 7, it assumes that the same kind of procedures will apply in the Scottish parliament. For example, in Type A, in addition to there being the affirmative procedure in each House of Parliament, both
120
in the Commons and in your Lordships' House, the instrument also has to be laid before and approved by resolution of the parliament—in other words, the Scottish parliament. Type D specifically concerns the Scottish parliament. The instrument has to be laid before, and approved by resolution of, the parliament. Type J is the negative procedure. Schedule 7 states:
"The instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Parliament".
That is the negative procedure. But nowhere can I find any provision in the Bill that the Scottish parliament has to have these procedures and that the standing orders should contain such provision.
My amendment may not be necessary. However, if I am right and there is no provision in the Bill, perhaps my amendment is necessary. My amendment does not lay down the detail of what the parliament should do. It simply says:
"The standing orders … shall include provision for the exercise of appropriate control by the Parliament over the passage of delegated legislation … by virtue of this Act or under powers conferred by the Parliament".
By that I mean that, in order to accord with the types of procedure laid down in Schedule 7, the standing orders will have to make provision in the Scottish parliament for similar types of procedures to those to which we are accustomed in the Westminster Parliament.
This has been a quite convoluted explanation. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that I have misread the Bill and that the provision is there. I shall then be satisfied. But if it is not there, I suggest that it ought to be there and that we ought to consider that very seriously. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we have now had a number of debates about what is appropriate for this Parliament to require the Scottish parliament to include in its standing orders. This amendment raises another point on what in fact is familiar ground, although the noble Lord has raised specific points about the affirmative and negative procedure with which I should perhaps deal right away.
The transitional provision will be made under Clause 121, expanding on what is meant by affirmative and negative procedure in the Scottish parliament under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. It will be applied with modifications until the Scottish parliament makes its own provision. While the Bill requires standing orders to address a number of aspects to do with the passage of primary legislation, we think it has been quite properly silent on the procedures for secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is looking puzzled. Am I not addressing the points he was making?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would like to repeat that last sentence. I was busy trying to read Clause 121.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am sorry. I thought the noble Lord looked as if he was about to intervene with a query. While the Bill requires

121
standing orders to address a number of aspects to do with the passage of primary legislation, as I have said many times at earlier stages of the Bill we think it is quite properly silent on the procedures for secondary legislation.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is important that the Scottish parliament should exercise appropriate control over the passage of delegated legislation. I do not think anyone would be in dispute about that. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee accepted that it would be for the parliament to decide, in the face of each new delegated legislative power, what was the right measure of scrutiny and control. The committee did not make a recommendation but it made a suggestion that the House might wish to consider whether Schedule 3 standing orders should be amended to make plain that standing orders will address this issue. We gave careful consideration to the suggestion of the Select Committee—I repeat that it was only a suggestion—that Schedule 3 should be amended to make plain that the standing orders would address the issue of scrutiny of secondary legislation.
Moreover, as I promised the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and indeed other noble Lords in Committee, we looked most carefully at the whole subject again and considered what was said at that time. However, I have to say that we have concluded that detailed parliamentary procedures are better left to the Scottish parliament to devise. We think it right that it should be able to decide its procedure for itself. We believe that the parliament will act maturely and responsibly in this area, as, indeed, in others. As we are devolving power to the parliament, we believe that we should allow it to have the discretion to exercise its power over subordinate legislation wisely and that we should trust it to exercise that power properly. We are sure that we can rely on the parliament to make provision for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation in its standing orders.
I should add that the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, which makes detailed provision as to affirmative and negative procedure in this Parliament, will be applied in relation to subordinate legislation subject to the affirmative or negative procedure in the Scottish parliament until the latter makes its own provision. In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, clearly I have stumbled across something that was of some interest. As far as I understand what the noble Baroness said, the transitional arrangements will be covered by Clause 121 and existing legislation of the UK Parliament. Therefore, the types of procedures contained in paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 will be dealt with by that means. However, beyond that transitional position I become somewhat worried. The noble Baroness reminded me that, although the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee pointed this out, the Government decided that they did not need to take any steps looking beyond the transitional period. Yet beyond that period, I presume that Schedule 7 would still rule and the types of procedures there would have to be undertaken by the Scottish parliament. Therefore, in a way we are dictating to the Scottish parliament that it
122
will be required to have secondary legislation along the lines of the types of procedure laid out in paragraph 2 of the schedule.
I am a little puzzled about the latter. It does not seem to me to be right that the Bill can be silent into the future about what should be contained in standing orders with regard at least to the broad-brush approach of secondary legislation; namely, that there should be provision of some kind for something which looks like affirmative orders, as witness Type D in paragraph 2, and something that looks like negative procedure, as witness Type J. To be honest, I am reticent to back off from my very non-prescriptive amendment because this does leave the decisions to the Scottish parliament while making it clear that it has to bring forward standing orders to exercise the appropriate control. It does not seem to me to be any more prescriptive than Clause 34 with regard to the general debates on Bills.
As I said, I am almost reluctant to let this one go at this time of night. But I think that the best I can do is to study the noble Baroness's response and perhaps return to the matter on Third Reading if I still feel that something is not quite right. Indeed, I am almost tempted to see how many of your Lordships are still here at this time of night, but that would preclude me from returning to the matter once I have studied the Minister's response and taken some advice upon it. Therefore, in order to try to get the Bill right as far as concerns the Scottish parliament, I shall read the Government's reply. If anything else has to come to help me in that respect by way of a letter, it had better come quickly before this Thursday when I shall decide what to do for next Monday. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 [Subordinate legislation: scope of powers]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 49, line 10, at end insert—
("(5A) But a power to modify enactments does not (unless otherwise stated) extend to making modifications of this Act or subordinate legislation under it.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Procedure for subordinate legislation]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 93, line 3, at end insert—

("Section 52(2)

Type G")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 206B:
Page 93, line 4, column 2, leave out ("I") and insert ("C").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 206B is grouped with another six amendments which seek to make amendments to the provisions of Schedule 7 of the Bill, which, as your Lordships will recall, was introduced into the Bill not so long ago when the Government helpfully amended

123
the provisions dealing with subordinate legislation and made them more intelligible for the lay reader and the lawyer reader too.
I seek to make a number of amendments as to the kind of procedure that ought to be followed when dealing with seven of the order making powers. Amendment No. 206B deals with the order making power under Clause 54 of the Bill, which your Lordships will appreciate is an important order making power. It gives to the Secretary of State power to take action by means of an order when he believes that an,
"action proposed to be taken by a member of the Scottish Executive would be incompatible with … international obligations".
Equally, he has an order making power when he has,
"reasonable grounds to believe that any action capable of being taken by a member of the Scottish Executive"
has not been taken. He has power to direct that,
"the action shall be taken".
Clause 54(3) on page 24 of the Bill states that "action" can include,
"making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation",
or introducing a Bill into the parliament.
As presently drafted, the Bill would allow that order to be made by Type I procedure; namely, that,
"The instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
Having regard to the significant nature of the order making powers under Clause 54, I believe that if they are used or are threatened with being used, they could give rise to a major dispute between the Secretary of State on the one hand and the Scottish executive on the other. It seems appropriate that that should be done by Type C procedure, the affirmative resolution procedure. I refer to Amendment No. 206B.
It may be convenient to discuss the next two amendments in the group together. They deal with Clauses 84 and 85, which touch on the subject of cross-Border public authorities, their initial status and also the power to adapt them. I propose that in the first of the two amendments, the Type I procedure should again be replaced by a Type C procedure; namely, the approval by affirmative resolution. In the latter amendment I propose that it should be replaced by Type A procedure, that is an Order in Council, that requires a draft of the instrument to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and also approved by resolution of the parliament itself. One suspects that while these cross-Border public authorities may be a useful device to enable the British Government, the Scottish executive and other public authorities to co-operate for the benefit of all, they will nevertheless give rise to some sensitivities. I believe it is sensible that the order making powers should be subject to the alterations of procedure I propose.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 206G to 206K. These deal with the order-making powers to be found in Clauses 94, 97, 98 and 99. We have discussed these in relation to earlier amendments. They deal with the
124
power to make subordinate legislation when it is thought necessary or expedient in the circumstances set out in the clauses.
As presently drafted, these proposals would be subject to Type G procedure: the instrument containing the legislation, if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House. I suggest that no Minister of the Crown is to make the legislation unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
I readily accept that these amendments go somewhat further than the views expressed by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. However, I propose them having spent a number of hours preparing for and taking part in debates in this House in relation to these various order-making powers. I put them forward as appropriate and, to quote the terms of Clause 94, "necessary or expedient". I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, this set of amendments is clearly aimed at requiring subordinate legislation under certain provisions in the Bill to be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure.
The general thrust of the amendments is to require a higher level of procedure than in this Parliament for various orders. We gave careful consideration to the procedure which should apply to each order under the Bill. That is one of the reasons why both the original provisions governing procedure and the new provisions substituted at Committee stage are so complex. It is also worth recalling, as the noble and learned Lord himself pointed out, that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—the body set up by this House to consider the appropriateness of the degree of parliamentary scrutiny given to delegated powers—has reported on both the Bill and the amendments we have made to it and did not suggest the sort of changes of procedure that are sought by these amendments.
The committee did suggest that affirmative resolution procedure should be used for orders which amend primary legislation—a recommendation that we were pleased to take on board and which is manifested in paragraph 3 of Schedule 7.
There is no doubt that many uses of the powers dealt with in these amendments will be important, but that does not mean that affirmative resolution procedure is necessary on every occasion. In some cases a requirement for affirmative resolution procedure could be harmful. As we explained in the memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, we do not think it appropriate that the orders under Clause 54 should be subject to affirmative procedure, as would be required by Amendment No. 206B. Such orders would need to be made quickly to avoid uncertainty and possibly damaging effects. It would be very difficult for an affirmative instrument to be drafted, laid, debated by both Houses of Parliament and made quickly, even assuming that Parliament was sitting. Drafts of an affirmative instrument can be laid only when Parliament

125
is sitting. That could give rise to difficulty if, say, subordinate legislation had been made by a member of the Scottish executive at the time of the parliamentary Recess at Westminster and the Secretary of State wanted to make an order under Clause 54.
I know that the noble and learned Lord has faith, as we all do, in the work of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The committee deliberated on four occasions before producing its report on the Bill. I believe that we should rely on and accept the results of that detailed scrutiny as we have done in bringing forward our suite of amendments at Committee stage.
I also suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he may have inadvertently chosen a type of procedure in Amendment No. 206C that is applicable to ministerial orders and not Orders in Council. However, that is a side issue. I hope that, in view of what I have said, the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the Government's position. I would be more persuaded of the argument about following the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee had the Government been prepared to follow that committee's advice about the Human Rights Bill on Thursday afternoon. However, as the noble Baroness had no responsibility for that, I will not pull her leg too unmercifully about it.
I have a concern about Section 54 orders. I accept that there may be a need for urgency, but they are of a highly sensitive nature and in five, 10 or 20 years' time it may be interesting to look back and see how many of these are made in the parliamentary Recess and how many when Parliament is sitting.
I recognise that the committee would not accept these amendments as necessary and, for that reason, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 206B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206C and 206D not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 206E and 206F:
Page 93, line 13, at end insert—

("Section (Agency arrangements)

Type H")

Page 93, line 13, at end insert—

("Section (Assistance for opposition parties)

Type A")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 206G to 206K not moved.]
Clause 110 [Subordinate instruments]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 206L and 206M:
Page 51, line 37, leave out from ("authority") to ("and") in line 38 and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions,").
Page 52, line 2, leave out from ("authority") to ("and") in line 3 and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 111 [Consolidated Fund etc.]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 206N:
Page 52, line 19, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 20 and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 [Modification of sections 109 to 114]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 206P:
Page 54, line 5, after ("sections") insert (" 89 and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 206P, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 206Q. These are technical amendments which add Clause 89 to the list of general modification clauses which subordinate legislation under the Bill may disapply or modify in particular cases. Clause 89 was overlooked because it does not appear alongside the other general modification clauses, namely Clauses 109 to 114, in the Bill. I will expand on the matter if noble Lords wish me to do so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 206Q:
Page 54, line 9, after ("sections") insert (" 89 and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enactments etc. protected from modification]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 206R:
Page 65, leave out lines 8 to 40 and insert—
("PART I
THE PROTECTED PROVISIONS
Particular enactments
1.—(1) An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, any of the following provisions.
(2) The provisions are—

(a) Articles 4 and 6 of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and of the Union with England Act 1707 so far as they relate to freedom of trade,

(b) the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936.

(c) the following provisions of the European Communities Act 1972—

Section 1 and Schedule 1,
Section 2, other than subsection (2), the words following "such Community obligation" in subsection (3) and the words "subject to Schedule 2 to this Act" in subsection (4),
Section 3(1) and (2),
Section 11(2),

(d) paragraphs 5(3)(b) and 15(4)(b) of Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of enterprise zones),

(e) sections 140A to 140G of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (rent rebate and rent allowance subsidy and council tax benefit),

(f) the Human Rights Act 1998.

The law on reserved matters
2.—(1) An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, the law on reserved matters.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 206R, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 206S to 206W. This is a suite of technical amendments to Schedule 4. I hope to be brief, but I can supply further detail about particular provisions if noble Lords would find that helpful.
As noble Lords will be aware, Schedule 4 sets out restrictions upon the ability of the Scottish parliament to modify the Bill itself, certain other enactments and the law on reserved matters. These amendments clarify both the wording and the format of the schedule. For example, they ensure that, where the schedule prevents an Act of the Scottish parliament from modifying an enactment, it should, except in certain cases, also prevent ministerial functions conferred by that enactment from transferring to the Scottish Ministers.
The amendments ensure that the parliament can legislate about its own protections from judicial proceedings, as has been referred to earlier. The amendments also ensure that the restrictions in the schedule do not unduly limit the competence of the Scottish parliament to legislate about its own subordinate legislation procedure or about the fulfilment of the requirements of Clause 66 on financial control and Clause 87 on maladministration.
Finally, the amendments prevent modification of the powers which UK Ministers share with the Scottish Ministers by virtue of Clause 52 and of certain provisions of social security legislation. That will ensure that the ministerial functions of funding council tax benefit and housing benefit remain with the UK Government rather than being caught by the general devolution of the funding of local authorities and Scottish Homes. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, amendments that spread over four pages of the Marshalled List can hardly be described as technical amendments. Equally, amendments that delete a whole chunk of a schedule and replace it with a lot more words cannot be described as technical. These amendments came into our hands only towards the end of last week and we have not yet had time fully to study them. Their purpose is to make clear on the face of the Bill—to that extent they are welcome—that the Scottish parliament cannot modify either by primary legislation or subordinate legislation a number of provisions. I cannot help noticing that the very first ones are Articles 4 and 6 of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707. The fact that the Scottish parliament cannot change important Acts that brought about the United Kingdom is some progress. I understand that the Social Security Administration Act that the Minister has discussed and this Bill when it becomes an Act cannot be changed. I also note that judicial salaries cannot be changed. That does not surprise me given the difficulty that the Government had with the judges this afternoon.
However, my heart lightened somewhat when I reached paragraph 13. That does not prevent an Act of a Scottish parliament to amend any of the titles there
128
referred to. I thought that at last there was progress and that the Scottish parliament would be able to decide that there should be a Premier and not a First Minister or that there should be a Speaker and not a presiding officer, or any of the other silly titles that the Government propose to give leading figures in the Scottish parliament. But I then read that it is not to do with any of them since the amendment does not relate to ministerial office or any member of the staff of the Scottish administration. Therefore, while I understand that the Scottish parliament can change the titles of any court or tribunal or any judge, chairman or officer of a court or tribunal, or the holder of any office in the Scottish administration, which is not a ministerial office, or any member of the staff of the Scottish administration, or any register, it will not be able to call the presiding officer the Speaker or the First Minister anything other than the First Minister. My heart dropped when I saw that.
I note the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who I believe has more important duties today than participation in the Scotland Bill. He is taking part in a car rally throughout Africa, which some people in Scotland may find hard to believe is more important than the Scotland Bill. I did not believe that the Liberal Democrats thought that there was anything more important than this Bill.
To show that I have read it I make these observations. We shall study the detail with some care before next Monday. However, in so far as it prevents the Scottish parliament doing certain things that may bring about the end of the Union we probably agree with the Government.
Before I conclude, I commiserate with the Minister on having to withdraw from the battle to secure a first-past-the-post seat in the Scottish parliament. Perhaps we should table an amendment to ensure that he gains a top position in the top-up list in recognition of the sterling work that he has done on this Bill.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I should correct the noble Lord on a point of fact. He said that the Government had had trouble with the judges earlier this evening. It was not so much the judges who caused trouble as our old friends the hereditary Peers. We won the Division with the life Peers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos.206S to 206W:
Page 66, line 2, at end insert—
("and in this sub-paragraph "Act of Parliament" does not include this Act").
Page 66, leave out lines 13 to 17.
Page 66, leave out line 20 and insert ("Paragraph 2 does not apply to").
Page 66, line 22, after ("by") insert ("virtue or).
Page 66, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 on page 67 and insert—
("8.—(1) An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, this Act.
(2) This paragraph does not apply to modifying sections 1(4), 16(5), 20(6), 22(7), 23(9), 27(5), (Proceedings by or against the Parliament etc.) to 39, (Validity of acts of Scottish Ministers etc.), 81 and (Agency arrangements) and paragraphs 4(1), (2) and (2A) and 6(1) of Schedule 2.
(3) This paragraph does not apply to modifying any provision of this Act (other than sections 60(7), 62(2), 67(5), 73, 74 and 111) which—

(a) charges any sum on the Scottish Consolidated Fund,

(b) requires any sum to be paid out of that Fund without further approval, or

(c) requires or authorises the payment of any sum into that Fund.

(4) This paragraph does not apply to any modifications of Part III which are necessary or expedient for the purpose or in consequence of the establishment of a new fund, in addition to the Scottish Consolidated Fund, out of which loans may be made by the Scottish Ministers.
(5) This paragraph does not apply to—

(a) modifying so much of any enactment as is modified by this Act.

(b) repealing so much of any provision of this Act as amends any enactment, if the provision ceases to have effect in consequence of any enactment comprised in or made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

Enactments modified by this Act
9. An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify—

(a) the effect of section 111(3) in relation to any provision of an Act of Parliament relating to judicial salaries,

(b) so much of any enactment as

(i) is amended by paragraph 2, 6 or 30 of Schedule 8, and

(ii) relates to the Advocate General,

(c) so much of any enactment as is amended by paragraph 8(b) or 27 of Schedule 8.

Shared powers
10. An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, any enactment so far as the enactment relates to powers exercisable by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of section 52.
PART II
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
Restatement, etc.
11.—(1) Part I of this Schedule does not prevent an Act of the Scottish Parliament—

(a) restating the law (or restating it with such modifications as are not prevented by that Part), or

(b) repealing any spent enactment, or conferring power by subordinate legislation to do so.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 2, the law on reserved matters includes any restatement in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or subordinate legislation under such an Act, of the law on reserved matters if the subject-matter of the restatement is a reserved matter.
Effect of Interpretation Act 1978
12. Part I of this Schedule does not prevent the operation of any provision of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Change of title etc.
13.—(l) Part I of this Schedule does not prevent an Act of the Scottish Parliament amending, or conferring power by subordinate legislation to amend, any enactment by changing—

(a) any of the titles referred to in sub-paragraph (2), or

(b) any reference to a declarator,

in consequence of any provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
(2) The titles are those of—

(a) any court or tribunal or any judge, chairman or officer of a court or tribunal,

(b) any holder of an office in the Scottish Administration which is not a ministerial office or any member of the staff of the Scottish Administration,

(c) any register.

Accounts and audit and maladministration
14. Part I of this Schedule does not prevent an Act of the Scottish Parliament modifying, or conferring power by subordinate legislation to modify, any enactment for or in connection with the purposes of section 66 or 87.
Subordinate legislation
15.—(1) Part I of this Schedule does not prevent an Act of the Scottish Parliament modifying, or conferring power by subordinate legislation to modify, any enactment for or in connection with any of the following purposes.
(2) Those purposes are—

(a) making different provision in respect of the document by which a power to make subordinate legislation within sub-paragraph (3) is to be exercised.

(b) making different provision (or no provision) for the procedure, in relation to the Parliament, to which legislation made in the exercise of such a power (or the instrument or other document in which it is contained) is to be subject,

(c) applying any enactment comprised in or made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament relating to the documents by which such powers may be exercised.

(3) The power to make the subordinate legislation, or a power to confirm or approve the legislation, must be exercisable by—

(a) a member of the Scottish Executive.

(b) any Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions,

(c) any other person (not being a Minister of the Crown) within devolved competence.

PART III
ADAPTATION OF SECTIONS 49 AND 50
16.—(1) This paragraph applies to a function which (apart from this Schedule) would be transferred to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 49(2)(b).
(2) If, because of anything in Part I of this Schedule, a provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament modifying an enactment so as to provide for the function to be exercisable by a different person would be outside the legislative competence of the Parliament, the function is not so transferred.
17.—(1) Paragraph 16 does not apply to any function conferred by any provision of—

(a) the European Communities Act 1972,

(b) the Human Rights Act 1998, except sections 1, 5, 14 to 17 and 22 of that Act,

(c) the law on reserved matters (for the purposes of paragraph 2) so far as contained in an enactment.

(2) For the purpose of determining—

(a) whether any function under any of the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (1) is transferred to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 49, and

(b) the extent to which any such function (other than a function of making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation) is exercisable by them,

the references in section 50 to the legislative competence of the Parliament are to be read as if section 28(2)(c) were omitted.
(3) Part I of this Schedule does not prevent an Act of the Scottish Parliament modifying, or conferring power by subordinate legislation to modify, any of the provisions mentioned in
132
sub-paragraph (1) so as to provide for a function transferred to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 49 to be exercisable by a different person.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

  Infectious Salmon Anaemia
  Infectious Salmon Anaemia
  Thai-Burma Border: Aid to Refugees
  Thai-Burma Border: Aid to Refugees
  Environmental Impact: Amended Planning Regulations
  Environmental Impact: Amended Planning Regulations
  Area-based Initiatives
  Area-based Initiatives
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  River Ure
  River Ure
  Sustainable Development Panel: Annual Report
  Sustainable Development Panel: Annual Report
  Home Improvement Agencies
  Home Improvement Agencies
  London Underground
  London Underground
  Local Authority Staff Numbers: Publication
  Local Authority Staff Numbers: Publication
  Council Housing: Management and Maintenance Spending
  Council Housing: Management and Maintenance Spending
  Diversionary Works: Payments by Utilities
  Diversionary Works: Payments by Utilities
  Sustainable Development: UK Round Table Report
  Sustainable Development: UK Round Table Report
  Serbia: Legal Basis for the Use of Force
  Serbia: Legal Basis for the Use of Force
  NATO Enlargement
  NATO Enlargement
  USAF Training Exercises over the Pacific
  USAF Training Exercises over the Pacific
  COPEX 98 Exhibition
  COPEX 98 Exhibition
  Kosovo: Security Council Resolution 1199
  Kosovo: Security Council Resolution 1199
  Northern Iraq: Media Reports of Turkish Incursion
  Northern Iraq: Media Reports of Turkish Incursion
  Iraq: Security Council Resolution 1194
  Iraq: Security Council Resolution 1194
  Thai-Burma Border: UNHCR Role
  Thai-Burma Border: UNHCR Role
  US Attacks on Khartoum and Afghanistan
  US Attacks on Khartoum and Afghanistan
  Military Action
  Military Action
  Israel and Iran: Military Action
  Israel and Iran: Military Action
  US-Japan Defence Co-operation Guidelines
  US-Japan Defence Co-operation Guidelines
  NATO Common Budget
  NATO Common Budget
  Civil and Political Rights: International Covenant
  Civil and Political Rights: International Covenant
  General Affairs Council, 26–27 October
  General Affairs Council, 26–27 October
  FCO Cash and Running Cost Limits
  FCO Cash and Running Cost Limits
  EU Council: Business for November
  EU Council: Business for November
  Football Managers: Salaries
  Football Managers: Salaries
  Taxation of Savings: Proposed EU Directive
  Taxation of Savings: Proposed EU Directive
  Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme
  Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme
  Department of Health: Telephone Helpline Services
  Department of Health: Telephone Helpline Services
  Data Protection Act 1998
  Data Protection Act 1998
  Haslar: Immigration Act Detention Centre
  Haslar: Immigration Act Detention Centre
  Computer Misuse Act 1990
  Computer Misuse Act 1990
  Kurdish Community Centre
  Kurdish Community Centre
  Prison Service Instructions: Cost
  Prison Service Instructions: Cost
  Country Assessments: Sierra Leone
  Country Assessments: Sierra Leone
  Country Information and Policy Unit: Country Assessments
  Country Information and Policy Unit: Country Assessments
  Sex Offenders: Government Sponsored Research
  Sex Offenders: Government Sponsored Research