Sitting of 9 November 1998

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

    Royal Opera House
    Mr. John Randall: What discussions he has had with Sadler's Wells over the impact of the decision to close the Royal Opera house. [57241]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I met representatives from Sadler's Wells, the Arts Council of England and the London Arts Board on 23 September. All parties agreed that Sadler's Wells should not suffer as a result of the Royal Opera house board's closure strategy.
    Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for his reply. Following those discussions, can he give any assurances on the long-term job security of the employees, especially the musicians and the artists of the Royal Ballet and Royal Opera house, given that they are the innocent victims of mismanagement and the gross ineptitude of his Department?
    Mr. Howarth: No one disputes the artistic excellence of the ballet and opera at the Royal Opera house over the
    2
    years, but it is widely acknowledged that the standard of management has not been what it should have been. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that primary responsibility for that must rest with the management, although some industrial practices have perhaps not been conducive to cost efficiencies.
    The new board and the unions have addressed these issues realistically. I congratulate and thank them for that and I believe that the way is now open to secure the prospects of those who work at the Royal Opera house and create its artistic excellence. When it opens at the end of next year, the new house will be one of the most exciting and advanced venues for lyric theatre in the world, so we have much to look forward to.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister confirm that he has complete and unqualified confidence in the present chairman of the Royal Opera house?
    Mr. Howarth: Certainly I do. Sir Colin Southgate and his colleagues on the new board have addressed their responsibilities seriously and realistically. I believe that the way is open to finding a resolution to the difficulties and that we can secure a future for world-class opera and ballet at Covent Garden.

    National Lottery
    Helen Jackson: In what ways environmental projects have benefited from the national lottery. [57242]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Heritage Lottery Fund, the Millennium Commission and the National Lottery Charities Board have all funded environmental projects. Next year, the new opportunities fund will launch an initiative to help urban and rural communities across the country to understand, improve and care for their environment, in particular through the creation, improvement or acquisition of green spaces.
    Helen Jackson: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. My constituency, like many others, includes both

    3
    beautiful countryside and large concentrations of people. That can be a problem for the countryside, but we want to use the potential for opening up the countryside to more educational and leisure uses. How, practically, can the lottery help us to get such projects off the ground?
    Mr. Smith: Our proposals for further initiatives under the new opportunities fund specifically aimed at environmental improvement will help to do precisely that. We will shortly issue a consultation paper on them. We will be interested to see what the public have to say and will then come to Parliament with specific proposals on the new initiatives.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: In view of the substantial funding for environmental projects by the lottery in Regent's Park, why is it necessary to introduce parking charges there at weekends?
    Mr. Smith: I confess that I am unaware of the particular lottery funded scheme or schemes to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, he touches on an extraneous matter: the Royal Parks agency proposal to introduce weekend parking charges to assist with the general upkeep of the parks and their management at weekends, when their usage is greatest. That is ultimately a matter for the agency to determine.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many areas of Britain could qualify under the new funding arrangements for environmental projects? Does he also agree that, in the coalfield areas, which have suffered greatly as a result, in some cases, of 100 years of pit life and which are now scarred by the closure of all those pits, a lot of work needs to be done, not least in order to provide additional work? Will he give a guarantee that, when he speaks at Barnsley tomorrow, he will pay attention to those issues, so that coalfield areas will be able to benefit from the available funding?
    Mr. Smith: I can indeed give my hon. Friend precisely that guarantee. As he knows, we are holding a major conference in Barnsley tomorrow, which will look at ways in which the lottery can provide assistance to the coalfield areas. The extent of the problem is perhaps most graphically illustrated by the fact that, to date, the amount spent by the lottery good causes in Barnsley is £17 per head, whereas the national average for England as a whole is –70 per head.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Does the Minister agree that parks are an essential part of our national heritage? To that end, will he use his good offices to influence the national lottery people, some of whom do not work like normal people, to consider giving parks more lottery funding? I have in mind some of the parks that are rotting in many local authority areas, and it is to local authorities that are strapped for cash that help should be given. One such park in my area is Hesketh park, which is based on Lord Birkenhead's design and which we really want to preserve.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is assiduous and effective in promoting the interests of his constituency. I was delighted to see that his representations regarding the fate of the pier at Southport have now been fully taken
    4
    account of by the Heritage Lottery Fund. He will know that the fund has for some time had a major programme of support for the improvement and enhancement of urban parks. I strongly support that programme: it has already done a lot of good work and there is more in the pipeline. In addition, the work that the new opportunities fund is able to put in place under the green spaces initiative will also help.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: In what ways education projects will benefit from the national lottery. [57243]
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How education projects will benefit from the national lottery. [57256]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The new opportunities fund will provide £400 million for out-of-school-hours activities, including child care; it will spend £300 million on new technology training for teachers and librarians; and next year it will help to increase access to lifelong learning, particularly by contributing to the creation of the public library network. That is in addition to the work that the Millennium Commission is already doing in funding projects such as the university of the highlands and islands and the Everyman books for schools.
    Mr. Cunningham: Can my right hon. Friend elaborate on that answer? I am sure that he is aware that Coventry was one of the pioneers of adult education. Although we welcome his announcement about children's education, will he tell us more about how he plans to develop adult education?
    Mr. Smith: Alongside the green spaces initiative to which I have already referred, one of the key proposals for new opportunities fund initiatives is support for lifelong learning in the community—precisely the area to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention. We shall shortly issue a consultation paper setting out our ambitions in that respect.
    Mr. Griffiths: Although we greatly welcome the £500 million for education from the lottery under the new opportunities fund, will my right hon. Friend consider initiatives for the most deprived areas?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. I have already issued a new set of directions to all the lottery distributors, including the new opportunities fund, to ensure that they pay attention to the particular needs of areas of social deprivation. One of the things that I have always felt is important in lottery policy is that it should not be only wealthy areas of the country—represented by the well heeled, the well advised and the people who can afford consultants and readily produce business plans—that benefit from the funds of the national lottery. People of all classes and from all parts of the country play the national lottery; people of all classes and from all parts of the country should benefit from it.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: In view of the answers given to the three questions on the Order Paper which have already been reached, has the right hon. Gentleman dispensed with the additionality principle?
    Mr. Smith: Not at all. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the additionality principle is that
    "we will make no case-by-case reductions on conventional public spending programmes to take account of awards from the Lottery. The money raised by the Lottery will not replace public expenditure".
    That is a quotation from the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in September 1994. We stand firmly by that principle.
    Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State has given the game away. He is not in favour of case-by-case reductions; he treats the whole budget as one case and makes a reduction accordingly. Given that lottery funds are now being used to fund mainstream education projects, is it not the case that the additionality principle is worth no more than a discarded Labour election pledge? Now that the right hon. Gentleman has been exposed as a pickpocket of lottery funds, will he tell the House how many other instances of such pickpocketing it should take into account?
    Mr. Smith: Judging by the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he disagrees passionately with the former leader of his party. That does not surprise me in the least, given the extent of division in the Tory party these days.
    In answer to the main apparent thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, surely he agrees that a national programme of after-school clubs for children has never been funded to the extent that we are proposing, and that it will be of enormous benefit to children and parents throughout the country. He should also acknowledge that we put that proposal to the electorate during the election campaign last year; they supported it, and we are fulfilling the commitments that we gave them.

    Music Teaching
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in relation to the teaching of music in schools. [57244]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has policy responsibility for the teaching of music in schools, but my Department has a vital interest in ensuring that the value of the arts is recognised in the curriculum and other education policies. My right hon. Friend and I work closely with education Ministers on that and other subjects of mutual interest to our Departments.
    Dr. Cable: Will the Minister acknowledge that there is much concern among musicians and educators about the Government's decision to axe music from the early years school curriculum, despite the availability of a small fund that will help schools that are already well organised in that field? Will he give an assurance that he will continue to press the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ensure that all children can benefit from a well rounded curriculum that includes the arts and music?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong—no such decision has been made. I acknowledge that there is confusion about the matter—clearly the
    6
    hon. Gentleman, too, is confused. I assure him that there has been no downgrading of music or the arts in the national curriculum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is on record as emphasising that
    "the development of a child's creativity and imagination is an essential part of a balanced education."
    There remains a statutory obligation to offer a broad and balanced education and to include music as a foundation subject.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: How much talent is lost simply because some parents cannot afford to pay for classes for their children to learn the violin, the piano, the 'cello or a wind instrument? Surely that is a waste that the country can ill afford.
    Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend. There has been a worrying decline—charted, for example, by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music—in the proportion of children in some groups playing musical instruments and taking music lessons in school.
    There is tremendous talent in our country. Anyone who had the opportunity, as I did last week, to attend the schools prom at the Albert hall will have no doubt that there is an extraordinary wealth of talent among our young people.
    I believe that the new youth music trust that my right hon. Friend has established will make an important difference by enhancing support for musical activity and young people's musical development; as will the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—which were included in "Fair Funding"—to safeguard local authority provision for music services.

    Concessionary Television Licences
    6. Mr. Steve Webb: When he expects to conclude his review of the arrangements for concessionary television licences. [57245]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Our aim is to reach final conclusions on all aspects of the BBC funding review by the end of next year.
    Mr. Webb: Will the Minister comment on the press report that the review group will be chaired by the Chancellor's favourite millionaire? While I have nothing against millionaires per se, does the Minister agree that such a person is not well placed to understand the difficulties that many older pensioners, in particular, face in affording a television licence?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman will know that no official announcement has been made, and I am sure that he would not expect me to comment on speculation. I reassure him that the Government recognise that the current structure of the concessionary licence scheme is imperfect and unsatisfactory. It is time for a detailed examination of the scheme, and the review panel will conduct such an examination.
    Mr. David Winnick: The licence fee is extraordinarily good value and should be retained.

    7
    However, does my hon. Friend accept that many pensioners find it increasingly difficult to pay the licence fee, even though, as they grow older—certainly as they enter their 70s—they are bound to spend more time at home watching television? Does my hon. Friend therefore recognise that—together with all the other anomalies of which we are aware—it is simply just that pensioners should receive far greater concessions than they do at present? I hope that they will before too long.
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend will be aware that I share his concern about this matter, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent work that he has done in this area.
    We recognise that the present scheme is unsatisfactory and unfair, but we cannot make any promises that the review will lead to a general concession for all pensioners or for other groups of people. That could lead to substantial increases for all other licence fee payers. However, we can promise that we shall give detailed consideration to the unsatisfactory nature of the present arrangements.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am sorry to press the point, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome this opportunity to scotch rumours that the BBC funding review will be conducted not by someone who knows about broadcasting but by an economist who is one of the Chancellor's closest friends and married to the Chancellor's special adviser. On reconsideration, would the hon. Lady not love to take this opportunity to dissociate herself from the culture of cronyism that seems to be invading every aspect of this Government?
    Janet Anderson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is pure speculation, and I am sure that he will not expect me to comment until an official announcement has been made.
    We will take no lessons from the Tories regarding allegations of cronyism. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of his colleagues in another place, Baroness Denton of Wakefield, said that she had never knowingly appointed a Labour supporter.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: The important factor in this review will be the terms of reference for the review committee. There is tremendous discrimination in the way concessionary licences are issued at present, and it is important to ensure that those on pensions receive the assistance they need in the form of concessionary television licences.
    Will the Minister brief us as to the terms of reference that the committee will consider when reviewing the current television licence arrangements? Can we be assured that all pensioners will be treated fairly and will receive their just entitlements?
    Janet Anderson: I reassure my hon. Friend that the panel will be asked to consider in detail the present arrangements governing the concessionary scheme. Although we cannot make any promises that the review will lead to a general concession for all pensioners or for other groups of people, we recognise that the current system is unfair and unsatisfactory, and should be considered in detail.

    Sports Provision
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What moneys his Department allocated for sports provision on housing estates in the (a) current and (b) next financial year. [57246]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): As this is the first sports question, may I, on behalf of the House, convey congratulations to Greg Rusedski on Sunday's victory in the Paris indoor open? He is not only a good tennis player but a very nice guy.
    My Department's funding for sport is channelled through the English Sports Council and the UK Sports Council. The English Sports Council works with sports governing bodies, local authorities and other sport organisations to ensure that all sections of the community—including those living on housing estates—benefit from this funding. The Government are convinced of the contribution that sports initiatives can make to neighbourhood renewal.
    Mr. Hughes: Three cheers for tennis, Madam Speaker. The Minister's comment about Greg Rusedski was more specific than the answer that followed; may I push him further? He knows from his constituency and his London background that, for very little money, it is possible to provide cages, creating football, basketball and netball possibilities in urban areas, close to where people live and safe; and that if the cages are properly looked after they are secure and very good value for money. Will he consider an initiative to try to get such proposals up and running—with partners, if possible—in local authority areas where large numbers of people live in council housing? If I presented him with a proposal for the borough of Southwark, to be run as a pilot scheme, would he consider it to see whether it might be extended to other local authorities throughout the country?
    Mr. Banks: The short answer is yes to both questions. The hon. Gentleman knows that the sports lottery fund injects a great deal of money into inner-city areas. I may risk the ire of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) by saying so, but London has received £100 million in lottery sports grants, a great deal of which has gone into inner-city areas such as my constituency in Newham. I hasten to add that that has nothing to do with me, as Sports Minister, but it is rewarding to see the amount of money that is going in.
    I am certain that sports funding in inner-city areas can do a hell of a lot to motivate young people, especially those who, tragically, are unemployed or are likely to be wasting their time hanging around. We should use sport to promote social inclusion. That is a popular term at the moment, but the Government are determined to make progress on it. I should be delighted to talk to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about his proposal.
    Mr. John Maxton: Will my hon. Friend agree, however, that one of the best ways to improve sporting facilities—and to put money into those facilities—in housing estates and other poor areas of the country is to switch from bid-led to need-led lottery

    9
    funding? The Government have begun to do so and we welcome the changes that have been made, but the process could be taken considerably further.
    Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend. The English Sports Council's draft lottery strategy identifies several ways in which more help could be given—for example, by using the small grants programme and developing the priority areas initiative. We must pursue those avenues.
    It is crucial that we consider needs instead of sitting and waiting for applications to come in. Repeatedly, we find that those who can work up a decent bid get lottery money whereas those who desperately need the money but lack the ability to produce such a bid lose out. That is why we wanted a strategy, and that is what the strategy is about.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Given that a housing estate could presumably, if correctly sponsored, make an application under sportsmatch arrangements, is it true that the Government are contemplating moving the funding for sportsmatch from the Department to the appropriate lottery distributor; and how does the Minister square that with additionality, as it appears to be direct substitution?
    Mr. Banks: I do not know which council estate the right hon. Gentleman comes from, but we are looking at sportsmatch—a wonderful initiative, which we totally support—and consulting on it at the moment. There is much to be said for shifting its operation to the English Sports Council, which is doing something very similar, but in that case the money would be ring-fenced so that it went with the scheme from the Department to the English Sports Council. Money would not be lost; additional money would go to the ESC. We are still consulting on the matter and listening carefully to what people say.

    All-Seater Stadiums
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What assessment his Department has made of the resources needed to make all Premier and Nationwide football grounds all-seating. [57249]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): None. Clubs in the Football Association Premier league and the first division of the Football League were required to go all-seater by August 1994. Clubs newly promoted to the first division since that date have had three years from the date of their promotion to install seating at their grounds. Bury, Bradford City, Crewe Alexandra, Oxford United and Stockport County, which have all gained promotion to the first division since August 1994, are the only clubs in the top two divisions in England still to go all-seater. Bradford and Oxford have until August 1999 to do so, and the other three clubs have until August 2000.
    Following the review of the all-seater policy in 1992, clubs outside the top two divisions have until August 1999 to ensure that any remaining terracing meets stringent safety requirements.
    Mr. Pike: The Government last year were quick to extend the resources available to the Football Trust to enable it to play a major part in ensuring that we had the
    10
    widest range of high-standard grounds in the world and high safety standards, which will be important in our 2006 world cup bid. However, many clubs in the lower divisions have severe financial problems. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Football Trust will be able to continue that work, to ensure that every ground can provide the safest and best possible facilities for spectators?
    Mr. Banks: I certainly want to encourage that development, because I appreciate that the grass roots of football in this country are becoming rather dry. There is a great deal of money sloshing around in football, but it is not filtering down far enough. That is essentially a matter for the football authorities, but I can assure my hon. Friend that anything that I and the Government can do to induce them to bring about a more equitable distribution of that money throughout football we will do with great enthusiasm.
    We allocated an extra £55 million funding package for the Football Trust almost as soon as we came to office. I am delighted that Burnley has received more than £3 million worth of grant aid from the Football Trust since 1990. We want to make sure that the best standards apply throughout our grounds, and I will look sympathetically at any proposal to ensure that the work of the Football Trust goes on to enable that to happen.
    Mr. John Greenway: I welcome what the Minister said, and share the concern of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). The second and third division clubs—as the Minister knows, I am the president of York City—simply do not have the resources to build all-seater stadiums, even if we could get planning consent.
    As the question is about resources, does the Minister agree with the comments made recently to all Members of Parliament in a letter from the chief executive of the Football League, Mr. Richard Scudamore—that the continuation of the current BSkyB television deal is essential for the money to filter down into the second and third division clubs? If that changes, what pressure can the Minister and his Department bring to bear on the Premier league to ensure a substitution for that funding if we end up with a pay-per-view deal?
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman tries to take me into other areas, which are dealt with by competition Ministers.
    There are a number of things happening in football and in sport generally that alarm me. There is a knock-on effect from decisions in other areas, nationally and, much more significantly, through the European Union. That is why I personally—this is not Government policy—have been strongly in favour of considering some special regime for sport, which would not make it separate from European law or national law, but would recognise the particular interests and problems of sport in serving a local community. That applies particularly to Football League clubs in cities such as York or Chester, where there is a terrible problem about which supporters are coming to lobby the House on Wednesday.
    The hon. Gentleman can be certain that the Government will do all we can to ensure that football remains vibrant and active at the level where it really matters—at the grass roots in places such as Chester and York.

    National Lottery
    Ms Oona King: What responses he has received from the good causes to the announcement about their future after 2001. [57250]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I announced in July that each of the good causes—arts, sport, heritage and charities—will continue to receive one sixth of lottery good cause funding after 2001.
    Ms King: I welcome that announcement. Does that mean that the lottery boards will be able to engage in long-term financial planning? What other measures does my right hon. Friend have in mind to allow such desperately needed long-term planning to take place?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. For the first time, the guarantee that we have put in place post-2001—which is new; it was never done by the previous Government when they were in office—gives each distributor a guarantee of forward funding, and enables that distributor to plan ahead properly. In addition, the development of strategies—which, again, is for the first time a responsibility on each of the distributors—will enable them to put the plans into written form for public consumption, so that everyone knows precisely where they stand.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State comment on the latest figures, which we produced with the help of the Library, that show that, between now and 2005, about £3.7 billion which should have gone to the arts, sports, charities and heritage will be siphoned off, to help fill the Chancellor's economic black hole, into the new control freak fund? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that, by turning the national lottery into the Government's lottery, he has betrayed the original good causes and also his party's policy before the general election?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with these views:
    "The lottery was not supposed to be a fund-raising mechanism for the Government. That makes it simply another form of taxation. Why should people have to pay more taxes? … why give the Government a great big bucket of money?"—[Official Report, 25 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 1095-96.]
    The Secretary of State may recognise the florid language of his hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. Those were his words before the election, but the Government have betrayed them since.
    Mr. Smith: It may come as no surprise that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He may have noticed, for example, what the Arts Council of England said when, in September, I was able to announce the £1.8 billion guarantee for income over the present licence period for the council and an additional £50 million. The council's response was as follows:
    "The Arts Council is delighted … at the announcement of an additional £50 million".
    The hon. Gentleman completely ignores the fact that the new opportunities fund was a commitment that we gave to the people of this country during the general election campaign. Unlike Conservative Members, we believe in keeping our commitments.

    Lodge Hill Residential Centre, West Sussex
    Mr. Howard Flight: What representations he has received regarding the Lodge Hill residential centre in West Sussex. [57251]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I was quite stunned to note that I have received no representations about the Lodge Hill residential centre, not even from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Flight: I was under the impression that Lord Cowdrey has made certain representations to the Minister for Sport. Lodge Hill is a youth centre in West Sussex that has provided residential courses for hundreds of thousands of students. The county council can no longer afford to maintain it, so it is being set up on a charitable basis. Will the Minister consider, within the powers available to him, some back-up support from lottery funding, and also the possibility of the centre being used in connection with the Government's new deal facilities?
    Mr. Banks: I will certainly consult Lord Cowdrey, whom I see pretty regularly, to ascertain what has happened to his letter. Perhaps it was lost in the post.
    I am aware of the centre—it provides good outward bound courses, including canoeing and a rope course. I am a great supporter of canoeing and I have often contemplated hanging myself, so it is clear that I am much in support of the centre. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to me, and we will try to contrive a lottery application.

    Digital Broadcasting
    Ms Sally Keeble: What assessment he has made of the impact of digital broadcasting on local radio stations. [57252]
    Janet Anderson: Digital radio will increase listener choice and improve the listening experience. I am aware of considerable interest in local multiplex licences from a number of consortiums, and I look forward to the response when the Radio Authority advertises local multiplex licences shortly.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that many local commercial radio stations that are the only broadcasters will not have access to digital broadcasting? That includes Radio Northants, which covers my constituency. Will my hon. Friend investigate with colleagues the possibility of getting the Ministry of Defence to bring forward its release dates for its current allocation of the digital spectrum, which I think is scheduled for 2007? Is she aware that, if the MOD did that, it would be possible for all local commercial radio stations to provide the advantages of digital broadcasting to their listeners?
    Janet Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I assure her that we recognise the concerns of radio stations, such as her local station Northants 96. The Government recognise that there is insufficient spectrum to enable every local radio station to take part in digital radio. We are aware of the fact that

    13
    the industry is currently preparing an assessment of its further needs and we shall consider that assessment carefully. The Government's aim is to ensure that the advances of digital radio are available to as many people and as wide an audience as possible.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Although the broadcasting developments affecting local radio stations are welcome, does the Minister share my concern about the removal from many stations of regional broadcasters that cover our activities in the House of Commons? What action is she taking to compensate for what I consider to be a direct consequence of the lack of attention that the Government pay to the House and the contempt in which Parliament is held?
    Janet Anderson: That is a matter for the broadcasters. The hon. Lady may not be aware that there was a comprehensive debate about this matter in the House only the other day, so she may wish to refer to my response to that debate.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Millennium Experience
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: If he will make a statement on the progress of the New Millennium Experience Company in raising sponsorship for the millennium experience. [57270]
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What is the total amount of moneys currently identified for sponsorship of zones within the Millennium dome. [57274]
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: How much of the funding for the millennium experience from sponsors is (a) committed, (b) promised and (c) made in kind. [57275]
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will list the sponsors currently involved in the Millennium dome. [57276]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The New Millennium Experience Company is to be congratulated on the significant progress it has made in raising sponsorship for the millennium experience. More than £100 million has been committed by Tesco, Manpower, BT, BSkyB, Marks and Spencer, British Airways, the Corporation of London, BAA, Camelot, GEC, British Aerospace and Thames Water. A further £60 million from 10 major companies is subject to detailed negotiation. It is not possible, at this stage, to divide sponsorship support into specific categories, but the distinction will be made in the company's annual report and accounts, which will be published and laid in the Libraries of both Houses.
    Mr. Blunt: In raising sponsorship for the millennium experience, does the right hon. Gentleman think that his real and perceived power over these companies as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry helps or hinders?
    Mr. Mandelson: My role in relation to the dome is as shareholder, not as head of the sponsorship team.
    14
    Although I receive regular reports from the board of the New Millennium Experience Company on its significant progress in raising sponsorship, I have never been, and do not intend to be, involved in procuring or negotiating sponsorship deals, so no conflict arises.
    Mr. Fabricant: Of the £100 million committed, what percentage is subject to an irrevocable, signed contract?
    Mr. Mandelson: The companies have committed in the way I have described, and I am pleased that they have done so. No one has ever denied that raising £150 million of private sponsorship is a considerable challenge: of course it is. Then again, no one has ever taken the decision to stage such a unique national event. The sums and the event are without precedent. Our best and most forward-looking companies are picking up the challenge because they see their commercial interest coinciding with the national interest. It would be nice if, like those companies, Conservative Members identified with the national interest.
    Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman finds that answer unsatisfactory and he wants to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Fabricant: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Good, I have got the point, thank you.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend exuding confidence about the prospects for raising the money, but, if we are still £60 million short and money is trickling in as slowly as press reports suggest, will not that create the real danger that, instead of being the celebration of British history, achievements and prospects that it should be, the millennium experience will be a mammoth piece of commercial hucksterism in which companies from McDonald's to Tesco are allowed to parade their products on the back of £580 million of public money?
    Mr. Mandelson: I do not think that my hon. Friend was listening to my reply. I said that a further £60 million from 10 major companies is subject to detailed negotiation. If my arithmetic is correct, that takes us over the target that we have already set. We are getting a great deal for our sponsorship. For example, the children's promise scheme, which is a joint campaign between the New Millennium Experience Company and Marks and Spencer, brings together seven children's charities. It will encourage everyone to donate their final hour's earnings of this millennium to the children of the next. That is something that the entire House can and should support.
    I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Montague of Oxford, whose magnificent salesmanship in the other place has already delivered 86 pledge cards. I will ensure that pledge cards are put in the Whips' Offices of all the parties, including the Conservative party, so that Conservative Members can sign up to children's promise

    15
    and give their last hour's earnings in this millennium for the good cause of children in the next. We will see how much we get from them.
    Mr. Robathan: I look forward to receiving my card—
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): The hon. Gentleman will be getting his cards very shortly.
    Mr. Robathan: Not as soon as the Minister will get a yellow card.
    The Secretary of State failed to respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—£60 million may be the subject of detailed negotiation, but that is not quite the same as having £60 million pledged. What contingency plans does the right hon. Gentleman have in place should the money not be forthcoming? Will he state categorically that he will not dip into the taxpayers' pocket if it is not forthcoming?
    Mr. Mandelson: I will happily give that commitment, because the sums that we need have already been identified—they are coming. I understand that Conservative Members are desperately disappointed with the good news that I am able to share with the House today—they will not be happy until the private sponsorship finally fails to materialise, the doors fail to open and the public fail to turn up. Conservative Members will be very disappointed and there will be a lot of long Tory faces at the beginning of 2000, because the millennium dome and experience will be a tremendous success. They will be sorry that they have lacked the enthusiasm and patriotism to support them throughout.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Can I put it to the Minister, gently, that there is at least a perception of a conflict of interest between his roles as Minister responsible for the millennium dome and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? For example, he is involved in regulating Manchester United's possible takeover by BSkyB while sponsorship from BSkyB is coming in for the millennium dome. Would it not be better—having his best interests at heart—if responsibility for the millennium dome were transferred, perhaps to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport?
    Mr. Mandelson: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but the bid by BSkyB for Manchester United—let us get it the right way round—has been referred by me to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My responsibilities for competition policy as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry require me to act fairly and impartially, and to be seen to do so. In carrying out these functions, I can categorically assure the House that I am in no way influenced by actual or potential offers being made by companies in support of the dome.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Setting aside any possible conflicts of interest, does not the right hon. Gentleman understand the damage to the dome that has been done by his ridiculous announcements, including those on the sport of surfball, the androgynous figure, the use of a nappy, Siamese twins and so on? Given his failure to secure the total funding sum thus far,
    16
    in retrospect was he not unwise to liken himself to St. John the Baptist—who, far from attending champagne parties, lived on locusts and wild honey; whose message was never spin doctored, but one of repentance; and whose head, duly severed, ultimately landed up on a plate?
    Mr. Mandelson: I do not know how long it took to write and rehearse that question before it was delivered. These are very tired remarks from Opposition Members; we hear constant cavilling, nit-picking and thread-pulling from the usual carping quarters. Opposition Members are absolutely desperate for the project to go wrong, are they not? They will be very disappointed.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's small breweries about promoting local beers during the period of the millennium experience. [57271]
    Mr. Mandelson: The New Millennium Experience Company announced in April that it wanted to serve visitors to the dome with the United Kingdom's best traditionally brewed and popular beers. The company is in discussion with a number of local and regional brewers.
    Mr. Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Black Dog Brewery Ltd. in Whitby will be one of the breweries approached? Without doubt, such a regional flavour will spread the millennium experience around the country. May I also make a plea for Whitby kippers, which would go particularly well with the beer?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that the very appropriately named Black Dog beer will be among those that are very hotly considered by the New Millennium Experience Company. As for Whitby's kippers and all the other magnificent products and services, moving the town into the dome might not be a bad idea. The town will certainly have an opportunity to tell its story in the dome under a project called "Our Town's Story", which will enable people from all over the country to tell their story for the benefit and enjoyment of millions of our fellow citizens.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Assets
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What impact there has been on the commissioners' assets arising out of the collapse of (a) hedge funds and (b) other financial institutions. [57280]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I am delighted to say that the commissioners have no investments in hedge funds or any other financial institutions that have collapsed. World stock markets have retreated considerably from the exceptionally high levels of earlier this year. The United Kingdom market, however, which is of most significance

    17
    to the commissioners, has given up only the advances that we saw earlier in the year, and since the end of September it has started to show greater stability and recovery.
    Mr. Pike: I recognise my hon. Friend's points. Can he assure me that lower stock values have not made it impossible for the Church Commissioners to meet their commitment to provide the Church with funds to meet clergy stipends and pensions?
    Mr. Bell: The commissioners use long-term financial assumptions when assessing their distribution capability and policy. They value their assets on an actuarial basis, rather than using current market values. That system looks to the income generated by investments and the likely growth of that income as the basis for levels of distribution, which helps to smooth the volatility in market values to which the question refers.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What impact there has been on the commissioners' assets as a result of the turbulence in the world's financial markets. [57282]
    Mr. Bell: The commissioners' United Kingdom equities comprise a diversified portfolio, which has moved broadly in line with the markets. The commissioners' portfolio continues to out-perform both the index and its benchmark. The commissioners also have significant holdings in commercial, agricultural and residential property. Such diversification of risk has helped to cushion them against any short-term volatility in the stock market.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Given the problems in Japan and the far east and, indeed, the threat of recession nearer to home, will the hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming about some of the commissioners' changes to their investment portfolio? Who advises them on changes to their asset allocation strategy?
    Mr. Bell: The commissioners use a range of advisers in making their decisions, including their actuaries Watson Wyatt and property advisers DTZ Debenham Thorpe; the WM company and the Investment Property Databank. During 1997, the commissioners conducted a comprehensive review of their investment and asset allocation strategy which aims to provide stable and long-term support for the Church's ministry. As a result, they are rebalancing their assets in favour of securities—primarily UK securities—while reducing their property exposure. In relation to far eastern equities, the valuation losses have been proportionately minor compared with other institutional funds, due to our relatively low exposure to those areas.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: We have seen the effect of turbulence on the Church's portfolio, but what has been the effect of Viagra on the Church's financial standing and that of its portfolio?
    Mr. Bell: I am happy to say that our investment in the drug company—which fulfils our ethical investment policy to the hilt—has turned over a recent profit of about £3 million in three months.

    Ethical Investments
    Ann Clwyd: If the Church Commissioners will make it their policy not to invest in countries where state organised torture, murder and disappearances are or have been prevalent. [57283]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners' ethical investment policy is not to invest in companies whose management practices are judged by us to be unacceptable in whatever country they operate. We also aim to invest in companies that are conscientious concerning issues of human rights.
    Ann Clwyd: Can my hon. Friend therefore explain why one of the companies in which the Church Commissioners invested was responsible for the armoured carriers on the streets of Jakarta, which sprayed unarmed demonstrators with dye and which are, quite clearly, being used for internal repression?
    Mr. Bell: I take this opportunity to reiterate our investment policy on investments in companies before I refer specifically to my hon. Friend's point. The sale of military equipment to regimes with poor human rights records remains a strong concern. Companies in which the commissioners invest confirm that none of the equipment they have exported could be used for internal repression.
    In relation to GEC's sales to Indonesia, GEC has confirmed that they amounted to £20 million in 1996–97 and have dropped to £4.6 million in 1998. The sales comprised non-offensive simulation and training equipment, as well as broadcasting transmitters and other forms of telephony.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Following the thrust of the question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), will the hon. Gentleman put it to his colleagues that, rather than having an English-centred view of what is acceptable in terms of international investment, it might be an improvement if, in future, the decisions were also approved by a representative body of the Lambeth conference of worldwide Anglican churches? Without prejudicing the view of some of us that the Church of England should be disestablished, could he also ensure that once a year the commissioners talk to English Members of Parliament and take their advice on what investments should be made on behalf of the Church?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions. The statutory responsibility of the Church Commissioners is, of course, to this House, and their duty is to provide the wherewithal for the Church to meet its commitments. In relation to the wider question to which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred, the commissioners look to the United Kingdom Government and the recently formulated European Union code on arms transfer to put in place safeguards to prevent the sort of sales to which my hon. Friend referred. In that context, the Foreign Office's recent announcement that it will ask two

    19
    non-governmental organisations—Save the Children and Amnesty International—to advise on human rights issues is most welcome.
    Mr. Norman Baker: What assessment the commissioners have made of the compatibility of holdings in GEC with their investment policy. [57284]
    Mr. Bell: The commissioners' investment in GEC is consistent with the ethical investment working group's view that nations have a right to defend themselves and to engage in peacekeeping initiatives and with the group's belief in the legitimacy of an indigenous defence industry supplying equipment under Government licence. Given GEC's corporate restructuring, however, the commissioners' holdings in the company will continue to be kept under close review by the working group.
    Mr. Baker: If the holdings are consistent with the ethical investment policy, that policy is at fault—for the
    20
    reasons set out by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Why are the Church Commissioners, who presumably have some connection with Christianity, investing so heavily in a company that produces weapons of mass destruction?
    Mr. Bell: The ethical investment working group represents the entire Church; it covers not only the Church Commissioners but the General Synod. As responsible shareholders, our duty is to make representations to companies on issues about which we are concerned and about which concern is reflected in the House. As part of that process, a meeting with Lord Prior, the former chairman of GEC, was held on 2 September to discuss the corporate changes in the company that have resulted in a greater focus on defence electronics. We find that GEC continues to listen to our concerns and to respond positively to them.

Central America (Hurricane Mitch)
3.30 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian crisis in Central America and the aid being supplied by the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I apologise to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for the lateness of his receiving a copy of my answer; we have just come back from a meeting of our national policy forum in Birmingham, and I wrote it on the train.
This year has seen a record number of major natural disasters, and when the crisis is brought under control we should look at how far environmental degradation is one of the causes. Hurricane Mitch, the 13th and fiercest storm of the 1998 hurricane season, has caused widespread damage and severe loss of life across central America, particularly affecting Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua are the worst affected countries.
Official reports suggest that 7,000 people have lost their lives, 9,000 people are missing and about 2.5 million people are badly affected. The terrible contrast between the death toll in central America and the much lower loss of life in the equally terrible floods in Bangladesh cruelly demonstrates the importance of disaster preparedness in countries that are vulnerable to natural disasters.
Since May 1997—a significant date—my Department has been working to strengthen the capacity of the international system to respond very quickly to emergencies wherever they arise. In the past, unco-ordinated shipments of aid and expertise often exacerbated such crises rather than helping.
The first step following Hurricane Mitch was the mobilisation of the United Nations disaster assessment teams; a British expert was made available. HMS Sheffield was in the vicinity and, at the request of the local authorities, was able to make available helicopters, engineers and medical support. My Department immediately offered support to non-governmental organisations that were already working in the countries and so could move very quickly. We have made available £200,000 to the Red Cross regional appeal, and supplies were flown in yesterday.
In Honduras, we have contributed £60,000 to the Pan American Health Organisation for basic health care needs; £94,525 to the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development for food and household items; and a grant of £100,000 to Christian Aid to supply medicines, temporary shelters, blankets and water containers. In Nicaragua, we have channelled £32,585 through the NGO Christian Action, Research and Education for the provision of safe water, food and clothes. We are also sending medical supplies to El Salvador to meet the needs of 20,000 people for three months. HMS Ocean and RFA Sir Tristram are also in the area and, at local request, are providing search and rescue and reconnaissance services.
In the past few days, the European Commission humanitarian office has allocated 6.8 million ecu for the disaster. We will do our best to ensure that that money is disbursed as soon as possible.
22
My Department has recently agreed a new, enlarged development programme for central America, to which we have committed £6 million. We are currently refocusing the programme to assist with reconstruction when the immediate crisis is under control.
Debt relief is, of course, irrelevant to coping with the immediate crisis, although crucial for reconstruction. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have been working since we formed our Government to speed up the implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. Our aim is to ensure that every heavily indebted poor country that adopts economic policies that will reduce poverty will be on track for debt relief by the year 2000.
Before the crisis, Nicaragua was on track to qualify, and Honduras was unlikely to need debt relief. Obviously, the crisis will disrupt Nicaragua's International Monetary Fund programme and, sadly, Honduras's economy is likely to deteriorate so that it may well qualify for debt relief—not a good thing.
The Chancellor and I have announced that we are approaching the IMF and the World bank to try to get agreement that post-crisis countries should be treated more flexibly for debt relief. We are pursuing a similar proposal to benefit post-conflict countries such as Rwanda and Liberia. Progress on debt relief will be crucial to the reconstruction effort but does not assist in the immediate crisis. We must also ensure that post-crisis countries that are not heavily indebted, such as Bangladesh, also receive assistance for reconstruction.
Sadly, it is likely that the region will suffer similar hurricanes in future, so we must ensure that the reconstruction effort focuses on reducing vulnerability, for example through flood protection and the appropriate location of new housing. It will also be necessary to strengthen local and regional capacity to respond when disaster strikes. We have very recently agreed a major programme with the International Red Cross to strengthen such capacity in all developing countries.
We will continue to monitor the situation carefully through the United Nations and the International Red Cross and at local embassies. My Department will still be working in central America when media interest has moved elsewhere.
Mr. Streeter: I thank the Secretary of State for that response, and especially for coming back from what I know is an important conference in Birmingham to give it. I know that hon. Members of all parties will want to send a clear message of solidarity and support to the people of central America who have suffered such an appalling catastrophe.
One of my earliest boyhood memories is of the black-and-white television reports of the terrible tragedy at Aberfan. That tragic loss of 114 young lives shocked our nation for many years. We can only imagine what the people of central America are going through in the wake of losing more than 12,000 of their fellow citizens.
Does the Secretary of State agree—in one sense, she has already said she does—that those people will need and deserve our support for many years to come? Will she join me in paying warm tribute to the aid agencies, which have hit the ground running to try to bring emergency relief to the affected communities?

23
Given that the loss of life has been far greater than any that we have witnessed in recent years, does the Secretary of State believe that Britain's response to date has been commensurate? Has it been proportionate to the scale of the disaster? Is the right hon. Lady completely satisfied that her Department has been sufficiently generous in making funds available? Does she have any plans to make further moneys available in the near future?
Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the anticipated role of the Royal Navy ships on their way to the region? When are they expected to arrive and start work? Precisely what role does she expect our armed forces to play, and to whom will they be accountable? Many of them will be my constituents, so I have a particular interest in her reply.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that she has met in person the ambassadors of the central American countries affected by Hurricane Mitch to discuss their specific needs face to face? After two weeks of the crisis, with more lives being lost daily as a result of starvation and disease, what specific steps are being taken to avert the real threat of many more deaths from cholera and other diseases?
Is the Secretary of State aware that an humanitarian crisis, no matter how grave, is no excuse for sloppy government? Will she explain to the House why on the morning of Friday 6 November she dismissed debt relief as misleading and irrelevant, but by the afternoon of Saturday 7 November she issued a joint press statement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that made debt relief an essential part of Britain's response to the crisis? What changed in those 24 hours? How had debt relief moved from being irrelevant on Friday to being essential on Saturday? If the Secretary of State had planned to call for the speeding up of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, why did she not say so on Friday? Does she accept that debt relief was relevant to the people of central America the second that Hurricane Mitch struck their towns and villages?
Will the Secretary of State clarify what the Government are now saying about debt relief? On Friday I called for an immediate moratorium on debt repayments from Honduras and Nicaragua to get them through the immediate crisis, and for a review of the situation thereafter. Does she now agree with that? Do the Government intend to suspend those countries' debt repayments? Do they intend to write off debt unilaterally? What is the Government's policy on debt relief? Is the Secretary of State's policy now the same as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If so, at what time on Saturday did their policies coincide? Given its recent track record, will the Secretary of State keep up pressure on the European Community humanitarian office to distribute its funds without delay?
Is the Secretary of State aware that tomorrow, the Disasters Emergency Committee of our leading non-governmental organisations is launching an appeal for funds through the nation's media to provide extra money for central America? Is she aware that the NGOs consider that they need at least £7 million to support their activities on the ground in the short term? Will she confirm that, unlike the Sudan appeal, this appeal will
24
have her unequivocal support, so that the great British public can give their money generously to the people of central America, knowing that they have her full backing?
Clare Short: It is nice to hear a Tory Member start by sending a message of solidarity to people who are suffering in central America. That is an historic move. Sadly the hon. Gentleman is trying to make cheap points and does not understand some of the points that he is making.
The ships that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are already there. HMS Sheffield was helping in Belize. The contrast between events there and in central America tells us something about disaster preparedness. The hurricane was predicted. Belize moved people, so, although there is devastation, there has been very little loss of life. After helping with reconstruction in Belize, HMS Sheffield asked my Department whether it was wanted in central America. We contacted the United Nations team. Sheffield has engineers, medical expertise and, importantly, helicopters. The other two ships are also in the vicinity, and are providing helicopters for reconnaissance.
I have not met the ambassadors. My Department has more direct contact with United Nations teams in the region than with the ambassadors, and communications are difficult. I shall meet them later, but getting things right on the ground is our priority.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now understands that preventing cholera and hunger is the most immediate need. Like many people in the media, he seems not to understand how debt relief works. In such a crisis, when the mud slides, a person's chances of survival depend on those who are already in the country pulling them out. The international community can help only by having strengthened those capacities in a country.
The second stage, on which the international community needs to move quickly—we are among the best in the world at moving quickly—is bringing in food, water purification tablets and measures that prevent disease and hunger to stop the crisis getting even worse. That is what we are doing. When people are still being pulled out of the mud, anyone who asks whether debt relief will solve the problem clearly does not understand the nature of debt relief.
Britain did not announce large amounts of money on television—unlike some others, including the European Union—while not disbursing anything. We are good at finding out which non-governmental organisations are in the country and getting resources to them immediately so that they can act on the ground immediately and stop cholera. The list of detailed programmes in the statement shows what we have already done. We will try to make sure that the EU money that has been promised is disbursed as soon as possible, because that has not yet happened.
As my statement made clear, debt relief is complex, and I have offered the hon. Gentleman a briefing on the subject from my Department. Unilateral action in relation to IMF or World bank debt is impossible. It would be silly of one country to move alone on export credits, because the good country would simply ensure that ungenerous countries were paid. Moving together is the way to get progress on debt relief. The hon. Gentleman's call for unilateral action shows that he does not understand what he is talking about.
We have acted quickly to deal with the emergency. We had already acted to try to speed up debt relief, but the crisis means that Nicaragua, which would have qualified,

25
will now be in difficulties. We are talking to the IMF, the World bank and many of our partner countries to try to achieve a flexible attitude towards Nicaragua and Honduras, but that has not yet been secured. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said, here and in the media, that he does not understand debt relief, and I repeat that I would be happy to arrange a briefing for him.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. My view, along with the view of most people who are serious about Sudan, is that the problem there is the need to bring energy to the peace process. Britain has contributed to that. There is a ceasefire, and it is being extended. We are working hard to get more of the world interested in peace in Sudan. There was never a shortage of money for humanitarian relief there, but there was an ever-spreading crisis because of the war. The DEC appeal will be announced tomorrow, following the appeal already made by the Red Cross, which is working in Sudan. Under pressure from us, the DEC has changed its policy so that money from the appeal will go only to organisations already working in the Sudan. That is an improvement.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members and people who follow the media understand perfectly that she has made an excellent and comprehensive response? Does she agree that, as a Minister in the Cabinet who is working with her colleagues, particularly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, she does not have much to learn from an Opposition who never included their Overseas Development Ministers in the Cabinet? We all recall that Tim Raison, in an open letter to his successor, Chris Patten, said that the only time he spoke to the then Prime Minister about his Department was on the day that he was sacked. May I thank my right hon. Friend, and encourage her to continue with her work and to ensure that the European Union treats the problems with the same urgency that she has shown?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I want cross-party support in Britain for the Government's greatly enlarged commitment to international development. We need more united public support if we are to achieve real progress towards helping every country better to protect itself from disasters, to avoid loss of life on the current scale, and to meet international poverty eradication targets. I would even appreciate support from the hon. Member for South-West Devon, but I believe that he needs some briefing.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State share my sense of deja vu? I recall not only the Bangladesh disaster, but that this time last year we deplored delays and mistakes in sending aid to the island of Montserrat after the volcanic eruption there. I agree with the right hon. Lady that debt relief is essential in the medium term but of no use in the short term. However, will she explain why it has taken two weeks to send aid to central America? Will the review of her Department's disaster preparedness, which was promised after Montserrat, take place? Will she ensure that the aid going to central America is not just swift but appropriate?
Clare Short: I do not share the hon. Lady's sense of deja vu. In fact, the contrast between Bangladesh and
26
central America is very sharp. Half of Bangladesh was devastated. The loss of life was tiny, and the immediate recovery massive, because the people of Bangladesh have made arrangements to deal with such disasters. We cannot stop nature, except perhaps through environmental programmes, planting trees and so forth. However, we can be well prepared to prevent loss of life. In Belize, people were warned about the hurricane and were moved. Property was lost, but not people. Sadly, those arrangements are not in place in central America, and, after this disaster, we must ensure that they are.
Therefore, it is a case not of deja vu but of learning the lessons of progress. Our Government have been a leading force in the international effort to move rapidly everywhere—whether or not the cameras are there. Progress is being made, but we need more progress in central America. Montserrat is a different case. It was a complete mess under the previous Administration, and it is properly organised now.
It is not true to say that aid took two weeks to start. As the statement makes clear, HMS Sheffield was in the vicinity, but hon. Members must understand that, when mud slides down a hill, the international community is not there. Organisations have to be in the country to act quickly. That is why the Red Cross is undertaking an international training programme throughout the world—so that every country will have that sort of capacity.
We must go in quickly with food supplies and measures to bolster the health service and so forth. Through the World Health Organisation, we have been working with the Pan American Health Organisation so that we have the regional capacity to move quickly, and that organisation did move quickly—it was in before two weeks. Aid is not as good as it should be, but some of our efforts to strengthen capacity in the region came into effect because the Pan American Health Organisation was able to move quickly.
Ms Joan Walley: I warmly welcome all that my right hon. Friend is doing in her Department and with other Departments to deal speedily with the situation. Is there more scope for the Royal Air Force to assist in the immediate aftermath of the disaster? Also, when we are in a position to take stock of what needs to be done in future, will we consider the role of environmental degradation when deciding how to prevent such disasters in the first place? Can Government Departments also work together on that matter so that, as far as possible, we can try to prevent further disasters being caused by, for example, global warming and environmental degradation?
Clare Short: First, it is not sensible to ask military forces from all over the world to fly into a small country to deal with a crisis. It is sensible for them to do so if they are in the vicinity. We had three ships nearby which could move in quickly with helicopters when they were needed. It is unlikely that armed forces brought in from a long way away could do as well as existing local people, who know their country best, in rebuilding bridges and so forth.
I agree with my hon. Friend's second point. Today, I met my chief natural resources adviser, who arrived in Birmingham by train just as I was about to leave, and we had a similar conversation. We must consider such factors

27
more deeply. He told me that the disaster was partly due to the backwash of El Niño, but there is little doubt that deforestation has contributed. However, it is not a simple matter and I have arranged a meeting with our natural resource advisers after which we will make available the best advice. Obviously, if environmental factors are leading to the increase in the number of disasters, reconstruction must take that into account.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Surely the Secretary of State is right about the debt question, which could not have contributed given the emergency that the people of Nicaragua and Honduras were facing. Debt relief is a long-term process, although I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees that we need to speed up the processes of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative and ensure that it is more quickly available where it is required for redevelopment.
What is the position in Belize? I agree that it was more prepared because a new capital has been built, but what sort of condition is it in? Furthermore, does she agree that the United States has primary responsibility for the area? What efforts is that country making?
Clare Short: I agree about debt, and I know that members of the Select Committee on International Development understand the questions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trying to speed up the implementation of the HIPC initiative. We will need to press for similar flexibility for post-conflict countries, which would not normally have the track record to qualify for debt relief, and I think that we can achieve that.
I do not know much about Belize, because it has coped so well. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Caribbean is prone to disasters, but the area has enormous preparedness, with much good local organisation—for example, knowing where to put housing and with what materials to build—with the result that lives are rarely lost and the countries can quickly reconstruct. HMS Sheffield was there to help; that is why it was in the region. I understand that Belize, like Bangladesh, has coped very well.
The hon. Gentleman talked about US responsibility. I agree that we need an international system that can move everywhere. We should all be able to move in our regions because that is how we can move quickly. It is the American region that is involved, but we have our part to play. We have committed a £6 million development programme to Central America. The programme is not so much a bilateral programme with Britain as one that works with multilateral agencies to assist development. We are refocusing it to assist reconstruction. We will make our contribution, but the region should make the biggest one.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Liverpool school of tropical medicine is already working to combat disease in Honduras and Nicaragua and received this morning a report directly from its associates in Honduras describing the devastation there and warning of fears of a cholera epidemic? Will she support all possible measures to enable the school to continue its excellent work in
28
combating disease in Honduras? Does she regard that as a contribution to its centenary celebrations, which are taking place this week?
Clare Short: My hon. Friend knows that I have visited the Liverpool school of tropical medicine. My chief health adviser, who was recently headhunted by the World Health Organisation to head its worldwide roll back malaria campaign—a tribute to Britain—came from the school. The Department works closely with the school and has enormous respect for its work, as do I. However, in the middle of a disaster, one does not get the best medical school in the world to rush into Honduras. We must strengthen local capacity. We have been working with the Pan American Health Organisation to get immediate support in. The school may be able to give long-term advice and help but the old system of flying in experts from all over the world was too slow and created chaos. We are building on regional structures to get the immediate response that is needed.
Mr. William Cash: The Secretary of State said that she thought that an all-party approach to such questions would be a good idea. Does she accept that there is an all-party committee on third-world debt, of which I happen to be chairman, with well over 150 members? Only recently, I tabled an early-day motion on third-world debt that 320 hon. Members, including many Labour Members, signed. I would not be surprised if she was one. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is possible, and certainly not irrelevant, to adopt a twin-track approach? We need proper immediate relief to deal with this horrific tragedy but we also need to engage in a serious attempt to tackle world debt as it applies to countries concerned. Should she not consider whether there should be a moratorium on interest alone, which, for Honduras, would, I understand, amount to only £173 million, whereas a moratorium on the debt itself would involve about £564 million? Will she explain the position and take the necessary steps to deal with both debt relief and the immediate disasters? If she does not, she is liable to become irrelevant herself.
Clare Short: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's last remark was a bit silly, but I know that he takes a particular interest in east Africa, and I am aware of the work of the committee. I guess that so many hon. Members signed the early-day motion because there is so much public activity on debt. It is an example of democracy working: the public care about debt, so MPs start signing early-day motions.
I extend the offer of a seminar on debt to the all-party committee because the public campaigning means that many people think that debt relief is a magic bullet—that if we could only get debt written off, everything would be okay. That it is not true. It is no good pretending that there is a magic bullet. Debt relief is crucial to serious programmes for development and poverty eradication, but it cannot do everything on its own—it goes alongside other activities. I made it clear in my original answer that action on debt relief post-crisis needs to be taken to assist reconstruction. There is no doubt about that, and it is what the initiative undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and me is all about.
May I just point out that this is all media-driven, and driven by people who do not understand debt? The British people call for a moratorium on payments, but the

29
commitment of the IMF, the World bank and export credit departments across the world is needed, so it is not in our power to deliver such a moratorium. It is in our power to work with our partner countries and with the World Bank and the IMF and to use our influence to achieve the proper flexibility that Nicaragua now needs. Pre-crisis, Nicaragua would have qualified for, and Honduras would not have needed, debt relief. Now, sadly, Honduras almost certainly will need it, and we will work for that. However, it is not in the Government's power to call for a moratorium. There has to be international co-operation if we want to help those countries.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour Government in 1979 spent 0.52 per cent. of gross domestic product on aid and development, whereas the Conservatives halved that expenditure to less than 0.26 per cent. of GDP? Is it not welcome that the present Government are increasing our aid budget, thereby making more resources available for Central America and elsewhere? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people working within the voluntary sector for non-governmental organisations, Churches and other bodies are delighted by her work to change the focus of aid and development, which contrasts with the Conservatives' hypocrisy?
Clare Short: As my hon. Friend and everybody else knows, the Tory Treasury team is calling for cuts in public expenditure, saying that we have dangerously increased public spending; yet each individual shadow Minister for a spending Department is calling for more spending. That is the Tories for you, Madam Speaker—not serious at all.
I am proud to be a member of a Government who have kept their word on increasing our commitment to development, strengthening my Department, and reversing the long decline in spending of the Conservative years. However, spend alone is not enough; what matters is how effectively the money is spent. We are driving the system, both in our own country and internationally, to turn to measuring outputs, such as reduction in poverty, children not dying and being educated, and the provision of health care. Only in that way will we achieve really efficient development.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Through the Select Committee, I have just had the opportunity of visiting the World bank and the IMF. The message that came out more clearly than any other was that countries whose Governments are pursuing the right policies and have the capacity to deliver make by far the best recipients of aid. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, while giving aid directly—and sensibly—to the NGOs working in the affected countries, she is making every effort to ensure that the Governments of those countries feel empowered by the policies pursued, not sidelined by direct intervention?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The evidence is now clear: even though the Governments concerned agree because they need the money, reform programmes imposed on reluctant Governments by donors, the IMF or the World bank tend to fail and slip. Only when the local Government want reform, and donors and the World bank get behind them, do we see real and measurable progress on development. We are reorienting
30
all our programmes to get behind Governments who are really serious about poverty eradication. Badly governed people need solidarity to build their civil society and we try to help, but that is not long-term development.
In central America—although, in the immediate crisis, reaching out to NGOs and anyone who is on the ground and can act to get food and health care through is the right thing to do in the short term—we have consulted the Governments of the region about how to work together on development. Now we have to focus on reconstruction, and, if we can get agreement on sensible strong programmes, we can get behind the Governments and get the World bank behind them as well. The sort of pessimistic talk that we have been hearing about 30 years being lost need not be true. If the Governments agree to strong and sensible programmes, we will back them. That is how to achieve considerable progress.
Mr. John Wilkinson: While expressing real appreciation for the expert efforts of Royal Navy personnel and British NGO personnel in particular, may I ask the Secretary of State to look to the longer term and talk to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry so as to ensure that the British Government tries to persuade the European Union to adapt its trade policies—perhaps starting with the banana regime—to facilitate exports from central and Latin America to Europe, so that the countries can regenerate their economies more effectively?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that developing countries need trade opportunities, and we take that seriously. We worked hard during our EU presidency on the mandate for the renegotiation of the Lomé convention and to give good access to the European market not only to the least developed countries but to developing countries so that they can build up their economies through trade and exports. We are also working with the United Nations conference on trade and development to provide developing countries with training capacity on their trade rights so that they can exercise them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that organising trade access and making sure that developing countries have the capacity to take up those opportunities is crucial to their sustained long-term development.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Lady said that HMS Sheffield was moored off Belize on what sounded like a DFID matter rather than an MOD matter, and I should be grateful if she clarified that.
More important, the right hon. Lady announced £486,000 of grants from her Department to NGOs. The Ministry of Defence will be faced with substantial expense in marginal costs from HMS Ocean and its associated fleet auxiliary, which has had to steam to the area. If those ships are to give effective aid, they must use their own supplies, aircraft fuel and spares. Will that be a charge to the MOD or to her Department, or does a mechanism exist to enable those MOD assets to be used as effectively as possible in the pursuit of development objectives?
Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman knows, HMS Sheffield is the West Indies guard ship and was therefore in the vicinity. It moved to Belize immediately because that country was devastated in the way that I

31
described, although there was no loss of life. Later, when the crisis hit central America, HMS Sheffield had done its basic work in Belize and asked where else in the region it was needed. We asked locally, and the ship was wanted because it has helicopters, engineers and staff with medical skills that could be put to work immediately.
The other two ships were also, coincidentally, in the region, rather than having gone there specifically for the crisis. They offered their services and again we checked because it is no good if ships just turn up. We told the locals what was available and the ships were asked to come in since helicopters, in particular, are needed because all the bridges are broken.
I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Defence is bearing the costs. The additional cost to the Ministry is small because all the ships were already there, but it is not asking my Department to pay anything. That is important because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, military costs are high and, whenever we are offered military assistance, the costs tend to be prohibitive compared with other forms of assistance. We like collaborating with the MOD and are doing so more, but in this case it volunteered to provide the services without charge to my Department.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On the deployment of HMS Ocean and RFA Sir Tristram, the right hon. Lady will be aware that after Hurricane Mitch struck, there were immediate pleas for manpower assistance. HMS Ocean was, as she said, in the area coincidentally. On board HMS Ocean, RFA Sir Tristram and associated ships are more than 1,000 men of 45 Commando Royal Marines who have amphibious capability—the capability to land quickly. When the right hon. Lady said that HMS Ocean would be involved in search and rescue exercises, she made no
32
mention of 45 Commando. What measures can 45 Commando take to assist and why were they not taken two weeks ago when that plea was first made?
Clare Short: Everyone always looks for a fault. The ships offered their services only in the past few days. We now have—I am proud to say, because Britain helped to build it—an international system that is capable of checking whether the resources on offer will be of any help. HMS Sheffield offered help first, and we immediately communicated that locally. The ship was wanted because the helicopters and engineering and medical skills would be enormously helpful. In addition, the crew had been doing similar work in Belize so they had great knowledge and skill.
The other two ships offered help later. The request then came to my Department and we communicated with the UN agencies locally. Helicopters in particular were wanted. I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about 45 Commando, but I can find out for him. I have checked and the two latest ships are providing reconnaissance and helicopters. I shall find out more details for the hon. Gentleman. What I have described is efficient operation rather than sending everything that moves into the area and causing chaos. The best way to deal with such crises is to provide systematic and co-ordinated assistance.

Central America (Hurricane Mitch)

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Competition Act 1998

  Human Rights Act 1998

National Health Service (Winter Resources)
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): This time last year, the Government announced that we had been able to find an extra £300 million to help the national health service to cope with winter pressures. Staff and managers had worked up proposals for all sorts of local schemes to help avoid a winter crisis. The extra money made it possible for them to do what they had planned—and it was a brilliant success. Some £80 million went on the general practitioner drugs bill, but the rest financed almost 1,500 local schemes ranging from grants for extra meals on wheels in Nottinghamshire, to a special respiratory services team in Cheshire to prevent unnecessary admissions, to a joint health authority/local authority rapid response service for elderly people in Bury and Rochdale.
This year, the NHS, local social services departments and the voluntary sector are better prepared for effective joint working than ever before. As a result of conditions that I placed on the special transitional grant, councils are already investing more in order to help prevent people who do not need hospital care from being left in hospital, or people who do not need institutional social care from being placed in residential or nursing homes. This winter, for the first time, we are making flu vaccine available free to everyone over 75, as well as to the usual at-risk groups and key workers.
Last Tuesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that we would find a further £250 million to help the national health service and social services to cope this coming winter. The English share of that total is £209 million, and I can announce today that the first £159 million will be allocated to health authorities in line with the general allocations to the NHS. The money can be spent only on special arrangements to deal with emergencies, on avoiding people becoming emergency cases in the first place and on enabling patients to get back to their own beds as soon as they can safely do so. The schemes will involve long-term arrangements to improve the speed and quality of treatment and care not just this winter, but for the future. This money will go on arrangements that must stand the test of time.
The remaining £50 million will be held back and used to deal with particular local difficulties and bottlenecks. The regional offices of the NHS and the social services inspectorate have already identified a number of places where there are hold-ups in providing safe discharges from acute hospital beds, particularly for frail elderly patients. The new money will be released to fund schemes that can demonstrate that the money will be well spent. It will not be used to bail out poor performance.
Last year, we had inherited the longest and fastest rising waiting lists in the history of the NHS; so, when we provided extra funds for last winter, I acknowledged that I was asking the national health service to concentrate on winter pressures and I took responsibility—personal responsibility—in advance if waiting lists continued to rise. Rise they did, but they are not rising any more. They fell in May, in June, July and August, and today I can announce to the House that, in September, waiting lists fell by another 29,000. That is the largest monthly fall yet recorded, and it means that hospital waiting lists have fallen by 99,000 since they reached their peak in April.
34
That is because, providing they have the necessary resources, the dedicated people who work in the health service can deliver the treatment and care that the people of our country want. That is what they showed last winter when they made such good use of the extra £300 million the Government provided, and that is what the million people working in the health service are doing now with the extra £500 million that the Government provided this year to bring down the waiting lists.
The extra £250 million for this winter and the extra £500 million for waiting lists was on top of the additional £1,200 million that the Chancellor had already provided for the NHS in his first Budget, so the extra investment that the Labour Government have put into the national health service this year amounts to almost £2,000 million—£2 billion—more than the Tory Government planned to spend.
And what good use the NHS is making of the extra funds. In the first six months of this year, it treated 195,000 more waiting list cases than in the first six months of last year. It also treated 52,000 more emergency cases. It has therefore treated almost a quarter of a million more people—waiting list cases and emergencies. Not only are waiting lists coming down, but waiting times are improving. Since June 1998, the number of people waiting more than a year has fallen by 9,000–13 per cent. Yet again, today's figures show that no one was waiting more than 18 months for treatment. During the same six-month period, the number of out-patients treated has also risen, by 67,000.
Unless the weather is exceptionally harsh, or there is a major 'flu epidemic, the NHS can face this winter with confidence. That is because the NHS is better organised than before, and now has extra funds for both waiting lists and emergencies. That is because the Government are keeping their promise to modernise and reform the NHS. That, in turn, is possible because of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's prudent control of public spending. That has made it possible to provide extra money for the NHS while keeping overall public spending within the limits that we promised and at the same time reducing Government borrowing from the profligate levels that we inherited from the previous Government.
Those careful policies will continue. That is why the Government have been able to find an extra £21 billion for investment in the NHS over the coming three years—the biggest boost that the health service has ever received. That is why today I can say to the NHS that the extra money available next year will include £320 million extra for waiting lists alone. This is no time for complacency.
That is how we keep our promise to bring waiting lists 100,000 below the level that we inherited. Just as important, we shall modernise the NHS by investing in new hospitals, new plant and equipment. We have started the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the health service. New hospitals are already being built for Gravesham and Dartford, Norfolk and Norwich, Carlisle, Calderdale, Durham, South Manchester, Sheffield, High Wycombe, Amersham, and Greenwich, and 21 more are planned. We owe it to the excellent staff of the health service to provide them with buildings, plant and equipment that match their excellence.
As part of the modernisation, which will improve the way in which the NHS deals with both emergency and waiting list cases, we are introducing NHS Direct,

35
a 24-hour nurse-led helpline, which will cover 20 million people by the end of next year. Next year, we are investing in the modernisation of as many as one quarter of all accident and emergency departments. The NHS is starting to make the change to booked admissions, which will allow people to make hospital appointments that suit them. We are starting to invest £1 billion in an information technology system, which will be good for patients and help staff do their jobs more quickly, better and more easily.
As the Prime Minister announced in October, we have decided that the national lottery new opportunities fund should contribute to our new drive against cancer, with tens of millions of pounds extra for new linear accelerators, breast screening equipment, scanners and hospices. Replacing old machines that break down with state-of-the-art equipment will be good for patients and staff, ending delays, cancellations, frustrations and uncertainties—better for dealing with waiting lists and emergency cases.
The extra £250 million investment for the winter, on top of the extra £1,700 million that we have already committed, should help the NHS ensure that it copes with emergencies and delivers on cutting waiting lists. I congratulate the staff on what they have achieved, and look forward to their making even better use of the extra funds this winter and in the next three years. That will be possible only because this Government give top priority to the health service, and stick to their promises.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Although the Opposition welcome any measures to reduce the impact of the winter crisis, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would provide clarification on a number of points.
Last year, an extra £300 million was put into the winter crisis. Can the Secretary of State explain his rationale in making less available this year, when we are unlikely to be so fortunate as to have so mild a winter for two years running?
Has the right hon. Gentleman made an assessment of the number of extra nurses that will be necessary, and can he say where they will come from?
What impact will attention to the winter crisis have on the waiting lists? As a result of action last year, the Secretary of State had to make a somewhat embarrassing apology for a sharp rise in the lists. He excused that on the grounds of attending to the winter crisis. Given that he is putting in less money this year, what is his assessment of the impact of any winter crisis on the lists?
In the context of the lists, and in order to enable the House to have the fullest possible picture of any such impact, when will the Secretary of State fulfil his promise to publish the waiting lists for the waiting lists? Will he assure the House that the falls in the lists that he is announcing represent patients actually treated? Will he confirm the Prime Minister's statement that patients are not being removed from waiting list statistics without receiving the treatment for which they were put on the lists? How would he or the Prime Minister explain the removal from the monthly returns of patients in Bradford, who were put on a supplementary list but had not yet been treated?
36
The right hon. Gentleman has made a virtue of announcing to the House today a fall in the waiting lists. Most of us will already have learnt about it from the morning media.
Will the money given to social services from the allocation be wholly additional to the rate support grant settlement, or will it result in adjustments?
Will the Secretary of State give the House a guarantee that no dogmatic barriers will be raised to the appropriate use of the private sector in relieving the winter crisis? Can he confirm that the private sector has already played a significant role in reducing the number of long-term waiters?
Are not the measures announced today a little late? Last year, preparations for coping with the winter crisis had already commenced by September.
In his statement, the Secretary of State made a recycled announcement that he had increased spending on the NHS by £21 billion. Does he agree that, calculated on that basis, he would have had to produce at least £19 billion just to keep pace with our average year-on-year real increases and with inflation, but that, from that extra money, he must do what we did not have to do: he must fund the minimum wage, the working time directive, measures to counteract the millennium bug, and the setting up of primary care groups? Will he confirm that, far from being unprecedented, as he implied, his increase in spending is less than our increases in spending between 1991 and 1994?
We notice the right hon. Gentleman's U-turn on lottery funding. Did not his party in opposition argue against the use of lottery money for expenditure traditionally funded from general taxation? He did not dissociate himself from that argument at the time, as I remember; presumably he is dissociating himself from it now.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that waiting lists are still higher than those that he inherited from us? How many of the hospitals that he proudly listed today are private finance initiative projects for which negotiations were well advanced under the previous Government? Finally, is he aware that, according to opinion poll after opinion poll, the general public are dissatisfied with the way in which this Government are delivering their promises on the NHS? After today's complacent recycling of old and manipulated statistics, is he surprised?
Mr. Dobson: No, I am not surprised at all about what the right hon. Lady has been saying. It is clear that she prepared her response before she had received a copy of my statement.
Miss Widdecombe: No. Most of it was done after we got it; it is the right hon. Gentleman's sums which are wrong.
Mr. Dobson: If that is the position, the right hon. Lady needs to improve her mental arithmetic. Last year we found £300 million, £80 million of which we acknowledged was going on the general practitioners' drugs bill. This year we are finding £250 million, none of which is going on the GPs' drugs bill. All of it is going on the identified schemes that I have talked about, so that is an increase. It is a decrease to the Tories, but it is an increase to everybody else.

37
What is the impact on waiting lists? I made it clear last year—I have never tried to shuffle out of responsibility for anything that I have done in my life—that there would be money available only to avoid a winter crisis, and that no extra money would be available to help reduce waiting lists, because the feckless ruinous Government who had preceded us had not provided that money. This year, we have provided £1.2 billion in the Budget, and an additional £500 million for waiting lists. We are now providing £250 million, which is earmarked for the winter. That is the best part of £2 billion more than the previous Government intended to spend.
The number of people who are being treated is increasing. I should point out to those who think that we are great statistical fiddlers like the Tory party that the new measure of the number of people treated in the health service counts fewer people than did its predecessor, because we are saying that we shall count people who have a spell in hospital. Under the previous system, with the previous Government, if somebody was seen by three different consultants in hospital, that counted as being treated three times. We have got away from that stupidity, as well.
The right hon. Lady raised the question of the ridiculous article in The Express on Sunday the Sunday before last about Bradford. She seems to think that, if someone has a broken arm and has a metal plate or pin put into it, he or she should be regarded as having to wait 12 or 18 months for treatment before the doctor who has inserted it decides that it is safe to remove it. Such people have never been included in waiting lists. It is as daft as suggesting that a woman who discovers today that she is pregnant should be on a waiting list for nine months in the figures that the Tories have come up with.
Information in the news media this morning was published by the Government statistical service, because it has to take responsibility for the figures. Every penny of the money to which I have referred will be additional to the funds that social services departments have already received. As for the £21 billion, the average increase in spending on the national health service over the next three years will be at least 4.7 per cent. Under the Tories, it averaged 3.1 per cent., and only if they included the last year of the previous Labour Government.
We are having to put money into dealing with the millennium bug. It would not have been a bad idea if the Tories had noticed that the year 2000 was approaching before they left office in 1997. There are not many fixed points in this world but the onset of the year 2000 was fairly clearly predictable. Yes, we shall put lottery money into dealing with cancer. I am sure that most people prefer that to giving even more money to the Churchill family.
Yes, some of the hospital schemes are private finance initiatives. They are going ahead only because we sorted out the shambles that we inherited from the previous Government. Again, the feckless, ruin of a Government whom we succeeded left us in the position in which we needed to change the law to enable PFIs to go ahead, which was why even the Opposition nodded through the first Bill that passed through this Parliament.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: People who work in the health service will praise the provision of this extra £250 million. Will my right hon. Friend accept the good wishes of the chairman and chief executive of Nottingham
38
health authority, whom I met last Friday and who spoke warmly about the extra money for the winter and for waiting list reductions? When he allocates the extra £21 billion, will he ensure that health authorities such as Nottingham, that are presently underfunded against capitation, are set a target, so that there can be fairness across the country?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his thanks. We are trying to establish an allocation system that is fair to everyone. Increasing resources by £21 billion makes it easier to be fair. In the first part of the allocation of the extra winter resources, Trent region will get more than £16 million. If it does as it did last year, I am sure that it will make very good use of those extra resources.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Liberal Democrats welcome any reduction in waiting times for treatment by the national health service, and any increase in resources given by the Government. I join the Secretary of State in paying the greatest tribute to those who work in the NHS. Since the Government came to office, has there been any increase in the number of people working for the health service? Have vacancies been filled? Have the people who have left come back? Are the numbers employed going up?
Why is it that, after seeing their doctor, people are being told—as in this letter from South Devon Healthcare to a woman awaiting treatment—that they cannot be put on the waiting list, and are being put on a pending list? They will not go on the waiting list until later, so they are not being counted in the figures for the time being.
When will we have the figures, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) requested, for the waiting times between seeing the doctor and being treated by the specialist? I refer to the total waiting time, rather than the second half of the waiting time.
Is it the summit of the Government's ambition that, two years after they came to office, the waiting lists and waiting times are still the same as they were when they inherited them from the Tories, and that, at the end of the Parliament, there will be only one in 11 people fewer on the waiting list than there were at the beginning of their five-year term?
Mr. Dobson: That is not the summit of our ambition. The summit of our ambition is to have a national health service that does everything that the people of this country want it to do, and does it as cost-effectively as it does now. We want a health service that is much more proactive: we want it to identify each year the people who need a hip joint replacement, rather than insist, as it has for years, that they walk around limping, lame and in pain before anyone does anything about it. We want to modernise the NHS, and we must get rid of the waiting lists before we can do that. We want a national health service that has smart buildings and brilliant, up-to-date equipment, and matches the excellence of the staff.
As for the number of staff, there are more in some categories and fewer in others. I am sure that the balance will be away from people working in offices and towards people doing things directly for patients.

39
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to a pending list. If he can identify where there is such a thing as a pending list, I will put a stop to it.
Mr. Hughes rose—
Mr. Dobson: If he is saying that people must wait to attend out-patients, and that is what he calls a pending list, that list has been pending since before 1948.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: For 18 years, the Conservatives consistently sought not only to undermine and destroy the organisation of the national health service, but often to do so in the guise of efficiency? They made changes that were supposed to be for the benefit of patients. My right hon. Friend's announcement shows that he is the first Secretary of State who is really committed to the interests of the people of this country.
Will my right hon. Friend please take account of the fact that, although these initiatives are important, others need to be considered at the same time? Will he keep a close eye on the provision of nurses, so that district general hospitals such as the one in my constituency, that have been forced to close some wards owing to lack of adequate staff, will not face that problem in the coming winter?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for her compliments. Everyone likes compliments, and I hope that we will be able to conduct our side of running the health service in such a way that she will be able to congratulate us on being able to train and recruit the nurses we need. We have difficulties, and roughly 140,000 trained nurses—people who are qualified to nurse—are not in nursing. In case anyone on the Opposition Benches starts glorying in that, those people have not all gone out of the health service since we got into government. The vast bulk left over a long period.
Nursing has been made far less attractive. I believe that some aspects of Project 2000 turned away from nursing a group of young people who might otherwise have been attracted to it. I also believe that such things as getting rid of nurses' homes have been harmful to the recruitment and retention of nurses, especially in the big conurbations. Pay has certainly been a deterrent, and we hope that we can do something about that.
Mr. Christopher Chope: If everything is as rosy as the Secretary of State would like us to believe, will he guarantee that no patient in the NHS will suffer as a result of the millennium bug?
Mr. Dobson: Only an idiot would do that. Whatever else I am, I am not going to do that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, over the past 18 months, it has been a pleasure to hear him deliver statements in the Chamber? We do not shiver and shudder, and think, "What the hell is he going to say?" Generally, he has come along to tell us that he is trying to repair the crisis in the national health service that the Labour Government inherited.
40
It is fanciful that, last week, those on the Tory Front Bench were saying that we are spending too much money. Of course, last week was all about the economy. This week, the Tory Front Bencher who was dancing on the stage at the Tory party conference tells my right hon. Friend that he is not spending enough money. We can manage without that kind of hypocrisy, and the hypocrisy of Liberal Democrat Members, who wanted to spend only an extra penny on the national health service.
May I make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend? He has already referred—
Dr. Evan Harris: What about the private finance initiative?
Mr. Skinner: That has upset him, hasn't it?
My right hon. Friend has said that he will have something decent to say about pay. Make no mistake this time: the nurses must get a better-than-the-cost-of-living increase, and it must be paid at one fell swoop.
Mr. Dobson: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his welcome for what I have been saying up to now. I hope that he will be able to welcome all future statements that I make, including ones about the pay of people in the national health service.
My hon. Friend is right. As I heard it, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that she welcomed these measures. I am not sure whether she does or does not welcome spending £21 billion extra on the national health service; she seems to, but I do not know whether she has ever cleared that with the shadow Chancellor, whoever he may be at any particular time. As for the Liberal party, as I have said before, it is about the only party that has turned the words "I want to spend a penny" into a political slogan.
Mr. Edward Leigh: A recent study has shown that, as well as cutting waiting lists, a small hospital such as Gainsborough is capable of delivering minor surgery more cheaply than a district general hospital such as Lincoln. I would not expect the Secretary of State to comment on that instance, but will he articulate a general principle—which would be helpful in the Lincolnshire context, where minor surgery has been taken from smaller to larger hospitals—that he wants to encourage surgery to be kept close to the people?
Mr. Dobson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on trying to ensure that the service is nearest to the people who need it—but it must be top-quality and safe. From time to time, people who are better qualified than I to adjudicate on such matters will decide that a certain service needs to be of a particular size before it is completely safe and sound for local people. I have sympathy with the wish to retain as many local hospitals as can be reconciled with that requirement, especially as changes in information technology over the next few years will—probably—make it more possible to deliver top-quality services closer to people's homes.
At the moment, we face a dilemma: pressure—sometimes, there is a reasonable reason—to close a hospital or reduce its capacity. I want to avoid that as much as possible, so that, in five years' time, we do not find ourselves wishing that we had not taken such action.

41
Pressures remain; on occasion, major specialisations will have to be in major specialist centres—including cancer and cardiac treatment. Fairly recently, we introduced a large regional concentration of children's intensive care, because it makes sense to do so. Such concentration is better for the children who need such care than trying to spread it about, resulting in places without necessary expertise. In that, like everything else in this world, there are gains and losses. We live in a world of dilemmas.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I express my appreciation of my right hon. Friend's allocation of additional money, especially to social services? Social services in my area are some of the least financed under the standard spending assessment. The suggested increase will therefore be most welcome to Wakefield district council.
Will my right hon. Friend take note of consultation in Wakefield on the question of new hospital provision? Although my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has helped to try to explain the situation to people in Wakefield every time that we have requested him to do so, we must have assurances from the Secretary of State that the consultation will be meaningful, and that the result will benefit all people in the Wakefield health authority area. Any assistance that my right hon. Friend can give will be appreciated.
Mr. Dobson: The allocation that I have announced today will mean that the Northern and Yorkshire regions will get about £21 million extra for the winter. I hope that that will help my hon. Friend's area as well as any other. As he knows, I recently met people from the Wakefield area. I have said that I want Wakefield health authority to prepare a statement that spells out all the facts, check the impact of any such facts, and reach an agreed position with surrounding health authorities. Once I have such a statement, my hon. Friend and all others who represent Wakefield and the neighbouring areas that might be affected by what is proposed in Wakefield will be supplied with it. At the moment, the consultation does not seem to be carrying much conviction with many people in the area.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the sort of initiatives on the treatment of cancer that he has described would normally in the past have been paid for out of taxation?
Fiona Mactaggart: They would not have been paid for at all—that is the problem.
Mr. Dobson: Exactly; my hon. Friend gives a plain answer. We are finding an extra £21 billion over the next three years for the health service. Our ambitions to improve cancer identification, treatment and care run beyond even the £21 billion. We shall therefore be receiving money from the national lottery to augment the provision, and to provide what would otherwise have not been provided. If the Tories want to oppose that, and say that the priority should be to put money in the pockets of the Churchill family rather than towards treating cancer, it is entirely up to them.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that public opinion showed long ago that people
42
wanted resources from the lottery to be used to speed up research into cancer? Additional resources are needed in that area. The public want and fully support the idea. Will he also confirm that East Lancashire health authority, representatives of which he met on Friday, welcomes the fact that the Government are consistently making good news announcements on the health service, enabling it to plan ahead and not keep having to take steps backwards?
Mr. Dobson: I can certainly confirm that, although I should add that we are proposing that lottery funds go not just to cancer research but to cancer identification, cancer screening, cancer prevention and cancer treatment, and to people who are dying from cancer in hospices. We are spreading the funds more widely than some have previously suggested. We are announcing good news, but with the money East Lancashire health authority is providing not just good but better treatment and care. That is what people entered the health service to do, and that is why they are glad that we are facilitating it.
Mr. Robert Walter: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) posed a long list of questions, one of which the Secretary of State failed to answer. What portion of the £159 million that will be made available immediately will be spent by social services departments? What conditions will be placed on that money? He has reassured the House that the money announced will have no effect on this year's revenue support grant. What deal has he done with the Treasury on offsetting it against next year's local government settlement?
Mr. Dobson: It will not affect next year's local government settlement, because it has to be spent this year. I do not know at this moment what proportion of the £209 million will ultimately be spent by social services departments, because we have not yet seen all the schemes that will be financed. The conditions will be quite straightforward: any of the money that is spent by local authorities will have to be addressed to provision such as that in, say, Bury and Rochdale, where an emergency services team, which is financed jointly by the health authority and local authorities, provides the elderly with immediate attention and help when they are telephoned by a GP, community services or a hospital.
There is no suggestion that any of last year's money, other than that spent on the GP drugs budget, was used for anything other than such purposes. The record of social services and the NHS making good use of the money last year reflected immense credit on all those concerned. The delivery that they made with that amount of money proved immeasurably useful to me in my discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister on the comprehensive spending review, money for waiting lists and extra money for the winter.
Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. From my rough calculations, it means an additional £4.5 million for Leicestershire health authority, which I am sure even the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) would graciously welcome.
My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to the allocation being in line with general allocations to the NHS. Does he recognise that Leicestershire is one of

43
the areas below its weighted capitation fee? It is also one of the most efficient and effective. Will he describe for my constituents in Loughborough and Leicestershire how the additional money will be allocated to make up the difference in weighted capitation, recognising the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery so far?
Mr. Dobson: The money for the winter will be allocated in line with this year's allocation priorities, so it is fairly easy for people to predict, if they know what percentage of the total they usually get. As I have said, the Trent region will receive a little more than £16 million to share among various authorities in the area. We shall very shortly be announcing the major part of the allocation of funds for next year out of the very large rise in spending on the NHS that has been agreed. I hope that my hon. Friend will be duly pleased with the money that flows into Leicestershire.
Dr. Harris: The extra money is welcome, but does the Secretary of State accept that it would have been more easily and efficiently spent and planned for had it been announced at the outset, rather than following a constant drip feed? After all—in relation to the Secretary of State's remarks to the Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), about the millennium problem—winter follows autumn as surely as the year 2000 will follow 1999. In Oxfordshire, it would have been easier not to make redundant social services staff, who can now be reappointed with the authority's share of the funding.
On the Secretary of State's desk lies a proposal from Oxfordshire health authority to close community hospitals in Oxfordshire, including Abingdon. I know that he cannot deal with that specific matter today, and I look forward to meeting him. However, does he accept that a useful way of spending the £50 million reserve would be to ensure that community hospital beds are kept open to avoid the bottlenecking and logjamming we see in acute hospitals, as efficient community hospitals with near 100 per cent. occupancy—such as in Oxfordshire—are threatened with closure?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman understates the capacity of the national health service to do a good job. In his area—and with about similar notice last year as this year — the health authority opened new high-dependency units at a cost of £300,000, put in place community rehabilitation and care teams which reduced admissions and readmissions, and had a mental health intensive support team for people at home—all of which were funded out of the money that was announced in November. The authority managed to do that, and I am confident that it can do so again. The hon. Gentleman should not belittle the capacity of the NHS and local social services to respond promptly when money is made available.
As for the small hospitals in Oxfordshire, I cannot say today what my decision will be about the future of any or all of them. However, the money is intended to help with winter pressures. If a penny of it is spent on anything else, I will want to know the reason why—even in Oxfordshire.
Fiona Mactaggart: I know that the announcement will be very welcome in my constituency, where I recently had
44
a meeting with the management of Wexham park hospital. Those in management have shown themselves to be able to spend such money efficiently in the past, and they are looking forward to the refurbishment of the accident and emergency unit in the spring.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Conservative party as feckless. The people of Slough feel very bitter that they face a series of cuts in public health services, health visitors and other provision, to pay off the debts run up by Berkshire health authority under the Conservatives, who consistently underfunded our region. We are grateful for the winter help money, but is there anything that my right hon. Friend can do to make sure that Berkshire health authority does not make the people of Slough suffer today for the bad management of yesterday?
Mr. Dobson: When the people of Berkshire and my hon. Friend hear our announcements for allocations for next year, I hope that they will not feel that they must run to make any precipitate decisions on immediate issues. It is worth repeating that the majority of health authorities and trusts—certainly the majority of health authorities—were deeply in debt when we took over from the previous Government: the famous people who claimed to be careful with public money. They were so careful that they were not even paying the NHS's bills.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State has consistently avoided answering questions about ways in which the health service waiting list figures are being manipulated downwards. Perhaps I could bring him back to a specific issue. Is he aware of the widespread and increasing practice of pre-admitting patients, whereby, when the admission is entered on a computer—sometimes six weeks before treatment—the patient is removed from the waiting list? In many cases, treatment may not ultimately take place.
Mr. Dobson: That is not being done on any central instructions from me.
Miss Widdecombe: "It's not me, guv."
Mr. Dobson: No, it is not me, guv. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a useful point—and if he wants something done about the matter—he should send me details, and I will attend to it. However, if he is just getting up and blathering, like his Front-Bench colleagues, he will not get very far.
Ms Joan Walley: The people of the west midlands—and north Staffordshire in particular—will welcome the extra money to deal with winter pressures. However, may I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention an issue raised with him by Members of Parliament from north Staffordshire—our concern about the way in which the health authority is mothballing long-stay beds for the frail and elderly? We do need to modernise and change, but does he agree that we must look carefully at safeguarding those beds—at least in the short term—until alternatives are in place? Will he help us to ensure that we have the facilities we need, including long-stay beds, for the frail and elderly?
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, who was at the Labour party conference, will know that I was able to say at the

45
conference that we are having a thorough-going review of the availability of beds. It has long been the conventional wisdom in the NHS that the number of beds available has no impact on the provision of care. That always seemed to most people to be contrary to common sense.
When I observed that the NHS opened 700 to 800 extra beds to cope with last winter's pressures—and that it had stopped the closure of 1,000 intended bed closures and was reopening about 2,000 beds to help get waiting lists down—it seemed to me that practice within the NHS last winter was getting closer to confirming common sense than it was to confirming conventional wisdom. That is why I am having a thorough-going review, not just of the number, but of the sort, of beds. There is a relationship between acute beds, long-stay beds and mental health beds which we need to get right. In some parts of the country, it is clearly wrong at present.
Mr. John Bercow: Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon, will he confirm that the number of people waiting for more than 12 months for treatment has more than doubled, from 31,000 to 63,000, since his Government took office?
Mr. Dobson: It certainly did, and it is coming down again—by 9,000 since June. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members want to answer the questions as well as ask them, I will let them get on with it.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State spoke of extra funding for special cases and emergencies, as well as for cancer treatment, through the lottery fund. Can I bring to his attention the fact that there are few emergencies more dire than severe burns cases, that the burns and plastics unit at Mount Vernon hospital in my constituency has treated recently some high-profile burns cases—brought in from Luton and Littlehampton in two instances—and that the unit works alongside and complements a cancer centre of international reputation?
46
Can the Secretary of State give my constituents—and those of other local members, such as his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas)—an assurance that the excellent burns and plastics unit will be built up, rather than run down?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman knows that that matter is out for consultation. I am not responsible for the proposals health authorities make—I am responsible only for the decisions I take if their proposals come to me. I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point, because it must be said that I do not always agree with what the people proposing changes suggest.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the Secretary of State look at the matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)? I have two constituents who have received letters from their health authority—from the secretaries of consultants—saying that they cannot yet be put on a waiting list, and have therefore been put on a pending list. That suggests to me that the demand for services clearly outstrips the ability of the health service to supply them. I hope that some of the extra money will be directed to tackling that problem.
Mr. Dobson: I am confident that the extra money for the winter and for tackling waiting lists will mean that the NHS can deal with substantially more patients this winter—from now to the end of the financial year—than it has been able to do in the past. If hon. Members have any information about pending lists, they should send it to me so that I can deal with it. I give them a hint: if they write to me as "Frank Dobson MP" at the House of Commons, the letter will not get lost in the machine. I receive about 50,000 letters a year, and I will give priority to letters from Members of Parliament.

Political Parties (Funding)
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
4.59 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I want first to put on record the Government's appreciation of the work of Lord Neill and his fellow members of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Their report on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom is the fifth to be published by the committee and the first under Lord Neill's chairmanship. The committee has, as in its previous reports, shown considerable wisdom and balance in addressing the issues.
If the integrity of the democratic process is to be upheld, we must ensure that the whole system of party funding and election expenditure is open, transparent and fair. The committee has come forward with a report directed to that end. I am on record as saying that the Government strongly welcome the report; we are committed to legislating on its main findings as soon as possible.
It is worth recalling how we got to the position that we are in. It is no exaggeration to say that public confidence in party funding reached its lowest point in the years of the last Conservative Administration. The party of government raised millions upon millions of pounds every year, yet persistently refused to tell the public where it got it from.
The extent to which the Conservative party relied on the cash of foreign donors to outspend other political parties at elections is clear. Whether the money was a £1 million gift from a Hong Kong business man or £1.5 million from a Greek shipping magnate, the Conservative party's principal concern seemed to be the size of the cheque. The Asil Nadir scandal merely added to the unpleasant whiff that pervaded Conservative party funding.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: As the right hon. Gentleman is making partisan points—he said that the low point in party political funding was under the Conservative Government—will he accept that the low point in the conduct of referendums was under this Government, particularly in the referendum on Wales?
Mr. Straw: I do not accept that for a moment, but I shall be happy to discuss the conduct of referendums when we reach that point in the report.
In January 1995, I submitted the Labour party's evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was then chaired by Lord Nolan. In that evidence, I argued for the Labour party that the committee should be allowed to look into party political funding and recommended a regulatory regime similar in detail to that recommended by Lord Neill last month. The Labour party's proposals included full disclosure of political parties' accounts;
"proscriptions on overseas and large secret donations; limits on election spending at national as well as constituency level; new requirements for shareholder agreement … in respect of donations by companies".
48
The response of the Tory party and the Tory Government to the calls for an inquiry on party funding was to do nothing. Worse, the previous Conservative Administration deliberately blocked the Nolan committee even from considering party funding, the most crucial issue in ensuring high standards in public life. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), repeatedly refused, despite Lord Nolan's views, to refer the issue to him.
The response of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon to Labour calls was typified by his answer to my right hon. Friend who is now Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions a year before the election. Asked whether the issue of party funding should be referred to the committee, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon replied:
"No. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. Party funding has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee".—[Official Report, 21 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 95.]
Some hon. Members will remember that radical Home Affairs Committee report, which was published in March 1994. It recommended that the identity of large donors should remain private and that shareholders should not need to sanction company donations, and it supported foreign donations to political parties.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will confirm, the Committee—unusually for a Select Committee—split precisely along party lines. As the minutes of proceeding show, it divided 5:5 and the Chairman had to use his casting vote. The minority report recommendation for a funding regime similar in scope to that recommended by Lord Neill's committee was rejected by Conservative members of the Committee using the Chairman's casting vote.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I vividly recall that, in 1993, when I first suggested an inquiry, Conservative members of the Committee fell over themselves to prevent one—they did everything they conceivably could to block it. It was only thanks to one renegade Conservative, who is no longer in the House, that we were permitted to consider the issue at all.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has greater knowledge of the Select Committee's internal workings than I do, but his account of that pattern of behaviour is corroborated by some of the evidence that was given to the Committee by none other than the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the shadow Home Secretary, who had then returned to high office as chairman of the Conservative party. On 16 June 1993, the Committee examined him on the Conservative party's memorandum of evidence.
Given the position that the Conservative party is now adopting, the right hon. Gentleman's evidence to the Committee is interesting. He said:
"That individuals choose to give financial support to a political party is, in our view, entirely a matter of private choice. Donors assist the Conservative Party because of their support for its policies. We do not publish details or comments upon the names of donors. That is a matter for donors themselves."
That written evidence was repeated in answer after answer during the right hon. Gentleman's stonewalling performance.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I will give way in a second.

49
The most uncomfortable moment in what was obviously an uncomfortable session for the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was when he was asked about what had happened—or not happened—to Asil Nadir's £440,000 donation. He was reminded that the money had not been declared in the Polly Peck organisation's accounts. He said, and I quote from page 52:
"Again, I should emphasise the point that the last contribution was made in March 1990"—
as though the effluxion of time had made receiving money from a north Cypriot crook all very well. He continued:
"Clearly, that should have been declared. That is a matter for the company and its auditors."
I hope that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will now say why, as I understand it, the Conservative party has not given the money back to the shareholders. More years have gone past since he gave his evidence. Well before the Conservative party accepted the money, there was the clearest possible evidence that Polly Peck was, to say the least, a slightly dodgy organisation.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I will in a second, after I have given way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was reminded of an article in the Daily Mail of 13 July 1981—well before the Conservative party started canvassing for money from Asil Nadir. The reporter went to Famagusta and wrote, of a Polly Peck operation:
"I have never seen a store full of canned fruit guarded by men with machine guns before. I never got to see what was in the wooden crates. I glimpsed inside the warehouse."
Everyone had a fairly good idea about where Asil Nadir's money came from, yet the Conservative party took it, and has not replaced it.
Mr. Hawkins: Does not the Home Secretary feel a twinge of embarrassment about the extent of his humbug, when "the people"—as he and his Front-Bench colleagues say—will remember that he and the Prime Minister referred the issue to the committee to cover their embarrassment over the Ecclestone affair, and when we still know nothing about the blind trusts from which so many of his colleagues, including the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General, have benefited?
Mr. Straw: Even the chronology of events shows that not to be the case.
On blind trusts, it is important for the Conservative party to read its own evidence to the Neill committee. That evidence, quoted on page 240 of the report, says:
"We believe that there is an argument in favour of a form of blind trust that should be examined by the Committee."
There is no point in Conservative Members complaining about blind trusts when their evidence to the committee shows that they support them.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Home Secretary has been speaking for about 10 minutes; he spent one sentence saying that he accepted the committee's main recommendations, without saying which recommendations he did not accept. As the committee's new terms of
50
reference were issued on 12 November 1997, nearly a year ago, would it not be a courtesy to the House and to the committee to discuss the recommendations and consider how we can make progress?
Mr. Straw: Of course I will deal with that, but the background is important. Had the Conservative party not deliberately blocked the Nolan committee from considering the issue of party political funding, all the changes that we and the British public want could have been in place well before the general election and this debate would not have been necessary.
It is worth reminding the public and the House of the climate in which the Conservative party was operating. For my bedtime reading, I am fond of political biography and autobiography. I recommend Lord McAlpine's memoirs, appropriately entitled "Once a Jolly Bagman". On page 229, he gives the definitive statement on why the Conservative party always closed the shutters when it came to any scrutiny of its political accounts. He says:
"Personally, I do not think that we ever should have shown how we spent our money. The Conservative Central Office is not a charity dedicated to helping the sick and suffering,"—
he can say that again—
"it is a fighting machine dedicated to winning elections."
Well, it was. He said that it was
"the height of folly to expose how such a machine manages its resources or, indeed, how large or small these resources are at any one time."
Lord McAlpine came up with a final solution to all the nonsense about scrutiny of the Conservative party's accounts. Lamenting the strain on the party's finances, he says:
"There was a black hole in the Party's finances… The solution was easy: we gave up publishing accounts."
There we have it.
It is worth reminding the public about the serious concern that existed about the relationship between those who were funding the Conservative party and those who held power in it. Lord McAlpine was the party's treasurer. On page 264 of his memoirs, he says:
"Senior officials in Central Office were in the pay of businessmen and promoting their interests, and I felt that the place was out of control… A warning was given to me about a particular businessman, and I passed the message on to two members of the Cabinet who were closely associated with him. Within hours, my words were repeated to this man."
That was the background that we had to face.
Mr. Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, at least as early as 1991, and quite possibly in 1990, the Department of Trade and Industry was investigating Polly Peck? We know from stubs found by the fraud squad that Asil Nadir was signing cheques to the Conservative party's account in Jersey as late as 1990. May there not have been some overlap between the incoming payments and the investigation?
Mr. Straw: I do not know the details as well as my hon. Friend does; no doubt he will make those points when he speaks.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Home Secretary has made an inauspicious start, in contrast with the way in which he handled the debate on electoral

51
change last week. He is being extremely partisan. There is a fundamental difference between contributions to the Conservative party and to the Labour party. The former did not buy a change in Government policy, but contributions to Labour by Bernie Ecclestone did.
Mr. Straw: There has in the past been a fundamental difference between donations to the two parties. The names of donors to the Labour party have been known, and not kept secret.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Home Secretary slipped away from the subject of the Select Committee report before I had a chance to catch his eye, and I want to take him back to it. One of the recommendations was that political parties should not take donations if there was any suggestion of buying policy favours. The Conservative party always accepted that recommendation, but the Labour party never did; we know that it sold policy to the trade unions, but did it do so to any other groups?
Mr. Straw: It is scarcely worth replying to that point. One cannot honestly look back at the history of the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997 without noticing—to put it as delicately as I can—some coincidence between those whom we now know to have been large donors to the party, and some of the interests that seem, coincidentally, to have been favoured. I make no allegation, but I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman makes much reference to the Select Committee report, as it was a pretty disreputable period in the Conservative party's parliamentary history when it used its partisan power on that Committee to block the implementation of recommendations that it now says it will accept. That is why it is so important to put some of the history on the record.
In our manifesto, we promised to
"oblige parties to declare the source of all donations above a minimum figure";
to ban foreign funding of political parties; and to ask the Committee on Standards in Public Life to
"consider how the funding of political parties should be regulated and reformed."
The statement in November last year was by no means the first time that we had mentioned the matter.
We moved swiftly to fulfil the last of those commitments, and in November last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Committee's terms of reference would be extended to enable it to study issues relating to the funding of political parties.
Originally, we intended to legislate in the current Session to deliver the first two of the manifesto commitments—to ban foreign funding and to require disclosure of donations above a minimum threshold—but Lord Neill wrote to me in January asking the Government to defer legislation pending the conclusion of his committee's inquiry, because of concerns about the simultaneous consideration of the issues by both Parliament and the committee.
Lord Neill stressed that his committee was considering not whether the Government's commitments to ban foreign funding and to require disclosure of donations
52
should be fulfilled but how that could best be done. On behalf of the Government, I agreed to Lord Neill's request, while making it clear that we were determined to legislate on the issues.
All three major political parties, along with many others, made submissions to the committee. The Labour party has in fact long operated voluntary rules to disclose the names of donors who give more than £5,000 and to refuse funds from foreign sources. We argued, in our evidence for limits on spending at elections, for an electoral commission to oversee the regulation of party funding, and for rules to ensure that company donations are made only with the proper agreement of shareholders.
All those recommendations were accepted by Lord Neill and his colleagues. The Conservative party's evidence, by contrast, makes interesting reading. As Conservative Members have clearly not read the references to blind trusts, for example, I commend the evidence to them as an example of what happens when a party cannot make up its mind, as two bits of the party appear to have been involved in pasting that evidence together. We shall be told today that the Conservatives are committed to disclosure. I am glad to welcome any converts. However, their evidence, on page 239 of the report, says:
"Although the Conservative Party is committed to disclosure, there is a case to be made against it and we hope that the Committee will give serious consideration to some of the drawbacks, in particular when considering calls for full disclosure of the names and donors and the amounts they give.
We believe that there is a perfectly honourable case to be made for anonymity."
A similar ambiguity is shown throughout their evidence.
Despite all that circumlocution, some parts of the evidence grudgingly repeat the pledge made by the Leader of the Opposition to disclose the names of major donors—a promise first made on 23 July last year. He said:
"We must be open about our funding. In not being so in the past, we have often appeared secretive and defensive.… And so I will instruct our party treasurers that in future years we will list the major donors to the Conservative party alongside our published accounts. But I want to go further than that.… We will publish new guidance later this year, and our intention is that in future years the Conservative party will no longer accept foreign donations."
Given the history of Conservative party funding, those are brave words, but they are hollow. Despite all the bravado of fresh starts and new beginnings, 16 months have passed and my best information is that we have yet to see the list published by the Conservative party. If the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) wants to give us more information, I should be delighted to hear it.
Sir Norman Fowler: I shall readily do so. The names of donors will be in the annual accounts, which will be published in the next few weeks. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the financial year runs to April.
Mr. Straw: It is helpful to have that information. We look forward to receiving the accounts and the names of donors, which I assume will cover April 1997 to April 1998.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am intrigued. I well remember that, when the Tory party was running the country, the country was £50 billion in debt and the party

53
was £19 million in debt. The Tories never managed to solve the problem of the nation's finances, but, miraculously, they solved the problem of the party's finances. They had one treasurer who could not run the country, but another who was scouring about for funds. When they publish their accounts, I want to know where the money came from to put the Tory party finances in the black. We need all the information, not just that for the past year.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right that we need all the information, but I fancy that he will be disappointed. He is also correct to point to the success of men such as Alistair McAlpine, who decided that one of the best ways of dealing with the problems and challenges of Conservative party finances was not to publish any accounts. Things have moved on a little, but not very far.
The report provides a good basis for legislation.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has just given us an undertaking at the Dispatch Box that all donations to the Conservative party will be published. Is there not a danger that, unless that is carefully policed, there will be grouped donations to organisations that then become the registered donor to the party? Will my right hon. Friend press the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for an assurance that that will not happen? Let us have the assurance in the House of Commons.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to be sceptical about the extent of the information that we receive. When the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield gave his evidence in June 1993, he was asked about such river companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asked about the innocent-sounding Northern Industrial Protection Association, which I thought was a private security company, but turned out to be a group of industrialists funding the Conservative party. Many similar organisations were listed. We accept recommendations 18 and 19 about the use of front organisations and the proposal for an electoral commission to police such matters.
The Neill committee has come up with 100 recommendations, centring on the full public disclosure of donations of more than £5,000 nationally and of more than £1,000 for constituencies, and on the banning of foreign funding, together with appropriate enforcement machinery. However, the report rightly does not stop there, but addresses wider issues, including the public funding of political parties, limits on campaign expenditure, tax relief for donations, company donations and the conduct of referendums.
The next step is to turn the report into legislation. We are setting about that straight away. It will not be possible to introduce and carry through a measure of such scope with due attention to getting the framework and the detail right in the next Session of Parliament, but we intend to produce a draft Bill before the next summer recess and to bring forward legislation so that new rules can be in place for the next general election. In the meantime, there is nothing to prevent the political parties from complying on a voluntary basis with those recommendations that can be complied with without legislation. My party has invited
54
the other parties to agree to a scheme under which the amounts of large donations and the names of donors could be made public immediately.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: If there will be no statutory means of policing election expenses by the time of the elections for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, how will the issues be policed or regulated in the meantime?
Mr. Straw: I was coming to that. We are laying down provisions in the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Bill and the European Parliamentary Elections Bill for regulations that cap national spending. There will be other regulations on compliance. They will not be as satisfactory as they would have been had an electoral commission been in place, but they will be sufficient on an interim basis.
Mr. Peter Brooke: The Home Secretary said a moment ago that the Government would accept recommendations 18 and 19, but went on to say that the draft Bill would not be available until the summer. By the time he sits down this evening, will we know which recommendations the Government are not accepting?
Mr. Straw: I want to give an indication of that, although it will not be by numbers.
In his speech later this evening, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) will ask each of the main parties to nominate contacts for my officials to deal with on the detail and to take forward some of the specific recommendations.
It is important to look carefully at the enforcement machinery proposed to ensure that it will work in practice. Other countries' controls on donations and campaign expenditure have turned out to be wanting. We need a scheme that is practical to operate, but is also effective and commands public confidence.
I hope that the whole House shares the Neill committee's concern to avoid what it describes as the arms race in general election spending. Limits have been in place for a century or more on expenditure by individual candidates at a local level in parliamentary and other elections. They are fully accepted as part of our election landscape. They were imposed when there was virtually no national campaigning that was separate from local or constituency campaigning. The electoral law takes no account of the increasing national expenditure by political parties, which is separate from that at a constituency level. That is out of date and anomalous. We are committed to putting national limits on such spending.
Having accepted the need for national limits, the next question is where they should be set. There is no right answer to that question. The limits must be set at a level at which they will have an impact, but plainly, no purpose would be achieved if we set the limits at such a high level that they simply encouraged more spending.
For parliamentary general elections, the Neill committee has proposed £20 million. Lesser figures have been suggested—some more tentatively than others—for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National

55
Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the European Parliament. Certainly, the figures proposed in each case are in the right bracket, and I understand that there is wide acceptance in Scotland and Wales of the proposed specific limits of £1.5 million and £600,000 respectively. We want to hear the views of the public and of political parties before we come to a final view, but we shall ensure that appropriate national limits are in place in time for the Scottish, Welsh and European elections next May and June.
On the form of enforcement machinery, we favour a regulatory body independent of Government and free from party political interference. The Neill committee follows in the footsteps of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, my party and many other organisations in recommending an election commission, and the need for a commission has also recently been endorsed by the Jenkins Commission. We believe that that case is made out, and legislation will provide for an election commission to be established.
Many overseas jurisdictions have an election commission in some form, but there are many models. We need to look closely at how wide the functions of a commission should go. I can tell the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) that we want as far as possible to ensure that there is a consensus between the parties, and that is the purpose of the discussions that are being established.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's acceptance of the valuable election commission, but can he say how the House of Commons, or a Committee of the House, will deal with the commission's expenditures?
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend will recall that the Neill committee proposed that the election commission should be established in a manner that would make it similar to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. In other words, it should be a creature of the House of Commons, not of Ministers. There is every argument in favour of that proposal. It is important to establish the commission's independence of Government, and to ensure that it is properly funded. My right hon. Friend knows better than almost anyone that the NAO is funded from the Consolidated Fund, not from votes for individual Departments. That is an important way in which the NAO's position has been strengthened.
We must consider closely how wide the election commission's functions should go. At a minimum, it will need to ensure compliance with the rules on disclosure of donations, the prohibition on foreign funding and the limits on national campaign expenditure. The Neill committee suggests that it should also have general oversight of the conduct and administration of elections. A number of issues concerning the administration of elections are already being looked at by the electoral procedures working party under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Some people argue that conferring such issues as voter registration. the franchise and electronic voting on any oversight body would divert it from its core regulatory functions, but my instinct is that those issues ought to be involved.
56
There is an argument that all electoral matters should be brought under the umbrella of an election commission. Under this scenario—lwhich is not advanced by the Neill committee—the parliamentary boundary commissions would be merged with the new body. The Neill committee did not favour that, but the Jenkins commission was of the view that an election commission should co-ordinate the work of the four boundary commissions. The matter clearly needs further reflection.
Another key area considered by the Neill committee was state funding. The committee came down squarely against a system of wholesale financial support to political parties from the public purse. I support that conclusion. It would be unhealthy for our democracy if established political parties were financed by a subvention from Government. Such easy money could soon result in parties losing touch with their members and supporters, to the detriment of the whole political process.
While I oppose blanket state funding, well established arrangements are in place for targeted financial support or benefits in kind—such as the free post—to assist candidates and parties at elections and Opposition parties in Parliament. Such targeted support is justified in the interests of a level playing field at elections and of ensuring that opposition parties can effectively perform their Parliamentary duties. The Neill Committee has recommended a number of extensions to targeted financial support. Specifically, it proposed: state funding to enable parties to meet the start-up costs of complying with the disclosure requirements for donations; a policy development fund of up to £ million; and tax relief on donations to political parties of up to £500.
In each case, the Committee has made a well argued case for such financial support, but, no matter how worthy such proposals may be, it falls to the Government and Parliament to consider them against spending priorities as a whole. There may be many people in the country and in the House who would rather see public money spent on further improving our schools and health service than on providing subsidies to political parties. We shall listen carefully to all the points made.
Sir Norman Fowler: We are talking about £2 million or £ million, not massive amounts. Surely the Government can make a better response than that.
Mr. Straw: I am glad to hear that the Conservatives so impartially support the idea of better funding for Opposition parties. I never noticed them do so when they were in government. There is a good case for better funding of Opposition parties, but if the right hon. Gentleman had listened a little more closely, he would know that I included in that bracket the suggestion of tax relief on donations. I have personal reservations about that, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Others may have their own reservations.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I must get on, or I shall take time from hon. Members on both sides who wish to speak.

57
Neill further recommends that the election commission should have a role in relation to referendums. The Committee says that, in any referendum campaign, there must be a fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be put to voters, and that the election commission should allocate core funding to the two sides. Linked with that recommendation is the recommendation that the Government of the day should, as a Government, remain neutral. So far as use of the Government machine is concerned, the Neill committee says, referendum campaigns should be treated as though they were general election campaigns. However, the committee also says clearly that it should be open to the Government of the day to state their view, and that it would be appropriate for members of the Government to campaign vigorously during referendums.
Those are important comments and recommendations, and they need careful attention in the context of future referendums. It is fair to say, with respect, that this is not the clearest section of the Neill committee's report, not least because of the opening chapter. I have taken some personal interest in this matter, not least because I was on the wrong side in the 1975 referendum—although some might say it was the right side in terms of the argument, but the wrong side in terms of the result.
On the one hand, the committee says, as does the Conservative party, that we should follow the rubric of the 1975 referendum campaign. On the other, however, it seems to imply that it is possible to re-create during a referendum campaign—which, by definition, will occur during the active life of a Government—the conditions that must apply at the end of a Government's term when there is a general election.
Mr. John MacGregor: I hope to comment further on this point later if I am called. I agree with the Home Secretary that there was some public misunderstanding of the recommendations on referendums, because of the way in which the summary recommendation was put. However, the key issue is that the committee said that core funding should be equal for both sides. Ministers will of course want to campaign, and in some cases—obviously so in the case of proportional representation—they will campaign on different sides of the argument. The committee said that there should not be core funding from the state for one side of the campaign, and Government funding for that side, too.
Mr. Straw: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. Campaigning should be for political parties and other bodies. The permanent civil service should not be embroiled in the campaign: that would be quite wrong. However, in some circumstances, it may be appropriate—probably in advance of a referendum rather than at it—for the Government of the day to publish a White Paper stating their views. For some referendums—one on the single currency, for example—Ministers would have to continue to have access to official advice during the campaign. If there were turbulence in the markets, or some other serious question arose during the campaign which related to the conduct of monetary or economic policy, it would be wholly unrealistic to cut Ministers off from that advice.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that my right hon. Friend remembers that, in the
58
1975 campaign, in effect, two sides were pushing the yes point of view and one was pushing the no point of view because the Government put out extra information and put an enormous amount of money into the campaign. By all means allow Ministers access to information, but the British people have the right to know that two totally different points of view are being put forward during a referendum campaign, and that does not consist of two thirds pushing one way and one third the other.
Mr. Straw: I accept my hon. Friend's last point, but we must accept the reality that a referendum campaign will be conducted during the active life and not at the end of a Government. During a campaign for a referendum on a single currency, the Government will still have continuing responsibility for the conduct of economic, fiscal and monetary policy; and if there were turbulence in the markets, Ministers would have to have access to official advice. We are talking not about spending money, but about having access to advice to which they would not have access during a general election campaign.
Mr. William Cash: The Home Secretary has made some interesting and useful comments on state funding, but, on the conduct of referendums, does he agree that many people believe that we have already embarked on a campaign on the euro and the single currency? It started recently. Indeed, the Prime Minister told me in an answer to a parliamentary question last week that the Government have spent £3.8 million on radio and television advertising on the euro. Significant sums have already been allocated or disbursed, and further information is to be made available to schools. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is all part and parcel of the movement towards changing public opinion, which will be directly relevant to the referendum? Effectively, the campaign has already started.
Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. Whether we or the hon. Gentleman like it or not, the euro is to be a reality in 12 of the 15 European Union countries from the beginning of next year, and 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, so it would be wrong for the Government not to prepare business for the impact that the euro will inevitably have on British business whether we are members of the single currency or not.
I shall conclude, as many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber want to speak. This brief run-through of the Neill committee report has brought me back to my starting point. The Government are committed to ensuring that our post-war tradition of high standards in politics is maintained and enhanced. The people of this country, who entrust to political parties the running of their local councils and national Government, have the right to expect elected politicians to act for the good of the community as a whole, not for sectional or personal interests that are able to curry favour by secretly peddling large financial donations. The integrity of the political system can be assured only if political parties are open and accountable, not only to their members, but to the country at large. The Neill committee report provides us with a framework for achieving that and I reiterate our strong welcome for the report. We will act quickly to implement its main findings and we will be open to comments and suggestions. We want fair and effective controls in place for the next general election. I commend both the report and the motion to the House.
Sir Norman Fowler: That was not one of the Home Secretary's most impressive speeches. Frankly, he was unconvincing on the referendum question and did not take the House with him in his other arguments. The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) were right to say that the debate enabled an agreed future policy to be set down. For at least half his speech the Home Secretary was content to make party points about events, most of which took place a decade ago. He talked about political contributions, but the real scandal of such contributions, and the real issue, is whether they buy party policy, and that is institutional Labour policy.
The Home Secretary must remember the Bernie Ecclestone case, when the Government did a U-turn on cigarette advertising, and the fact that Tom Sawyer, when he was deputy general secretary of the National Union of Public Employees and was presented with the prospect of a reduction in union influence, said, "No say, no pay." Above all, the Home Secretary needs to remember the blind trusts set up by the Labour party—by those on the Front Bench—which were so objective and above suspicion that the Neill committee has declared them illegal. We will not take lessons from the Home Secretary or the Labour party.
Above all, I regret the failure of the Home Secretary to lead us forward in the debate. The Neill committee gives the House, politics and political parties an opportunity to move forward which should be taken. I congratulate the committee on its report, which is a comprehensive and fair assessment of all the major issues involved in funding. That does not mean to say, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that we won all our arguments. However, we accept the findings in the report and believe that legislation based on it should be introduced, with the proviso that it should implement all the major proposals. There should be no cherry picking of one proposal, leaving the others to one side. The Home Secretary's smokescreen on referendums was one of the least convincing parts of a pretty unconvincing performance.
By any analysis, the report comes at an important time. The country faces the prospect of new elections and voting systems—we will debate one system tomorrow evening. Also, and just as important, it faces the prospect of referendums on proportional representation—we look forward to the Home Secretary's contribution on that subject—and on the single currency, if and when, or when and if, the Government decide to put that issue to the public. By any standards, and irrespective of party division, those are fundamental issues which go to the heart of our democracy. Therefore, it is vital that the rules whereby such referendums are conducted are fair to both sides. It would be a travesty if the Government alone controlled the publicity and were the recipients of public money in such a campaign.
As the Neill committee makes clear, no Government can be truly objective in providing information for a referendum if they support one side of the argument. That was my view in the referendum on London local government. As it happens, we supported the idea of a mayor for London, but, when presented with the so-called objective advertising, there was no doubt that most people got the message that they should support the proposed change.
60
The referendum in Wales was even more questionable. During evidence to the Neill committee, there was widespread criticism of the literature distributed to every household in Wales, because it simply set out the Government's case for the Welsh Assembly. The Neill committee said:
"We were disturbed, in particular, by the evidence we heard in Cardiff to the effect that the referendum campaign in Wales in 1997 was very one-sided, with the last-minute No organisation seriously under-funded and having to rely for financial support essentially on a single wealthy donor. The outcome of the Welsh referendum was extremely close, and a fairer campaign might well have resulted in a different outcome."
The committee was saying that a profound change had taken place in the structure of government, although serious questions remained about the fairness of the referendum that decided that structure. That should not be allowed to happen again. Both sides in a referendum should have the opportunity to put their case fairly and equally. We therefore support the Neill committee's recommendation on the need to provide both sides of an argument with a proper voice during a referendum.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Would it be helpful for the Minister who replies to the debate to say whether the Government agree with the Neill committee that what they did over the Welsh referendum was wrong? The Home Secretary did not have time, but will the Minister make a commitment that, if a referendum is held in this Parliament before the law is changed, the Government will abide by the recommendations of the Neill committee, even though they have not legislated for them?
Sir Norman Fowler: That is a matter for the Minister when he replies. We have not had too much specific guidance on the issue, so I am not optimistic, but I take my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Cash: I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said about referendums so far. In the light of the information that I gave about the Prime Minister's answer to me last week, does he agree that, given that the single currency and the euro are, by definition, some time off, it would be intolerable for what is in effect taxpayer's money to continue to be pumped into a Government propaganda exercise well in advance of the referendum? The rules should not be confined merely to the period of the referendum campaign itself, which, by definition will begin well in advance and, in my judgment, has begun already.
Sir Norman Fowler: I knew that the time would come when my hon. Friend and I agreed on Europe; that time appears to have come. I readily agree with what he said. If the Government can use money for propaganda on the euro, there is an unquestionable right for public money to go the other way. I say seriously to the Home Secretary that we will want to review matter this closely.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he may have been a little hard on the Home Secretary? He will recall that the Home Secretary urged all the political parties to abide by the Neill committee's recommendations; even if the Government had not had time to bring forward the necessary legislation, we should all voluntarily bind ourselves to them. I find it hard to

61
believe that he would have urged us to do that if the Government had been planning to ignore the recommendations on referendums in this Parliament.
Sir Norman Fowler: My right hon. Friend is renowned as a very fair man. I agree with him. I hope that his interpretation of the Home Secretary's speech is correct. Doubtless the Minister who replies will be able to tell us where the Government stand on referendums, because the House is in some difficulty in understanding their position.
Referendums are a fundamental issue. If they are to become part of our way of political life—there are two coming up—it is right, proper and urgent that action should be taken. The legislation must cover that.
Equally, legislation must cover political funding. The most important part of the proposals of the Neill committee is the national limit on spending. I heard what the Home Secretary said on that; he is going to accept it. The Neill committee makes a powerful case. The table on page 43 makes one point clear. In cash and real terms, the spending of the two main parties at each election has been increasing. In 1997, the Conservative party spent about £28 million on the general election campaign and the Labour party around £26 million. For both parties, that was an increase of more than 100 per cent. since the 1992 general election. It also means that election spending, on the latest basis, is about equal for both major parties.
It is a fiction—I speak from personal experience—that the Conservative party has been consistently able to outspend Labour at every election. In the 1994 European elections, we had no billboard posters up. It is true that I launched and unveiled posters, including one that was intended—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will be pleased about this—to show Britain as a European doormat. Regrettably, in its production, it came out not so much a doormat as a cowpat. Once the posters were launched and had done their ceremonial trip around Smith square, they were stripped off the vans ready for the next launch. Fortunately, Labour's posters—it had the money to put up posters—were so bad that they had no effect on the outcome.
I have some sympathy with the view of Peter Riddell, the political columnist of The Times, that the effect of campaign spending can be much exaggerated. As he says, Labour did not lose elections in the 1980s because it was outspent by the Conservatives. Equally, on the basis of our spending in 1997, we should have achieved a rather better result than we did.
My observations of the 1987 general election campaign support the Riddell theory. By every sensible indication, we were winning that election by a mile, but, following so-called wobbly Thursday, one or two people in the Conservative camp—not, I hasten to add, the then chairman—thought that we needed to do much more. The result was a splurge of national newspaper advertising, at vast expense. As the Home Secretary will recognise, I am the last person to argue against newspaper advertising, but in this case I am by no means convinced that it affected the outcome one jot.
Objective evidence of that sort is not the point. What matters is what party leaders and campaign managers feel. I suspect that the headquarters of all the major parties feel that they would prefer to have an overdraft than lose the election, so there is a temptation to spend and spend, and
62
the effect is an election spending arms race. I therefore agree with the Neill committee that it is in no one's interest that we continue to go down that road.
Mr. Phil Woolas: I notice that Lord Young has been mentioned. It is suggested that he was responsible for wasting about £5 million on advertisements, if I recall correctly. Lord Whitelaw said in his memoirs that it was a waste of money. However, such an amount would surely have had a bearing on the attitude of the editorial staff and proprietors of the newspapers in which it was spent. For the record, does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Sir Norman Fowler: No, not really. I do not remember mentioning Lord Young's name. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's speech, if he is called.
There is also the issue of how we define a national campaign and over what period the rules should be in place. We would be wise to recognise that there are difficulties there. I think that the guidance given in paragraph 10.48 of the report is as good a way of defining national spending as any. It refers to expenditure
"on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election."
Clearly, we will need to examine that definition in the Committee that considers any legislation that results. Equally clearly, it is important that the proposed election committee, which I again welcome, keeps the matter under close review. Nevertheless, in principle, I believe that the limit is sensible, as is the limit on third-party spending in a campaign—spending by an outside body that could influence the outcome of an election. I believe that the Home Secretary agrees with me on that point, but his speech did not make that clear.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the right hon. Gentleman include in that opprobrium spending by third parties such as the European Commission during referendums?
Sir Norman Fowler: Yes, I would. I was referring to national elections, but, by analogy, if that money were spent to influence a referendum in this country, there would have to be limits. There is no question about that.
On the question of third-party spending, I was not convinced by the arguments advanced by Mr. Dave Prentis, the deputy general secretary of Unison, that the sort of campaigning his union does during elections is politically neutral. In his evidence to the committee, he said:
"The type of campaigning that we do is not primarily geared to supporting one political party. We are attempting to get the debate centre stage."
I find myself underwhelmed by that argument. I have taken part in eight elections and I am still awaiting that helpful Unison advertising, which I am sure is just around the corner.
Mr. Woolas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Norman Fowler: Is the hon. Gentleman intending to make a speech?
Mr. Woolas: I am attempting to clarify the Conservative party's policy, because the accusation that

63
has been made is serious. Unison's advertising campaigns promoting public service are paid for out of what is called the non-affiliated fund, and covered by the certification officer. Complaints were referred to that officer, and Unison was vindicated. May I infer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Conservative party is opposed to promoting quality public services?
Sir Norman Fowler: That is one of the most pathetic interventions that I have heard for some time, but I shall answer it.
I thought that both Front-Bench teams, and even the hon. Gentleman, agreed that we needed to have some control and limits in respect of third-party spending. That is why we are telling the Home Secretary that we want all those points dealt with in the legislation. We do not want to have the sort of cherry picking for which the hon. Gentleman is arguing, because that would be against the public interest. Labour Members must decide on the overall approach to be taken. We have had an inquiry to which we have all given evidence. We have won some of our points and lost others. I suggest that the sensible thing to do is to accept what the Neill committee has said.
On the subject of spending limits, there is a proposal regarding the transparency of political contributions. Again, we accept the Neill committee's finding. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has already acted and, with effect from July last year, has undertaken to publish with the annual accounts the names of all donors giving more than £5,000 in any one financial year.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Norman Fowler: Let me continue for a minute.
It important to recognise that the argument on disclosure does not all go one way. That is not just what I believe; it is a point underlined by the Neill committee, which said that there was a risk that the arguments in favour of confidentiality
"will be discounted in the public debate …Nevertheless … they deserve serious consideration."
I agree.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Paragraph 4.66 of the report makes it clear that, under the Neill proposals, there would be a requirement to identify the original donor of the money. Under its arrangements for disclosure for the current period, and before the introduction of legislation, will the Conservative party do precisely that, or, in the registration—and therefore disclosure—of registered names, will it simply identify individual organisations that make donations, or the individuals who make donations to those organisations?
Sir Norman Fowler: I believe that I am correct in saying that individual contributions will be identified, but I shall check, in time for the winding-up speeches, the position on contributions by organisations.
Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, to the last, the Conservative Government were so
64
strongly opposed to disclosure and why they made sure that the Nolan committee was excluded from looking into party financing? Will he tell us why the Conservatives in opposition have experienced a total, albeit welcome, change of mind?
Sir Norman Fowler: I did say reasonably clearly that there was a case for non-disclosure and confidentiality. We put that case, but it has not been accepted by the Neill committee. We accept the committee's decision.
The case for confidentiality was set out in great detail in the committee's report. I emphasise that it was not only the Conservative party that set forth the case; the committee itself took considerable care over it. There is no requirement to disclose publicly gifts made to charity or to voluntary organisations. One can imagine a business man in a heavily Labour area who would not want to disclose his contribution to the Conservative party, if he felt that he would be discriminated against, and that case could be made the other way around.
When I was chairman of the party, I encountered the exceptional case of a lady who in her will left a large amount of money in the form of a legacy, half of which was to go to charities nominated by the chairman, the other half going to the party. There was one condition: that she remain entirely anonymous. Her living relations, with whom I discussed the matter, agreed with her wishes. We respected her wishes, even though there was no question of her being able to benefit, or influence policy to her own benefit, as a result of the legacy. Those arguments were put to the committee, which rejected them, and we accept the committee's decision.
The most important point about political funding is this: a great deal of time is spent debating the issues surrounding funding, but the basic danger against which we must guard is that a contribution to a political party buys policy. That is the danger in a democracy, and it was that danger that was illustrated when the committee started its work by the case of Bernie Ecclestone.
A leading figure in the world of formula one racing, Mr. Ecclestone, it was disclosed, had given £1 million to the Labour party to help to finance its May 1997 general election campaign. The disclosure came shortly after Mr. Ecclestone had had a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the exemption of motor racing from the ban on tobacco advertising at sporting events—an exemption that was made. It is that sort of issue—contributions governing or influencing policy—that lies at the heart of the debate on political donations.
Mr. Mullin: Just for the historical record, had Mr. Ecclestone previously given any money to the Conservative party?
Sir Norman Fowler: I have no knowledge of that whatsoever.
The issues which I describe also surround the trade union funding of the Labour party. The entire and explicit purpose of that funding has been to influence policy, and we have to question that. Issues of transparency and influencing policy are also directly connected to

65
blind trusts, which the then Opposition Front-Bench team set up during the last Parliament. The Neill committee gives such blind trusts extremely short shrift, saying:
"The Committee rejects the very concept of such blind trusts as being inconsistent with the principles of openness and accountability. Moreover, there must be considerable doubt whether they ensure anonymity."
The committee's proposal could not be more emphatic, stating:
"Blind trusts should be prohibited as a mechanism for funding political parties, party leaders or their offices, Members of Parliament or parliamentary candidates."
Mr. Linton: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance on blind trusts, but how does he square that with his party's proposal to the Neill committee for a political donations institute, which is intended to have exactly the same purpose as a blind trust—to accept anonymous donations and hand them on to the party concerned?
Sir Norman Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has read the report and the evidence, the institute, which did not exist when the then shadow Cabinet was accepting blind trusts, was proposed as a point for discussion. The Neill committee considered and rejected it, and it was entirely right to do so.
We support the other proposals in the report such as those for foreign donations and we accept the Neill committee's definition on that. We accept also the proposals concerning transparency and disclosure.
I have one caveat. The improper influence of policy is the acid test of all that is proposed. Transparency does not avoid the dangers of contributions influencing policy. There is no question but that it makes the process more open, but there is a need for us and any system to remain vigilant on that point.
In that context, we need to pay particular attention to what we do to help the development of policy, to which the Home Secretary referred. On page 93, there is a proposal to set up a small policy development fund of £2 million. That is a sensible measure. The amount of finance is limited, but it would substantially help Opposition parties—the Labour party could also benefit—and it should not be beyond the Government to accept that scale of spending.
The bigger issue is that of financing Opposition parties in Parliament. Again, we are not talking about big sums. The Conservative party receives £986,000 in Short money, which, because of the formula based on election results, is a reduction of £500,000 on what Labour received in opposition. Clearly the Labour party found £1.5 million inadequate, otherwise it would not have set up blind trusts in the first place.
I have a distinction in the Conservative party in that I am the only person to have been a member of Lady Thatcher's shadow Cabinet and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The last time around, the present Home Secretary was a political adviser to the woman whom I was shadowing—Lady Castle—and even members of the Cabinet are beginning to look younger. In the intervening period, the conditions of opposition have not changed much. By any objective analysis, the resources devoted to supporting the Opposition parties are inadequate, as hon. Members on both sides of the House know.
66
We do not require vast sums, but it would be sensible to take this opportunity to make a new start in these procedures and provide for separate budgets for the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow team. In practical terms, that is light years away from general state funding of political parties, which I, like the Home Secretary, do not support. I support the voluntary financing of political parties because that voluntary commitment gives a party its strength. A strong party must therefore have a large, nationwide membership. I agree with the Neill committee that tax relief on relatively small donations would be a sensible way to widen membership, and I am disappointed that the Government are still sitting on the fence.
We congratulate the committee on its report. I emphasise that we would welcome legislation at the earliest opportunity, but we want legislation that covers all the report's proposals, for referendums as well as elections. There is an opportunity for all parties to proceed in agreement, and I hope that the Government will take it.
6.14 pm
Shona McIsaac: Tonight we must face the fact that politicians are not held in high esteem by the majority of people in this country. In any straw poll in any town centre, people would say that Members of Parliament are here only to benefit themselves and are overpaid and probably lazy. They all think that we scurry off to jobs outside Parliament. They probably also reckon that we all take backhanders. I do not blame people one bit for thinking that—we are well paid; some Members do have jobs outside Parliament; and as for backhanders—the so-called sleaze issue—there have been many cases of cash for questions and associated problems.
I want to focus not only on who funds political parties, but on who funds Members of Parliament. If we are to clean up politics and if Members are to be held in high esteem by voters, we must have openness not only for party political funding, but for Members' outside interests and sponsorships.
The Tories must answer a host of questions about party funding, as was stated earlier. I heard what the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said about accepting the Neill committee proposals, but I want to ask many questions. First, Labour got into government because of what the Conservative party got up to, and we should not forget that. Aspersions have been cast on Members because of the Conservative party's history.
I recall the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) announcing that foreign funding of the Conservative party amounted to very little. I want to know exactly what is "very little". I heard the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield say that £2million is very little funding for Opposition parties. We still do not know precisely where the Conservatives got their money. The Leader of the Opposition promised to publish his party's list of donors 18 months ago. Where is it? Reading the evidence in the report, I have a sneaking suspicion about why there has been delay after delay in publishing the list. Lord Parkinson said in his evidence that an obligation to disclose all donations over £5,000 would lead to a reduction in the number of people giving money to the Conservative party. It wants to keep its donations secret.
I do not accept the argument that giving money to a political party is akin to giving money to a charity. Donating money to the RSPCA or the local dogs home to

67
look after furry animals is a world apart from donating money to a political party because one wants it to be in government. The Conservatives are delaying publishing their accounts because they do not want that source of funding to dry up, as Lord Parkinson said, or perhaps they do not want to disclose the names of donors because, as in the case of Asil Nadir, they are getting dodgy money from abroad.
I have a few more questions about Conservative party funding. I am partisan, because it was that party's actions that put Labour Members here. Has the Conservative party ever held overseas bank accounts, and if so, will it stop doing so, by accepting the report's recommendations? According to the treasurer of the Liberal party of Australia, the Tories have raised millions of pounds in Australia. Why do they not come clean about those foreign donations tonight?
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that he wants to make progress and start afresh, so I suggest that he answers those questions in the Chamber. I want to know whether the Conservatives Abroad association comprises members who are not registered to vote in Britain. Is that another Conservative organisation that channels money into the party? Another big question is how the Tories turned a debt of £20 million into a surplus of £7.4 million, when allegedly all their big corporate donors had deserted them.
We have also heard much about blind trusts and the funding of the Opposition Front Bench. Let us examine the finances of the Leader of the Opposition. Has he revealed who funds his office? Why did he move out of the Parliament building and set up an office elsewhere? Why is that money not declared in the Register of Members' Interests? Those questions must be answered tonight if we are to have openness and total transparency.
I refer to another quote from Lord McAlpine's wonderful book. He said that Conservative central office was basically "out of control" and stated:
"Junior officials in central office were in the pay of businessmen"—
Mr. Straw: Senior officials.
Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that correction. Lord McAlpine said that senior officials were
"in the pay of businessmen and promoting their interests".
We want to know who those businessmen are.
As I said earlier, it is about not only who funds the political parties, but who funds Members of Parliament. Yes, we have the Register of Members' Interests, but I believe—I am probably in the minority—that it is full of loopholes. There are many ways to get around the register. If we dip into it, we will see the list of Members of Parliament—they are largely Conservative Members—with directorships and sponsorships. Some of the specifics are disclosed and some are not. Members of Parliament are not required to make an exact disclosure of how much money they receive from jobs outside Parliament that they secured simply because they are Members of Parliament. We need to tighten up the register; if people are to trust us, we must discover who is funding Members of Parliament.
The Neill committee report should also be tighter. I note that the Government intend to accept the majority of its proposals, but I believe that the report's
68
recommendations on donations to political parties should be tighter. The provisions should be worded in such a way as not to give the Tories another little loophole through which to channel money here, there and everywhere. They have done that in the past, and they will do it again. The Tories will have to do so, because, as we know, their money is drying up and they need to find another way of breaking the rules. I ask my right hon. Friend to address the issue of who funds Members of Parliament and to consider incorporating that—
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Shona McIsaac: No, I will not; I am making only a short speech.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to examine who funds Members of Parliament and who funds the political parties. We must discover whether the House needs also to address the former issue. In the past, my right hon. Friend has considered making the corruption of Parliament a criminal offence. Councillors have much stricter registration rules than apply in this place. I should like the same strict standards to apply to us and to our interests, so that we may move forward to a different era in party political funding and the funding of Members of Parliament.
6.23 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I broadly welcome the Neill committee's report, and take the view that, although it does not go as far as we have gone—and, indeed, as far as we recommended in our evidence to the committee—it represents a significant advance in the attempt to control the distortions produced by improper political funding and, perhaps even more important, to correct the public's perception that the political process was up for grabs. If that was the case—and I believe it was—it was due largely to the performance of the outgoing Conservative Administration.
To listen tonight to the speech by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), was to experience some surprise—I put it no stronger than that. There has been something of a Damascene conversion on the Conservative Front Bench, and we have not been given any explanations for that quite remarkable change of mind. Most people who were concerned about Parliament's good name found it difficult to comprehend the previous Government's obstinacy in refusing to allow the committee—which they set up—to consider the funding of political parties.
There was some slight mitigation, in that the committee was established fairly close to the time of the general election. It might have been difficult to implement before that election measures designed to deal with problems that were manifest on all sides. Such a move might have been viewed as an attempt to close the door after the horse had bolted. However, the House is entitled to a more detailed explanation than was afforded by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield of how the Conservative party has come to stand on its head on this issue. His address to the Home Secretary—delivered in a somewhat holier-than-thou tone—about cherry picking seemed to me to be self-interest not very heavily disguised.
I am happy, on behalf of my party, to accept the report's broad—and most of its particular—conclusions. However, it is not, I believe, appropriate to refrain from

69
making positive suggestions in order to flesh out the report where it is incomplete. The report is not couched in the form of instructions to counsel. We should not be accused of cherry picking if we take the view that the committee has not argued its case as forcefully or as convincingly as it might.
At this stage, it is right to question the Government further about their intentions regarding the report's implementation. The Home Secretary said that we would not see in the next parliamentary Session legislation to give effect to what I believe is the core recommendation: the establishment of an electoral commission. That is understandable, but I regret that the Home Secretary did not lend any sense of urgency to backing that proposal. If a draft Bill were produced towards the end of the coming parliamentary Session, there might be further consideration of it during the following Session and no legislative action for some time. That would be highly undesirable. I profoundly hope that the Government will include such a proposal—I understand that they cannot announce tonight the contents of next year's Queen's Speech—in their legislative programme.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is correct: we cannot announce tonight next year's, or even this year's, Queen's Speech. He understands the constraints on Ministers: we cannot say that a particular piece of legislation will be in the Government's legislative programme in a year or so. With that caveat, the Government are committed to legislating on the Neill committee report. We also want to ensure that we get it right, which is why we intend to publish a draft Bill. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the other main parties' representatives will join the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), in the working party on that, so that we may get the detail right meanwhile.
Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I shall be happy to participate in any constructive discussion. [Interruption.] As the Under-Secretary says, such discussions are already going on. Does the Home Secretary intend the work that is being done by the Under-Secretary to be subsumed by the electoral commission when that is up and running? What is being done at present has followed the pattern of previous Parliaments—a review of general electoral law, and tidying up. That will no longer be an appropriate matter to be led by a Minister in future, but should be led by the commission. No doubt that issue will emerge when these matters are further considered.
We urgently need to deal with these matters not so much because of the need to clean out the Augean stables, the legacy of the previous Conservative Government, as because of the need to deal with the public perceptions of, and immediate problems associated with, forthcoming elections and referendums. Since the most recent general election, our constitutional scene has changed dramatically. There is to be a series of elections—especially those that will take place in spring 1999—in which very many of the matters addressed by the Neill committee will arise.
It is important that we have a detailed expression from the Government of their intention to give effect to the recommendations where legislation is not necessary,
70
where that may be done in respect of the European elections, the elections to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, and, although we have not yet had legislation for the government of London, in that election as well.
The committee proposed that Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, for example, should be entitled to some state funding—a sort of Short money. A clause to provide for help for Opposition parties had been added to the Scotland Bill, but the Bill that became the Government of Wales Act 1998 was too far down the track before the committee reported, so a question remains about the Government's intentions regarding the Welsh Assembly.
What plans have the Government to deal with the recommendation that tax relief be granted on donations to political parties? I listened to what the Home Secretary said on that. It is right for him to listen to Members' views, but a long delay is not necessary. A quick response is likely. The official Opposition have already made a positive response. I responded favourably to the report, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I hope that the Government will act in the next Finance Bill.
The Neill committee's arguments for its recommendations on referendums were less than totally compelling. I detect in the official Opposition even more nervousness about those recommendations than about some of the others. The committee obviously understood the issues, and its desire that there be a level playing field between the two sides of an argument in a referendum campaign was sensible and equitable. However, the committee took an artificial approach to the role of Government.
It is not easy to draw a line between facts and opinion, and if a referendum is to be conducted on a central issue of Government policy—the only occasion on which referendums are likely to be held, and on precedent many of them will focus on matters of constitutional change—it is ridiculous to suggest, or imply, that the Government should be hampered in making their case as the Government. Is the implication that a Government who go to the country to ask whether the country supports a Government policy must contract out the case to another body before it is possible to have a properly financed campaign? Such a set-up would be artificial in the extreme.
Mr. Swayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, during a general election campaign, Ministers are quite capable of going to the country to argue their case in a partisan way? Is it not too much to expect similar activity to take place in a referendum campaign while the neutrality of the Government machine is maintained, as it is in a general election campaign?
Mr. Maclennan: I do not believe that it is as straightforward as that. In general elections, Governments are judged not only on their record and their programme for future governing but as individuals. Voting preference at a general election is determined by a complex thought process. I believe that it is possible to draw a distinction between what happens in a referendum and what is done by Governments qua Governments as candidates for re-election during a general election campaign.

71
The general election rules have worked relatively well, although they were stretched by the previous Administration, which churned out highly expensive, illustrated official documents, which often had surprisingly little in them except propaganda. In that area—
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: No. I am finishing answering the question asked by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have done so, if he still wants to intervene.
In a referendum, on precedent, the matter being examined is a narrow choice, or a choice which—although its impact and effect may be very significant—may be considered discretely, without any reflection on the Government as a whole. Indeed, in the 1975 referendum on the European association, the Government as a whole had a position, but there were two positions taken by members of the Government.
In the holding of referendums, the prime duty is to ensure that both sides of the case are properly heard and argued, so undoubtedly funding should be made available to those who oppose the Government's proposition; but the suggestion that the Government's case should be contracted out to a campaigning body is an artificial approach, which I would not espouse.
I do not quarrel with the view that suitable restraints might be placed on Ministers participating in the formal campaign, but, as we have heard from the Conservative Benches, it is not the formal campaign that moves minds but the arguments that are going on all the time. The fact that a Minister who attends a meeting to advocate the Government's case is advised not to drive to it in his official car is neither here nor there. What gives the Government the great advantage is the fact that they have made a specific case continuously in the period prior to the formal referendum campaign.
I would have examined closely the arrangements made to furnish the no side of campaigns with suitable resources, and the propriety of certain meetings being handled differently from the way in which they are dealt with at general elections. We should not pretend that the balance of arguments is other than somewhat stacked behind the Government, by virtue of the fact that the Government's own policy is at issue. To try to muffle the issue and pretend that the Government could be neutral about their own policy—I believe that the word "neutral" appears in the report—would be wholly artificial.
I would give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) at this point—but it seems that he no longer wishes to intervene.
A further issue is the campaign period for referendums. The report suggests that the period should begin after Royal Assent. It is not entirely clear to me what the committee had in mind in that part of its report. If a referendum Act did not specify a date for a referendum—which is possible, as it might be left to subordinate legislation to do that—at what point would that requirement become operative? There are many such points of detail, which the committee understandably did
72
not think it right to consider. That will leave a good deal of work for Members of Parliament to give flesh to those bones.
I found the committee's report less than compelling in respect of party political broadcasts. It is curious that, although the report makes some suggestions about the role of the election commission in that connection—for example, the election commission might use its good offices between the broadcasters and the politicians—there is no formal recommendation about the role of the commission. Recommendation 95 exhorts broadcasters to
"do all in their power to maintain … strict … neutrality",
but it does not recommend that the election commission should have a formal role in that regard.
Mr. MacGregor: The explanation is that, although the issue was raised with us during the evidence, we did not feel that we could make a recommendation on that point, because our remit was entirely to do with political funding.
Mr. Maclennan: That is a helpful explanation. It lends force to the view that we should not feel that we are departing from our proper response if we do not follow every dot and comma of the committee's recommendations. There is much to be said for giving the electoral commission greater powers over party political broadcasts than was directly advocated by the Neill committee.
For some time we have lived with an extraordinary arrangement, which has not worked as well as it might and which is rather fragile in its base. We have a shadowy committee of members of all the parties who are supposed to have a role in the matter, but at the last general election that role seemed almost to disappear. Now there is dialogue between individual political parties and the broadcasters. That has tilted the balance too far away from the necessary objectivity, and needs to be policed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): It might help the right hon. Gentleman to know that the issue has been raised with me elsewhere. It is our intention, through the electoral procedures working party, which I chair, to encourage the broadcasters to enter a dialogue with the political parties about how the new regulations might be made to work more effectively and, by implication, more fairly.
Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister. I am aware of his support for that view. However, we should not rely simply on the good behaviour of the broadcasters, as a matter of happenstance. We should consider whether the entire issue should be covered by regulation. I am increasingly of the view that that is necessary—the more so as the outlets for broadcasting expand and the opportunities for "narrowcasting" become clearer. The committee referred to that, without drawing any conclusions from that development.
My party was in favour of an element of state funding, so it will not surprise the House to learn that the arguments advanced by the Neill committee against state funding did not command our total support. It was never our view that that should be a substitute for the individual or other funding that has traditionally sustained our

73
democracy. We would consider it wrong to seek entirely to substitute state funding for that. However, democracy depends heavily on political parties for its effectiveness. There should be no political embarrassment in giving taxpayers' support to that process.
That philosophical point of view has to some extent been overtaken by events, at least temporarily. I take exception to the Aunt Sally raised by the Neill committee when it dismissed the idea that state funding should be established for the indefinite future. I do not believe that such a proposition was before it. A period of experimentation with state funding would have been worth-while, but I shall not flog that horse further.
On foreign funding, I broadly support the Committee's views. There have been spectacular occasions of unacceptable interventions from abroad in support of the outgoing Conservative party. I should have liked to press the committee—as the Home Secretary did, without any answer being vouchsafed—on the case of Polly Peck.
Mr. John Greenway: That is a past issue.
Mr. Maclennan: It is not just a past issue, but a continuing scandal. It is up to the Conservative party to rectify the matter as soon as possible.
There have been one or two glancing references to European organisations during the debate. It would be interesting to know what attitude the Government would take to them. Would such organisations be regarded as foreign—for example, for the purposes of election to the European Parliament? I believe that that would be drawing the net too tightly.
I take exception to the Neill committee's recommendation that donations to political parties should be received only from people who are eligible to vote in the United Kingdom. I do not know whether it was the committee's deliberate intention to rule out people under the age of 18 from participation in or membership of political parties. If that was the case, it seems to be a mistaken intention. I hope that the Government will look closely at that.
The main purpose of the Neill committee, which I wholly endorse, is much greater openness about donations. Save for what might be regarded as a Committee point, which is to express some doubt about the practicality of the proposal that donations of more than £5,000 should be reported to the election commission within seven days during an election period—that is the 12th recommendation—I find myself in broad agreement with everything that the committee has to say on donations. My party has as its target the disclosure of donations of more than £1,000, and, as most of our donations are less than £5,000, that is a considerable undertaking.
As for time, we have rules about reporting expenses during elections, and I think that they have worked reasonably well in terms of time. Returning officers have to receive reports from election agents in a given time. To avoid muddles, uncertainties and possibly substantial additional expenditure, which the committee recognised might be the consequence of its recommendation—and particularly because the committee proposes to invoke the criminal sanctions for a breach of this rule—I think that the time limit might be regarded as somewhat too tight.
74
It would be of interest as well to know whether the Government have it in mind to render void an election in which some criminal practice such as that to which I have alluded has been engaged in. It seems to me that that possibility would be at least as likely to have a deterrent effect as some ex post facto criminal sanction meted out to the malefactor.
I conclude by expressing my appreciation, and that of my party, to the Neill committee, which has worked quite fast to produce its 100 recommendations. I have no doubt that these recommendations need further refinement, or that they will receive careful attention and broad support from the majority of right hon. and hon. Members.
6.52 pm
Mr. Martin Linton: I welcome the report of the Neill committee, and I welcome also the extraordinary volte face that we witnessed from the Opposition. I remember hearing the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) give evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1993, when, needless to say, I was sitting on the press benches.
I had to pinch myself several times this evening during the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to reassure myself that it was the same right hon. Gentleman to whom I was listening. I look forward to hearing the speeches of his colleagues, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who is a member of the Neill committee, and, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who have, in common with the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, been chairmen of the Conservative party. We look forward to seeing whether they are able to throw any light on the mysteries of Conservative party funding over the past few years.
I do not want to look back to the past; I want to address myself to the contents of the Neill committee's report. I start by saying that I think that the committee should be congratulated on facing the central issue in its terms of reference by recommending a limit on election expenditure. You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was rash enough in my maiden speech to suggest—you were kind enough to rule me in order—that the huge sums that the parties received from undisclosed sources were like a cancer in our political system. I very much welcome the recommendation that the parties should be obliged to declare donations of more than £5,000. I welcome even more the fact that the committee has not fallen into the trap of believing that disclosure is enough. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said almost exactly the same thing: transparency does not avoid the danger.
The cancer that has invaded our body politic is not only that we have not known where the money is coming from, but that, increasingly, it has come from individual millionaires, with all the attendant dangers. I do not necessarily mean the dangers of corrupt deals behind closed doors; we do not know enough to say whether there have been any. I am talking about the danger that parties will feel beholden to their donors. They will be nervous of offending them, and anxious not to jeopardise their chances of another donation.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my colleague from the Select Committee on Home Affairs for

75
giving way. We cannot continue to suggest that there may be something improper about the dealings of the Conservative party when we have direct evidence that the Labour party has done a complete stitch-up deal with a business man, and has been exposed to public view not by members of it, but by other means. Bernie Ecclestone gave the Labour party not £5,000, not £7,500 but £1 million, in exchange for which he got a change in policy. It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest, with no evidence, that there is a mote in the eye of the Conservative party when there is a socking great beam in the eye of his own party.
Mr. Linton: I shall come on to the plentiful evidence about the corruption that may have occurred over the past few years. As for the Ecclestone affair, I shall say only that the Government behaved openly and honourably, naming the Labour party's donors and returning donations that could have influenced decisions. Even though the Government, with the best of intentions, declared the donations and returned the money, it is certainly true—I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this small extent—that the very act of accepting donations of such magnitude creates difficulties for any party and for any Government.
I was about to say that I believe that the committee has set too high a figure in suggesting that £20 million should be the expenditure limit for elections. We all know perfectly well that we cannot raise that sort of money from wine-and-cheese parties and bring-and-buy sales. When Lord Sawyer was giving evidence for the Labour party to the committee, he said:
"To raise that kind of finance … we have had to seek donations up to £1 million, and we would need to continue that sort of fundraising programme in the absence of any substantial state aid."
We need a limit that removes the need for millionaire donations.
In its evidence, the Labour party suggested £15 million, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he believed that that figure was in the right bracket. I hope that my right hon. Friend tends towards the figure originally suggested by the Labour party, or even the figure that I would prefer of £10 million, which I think would avoid the need for the fund raising that we have heard about to be undertaken by any party in future.
We must remember that, in every election for the past 100 years, the Conservative party has outspent all other parties. That may not have helped them in 1997, but excluding coalitions, the Conservatives have been in power for 70 per cent. of the past century. However big or small we believe the role of money to be in elections—there is plenty of debate about the subject—I do not think anyone can seriously doubt the proposition that elections should be fought on a level playing field. Only one member of the committee disagreed with that view, just as only one member of it was a member of the previous Government. The report quoted him, and the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us whether the quote is fair. It is as follows:
"He disputes the view that election expenditure is excessive, comparing what is spent in any one year on promoting washing powders, butter spreads and toilet rolls."
I refer, of course, to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. I shall leave it to him to explain what on earth he meant. The right hon. Gentleman should explain why
76
he argued strongly against the extension of state funding, whereas he enthusiastically supports a trebling of Short money for Opposition parties now that he is in opposition for the first time in 18 years.
The introduction of tax relief for donors to political parties is bound to help people in higher rather than lower tax brackets. The Home Secretary says he has reservations about that. The purpose of preventing millionaire funding of political parties is to encourage a large number of small donations instead of a small number of large donations. I fully accept that the tax system can be used for that, but I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the use of tax credits, as in Canada, which give people the same rebate whatever their level of spending, unlike tax relief, which is tied to the rate of tax and depends on whether a person pays tax.
The report should have dealt with one or two other points of detail. Although the increase in Short money is welcome, the committee stopped short of recommending an extension of the provision to the governing party. That is illogical. Short money for Opposition parties is to be trebled, but the parliamentary Labour party has an important role to play in supporting members of the Government, who have their private offices, and the more than 300 Government Back-Bench Members. I do not see the logic of using Short money for Opposition parties only, given that the needs of the Government party are so much greater.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I was not a Minister in the previous Government, but, as a shadow spokesman, I have to rely on precisely the same office costs allowance that he receives as a Back Bencher.
Mr. George Howarth: As I did.
Mr. Greenway: As the Under-Secretary rightly points out, so did he. There is a world of difference between our duties as Back-Bench Members, including holding the Government and our own party to account over policy, and trying to hold the Government to account as an Opposition spokesman.
Mr. Linton: Of course there is, but Opposition Front-Bench Members receive almost £1 million of Short money. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to speak to his colleagues who are responsible for distributing that money to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, which is to assist Front-Bench Members in research. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman: it is not enough. However, he and the committee should have the grace to recognise that there are other needs in Parliament apart from those of Opposition Front-Bench Members—but I do not want to dwell on that.
The committee turned its face against any limit on the size of donations. I fully recognise that it can be difficult to enforce a limit on donations: it is much easier to limit expenditure than to limit income. When the committee was given its brief, the Prime Minister said that he looked to the committee for its views on anything up to and including a complete cessation of business funding. I do not know whether that would be practical, but it is rather pusillanimous of the committee to rule out any limitations on donations. The problem that it is trying to address has been created by these huge, £1 million-plus donations.

77
I welcome the attention that the committee paid to the issue of shareholder ballots. The previous Government introduced one trade union Act after another to make it more difficult for trade unions, through their political levies, to affiliate to the Labour party, but they never applied the same standards to companies. I welcome the fact that the committee strongly recommends that companies and trade unions should be dealt with on an equal basis.
If a company wishes to give money to a political party, it should put the issue to its shareholders at least once every four years. Only if it has the support of its shareholders should it give their money to political parties. In the past, very few companies have done that. Marks and Spencer and Rank have held votes of their shareholders, which have always been in favour of political donations. Shareholders in Marks and Spencer voted by 50 million votes to 12 million: that decision puts the trade union block vote in the shade. The principle that shareholders should decide whether to give money to political parties is right.
It is a great shame that the committee stopped short of extending to shareholders the right that the previous Government rightly insisted should be given to trade unionists: to contract out of a levy that they did not agree with. It used the excuse of impracticality: it said that it would be impossible to exempt particular shareholders from paying a contribution to a political party. If it is so easy to ballot shareholders on political donations—it merely requires another question to be printed in the annual report, which is sent to every shareholder—it is not beyond human endeavour to find a way of enabling shareholders to contract out of a political levy.
I welcome the report's recommendation on state aid for political research, and I hope that it receives all-party support. It mentions £2 million, which is a fairly small amount, but it would make an enormous difference to the most important function of political parties—to work out the policies on which they would run the country if they were given the chance. Taxpayers will surely realise that this is a small investment in a worthwhile area.
In line with the Labour party's evidence, I think that the committee should have gone further. It should have allowed state funding to be used for political education within parties and for the training of election agents, councillors and party officials, such as treasurers. Political parties in this country are small voluntary bodies. They are fragile and underfunded, and they sorely lack the basic expertise required to take over the running of the country.
On party election broadcasts, the report goes so far, but not far enough; it recommends that they should be retained. I accept that not every television viewer immediately switches to a party election broadcast; nevertheless they are an important part of the communication between the parties and the voters, and they are a bulwark against the Americanisation of British politics. We all know about the amount of money that is spent in American politics on television and radio advertising. Even in the mid-term elections last week, huge amounts of money were spent by both parties. Those sums would dwarf the spending of our parties in elections. Rules on party election broadcasts must apply to all existing and future channels. I hope that that important guarantee will be written in at a later stage.
78
The committee is right to say that, although blind trusts were started with the best of intentions—to insulate Front Benchers from the pressures of donations—experience suggests that they cannot be guaranteed to succeed. The committee also turned down the Conservative party's suggestion of a political donations institute, which is quite right.
I was glad to see in the report a chapter that has not yet been mentioned—that on the honours system. The Conservative party often denies it, but the honours system has been a central part of fundraising, not only up to and including the days of Lloyd George, but, I regret to say, even since. If any Opposition Member is tempted to deny that, I simply point to the brutal figures: under the previous Government, 50 per cent. of honours for exports or industry were given to people who happened to have contributed to Conservative party funds, whereas the proportion of companies that gave money to the Conservative party was, at the most, 6 per cent.
I asked a statistician at the London school of economics to work out on a tri-squared table exactly what the chances were that it was a pure product of coincidence that 6 per cent. of the universe received 50 per cent. of the awards. He worked it out as a chance of one in 10 to the power of 133. I do not deny that it is possible that there is no causal connection whatever between honours and donations to the Conservative party, but the Conservatives would be asking us to believe in a rather long chance if they insisted on maintaining that.
The committee was right to include the honours system as part of a report that is basically about fundraising and to insist that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee should be enlarged, broadened and given stronger powers so that the temptation to use the honours system as an implicit reward for fundraising—I do not say that open deals have been done, or that any agreement has been written on paper—would be countered.
The report contains the most extraordinary notion that money does not have any effect whatever on election results, which is an idea that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield described as the Riddell thesis, from the political correspondent of The Times. It was also defended in the committee by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has been chairman of the Conservative party, as has the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Why on earth did they spend money on advertising if they seriously expect us to believe that money does not have any effect on elections? Why did not they close down central office? Why does the advertising industry exist? How do newspapers exist, if advertising is completely ineffective? It is stretching belief beyond the point of endurance to suggest that advertising is effective for toilet paper or breakfast rolls, but somehow ineffective in politics.
Mr. Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the observation of the great man at Unilever who said that he knew that half his expenditure on advertising did not work, but he did not know which half?
Mr. Linton: Those are wise words. I would put the chances at even more remote than that. In political advertising, a designer could be asked to design 12 posters,

79
but only one would strike a chord, resonate with the public and win votes. Having the money to try out 12 posters to find out which one works makes a difference, not because each is successful or because all money spent on political advertising succeeds, but because every now and then—bingo, one hits the jackpot, as any treasurer of the Conservative party would concede.
Lord McAlpine, who has been much quoted in the debate, once told a former press colleague of mine, "If you've got £1 million or £2 million to spend on political advertising, forget it; if you've got £8 million, you can make people believe anything you want." Having the right amount of money to spend on political advertising is important.
I should elaborate on state funding. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary suggested that the report had come out squarely against state funding. That is not my reading of it; for one thing, state funding comes in many different forms—in kind, free mail, free lettings and free broadcasts. Such state funding is not only supported, but warmly encouraged, by the report, and there are many ways in which the committee wants to extend it.
The committee has great reluctance about state funding in cash, as probably almost all hon. Members have, but let us understand that the reason for that reluctance is not that there is something intrinsically bad about it. Every European country, apart from the United Kingdom, has state funding—there is nothing necessarily wrong or corrupt about it—but the history of party funding in this country in the past 10 or 20 years has been so dispiriting and so alarming, that it is understandable that people have turned against the idea of giving cash aid to the parties that have scraped the bottom of the barrel.
Ironically, lack of state funding was the reason why the parties scraped the bottom of the barrel. The fact that they scraped the bottom of the barrel in turn became the reason why the public would not countenance state aid, but, in time, people will realise that the price of getting rid of millionaire funding of our political parties will, in the end, be an increase in state funding—perhaps in kind, perhaps with strings or perhaps bit by bit; that is the direction in which this will lead.
The report said not that the committee was squarely against state funding, but that the arguments were finely balanced and that the time for it had not yet come. I would accept that: people are not ready for state funding, but we must accept in our hearts that, like every other country in Europe, we will sooner or later have to move further in that direction.
We should not miss the historical importance of the Neill report, simply because we have—I am glad to say—an unexpectedly wide consensus on it. The report will close a shameful chapter in the political life of this country. In a sense, I am sorry to have to become partisan, but the historical record and the historical reasons have to be spelled out: for the past 20 years, the Conservative party has relied heavily on donations from millionaires to finance its election campaigns. We are not able to say whether there has been any corruption only because we know so little about who gave the money, but there have been quite enough cases—I promised the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) that I would come to this—and quite enough ethical issues raised by donations that have become known.
80
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned the £450,000 that the Conservative party accepted from Asil Nadir, only a year before he was being investigated by the Conservative Government for fraud. It accepted £1 million from Octav Botnar, shortly before he moved to Switzerland over a disagreement with the Inland Revenue about alleged underpayment of taxes of £57 million; and £5 million from Graham Kirkland, shortly before he became a knight in the birthday honours list.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is clearly suggesting that Sir Graham Kirkland, to correct his name, received a knighthood simply because he had given money to the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman and Labour Members do not understand that people have been recognised through the honours system because of what they have done for this country and for employment. Unlike the Labour party, they have created jobs and prosperity, and it is entirely right that they should have been rewarded in that tangible way for so doing.
Mr. Linton: Far from it. I am not suggesting that Graham Kirkland corruptly gave money in exchange for, or in expectation of, an honour. I am saying that a system in which donors to the Conservative party are so quickly and so well rewarded is bound to encourage the provision of further funds. Indeed, who can completely exclude from his mind the possibility that that might be part of the intention?
We should also consider overseas fund raising and such people as Sir Y. K. Pao—he was a golfing partner of Sir Denis Thatcher, but I do not know whether that was his prize—and Li Ka-shing, who gave £1 million to the Conservative party and hosted dinners for the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister. T. T. Tsui went to see the right hon. Gentleman in Downing street to discuss Hong Kong airport. C. K. Ma, whose father was—no doubt inconsiderately—imprisoned by the Taiwanese for heroin smuggling, seemed to believe, quite wrongly, that giving £1 million to the Conservative party would somehow buy his father the right to return to Hong Kong. A series of donations were clearly given in the expectation of favours. I am not suggesting that such favours were promised.
To discover where all this came from, we must look to 1976, when Lord Thorneycroft was chairman of the Conservative party and a new treasurer—Lord McAlpine, who has been quoted several times in this debate—was appointed. Having accepted Short money on behalf of the Conservative party in opposition, Lord McAlpine persuaded Lord Thorneycroft to refuse money that the Houghton committee, under the Labour Government, recommended should be given to all political parties. The Conservatives were the first party to accept Short money. Indeed, it paid for the researchers who developed what we now know as Thatcherism. The Houghton committee consequently became a dead letter, and Britain became the only country in western Europe that did not move to any system of state funding.
Refusing the Houghton committee' s recommendation was on the cynical calculation that, although the Conservative party was in debt, the Labour party would be worse off if state funding were not provided. Lord Thorneycroft complained; he believed that the Conservatives must accept the Houghton money because

81
the party was £1.9 million in debt. That seems chicken-feed in comparison with the Conservative party's subsequent £19 million debt.
The Conservatives maintained opposition to state funding of political parties so that the Houghton committee' s recommendation could never be implemented. Their calculation was right, in the sense that they always had more money than the Opposition parties, but in the end, as sources and the patience of industry in giving money waned, they had to scrape lower in the barrel, accepting overseas funding of all sorts. Such a financial strategy entirely merited—indeed, could have predicted—the election result.
Until 1997, the Labour party had no choice but to try to match Conservative spending. History will show that, as soon as this Government had the opportunity, they acted decisively to bring the arms race of escalating election spending to an end and to clean up the sleaze in our political system. If they do so with the Opposition's support, that can be described only as very welcome. Let us remember that the report is the result of a pledge that Labour made before the election. We said that we would clean up sleaze in the funding of political parties, and I do not think that anything will deflect the Government from doing so.
The parties are caught in a vice between falling incomes from their traditional sources—that applies to companies and to trade unions—rising costs of campaigning and the demand and need for more sophisticated policy research. There are only two possible consequences. We either have a slum democracy, in which parties are poorly staffed and researched and unprepared for the task of running government—contributing to expensive policy errors, such as the poll tax, which cost the country £1.5 billion—or a sleaze democracy, in which parties are forced into an unhealthy reliance on funding from private individuals, which will sooner or later compromise the parties' integrity. That is the lesson of the Ecclestone affair as much as it is of all the others that preceded it.
I very much welcome all the Neill report's proposals. Between them—disclosure of donations, a ban on overseas donations, a limit on election expenditure, ballots for companies that want to give money and tax treatment for donations—we should be able to put this sorry chapter of our history behind us for ever.
7.23 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: It has been a great privilege to serve on the Neill committee and deal with the report under the wise and skilled chairmanship of Lord Neill. It has been a fascinating exercise.
From the very first evidence we took, which was from Peter Riddell, one of our most perceptive political columnists on this and many other issues—he covered much of the field—and from our visits abroad and the interviewing of witnesses around the country, it became clear that the question was much more complex than the simple thought of disclosure and banning of foreign donations would lead one to believe. We became increasingly aware that we were dealing not just with general elections but, due to the multiplication of the number of different types of electoral systems, the onset
82
of referendums and the technological developments we face, an on-going scene which covers a very broad field. I should like to make a few general points before I turn to our principal recommendations.
First—this is very important—the committee felt that there was very little evidence of abuse. In paragraph 4.4, we draw attention to
"The two most obvious objects which are supposed by the cynical to underlie large political donations".
They are:
"the purchase of access to Ministers (or Shadow Ministers) and the purchase of influence over policy."
It is worth getting paragraph 4.5 on the record:
"In fact, the suspicions which are entertained concerning large givers are commonly lacking in any justification. We have been given no evidence that leads us to doubt that nearly all give generously either because they support the general aims of the party which they finance, or in order to minimise the risk of the opposing party attaining power."
That is a very important comment, because it reflects the real position of British politics.
I had a fairly extensive ministerial career in various Departments, and can firmly say that on no occasion did I take a decision on policy or anything else that was based on any donation to any political party. Indeed, I did not know who the donors were. That contrasts with the situation in the United States today, and in Canada before changes in disclosure and election rules. I do not believe that there is much corruption or abuse in that area in this country, but the perception that it exists is another matter. The perception, above all, had to be dealt with.
Secondly, I have always strongly believed that politics is an honourable profession. One of the problems with regular stories suggesting possible abuse, sleaze or corruption is that they give a totally false impression of the realities of politics—exaggerating the extent of such issues. Exaggeration and concentration on such stories feed on themselves, creating a public mood.
I noticed in some of the debate and discussion in taking evidence the notion that there was somehow something tainted about being involved in politics—whether as a parliamentarian or as an active voluntary worker in the constituencies. I hope that our recommendations will eradicate that impression. They are based on the belief that politics is a wholly worthy activity, and one not to be looked at askance as though it was something shady.
I should like to put on record only two other passages of the report. In setting out the committee's approach at the beginning of the report, paragraph 2.11 says:
"The pursuit of politics is an honourable profession to which many men and women devote their lives. Behind each career politician stands a regiment of dedicated voluntary party workers."
It is very important to state that at the outset. I am sure that hon. Members across the parties would agree.
Paragraph 2.23 states:
"The argument here is that strong, healthy political parties are essential to the functioning of a strong, healthy democracy. In particular, strong and healthy parties are necessary as a means of recruiting ordinary citizens into decision-making positions at all levels of government, local as well as national, and also as a means of engaging very large numbers of people—as campaigners, activists, fund-raisers and participants in public debate—in the whole democratic process. Our view is that parties are indeed essential in this way."

83
That approach coloured our thinking towards producing a package.
I was very glad that the Home Secretary—I am sorry that he is not present, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) will pass on one or two of my remarks—expressed precisely those sentiments recently in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I wholly agree with them.
Mr. Andrew Love: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he accept that successive scandals in this area over the past 19 years caused that malaise in the public's view of political parties?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that those matters have been greatly exaggerated. There are perfectly good explanations for the vast majority of donations, and I hope that the committee's recommendations, and the follow-up to them, will make that apparent.
There are two points that I wish to emphasise. First, there is nothing wrong with making financial donations as an individual or as a company. Indeed, I would argue that it is necessary. We do not want politics run on a shoestring, leading to poor decisions, poor government and the discouragement of good people from coming into politics. However, donations should be out of a conviction for a cause, and not to secure personal favours in return. Secondly, it is unhealthy to the political system for a party to rely on a few large donations from wealthy people, and it is desirable to widen and assist fund-raising by more ordinary citizens. It is in that context that the committee has made some recommendations.
I wish to refer to the principal recommendations, although I shall not dwell on them at length—they are clearly laid out in the report. The key passage is the chapter on disclosure. The disclosure of donations enables everybody to see what is going on, and I think that we have got the limits right. We argued for some time over the limits of £5,000 nationally and £1,000 at constituency level, but I believe that those figures are sensible.
One matter which has not been mentioned so far is that we have made an exception of small donations under £50—the endless local contributions from wine and cheese parties, coffee mornings and raffles. Some may argue that that gives a slight loophole, but I think that the loophole is tiny. One would have to go to a lot of wine and cheese parties and raffles and make a lot of small donations to get close to the figure that we are talking about. The importance of excluding such events is twofold. First, we do not want to discourage those activities which widen the network of people who are involved in politics. Secondly, the administrative task of scrutinising and keeping records of all those small donations would be impossible.
We had a long discussion on the effect of disclosure in terms of political parties being able to raise funds. There is no clear answer. Some of the evidence from overseas suggested that, once disclosure of donations is introduced, there will be a considerable reduction in the amount of money going into the political parties. I would guess that
84
that will happen, because some people, for perfectly honourable reasons, will be deterred from giving—when they might have given, for honourable reasons, otherwise—because they just do not want public disclosure of the fact that they are contributing to a political party.
There will be a reduction—it could be considerable—in the money going into political parties from the more wealthy donors or companies, and it is important to take that into account when we look at some of the committee's later recommendations.
As for foreign donations, we had to wrestle to work out the best definition of a "foreign donation". I personally think that we got it right, in terms of both individuals and companies. Some organisations—for example, big international lobbying organisations—may bring considerable sums of money into a political party which supports, say, an issue on animal welfare. We have put restrictions on those organisations also, because it is not just companies we need to be concerned about. I hope that we have the definition right, but it took a good deal of working out.
There is an exception for Northern Ireland in relation to disclosure of donations and foreign donations. In terms of foreign donations, the exception was made because of the Ireland Act 1949 and the Irish Republic's Electoral Act 1997. I should like to see no exceptions to the general rules in relation to disclosure or foreign donations. However, we took the view that, on security grounds—at least in the short to mid-term as far as disclosure was concerned—and on the technical grounds that I have described for foreign donations, there had to be an exception. Everyone on the committee felt that, as soon as the Government felt that the exception could be dropped on both scores the better, because it was much better to have no exceptions.
There was an argument that any exceptions in Northern Ireland for foreign donations should apply in Scotland as well. I cannot see why, as what applies in the rest of the United Kingdom should apply in Scotland as well. However, it leads to the point that there have to be good reasons for an exception in terms of foreign donations and disclosure, and we accepted that the case in Northern Ireland applied in both respects.
The committee felt from the outset that, as we moved into a more complex area, the arguments for an electoral commission were overwhelming. We could be dealing with a scene that changes much faster than in the past, and technological developments will be very important in the context of the ceilings on expenditure—about which I shall say more later. Because of the proliferation of various types of election, the issues could change. We felt that the electoral commission should have the remit not only to control how the legislation was applied in practice, but to keep reviewing whether changes were necessary in the light of the kind of developments to which I have referred.
I wish to refer now to tax relief. There is a clear recommendation in the report—which I wholly support—that the Government should look at the recommendations as a package and as a whole. There must be no cherry-picking, because the temptation may be to pick the cherry that one likes, while leaving some of the others aside. We see the process as a unity of approach. If we are to curb—as, inevitably, we will—the amount of

85
donations as a result of disclosure, and if we believe that an absolutely critical point of our whole approach was to encourage many more ordinary citizens to become involved in the political process and to give donations, tax relief is an important recommendation.
I would very much regret it if the Government decided that they were unable to embark on the tax relief change, because I believe that giving tax relief on donations to political parties—which are, after all, about the future of us all—is just as important and worth while as giving it on donations to charities.
Some have argued that the tax relief proposal will favour one political party over another. I do not think it will, because we have put strict limits on our recommendations on tax relief—a limit of £500, with relief limited to the basic rate. That will not help higher-rate taxpayers more than ordinary taxpayers. In addition, the argument that some people do not pay tax is not a reason for not embarking on the scheme.
I must tell the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that we looked at tax credits as an alternative. However, the difficulty was that, in the British tax system—the evidence from the Inland Revenue was clear—tax credits would be difficult and expensive to operate, whereas the tax relief system, based on charitable donations and so on, would be much easier.
In fact, the tax relief system is much easier to operate for political parties than it is for charities. There are a multiplicity of charities which must correspond with the Inland Revenue, it being the responsibility of the charity to apply for tax relief. However, in terms of political parties, there will only be two or three mediums through which tax relief will be provided. That is why we chose that route.
Mr. Maclennan: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said about taking the recommendations as a package. Did he and the committee consider the recommendation on the Short money and the aid given to parties in Parliament to be part of that package, as there has been some argument that that system favours one party over another?
Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman has read my mind, as I was about to speak about Short money, which the committee regarded as very much part of the package.
I served on the Standards and Privileges Committee for a few months before the general election. I felt that blind trusts were a way to get around disclosure—if the Committee had been able to finish its work, I would have strongly objected to them. However, I understood the arguments for them—Opposition Front Benchers need more funding to carry out their activities. I have thought for a long time—I believed it when we were in government—that the Short money is inadequate. The demands on Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in keeping themselves well informed are substantial.
Mr. Linton: The right hon. Gentleman has been, among others things, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House. Why, if he held those views, did he not introduce reforms to increase Short money then?
Mr. MacGregor: I was not under any pressure to do so. Now that the matter has come up, I am happy to make
86
my views known. The issue was graphically brought to light when my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) went, as shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on a crucial fact-finding mission to Bosnia. He was fortunate enough to have had a lift out in a Royal Air Force plane, but the plane would not bring him back, and the Short money did not extend to paying his fare. Indeed, I am not sure how he managed to return—
Mr. Gerald Howarth: By bicycle.
Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps by bicycle.
An Opposition spokesman carrying out a perfectly legitimate, and highly desirable, activity as part of his responsibility should not have to fund his trip from his private resources or from 10p or 20p donations at coffee mornings. Since Short money was introduced, political life has become much more complex, and the demands on Front-Bench spokesman have become much greater.
I hope that the Government accept the committee's recommendation to treble Short money. The committee also made detailed points about the money's distribution, but I shall not describe them now.
One of the justifications for trebling Short money is the amount that taxpayers now spend on special advisers. This year, £3.6 million, I think, is being spent on special advisers—the Government have taken on many more than we had. Those of us who have had special advisers—including, I am sure, the Home Secretary—know that a good deal of their work is political. In comparison with the £3.6 million that is spent on Government special advisers—on top of all the other resources for the Government machine and the civil service—the trebling of the Short money would be a small sum.
The hon. Member for Battersea asked why Short money should not be given to Back Benchers from the governing party. Short money is specifically for Front-Bench activity; it is not for Opposition Back Benchers, so the committee did not believe that there was a case for extending it to Back Benchers from the governing party.
Having disagreed with the hon. Member for Battersea twice, I should add that I entirely agree with his arguments for some modest funding for political research. One of the weakest parts of the Home Secretary's speech—with the exception of all the tendentious stuff at the beginning—was the way in which he compared political research funding with the money that is spent on education and schools. That was rather cheap, and it missed the point. Short money and political research funding are important to the proper working of government and to the development of policy by any future Government. It is wrong that Opposition policy development should depend on 20p contributions at coffee mornings—proper funding would be a well-directed use of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman's admonition on my speech was fair. My mistake was to wrap up comments about Short money with comments about tax relief, which are separate issues. We have some serious considerations to make before we allow donations to

87
political parties for policy development. I accept what he says about Short money, however, having had to put up with its shortage in opposition.
Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman should read what I said about tax relief, which I believe should be part of the package.
It became apparent to the committee that referendums were a key issue. I am trying to avoid being politically contentious, as that was not the committee's approach, but the evidence we received in Cardiff led me to believe that the operation of the referendum on the Welsh Assembly was outrageous. There would not have been a no campaign if it were not for the fact that a member of the Labour party had been sufficiently worried about the establishment of the Assembly to ask her bank manager for a £4,000 overdraft to start up the campaign—her courage led Robert Hodge to donate £80,000. Despite the shortage of funds, the campaign came close to being successful. We should not conduct major constitutional referendums in such a way.
The committee's recommendations on referendums are extremely important, and I hope that the Government will take them up. There are arguments for extending the remit of the electoral commission—or some other body—beyond the scrutiny of political funding in referendums, but it was not the task of the Neill committee to consider them.
Another point should be clarified. There has been some misunderstanding about what the committee meant in saying that the Government should be neutral in referendums—perhaps the point was not drafted sufficiently clearly. Of course the Government should not be prevented from expressing their views vociferously. In any referendum on proportional representation, the Government will, presumably, speak with two voices—
Mr. Straw: One.
Mr. MacGregor: I am very glad to hear it, if that voice is going to be the Home Secretary's. However, the right hon. Gentleman must concede the possibility that there will be two voices. If there are, Ministers will express their personal views, and will not expect the Government machine to back them with expenditure. The committee argued for core funding for both the yes and the no campaigns in that case.
If there is one Government view on the single currency, of course the Government should not be prohibited from expressing it. The committee's point was that the Government case should not receive double funding on such an important referendum issue. The Home Secretary mentioned Ministers taking civil servants' advice on the single currency during the campaign. That is perfectly proper, just as it is when Ministers have to take policy from civil servants during a general election campaign. The committee's concern was about expenditure and double funding.
As the hon. Member for Battersea said, I put forward a minority view on expenditure limits. I believe that disclosure is the key issue in dealing with the abuses—or perceived abuses—of the current system. I also believe that expenditure is a matter of freedom of choice and freedom of speech. In a general election, we should not
88
constrain a party's expenditure. Indeed, that is the committee's unanimous view on referendum campaigns. At paragraph 12.47, the freedom of speech argument is adduced as a reason for not having a ceiling on referendum expenditure.
We must put in context the amount that is spent in most election campaigns. Most companies' annual expenditure on marketing and advertising for major products is more than is spent by political parties in a general election campaign, which is, none the less, a much more important matter. As Peter Riddell suggested in evidence, I do not think that a ceiling would work. There would be so many difficulties of interpretation and possibilities of abuse that, for the impact that it would have, the game would hardly be worth the candle.
It has been argued that a ceiling would prevent political parties from spending their money unwisely, but that is the responsibility of the parties themselves. We spent an awful lot of money unwisely in the 1997 general election campaign, but that was our fault, and it is not the duty of the state to save us from our faults. There is a nannyish element to such arguments.
Those are the arguments of principle and of practice that led me to the view that I reached. I am glad that there has been such a positive response to the report, and that the Home Secretary wants to legislate as soon as possible, but it is important to see the package as a whole, and to ensure that any referendums that are coming up are conducted within the framework that we set out.
7.51 pm
Mr. Phil Woolas: I hope to embarrass the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) by largely agreeing with him on the report's call for extra funding for policy development.
Political parties have reached a paradox, as there is general agreement that the profession of politics is held in low regard, but we need to have well-funded political parties—and especially policy development—to get out of that situation. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was absolutely right when he said that we need to distinguish clearly between policy development and campaigning or electioneering. As anyone who is familiar with political parties knows, it is perfectly possible to separate those two functions. The idea that businesses, trade unions or individuals can buy influence over policy leads to the accusations of corruption, with a small or a large "c".
I would go much further than the Neill recommendations on policy development. The arguments for state funding are best seen in continental Europe, and especially in Germany—and previously in West Germany—where part of the post-war settlement involved providing state funding for the political parties and establishing policy development bodies with taxpayers' money to act as a form of democratic guarantee. That system has served German political parties, right across the political divide, very well.
Given the low public standing of the profession of politics, I understand that taxpayers would not want their money spent on political campaigning or electioneering, but I think that the establishment of policy development bodies with state funding, on the principle that they would not accept any donations other than from the state, would afford a separation that allowed businesses, individuals

89
and trade unions to continue to donate money to the political party of their choice. I agree that they do that mainly for ideological reasons, and not through a desire to buy influence.
If the recommendation were accepted—I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was sceptical—it would have more far-reaching consequences than the committee may have recognised. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that an increase in state funding is inevitable, and I would support that if it were directed towards developing policy forums or think tanks. That would radically change the role of the civil service, and especially its relationship with an incoming Government.
We need to ensure that Opposition parties are much better prepared for government when they take office. I do not want to rehearse the stereotypes of Sir Humphrey and his delaying tactics, but I believe that many of the incidents that have been cited tonight—including the Ecclestone affair—would have been avoided had the Labour party's policy development been more advanced in opposition.
I do not see why we should not be able to second civil servants, industrialists, academics and others to state-funded policy development forums, to help parties to work out policies in more detail. That would not be an abandonment of ideology, as some have argued; it would help political parties, of whatever ideology, to develop practical policies that could be implemented on coming to office.
On Short money, suffice it to say that I would welcome a huge increase in the allocation for Government Back Benchers. I sometimes think that Labour Back Benchers provide a better opposition than the official Opposition. On that basis, perhaps we should get some of the money. I will not go too far down that road, as I can imagine the Whips suggesting a link with, for example, how often we read our pagers.
I remind hon. Members of the background to the introduction of in the trade unions ballots on the political levy. I share the consensus that the ballots have by and large improved the situation. The trade unions are more accountable, and the systems are transparent. The effect was the opposite of the intention.
I believe—this is backed up by a reading of the Hansard reports of debates of the time—that the then Government's intention in enacting the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 was to drive a wedge between the trade unions and the Labour party, and to cut the party's funding. The expectation was that at least some trade union members would vote against affiliation; but that did not happen. In practice, the links between the unions and the party were strengthened.
Wearing my party political hat, I have a word of warning about the proposals for shareholder ballots. Recommendation 34 is fairly specific, but not specific enough for us to make a judgment on how companies would decide whether to make political donations.
There is a key difference between a company and a trade union. For trade unions, there is one member, one vote; for companies, there is to be one share, one vote—or that is how I read recommendation 34. That is very different from one shareholder, one vote. As we know, shareholding in most public limited companies is heavily biased in favour of institutional shareholders. It is
90
conceivable that small shareholders would vote one way and the big institutions would vote another way. We need to be careful about the details of such proposals, to avoid the pendulum swinging too far. We do not want to look back in 10 or 20 years and wonder why we went so far.
One of the key principles recommended by the Neill report is to achieve greater public confidence that individuals and organisations do not buy influence in political parties. There has been controversy in my constituency for some time about the administration of the Melton Medes pension fund. I hope that the House will bear with me on this practical example, because it illustrates the urgent need for the implementation of the majority of the Neill committee's report.
The scheme has been subject to accusations of bullying and maladministration. The female workers in the factory have been forced, under threat of dismissal—this has been admitted by the chairman of the trustees—to sign contracts that postpone their retirement age from 60 to 65. There are allegations of intimidation against some of the members of the pension fund.
That may be of little interest to the House. However, the chairman of Melton Medes, Mr. Nat Puri, is listed in the Register of Members' Interests as a major donor to the campaign of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for the leadership of the Conservative party. He is also listed in the Labour party accounts as a major donor to the Labour party. The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and the Financial Services Authority have failed to order investigations into the administration of the pension fund. The members of the fund—the existing work force and the current pensioners—are very sceptical about the power of the financial watchdogs and the political process after the injustice that has taken place.
I am not suggesting that the Labour party, its Ministers or the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe are in any way involved in the events that I have described—indeed, I know that they are unaware of them. However, that does not reassure the members of the pension fund. Greater transparency and greater accountability are required.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said about what he is not alleging, what is his point? What is the connection between donations to any political party and the administration of the pension fund that he is talking about?
Mr. Woolas: My point is that in this case—and, I believe, in many others—the members of the pension fund have lost faith in the political party system, because they believe that both parties have failed to protect their interests. The disclosure of the donations by the company looks pretty raw, given the effects of the decisions of that company. I want more transparency, to reassure the members of that pension fund that there has been no untoward activity. I believe there has been none, but they do not share my view.
I was a senior manager in an affiliated trade union for several years, and have been on the receiving end of many requests for donations to the Labour party—and, on a couple of occasions, to other parties. My experience is that the trade unions suffer from the accusation that they are buying policy, just as much as the Labour party does. It is a two-way relationship.

91
That is why an increase in state funding for policy development would benefit not just the Opposition parties, but the party of government, currently the Labour party, and the trade unions. The trade unions would be free to carry on giving money for leaflets, stickers and posters, up to whatever limit is set—£15 million or £20 million have been suggested—but there could be no accusation that policy was being influenced by donations or affiliations in any political party. That would improve our political process, providing modern, professional political parties and better policy, thereby serving the public much better than the current system.
8.6 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be brief and non-partisan—brief because the issues are fairly simple, and non-partisan because it is difficult for a party of one to be partisan, just as it is difficult for a party of one to qualify for Short money, although, as the party leader, I would not mind if the rules changed.
I have an interest to declare. The debate concerns broad issues of trust and confidence in the democratic process, which propelled me, rather to my surprise, into Parliament. In my written and oral evidence to the committee, I suggested a national campaign spending limit for parties of £2 million each. The committee went for a higher figure. That much money cannot be raised on the rubber chicken circuit, because there are not enough rubber chickens or party members with the stomach to digest them, so it will have to be raised by other means. Some of it will come from big contributors, which gets us again into the grey area of whether we are selling and buying influence or selling and buying access.
I welcome the imposition of limits, just as I welcome the recommendations on referendums. The Home Secretary had an opportunity in the debate to accept that an independent mechanism will be necessary for the conduct of referendums. I have entered into a single-issue and very short-term alliance with the Conservative party on this, which I am sure will not spread to other issues. We are backed in our campaign for a real referendum by Charter 88, the Electoral Reform Society and, I think, the majority of the British people, who cannot accept that the Government can be umpire and player on the same field. There is a question of legitimacy. When a referendum is over, the losing side has to accept that it was fairly conducted. That was part of the problem with the Welsh referendum.
The public will not allow any more public money for political parties—money that could otherwise be spent on schools and hospitals. It is up to the parties to fire up enthusiasm and match the idealism of the young with the idealism of the not so young. They have to generate support to get a lot of small contributions. 1 have perhaps a unique experience in politics, after an incident last January involving a tabloid newspaper. I found that I had to pay £9,400 in legal fees, which I had not known I owed. People started sending me the money, so I have experience of running a fund lowering campaign. If any party wants to draw on that experience, I shall be happy to help it out.
The issue of honours is important. In the companion volume to the report, the most fascinating evidence of all is that given on 13 May by Lord Pym, the chairman of
92
the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, when he addressed the issue whether there was any link at all between contributing to party funds and the award of honours. I had expected him to say that there was absolutely none, and that that would occur under no circumstances and over his dead body. What he actually said was:
"On the whole, the principle we follow is that if somebody gives their money to a political party, that is a bonus point rather than a minus because they are supporting what they believe in with their own money … Our responsibility is to look at the totality of the contribution made by individuals and weigh them all together. Donations may be one aspect of their achievements; it may be a minor one, but it is an aspect."
Donations are an achievement? Signing a cheque is an achievement? That seems to me to be both a corruption of the language and a corruption of politics. If Lord Pym really believes that, if he has not changed his mind, if he has been correctly transcribed, and if words have the meaning that they appear to have, he should step aside. If any other member of his committee believes the same, he or she too should step aside, so that their positions can be filled by people who would place an absolute and unbreachable fire wall between donations and the award of honours. It is a matter of integrity, and of trust in government. People care about that. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
8.11 pm
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) said that the best opposition came from the Back Benches, and he may have heard me say from a sedentary position that that is not unusual. Back Benchers are the backbone of parties. They are the folk who go out to fight and to argue in the streets. They know the Government's policy, and they are the first to detect the rapid shifts that occur as soon as an Opposition become the Government. That is why they, being tied to the true faith, become the most devastating critics of the Government. Perhaps they are not as vocal early in a Parliament as they will later become, but let me assure the hon. Gentleman that, with the majority that his party has, it will happen. I have seen it all before.
My first point is about the nature of the political party. I am on the same footing as the Home Secretary and several others in believing that political parties should seek a mass membership. If the membership is big enough, and if it is supported by relatively small membership fees—I am against large fees—it will be followed by fund raising, canvassing, and much more, as naturally as day follows night. I am against the idea of a political elite receiving large sums of money from public funds so that it can run elections and Governments by buying space in newspapers and time on the other media. That would be totally wrong, and would be destructive of the democratic principle. We should stay as far from it as we can.
The Home Secretary said that he would write to ask for representatives from each major party. What does he consider to be a major party? A major party in one part of the United Kingdom, such as his own Labour party, can be totally non-existent in another part, as his is in my Province. I hope that he will bear that in mind.
The report mentions £5,000 for donations. That seems a reasonable sum, not too big and not too small. State funding should be given only through the Short money.

93
I find it repugnant that any political party should look to the public purse for money to run its operations in its headquarters, in the House or in the country. If we are to offer money, it should be done strictly for parliamentary purposes. The Short money was created for that reason, and that is how it should be used.
The Home Secretary, in setting out his views, did not refer at all to Northern Ireland. That was left to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). The Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman did not mention Northern Ireland, and nor did the Liberal Democrat spokesman. We have been told that there should be openness regarding money for elections and so on. I have glanced through the large report—we do not have time to read all the reports that land on our desks—and hon. Members will understand that I concentrated on the Northern Ireland section.
I read the concerns expressed by the Social Democratic and Labour party, and the reference to the wishes of its supporters to remain incognito. I well understand that desire. A brick, or worse, through the window, attacks on one's children, and threats and intimidation are not common on this side of the Irish sea, but we have to live with them. That said, I believe that anyone prepared to put forward a political point of view must be prepared to defend it in every forum and against every enemy. For that reason, I diminish the comments of the SDLP about concerns for the safety of its people, although those concerns are perhaps greater even than those of other political parties in Northern Ireland.
The strange position of the Irish Republic was mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, and is set out in the report, beginning at page 75. Under the Ireland Act 1949, the Irish Republic and its citizens enjoy a peculiar position in British law. The Republic itself maintains a wide definition of who is an Irish citizen or national. We must take those two things into account.
Paragraph 5.38 agrees that nationals of the Irish Republic are not really foreigners because of the 1949 Act. Paragraph 5.39 says:
"it would be virtually impossible to halt the flow of funds from the Dublin offices of the SDLP or Sinn Fein".
The Home Secretary must realise that halting and policing are not the same thing. They should not be treated as lightly as the report treats them. It is crazy to license one or two parties in the United Kingdom to raise money by such means, and to accept donations from such sources, without our giving the same licence to all parties. That position is not sustainable. If any of the major parties cared to go to the European Court of Human Rights, the Government might find themselves in major difficulty.
My concern is increased by the fact that there are difficulties in some people's minds about the source of some IRA-Sinn Fein money. There are allegations of drug dealing, of robbery, of rackets, of intimidation and of protection money, to name just a few. The public manifestation of Messrs Adams, McGuinness and others going to the United States for $500-a-plate dinners and other fund raising is also hard to tackle. We would be remiss, however, in not attempting to tackle those problems. We cannot turn a blind eye to them. We must investigate them, and we must have answers. If we are to allow money to be handed out willy-nilly, the handout must be policed.
Who is it who tries to conceal the sources of its money? Only one party does—Sinn Fein-IRA. That party is no friend of the democratic principle, and we should not
94
connive at allowing it to get away with, literally, the murder, intimidation and violence that it uses to raise some of its funds. We must ask serious questions, and we must police carefully the sources of that party's funding. We need to know. Nothing frightens the evildoer as much as the spotlight of publicity shining into the darkest corners of his behaviour. That is a dark corner of those people's behaviour, let us get a searchlight on to it as soon as possible.
I do not hold referendums in high favour, for a number of reasons, not least that the Government always set the question, which has a great effect on the outcome. Under the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972, which has been repealed, the question was, "Do you want Northern Ireland to become part of the Irish Republic?" and about 97 per cent. of the people said no.
In the last referendum in Northern Ireland, the question on the ballot paper was not the issue. Essentially, the question was, "Do you want peace?" What fool wants war? It was a classic case of misdirection, as the real question was, "Do you want the IRA in government?" Of course, that issue never really surfaced. As a result of that affair, I am of the opinion that equal funds should be available to both sides of the argument, and that it is equally important to allow a much longer period to sell the case.
Mrs. Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem of the wording of the question in a referendum could be solved if an electoral or independent commission were given the power to scrutinise the way in which it was worded, and if that power were taken away from the Government?
Mr. Ross: One can build in such safeguards until the cows come home, but the best referendum is a general election. No matter how many safeguards one builds in, the Government will eventually see to it that their will carries the day when it comes to the question asked. I have been in this place long enough to be highly suspicious of safeguards, as I know how weak they normally are.
There are all sorts of problems. The Government of the day are to be neutral, but their members may campaign. There will be associated costs. The Government's position has already been mentioned in the debate. Whenever one goes down the road of a referendum, one finds that the Government manage to promote their ideas through the question. If the referendum has the authority of the Government behind it—the power of Government with the media and so forth—the result is a foregone conclusion. It will be what the Government desire it to be.
Another little problem is that, under our system, no Parliament can bind its successor. Referendums are an attempt to bind a successor Parliament, which is another good reason for not going down that road. However, a successor Government could overturn the result of a referendum if they had the guts, because power lies not with referendums but with the majority in this House. No Member of this House should allow that power to be taken away from us.
We should consider carefully the Government's role in the Northern Ireland referendum this year. Hon. Members have referred to the Welsh referendum, and I know of the hullabaloo associated with it. Most people in Great Britain took little notice of the arguments advanced during the

95
Northern Ireland referendum campaign, but large gobs of Government money were expended. As far as I am aware, the figures have never been given. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me where I can find those sums in the Northern Ireland Government accounts. Where are they set out clearly? How can I find out which parties expended what money?
I noticed from the evidence given by the president of my party that we received some donations from the Irish Republic to fight the referendum. Since the party and I were of divided opinions in that matter, I would be interested to know who the individual donors were. Was it the Joseph Rowntree Foundation or one of those wealthy multimillionaires who inhabit the Irish Republic and who are always so willing to buy Northern Ireland businesses and so forth? I think that we deserve to be told. It is not merely the general public who want to know where the money comes from in referendum campaigns and party political politicking. I suspect that many Back Benchers on both sides of the House want to know because it would give us a clearer idea of the real forces that drive both Front Benches.
The leaked letter from Mr. Tom Kelly, the spin doctor in the Northern Ireland Office, listed all the people whom the Government machine in Northern Ireland had to influence. The Government did not deny it, but simply complained to high heaven about the leak. Judging by the way in which some of the individuals and elements named in the letter have behaved since, it is plain to those of us who take an interest in such matters that the pressures of Mr. Kelly and the Government had the desired effect. Since the Conservative party is apparently to publish its accounts for this year and last, perhaps the Government will publish the accounts of expenditure on the referendums in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We want to see clearly what the sums were.
I could say much more on the subject, but will let that suffice. I have a number of concerns about the way in which the whole affair has been handled. We need more openness and fairness, and we also need much more forthrightness from Governments of all parties.
8.26 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). A familiar cry in some Irish elections is, "Vote early, vote often." Not long ago during the passage of a certain Bill, it was not clear when the Divisions would occur and I sought advice from my former private secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, who was sitting in the Box. He told me that there would be no Divisions until long into the evening, but that we would then vote frequently. I said that that was one of those rare instances of "Vote late, vote often."
In the interests of brevity, I will not comment in detail on any of the 100 recommendations in the report, which I welcome. I do not accept Northern Ireland as a deliberate exclusion, as the position in that respect applies to all the other recommendations.
As a former chairman of the Conservative party, I declare an interest. Until our party conference a month ago, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) became chairman, 10 members of both
96
Houses had served as party chairmen since we won the general election in 1979—one did so twice. Three other ex-chairmen are still Members of the House. One of them, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), opened the debate for the official Opposition, to which the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) alluded.
With 10 chairmen in 19 years, my term in office from November 1987 to July 1989 was about par for the course, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was less than personally helpful when he said in his opening remarks that the Home Secretary had concentrated on events a decade ago, which to my unmathematical mind puts them neatly and precisely in the middle of my term of office.
The hon. Member for Battersea said that he looked forward to my contribution, and I can shed light on one aspect of the Neill report—recommendation 45 on by-election expenditure. A footnote on page 111, on paragraph 10.5, refers to the special rate of expenditure for by-elections being introduced in 1989. Those of us with any exposure to by-elections before the 1989 legislation knew that there was an element of fiction to all parties' returns of by-election expenditure, but that agents were the only actors in the piece who were liable to a gaol sentence if the return was successfully questioned. It was clearly not possible that that should go on, but legislation had to have all-party support.
My right hon. Friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, then Home Secretary, delegated to me the task of negotiating with the shadow Home Secretary, Lord Hattersley, who in turn deputed negotiation to Joyce Gould, as she then was, in Walworth road on the basis that, if it was all right with her, it would be all right with him. We in turn reached agreement. I note that the task of reaching agreement was given to an officer and an official of the two party headquarters. Although a fair number of contributors to this debate have metaphorically held their noses about party headquarters, that Shakespearean standby, the second murderer, can have his or her uses upon a noble stage.
The Home Secretary, in a speech only marginally flawed by partiality, attributed to the past two decades the palm for improper political finance in our history. I thought that he was a little forgetful of the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1832, that great year in our parliamentary history, 850 out of the 1,000 voters in Stamford were bribed. If I had been one of the 150, I would have wondered what was wrong with me. Between 1832 and 1857, 443 petitions to invalidate parliamentary elections were mounted and 75 were sustained. In 1880, there were 42 petitions after the general election, of which 16 in England were successful; eight led to the appointment of royal commissions, and seven towns were temporarily disfranchised.
Even in this century, I thought that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was over-pious in forgetting that notorious tout for honours, Maundy Gregory, the subject of three biographies from which one can distil a description of him as an actor cum secret service informer cum suspected murderer. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister but not leader of his party, derived a war chest

97
of £1.5 million in 1920s sterling from those activities. I cannot blame Lloyd George for giving an earldom—for providing him with £200,000—to Lord Farquhar.
Mr. Skinner: You can say that again.
Mr. Brooke: An earldom to Lord Farquhar. It was an absent-minded transfer, at a time when Lord Farquhar was treasurer of the Conservative party. I suspect that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) may have forgotten the industrialist who gave Ramsay MacDonald in his first premiership the interest from £40,000 and the use of a Daimler, and who, coincidentally, received a baronetcy shortly afterwards.
Ironically, the sale of honours between the 1890s and the 1920s did much to enervate the local efforts of the Liberal party. Without wishing to intrude on private grief, I suspect that one of the reasons for my party's recent retreat in the English metropolitan boroughs, where we now hold six seats out of 124, owes much to over-reliance on business funding and a reduction in the number of businesses still controlled within the cities where they were once headquartered.
I have quoted before in the House the instructions received at my mother's knee never to jog backwards, although she rendered it more felicitously. There has been talk of damascene conversions in the Opposition. For myself, recalling my mother's instructions, I welcome the committee's recommendations unreservedly. I was sorry not to draw from the Home Secretary precisely which recommendations he did not accept. The loose language of soundbites had alluded to accepting the main thrust of the recommendations or, in his language today, the main findings. I infer from the phrase "accepting the main thrust" that the less attractive recommendations fell into something that I described to the Leader of the House two and a half weeks ago as the lesser thrust. So far, the precise detail of the lesser thrust has not been vouchsafed to us.
The Government must be careful in taunting us on any delay in disclosure, to which we are already committed. In return for the official Opposition's acceptance of the recommendations in their entirety, we are promised a draft Bill next summer. I may be doing the Home Secretary an injustice, but I did not pick up whether the delay in legislation is because of drafting difficulties or the scale of the rest of the Government's business programme, which would send a message about the Government's sense of priority on these issues.
The Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) Act 1883 was provoked by the experiences of the 1880 general election and was an outstanding success, which we would like to see reflected in post-Neill legislation. Between 1874 and 1880, Conservative central office spent nothing, while Conservative candidates at elections spent £500,000 in 1870s sterling. Declared candidates' expenditure in 1880 was £41 million at 1980s prices. In 1885, it fell to £28 million and in 1886 to £19 million. At 1980s prices, it went back above £30 million only twice between 1886 and today—ironically, in 1906 and 1910.
Not only was candidates' expenditure cut, but the habit of constituency associations was formed in the 1880s and 1890s. After the 1883 legislation, in the words of an historian of British political finances,
"the cut in permitted spending led directly to the growth of political participation."
98
My father served on the Maxwell Fyfe commission during the 1945 to 1950 Parliament, which gave rise to Lord Woolton's switch from individual Members of Parliament funding the party locally to the greater energy of more widely based associations. Out of crises, I say to Conservative Members, can come opportunities.
Finally, I want to express in a bouquet of unreserved welcomes to the Neill committee a particularly unreserved welcome to its referendum rules and how it reached them. There has in some aspects of what I think the Labour party calls "the project" been some evidence of lack of preparation. As a strategic planning professor once taught me at the Harvard business school, "If you do not know where you are trying to get to, any road will get you there." That observation may reasonably be applied to the Government's approach to the serried referendums and their rules, as the Neill committee mentioned. When we press for universal referendum rules, junior Ministers in charge of Bills have regarded that as outside their remits. We are in the Neill committee's debt for having produced such rules.
8.36 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: It is a difficult task to follow the excellent, elegant elucidation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) of this difficult subject. Last week, I introduced a Bill to set up an election commission with powers over the conduct and financing of referendums. The Minister looks surprised. It was a ten-minute Bill.
Mr. George Howarth: I am sorry if I gave the hon. Lady the wrong impression. I was simply nodding in recognition of the fact that she had introduced such a Bill.
Mrs. Laing: I thank the Minister for clarifying that. I thought that the Government had not noticed.
The main effect of my Bill would be to implement the recommendations of the Neill report. I thought that the Government had not noticed it, because they did not oppose it, although there was every opportunity to do so. No Labour Member opposed it. I had hoped that the inference to be drawn from the failure to oppose it was that the Government were in favour of its provisions. Sadly, it seems from what the Home Secretary said that that is not the case.
The Home Secretary was not clear about the Government's attitude to Lord Neill's recommendations on referendums. He said that the chapter on referendums needed careful consideration. We have learnt to interpret the Government saying that a matter needs careful consideration to mean that the matter will take a very long time to consider, and that they will effectively kick it into touch. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will tell me whether, not being a rugby expert, I have misunderstood the sporting metaphor, but I believe that kicking something into touch means delay, delay and more delay. Why do the Government want to play for time on such an urgent issue? We have to regulate the conduct of referendums soon, because there could be another referendum at any minute.
A referendum is not a mere opinion poll, to be used at the whim of the Government of the day. The matters that are likely to be put to a referendum in the near future are

99
far too serious to be treated in the way that the present Government—or, indeed, any Government—treat opinion poll results, by spinning them in the media to their own advantage. There is a threat of referendums on several important subjects, such as whether there should be a fundamental change to our voting system, whether the pound should be merged with the euro and whether the composition of Parliament itself should be altered. It is incredible—unbelievable—that the Government are willing to conduct referendums on such fundamental aspects of our democratic system, but unwilling to entrench that process of consultation in a properly determined framework.
The Home Secretary today showed the Government's acceptance of the Neill committee's recommendation that an election commission be set up to regulate elections. Apparently it is right that we should have further regulation of elections, but no regulation of referendums. Where is the logic in that? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question. The Government are saying that elections must be fair, but that it is not necessary for referendums to be fair. Would anyone, on either side of the House, argue that referendums do not have to be conducted fairly? If not, we have to ask ourselves what lies behind the Government's reluctance to accept the Neill committee's proposals. Of what are the Government afraid? Why do they want to retain a biased system?
The referendum in Wales has been mentioned many times today, but hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I shall refer to the referendum in Scotland. First, I shall quote the evidence to the Neill committee of Mr. Raymond Robertson, a former Member of Parliament, who is now chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. He said:
"The Government was a player on one side of the referendum. The Government were campaigning for a yes vote. The Prime Minister came to Scotland twice. The Secretary of State for Scotland led the yes campaign. They were able to write the rules and an information leaflet and to send it out to every house. I think that is fundamentally unfair in a free society."
I agree.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is the hon. Lady not concerned that the Scottish Conservative party has still not come to terms with the fact that the people of Scotland are getting the Parliament they want? The fact that Mr. Robertson complained in that manner serves only to confirm that the Conservative party in Scotland continues to be out of touch with the wishes of the Scottish people.
Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong, and I cannot deny his remarks vehemently enough. My argument is not about the result of the referendum in Scotland. I am the first to admit that, no matter what rules applied or how much money was spent by any and all sides in the referendum campaign, the result would have been the same. The result was overwhelmingly in favour of what the Government, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats had argued, and I am not challenging that result. However, since the hon. Gentleman has made the point, I have to answer it: the Conservative party in Scotland is now campaigning to win seats in the new Scottish Parliament, and is working to
100
make that Parliament work. I may be sceptical about whether that Parliament can ever work, but that is not the issue this evening.
I am fair, and I believe in putting both sides of the argument; therefore, having quoted Mr. Robertson, I shall tell the House what the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office told the Neill committee. He said:
"We tried very hard indeed to achieve objectivity, in that the words would carry meaning in terms of significance, but no hint of advocacy that 'If you do this on 11 September, Scotland will be some nirvana afterwards.' But you are right: it is a difficult process."
The Minister was absolutely right: it is a difficult process to achieve that objectivity. In fact, it is impossible for any Government, no matter what their political colours, to achieve it. That is why we need fair funding for fair referendums.
The Home Secretary has considered the reasoned plea for real referendums, a campaign that has the support of hon. Members from all parties in the House and, indeed, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), whom the Conservatives were pleased to welcome to the campaign, although we understand that he does not want to join us in all our campaigns. It also has the support of several Members of another place, the Electoral Reform Society, Charter 88, the Constitution Unit and the Institute for Constitutional Research.
We have called for, first, the establishment of an independent commission. The role of such a commission could be carried out by the electoral commission which the Home Secretary has welcomed as part of Lord Neill's recommendations. Secondly, we want the commission to report within three months on a clear set of rules to govern the conduct and financing of referendums. That is a matter of urgency, as I hope the Minister recognises. There are many matters to be examined and clarified: for example, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) mentioned, the wording of the question asked in a referendum, what constitutes a sufficient majority and who is eligible to vote in a referendum. That last question was raised during the referendums in Scotland and Wales, but Ministers never answered it; they simply sidestepped it.
Those referendums are now behind us, but the question remains for future referendums. It is ludicrous that, in Scotland, leaflets about the referendum were printed in Cantonese because people who had just come from China to reside in Scotland and to do a good job working in Chinese restaurants there had a right to vote in the referendum on the future constitutional position in Scotland. People from China had the right to vote, but soldiers serving in Scottish regiments who were temporarily resident in England because of their work in the British Army were not allowed to vote. That is iniquitous. It is simply not fair. It is one of the many matters that should be dealt with and ruled on by an independent commission before we have another debacle during a so-called consultation of the people.
The third thing for which the campaign for real referendums has called is that no referendum should be held in future except one that is conducted in accordance with the rules laid down by the commission. The Electoral Reform Society has called that a level playing field for referendums. What could be the motive of any hon. Member who purports to uphold democracy, but who wants referendums to be conducted other than on a fair

101
and level playing field? A referendum must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair, so that its result is accepted by all sides, winners and losers, and by everyone who is affected by its outcome. That is why the rules must be clear, obvious and properly constituted. Campaigns must also be fairly funded. That unarguable truth leads inevitably to the necessity for public core funding, which the Neill committee also correctly recommended in its excellent report.
It is absurd and indefensible that in this sophisticated information age, in which our democratic system conducts general elections according to strict rules—that is one reason why ours is one of the oldest and most stable democracies in the world—we have, over the past year, condoned a situation in which the Government have been able to spend taxpayers' money promoting one side of a referendum campaign. By not accepting the Neill committee's recommendations today, the Government and all Labour Members are continuing to condone that unfair situation. That point cannot be argued; it is obviously unfair and therefore undemocratic.
Lord Neill has recommended simply:
"The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly 'factual' literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case."
That is such a reasonable recommendation that it is difficult to understand why the Government have not accepted it with alacrity and enthusiasm. Indeed, that recommendation is the essence of democracy. The Government cannot wriggle out of that, and every Member who defends democracy should now call on the Government to implement the Neill committee's proposals on fair referendums. If that is not done swiftly, the Government must, at the very least, immediately undertake to hold the next referendum according to those proposals.
8.51 pm
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: We welcome the conclusions of the Neill report, and accept all its recommendations, particularly that on national limits on campaign expenditure. As the report points out, that is in the spirit of the original 19th-century legislation, which first introduced upper levels on electoral expenditure.
We have all seen the ridiculous spectacle of candidates drawing up their return of election expenses, perhaps checking whether they sent somebody a telegram and working out the results to the last penny, while they are surrounded by hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of expenditure by national party campaigns, none of which has been accounted for in any way and which dwarfs into insignificance expenditure by individual candidates.
We should be grateful that we are in danger of being saved from ourselves and from following the example of the United States, where year after year election expenditure has increased and the only effect has been to reduce the electoral turnout and increase apathy and disillusionment with the political process. Lord Neill touches on that point.
I welcome the committee's suggestions of corresponding limits of £1.5 million for the Scottish Parliament elections and limits for third parties who may be involved in election campaign funds. As of last month,
102
all the Scottish parties have stated their willingness to stick with those limits even in advance of legislation to enforce the recommendations.
I have to confess that, for my party, stopping short of the £1.5 million expenditure limit may not prove to be an insurmountable problem. However, I am concerned that some of our opponents have not spelt out precisely how they will stick to the suggested limit, and we need an urgent meeting between the Scottish parties to agree the precise interpretation of Lord Neill's recommendations. I am sorry that there are no Scottish Labour Members here to confirm their acceptance of those proposals. Perhaps they are preparing for a long night on Wednesday, when we shall discuss the Scotland Bill.
My main concern is that third parties who are involved in the election might not limit their expenditure. By third parties I mean not political parties but those who are involved in campaigning. Already, Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union has been on a day trip to Scotland. He said that his union would campaign all out against independence. In an election for a Scottish Parliament, that is effectively campaigning for the Labour party and against the Scottish National party. Scottish National party Members want to know whether the TGWU and any other organisation that intends to get involved in the campaign will stick to the spirit of the Neill report and limit their expenditure.
That leads me to the recommendation that sources of funding should be limited to those who are entitled to vote and UK-based organisations. Scottish National party Members are happy to accept that. The logic of that carried through to Scottish elections would mean that only those who are entitled to vote in those elections and only Scottish organisations should contribute to the funding of campaigns for the Scottish Parliament. I am greatly concerned that organisations from outside Scotland would get involved in the next Scottish election or in a future referendum in Scotland. I am certain that, if any such organisation were to be involved, its motivation would not be to support the Scottish National party or further the cause of independence.
I am concerned also about the effects of Government information campaigns, which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. Recommendation 89 of the Neill report deals with that in relation to referendums, but I am particularly concerned about the forthcoming information campaign for the Scottish Parliament elections and the need to explain the new voting system. The Government plan a budget of £2 million to explain the voting method for the Scottish Parliament. At a press conference to announce that expenditure, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was concerned to explain to the people that the purpose of the second ballot is not to allow voters a second choice.
Hon. Members will remember that the first ballot is for the constituency seat and the second is for the regional lists, which are to be used to top up the membership of the Parliament to make it more proportional. The Secretary of State was apparently worried that some Labour voters might view the second ballot as an opportunity to express their second choice, which he feared might be the Scottish National party. Some of us think that the Secretary of State should be more worried about the fact that the SNP might be the first choice of some voters. However, I do not think that that falls into the category of legitimate information.

103
The legislation does not refer to the intention of a particular ballot, but alludes only to its outcome. Voters have a perfect right to interpret how a particular ballot is used and the reasons why it is used. On the basis of that argument, it might be possible for the Government to run an information campaign under the existing system declaring that the purpose of the ballot is not to allow tactical voting. That is why I have grave concerns about public information campaigns.
I welcome recommendation 17 of the Neill committee report, which states that it is an offence to discriminate against someone on the basis of his or her contribution to a political party. That provision might have come into effect earlier this year when the Scottish Office executed a volte face over the granting of a knighthood to Sean Connery when it discovered that he had donated money to the Scottish National party.
Recommendation 41 regarding Short money suggests not trebling Short money—that is recommendation 40, which I also welcome—but conducting a general review of Short money and examining the particular difficulties that affect smaller parties, which must deal with the same policy issues as larger parties but which receive little support from Short money in the form of research funding. I welcome that recommendation.
In conclusion—unusually, I find myself in agreement with the Opposition—I think that we need legislation in order to implement the Neill committee's recommendations in full as soon as possible. To some extent, the Government's reputation depends on their willingness to do that. Labour made much noise—particularly before the general election—about the system and the way in which it was being misused by the then Government. We now have a means of reforming the system, and it behoves the Government to implement the report in full at an early date.
9 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is one report by the do-gooders—the chattering classes—with which I agree. I support quite a number of the Neill committee's recommendations. The committee was established principally because there was so much financial sleaze that someone needed to step in. A list of proposals was put to the Neill committee with which I could not help but agree. I remember well standing here at the time of the Ecclestone affair—I think that was what it was called—and telling the Prime Minister that every adversity creates an opportunity.
I suggested to the Prime Minister that day that we should cap national spending in general elections. I proposed a figure, and the Neill committee—its members are a bit posher than me—has gone a bit higher. I said that, since major parties spend about £6 million financing 600-odd Labour and Tory candidates, that should be the official figure. If that is the amount that is spent in constituencies, an equivalent figure should be spent nationally. I think that that would help to clean up the political equivalent of the Augean stables.
As has already been said, we have had another basinful in the mid-term elections in the United States. A candidate named Feingold in Wisconsin stood for election to the Senate. He declared that he would not take any so-called
104
"soft" money, and he only just made it. Despite the fact that he was supported by all kinds of people, he nearly lost the election—he won by only a very narrow margin—because his opponent was able to spend a vast amount of money on his campaign. The sooner we take hold of this problem, the better.
I am quite enthused that the Tory party now thinks that the Neill committee's recommendations are great. It was not so long ago that the Tory Government would not even contemplate considering such issues. It is a little fanciful of the Tory party to go on about referendum campaigns, expenditure equality and the rest of it in an attempt to create the impression that the Labour party and this Government are dragging their feet purely and simply because of the referendum issue. I remember what happened in 1975, when—I have said this many times—those in favour of Britain remaining in the common market spent 10 times as much money campaigning as those of us who opposed them. The truth is that we would have lost anyway.
The turning point of that referendum campaign was the moment when the Prime Minister of the day, Harold Wilson—who had sat on the fence for God knows how long, saying, "On one hand this, but on the other that"—decided to jump off the fence and join those who were campaigning for a yes vote. I believe that that was the most significant thing that happened in that campaign. I kicked up merry hell about the £10 million, or whatever it was, that was spent, and I said that it was wrong that everyone had a little booklet shoved through their letter box; but in my heart, I know that that was the key decision.
In a referendum campaign on the euro, I expect the Government to put their case, and I expect different people to have different points of view. In case the Whips are listening, I point out that I declared in my general election manifesto:
"I shall vote against a single currency."
That document was not printed by Millbank or the appropriate region of the Labour party; I did it myself. I did it because I thought, "Who knows? They might have a bit of a referendum some day or other, and I had better get my position clear." I regard that as more important than the money that the Tories keep talking about in the debate. In my view, that document gives me more backing than all the finances that anyone could talk about, because I have told my constituents the score.
I must say to everyone, including the Tories, that the referendum on the euro is already being softened up. You don't need to be an Einstein to realise what is happening. All the talk about equality in the amounts to be spent on the referendum is phoney, because anyone who is watching the signs knows that there is a lot of activity now—including among members of the Tory party, who are being lined up in all sorts of ways. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), is being lined up for this, that and the other. I hear that Chris Patten is going to be a European Commissioner; and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has been given a job in China.
Shona McIsaac: Send him.
Mr. Skinner: He is being sent in. I envisage that that softening-up process will continue in the next 12 months.

105
I rest secure in the knowledge that I shall vote against the euro on principle, irrespective of how many people are wooed from the Tory party, the Liberal party and so on. The referendum on the euro may be a close contest. I do not think that the result will be as clear-cut as the vote against proportional representation.
There will be no referendum on PR this side of a general election. The Liberal Democrats should get that into their noddles: even if they sit on Cabinet Committees and so on, the chance of a referendum before a general election has gone. When the leader of the Liberal Democrats went on "The Frost Programme" the other Sunday morning, he blew the gaff. He said to all the other Liberal Democrats, in as many words, "I'm going to let you down." It is time that they got rid of him, if that is how strongly he feels. He has already said that there will not be a referendum on PR before the next election.
That brings me back to the issue of finances. I do not believe that finances can be decisive if the referendum on PR is held on the tinpot proposals advanced by Lord Jenkins. He has a cheek, has he not, to talk about regulating our voting system when he is in the other place for life? He need not submit himself to the vote in any fashion. There is a strong body of opinion—which I do not believe money can change—against PR.
The House will have gathered by now that, unlike the Liberal Democrats, I do not go a bundle on referendums. It so happens that we made a manifesto pledge. Unlike on some more important issues, I shall not have to walk the plank on it. Nevertheless, I expect to cast my vote in the House in accordance with what I believe. In some cases I shall vote in accordance with my constituents' views and in some cases—especially on the monarchy—I shall probably vote against the views of a majority of my constituents, but I always expect to vote in accordance with what I believe. That is what I am sent to this place to do.
The referendum issue will not be changed by the issue of money. The question is whether it can be sold to the public, and on PR I do not believe that it can. On the euro—that is a different matter.
I welcome the fact that the Neill committee has presented its proposals, which will stop all those foreign donations. The Tories will not get money from the Chinese communists or the Cypriots. They will get no more money from Asil Nadir, and none from Greece and other places. I welcome that. It is almost as though I had sat on that committee, which has come up with such great proposals. Incidentally, I helped to write the Labour party's proposals when I was on the NEC, and almost all of them have been accepted by Lord Neill and the rest of the committee.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) will have to do something about the referendum issue to satisfy the whims of Opposition Members and others. I do not accept that the Tory party has a case when it argues that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others are holding back because they are frightened of that issue.
The package of recommendations as a whole is a big advance. If it helps to halt the trend towards what is happening over there in America, we shall have done everybody a service. If it stops all those posters on every hoarding, most of them telling a pack of lies, and the
106
expenditure of £250,000 in the national newspapers in a general election campaign, we shall have performed a valuable service.
I do not say that that will make politics 100 per cent. honest, but it will go down that track. It represents a big advance. When we get the recommendations on the statute book before the end of this Parliament in order to enact them for the next Parliament, that will be a useful step forward.
9.11 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall be brief. It is with some reserve that I speak, with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) having returned to his seat. Last Thursday, he accused me of not having read the report that was the subject matter of our debate, when in fact I had read it, although I admit that I did not give much evidence of having done so. I must declare that I have not read today's report in its entirety. I have, however, read chapter 12, and I shall confine my remarks to that.
I took great exception to the comments of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on political donations, but I shall not stray into that ground, as I have not read the report. However, I have dipped into the telephone directory of evidence and read many of the submissions. I draw the attention of the House especially to the evidence given by Peter Riddell of The Times, which I found lucid and extremely educated. I speak in an entirely unpartisan manner, as Mr. Riddell has been particularly uncomplimentary about me.
Chapter 12 deals with referendums. The issue is not just that we are having so many referendums—I believe that 13 were promised in the Labour party manifesto, although I freely admit that I have not read that document—but the importance of the questions before us in referendums. Those are questions central to our constitution and are almost impossible to unpick. Once passed, the policies that are put in place—the changes to the constitution—are almost irreversible. It is almost a case of one man, one vote, once. There is something totalitarian about the very suggestion of the settled will of the people. The phrase sends a shudder down my spine.
Nevertheless, the issue of referendums is a hugely important question, and it is therefore proper that the Neill committee has dealt with it—and, I think, well. An important principle of democracy is at stake. We know that the central principle of democracy is that the will of the majority should prevail. However, I think that there is an even more important principle that underpins that, and that is that the minority—the losers—must accept that the will of the majority has been legitimately arrived at. I certainly think that that will not be the case unless we are prepared to examine and implement the recommendations of the committee on referendums.
There was always that lingering resentment referred to by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the 1975 referendum. I understood that the expenditure was 20:1 in terms of the money that was spent by each side. Nevertheless, the question of finance is particularly important. The evidence given to the committee in that respect was quite instructive, and was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) in the context of the Welsh experience and the funding of the Welsh no campaign.

107
Recommendation 84 on core funding is important. There is a widely held perception that there must be a fair opportunity for each side to put its case to the voters. It is not sufficient to say—the Labour party's evidence to the committee appeared to suggest this—that, if protagonists are not able to co-ordinate a campaign and raise funds to finance it, it is evident that they have little political support. The basis of a referendum is that it must reach out beyond the organised political parties to those who are not and never have been politically organised.
I think that one example will suffice. Let us suppose that we had had a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. The three main political parties would have lined up to back the treaty; they would have organised and run such a campaign. However, those who opposed the treaty—I submit that they comprised a large proportion of the electorate—would have found themselves without a ready-made organisation to make the case. It is important that core funding, as proposed by the committee, should be in place and available to assist in those circumstances. Therefore, I believe that recommendation 84 is sound.
Placing national limits on referendum campaigns is, I think, much more problematical. In 1975, the two campaigns were required to publish their accounts, in the hope that that would provide some restraint on their expenditure. I think that that was a pious hope. However, I am not sure that there is much else that can be done without unnecessarily restricting free speech.
It is unnecessary and undesirable to require opponents to operate under one political umbrella, even if they support the same side on a political question. There are quite different ideological routes that might lead to the same case. That is obviously clear with the campaign that would emerge against the single European currency. It comprises a host of very different groups reflecting different ideological backgrounds. I believe that it would be a restraint on free speech to impose any sort of financial limit on those groups collectively.
As for the role of Government, I entirely support recommendation 89. I differ from the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in this respect. I believe that it is proper for Ministers actively to campaign in a referendum campaign without using the Government machine to support that case.
9.18 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: When the Home Secretary opened this interesting debate, I chastised him for beginning inauspiciously on a partisan note, which is not how he conducted himself in last Thursday's debate. I am afraid to say that he set the tone for some of his hon. Friends who followed him. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has left the Chamber, because I intended to address a few remarks to her. I hope that she will reappear.
The background to the debate is the Labour party's contention that the report has been brought before Parliament entirely because of shortcomings and a lack of standards in the Conservative party. That was evident in the remarks of the Home Secretary and those of the hon. Members for Cleethorpes and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I thought it was only a matter of time before the hon. Gentleman became an establishment figure. Now that we
108
know he is the author of this report, his hour has arrived. I do not know what it will do for his 74 per cent. vote in Bolsover now that his constituents are aware that he is part of the establishment in the House.
In various interventions, I have said that the criticism that has been levelled at the Conservative party is unjust. There is no doubt that, in the run-up to the last election, the Labour party sought to profit from the allegation that the Conservative party's standards had fallen below par.
The idea that the Labour Government have, since the election, behaved in a pristine fashion is contradicted by the facts. The Foreign Secretary sought to install his mistress, at public expense, in an office in—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) may have been intimating, that was a disgrace. The Paymaster General has been upbraided by the Standards and Privileges Committee. A Labour Member has lost the Whip because he has brought the party into disrepute. Another Labour Member faces election charges, and we have seen squalid activity by the Labour party in local government. Labour Members do not like to be reminded of that, because they have tried to pretend that they have come into government to clean up an unclean act.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes has not returned. I do not want to be discourteous to her, but I must say that her contribution to the debate was particularly mean. I expressed concern when, as a new Member with no experience of the House, she was appointed to the Standards and Privileges Committee. I thought that it was unfortunate that someone with no qualifications and no knowledge of the House was appointed to that Committee.
It is my personal crusade to correct the huge injustice that was done to a former hon. Member, my friend Mr. Neil Hamilton. It is extremely unfortunate that this matter has been allowed to lie on the table, as it is now perfectly clear that members of the Committee, including Sir Gordon Downey, chose to rely on the word of a liar, Mr. Fayed, and on his employees.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I advise the hon. Member that this is a dubious line for him to take in this debate. He should return to the substance of the debate.
Mr. Howarth: I am dealing with a dubious character. The hon. Lady dealt with party political funding and referred to the funding of Members of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), using historical precedent, also mentioned that matter.
The Labour party sought to build a case against the Conservative party for falling below standards. Mr. Fayed has been proved to be a man of ill repute, whose word cannot be trusted. Therefore, the Committee should revisit the matter in the light of what he did in relation to Tiny Rowland's safe deposit box, which was under his command.
Mr. Mike Hall: What has that got to do with the debate?
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, who I believe has a non-speaking role in the House, asks from a sedentary position what that has to do with the debate. I am responding in particular to the remarks of the hon.

109
Member for Cleethorpes, to which I listened throughout. It is only fair to point that out, because a lot of Labour Members have cast aspersions on the Conservative party and our source of funding, using that as a reason for bringing these changes and the Neill committee's deliberations before the House. It is therefore entirely right to put the record straight, in so far as I am able, with my persuasion that I do not believe that my party deserves the reputation that people have sought to place around its neck.
The Labour party is fired up about this matter, but all the money that we spent at the previous general election could not bring us a result anywhere near that which we might have hoped to achieve. I do not believe, therefore, that Labour Members' concerns about party political funding should weigh so heavily on their minds, given that it is perfectly clear that money spent—however much—is not proportional to votes received.
We need not consider only the Conservative party. Sir James Goldsmith, of the Referendum party, spent about £20 million, which was not much less than the Labour party or the Conservative party spent. He did not get a single Member elected to the House, so that proves that cash does not buy seats. The Labour party should therefore start piping down on that issue.
We must be clear about what is being proposed in the committee's report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has accepted much of it on behalf of the Conservative party, and it has been welcomed in other quarters, but we must be clear that it will create a substantial bureaucracy. An electoral commission is to be established, new criminal offences are to be introduced, there is to be a huge bureaucracy of quarterly reporting for political parties and a lot of imposition on local party organisations. I am not sure that local parties will be able to produce the bureaucracy that is envisaged, and will be required, by the report.
I must deal with two specific points. [Interruption.] I shall not be too long. I welcome the committee ruling out state funding, which would be an entirely wrong use of taxpayers' money. I believe that I have the support of the hon. Member for Bolsover on that. If he wrote that paragraph, as he suggested, that is two issues on which he and I are ad idem. I am at one with him on the euro debate, which is why I am wearing a sterling badge, and I look forward to joining him in that battle.
I welcome what the report says. I do not believe that the country is ready to delve deep into its pocket to finance political activity. If we rule that out, we must accept the consequences, which are that we must receive money from private sources and we must have a mechanism by which that will be acceptable to the public.
Now that the Home Secretary is back with us, I hope that he will not mind if I quote from his response to my question at the Home Affairs Committee recently, to which right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) alluded. The Home Secretary said:
"What we are talking about here is paying for our democracy, paying to ensure that there are informed choices made available and also paying for the machinery of our political parties. One of the things I resent"—
as I do—
"is this insinuation that there is something slightly dirty about the running of political parties or the involvement of people in political parties, when this is very honourable, and without all the people
110
who run our political parties, most of whom are volunteers who do their work for nothing, we would not have a functioning democracy in this country. We ought to celebrate that and not somehow be ashamed of it. I also agree with you that overwhelmingly people as individuals should pay for the running of political parties and it should not come from the state because if it comes from the state then we are down the slippery slope of detached political elites and also corruption."
The Home Secretary got it absolutely right; I agree with every word. There is, however, a consequence of such a view. I fear that, in the way in which the Neill committee is seeking to ensure that individual giving is sanitised, we shall come adrift from the idea of encouraging people to give freely.
Although I welcome the proposed tax relief, disclosure will unquestionably have an adverse effect on the Conservative party. I know people who would like to give to the Conservative party not because they want an honour or to buy a policy, but because they want to support a party that stands for principles with which they agree, as they might support a charity. They will be deterred from doing so if they fear that they will be penalised by the Government of the day for supporting the Conservative party. The Government must seriously consider that before they go down the road of prescription and openness. If the result is that people are deterred from giving to political parties, the policy that the Home Secretary enunciated, with which I strongly agree, will be worth absolutely nothing.
It is extremely important that the committee's recommendations on referendums are accepted entirely. The Government have a duty to consider the matter carefully and not kick it into the long grass. They have such a duty because they have elected to take the referendum as a new and frequently used political and constitutional device. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made clear what could happen if the Government and the Opposition of the day were united, leaving the anti vote without any core funding.
9.31 pm
Mr. John Greenway: This has been an important debate on an issue of profound significance, not just to the health of political parties, but to the future direction of politics in this country. I sense personally that we are at an important crossroads. The Neill report signposts a clear route to the restoration of trust and confidence in the democratic process. We have travelled the alternative route for far too long, indulging in incrimination, allegations of abuse and corruption, often with the scantiest evidence or justification.
It was deeply sad that the Home Secretary, for whom, as he knows, I have the highest regard, took such an alternative route for much of his speech in opening this debate. It is surely time for us to move on. Labour in government must face up to its shortcomings and recognise the futility of pursuing a war of words over allegations of malpractice, which serve only to undermine public confidence in the House and in the very fabric of our democratic process.
I shall resist dwelling on the fact that such criticisms of political parties as there are in the report are, in the main, directed at the Labour party. We have yet to be told who contributed to the Prime Minister's blind trust when he was Leader of the Opposition. The Ecclestone affair was

111
a new departure because it left a clear impression that policy was influenced. Several major contributors to Labour at the election now have peerages. I know some of them personally. They are undoubtedly capable and sincere, and may well deserve their seats in the other place. I simply make the point that people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. It does none of us any good when we do.
The committee has made a powerful and invaluable contribution to the efforts of both Government and Parliament to restore public confidence in the political process. Its early reports have been characterised by a willingness to set aside party differences and by a readiness that the recommendations be accepted without equivocation. The same should happen now, with a determination to grasp the opportunity to establish more transparent and enduring structures for the conduct of public life in which the public can have confidence.
The Labour party long argued for the committee to examine all the issues surrounding the funding of political parties. Indeed, as Lord Neill reminds us, it was the Prime Minister who gave the committee the extended terms of reference to undertake this study. Many members of the public believe that Government policy is influenced by large donations. A lack of transparency about the sources of party funding fosters this suspicion. These deep-seated concerns and damaging perceptions will not be addressed and laid to rest if Parliament and the Government fail to take heed of the Neill committee's findings, or if key recommendations are ignored or watered down in a crude and cynical attempt to gain party advantage.
We cannot be seen merely to be paying lip service to the new structures and ideas that Lord Neill has recommended. I believe that the public want to see all political parties and the Government embracing the Neill proposals, not just without demur, but with open enthusiasm—speedily, comprehensively and in earnest. There should be no question of the Government cherry-picking the bits that they like and walking away from the bits that do not suit their purposes. Labour wanted this review. It would be utterly shameful to refuse to adopt the principle behind any of the key recommendations.
It is clear from the debate that the Government do not like and are less than enthusiastic about at least three important respects. First, I wish to refer to the Short money. There has been much discussion about this in the debate but, as someone new to Front-Bench responsibilities, I know that we are inadequately resourced, and we should accept what Lord Neill has to say. I note also that several Labour Members wanted to take matters further, with funding for the Government party to oppose the Government whenever necessary.
I wish to mention tax relief. If we are to have openness of funding, it is crucial that—as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said—we encourage mass membership. The tax relief proposals will go a long way towards encouraging that. It is both sad and disappointing that the Treasury—whose hand was on the shoulder of the Home Secretary—thinks that this proposal is too expensive.
Most disappointing of all is the Government's attitude to the recommendations on the conduct of referendums. Clearly this is something that the Government did not
112
bargain for, yet they have been most enthusiastic about the promotion of the referendum as an important means of gauging public opinion on significant areas of public policy. Several hon. Members have said that, as Labour has encouraged this development—and intends to resort to it on future occasions—there is every reason to establish some basic ground rules. The Government cannot complain if, as a result of their own inadequacy in this regard, the Neill committee has taken this long-overdue opportunity to do the job for them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor)—we pay tribute to him and to the other members of the committee—said that the matter was a key issue on which the committee had to make recommendations. The conduct of recent referendums has lacked consistency. As Dr. James Mitchell of the university of Strathclyde commented:
"The rules of the game have differed in each referendum."
The report highlights two main concerns-th— role of the Government and the funding of campaigns. However, the Government's failure to ensure that both sides of the argument are presented to the electorate—their failure to put the case both for and against a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a mayor for London—deserves the greatest condemnation, as it has undermined the democratic legitimacy of the referendums' outcomes.
Indeed, Lord Neill's detailed review of the referendum on the new Welsh Assembly is a damning indictment of the way in which the referendum was conducted and the lack of fairness in the campaign. As he says in paragraph 32 of chapter 12, a fairer campaign may well have resulted in a different outcome. He also said that the referendum on the proposals for a mayor for London was only marginally better. Surely no one can be comfortable with such an incriminating and conclusive judgment.
That need not happen again. The Neill committee offers the House and the country a sensible and practical framework for the conduct of future referendums. On funding, it rightly concludes that equality cannot be guaranteed, as spending is not confined to political parties or to members of those organisations that may traditionally have campaigned openly for one party during general elections. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, no matter how much money one spends, one will not win if one has not got the argument. I also entirely agreed with what he said about proportional representation.
The 1975 European referendum showed that a balance could be struck in the set amount of money that each campaign received. That arrangement was sensible and, as Lord Neill recommends, we should use it as the benchmark for the future. The objective should be to guarantee that both sides of the argument are clearly stated—literature should be provided to every home to that effect.
The set funding formula will not guarantee equality, so it is ever more essential that any inequality should not be exacerbated by, as Lord Neill says, the use of taxpayers' money to support the Government's point of view. I welcome the Home Secretary's acknowledgement of the general agreement that the civil service machine of Government should remain neutral and I agree with those who suggest that the European Commission should keep out of any future referendum—if there is one—on the euro.

113
It would be foolish and short-sighted to ignore the importance of a proper framework for referendum campaigns. A referendum should be able to settle an argument once and for all, but it will not be able to do so if it is perceived as an unfair contest. If, as seems likely, a referendum is being used to seek a popular mandate for major constitutional change, it is surely vital to the enduring outcome of the answer to the question put that both sides of the argument are adequately stated and understood. How many times have we heard it said that the country was misled in 1975? There is no room for Government-inspired misleading propaganda. As Lord Neill's recommendations are clearly intended to last, Ministers should have a little humility and bear in mind the fact that, one day, the roles will be reversed.
Mr. Straw: They have been reversed.
Mr. Greenway: They will be reversed again, and sooner than the right hon. Gentleman thinks.
Labour's lack of commitment to the recommendations in that key area is contemptible. We have been treated today, not to a ringing endorsement, but to fudge and equivocation. The Government have been caught on the hop with a problem that they had not bargained for. Instead of facing up to the committee's principled proposals for the conduct of future referendums, the Government have chosen to prevaricate. That is a great pity, because in every respect the report heralds a fresh start in the affairs of major political parties and the conduct of election and referendum campaigns.
The Government have hinted that the legislation to implement Neill may not be introduced in the next Session—I suppose that that means that it will not—and that is disappointing given the urgency of some of the issues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) rightly said, we should voluntarily bind ourselves to Neill's recommendations. The Minister has the chance to tell us that that is what the Government intend to do.
The report concludes:
"Our recommendations form an overall integrated scheme for the reform of the funding of political parties."
It has gifted us the opportunity of a clean break, allowing us to put the past behind us and draw a line under what has gone before, often under the cloak of confidentiality. We should embrace the findings whole-heartedly.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Despite the occasional heat that it has generated, this debate, on the whole, has been worth while. It was important to reflect the care that the Neill committee took in reaching its conclusions: much thought clearly went into the recommendations, so it was necessary for us to give the whole range of issues an airing in the House.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) tended to take a rather sneering tone. I say that more in—
Sir Norman Fowler: Sorrow than in anger?
Mr. Howarth: I want to use that phrase later, in another context, so I will save it.
114
I say that in the hope that, in due course, those Conservative Members will come to see that there is more that unites than divides us. I do not want to be too partisan, as I want to build a bit of consensus; but, if they are honest, they will accept that, if they were in government now, there would have been no Neill committee, no proposals, no commitment to a draft Bill and none of the debate that we have just had, because none of the issues would have been on the agenda. That is the truth of the matter. It is not entirely plausible at this juncture in the political cycle for Conservative spokesmen to take the moral high ground.
I hope that we can all agree that our starting point must be that all hon. Members and all political parties should be open and transparent about the way in which our parties and our politics are funded. As part of our commitment to strengthening democracy, I can confirm that we take the matter extremely seriously.
Again, I hope that we can all agree on the important principle that giving money to a political party, whether in small subscriptions or in large donations, is not in itself a disreputable activity. In any democracy, funding political activity is an important and necessary way of stimulating political organisation and debate. Indeed, the report says as much, but it equally makes it clear that secrecy about the source of donations will inevitably lead to suspicions about donors' motives.
The most important question that the public will want to ask if donors keep donations secret is, what have they got to hide? In the absence of any answer, the inevitable conclusion will be that such transactions involve cash for favours or other disreputable activities. That will always be the public perception of such secret donations. Often, suspicions will be without foundation, but unless everything is out in the open, the worst will be assumed. The only way to deal with that is to lift the veil of secrecy. The Neill report will help us to base the system of party funding firmly on the principles of integrity, accountability and openness.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, we welcome and strongly support the broad thrust of the report. Our manifesto—influenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—said that we strongly believed that donations of £5,000 and more should be disclosed and that foreign donations should be banned. I shall not repeat all that has been said about the Conservative party and Asil Nadir, but any party that indulges in that kind of funding will always be open to criticism.
For the system to be watertight, robust and clear reporting arrangements will be needed. We welcome the recommendations for limits on campaign spending and the establishment of an election commission to police the system of disclosure and reporting.
The report contains back-up proposals on how to set up and implement the arrangements. However, it is important that the political parties have a voice to ensure that the machinery is realistic and manageable, as well as robust and comprehensive. We have agreed to authorise Home Office officials to set up dialogue with the political parties

115
represented in the House and a small number of others. To begin the process, officials will shortly be writing to each political party, inviting them to nominate one person to act as a conduit. I hope that all the parties will respond positively. We recognise that it is necessary to have the mechanics in place to enable everyone to feel happy with the eventual arrangements. Every party should be able to respond. Provided they are not trying to create loopholes or get round the Neill recommendations, their points will be taken seriously.
Several Conservative Members, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, mentioned the euro. The current Government information campaign has only one purpose: to prepare business for the euro, which will come into operation from 1 January 1999. It has nothing to do with the possible entry of the UK. If anyone has any doubts about that, they should read the literature that is circulating. The Treasury has produced fact sheets for businesses, particularly aimed at those that trade with countries that we already know will adopt the euro. It would be irresponsible not to give such facts and advice. If businesses were not prepared, particularly those that trade with the countries involved, it would be to their disadvantage and to the disadvantage of the British economy. The campaign is perfectly responsible. It has nothing to do with the referendum.
I accept that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has read chapter 12 of the report. He demonstrated a detailed knowledge of it and, on this occasion, failed to move me to say anything critical of him, although I do not necessarily agree with every word—or even many of the words—that he said.
I must say, more in sorrow than in anger, that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made an unworthy speech which lowered the tone of the debate.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sorry that the Minister felt that my speech lowered the tone. He has not been in the Chamber for all of the debate, but he has heard his hon. Friends and the Home Secretary chastise the Conservative party as though it had fallen below par. I do not believe that my party has done so, and I sought to give examples of where the Labour party has fallen below par.
Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman should remember a remark that I made a few moments ago. If it had not been for the behaviour of the previous Government, and of his party, the Neill committee need never have happened. Without his party's behaviour, there would have been no proposals and nothing for us to debate tonight. I do not want to be entirely at odds with the hon. Gentleman; I recognise that he has a strong personal friendship with Neil Hamilton, and that that has motivated him to some extent. However, that friendship cannot justify some of his remarks.
Several Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), suggested that some expenditure on some of the referendums that we have held had been unfair. I reject that. The Scottish and
116
the Welsh people would reject it too. The Opposition must answer questions themselves. In a written question in October 1992, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asked
"the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total expenditure so far by his Department on publicising the poll tax and related information."
My hon. Friend was told:
"The costs to date are £5,710,500."—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 350.]
Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: No; I do not have much time.
If the previous Government could waste all that money on a tax that no one wanted, and that eventually had to be withdrawn, we will take no lessons from the Opposition on how to promote referendums.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, we want to study the proposals on tax relief, which have a measure of support among the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. If we are to give tax relief, the Opposition must recognise that it cannot come from nowhere. Revenues that the Government would have had for, say, education or health would be forgone. We have to weigh that loss in the balance when we make a decision on the tax relief proposals.
Shona McIsaac: I am intrigued by what my hon. Friend says about tax relief. In the Neill committee's report, Lord Parkinson is cited as saying that the Tory party technically does not exist. Can we give tax relief to something that does not exist?
Mr. Howarth: The electorate almost made that a fact at the general election. I welcome the fact that there is a considerable difference between the Conservative party memorandum published in the report and the extent to which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has welcomed the report's proposals. The right hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to say that the report did not reflect exactly what his party wanted, but that the proposals were sufficiently balanced for him to feel inclined to accept them in the round. That is a good way to deal with it.
The Government welcome the report. It reflects a commitment that we made in our manifesto to require full disclosure of donations above £5,000 and to ban foreign funding. Following this debate, we will move forward by preparing a draft Bill for publication next summer and by legislating before the next general election. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has performed a valuable service—that is my view and I hope that the House shares it—not only for politics but for the country. I hope that that will in some way restore the public's confidence in politics. If we are to clean up the politics of Britain—and the public demand nothing less—whatever our politics we need to give the proposals the proper weight, seriousness and priority that they deserve. We will do so.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  STATUTE LAW REPEALS BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation Bills),
  That the Bill be not committed.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    EDUCATION
    That the Education (Infant Class Sizes)(England) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1973), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2211) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
    That the Social Security (Welfare to Work) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2231) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

    DISABLED PERSONS
    That the Disabled Persons (Disability Discrimination) (Exemption for Small Employers) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2618), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Question agreed to.

  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the eight motions relating to Committees.
  Ordered,

  COMMITTEES
    That Mr. Thomas Graham be discharged from the Catering Committee and Rosemary McKenna be added to the Committee.
    EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
    That Ms Margaret Hodge and Mr. Gerry Steinberg be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Gordon Marsden and Mr. Malcolm Wicks be added to the Committee.
    HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
    That Mr. Ross Cranston and Ms Beverley Hughes be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Miss Melanie Johnson and Mr. Paul Stinchcombe be added to the Committee.
    That Mr. John Whittingdale be discharged from the Information Committee and Mr. Tim Collins be added to the Committee.
    NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
    That Mr. Desmond Browne be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Stephen McCabe be added to the Committee.
    SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
    That Mr. Paul Goggins, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mr. Frank Roy, Ms Gisela Stuart and Mr. Malcolm Wicks be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Michael Foster (Hastings and Rye), Mrs. Joan Humble and Kali Mountford be added to the Committee.
    That Gillian Merron be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Helen Southworth be added to the Committee.
    TREASURY COMMITTEE
    That Mr. Charles Clarke and Ms Ruth Kelly be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Dr. Lewis Moonie and Jacqui Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Information Technology (Rural Schools)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. David Taylor: For me, 1 May 1997 was an important day. It marked the completion of three decades in the world of computing. In that last proper job before becoming a Member of Parliament, I worked in software development and computer management in local government, so I have a professional interest in the subject of this debate. As important as that interest is the fact that the seat I represent has a substantial number of village primary schools, all but one of which I have visited in recent months as part of that fact-finding activity that is pursued by virtually all newly elected Members.
  I am writing a report to be presented to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which summarises the reaction of the 51 schools in my constituency to the impact of Labour's education policies and priorities in the first 18 months of our Government. Much of the comment was positive, but there are a number of real difficulties, such as teacher morale, resources and the rate of expected change faced by schools—issues that I hope to raise in future debates. However, the subject of this debate cropped up so frequently in my discussions with heads, teachers, governors, parents and students, that it needed an immediate airing, especially in the light of last Friday's announcement by the Prime Minister of the information technology package for schools, worth approximately £1 billion.
  That announcement will be most welcome in all schools—urban and rural, secondary and primary—because all schools are experiencing financial, timetabling and resource pressures in delivering the IT curriculum. I hope that this short debate will show why small rural primary schools need special attention and support.
  The village school that I attended with my sisters, following two generations of our family and followed by my four daughters, is a few yards from my front gate. For many years, I was active as a governor of the school, and saw at first hand how small schools were often left to implement the grand designs of the previous Government with too few resources, no preparation time and little training, without appreciation but with lots of exhortation, and not infrequent criticism and condemnation.
  The teaching profession in 1992 and 1997 asked general election candidates for a period of stability. They were not saying, "Stop the world, we want to get off," but urging Government to introduce only properly resourced, adequately piloted change, when schools had been consulted and staff trained. Schools were often ranked but never thanked; frequently named and shamed, but rarely sustained and supported. The targets set were constantly moved. Like many pioneers, they were hit by the arrows. I hope—no, I am confident—that things can only get better.
  We must establish a real partnership of equals, among Government, local education authorities and schools in driving forward our top political priority. The massive extra sums made available for schools over the life of this Government must be used effectively, as there are risks in investing in information technology, as I hope to show.
  120
  IT is rapidly transforming the way we work, use our leisure, and, crucially, how we learn. In our small village schools, often with fewer than half a dozen teachers, there can be difficulties in implementing IT coherently and satisfactorily. It is no use having a gift-wrapped, Pentium multi-media machine delivered, when the responsible member of staff is already delivering the new literacy strategy, planning the numeracy initiative, getting ready for key stage 2 standard assessment tests, marking a set of science projects, and fund raising for musical instruments. In smaller schools in particular, staff must wear several hats. Cramming yet another on to an overstretched head without proper preparation courts disaster.
  Training must be structured continuing, and must take account of the difficulties in releasing teachers and other staff from smaller schools. A series of half-day courses, on-line tutorials or pre-dawn Open university programmes will not be adequate; it must be done properly. Teachers with little or no IT background need consistent, continuous professional development. Most teachers entered the profession before the personal computer as we know it burst on to the scene in the mid-1980s. The number is proportionately bigger in small schools.
  Even now, the IT content of teacher training courses is limited, with little follow-up. It is unsurprising that the IT skills acquired can quickly become outdated. Although there has been some generic training in the schools on-line project, there is still a substantial lack of confidence and competence. For the smaller school, it is not possible within timetabling and staffing constraints to carve out sufficient free time for staff to develop their expertise, for instance, in using the internet as a teaching resource. The urgent crowds out the important. Whatever their attitude to IT, wherever they are on the spectrum, from perplexed anxiety to zealous enthusiasm, teachers are trying to acquire new skills without budget or non-contact time.
  Serving teachers are sometimes put under pressure to train their colleagues. While sitting next to the newly qualified teacher can be useful, too often it means doing it on the cheap and exploiting the good will of staff who happen to be IT-literate, confident software users or unafraid of tackling hardware difficulties. These technological paragons are rarer in village staff rooms than Chris Woodhead fans.
  My preferred training alternative is external providers. I strongly endorse the view of the National Union of Teachers that such training providers must demonstrate the application of IT and not make it an isolated subject area. Problem-solving approaches to teaching must be given priority. Conventional training, whether live or computer-based, can be highly wasteful. It is often better to deliver the operating detail as it is required. There is an analogy. Most can cook a tasty dish with a recipe book. Repetition commits the skill to memory, and fresh dishes can be brought out quickly.
  Special arrangements are needed to provide a cost-effective support service, readily available on site or on line to families of small schools. Until small schools have guaranteed access to that high-quality technical support, it would be ludicrous for them to have to meet nationally imposed IT targets.
  Perhaps the best way to provide that service in rural areas is via local education advisory services with a role similar to that of the laboratory technician in secondary

  121
  and larger schools. Primary schools welcome the £500 per teacher allocated for IT training under the new opportunities lottery fund, but is it not too much of a gamble to allow that crucial investment to be financed by an electronic raffle? The nation's children deserve better.
  In my visits to north-west Leicestershire schools, I am often impressed by the leading-edge hardware I see, but the finance tends to depend on the generosity, energy or affluence of parent fund raisers. In some areas, keeping schools' computers up to date and compatible with one another is extremely difficult. With tighter budgets come more constraints and greater risks; thus, purchasing policy tends to be ultra-cautious, and old equipment is not unknown, with all its associated costs and problems. I was not at all surprised by a recent national survey that rated half of all school hardware obsolete.
  In smaller schools, lack of available space is not an issue restricted to disk drives: rotas are necessary in cramped classrooms to control access. That is a major disadvantage for those students who have no home access to a PC, let alone the internet. My straw poll showed that such students comprised up to two thirds of all pupils in North-West Leicestershire. Inequality of PC and network access is certainly a rural issue.
  It is said that a sizeable minority of smaller schools throughout the country have no budget, training or staff development policy for IT. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that that will eventually make it impossible for those schools to deliver our ambitious national curriculum in IT? I hope that he will give an outline of the Government's thinking on the most appropriate application of information technology in primary schools; for, without a coherent strategy, the finest training, fastest hardware and fanciest software in the world will fail—and expensively so.
  The Daily Telegraph is not yet required reading by Millbank. Nevertheless, I read a thought—provokingeven depressing—article in that newspaper on 21 October. Leicester university had surveyed a major pilot project in leading-edge IT usage in a large group of Bristol schools. The team's findings included:
  "much of what the children were doing was unchallenging and routine. Many (for example) were quite happy to give the appearance of being engaged in useful activity whilst writing `Manchester United' in different fonts."
  It is not only university academics who harbour great unease about the way in which IT is applied in our schools. Let me quote the words of a teacher at a local primary school that was—unfairly, I feel—criticised by the Ofsted inspection team for its work in IT:
  "The major issue raised (lack of time in the classroom) cannot be effectively addressed. No matter how expert the staff, how up-to-date the equipment, it is not possible to give the children continual instruction and practice in computer skills within the (crowded) primary curriculum."
  Another comment by a local teacher was:
  "Children of primary age can only develop processing and retrieval techniques if they practise regularly—but we don't have the equipment at school and they don't have it at home. At the moment the millions of pounds pumped into inadequate, out-dated equipment is delivering very limited opportunities to primary pupils."
  Finally, the words of a teacher experienced in IT:
  "I just cannot teach a class of 30 children the national curriculum requirements in IT with one computer. We're so frustrated, we're on the point of giving up."
  122
  Those are not the comments of fin-de-siecle Luddites, but of hard-working, committed teachers in successful village primary schools. They are overwhelmed with initiatives, anxious to come up to expectations, but fearful that they will invest heavily of their time and energy in IT only to find the curriculum changed, the software dated, and the hardware switched on but the children switched off. Please will the Minister respond to their collective cri de coeur with some urgently needed reassurance?
  The pressures of primary school life lead to isolated use of computers in classrooms. Pupils' experience of IT may be unrelated to what is being taught at the time in other curricular areas. A lack of space can mean that the chance for one-to-one intervention by staff makes the effective application of IT for cross-curricular learning impossible for many primary schools and most small rural ones.
  The prime use of computers in the early years is always to support and reinforce the learning process. If IT is solely an extra set of skills to be learned, many teachers believe that we are missing the point, and I agree. Too many potato chips on the school dinner menu is unhealthy; ill-considered use of silicon chips in the classroom is not good for children, either. Like its TV cousin, the PC monitor can damage fitness for the world outside.
  The writer of the article in The Daily Telegraph concluded:
  "if the Government thinks that pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into wiring up schools to the 'information super highway' is going to drive up education standards, it is sadly mistaken."
  I do not share that pessimistic outlook. Indeed, I am convinced that the single most important use of IT is to transform education, and improve the lot of those who work within it.
  The potential of the national grid for learning to benefit all aspects of life in rural primary schools is vast, but we need to do, more—much more—to carry the teaching profession with us, particularly in village schools, as our society grapples with the implications of the information revolution, and our economy demands people who are familiar with its tools of change. This is not just about money; the Government still have a major task on their hands to persuade the world of primary education that appropriate training, continued technical support and adequate curricular space are part of our IT strategy, and that we and they can deliver the goods.
  I am certain that the Minister will be able to solve that problem, and I look forward to hearing his solution.
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate, and on the way in which he argued the case for his constituents.
  It will be common ground in the House that the potential of information technology in improving communication between rural and isolated primary schools has been recognised worldwide. That is one reason why Scandinavian countries are investing heavily in IT, and Australia and Canada have been in the forefront of the development of IT in education, including the installation of the necessary infrastructure.

  123
  The UK leads other G7 countries in the number of computers in schools. There are 18 pupils to a computer in primary schools, nine pupils to a computer in secondary schools, and only four pupils to a computer in special schools. Those raw statistics do not evade my hon. Friend's key point—that we shall be able to transform our performance on IT in schools only if teachers in rural primary schools and others feel that the technology is theirs to control, use and benefit from to the extent that they can stretch and develop their children.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that we cannot depend on teachers volunteering to take training and become competent, and that we should aim to provide training for every teacher in every school?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that point in a moment when I deal with teacher training, but my short answer is that, although the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, I only partially agree with him.
  We shall make progress only if teachers feel that the technology is for them. That brings me to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire. In using IT, not only in a separate part of the curriculum but in teaching English, maths and other parts of the curriculum, it is exceptionally important that teachers feel confident and able to use the technology well.
  My hon. Friend's point about appropriate technology is entirely correct, and the Manchester United logos that he described are an example of a serious problem. That is why we are focusing our teacher training initiative on ensuring not only that teachers feel confident in using the basic hardware but that they are applying information technology to particular educational needs, at every key stage and in every subject. There is a great danger, which my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, that we shall have hardware lying around the classroom with no one using it, and money being wasted. I believe that we must contest that problem by ensuring that teachers understand, and are aware of, the technology that is at their disposal, and are able to use it well.
  That is why we have established a £235 million teacher training programme in IT. That substantial amount of money is needed precisely because of the demoralisation that my hon. Friend described, and because there are very low levels of teacher IT capacity and ability in many schools. I take this opportunity to state that I do not believe that that is because of any Luddism or backward-looking approaches on the part of teachers. The overwhelming majority of teachers want to use IT, and believe that children will benefit from it, but have not been given the training and the opportunity in the classroom to develop their ability and move it forward.
  I turn now to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). I believe that the levels of competence and capacity in many of the country's schools—it is probably less of a problem in Northern Ireland, which is leading the way in this area, as in many others—are still very low. The last thing that teachers need at this stage is to be told, "You will do this or that." Teachers must be encouraged to believe that, by acquiring the relevant skills and qualifications, they will be able to
  124
  do their jobs better. My knowledge of the teaching profession leads me to believe—quite profoundly—that the overwhelming majority of teachers want to benefit from training, and will take the opportunity to do so on a voluntary basis.
  I acknowledge that, in two or three years, I might return to the House and say something slightly different. For instance, if we were achieving 95 per cent. levels of competence, and 5 per cent. of teachers said that they did not want training, rather than 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. levels of competence and 80 per cent. of teachers wanting to do better, my answer might be slightly different. However, in the context of the present situation in England and Wales, the level of competence and skill on the one hand and enthusiasm on the other leads me to believe that the voluntary method is the best way to proceed.
  That is why we have established a substantial teacher training programme. It aims to raise teachers who have a low or zero level of competence to a level of some competence, and, critically, also aims to ensure that people can apply their educational expertise and move it forward in particular disciplines. We have commissioned a tendering process that the Teacher Training Agency is carrying through, and tenders close on 20 November this year. We shall see what bids come in from people seeking to provide teacher training of the kind that we have described.
  We have already received substantial and good bids from consortiums of local education authorities, colleges and so on. We have also received some talented and good bids from IT companies and educational organisations, often working together in order to overcome the problem—to which my hon. Friend referred—of teachers receiving a bit of training and no more. That would be a waste of money—my hon. Friend's point was very appropriate.
  We also take my hon. Friend's point that it is no use training teachers but providing little on-going support. The present LEA adviser system is very patchy: only half of LEAs have a very good IT support system. That system has been run down in the past, and must be rebuilt.
  Mr. David Taylor: I accept that. I worked for a local authority that had a very good LEA support system. Is it not possible to invest in all LEAs in order to bring the performance of the patchy ones to the level of the best?
  Mr. Clarke: I hope, and believe, that that will be one result of this process. Although some commercial companies provide support to individual schools—for example, through school management systems and administration, which is an important support offered to local schools—there is no doubt that we need a broader, better network. That might be best offered through a more efficient local authority network system.
  I also concede my hon. Friend's important point that there are key pedagogic issues regarding how technology is used in the classroom.
  When I took on my ministerial responsibilities, I discovered that some of those issues had not been fully addressed, and in my opinion they remain to be fully addressed. I am not sure which is the best form of technology to provide in the classroom. Is it a whiteboard? Is it a better developed overhead projector? Is it a load

  125
  of PCs? We have limited resources, and the pedagogic issues, subject by subject, age by age, are different. They need to be thought through carefully, for the reasons that my hon. Friend identified—if they are not, we shall have inadequate results and wasted resources.
  In that context, I emphasise that we are conducting a review of the national curriculum for the year 2000, and that the way in which IT can and should be used most effectively in different subject areas is being specifically addressed. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance.
  I make two concluding points. First, I wish to comment on the Luddite opinions quoted by my hon. Friend—from which he dissociated himself—from articles by John Clare in the Daily Telegraph. There is a view that all this money is wasted—that IT can offer nothing, and that it diverts education from the fundamentals in which traditional education has led.
  I reject that view, as do the Government. I believe that the teachers to whom my hon. Friend spoke rejected it. They understand that the future lies with the IT society. The older of us may regret that, but it is a fact, and it is the way to go forward. If we leave our children ill equipped to deal with that society, we do them no service. The argument in that Daily Telegraph article—that we should leave it all aside—is a fundamentally ill-considered view, which is rejected by the vast majority of people in education in this country.
  I was rather shocked to see that, in the response to the Prime Minister's launch of further spending on Friday 6 November, some spokespeople of other parties—lining up with John Clare—simply said that the money was being wasted, and that it would be better spent on books. I think that the Conservative party lined up with the Luddite tendency.
  Finally, I turn to the specific subject of the debate—IT provision in rural primary schools. As my hon. Friend coherently argued, IT is especially important to rural primary schools. Small schools need stronger communities, including IT communities, to offer stimulation, and to support what they do. That is why, in the initiatives that we have taken forward, we have given specific priority to rural primary schools.
  First, we have said that, in distributing the £105 million of standards fund money for the national grid for learning, local education authorities should take specific account of the additional needs of primary schools, small schools and isolated schools. Money from that fund will be targeted—extra priority will be given to rural primary schools, for the reasons stated.
  Mr. David Taylor: How will that targeting take place—through the LEA or by a more direct route?
  Mr. Clarke: It is through the LEA, because that item of the standards fund is allocated through local education
  126
  authorities, but the guidance that we have issued specifically asked them to give particular attention to that need. I urge my hon. Friend to tell his local education authority that it should give specific priority to the schools in his constituency when it allocates that resource.
  On teacher training, we have specifically recognised—the second element in the funding—the need to focus on rural schools. Although the funding made available to a school will be based mainly on the number of teachers in the school, we want to recognise the special difficulties of small schools by allocating a specific lump sum of £750 to every school, regardless of size, followed by an amount for each teacher.
  For example, if the amount per teacher in England was £500, a three-teacher school would have a total of £2,250, including the lump sum—equivalent to £750 per teacher. A 30-teacher school, with 10 times as many teachers, would have a total of £15,750, equivalent to £525 per teacher, or 70 per cent. of the figure per teacher of the three-teacher school.
  Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend represents a seat in a county that is largely rural. Leicestershire is less rural, but nevertheless has problems of access. Will he confirm that, in establishing the level of funding, he will pay particular attention to travelling costs and the availability of courses?
  Mr. Clarke: We shall give particular attention to the issues that my hon. Friend raises. I emphasise that we are taking account of the specific needs of IT in rural schools. I hope that that discrimination in favour of rural schools will be welcomed.
  I conclude by again congratulating my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The subject is important, and I am glad that he has highlighted it.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The House ordered last Thursday that I should not adjourn until any message from the Lords relating to the Scotland Bill had been received. As no such message has yet been received, I must now suspend the sitting. Arrangements will be made for the Division bells to ring five minutes before I resume the Chair, in order for me to adjourn the House at that time.
  10.29 pm
  Sitting suspended.
  On resuming—
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Service Provision
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission is taking to improve the machinery for the provision of services to hon. Members and the House. [58776]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Commission has decided to set up a review of the present system of management of the House and its facilities.

  It has appointed Mr. Michael Braithwaite, a management consultant, who will be supported by a team of officials to review
  "the system of management and decision-making responsibilities for services to the House which was set up following the inquiry in 1990 by Sir Robin Ibbs".

  Members and staff will be consulted in the course of the review.

  The Commission will, in due course, put the findings of the review before the House.

  House Stationery
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if she will make a statement on the decision not to offer hon. Members the option of using bespoke House stationery printed on recycled paper. [58849]

  Mrs. Roe
  The Committee's decision to introduce a standard House of Commons paper was made against the following background;(a) the maintenance of quality and standards; (b) the provision of extra security by the insertion of a unique Portcullis watermark licensed to the House of Commons; (c) a reduction in cost and range of bespoke products; and (d) environmental concerns.

  The hon. Lady will wish to note that the new paper is recycled from pre-consumer waste, typically using off cuts and reel ends from a previous manufacturing process.

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will report progress on the New Parliamentary Building. [58682]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 578, in which I reported that it is planned that the House will be able to occupy the building from the beginning of 2001. That remains so and the estimated cost is also unchanged.
  2
  The contractor who is erecting the frame of the building has experienced delays, including the supply of concrete below the specified strength, which subsequently had to be cut out and replaced. As a consequence, some contingent time has been absorbed, but an analysis of the programme has identified ways of saving time if this should become necessary to secure the planned occupation date.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress has been made by the House of Commons Commission in selecting a candidate for the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [59404]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  A report recommending to the House Elizabeth Filkin, at present Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue and for Customs and Excise and the DSS Contributions Agency, is being published at 3.30 pm today as HC 1143. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the European Commission about assistance to Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement. [58344]

  Clare Short
  We have had frequent discussions in recent months with the European Commission about assistance to Afghanistan. We and they are extremely concerned about the security of expatriate personnel in Afghanistan, and about the constraints which the actions of the Taliban and other factions have imposed on assistance activities. Our common objective is to secure an improvement in conditions in Afghanistan which will allow for the principled and effective delivery of much needed humanitarian assistance.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Holidays)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how much holiday entitlement civil servants have been allowed to carry forward to their next holiday year; [59026]

  (2) on what date a civil servant's year starts for holiday purposes; and what the normal holiday entitlement is for new starters; [59025]

  (3) what changes have been made to holiday entitlement rules for civil servants because of the Working Time Regulations 1998. [59027]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for determining holiday entitlement for staff was delegated to departments and agencies on 1 April 1996, except for the amount of annual leave in the Senior Civil Service. In general, holiday entitlement within the Civil Service meets or exceeds the limits set by the Working Time Regulations; it is expected that most civil servants will be unaffected by the
  3
  Regulations. Responsibility for decisions on whether any changes are required to comply with the Regulations lies with departments and agencies.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list those compliance cost assessments published during the latest six month period. [59094]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. In accordance with this, we require Departments to produce and publish CCAs for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business.

  I have presented to Parliament today a Command Paper listing 119 CCAs and regulatory appraisals incorporating CCAs published between 1 January 1998 and 30 June 1998. Also listed are 2 Regulatory Impact Assessments prepared in anticipation of the new guidance published on 10 August 1998. Copies of those listed have been placed in the libraries of the House. This is the ninth such Command Paper.

  Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people have been affected by the exclusion of Crown Service prior to 1975 in the calculation of their Civil Service pension; and what plans he has to introduce retrospective legislation. [58106]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Information on the numbers so affected, particularly given the lapse in time, is not available.

  The Armed Forces pension scheme introduced arrangements, operative from 1 April 1975, which enable a transfer value representing accrued pension rights to be paid to another pension scheme. As with most improvements in pension arrangements, the change was not applied retrospectively. The Government have no plans for backdated changes to the Armed Forces (or other Crown service) pension arrangements.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Prostitution
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure that judicial and magistrates' training programmes include training in awareness of the pressures on young people not to give evidence in cases involving child prostitution. [58328]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which is an advisory non-departmental public body. The JSB also sets the syllabuses for, and monitors and evaluates the training of, lay magistrates.

  No training is currently given specifically on awareness of the pressures on young people not to give evidence in cases involving child prostitution. The JSB, however, runs regular induction and continuation courses for both full-and part-time judges in the Crown Court as well as seminars on serious sexual offences. These courses
  4
  include training on children as witnesses. All lay magistrates receive training on disadvantaged witnesses, including children, and those who sit in the Youth Court receive additional training in evaluating young people as witnesses.

  Since January 1998 the JSB's Equal Treatment Advisory Committee has had the responsibility of advising the Board on all aspects of equal treatment training, including training on the needs of children. The Committee keeps the content of all JSB courses under review and is currently revising the guidance provided to all judges on equal treatment issues.

  Internet Publishing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to require all task forces and equivalent bodies sponsored by his Department to publish their working papers and minutes on the Internet. [58774]

  Mr. Hoon
  Information will be published on the Internet wherever practical and appropriate. Many documents published by the Department already appear on the LCD website at www.open.gov.uk/lcd.

  Libra
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Libra service to be fully operational in magistrates' courts(a) in Gloucestershire and (b) nationally. [57889]

  Mr. Hoon
  Subject to award of contract, I anticipate the Libra service will be implemented at the first Magistrates' Courts Committee towards the end of 2001. It will be for Gloucestershire Magistrates' Courts Committee, in consultation with the Department, to agree with the Libra supplier when the service should be implemented in Gloucestershire.

  Defamation Act 1996
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor' s Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 71, if he will list the dates when those parts of the Defamation Act 1996 not yet in force are to come into force; and when the attendant rules of court will become effective. [58153]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am not yet able to provide a list of dates but the remaining provisions will be brought into force as soon as reasonably practicable.

  Civil Enforcement Agents
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost to his Department of the review of the organisation and management of civil enforcement agents from its inception until the publication of his Department's considered response; and what plans he has(a) to conduct further reviews and (b) to introduce revised policies with regard to civil enforcement agents. [58154]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Review was established in February 1992 and was concluded in April 1996. The work was undertaken by salaried officials and the cost was met from the Department's general running costs.
  5

  (a) On 25 March 1998, Official Report, columns 141–42, I announced the terms of reference and timetable for the Review of the Enforcement of Civil Court Judgments. This will include a review of the law governing the activities of bailiffs; and its second phase, commencing in July 2000, will include consideration of the type of agent or form of agency which should be responsible for carrying out enforcement.

  (b) Changes to the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 governing the bailiff certification procedure are due to come into force next Spring.

  The transfer of responsibilities for the enforcement of warrants from the police to the Magistrates' Courts Committees will take place when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. The Committees will be empowered to authorise companies and firms which will in turn issue employees with written authority to execute warrants.

  Gloucestershire Magistrates Court
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of(a) the percentage of serious criminal cases being dealt with in Gloucestershire magistrates' courts within the 56 day performance indicator for each of the past five years and (b) the average delay in respect of collection of fines imposed by Gloucestershire magistrates' courts for each of the past five years. [57890]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information available is shown in the table.

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Percentage of serious criminal cases dealt with within 56 days in Gloucestershire1

  60

  56

  60

  61

  64

  Average delay in respect of collection of fines imposed by magistrates in Gloucestershire2 (days)

  275

  264

  242

  272

  297

  1The figures given in the table are the percentage of defendants in Indictable/Triable Either Way cases. The interval quoted is First Listing to Completion.

  2Average Debtor Days is the average time taken to enforce the collection of money owed to the court, including fines, fees, compensation awards and contributions to legal aid, not taking into account the delay between imposition and start of enforcement actions, known as 'time to pay'. The 1993–96 indicator values are artificially low because a proportion of the fines etc. which were imposed by magistrates would have been transferred out to other courts to collect, but were still included in the figures locally. The 1997 indicator shows a more accurate figure.

  Source:

  1TIS

  1MIS

  Conveyancing
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to bring forward measures to reform the law affecting house purchase. [57751]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department, together with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Department of Trade and Industry, will be issuing a consultation paper shortly that will canvass a range of proposals for changes to the conveyancing process. It 6
  would be inappropriate to make a statement about reforms until the Government have had an opportunity to consider the results of that conclusion.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  China
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Council what representations the Government have made to the People's Republic of China regarding that country's maternal and infant health care law in respect of compulsory premarital check-ups. [57882]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. The health and development agencies of the United Nations—the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Population Fund and the United Nations Children's Fund—are working in China to secure respect for international standards of maternal and child health. The UK contributes to these programmes.

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Council (1) if she will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in her private office, as at 1 October 1997; [56789]

  (2) if she will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in her Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997. [56787]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 666–70.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Incinerator Emissions
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a breakdown of the content of unauthorised emissions from United Kingdom incinerators since January 1996. [56746]

  Mr. Meale
  The table sets out the content of unauthorised releases into the environment since 1 January 1996 from the incinerators in England and Wales regulated by the Environment Agency under the Integrated Pollution Control regime.

  Parameter

  Number of unauthorised releases

  Hydrogen Chloride

  370

  Particulate Matter

  47

  Oxides of Nitrogen

  33

  Carbon Monoxide

  27

  Sulphur Dioxide

  9

  Metals

  7

  Hydrogen Fluoride

  4

  Iodine

  2

  Estimates of the mass release, causes and likely environmental impact of each unauthorised release

  7
  have been reported to the Environment Agency under the terms of the operator's authorisations. Copies of the notifications will have been placed on the relevant Agency and local authority public registers, unless they are subject to commercial confidentiality arrangements provided for by the legislation.

  No central record is kept of unauthorised releases from the smaller incinerators regulated by local authorities in England and Wales under the Local Air Pollution Control regime. However, details of any such releases will have been entered on the relevant local authority public register.

  For details of unauthorised releases from incinerators in Scotland and Northern Ireland, I refer the hon. Gentlemen to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Edmonton Incinerator

  Substance

  Actual Emissions 1996 (Kgs)

  Actual Emissions 1997 (Kgs)

  Atrazine

  0.0559

  0.0700

  Cadmium

  3.8000

  6.0100

  Carbon Monoxide

  276000.0000

  330000.0000

  Dichlorvos

  0.0311

  0.0300

  Dieldrin

  0.0138

  0.0100

  Fenitrothion

  0.0332

  0.0300

  Hexachlorobenzene

  0.0081

  0.0100

  Hexachlorobutadiene

  0.0081

  0.0081

  Hexachlorocyclohexane

  0.0088

  0.0100

  Hydrogen Chloride

  2070000.0000

  24800.0000

  Hydrogen Fluoride

  1487.0000

  1800.0000

  Mercury (to water)

  0.1850

  0.1200

  Mercury (to air)

  60.3000

  139.0000

  Metals—Group 3 (AS+CR+CU+MN+NI+PB+2N)

  57.2000

  1100.0000

  Nitrogen Oxides (as NO2)

  478000.0000

  588000.0000

  Organic Tin Compounds

  0.0340

  0.0300

  Particulates

  263000.0000

  21900.0000

  Pentachlorophenol Compounds

  0.1080

  0.0400

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls

  0.0300

  0.0400

  Simazine

  0.0538

  0.0700

  Sulphur Dioxide

  250000.0000

  30700.0000

  TEQ (Toxic Equivalent of PCDD + PCDF)

  0.0055

  0.0003

  Trichlorobenzene—all isomers

  0.0308

  0.0400

  Triflualin

  0.0081

  0.0100

  Volatile Organic Compounds

  1570.0000

  11900.0000

  Lewisham Incinerator

  Substance

  Actual Emissions 1996 (Kgs)

  Actual Emissions 1997 (Kgs)

  Cadmium

  3.0000

  12.1000

  Carbon Monoxide

  26500.0000

  23400.0000

  Hydrogen Chloride

  15140.0000

  27360.0000

  Hydrogen Fluoride

  80.0000

  112.70000

  Mercury

  60.0000

  40.3000

  Metals—Group 3 (AS+CR+CU+MN+NI+PB+SN)

  340.0000

  57.7000

  Nitrogen Oxides (as NO2)

  986000.0000

  914400.0000

  Particulates

  14610.0000

  14000.0000

  Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxin—All congeners

  0.00014

  0.00003

  Sulphur Dioxide

  13440.0000

  10640.0000

  Volatile Organic Compounds

  6150.0000

  6342.0000

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997; [56808]
  8
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a breakdown of emissions from(a) the Edmonton and (b) the Lewisham incinerators since January 1996. [56748]

  Mr. Meale
  Data on emissions from the Edmonton (London Waste Ltd.) and Lewisham (SELCHP) incinerators have already been published and are regularly updated. The data are available on public registers; either the Environment Agency's public register, Kings Meadow House, Kings Meadow Road, Reading or the local authority registers at Enfield and Lewisham Borough Council respectively.

  Information is also held centrally by the Agency on its Chemical Releases Inventory and the following table gives details of annual emissions from these two sites for 1996 and 1997. Details of the monitoring results on which these annual returns are based can be found on the public registers.

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his private office, as at 1 October 1997. [56810]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 666–70.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the safety of the packaging and containerisation of raw intermediate level waste for storage since March 1997. [57098]

  Mr. Meale
  None. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) regulates the safety of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) storage on sites licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended). HSE policy is that raw ILW should be conditioned into a passively safe form as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so. The HSE required that the research necessary to support the safety of the licensees' operations, which includes the storage of raw, packaged and containerised intermediate level wastes, is carried out by or on behalf of its licensees. The HSE has not commissioned or evaluated any research into the packaging and containerisation of raw ILW for storage since March 1997.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) number and (b) dates of meetings between Paul Hackett and Derek Draper since 2 May 1997. [58004]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), on 31 July 1998,Official Report, columns 606–07.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what work Paul Hackett has carried out for the Cranfield Institute of Management since 2 May 1997. [58005]

  Mr. Caborn
  Paul Hackett is a Fellow of Cranfield University School of Management and Director of the Cranfield Partnership Research Institute. These posts are a matter for the Cranfield University School of Management.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the carbon modelling consortium research showing potential absorption of carbon dioxide by carbon sink young trees; and if he will make a statement. [57878]

  Mr. Meale
  A preliminary assessment by the Hadley Centre of recently published research by the carbon modelling consortium suggests that the uptake of carbon by forests in North America may have been overestimated in this study. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is currently producing a special report on land use change and forestry issues to be published in 2000, and a full review of all relevant research on the global uptake of carbon by vegetation will be published by the Panel in its Third Assessment Report in early 2001.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the inclusion of absorption of carbon dioxide by carbon sink young trees in the Kyoto emission reduction negotiations between the European Union and the United States of America. [57879]
  10
  Mr. Meale
  The Kyoto Protocol allows the uptake in the commitment period, 2008 to 2012, of carbon by trees planted since 1990 to be taken into account in meeting commitments to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The text of the Protocol makes it clear that the natural regrowth of trees cannot be counted against commitments. Our policy is to ensure that the detailed rules on implementation of the Protocol reflect the fundamental principles agreed in Kyoto.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish his Department's analysis of the responses to the consultation paper, Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales. [57858]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government expect to publish their analysis of responses to the consultation paper shortly.

  A14
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what have been the recorded levels of traffic on the A14 (A1-M1 link road) from the opening of the road to date. [58082]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Recorded average annual daily (24 hour) traffic flows on the A14 (M1-A1 Link Road) from the opening of the last section on 15 July 1994 (between Ml/M6 and A6) to date indicate the following:

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Ml/M6 to A6 at Rothwell

  31,000

  1—

  36,000

  Kettering Southern Bypass

  45,000

  1—

  52,000

  Thrapston to A1

  29,300

  29,900

  33,000

  1Traffic counters were not available during part of the year—hence no accurate figures are available

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the projected traffic flows on the A14 (A1-Ml link road) at the time of the construction of the road. [58083]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Projected average annual daily (24 hour) traffic flows on the A14 (M1-A1) Link Road, forecast during the planning stages of the road, were:

  On opening

  By 2007

  M1/M6 to A6 Rothwell

  24,000

  33,000

  Kettering Southern Bypass

  27,000

  44,000

  Thrapston to A1

  21,000

  35,000

  Rothwell/Desborough Bypass
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the start date for the construction of the Rothwell/Desborough bypass. [58085]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are currently considering the construction programme for the schemes included in our Targeted Programme of Improvements listed in A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England.

  A43, Geddington
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to de-trunk the A43 through Geddington, Northamptonshire. [58080]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The proposal to de-trunk the A43 through Geddington is subject to consultation with the local highway authority (Northamptonshire County Council). No timetable has been set for the process but we hope to begin negotiations shortly.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps will be taken to curb the number of accidents arising from cyclists using the pavement. [58197]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government intend to extend the scope of the Fixed Penalty Notice regime to cover the offence of cycling on the footway. This measure will help streamline enforcement procedures, and act as a deterrent to illegal behaviour by cyclists.

  We are encouraging all local highway authorities to improve conditions on the road for cycling. Better provision for cyclists should help reduce the incidence of cycling on the pavement. We are updating our advice to local authorities on the design and layout of facilities, such as cycle tracks, shared by cyclists and pedestrians.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guarantees Bechtel has provided in respect of the completion of the Jubilee Line extension on time; and what are the penalty provisions. [58203]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Responsibility for completing the Jubilee Line Extension on time remains with London Transport, as has been the case since the start of the project. The contract with Bechtel contains incentives for earlier completion of the Extension and penalty provisions for lateness. Details of these arrangements are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what tender process was carried out to appoint a project manager following the conclusion of the feasibility study into the Jubilee Line extension that the original management team would not be able to complete the project on time. [58201]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Bechtel's study recommended that a fresh approach be taken for the commissioning stage of the project, to enhance confidence that the line would open in good time for the Millennium Exhibition. Following consideration of the study's findings, London Transport appointed the company to provide resources to strengthen and refocus the project management team accordingly. This was done with regard to European Union procurement rules allowing derogation, where urgency in the procurement process can be demonstrated.
  12
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was paid to Bechtel to carry out their feasibility study into whether the construction of the Jubilee Line extension could be completed to deadline. [58200]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport invited two companies to make proposals for a feasibility study and, having seen the proposals, selected Bechtel. The level of fee is commercially confidential.

  Air Traffic Control, Prestwick
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the contract for the development of the new air traffic control system at Prestwick will be signed before all major software flaws are rectified in the Swanwick system. [58216]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]NATS have assured the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee that no binding agreement with Sky Solutions would be signed until it was sure that the software at NERC could be made to work. Since then, the system has passed its acceptance tests, and preliminary findings by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) have concluded that there is no substantive reason to doubt that it will work.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the contractual dependencies between the contracts for the Swanwick and Prestwick developments. [58218]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: There are no contractual dependencies between the Swanwick and Prestwick contracts.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the contract with Lockheed-Martin for the development of the new air traffic control system at Prestwick will be signed. [58215]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Negotiations between National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) and Sky Solutions, the preferred bidder for the New Scottish air traffic control centre (NSC) at Prestwick, are nearing completion. NATS will then approach the Government for approval of the contract before it can be signed.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there is a deadline by which the contract for the development of the new air traffic control system at Prestwick has to have been signed. [58217]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: No deadline has been set, but the Government are keen to see the development of the NSC in good time to avoid significant delays to air traffic over Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Swanwick
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on Swanwick of entering into a public-private partnership agreement for NATS; and if he will put a copy of his Department's assessments in the Library. [58219]
  13
  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: The Government are currently consulting on the details of the proposed public/private partnership for NATS. In consequence, no decision has been taken on the timing or details of any sale. NATS intends to bring the Swanwick centre into service at the earliest opportunity consistent with maintaining the safety of the system and meeting the requirements of its customers.

  Railway Track (Wales)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what sections of the railway track between(a) Carmarthen and Aberystwyth, (b) Pencader and Llandysul, (c) Carmarthen and Newcastle Emlyn and (d) Lampeter and Aberavon are no longer in public ownership; and what is the total mileage of those sections. [58436]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The British Rail Board has retained ownership of Pencader, Bryn Teify and Caradog Falls Tunnels since it is statutorily responsible for their maintenance. The collective lengths of these tunnels amount to less than one mile.

  The remaining sections of track were sold several years ago, mainly to adjoining land owners including public bodies such as the Forestry Commission and local authorities.

  More detailed information is not immediately available but I shall write to the hon. Member expanding on this in the near future.

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals Service is understaffed; and how many staff have(a) left the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals Service, (b) been redeployed and (c) been made redundant in the last year. [58443]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The provision of Leasehold Valuation Tribunals is one of the functions of Rent Assessment Panels. The workload of a number of Panels has reduced over the last 12 months and adjustments have been made to staffing numbers as a result. The current staffing levels are considered sufficient to carry out the administration of the tribunals but we are keeping the position under review. The administrative staff are civil servants from my Department and, of the 21 staff who have left the Panels over the last 12 months, 7 have transferred to other posts in the Department, 3 have resigned, 10 have taken

  New jurisdiction cases (Service charges/Appointment of a manager/Insurance)

  Panel

  1996–971

  1997–981

  1998–99(to date)

  Wales

  n/a

  No cases received

  No cases received

  North Western

  n/a

  No cases heard

  11 months

  Chilterns, Thames and Eastern

  n/a

  No cases heard

  No cases

  London

  n/a

  No cases heard

  8 months

  Merseyside and Cheshire

  n/a

  No cases heard

  No cases received

  West Midland

  n/a

  4 months

  6 months

  North Eastern

  n/a

  No cases received

  4 months

  East Midland

  n/a

  No cases heard

  No cases heard

  South Western

  n/a

  No cases heard

  7.5 months

  Southern and South Eastern

  n/a

  No cases heard

  9 months

  1An application to a leasehold valuation tribunal could be made only on or after 1 September 1997.

  14
  early retirement and 1 member of staff was dismissed. No staff have been made redundant and 17 new staff have been recruited to the Panel in the same 12 month period.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many appeals have been notified in respect of leasehold valuation tribunal decisions in the past year; what assessment he has made of the quality of the work of the tribunals; and if he will make a statement. [58442]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the 12 months ending on 31 October, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (LVTs) have been asked for leave to appeal gainst 7 of their decisions in respect of service charge disputes. In total, 58 appeals against LVT decisions have been received by the Lands Tribunal during the same period—this latter figure includes both service charge cases and decisions on other matters for which leave to appeal is not required.

  The Leasehold Valuation Tribunals have provided an effective means of resolving a variety of disputes relating to leasehold property without the risks of high and uncertain costs associated with court proceedings. They have recently been given a new role in hearing service charge disputes and applications for the appointment of a manager under which they have, as yet, decided only a few cases. We are commissioning research to examine the effectiveness of the new regime, both directly and indirectly, in dealing with service charge disputes and we will continue to monitor their operation closely.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the budget for the leasehold valuation tribunals in each financial year since 1995; and what it will be for the year 1999–2000. [58444]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The cost of leasehold valuation tribunals is not separately identifiable within the overall cost of Rent Assessment Panels. The cost of the Panels in 1997–98 was £5.5 million. The resources allocated to the Panels in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 have been increased to £11.1 million in both years in anticipation of an increase in the volume of applications to leasehold valuation tribunals arising from the provisions in the Housing Act 1996.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average length of time before the cases of applicants to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals were heard(a) in the present financial year to date, (b) in 1997–98 and (c) in 1996–97. [58437]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The average length of time before the cases of applicants to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals were heard was as follows:
  15

  Old jurisdiction cases—(Enfranchisement/lease extensions)

  Panel

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99 (to date))

  Wales

  7 months

  7.5 months

  9 months

  North Western

  None heard

  10 months

  12 months

  Chilterns, Thames and Eastern

  8 months

  8 months

  9 months

  London

  8 months

  8 months

  8 months

  Merseyside and Cheshire

  No cases received

  No cases received

  No cases received

  West Midland

  4 months

  7 months

  6 months

  North Eastern

  8.5 months

  All cases withdrawn or no jurisdiction

  No cases heard

  East Midland

  No cases received

  No cases heard

  No cases received

  South Western

  4.5 months

  No cases heard

  11 months

  Southern and South Eastern

  4 months

  4 months

  4.5 months

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a breakdown of the backgrounds of the members of the leasehold valuation tribunals; what expertise is sought for appointments; and what training is given(a) on appointment and (b) subsequently. [58445]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Leasehold valuation tribunals comprise qualified lawyers and valuers, and lay people, all drawn from the members appointed to the 9 Rent Assessment Panels in England. I have arranged for a copy of the current list of Panel members, which includes details of their backgrounds, to be placed in the Library. My Department is looking to recruit more lay people and to attract members from a broader constituency. The qualities looked for in members include relevant professional expertise, intellectual grasp, sound judgment, analytical skills, ability to work as a team member and, in the case of a chairman of a tribunal, the ability to control proceedings. On appointment, new members are subject to an induction programme, which includes the provision of guidance on the legislation and procedures relevant to tribunal work, attendance at tribunal hearings as an observer, ad hoc meetings on specific subjects and attendance on suitable courses where appropriate. This is supplemented by regular seminars for all members and the supply of guidance notes on legal, technical and procedural issues as they arise.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Green Paper on leasehold reform will address the question of social housing leaseholders. [58438]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our consultation paper will seek views on a wide range of leasehold issues affecting social housing leaseholders and leaseholders generally.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department has received on leasehold reform; and if he will make a statement. [58545]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have received a large number of representations on leasehold reform. We are currently conducting a comprehensive review of the leasehold system and are committed to thoroughgoing reform.
  16
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department proposes to publish the Green Paper on Leasehold Reform.[58544]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We hope to issue our consultation paper on leasehold reform shortly.

  Driving Licence Sight Tests
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996, what assumptions underlie the estimate of the savings if the work were undertaken by opticians. [58281]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The savings are based on the difference between the fees payable to doctors and specialists from April 1999 and an estimate on the costs provided by Opticians to undertake similar volumes of tests to an identical standard.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what fee is currently paid to the doctor or eye specialist when the Medical Adviser at the DVLA requests that a driver take a sight test to determine his fitness to drive. [58282]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The statutory eyesight standard for driving is the ability to read a car number plate at 20.5 metres. To establish if a driver's field of vision can meet the standard DVLA will pay a doctor or eye specialist a fee of £12.50 for a report from records or £56.25 if an examination is required.

  Construction Industry (Fatal Accidents)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the number of fatal accidents within the construction industry in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [58326]

  Mr. Meale
  The numbers of fatal accidents reported to the Health and Safety Executive and Local Authorities within the construction industry in England and Wales in each of the last three years are as follows:

  Year

  Number of fatal accidents

  1995–96

  68

  1996–97

  78

  1997–981

  69

  1Provisional data

  Alcohol (Air Passengers)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government will introduce legislation to ban the consumption of passengers' own alcohol in flight. [58416]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 5 November 1998]: The Government have no plans to introduce such legislation.

  The problem of drunken passengers is already dealt with in the Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995. This makes it an offence to enter an aircraft while drunk, to be drunk on an aircraft and to endanger the safety of an aircraft or any person therein. This legislation applies to UK registered aircraft regardless of where in the world they are and to foreign aircraft in UK airspace or whose next landing is in the UK. In addition, the commander of an UK registered aircraft may require a passenger not to consume alcohol if it appears that he is likely to become drunk. Failure to comply with the lawful commands of the aircraft commander is an offence.

  More generally, there are various actions which the airlines themselves can take to deal with the problem of potentially disruptive passengers and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be discussing these options with the airlines shortly.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of respondents to the consultation exercise on the proposed Greater London Authority supported the additional member system of electing the authority. [58482]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our proposals to elect the Assembly by AMS were set out in the White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" (Cm 3897). These proposals were endorsed by 72 per cent. of those who voted in the referendum on 7 May 1998.

  We received a total of 1,289 responses to the consultation exercise on the Green Paper "New Leadership for London" (Cm 3724). Of these, 103 respondents favoured a system of proportional representation to elect the Assembly, as opposed to 33 who supported first past the post. Nine respondents specifically supported the additional member system (AMS).

  Rail Services
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many routes the punctuality of rail services(a) improved and (b) deteriorated in the last period for which records are available. [58672]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The latest figures released by the Franchising Director cover the three rail industry periods from 28 June 1998 to 19 September 1998. Comparing the annual average at the end of the quarter with the average of the beginning of the quarter, 26 route groups have 18
  shown an improvement, 32 have deteriorated and six remained static. Comparing average punctuality for the year ending September 1998 with that for the previous year, 19 route groups have improved, 42 have declined and three have remained static.

  M20
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received about noise from the M20 through Ashford; and if he will make a statement. [58356]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 5 November 1998]: Since the Roads Review was announced in July 1998 we have received 65 representations and one petition containing over 50 signatures about traffic noise from the M20 within the District of Ashford (between Charing and Brabourne Lees).

  We recognise that traffic noise is a major source of concern to people. This is why in "A New Deal for Trunk Road in England" we announced that low noise surfaces would be used when roads are built or, where appropriate in those areas where noise is a particular concern, when they undergo major maintenance. I understand the Highways Agency plan to carry out technical surveys between Junctions 9 and 11 on the M20 later this year, which should determine the condition of the road surface and establish whether it should be included in the Agency's programme of future maintenance work.

  We also announced our intention, where re-surfacing cannot be justified on normal maintenance grounds, to establish a revised noise criteria and ring-fenced annual budget to enable the Highways Agency, over a reasonable period of time, to deal with some of the most serious and pressing cases.

  North West Trains
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has had on the performance of North West Trains towards meeting the standards agreed on its franchise. [58692]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since the General Election the Franchising Director and I have received 232 representations about the performance and service quality of North West Trains.

  Civil Subsonic Jet Aircraft
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy towards the proposed EU directive on civil subsonic jet aircraft. [58582]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To gain the benefits of early implementation the measure has been transformed into a Regulation which the UK supported when it was agreed at the Transport Council on 1 October as reported in the Parliamentary Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on 20 October 1998,Official Report, columns 1099–101. It is essential to maintain progress in reducing aircraft noise at source. This measure will help to ensure that the environmental gains achieved by the phasing out of older, noisy Chapter 2 aircraft by 2002 are not lost.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the dates on which research has been commissioned by his Department, or its predecessor, into contained genetically modified organisms and their possible impacts on the environment if released; and if he will place a copy of the findings of such research in the Library. [59029]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department has commissioned research into contained genetically modified organisms and their possible impacts on the environment as follows:December 1994, The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, a study to review current large-scale activities with genetically modified microorganisms in the UK and the potential for any environmental risks arising from incidental discharge in waste streams.
  October 1997, the Central Science Laboratory, to study the environmental risk of genetically modified plants in containment.

  The reports of these studies will be published in due course and copies will be placed in the library.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions in each month, or other period for which the information is available since 1 May 1997 WHO guidelines for atmospheric pollution levels have been exceeded. [59016]

  Mr. Meale
  Air pollution data from national monitoring sites, from 1 May 1997, for four pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone and sulphur dioxide) for which WHO have set guidelines, is presented in the tables. It should be noted that data are provisional from 1 April 1998.

  Nitrogen dioxide

  WHO 1-hour mean>=110.ppb

  Month

  Number of exceedences

  Number of days

  Maximum hourly ppb

  May 1997

  3

  1

  121

  June 1997

  2

  2

  249

  July 1997

  3

  2

  150

  August 1997

  4

  4

  144

  September 1997

  6

  6

  217

  October 1997

  35

  3

  249

  November 1997

  25

  8

  156

  December 1997

  6

  3

  154

  January 1998

  6

  5

  134

  February 1998

  9

  7

  132

  April 1998

  2

  2

  124

  May 1998

  3

  3

  122

  June 1998

  1

  1

  119

  August 1998

  3

  3

  123

  October 1998

  5

  4

  598

  November 1998

  1

  1

  190

  Carbon monoxide

  WHO 1-hour mean>=25.0ppm

  Month

  Number of exceedences

  Number of days

  Maximum ppm

  October 1998

  4

  4

  48.8

  20

  Carbon monoxide

  WHO 8-hour running average>=10.0ppm

  Month

  Number of exceedences

  Number of days

  Maximum ppm

  October 1997

  2

  2

  12.1

  November 1997

  1

  1

  12.1

  January 1998

  4

  4

  11

  October 1998

  3

  3

  47.1

  Ozone

  WHO 8-hour running average>=60.0ppb

  Month

  Number of exceedences

  Number of days

  Maximum ppb

  May 1997

  51

  8

  80

  June 1997

  28

  6

  77

  July 1997

  47

  9

  83

  August 1997

  204

  14

  100

  April 1998

  1

  1

  64

  May 1998

  78

  16

  84

  June 1998

  11

  2

  72

  July 1998

  1

  1

  60

  August 1998

  34

  4

  101

  September 1998

  6

  5

  71

  October 1998

  10

  9

  72

  November 1998

  1

  1

  65

  Sulphur Dioxide

  WHO 24-hour running average>=44.0ppb

  Month

  Number of exceedences

  Number of days

  Maximum ppb

  July 1997

  3

  3

  82

  September 1997

  1

  1

  45

  October 1997

  9

  8

  78

  November 1997

  16

  12

  94

  December 1997

  8

  6

  92

  January 1998

  22

  12

  93

  February 1998

  2

  2

  56

  May 1998

  9

  6

  66

  July 1998

  2

  2

  65

  September 1998

  7

  7

  89

  October 1998

  2

  2

  47

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each month or other period for which the information is available since 1 May 1997, the total quantity of(a) CO2, (b) CO, (c) benzene, (d) sulphur, (e) NO, and (f) particulates emitted by road traffic, broken down by (i) car, (ii) motorcycle, (iii) van and (iv) lorry. [59013]

  Mr. Meale
  National UK emissions data are published annually in my Department's "Digest of Environmental Statistics", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. UK emissions data are also available on the Department's air quality web site at http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/airq/aqinfo.htm and in the annual research report "UK Emissions of Air Pollutants", produced by the National Environmental Technology Centre. Annual UK emissions data are not yet available for 1997. A table showing the latest available published UK annual road transport emissions for 1996 follows.
  21

  UK emissions from road transport in 1996 Figures report by the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory for UK Digest of Environmental Statistics

  Ktonnes

  NOx

  CO

  SO2

  Benzene

  PM10

  CO2 as C

  Cars

  523

  2,798

  14.6

  23.0

  13.2

  19,324

  Vans

  58

  306

  5.1

  1.5

  8.1

  3,329

  HGVs

  321

  85

  14.5

  1.4

  21.5

  6,904

  Buses

  63

  41

  3.0

  0.3

  4.6

  1,443

  Motorcycles

  1

  70

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  118

  All vehicles

  966

  3,299

  37.2

  26.3

  47.7

  31,118

  Internet Publishing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to require all task forces and equivalent bodies sponsored by his Department to publish their working papers and minutes on the Internet. [58769]

  Mr. Meale
  Given the wide range of subjects and sensitivities involved, it would not be appropriate to publish on the Internet the working papers and minutes of all task forces and equivalent bodies sponsored by my Department. However, in line with the Department's commitment to Open Government, Task Forces' reports will be made available on the Internet where appropriate, and any requests for additional information will be dealt with individually under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Development Rights
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is his Department's policy towards permitted development rights on green belt land held by recently privatised companies, with particular reference to Railtrack; [58997]

  (2) what is his Department's policy towards development in the green belt under permitted development rights. [59000]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Permitted development rights may be exercised in accordance with the various conditions and limitations set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. In exceptional circumstances, where there is a real and specific threat that permitted development is likely to take place which could damage an interest of acknowledged importance those rights can be withdrawn and the relevant development would then require a planning application. This would apply regardless of the type of developer. One reason for withdrawing permitted development rights might be that the purposes of Green Belt designation were threatened.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities for consultations Railtrack inherited from British Rail regarding use of permitted development rights. [58999]

  Mr. Raynsford
  British Rail had no specific responsibilities for consultations regarding the use of permitted development rights. However, guidance for non-statutory consultation with regard to the exercise of permitted development rights by statutory undertakers is set out in DOE Circular 9/95: General Development Order 22
  Consolidation 1995, and in DOE Circular 15/92: Publicity for Planning Applications. They make it clear that both the local planning authorities and the public should be informed of proposals for permitted development which are likely to affect them significantly, before the proposals are finalised.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about Railtrack's proposals to build a ballast storage depot at Hinkley Sidings under permitted development rights. [58994]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As of 5 November, the Government Office for the South East had received 30 representations from local people, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy towards the payment of compensation by a planning authority to private companies when their permitted development rights are blocked by use of an Article 4 direction upheld by his Department. [59001]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The withdrawal of permitted development rights by a direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 may give rise to the local planning authority being liable to pay compensation under sections 107 and 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Any person interested in the land, or in any minerals in or under the land, may seek compensation for abortive expenditure, or other loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of the permitted development rights. In order to claim compensation a planning application must have been made and permission refused, or granted subject to conditions other than those previously imposed by the Permitted Development Order.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities for environmental protection and what requirements to have regard for greenbelt policies were inherited by Railtrack from British Rail with regard to permitted development rights. [58998]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There were no specific responsibilities of this kind. It is the responsibility of the local planning authority to decide whether to withdraw certain permitted development rights where permitted developments are likely to have significant effects on the environment. I would refer the hon. Member to my earlier answers to questions 58997 and 59000.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a decision regarding the Article 4 direction from Oxfordshire County Council regarding the proposal to build a ballast depot at Hinkley Sidings. [58995]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A decision will he made as quickly as possible.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department received the Article 4 direction from Oxfordshire County Council relating to Hinkley sidings. [58996]
  23
  Mr. Raynsford
  The request to confirm the Article 4 Direction was received from Oxfordshire County Council on 2 November.

  Freight
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the development of new rail routes for freight transport. [59223]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The freight grants scheme is designed to assist companies in moving goods from road to rail where payment is justified by the environmental benefits. We overhauled the grants scheme on coming to office; we doubled the grant spend in our first year to £30 million; we have increased the budget to £40 million for the current year, of which £32 million is already committed; and we will make still further money available over the next three years, if there is demand.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what weighting is given to the individual criteria and sub-criteria in the appraisal summary tables for road schemes published following the roads review. [58700]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Explicit weightings were not given to the criteria and sub-criteria in the Roads Review.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority in England the bids made in their TPP submission for expenditure in 1992–2000 for(a) major highway schemes (eligible for TSG), (b) major highway schemes (not eligible for TSG), (c) structural maintenance on carriageways, (d) strengthening and structural maintenance on bridges, (e) assessment programme on bridges, (f) major public transport packages, (g) minor works: packages, (h) minor works: non-packages and (i) minor works: local safety schemes. [58701]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I shall be glad to provide the hon. Member with this information. In view of its extent I will provide it by letter rather than including it in the Official Report. I will write to him shortly. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Airports
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish a policy document on airports. [58528]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In its White Paper "A New Deal for Transport", the Government said:"We will prepare a UK airports policy looking some 30 years ahead. This will develop the application to UK airports of the policies set out in this White Paper—of sustainable development, integration with surface transport and contribution to regional growth. It will provide the framework within which those concerned can plan for the future with greater certainty. We will consult widely in preparing the new policy and will take account of the Inspector's report on the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry."

  The Government are currently considering the precise scope, and the timing, of the policy statement and will
  24
  announce their conclusions in due course. They will also consider what steps might be taken to develop thinking and focus the debate on the way forward.

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of freight facilities grant was applied to inland waterways in the period since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [58873]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  23 Freight Facilities Grants totalling some £19 million have been awarded since 1 May 1997. Two of the grants, worth about £240,000, were awarded to inland waterway applicants.

  Interest in grant for inland waterway schemes has historically been low. However, recent publicity drives by my Department have resulted in an increased interest in moving freight by inland waterway.

  We intend to consult on the details of a scheme to extend, the freight grants regime to coastal and short sea shipping.

  Commission for Integrated Transport
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the(a) membership of and (b) terms of reference for the Commission for Integrated Transport. [58697]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The remit for the Commission for Integrated Transport was set out in paragraph 4.4 of the White Paper 'A New Deal for Transport'. We expect to announce the appointments to the Commission early in the new year.

  Unpaid Utility Charges (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the number of people resident in the Warrington, North constituency who received a court summons for unpaid water charges in each of the past five years; [58314]

  (2) how many (a) gas, (b) electricity and (c) water disconnections took place in the Warrington, North constituency in each of the past five years. [58315]

  Mr. Meale
  Information is not available by constituency and my Department has made no estimated constituency breakdown of the information. Available figures provided by the utility regulators are as follows:

  Year

  Gas disconnections

  1993

  16,088

  1994

  16,393

  1995

  14,511

  1996

  8,820

  1997

  29,771

  Note:

  Figures, from OFGAS, are for Great Gritain; regional breakdowns are not available.
  25

  Year

  Electricity disconnections

  1993–94

  23

  1994–95

  27

  1995–96

  30

  1996–97

  8

  1997–98

  7

  Note:

  Figures, from OFFER, are for the MANWEB area.

  Year

  Water Summonses

  Disconnections

  1993–94

  41,345

  515

  1994–95

  55,065

  649

  1995–96

  43,842

  839

  1996–97

  43,716

  410

  1997–98

  6,482

  469

  Note:

  Figures, from OFWAT, are for North West Water; the figures for summonses are for household customers only.

  Repair Work (Northern Line)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects repair work on the Northern Line escalator at Embankment Station to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the cause of delay. [58317]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Embankment Station escalator number 4, an up escalator from the Northern Line dating back to 1985, suffered a major component failure in September 1998. As the escalator type is now obsolete no replacement parts were readily available. At this time however a similar type of escalator was being replaced at Paddington and a decision was taken to attempt to cannibalise this machine and work was carried out between September to mid-October. Upon completion of work London Underground Limited's (LUL) Chief Engineer (Lifts and Escalators) examined the escalator. Unfortunately because the parts from the Paddington escalator were worn and could not comply with LUL's very strict standard, the machine could not return to service.

  Since failing in September (and obviously during repair work) the escalator had been covered by hoarding. In a bid to assist passenger flow through the station the hoarding has been removed and the escalator is currently in use as a fixed stairway.

  Work is well underway to replace the failed escalator. A contract, worth approximately £1 million has been placed with the lift and escalator manufacturer Otis, which will commence work on installing a brand new escalator in January 1999. (The lead-in time for major components is between 12 and 16 weeks). It is expected that the new escalator will be fully operational by the end of July 1999.

  Interconnector
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations his Department had with the Directorate of Safety, Environment and Fire Policy at the Ministry of Defence, prior to giving consent for the laying of the Scotland-Northern Ireland electricity interconnector. [58710]
  26
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Consent was sought from the Department under Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. Consent under this Act is required if danger or obstruction to navigation is likely to result. The Department in making a decision under this section may consider only this question. It was concluded that the laying of the interconnector was not likely to cause such danger or obstruction and consent was accordingly given in February 1994.

  Minerals Planning Guidance 3
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish a revised version of planning document MPG3: Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal. [58709]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning published a draft revised MPG3 (Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal) for public consultation on 16 October. Comments on the draft guidance, which applies to England only, are requested by 15 January 1999.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland published draft revised planning policy guidance on opencast coal in Scotland on 23 October. Responses to that consultation paper are requested by 11 December 1998.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contingency plans have been made to get visitors to and from the Dome in the event that the Jubilee Line extension is not completed in time. [57279]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government welcome London Transport's revised strategy for phased opening of the Jubilee Line Extension project and their confirmation that it will open in good time for the Millennium Experience. It would however be irresponsible not to have in place contingency arrangements to manage problems on any of the main transport links to the Millennium site, including any major failure of the Jubilee Line. London Underground Limited are developing contingency arrangements for this, and other eventualities, in association with London Transport Buses, London River Services, the Government Office for London, the Highways Agency, the Association of Train Operating Companies, Connex South East, Docklands Light Railways and the New Millennium Experience Company.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many road deaths and serious road accidents there were in each month or other period for which the information is available since 1 May 1997. [59015]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information for 1998 is not yet available by month. Information for 1997 is as shown. Other casualties involved in these accidents who sustained slight injuries are not shown.
  27

  Accidents

  Fatal incidents

  Serious accidents

  May

  272

  3,034

  June

  263

  3,058

  July

  266

  3,256

  August

  296

  3,120

  September

  268

  2,893

  October

  295

  3,331

  November

  331

  3,244

  December

  287

  3,147

  Casualties

  Persons killed

  Persons seriously injured

  May

  292

  3,595

  June

  289

  3,633

  July

  304

  3,867

  August

  320

  3,785

  September

  291

  3,362

  October

  321

  3,924

  November

  354

  3,848

  December

  310

  3,697

  Car Sales
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cars were sold in each month, or other period for which the information is available, since 1 May 1997. [59014]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The requested information, taken from DVLA records of new car registrations, is as shown.

  New car registrations: by month since May 1997

  Thousand

  1997

  1998

  January

  —

  227

  February

  —

  179

  March

  —

  214

  April

  —

  170

  May

  167

  172

  June

  149

  170

  July

  36

  40

  August

  526

  506

  September

  157

  166

  October

  158

  —

  November

  153

  —

  December

  89

  —

  Car Journeys
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many car journeys were completed in each month or other period for which the information is available since I May 1997. [59017]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not available on a monthly basis. Information on journeys is provided by the National Travel Survey. Over the period 1995 to 1997, the estimated average number of car driver journeys was 401 per person per year in Great Britain.

  White Paper Documents
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he 28
  expects each of the subsidiary documents referred to in the White Paper, A New Deal For Transport, to be published; [58527]

  (2) when the publications listed in annex A of A New Deal for Transport will be published. [58698]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government will launch their consultation on road user charging and the workplace parking levy shortly. In the following months we intend to issue further daughter documents on sustainable distribution, local transport plans, shipping, buses, road safety and inland waterways. We will also be issuing a paper on ports policy. In many of the documents we will be consulting on detailed aspects of policy, and we therefore intend to issue the documents in an orderly way so as not to overburden consultees and so as to encourage full and considered responses.

  Of the other relevant documents listed in Annex A, the response to the Royal Commission and the consultation paper on climate change have already been published. An action plan to encourage walking will be published shortly. The remaining documents—a report on the review of national air quality strategy, a revised strategy for sustainable development, consultation on draft or updated planning guidance, and progress reports from the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force—will follow over the next few months.

  Regional Planning Guidance (Transport)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the(a) timetable and (b) budget for the transport problems to be considered by regional planning conferences through regional planning guidance systems detailed in Annex C of A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England; [58694]

  (2) what is the (a) timetable and (b) budget for the study programme detailed in annex D of A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England; [58695]

  (3) what is the procedure for the implementation of recommendations made by the (a) regional planning conferences and (b) study programme listed in annexes C and D of A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England. [58696]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A New Deal for Transport and A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England describe the enhanced role that Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) will play in integrating transport planning with other types of land-use planning and identifying regional priorities for transport investment and management. Draft RPG will be prepared by regional planning conferences (RPCs), in consultation with the Government Offices and other regional stakeholders, and submitted to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will consider whether the draft should be modified in the light of an independent Panel report and issue the final version of RPG. The Secretary of State will be committed to taking forward those transport proposals in RPG for which central government are responsible. The precise timing will
  29
  depend on the circumstances of the particular public expenditure round. Other transport proposals will be delivered by local authorities through their local transport plans and by Railtrack and other transport infrastructure and service providers. Further guidance on the regional transport strategy element of RPG will be set out in a draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 11.

  It is for RPCs, in consultation with other stakeholders and Government offices, to decide the timetable for updating RPG. All regions, except London and the West Midlands, are currently reviewing RPG. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, my Department will be providing significant additional funding to support the research efforts of the Government offices and the RPCs in developing RPG and we will also be meeting the administrative costs of the RPG public examinations.

  The programme of studies proposed in Annex D of A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England will assist RPCs in addressing the most serious and urgent regional transport problems in either the current round or future updates of RPG. The studies will be led by Government offices in partnership with RPCs and funded by the Department at a cost of some £30 million over the next three years. We will shortly be consulting RPCs about our proposals. The first studies will begin in 1999–2000.

  Traffic Forecasts
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the impact of the transport policy measures announced as part of A New Deal for Transport, on(a) forecasts of future traffic made in the 1997 National Road Traffic Forecasts and (b) future levels of congestion on the motorway and trunk road network as shown in the Highways Agency's stress maps. [58699]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Revising and updating the 1997 National Road Traffic Forecasts to reflect the impact of the New Deal for Transport will involve new approaches to forecasting traffic and its environmental and economic effects. The Department is currently developing plans to take this work forward, on which we will be seeking advice from the Commission for Integrated Transport, after it is established next year. Our revised forecasts will also need to take account of the non-statutory 'interim' road traffic reduction reports we expect to receive from local highway authorities in July next year as part of their provisional local transport plans.

  The Highways Agency's motorway and trunk road stress maps will be revised in line with the National Road Traffic Forecasts, which play a central role in their production.

  French Lorry Drivers' Dispute
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if all outstanding claims arising out of the French lorry drivers' dispute have been settled. [58990]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We understand that at 10 September some 200 claims from UK companies were still under consideration by the French authorities.

PRIME MINISTER

  Countryside Responsibilities
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government have completed their review of countryside responsibilities; and if he will make a statement. [57230]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government completed their Comprehensive Spending Review of countryside and rural policy earlier this year. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 246–47.

  The Government' s new strategic approach—based upon a belief in the importance of integrating policies for rural areas, and ensuring that the rural dimension is fully reflected in wider policy-making—will enhance opportunity in rural areas, improve access to and enjoyment of the countryside and conserve and manage wildlife resources there. At Departmental level, work is in hand to improve co-ordination and financial planning of DETR and MAFF development programmes for rural areas. We have announced that from 1 April 1999 the work of the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission will be brought together in a new agency to champion rural England. Regional Development Agencies will also have a specific remit to serve the rural areas of their regions, and will be responsible for developing an integrated approach to economic development and regeneration throughout their regions.

  The Government believe in a living, working and sustainable countryside recognising the important links between rural and urban policy.

  Ministerial Hospitality
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) of 9 February 1998,Official Report, column 17, if he will give a definition of the term ministerial hospitality. [58730]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministerial hospitality covers expenditure on official entertainment hosted by Ministers including events organised by the Government Hospitality Fund. Hospitality is offered, and costed, on the same basis as it was by the last Administration.

  Life Peers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria he employs in selecting candidates to be proposed for appointment as life peers. [58683]

  The Prime Minister
  That the individual concerned should be able to make a significant contribution to the work of the House of Lords.

  Ministerial Appointments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1997,Official Report, columns 502–03, concerning advice from the security forces, if he will set out the circumstances in which it is

  31
  deemed relevant that advice is made available to him; who is responsible for deeming it relevant; and if he will make a statement. [59004]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 402.

  "Supporting Families"
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he authorised inclusion of the Labour Party Manifesto 1997 in the list of related Government publications in the consultation paper "Supporting Families"; [59003]

  (2) if the Government supplied copies of the first document in the reading list at the end of the "Supporting Families" consultation document to the Vote Office for distribution with the other publications listed. [59002]

  The Prime Minister
  The Labour Party Manifesto should have been included separately in the bibliography rather than under "Related Government Publications". No copies have been supplied to the Vote Office, but Members may obtain copies from Labour Party Headquarters.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct the Social Exclusion Unit to send copies of consultation letters issued by the client to individual hon. Members. [58804]

  The Prime Minister
  The Social Exclusion Unit is currently consulting on the subject of Teenage Parenthood. A consultation letter was issued on 7 October, and a copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Unit's website, as will all future consultations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will provide a breakdown in numerical and percentage terms of the ethnic origin of civil servants in her private office, as at 1 October 1997; [56763]

  (2) if she will provide a breakdown in numerical and percentage terms of the ethnic origin of civil servants in her Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997. [56761]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 666–70.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the income for hill farmers in Northern Ireland as(a) a total and (b) an average per farmer in 1997–98; and what are the predictions for income in the present financial year. [58013]
  32
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A total income figure for hill farmers in Northern Ireland is not available.

  Estimates of the average income per farmer in 1997–98 and the prediction for 1998–99 will be published by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland on 30 November 1998, with accompanying statistical tables placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures the Government are(a) taking, and (b) proposing to take, to support the income levels of hill farmers in Northern Ireland. [58016]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Hill farmers in Northern Ireland continue to receive Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances (HLCAs). Payments are based on numbers of cattle and sheep held and an annual review is ongoing on a UK basis as part of the process of determining the payment rates for the 1999 scheme.

  Under EU Agenda 2000 proposals such support will switch to payment based on areas rather than headage but will continue to be targeted at the LFA. Agenda 2000 negotiations are still at relatively early stages.

  Act of Union (Bicentenary)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government have to celebrate the bicentenary of the Act of Union between Ireland and Great Britain. [58071]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government have no plans to do so. Local communities and non-governmental organisations may wish to organise their own celebrations.

  Proscribed Organisations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals have been(a) charged, (b) summarily convicted and (c) convicted on indictment under section 2 or the equivalent section of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 relating to membership of a proscribed organisation in each year since enactment; what percentage of those convicted in each year received a prison sentence; and what percentage of those were sentenced to a term of less than one year. [56320]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]The following table illustrates the information as requested.

  Persons:

  Year

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Sentenced to imprisonment

  Percentage where sentence less than one year

  1989

  25

  23

  18

  0

  1990

  33

  30

  24

  0

  1991

  19

  16

  10

  0

  1992

  16

  15

  10

  0

  1993

  28

  24

  21

  0

  1994

  19

  17

  17

  0

  33

  Persons:

  Year

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Sentenced to imprisonment

  Percentage where sentence less than one year

  1995

  28

  24

  17

  0

  1996

  7

  6

  6

  0

  1997

  6

  3

  3

  0

  Notes:

  1. Persons were sentenced for offences including membership of a proscribed organisation—not membership only—and hence the length of sentence in each case was more than one year.

  2. The figures may include suspended sentences.

  3. Persons have been charged with membership of a proscribed organisation based on evidence to substantiate that charge, e.g. a more serious charge of murder.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his private office, as at 1 October 1997; [56813]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997. [56811]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 666–70.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Israeli Government over the legality of their announcement of the addition of further Jewish housing units to the settlement of Kiryat Arba near Hebron. [58570]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made no formal representation to the Israeli government specifically about the announcement of the addition of further housing units to the settlement of Kiryat Arba near Hebron. But our position on settlements is clear and well known to them. Settlements in the Occupied Territories and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. We note the clarification given by Prime Minister Netanyahu's Office on 1 November that no new building permits have been issued in Jerusalem. We expect the Israeli government to continue to refrain from granting such permits, and to abide by the new spirit of co-operation forged at Wye.

  East Timor
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of recent reports concerning changes in the number of Indonesian troops in East Timor. [58434]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are concerned at reports of an increase in the number of Indonesian troops in East Timor. I raised our concerns at troop levels with President 34
  Habibie and Foreign Minister Alatas in Jakarta last month. We endorse the UN Secretary-General's recent call for a substantial reduction in the Indonesian military presence in the territory.

  Mercenaries
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will sign the United Nations International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. [58423]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have no plans at present to sign the 1989 UN Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries because of widespread doubt that it is legally enforceable. The Convention has not attracted sufficient support to enter into force.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy relating to the use of mercenaries in armed conflicts. [58431]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We and our EU partners have always made it clear that we unequivocally condemn the recruitment, use and financing of mercenaries in armed conflict. We are concerned about the spread of mercenary activity.

  EU Treaties (Translations)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official translations of(a) the four principal treaties of the European Union and (b) the Regulations and Directives in force, were made available to the Governments of countries who were candidates to join the EU during the United Kingdom's presidency. [58678]

  Ms Quin
  The four principal treaties and all the Regulations and Directives in force are published in all 11 official languages of the European Union. During the UK Presidency the European Commission started the process of screening the candidates' legislation against the EU' s acquis, using the language versions agreed between the Commission and the candidate concerned.

  Abductions
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the special unit in his Department which deals with cases of alleged abduction covers British citizens with dual nationality; and how many such cases there are which the unit is currently aware of but which have not been concluded, broken down by country and gender. [59018]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Department's special unit covers British citizens with dual nationality taken hostage as well as those without. The unit is presently handling one such case. The male abductee, kidnapped in August 1998 in the Democratic Republic of Congo, holds both New Zealand and British nationality.

  Angola
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's
  35
  Government have taken to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1173 (1998) which imposed further sanctions on UNITA as from 1 July. [52366]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 July 1998, c. 689-91]Additional information has reached me since my answer of 23 July. The correct answer is as follows.

  Resolution 1173 imposed a freeze on the funds and financial resources of UNITA, its officials and their immediate families; a ban on most official contacts in Angola with UNITA; a prohibition on the import of diamonds outside the governmental certificate of origin regime; and prohibitions on the sale or supply of equipment which may be used in mining or transportation, and on transportation services.

  We have instructed all our diplomatic missions overseas to avoid any contact with UNITA, whether locally or in Angola. There is one exception: our Embassy in Luanda may continue to have contacts with UNITA officials in areas of Angola to which State Administration has been extended. This is in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1173 (1998) which prohibits certain official contacts with UNITA.

  The prohibition on the importation of diamonds will be given effect in the United Kingdom by amendment to the Open General Import Licence.

  The remainder of the prohibitions are to be implemented in the UK by the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1998 and in the Overseas Territories by the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1998 made on 21 July and laid in July.

  Similar Orders have been made to give effect to the Resolution in the Crown Dependencies. These orders restrict the sale or supply of certain goods which may be used in mining or transportation and the supply of transportation services; impose a freeze on the funds and financial resources in relation to UNITA and persons connected with UNITA; and for the Overseas Territories and Channel Islands, restrict the importation of diamonds exported from Angola on or after 1 July 1998. There is provision for medical and humanitarian exceptions.

  EU Business (Scrutiny)
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the projected date of release of the White Paper on National Scrutiny of European Union Business. [58009]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have been asked to reply.

  I expect the White Paper will be published shortly.

SCOTLAND

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to reduce the administrative burden on staff in further education colleges of processing information requested by(a) the Scottish Office, (b) training agencies and (c) local enterprise companies. [56951]
  36
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]In line with recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its Second Report, the Government take care to ensure that necessary monitoring and collection of information are undertaken in a way that is as simple as possible and which does not create unnecessary bureaucracy. However, as further education colleges themselves recognise, the fair and equitable application of the funding methodology for colleges is dependent on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of information which the Department receives from colleges on student activity. It is also appropriate that colleges' use of Government funding should be subject to proper monitoring and audit.

  Scottish Enterprise (SE) and Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) have responsibility for the management and delivery of Government funded training programmes. Administrative arrangements and information requirements are operational matters for these agencies. I understand that, following their recent Skillseekers Evaluation, SE and HIE are presently reviewing administrative procedures, with a view to simplifying them.

  Pensioners (Reduced Taxi Fares)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the travel discounts afforded to pensioners to allow for reduced fares on taxis. [57607]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Local authorities are able at present to provide pensioners with concessionary travel by taxi if they so wish. Local authorities have discretionary powers under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 which allow any local authority, or any 2 or more local authorities acting jointly, to establish a concessionary travel scheme for eligible categories of person including pensioners. At present all Scottish local authorities, except Orkney Islands Council, operate concessionary travel schemes and a number include taxicards for pensioners.

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce a charter for persons with autism in line with the charter adopted at the fourth Autism Europe Congress in May 1992; and if he will make a statement. [57614]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office on 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 558.

  Land Law Reform
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the terms of reference of the Scottish Law Commission's investigation of the reform of Scottish land law. [57760]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Law Commission's work on the reform of Scottish land law is part of its Fifth Programme of Law Reform submitted to the Lord Advocate on 7 February and published on 25 February 1997 published (Scot Law Com. No. 159). As stated in the programme under item No. 6 the Commission aims to make
  37
  recommendations for the abolition of the system of feudal tenure and its replacement with a modern system based on the principle of absolute ownership of land.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the disparity in support for organic farming as between(a) Scotland and (b) England; and what factors underlie such a disparity. [57342]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]There is no disparity. The Government are committed to supporting increased organic production. Support for organic farming conditions in Scotland takes account of the specific challenges facing producers. Interim measures to enhance the Organic Aid Scheme are being considered before the scheme is merged as from Spring 2000 with the mainstream agri-environment schemes with the aim of giving organic farming in Scotland a higher profile.

  Nursing Care
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been assessed as being in need of long-term nursing care and are currently awaiting a placement(a) in total and (b) by local authority area. [58365]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the number of patients awaiting a placement is not collected routinely. However, as at August 1998 Health Boards reported 1,716 patients in Scotland awaiting transfer from hospital to alternative continuing care. The information is not available by local authority care.

  However, different Boards use different criteria for a "blocked bed" and the figures need to be interpreted with caution.

  Not all the patients are assessed as requiring continuing nursing care. Those that are will have that care provided by an NHS Trust or by a registered nursing home under contract to the NHS.

  Others, depending on assessed needs, will transfer to nursing home, residential home or domiciliary care under the lead responsibility of the local authority.

  In every case, transfers to alternative care will be arranged only when the alternative planned care, support and accommodation are in place, appropriate and available.

  Every effort is made to minimise delays in this process.

  North East

  North West

  South East

  South West and Wales

  Midlands

  Bishop Auckland

  Barnsley

  Arundel

  Bath

  Bedford

  Bridlington

  Bolton

  Aylesbury

  Cheltenham

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  Darlington

  Bradford

  Brighton

  Fareham

  Peterborough

  Gosforth

  Calderdale

  Camberwell Green

  Newport

  South Worcester

  Hartlepool

  Dewsbury

  Essex

  Southampton

  Wolverhampton

  Humberside

  Leigh

  Folkestone

  Swansea

  —

  Leeds

  Liverpool

  Great Yarmouth

  Swindon

  —

  Northallerton

  Macclesfield

  Hammersmith

  Wrexham

  —

  North East

  Manchester

  Ipswich

  —

  —

  Trunk Road Review
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the results of the Trunk Road Review for Scotland. [58703]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The consultation period on the Government's proposed framework for the appraisal of trunk road investment in Scotland ended on 16 October. The responses are now being analysed to enable the review to proceed and I expect the results to be available early next year.

  Opencast Coal Developments
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish a revised version of planning document NPPG4: Land for Mineral Working. [58708]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Draft revised guidance on the new planning policy for opencast coal and related minerals working in Scotland was announced to the House on 22 October 1998,Official Report, columns 1165–66. The guidance sets out the most robust framework yet within which planning authorities must consider all proposals for opencast coal developments. Consultation on the guidance continues until 11 December with the intention of final guidance being in place early in the New Year. The guidance replaces paragraphs 74–78 of NPPG 4 on coal. As with all planning guidance the remainder of NPPG 4 is kept under review although there are no plans at present to update the non-coal aspects of the guidance.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan can expect a reply to his letter of 20 August to the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, regarding Mr. Will, a constituent. [58829]

  Mr. Dewar
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Sewel, hopes to be able to reply to the letter shortly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Secure Training Units
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the courts which have sentenced a young person to a period of detention in a secure training unit since April. [58466]

  Mr. Boateng
  As of 6 November, there have been 85 secure training orders made since the sentence came into effect on 1 March. The following Youth Courts have made one or more orders:
  39

  North East

  North West

  South East

  South West and Wales

  Midlands

  Nottingham

  Teesside

  Kings Lynn

  —

  —

  Scarborough

  Trafford

  Maidstone

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  Slough

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thanet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tunbridge Wells

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Whitham

  —

  —

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many young persons have been sentenced to a period of detention in a secure training unit since April; and if he will make a statement; [58463]

  (2) how many persons had been sentenced to a period of detention in a secure training unit but were waiting for a place at the latest available date. [58464]

  Mr. Boateng
  As of 6 November, 85 young people had been sentenced to a secure training order. There are currently 7 trainees in local authority secure accommodation for whom no places are available for them at present.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the range of offences committed by young persons sentenced to a period of detention in a secure training unit since April. [58465]

  Mr. Boateng
  The following range of offences have been committed by young people sentenced to a secure training order:

  Affray

  Arson

  Aggravated vehicle taking

  Attempted theft of motor vehicle

  Burglary

  Causing unnecessary suffering to an animal

  Common assault

  Criminal damage

  Dangerous driving

  Driving while disqualified

  Indecent assault

  No driving licence

  Obtaining property by deception

  Possession of a knife

  Possession of drugs

  Taking without the owner's consent

  Theft

  Violent disorder.

  Health Care Staff
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about pay differentials between health care staff in the Prison Service and the National Health Service. [58460]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Nurses employed by the Prison Service are paid at the same basic rates and on the same terms and conditions as applied in the National Health Service. Many prison healthcare centres are also staffed by healthcare officers. These are paid on the appropriate 40
  prison officer scale and, in addition, receive a specialist allowance of £1,041 per annum. The prison officers' pay scale ranges between £14,863 and £21,257. Direct pay comparisons between healthcare officers and nurses are not appropriate as different employment conditions apply.

  The Prison Service also employs doctors. From 1 January 1999 rates from Prison Service medical officers will range between £40,250 and £55,367. Rates for senior medical officers will range between £42,665 and £64,323. Individual salaries within these pay ranges will reflect qualifications, experience and performance. Rates for consultants in the National Health Service range between £45,740 and £59,040. In addition, discretionary points ranging between £2,370 and £11,810 can apply.

  Child Curfews
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have applied to introduce a local child curfew; and if he will make a statement. [58457]

  Mr. Boateng
  Local child curfews are a new provision which will help a local authority develop its community safety strategy. The aim of such curfews is twofold. They will address the need to prevent young children from being drawn into anti-social or criminal behaviour, and they will protect communities from the misery and distress which can be caused by groups of unsupervised children.

  The power of local authorities to make a local child curfew scheme is an enabling one. It only came into force on 30 September 1998. Not surprisingly, therefore, no applications for local child curfew schemes have been received so far.

  Policing
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposal to introduce targeted policing in 20 specific areas; what arrangements will be made for maintaining policing levels in other areas; and if he will make a statement. [58462]

  Mr. Boateng
  Research shows the value of targeted policing in addressing both complex community-wide problems, and specific repeated problems. Targeting policing effort at identified problems as part of a strategy to reduce crime and disorder enables chief officers to decide how to deploy their resources most effectively. The strategy should be based on an analysis of local crime and associated problems and the policing tactics adopted in the light of the analysis. The crime and disorder audits required by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 support this approach.
  41
  Equally, our approach is output-driven and we will expect careful evaluation to demonstrate how crime and disorder are effected as a result of any strategy and how that fits with the locally agreed targets for crime reduction.

  To help forces develop this approach, we are making over £30 million available over the next three years for targeted policing projects as part of the crime reduction strategy.

  This funding is in addition to the extra £1.24 billion which will be available to police authorities in England and Wales over the next three years under the Government's spending plans announced in the summer. This settlement, along with savings from the 2 per cent. year on year efficiency improvements which police forces will be asked to achieve, will help to ensure that more resources are focused on the front line against crime.

  As experience around the country shows that targeted policing does not require additional police officers or other resources to be successful, there is no reason to believe that the work we are undertaking will adversely affect existing policing levels.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of recorded criminal offences committed by people serving prison sentences in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [58456]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information for persons who have been charged with a further offence whilst on temporary release from prison is given in table 1.

  Information relating to offences committed whilst in prison which are too serious for a prison governor to deal with under the prison disciplinary system and are referred to the police for prosecution is given in table 2. This information is also published in successive volumes of "Statistics of offences against prison discipline and punishments England and Wales" up to 1996, and thereafter in "Prison statistics England and Wales" (chapter 8 of the 1997 edition, Cm 4017). Copies are available in the Library.

  Table 1

  Prisoners charged with a further offence whilst on temporary release from prison, 1 September 1995 to 31 December 1997

  Year

  Number

  September to December 1995

  6

  1996

  9

  1997

  9

  Table 2

  Estimated number of offences referred to the police for prosecution by prison governors

  Year

  Number

  1992

  250

  1993

  1—

  1994

  300 to 350

  1995

  450 to 500

  1996

  1,650

  1997

  1,540

  1not applicable

  42
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage and number of prisoners, at the latest available date, had previously served a non-custodial sentence; and if he will make a statement. [58455]

  Mr. Boateng
  The most recent available information relates to a sample of sentenced prisoners held in prison on 30 June 1997. The estimated percentage of sentenced prisoners identified as having previous non-custodial sentences is 74 per cent., corresponding to around 36,000 prisoners.

  Previous criminal history information is, however, derived from matching Prison Service records to offender details of the Home Office Offenders Index and a further 9 per cent. of prisoners could not be matched. A prisoner may not be matched because he or she may have been sentenced for an offence not on the 'standard list' and has no previous record for standard list offences or alternatively there may be an inconsistency between personal details held on the Offenders Index and those held on prison records.

  The percentage of prisoners identified as having no previous non-custodial sentences is 16 per cent. A slightly lower percentage (14 per cent.) of prisoners was identified as having no previous sentence of any kind (i.e. including custodial sentences).

  Prison population1 in Prison Service establishments under sentence on 30 June 1997: by past criminal history2 England and Wales

  Percentage3

  Population

  48,674

  Previous history not found4

  9

  Previous2 non-custodial sentence

  74

  No previous2 non-custodial sentence

  16

  No previous2 sentence of any kind

  14

  1 Excludes fine defaulters and is based on a sample of 13,832 prisoners.

  2Relates to convictions for 'standard list' offences only. These offences include all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences.

  3Percentages for previous history not found, previous non-custodial sentence and no previous non-custodial sentence do not add to 100 due to rounding.

  4Information on prisoners was matched to records on the Home Office Offenders Index. In some cases no set of matching records can be found.

  Health Care Services (Young Offenders)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to create a new position for the overseeing of the health care services for young offenders in custody; and if he will make a statement. [58461]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Health care in young offender institutions, in common with other Prison Service establishments, is delivered through the local operational line and supported by Prison Service area health care and nursing advisers. The Prison Service has no plans to create a new position specifically to oversee health care for young offenders. However, the future organisation of prison health care is currently under review.

  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the contract points requirements have been exceeded at the Medway secure training centre; and if fines(a) have been levied and (b) are being considered. [58471]

  Mr. Boateng
  The contract for Medway Secure Training centre provides for an evaluation of performance each quarter against a standard which assumes year on year improvement. At the end of the first quarter, contract payments were reduced by £5,869 to reflect performance points accumulated in that period. The evaluation of the second quarter has not yet taken place.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) assaults on staff and inmates and (b) acts of indiscipline there have been by young persons at the Medway secure training centre since its opening. [58468]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since Medway Secure Training Centre opened, the contractor has recorded a total of 97 assaults on staff by trainees. Twenty-six of these assaults resulted in staff being referred for medical treatment, and in 11 cases they led to criminal charges. Fourteen assaults on trainees by other trainees have been recorded, and in one case this led to criminal charges.

  Fourteen incidents of concerted indiscipline involving more than two trainees have been recorded. In three cases, this led to criminal charges.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people have absconded from the Medway secure training centre since its opening. [58467]

  Mr. Boateng
  Two trainees breached the perimeter security at Medway Secure Training Centre on 22 August. They were immediately pursued by members of staff and were quickly returned to the centre.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total staff complement at the Medway secure training centre. [58470]

  Mr. Boateng
  The agreed staff complement for Medway Secure Training Centre is 100.5 staff.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have resigned or been dismissed from the Medway secure training centre since it opened. [58469]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since Medway Secure Training Centre opened, 35 staff have resigned. The contract of one member of staff was terminated by mutual agreement, and one member of staff employed by a sub-contractor was dismissed.

  Ex-service Men (Prisoners)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the average number of ex-servicemen and servicewomen serving prison sentences during the past year; and if he will make a statement. [58472]
  44
  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is not available. Information regarding an individual's professional status, prior to reception into a Prison Service establishment, is not recorded on central computer records.

  Young People (Re-offending)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if figures are available for the re-offending rates of young people released from each young offender institution; and if he will make a statement. [58458]

  Mr. Boateng
  The most recent available information is given in the table. It relates to a sample of sentenced prisoners released during 1994. The table contains reconviction rates within two years of discharge for young offenders discharged from each institution.

  Differences between reconviction rates cannot simply be taken to show that one establishment is more effective than another as the characteristics of offenders vary between establishments.

  The sample was drawn to produce national results. Reconviction rates at individual establishments need to be interpreted with considerable caution due to small numbers in the sample at some establishments.

  Reconviction rates are affected by differences in age, sex, previous convictions and other characteristics of those sentenced (see Home Office Research Study 136, "Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis").

  It is important to note that:
  The establishment from which a prisoner is discharged will often not be the establishment in which he or she spent most of their sentence;
  The process of allocation of prisoners to establishments is far from random. In some instances, prisoners are virtually hand-picked as being suitable for a particular type of regime. Factors such as age, gender and previous criminal history have significant influence on the allocation process; and
  regional variations in reconviction rates are likely to be related to factors such as police clear-up rates and this, in turn, will have some effect on rates for individual establishments.

  Reconviction rates within two years1 for prisoners discharged from young offender institutions during 1994

  Establishment

  Number sampled2

  Reconviction rate

  Aylesbury

  50

  66

  Brinsford

  230

  87

  Castington

  128

  73

  Deerbolt

  593

  85

  Dover

  290

  65

  Drake Hall

  79

  54

  Feltham

  525

  68

  Glen Parva

  410

  74

  Guys Marsh

  278

  81

  Hatfield

  293

  66

  Hollesley Bay

  166

  60

  Huntercombe/Finnamore Wood

  357

  64

  Lancaster Farms

  81

  79

  Moorland

  82

  74

  Onley

  674

  78

  Portland

  380

  80

  Stoke Heath

  219

  80

  Thorn Cross

  417

  75

  45

  Reconviction rates within two years1 for prisoners discharged from young offender institutions during 1994

  Establishment

  Number sampled2

  Reconviction rate

  USK/Prescoed

  58

  60

  Warrington

  291

  87

  Wetherby

  374

  86

  Total

  6,135

  75

  1 For standard list offences only. These include all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences.

  2Figures are not given where the sample contains fewer than 50 offenders discharged from an institution.

  Conviction Rates
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) conviction rate and (b) clear up rate (i) for each category of crime and (ii) on average (1) at the last available date and (2) in each of the previous two years; and if he will make a statement. [58459]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the tables. Figures for clear-ups and convictions are not directly comparable because clear-ups relate to offences and convictions relate to offenders.

  Table A: Conviction rate1 for indictable offences by offence group, England and Wales, 1995–19972

  Offence Group

  1995

  1996

  19972

  Violence against the person

  48

  47

  49

  Sexual offences

  64

  68

  64

  Burglary

  67

  64

  64

  Robbery

  52

  52

  52

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  73

  73

  74

  Fraud and forgery

  70

  70

  70

  Criminal damage

  59

  58

  60

  Drug offences

  83

  84

  84

  Other (excluding motoring)

  54

  53

  54

  Motoring offences

  74

  74

  77

  Total indictable offences

  65

  65

  66

  1Offenders found guilty at all courts as a percentage of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts.

  2Provisional

  Table B: Clear-up rate for notifiable offences by offence group

  England and Wales Percentage offences cleared up1

  Offence Group

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Violence against the person

  77

  77

  78

  Sexual offences

  76

  76

  76

  Burglary

  21

  21

  23

  Robbery

  23

  26

  27

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  23

  23

  24

  Fraud and forgery

  50

  49

  48

  Criminal damage2

  19

  17

  19

  Other offences3

  96

  96

  95

  Total

  26

  26

  28

  1Offences cleared-up in one year may have been initially recorded in an earlier year.

  2Excluding criminal damage £20 and under.

  3Includes trafficking in controlled drugs.

  Immigration
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have received 46
  permission to enter or remain in the UK under the concession introduced in October 1997 for people in relationships. [58339]

  Kate Hoey
  In the 12 months ending September 1998, a provisional total of 383 people have been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom under the concession for unmarried partners announced on 10 October 1997.

  Religious Cults
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to legislate to control religious cults; [58440]

  (2) if he will set up an inquiry into religious cults with a view to creating an acceptable framework for their operations. [58441]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans to do so. The Government understand concerns expressed about the influence of some groups on individuals, but do not consider that it would be feasible or appropriate to introduce specific legislation or regulation. All such groups are subject to the general law, including harassment, obtaining property or money by deception, kidnap, false imprisonment, offences against the person and sexual assault. Any complaints about breaches of the law should be reported to the police.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received in the past year from hon. Members on behalf of constituents with family members who belong to religious cults. [58439]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Since 1 November 1997, we have received 17 such representations from hon. Members, including 12 on behalf of one constituent.

  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the members of the Independent Commission on the Voting System spent on foreign travel. [58350]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The total cost of the Independent Commission's foreign trips was as follows:

  £

  Australia

  10,009

  Germany

  4,175

  New Zealand

  8,782

  Republic of Ireland

  2,558

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what class the members of the Independent Commission on the Voting System travelled abroad by air on Commission business. [58352]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The members of the Independent Commission travelled in business class.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost to date of the Independent Commission on the Voting System to the British Exchequer. [58351]
  47
  Mr. George Howarth
  The final costs of the Independent Commission are still being calculated but we estimate that the total cost will be in the region of £0,000.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to the British Exchequer of General Pinochet's police protection(a) since his arrival in the United Kingdom to date and (b) since the warrant for his arrest was issued to date. [58347]

  Mr. Straw
  The arrangements for the provision of protection are operational matters for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

  For security reasons, it has been the practice of successive Governments not to provide information about police operations relating to protection.

  Police Cadets
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police cadets there were in(a) May 1979 and (b) May 1997; how many there are at present; what plans he has to increase the number; and if he will make a statement. [58540]

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

  Year

  Number of police cadets

  May 1979

  2,893

  March 19971

  261

  March 19981

  127

  1After March 1995 police personnel numbers were collected only twice a year (March and September). September 1998 figures are not yet available.

  In 1979, all forces had police cadets. By 1997, cadets were employed in only six forces, and by March 1998 in four forces (Bedfordshire, Durham, Staffordshire and West Midlands).

  Ministers have no direct control over numbers of police personnel. It has always been a matter for chief constables and police authorities to determine whether to employ police cadets.

  Internet Publishing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require all task forces and equivalent bodies sponsored by his Department to publish their working papers and minutes on the Internet. [58770]

  Mr. Straw
  Task forces and other equivalent bodies that are sponsored by my Department, even when independent from it, are encouraged to publish their reports and other documents through the Home Office's internet web site. The Youth Justice Task Force and the Community Fire Safety Task Force have already done so and arrangements are being made for others to do so.

  Lorry Stowaways
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has carried out 48
  with other EU members concerning individuals seeking to make a clandestine illegal entry into the United Kingdom in lorries. [58514]

  Kate Hoey
  In order to combat the problem of clandestine entry, the United Kingdom has taken forward several initiatives which have involved consultation with our European partners. These include:closer liaison and exchanges of information and intelligence with the Belgian, Dutch and French authorities;
  the placement of an Immigration Liaison Officer in Calais for a three month trial period which started in September, following an agreement reached by my right hon. Friend and his French counterpart;
  on-going negotiations with French authorities, including DICCILEC, to tackle the problem—the last meeting took place in Paris at the end of October;
  frequent discussion of such issues at various European fora, such as the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which last met in September;
  regular discussions with the port authorities in France, Belgium and Holland in order to target illegal entrants in lorries before they reach the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines have been given to the police for dealing with clandestine illegal entrants arriving in lorries. [58516]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are currently no formal guidelines to the police for dealing with clandestine illegal entrants arriving in lorries. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 28 October 1998,Official Report, column 183, the Immigration Service is consulting the police forces most affected by the arrival of clandestine entrants to ensure that incidents are dealt with properly. In areas where it is necessary, we hope to have a standard agreement in place shortly between the police and the Immigration Service to provide a clear mechanism for dealing with clandestine entrants.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the number of cases of clandestine illegal entry to the United Kingdom in lorries involving(a) Kosovans, (b) Albanians and (c) others in the most recent period for which figures are available; [58512]

  (2) how many clandestine illegal entrants have presented themselves at Lunar House, Croydon and (a) claimed asylum and (b) not claimed asylum in the most recent period for which figures are available. [58513]

  Kate Hoey
  There is no estimate of the total number of persons gaining clandestine illegal entry to the United Kingdom, by lorry or otherwise, since, by the very nature of the problem, it is not possible to establish that a person has entered clandestinely until they have been traced and interviewed. Regrettably, therefore, the information requested is not available.

  There is no central record of the total numbers of persons presenting themselves as clandestine illegal entrants at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate public caller facilities at Lunar House in Croydon and such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The available information relates to the total number of persons issued with notices of illegal entry as clandestine entrants, which between 1 January 1998 and 30 June 1998

  49
  totalled 3,540 persons. information on the numbers of these persons who are, or who claim to be, Kosovan, and the particular methods of clandestine entry, is not held centrally. However, 550 were identified as nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; 290 were nationals of Albania; and 190 persons' nationalities could not be determined. Within the total of 3,540 persons, almost 90 per cent. have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom at some stage. These figures are provisional and rounded.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has carried out with representatives of(a) road haulage firms and (b) lorry drivers concerning clandestine illegal entrants arriving in the United Kingdom in lorries. [58515]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend wrote to the Road Haulage Association in July this year, offering to meet it to discuss the issue of clandestine illegal immigration. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), and Home Office officials met representatives of the Road Hauliers Association, the Freight Transport Association and the freight companies Cavewood Ltd. and Rockold European Transport on behalf of my right hon. Friend on 28 October. We are committed to consulting with representatives of the road haulage industry as we seek to identify a solution to this problem.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to port authorities concerning clandestine illegal entrants arriving in the United Kingdom in lorries. [58517]

  Kate Hoey
  Discussions have taken place with port authorities outside the United Kingdom with the aim of preventing illegal entrants from reaching the United Kingdom. Arrangements are in place to ensure that port authorities in the United Kingdom are aware that if they encounter suspected immigration offenders within the port they should bring them to the attention of the Immigration Service.

  Children (Sex Abuse)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the Indecency with Children Act 1960 to protect those between the ages of 14 and 16 years. [58310]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are concerned to ensure that children are protected from all kinds of sexual abuse. The law provides protection against sexual abuse of all kind. The Indecency with Children Act 1960 relates to gross indecency with or towards a child under the age of 14, or inciting a child to commit such an act; the maximum penalty for this offence has recently been increased to ten years.

  We recognise that the law on sexual offences contains many anomalies, and the differing ages at which children are protected from various kinds of unacceptable behaviour is one such anomaly. That is why we have said that we will be conducting a review of sex offences to consider all such offences, and this will be one issue we will consider. One of the principal aims of the review will
  50
  be to ensure that the legal framework, as far as possible, protects children and deals effectively with those who use and abuse them.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the issues of(a) valid legal consent and (b) informed consent as they relate to children subjected to sexual abuse. [58312]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are committed to undertaking a wide-ranging review of the sexual offences and penalties, with a view to reforming them and bringing them up to date. However, the Government will not consider reducing the age of consent below 16—indeed, one of the principal aims of the review will be to ensure that the legal framework, as far as possible, protects children and deals effectively with those who use and abuse them.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 to the same offences being planned against young people in the UK. [58313]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no plans to extend the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 to the same offences being planned against young people in the United Kingdom because these provisions already exist in the criminal law. Anyone in the United Kingdom planning to commit sexual offences against young people in this country may be liable for an offence such as conspiracy, as set out in section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, or counselling or procuring an offence contrary to section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 or incitement to commit an offence contrary to common law.

  The Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 extended the existing jurisdiction of the courts over conspiracies and incitement to commit crimes in the United Kingdom to conspiracies and incitement to commit certain sexual acts abroad against children, provided that the substantive act constituted an offence both under the law in the United Kingdom and in the country in which the act was to be committed. The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 repealed the part of the 1996 Act dealing with conspiracy and extended the jurisdiction of the courts to include conspiracies to commit any crime abroad, provided that the substantive act constituted an offence both under the law in the United Kingdom and in the country in which the act was to be committed. The consent of the Attorney-General to proceedings under the 1998 Act will normally be required.

  Prostitution (Under-16s)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of girls under 16 years cautioned in relation to offences connected with prostitution or charged with similar offences over the past five years who have a background in local authority care. [58311]

  Mr. Boateng
  Statistics held centrally do not identify children in local authority care from the total number of those cautioned or charged for prostitution offences.

  The Government are determined to tackle the problem of children abused through prostitution and the measures we have announced in response to the Children's

  51
  Safeguards Review are intended to protect looked-after children from those who might seek to abuse them, including those who might seek to involve them in prostitution. In addition, the Home Office is working with the Department of Health to produce new comprehensive inter-agency guidance for the police and local authorities on the treatment of children abused through prostitution. That guidance will recognise that children abused through prostitution come from a variety of backgrounds, including local authority care, and offer guidance on how to deal with the problem.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average period of time taken for a sex offender's name to appear on the national register of sex offenders following a conviction for a sexual offence. [58529]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires offenders convicted of a relevant offence to notify the police of their name and address within 14 days of conviction or release from prison if a custodial sentence is passed. Although the information is held on the Police National Computer the original notification is made locally. The average time taken for registration could, therefore, be calculated only by reference to over 6,000 paper records held by police forces. Such an exercise would involve disproportionate cost.

  Drug Traffickers
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to bring forward proposals for new powers to confiscate the assets of drug traffickers and other criminals. [59214]

  Mr. Straw
  I will publish tomorrow the Third Report of the Home Office Working Group on Confiscation. This will be available in the Vote Office and in the Library. The Report recommends measures to strengthen the legislation on confiscation and money laundering and its practical operation. It also proposes extending powers for the forfeiture of criminal assets in civil proceedings. In view of the innovatory nature of some of the Working Group's recommendations, it is important that the public should be able to comment on what is proposed. There will be a consultation period until the end of February.

  Effective means of recovering criminal assets and depriving organised crime of its working capital are an essential tool of law enforcement. I attach great importance to ensuring that these powers are modernised.
  I am also determined that new powers should be subject to the right safeguards. The Government will take account of the responses to the Report before reaching decisions on its recommendations. In the meantime, I propose to initiate a separate study of the possibility, discussed in the Report, of establishing a confiscation or forfeiture agency.

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his private office, as at 1 October 1997; [56792]
  52
  (2) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997. [56790]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 666–70.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Experience
  29. Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the size of the total lottery contribution to the Millennium dome. [57272]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have received many representations from members of the public and from Members of this House about all aspects of the Millennium Experience project. Of the £2 billion of lottery money which the Millennium Commission is distributing to flagship and community-based initiatives around the country, £449 million (gross) will go to the Millennium Experience project—this incorporates both the Dome at Greenwich and a linked programme of events and activities around the country.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to include information on cancer research in Britain in the Millennium dome. [57273]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The zones within the Dome will explore different aspects of our lives. The zones which will include a look at the world of medicine are those dedicated to the Body and the Mind. In developing the detailed content of these zones, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is taking advice from a number of advisers—including Sir Kenneth Calman (the recently retired Chief Medical Officer for England), and Professor Catherine Peckham and Sir Michael Peckham.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact of the millennium experience on the regions. [57277]

  Mr. Mandelson
  One of the key commitments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when the decision to proceed with the Millennium Experience was announced was that it would be a truly national event. I am delighted to say that this commitment is being more than met through the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) national programme of events and activities and the Millennium Festival. Both initiatives are an integral part of the Millennium Experience project and their impact is already being felt in all regions of the United Kingdom.

  The national programme consists of the Learning Experience and the UK Challenge which embrace a range of exciting projects. These include: Tesco SchoolNet 2000—enabling thousands of children across the UK to record their own ideas and those of their families about how they see life in the third Millennium; Marks and Spencer's Voices of Promise—a celebration of music talent in schools, encouraging young people to compose

  53
  songs and perform them locally: and Manpower's UK Skills Championships, which brings together a range of competitions covering specific skills and trades.

  The Millennium Festival, which is being run by the NMEC, in partnership with the Lottery Distributors, is offering grants to local and regional projects covering arts, sport, heritage and charitable activities and events taking place during the year 2000. More than 3,500 applications have been received in the first grant round.

  In addition, to those specific initiatives, the positive impact of the Millennium Experience on the tourism and leisure industries will undoubtedly benefit the UK as a whole. For example, the NMEC aims to ensure access to pre-employment training opportunities to people around the country in preparation for recruiting staff to operate the Millennium Experience at Greenwich during 2000.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the contract for catering in the millennium experience has been awarded; if it was put out to tender; and if he will make a statement. [57278]

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce the outcome of bids for the provision of catering facilities at the Millennium Exhibition at Greenwich. [57210]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The new Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) policy is to provide as wide a range of catering services as possible to meet the varied needs of visitors to the Dome. The NMEC intends to divide the provision of catering services between branded suppliers and a single catering services company. On 9 October the NMEC issued invitations to tender to thirty catering companies covering both branded suppliers and others. The deadline for tenders to be submitted is 16 November and the NMEC expects to reach decisions about contract awards by the end of this year.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if the New Millennium Experience Company has authority to receive sponsorship from anonymous corporate donors; [57017]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 2 September 1998, Official Report, column 866, if he will ensure that the name of each company which concludes a sponsorship agreement with the New Millennium Experience is published immediately thereafter; and if he will make a statement. [57019]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]There are no formal qualifications attaching to the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) remit to raise sponsorship towards the cost of the Millennium Experience project in its Memorandum of Association, in the Financial Memorandum issued by the Shareholder in February 1997 or in the Grant Agreement issued by the Millennium Commission in August 1997.

  The NMEC has not received any offers of sponsorship with anonymity of source as a condition; nor is it seeking such offers. Indeed, the whole basis on which the NMEC's sponsorship strategy is built concerns the benefits sponsors can achieve through public recognition of their support. The names of sponsors who have made a commitment to the project have been, and will continue to be, announced at such points in the negotiations between them and the NMEC which the two parties consider acceptable.

  Pledge 2000
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Pledge 2000. [58320]

  Mrs. Roche
  Pledge 2000™ was launched by Action 2000 on 29 July 1998 in response to industry demand for an approach companies could use to deal with the Millennium Bug. It is a public scheme designed to indicate statement of intent to work co-operatively with customers and suppliers to disclose, discuss and solve issues of mutual interest arising from the date change problem. Although not legally binding, Pledge 2000™ reduces the fear of litigation and enables work to continue towards ensuring business continuity up and down the numerous supply chains that underpin the UK economy.

  The pledge is in the form of a six point manifesto encouraging companies to share information, help other firms in their supply chains and avoid resorting to legal action wherever possible. Signing Pledge 2000™ represents a commitment at the highest level and is signed by a Board level person who is responsible for communicating the company's pledge internally. Action 2000 will continue to encourage businesses to use this valuable tool to resolve their Millennium Bug issues.

  Consumer Durables (Prices)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the average change in prices of consumer durables as a result of last year's Government announcement of changes to resale price maintenance policies. [58984]

  Dr. Howells
  The RPI shows that retail prices of consumer durables have fallen by 4.4 per cent. in real terms in the year to September 1998. There has been no change in Government policy in relation to resale price maintenance. It is prohibited except where the Restrictive Practices Court has permitted an exemption.

  Doorstep Selling
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received relating to unacceptable practices in doorstep selling; and if he will make a statement. [58138]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 5 November 1998]My Department has received a number of representations from consumers about unacceptable practices in doorstep selling. The DTI recently consulted on proposals to strengthen consumer protection in this area. I hope to make Regulations by the end of the year to implement these proposals.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the steps available to an employee to seek redress against an employer who(a) refuses to implement the Working Time Directive and (b) seeks to avoid meeting the employee rights contained in the Working Time Directive. [57718]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 4 November 1998]An employee can seek redress against an employer for non-compliance with the Working Time Regulations
  55
  through two enforcement bodies. The limits (e.g. the weekly working time and night work limits) in the Regulations are enforced by the health and safety enforcing authorities e.g. the Health and Safety Executive and Local Authorities. The entitlements (e.g. the rest periods and breaks and the paid annual leave) are enforced through Employment Tribunals.

  Astra Holdings
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 118, what is the current estimated public cost of the disqualification proceedings against the directors of Astra Holdings. [57608]

  Dr. Howells
  Payments totalling £355,500 have been made to 5 of the 6 respondent directors in the disqualification proceedings. The only significant costs remaining outstanding are those of one legally aided respondent, Gerald James, whose solicitors have been paid £400,000 on account but the final figure has not yet been determined. In addition, the costs of the Treasury Solicitor acting for the Department are estimated at £280,000.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants for compensation arising out of vibration white finger have received full settlement in respect of their claims. [58735]

  Mr. Battle
  As of 5 November, 1,828 VWF claimants have received full settlements.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants for compensation arising from vibration white finger fall in the age groups(a) 40 to 50, (b) 50 to 60, (c) 60 to 70, (d) 70 to 80 and (e) 80 years and over. [58726]

  Mr. Battle
  To date the numbers of claims received for VWF, for the age groups specified, are:

  (a) 4,557

  (b) 7,638

  (c) 8,296

  (d) 4,902

  (e) 496.

  Respiratory Diseases
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants for compensation arising out of chronic bronchitis and emphysema fall into the age groups(a) 40 to 50, (b) 50 to 60, (c) 60 to 70, (d) 70 to 80 and (e) 80 years and over. [58736]

  Mr. Battle
  To date the numbers of claims received for chronic bronchitis and for emphysema, for the age groups specified, are:

  (a) 2,303

  (b) 6,667

  (c) 13,759

  (d) 17,228

  (e) 5,762.

  56
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants for compensation arising out of chronic bronchitis and emphysema have received full settlement in respect of their claims. [58728]

  Mr. Battle
  Pending agreement on a medical assessment process, full and final settlements have so far been made only to the lead cases decided by the court. 7 such settlements have been paid. In addition the Department has made interim payments to 10,047 claimants.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects an agreement to be reached in respect of outstanding compensation claims relating to occupational respiratory disease; and how quickly medical reports could be produced following the conclusion of a handling agreement. [57575]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]My Department is fully committed to settling all valid occupational respiratory disease claims (COAD) as fairly and promptly as possible. To date this number in excess of 60,000. We have proposed to the plaintiff's solicitors that the claims should be dealt with through a single medical process which should expedite the processing of claims quite significantly compared with the conventional common law route where each party obtains their own medical report. Intense but constructive discussions are now taking place with the plaintiff's solicitors, on what are complex medical matters, within a framework agreed by the court. I hope that good progress will have been made towards resolving the outstanding issues by the end of the year. There will then be a need to procure through tendering the medical services required to deliver the records, reports and examinations required, and for the successful tenderer to put in place the staff and facilities to deliver the service. Subject to a prompt conclusion to negotiations with the plaintiff's solicitors I am hopeful that final settlement of valid claims will start flowing early in the second half of 1999. In the meantime we may be able to extend payment of interim awards.

  Motor Vehicles (Prices)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to monitor the comparative prices of motor vehicles in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the rest of the EU, (c) Japan and (d) the United States. [57939]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]The Department of Trade and Industry monitors the European Commission's six-monthly reports on car prices across the EU. These comprehensive reports compare the prices in each Member State (including the United Kingdom) of the best-selling models in the EU.

  The Department does not currently monitor the comparative prices of motor vehicles in either Japan or the United States.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will require industrial tribunals to maintain statistics on the size of employers involved in cases brought before them. [58137]
  57
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 5 November 1998]There is no requirement on an employer to disclose this information routinely to an employment tribunal and hence the Employment Tribunals Service does not maintain such statistics. I have no plans to introduce such a requirement.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on the levels of inward investment of the UK's decision not to join the single currency; and what steps he has taken to advertise the benefits of that decision to potential inward investors. [58679]

  Mrs. Roche
  The level of inward investment in the UK is unlikely to be significantly affected in the short-term as a result of the Government's decision not to recommend UK membership of the single currency in the first-wave.

  The UK attracts a significantly larger share of inward investment than other countries in the EU. This reflects a number of important benefits that we offer including low taxes, the English language, a flexible and adaptable work-force and a commitment to lasting economic stability.

  In the short-term, while the UK remains insufficiently converged with the rest of Europe there would be risks for stability in the UK if we joined EMU, and hence for inward investment. However, looking further ahead if the single currency succeeds in promoting stability and strengthening the Single Market, there may be a risk that inward investment decisions at the margin would move against countries perceived to be staying out for the longer term.

  The Invest in Britain Bureau continues to promote in all major international markets all the inherent strengths which have made, and will maintain, the United Kingdom as the most attractive European location for inward investment.

  Start-up Grants
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have received start-up grants and closed within two years of opening in the last five years.[58119]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]Over the past five years, there have been 957 offers of Regional Selective Assistance grant for start-up projects. Of these, 61 companies closed within two years of the offer being accepted.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by whom the decision not to recover start-up grant from Siemens at present was made; what the company has been told as regards possible future repayment of that grant; and if he will make the relevant correspondence available in the Library. [58117]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]My officials are currently working with the company trying to find a buyer for the plant. Whilst that is the case, I have decided that it would be inappropriate to recover the grant. However, the company has been informed that if any of the grant aided assets are removed without prior permission, or the plant finally has to close, it would be 58
  in breach of the conditions set down in the offer letter and the Department would have the power to seek full recovery, plus interest if appropriate, of the £18 million grant paid.

  I will not be making the correspondence available in the Library. This is part of the official record and would add nothing to the answer above.

  Non-fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the non-fossil fuel levy is allocated to the support of(a) renewable energy and (b) nuclear power in the current financial year; and what plans he has to vary these arrangements in future. [57095]

  Mr. Battle
  The Fossil Fuel Levy Act which came into effect on 1 April 1998 ensured that electricity supplied from nuclear sources continued to be subject to the Fossil Fuel Levy. From 1 April all of the proceeds from the Fossil Fuel Levy have been used for the support of generation of electricity from renewable sources. I have no plans to use the levy for other purposes.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications Ministers or officials in his Department have had with(a) Euratom and (b) the International Atomic Energy Agency in respect of the proposals for the substitution of BNFL-owned plutonium for foreign-owned plutonium contained in wastes from the Sellafield Plutonium-Uranium mixed oxide fuel plant. [57105]

  Mr. Battle
  Ministers and officials in my Department have not had any communication with(a) Euratom or (b) International Atomic Energy Agency in respect of the proposals for the substitution of BNFL owned plutonium for foreign-owned plutonium contained in wastes from the Sellafield Mox Plant.

  Aviation Fuel
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research into alternatives to Jet Al aviation fuel is being funded by his Department. [55781]

  Mr. Battle
  None.

  Motor Manufacturers (Crash Test Standards)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to mitigate the impact of the new EC crash test standards on the costs of UK-based motor manufacturers. [57789]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 4 November 1998]I have been asked to reply.

  We welcome the introduction of the new European front and side impact standards which represent a valuable step forward in making cars which are subject to EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval safer. The standards have applied to new designs since 1 October this year, but will not apply to existing car designs until 1 October 2003. We believe the timescales in the Directive will allow vehicle manufacturers to incorporate modifications at the design

  59
  and development stage as models are changed or updated. As the new standards apply across the whole of Europe, the cost of designing to them must fall to industry.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Industrial Heritage
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his Department's support for Britain's industrial heritage. [57253]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our industrial heritage is of unquestionable value in helping us to understand our history and the way our forefathers lived and worked. No industry has had a bigger influence on creating modern day Britain than coal. I was very pleased to be able to announce recently that my Department will pay an annual revenue subsidy grant to the National Coal Mining Museum for England from 1999–2000.

  The NCMME has a fascinating story to tell and DCMS support will provide the stability to allow it to plan for an exciting future.

  Arts Council
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the allocation of funding by the Arts Council for music. [57257]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Arts Council of England devotes a substantial part of its budget each year to supporting music. It will make a further contribution over the years ahead through its support of the Youth Music Trust.

  World Heritage Sites
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many natural sites the Government are putting forward to UNESCO as proposed new world heritage sites.[57258]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Together with Ministerial colleagues in the other interested Departments, I will need carefully to consider the results of the current consultation exercise before reaching a final decision on the number of natural sites to include in the list.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date he expects to announce the United Kingdom's list of world heritage sites for submission to UNESCO. [57517]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]Together with Ministerial colleagues in the other interested Departments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will need carefully to consider the results of the current consultation exercise before reaching a final decision on the list; but we hope that an announcement can be made within the next two or three months.

  News at Ten
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the proposal to reschedule News at Ten. [57259]
  60
  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received 2 letters from hon. Members on behalf of constituents and 19 letters from members of the public. Of these 21 letters, 19 were against the proposal to move News at Ten and 2 were in favour of allowing the move.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the progress of the new opportunities fund. [57260]

  Mr. Banks
  The New Opportunities Fund will invite grant applications for its first three initiatives early next year and plans to announce the first awards next spring.

  Scientific Centres
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to co-ordinate the work of scientific "hands-on" centres across the UK. [57261]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have no such plans. However, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) will shortly be publishing a consultation document, outlining, among other things, its proposals for a programme which aims to contribute to the UK public's knowledge and appreciation of science, technology and the arts. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, such "hands-on" centres may be able to bid for contracts being awarded by NESTA or enter into joint venture with them. This would obviously be a matter for the Chairman and Trustees of NESTA.

  BBC Licence Fee
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Government intend to review the BBC licence fee; and what form the review will take. [57262]

  Janet Anderson
  We shall be reviewing the future of the BBC licence fee after 2002 early next year. The issues will be examined initially by an independent review panel which will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State no later than the end of July. We shall then consult on the panel's findings.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he plans to include a pensioner representative in the membership of the independent review panel considering BBC funding after 2002; and if the panel will be required to consult pensioner organisations; [58492]

  (2) if he expects to implement changes in the current concessionary television licence scheme before 2002; [58660]

  (3) when he expects to announce the membership of the independent review panel considering BBC funding after 2002. [58493]

  Janet Anderson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing the membership of the review panel shortly.
  61
  The review panel will no doubt wish to consider the views of various bodies and groups of people, including pensioners. In addition, pensioner groups will have an opportunity to feed in their views when the Government consult publicly on the panel's findings.

  The Government will consider any proposals to change the concessionary television licence scheme, and the implementation of any changes, following the consultation exercise.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to reduce the TV licence fee for blind people; and if he will make a statement. [58279]

  Janet Anderson
  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.

  Millennium Projects
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in what ways millennium projects will benefit people in the north-west. [57263]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Millennium Commission capital projects in the North-West have been awarded grant totalling almost £115 million.

  These projects are creating opportunities for employment, education, entertainment and tourism which will benefit individuals and communities across the whole of the North-West region for many years to come. In addition 327 people in the North-West are taking part in Millennium Award schemes.

  It is expected that some 40,000 individuals around the country will receive Millennium Awards.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much partnership funding has been secured, and how much remains to be secured, for each of the following millennium projects(a) Bristol 2000, (b) British Museum Great Court, (c) Changing Places, (d) Dynamic Earth, (e) Earth Centre, (f) Eden Project, (g) Hampden Park Stadium, (h) International Centre for Life, (i) Lowry Centre, (j) Millennium Link, (k) Millennium Point, (l) Millennium Seedbank, (m) Millennium Stadium, (n) National Botanic Gardens of Wales, (o) National Discovery Park, (p) National Cycle Network, (q) National Space Science Centre, (r) New Technopolis, (s) Odyssey Park, (t) Remaking the Heart of the City, (u) Renaissance

  National Lottery Awards for Scotland breakdown by Local Authority and Good Cause

  Good Cause

  Local Authority

  Data

  Arts

  Charity

  Heritage

  Millennium

  Sports

  Grand Total

  Aberdeen City

  Total Value

  £1,056,852

  £3,632,221

  £882,507

  —

  £2,760,083

  £8,331,663

  No. of Awards

  11

  74

  6

  0

  13

  104

  Aberdeenshire

  Total Value

  £452,202

  £1,749,707

  £10,817,693

  £327,104

  £4,089,586

  £17,436,292

  No. of Awards

  14

  132

  7

  1

  39

  193

  Angus

  Total Value

  £208,036

  £1,130,599

  £30,300

  —

  £137,610

  £1,506,545

  No. of Awards

  6

  72

  2

  0

  7

  87

  Argyll and Bute

  Total Value

  £243,654

  £1,238,104

  £1,593,000

  —

  £2,103,779

  £5,178,537

  No. of Awards

  5

  91

  4

  0

  21

  121

  62
  of Portsmouth Harbour, (v) Tate Gallery of Modern Art and (w) University of the Highlands and Islands Project; [58958]

  (2) what is the outstanding amount of marketing funding required to complete the landmark projects sponsored to date by the Millennium Commission. [58860]

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

  National Lottery
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in what ways the national lottery will benefit millennium award-winners in London. [57265]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Awards scheme is funded by the National Lottery through the Millennium Commission. To date 244 individuals in London have been awarded a total of £750,000 towards schemes to: popularise science; attend Summer University; improve the environment; and promote understanding of mental illness.

  It is expected that some 40,000 individuals around the country will receive Millennium Awards.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department is taking to ensure(a) communities and (b) individuals are made aware of the availability of lottery funds for communities eligible for small grants; and if he will make a statement. [57269]

  Mr. Banks
  We are working with the Lottery distributors on a new leaflet to highlight the availability of Lottery funding. It will publicise the one-stop shop scheme for small community grants which distributors in England are planning to introduce in the East Midlands on 18 November and extend to the rest of England next spring. The scheme will also be publicised at a conference which the Department is running in Barnsley on 10 November to explore how Lottery funding can help to regenerate coalfield communities.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will provide a breakdown, by local authority area in Scotland, of the grants awarded for each National Lottery good cause. [58294]

  Mr. Banks
  To date 4,710 awards worth a total of £497,705,355 have been made in Scotland. A breakdown by Scottish local authorities for each good cause is in the following table.

  Awards information is also available on the Lottery website at www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.
  63

  National Lottery Awards for Scotland breakdown by Local Authority and Good Cause

  Good Cause

  Local Authority

  Data

  Arts

  Charity

  Heritage

  Millennium

  Sports

  Grand Total

  City of Edinburgh

  Total Value

  £13,387,525

  £23,097,475

  £44,571,300

  £32,839,845

  £4,029,065

  £117,925,210

  No. of Awards

  97

  308

  50

  4

  23

  482

  City of Glasgow

  Total Value

  £23,981,932

  £15,957,965

  £24,150,607

  £68,802,773

  £19,191,738

  £152,085,015

  No. of Awards

  90

  338

  28

  6

  40

  502

  Clackmannanshire

  Total Value

  £6,000

  £1,798,473

  £122,100

  —

  £166,391

  £2,092,964

  No. of Awards

  1

  38

  2

  0

  3

  44

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Total Value

  1,693,580

  £2,917,610

  £294,893

  £547,000

  £1,751,365

  £7,204,448

  No. of Awards

  18

  214

  6

  1

  29

  268

  Dundee City

  Total Value

  £7,766,380

  £2,089,598

  £2,349,679

  —

  £3,626,250

  £15,831,907

  No. of Awards

  9

  77

  9

  0

  5

  100

  East Ayrshire

  Total Value

  £60,380

  £1,166,828

  £111,900

  —

  £104,982

  £1,444,090

  No. of Awards

  3

  119

  1

  0

  4

  127

  East Dunbartonshire

  Total Value

  £18,962

  £1,570,351

  —

  —

  £461,871

  £2,051,184

  No. of Awards

  3

  84

  0

  0

  9

  96

  East Lothian

  Total Value

  £1,247,737

  £864,693

  £8,406,774

  —

  £103,389

  £10,622,593

  No. of Awards

  4

  45

  6

  0

  7

  62

  East Renfrewshire

  Total Value

  £17,188

  £783,113

  —

  —

  £1,654,730

  £2,455,031

  No. of Awards

  2

  33

  0

  0

  10

  45

  Falkirk

  Total Value

  £272,522

  £1,858,160

  £250,000

  —

  £531,250

  £2,911,932

  No. of Awards

  5

  66

  1

  0

  3

  75

  Fife

  Total Value

  £3,548,433

  £2,993,892

  £1,583,927

  £1,793,450

  £3,058,128

  £12,977,830

  No. of Awards

  17

  205

  13

  1

  18

  254

  Highland

  Total Value

  £3,457,896

  £6,145,477

  £4,107,598

  £33,354,000

  £3,893,375

  £50,958,346

  No. of Awards

  35

  293

  16

  1

  69

  414

  Inverclyde

  Total Value

  £13,759

  £1,957,205

  —

  —

  £509,600

  £2,480,564

  No. of Awards

  2

  48

  0

  0

  5

  55

  Midlothian

  Total Value

  £77,068

  £364,633

  £5,142,764

  —

  £135,650

  £5,720,115

  No. of Awards

  3

  53

  11

  0

  4

  71

  Moray

  Total Value

  £118,990

  £1,122,248

  £511,729

  —

  £476,410

  £2,229,377

  No. of Awards

  7

  60

  3

  0

  13

  83

  North Ayrshire

  Total Value

  £644,380

  £928,944

  £228,186

  £5,340,037

  £1,386,540

  £8,528,087

  No. of Awards

  4

  88

  2

  1

  12

  107

  North Lanarkshire

  Total Value

  £623,019

  £3,016,957

  £704,100

  —

  £1,263,058

  £5,607,134

  No. of Awards

  8

  204

  3

  0

  13

  228

  Orkney Islands

  Total Value

  £649,600

  £866,387

  £924,613

  £3,700,000

  £489,750

  £6,630,350

  No. of Awards

  3

  37

  7

  1

  4

  52

  Perth and Kinross

  Total Value

  £363,642

  £1,736,574

  £11,826,130

  —

  £1,760,609

  £15,686,955

  No. of Awards

  8

  111

  14

  0

  19

  152

  Renfrewshire

  Total Value

  £178,694

  £1,784,160

  1,035,200

  —

  £482,725

  £3,480,779

  No. of Awards

  6

  77

  2

  0

  5

  90

  Scottish Borders

  Total Value

  £33,143

  £1,541,926

  £60,250

  —

  £1,290,634

  £2,925,953

  No. of Awards

  1

  100

  3

  0

  27

  131

  Shetland Islands

  Total Value

  £5,000

  £694,858

  £595,457

  —

  £501,000

  £1,796,315

  No. of Awards

  1

  40

  6

  0

  4

  51

  South Ayrshire

  Total Value

  £307,641

  £1,450,656

  £273,070

  —

  £996,583

  £3,027,950

  No. of Awards

  5

  72

  3

  0

  9

  89

  South Lanarkshire

  Total Value

  £572,372

  £2,369,269

  £4,567,520

  —

  £5,129,057

  £12,638,218

  No. of Awards

  10

  228

  4

  0

  21

  263

  Stirling

  Total Value

  £333,490

  £2,256,166

  £1,584,231

  —

  £1,351,782

  £5,525,669

  No. of Awards

  15

  67

  3

  0

  13

  98

  West Dunbartonshire

  Total Value

  £85,500

  £1,152,478

  £1,563,966

  —

  £501,725

  £3,303,669

  No. of Awards

  2

  70

  4

  0

  2

  78

  West Lothian

  Total Value

  £196,454

  £1,258,432

  £307,900

  —

  £1,502,655

  £3,265,441

  No. of Awards

  7

  90

  2

  0

  11

  110

  Western Isles

  Total Value

  £135,317

  £1,254,992

  £1,133,100

  —

  £1,321,783

  £3,845,192

  No. of Awards

  8

  58

  4

  0

  8

  78

  Total Value

  £61,757,348

  £92,750,151

  £129,730,494

  £146,704,209

  £66,763,153

  £497,705,355

  Total No. of Awards

  410

  3,592

  222

  16

  470

  4,710

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what consultations he undertook with National Lottery distribution bodies prior to his announcement that the Millennium share would be moved into the New Opportunities Fund. [58484]
  64
  Mr. Chris Smith
  We are regularly in touch with all the National Lottery distribution bodies and are conscious of the demands they are seeking to meet. We are also conscious of the potential for New Opportunities Fund (NOF) has to meet pressing needs in the fields of health,
  65
  education and the environment. That is why, as well as announcing that NOF will inherit the Millennium stream, we also announced that each of the arts, sport, heritage and charities can plan on an extra £50 million from the Lottery between now and 2001 and that they are each guaranteed 16 per cent. of Lottery revenues from October 2001 onwards.

  Employment
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people are employed in the cultural and creative industries. [57266]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On Friday I published a document, produced on behalf of the Creative Industries Task Force, which I chair, which attempts to analyse for the first time the economic impact of the diverse and dynamic sectors which constitute the creative industries. We estimate the creative industries to turn over nearly £60 billion a year and to employ 1½ million people, making them an increasingly significant element in the national economy.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will ascertain the number of asylum seekers in representative British national sports teams, or who have competed in such teams over the last two years; and if he will facilitate arrangements for their travel for overseas events. [58547]

  Mr. Banks
  Britain competes in a great many sports internationally and at many levels including youth teams. Unfortunately I do not have this information and I think it would be costly, and in some cases an imposition on the governing bodies of the sports concerned, to try to collate it. However, I would be delighted to discuss with the hon. Member any individual cases or difficulty of which he is aware and explore what action is open to the Government to facilitate arrangements for travel for overseas events.

  Sport (Women)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when(a) he and (b) the Minister for Sport last met the Minister for Women to discuss the role of women in sport.[58483]

  Mr. Banks
  I have been in contact with my noble Friend the Minister for Women about women in sport and will be meeting with her to discuss this very soon. Officials in my Department are in contact with officials in the Government's Women's Unit to discuss issues relating to women and sport.

  I remain determined to find ways to encourage and promote women in sport. We shall be looking at further ways to do so.

  Lottery Funding (Witney)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many bids for Lottery funding for arts projects in the Witney constituency(a) have been received, (b) have been awarded, giving amounts and (c) are still outstanding, since the establishment of the National Lottery; [57562]
  66
  (2) what proportion of total Lottery funding for arts projects and sports projects has been awarded to such projects in the Witney constituency since the establishment of the National Lottery; [57563]

  (3) how many bids for Lottery funding for sports projects in the Witney constituency (a) have been received, (b) have been awarded, giving amounts and (c) are still outstanding, since the establishment of the National Lottery. [57561]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]To date the National Lottery distributors have awarded £5.03 billion to 31,000 projects across the United Kingdom. In England, the Arts Council of England has announced grants totalling £963,271,382 to 7,411 projects. The English Sports Council has announced grants totalling £753,348,968 to 2,679 projects. The figures for the Witney constituency are set out in the table:

  Witney

  Arts projects

  Sports projects

  Number of applications

  30

  27

  Outstanding applications

  6

  0

  Successful applications

  12

  15

  Value of successful applications (£)

  817,552

  1,411,853

  Value as per cent. of England

  0.8

  1.87

  Information on successful Lottery applicants can be found on the Department's website www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  Running Tracks
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the safety checks introduced by British Athletics 98 on the number of all-weather running tracks available for use; and what assistance his Department will provide to local authorities to replace all-weather running tracks which have been declared unsafe by British Athletics. [57893]

  Mr. Banks
  No direct assessment has been made of the impact of the safety checks on the number of all-weather running tracks available for use. However, the English Sports Council (ESC) has provided financial and other support services to UK Athletics '98 over the last year to produce a national facilities strategy. This is due for publication and promotion in December 1998. The strategy recognises that the sport needs to encourage better management and maintenance of existing all weather tracks, which are predominantly owned and managed by local authorities.

  No direct assistance from the UK Sports Council (UKSC) or ESC has been provided to local authorities to replace all-weather tracks which have been declared unsafe. However, both the UKSC and ESC are planning to provide exchequer funding to the new national governing body, Athletics UK, to support a new staffing structure which will include a full-time Facilities Co-ordinator post. This post will enable the sport to provide more pro-active advice and better services to local authorities and other track providers as to what is best practice with regard to the management of athletics stadia. In addition, local authorities may also apply to the ESC for a grant from

  67
  the Lottery Sports Fund to help build new or upgraded facilities. Around £250 million of Lottery Grants will be awarded to sport in 1998–99.

  Sportsmatch
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future of Sportsmatch; and what effect the changes in its operation will have on his departmental budget. [58019]

  Mr. Banks
  Sportsmatch is a successful scheme which brings in much needed business sponsorship to the previously neglected area of grass roots sport. We have made it clear that we would like to see distributors come forward with new ideas for opening up Lottery funds to smaller community sports initiatives and we believe there may be links here to be made with the Sportsmatch approach. We have consulted on the future of Sportsmatch in England on this basis.

  The starting point of the consultation was that greater synergy would best be achieved by transferring in full responsibility and funding for the Sportsmatch scheme from the Department to the English Sports Council with effect from April 1999. The funds would be ring fenced for the first financial year at least while the Council reviews with the scheme's managers the options for the future. Longer term arrangements would be decided following discussion of the review with Ministers. The aim would be to ensure that the grant-in-aid, lottery funding, and Sportsmatch money could be deployed in a synchronised way. Responses to the consultation have now been received and are being considered.

  Departmental Guarantees
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guarantees his Department has made in monetary terms to(a) arts, (b) sport, (c) charities, (d) heritage, (e) projects to mark the Millennium and (f) the New Opportunities Fund. [58020]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  As a result of my Department's overall settlement from the Comprehensive Spending Review, I have been consulting on my proposals for the allocation of the £290 million additional investment which I have received. This is investment for reform and modernisation and in exchange I expect to see improvements in efficiency, access and modernisation. I anticipate being able to provide institutional allocations in early December.

  The arts, sport, heritage and charities Lottery good causes can now plan on receiving an extra £50 million by the end of the present licence period in September 2001, bringing their forecast income by then to over £1.85 billion each. Thereafter they have each been guaranteed one sixth of Lottery revenues for good causes.

  The Millennium Commission has been guaranteed an income of £2.017 billion over its funding lifetime.

  The New Opportunities Fund will receive around £1.2 billion during the licence period. Once the millennium stream has closed down, NOF's share of Lottery revenues will rise to one third.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the extent to which the move to digital broadcasting will allow reception of appropriate regional variations of BBC and ITV in(a) West Norfolk and (b) other regions unable to receive local programming. [57264]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government's priority is the successful launch of digital television and the expansion in choice it will bring. By the end of 1999 digital terrestrial television will cover 90 per cent. of the UK population and be supplemented by digital cable and satellite services. At this stage, we have made no assessment of what additional benefits digital broadcasting might bring in terms of further local programming.

  Regional Orchestras
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his policy on regional orchestras. [57255]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Government policy on the arts is guided by a desire to promote excellence, access, innovation and education. Our regional orchestras play a valuable role in this, by opening up to a wide range of people the enjoyment of music of the highest standards.

  Football (Youth Development)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much of the English Sports Council's promised annual funding for youth development has been disbursed to lower league football clubs. [57159]

  Mr. Banks
  The English Sports Council has made available £20 million over the next four years from the Lottery Sports Fund for the establishment of new academies or centres of excellence for Football League clubs. This money is to be matched pound for pound by the FA Premier League. The English Sports Council take the final decision on applications from this source. The Council has recently allocated £5.8 million over the next four years to 22 Football League Clubs—the first allocation under this initiative. The Premier League will be allocating a similar sum.

  Artistic Heritage
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has held in the past year on proposals to protect the United Kingdom's artistic heritage from export. [57180]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The UK's artistic heritage is already well protected by our present system of export controls. Ministers have not within the past year discussed proposals for improving them.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the new Film Export Trade body was established; and how often it has met. [58486]
  69
  Janet Anderson
  Film Export UK was established on 25 September this year as a division of the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television (PACT). To date it has held two meetings.

  Royal Parks (Car Parking)
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 29 October 1998,Official Report, column 267, what assessment he has made of the impact of weekend charges for parking in the Royal Parks on (a) parking and (b) road safety in neighbouring streets where no charges are levied; and what representations he has received from residents. [58225]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1998]The Agency undertook a consultation exercise to solicit the views of interested parties before making a final decision on the amendments to regulations affecting Hyde Park and Regent's Park.

  Those consulted include the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the neighbouring local authorities, local interest groups, including residents' associations, and the four local MPs. The original proposals were amended as a result of the responses received.

  The level of charges is designed to improve traffic management, and is pitched at a level to minimise displacement of traffic and avoid increasing on-street parking in the vicinity. The changes are consistent with government policy on traffic, parking and transport in London.

DEFENCE

  Air-to-air Missiles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the criteria required in the invitation to tender for the Staff Requirement (Air) 1239 for a beyond visual range air-to-air missile. [58523]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 6 July 1998,Official Report, column 354.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those companies which have been invited to tender for the SR(A) 1239. [58525]

  Mr. Spellar
  SR(A)1239 refers to our requirement for a Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile for Eurofighter. Invitations to tender were issued in December 1995 to the following companies:

  a) BAe Dynamics, Stevenage.

  b) Hughes Aircraft Co., Tuscon, USA.

  c) Daimler-Benz, Germany.

  d) Alenia, Italy.

  e) Matra-Defence, France.

  f) GEC-Marconi, Stanmore.

  70

  g) Aerospatiale, France.

  h) Saab Dynamics, Sweden.

  i) Raytheon Electronic Systems, Bedford.

  Responses were received from Matra BAe Dynamics and Hughes Aircraft Co., now Raytheon Systems Ltd. Following initial evaluation, it was decided to conduct a project Definition/Risk Reduction phase, and further Invitations to Tender were issued to both companies in October 1997.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from other EU countries on the Staff Requirement (Air) 1239 for a beyond visual range air-to-air missile. [58524]

  Mr. Spellar
  Although SR(A)1239 is to meet a UK requirement for a Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile for Eurofighter, our Eurofighter Partner Nations, Germany, Italy and Spain, have similar requirements, as do Sweden for their JAS 39 Gripen aircraft, and have agreed to be associated with our competition. We are assessing the bids jointly and are exploring the possibility of meeting our requirements through a common solution.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there will be a reduction in the number of warheads produced at Aldermaston as a result of the alterations to the United Kingdom's nuclear posture announced in the Strategic Defence Review; and if he will make a statement. [58144]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We announced in the Strategic Defence Review that a stockpile of fewer than 200 operationally available nuclear warheads was required to meet our future needs, a reduction from the maximum of 300 announced by the previous Government. There will, therefore, be a reduction in the number of warheads produced at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (I) if all UK Trident missiles are(a) deployed, (b) held as part of a processing margin or (c) to be used in test firings; [58148]

  (2) if the total holding of operational nuclear warheads, as revised by the Strategic Defence Review, provides the potential to deploy more than 48 warheads per Trident submarine; [58149]

  (3) under what circumstances the Government would consider further reducing the number of nuclear warheads deployed on UK Trident submarines. [58150]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Our Trident operating posture, including the number of warheads deployed, is based on a rigorous assessment of the minimum necessary to provide credible deterrence. Should changes in strategic circumstances lead to a change in that assessment, we would make corresponding adjustments to our deployed posture. The Strategic Defence Review decisions on missile numbers and the stockpile of operationally available warheads are based on an assessment of the worst circumstances which might arise during Trident's life, however remote they may seem today, and thus provide potential to deploy additional weapons should that
  71
  ever become necessary. In addition, total stockpile numbers also take account of processing margins and, in the case of missiles, anticipated test firings.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the number of nuclear weapons held as a necessary processing margin or for technical surveillance purposes will increase as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. [55870]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]There will be no increase in the number of nuclear weapons held as a processing margin or for technical surveillance purposes as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. However, there will be an increase in the number of nuclear warheads awaiting dismantlement.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any UK Trident missiles are deployed without nuclear warheads. [58151]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Disclosing the information requested would assist a potential adversary to calculate our capabilities and would therefore be harmful to deterrence. Consequently I am withholding the information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Defence, Security and International Relations).

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom's sub-strategic nuclear capability deployed on Trident missiles has been reduced as a result of the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review compared with the previous Government's deployments. [58152]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We stated in the Strategic Defence Review White Paper that each Trident submarine will carry the reduced load of 48 warheads when on deterrent patrol. This compares with the previous Government's announced ceiling of 96. The reduced load of 48 warheads will meet both our strategic and sub-strategic requirements in current Strategic circumstances. Details on the breakdown of this number is classified as this information could be used to provide insights into the precise capability of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent. I am therefore witholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the cost implications of reducing the number of warheads deployed on UK Trident submarines; [58143]

  (2) what financial savings will arise from the Government's revised total holdings of operational nuclear warheads. [58147]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The decision in the Strategic Defence Review that the operationally available stockpile will consist of less than 200 warheads is expected to result in financial savings of some £22 million in the cost of the nuclear warhead programme over the next ten years. There will also be savings of some £50 million from the associated decision to limit to 58 the purchase of Trident missile bodies.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Strategic Defence Review, Supporting Essays, Essay 5, paragraph 47, when the detailed review of national responses to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will be completed; and when a summary of the conclusions will be made public. [58142]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As I indicated to the House during the debate on the Strategic Defence Review on 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 978, I plan to report the conclusions of the review to the House shortly.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many submarines of(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the US Navy and (c) other navies have docked at the Z-berth at Gibraltar during 1998. [58750]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information requested is as follows: as at 1 November, 2 Royal Navy and 9 US Navy submarines had used the Z berths in Gibraltar during 1998. A number of US Navy submarines have visited Gibraltar on more than one occasion and in total they have made 15 visits this year. No submarines from other navies have docked at the Gibraltar Z berths during this period.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by month and name the Royal Navy vessels which have visited Gibraltar during 1998. [58751]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following Royal Navy vessels have visited Gibraltar during 1998, up to and including 1 November:

  Month

  HMS

  RFA

  January

  Bridport

  Diligence

  Illustrious

  —

  Inverness

  —

  Sandown

  —

  February

  Cornwall

  —

  Illustrious

  —

  Richmond

  —

  Somerset

  —

  March

  Beaver

  Orangeleaf

  Cornwall

  —

  Richmond

  —

  York

  —

  April

  Beaver

  Bayleaf

  Cornwall

  —

  Grafton

  —

  Nottingham

  —

  May

  Bulldog

  Grey Rover

  Coventry

  —

  Marlborough

  —

  June

  Gloucester(3)

  Sea Crusader

  July

  Cardiff

  Fort Victoria

  Marlborough

  —

  August

  Cardiff

  Bayleaf

  Cornwall

  Oakleaf

  Somerset

  Orangeleaf

  —

  Sea Crusder

  —

  Sir Bedivere(2)

  73

  Month

  HMS

  RFA

  September

  Birmingham(2)

  —

  Cumberland

  —

  London

  —

  Somerset

  —

  October

  Nottingham

  Bayleaf

  Scott

  —

  York

  —

  HM Ships Ranger and Trumpeter are based at Gibraltar and have made the following port calls:

  Month

  Ranger

  Trumpeter

  January

  —

  —

  February

  —

  —

  March

  —

  —

  April

  1

  2

  May

  1

  2

  June

  1

  2

  July

  1

  1

  August

  —

  1

  September

  4

  4

  October

  3

  3

  In addition, two Royal Navy submarines have visited Gibraltar during this period. They were the Swiftshure class submarine, HMS Spartan, in January and HMS Turbulent (Trafalgar class) in November.

  Army Pilots
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Army squadrons currently have a shortage of trained pilots; and what is the total extent of the shortfalls. [57188]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As at 27 October 44 established posts on Army squadrons were vacant, out of a total establishment of 544. Of 18 Army squadrons, the following 12 were affected: 651, 652, 661, 653, 662, 663, 659, 669, 655, 656, 657 and 664.

  RAF (Medical Retirement)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force personnel have left the service on health grounds in each of the last five years. [57161]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following number of regular Royal Air Force personnel have been medically discharged in each year since 1993. These figures do not include RAF personnel who died in service.

  Year

  Medical discharges

  1993

  147

  1994

  121

  1995

  207

  1996

  200

  1997

  222

  1998 at 27 October 1998

  92

  Note:

  Based on information supplied to DASA as at 27 October 1998.

  TAVR
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people served in the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve in(a) May 1979 and (b) May 1997; and how many are serving at the present time. [57175]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The strengths of the Territorial Army in 1979, 1997 and at present are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  159,400

  1997

  2255,900

  1998

  354,100

  1Figure as at 1 April 1979 which is the closest available to the May figure requested

  2Figure as at 1 May 1997

  3Figure as at 1 September 1998

  198 Field Park Squadron
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the net saving to the defence budget of removing 198 Field Park Squadron from the TA order of battle. [57582]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The operating costs alone for 198 Field Park Squadron in the financial year 1997–98 were £179,000.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of maintaining the garrison in the Falklands over each of the next five years.[57855]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The cost of the Falklands garrison in the current financial year 1998–99 is expected to be just over £70 million. In the absence of significant modifications to the size and shape of the garrison, which are not currently foreseen, its cost is likely to continue to be roughly of this order in each of the next five years.

  Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) American military personnel, (b) American civilian personnel, (c) GCHQ personnel and (d) RAF military and civilian personnel are present at Menwith Hill Station. [57316]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]As at 9 October 1998, at RAF Menwith Hill there were 435 US military personnel, 935 US civilian personnel and 416 RAF and Ministry of Defence civilian personnel. I am withholding the numbers of operationally deployed GCHQ staff under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the name and rank of the officer in charge at Menwith Hill Station. [57317]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]Squadron Leader Ted Sumner is the senior RAF officer at the site while the US base commander is Colonel Joseph Brand of the United States Army.

  Infra Red System
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the two radomes which are to be part of the space-based infra red system will be constructed. [57313]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding reply 3 November 1998]Construction of the two radomes at RAF Menwith Hill is due to begin in November 1999 and is scheduled for completion in February 2000. The radomes will support the new US Space Based Infra-Red System, providing early warning of ballistic missile launches.

  Army personnel

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Total

  Officers court martialled

  13

  13

  9

  7

  12

  54

  Officers dismissed by court martial

  5

  8

  4

  2

  5

  24

  Officers dismissed for mis-conduct

  3

  8

  12

  2

  1

  26

  Other ranks court martialled

  646

  583

  414

  359

  287

  2,289

  Other ranks dismissed by court martial

  236

  275

  241

  159

  100

  1,011

  Other ranks dismissed for mis-conduct

  394

  308

  199

  149

  89

  1,139

  RAF Halton
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the terms and conditions of the original transfer from the Rothschild family to the Government of land at Halton, Buckinghamshire, now occupied by RAF Halton; and if he will make a statement. [58288]

  Mr. Spellar
  If the Rothschild Foundation agrees to the public release of this document which is a commercial agreement between us, then a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF High Wycombe
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for new building works at RAF High Wycombe. [58691]

  Mr. Spellar
  A Framework Development Plan was presented to Wycombe District Council earlier this year, outlining key proposals for future development of the RAF High Wycombe site.

  There are two main proposals: first, to replace the site reception and RAF Police Flight Portakabin-style facilities with a permanent building; secondly, to replace two other buildings, used by Headquarters Strike Command, which are over 25 years old and nearing the end of their useful and economic life. The new buildings would provide modem facilities that meet current statutory legislation and provide suitable long-term office accommodation for staff. The proposals would address Wycombe District Council's concern over temporary buildings, the visual impact of the proposed developments when viewed from outside the site, and for landscape improvements, such as tree planting, on the RAF High Wycombe site.

  Planning permission has been sought from Wycombe District Council for the reception/RAF Police Flight facilities. It is intended to present Outline Planning Permission application for replacing the HQ Strike Command buildings in the near future.

  Dismissals and Courts Martial
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army(a) officers and (b) other ranks have been dismissed from the service or court-martialled in each of the last five years. [58299]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The table shows the total number of Army personnel who have been court-martialled (CM) and or dismissed from the service over the last 5 years.

  Legal Actions
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent in legal fees when dealing with legal action against it by current or former service men and women in each of the last 10 years. [58145]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information on legal fees relating to common law compensation claims submitted by current and former Service personnel has been held centrally only since 1 April 1994. The figures cover legal fees and disbursements.

  Year

  Total

  1994–95

  5,236,252

  1995–96

  5,850,585

  1996–97

  5,169,018

  1997–98

  6,328,685

  1 April 1998 to 4 November 1998

  4,269,161

  Total

  26,853,701

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for damages have been brought against his Department by current and former service men and women in each of the last 10 years. [58146]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of common law claims for damages brought against my Department from serving and former Service men and women in each of the last ten complete calendar years was:

  Year

  Total

  1988

  444

  1989

  606

  1990

  677

  1991

  926

  1992

  990

  1993

  1,195

  1994

  1,147

  1995

  1,275

  1996

  1,148

  1997

  1,117

  RAF (Training Accidents)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many RAF aircraft have been lost in training accidents in each of the last 10 years; [58140]

  (2) how many RAF flight crew have (a) killed and (b) injured in training accidents in each of the last 10 years. [58141]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. and learned Member and a copy of my reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RNAD Trecwn
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what nuclear weapons or items were stored at the former RNAD Trecwn; and what licensing was required for them to be stored there. [58594]

  Mr. Spellar
  No nuclear weapons or items were stored at the former RNAD Trecwn. The question of licensing does not therefore arise.

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies and individuals other than WR Trust, including estate agents, were allowed access to the RNAD Trecwn site during the run-up to bidding in all bidding rounds. [58595]

  Mr. Spellar
  Access to RNAD Trecwn was granted to all companies and individuals who wished to visit the site during the run-up to bidding. From records kept of all visitors to the site, 114 individuals, including representatives from various companies and estate agents, took up the opportunity to inspect the site prior to bidding.

  Chile
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 441, if he will identify which of the 21 meetings General Pinochet was present at; where and when such meetings took place; and which ministers were present. [58777]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  General Pinochet was not present at any of these meetings.

  St. Dunstan's
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to provide grants to assist the work of St. Dunstan's in caring for men and women blinded in the service of their country. [58244]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are very conscious of the great efforts made by organisations such as St. Dunstan's to assist former Service personnel, and know how greatly their work is valued both by the present service community and by ex-Service men and women.

  However, it is the longstanding practice of central Government not to finance charities' core activities. Therefore, as with all registered charities, St. Dunstan's—as a wholly independent charity—raises its own funding.

  Under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, there are powers for central Government to fund voluntary organisations whose activities support the Department of Health's policy objectives relating to
  78
  health, and personal and social services. However, the budget is finite and more applications are received than it is possible to meet. I am given to understand that an application from the Diana Gubbay Trust for the Blind which is administered by St. Dunstan's, and provides care for visually impaired people who are ex-members of the Armed Forces or civilian services but whose blindness is not attributable to their service has been received this year and will be given serious consideration.

  The Government provide considerable assistance for disabled ex-Service personnel, including St. Dunstaners. Personnel deemed to have sustained a disability due to service in the Armed Forces qualify for a tax-free War Pension from the War Pensions Agency. In addition, most Service personnel are members of The Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS), which ordinarily pays an immediate pension on completion of 16 years' service in the case of officers and 22 years in the case of non-commissioned personnel. The AFPS also provides pensions to most Servicemen or Servicewomen who are medically discharged from their Service. Additional benefits may be paid if a disability is deemed to be attributable to or aggravated by Service. Attributable benefits are payable irrespective of length of service or whether the individual is a member of the AFPS.

  Requisitioned Land
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list British Army military installations that are sited on requisitioned land; when his officials last had contact with the landowners of each site; and what plans he has to return the land to its original use. [56395]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]The Army's installations, that are entirely or partly sited on requisitioned land, are listed.

  County Armagh:

  Cloghoge Base, Newry

  Crossmaglen Base

  Keady Base

  Newtownhamilton Base

  County Down:

  Rathfriland Base

  County Fermanagh:

  Annaghmartin Patrol Base

  Clonatty Bridge Patrol Base

  Gortmullan Patrol Base

  Mullan Bridge Patrol Base

  Rosscor Bridge Patrol Base

  Wattle Bridge Patrol Base

  County Londonderry:

  Masonic Base

  County Tyrone:

  Aughnacloy Permanent

  Vehicle Check Point

  Cookstown Base

  St. Lucia Base

  Belfast:

  Fort Whiterock Base.

  Apart from the initial serving of the Requisition Order my officials do not have any contact with landowners except where a landowner wishes to raise a particular matter concerning that Order.
  79
  The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) is responsible for compensation arising from Requisition Orders and payment of rents is made by the Compensation Agency on behalf of the NIO. The Compensation Agency would therefore have contact with the landowners due to their responsibility for the rent.

  The requirement for bases and installations is kept under constant review and the improvement in the security situation allowed for the planned removal of the Aughnacloy Permanent Vehicle Check Point which was announced by the Chief Constable on 30 September 1998. The closure and planned removal of the Fort Whiterock base in West Belfast was announced by the Chief Constable on 26 October 1998. As the security situation improves there may be scope for further measures; however, there are no plans for additional bases to be removed from requisitioned land at the present time.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) serving and (b) former members of the Royal Irish Regiment held personal protection firearms on 10 April; how many new weapons have been issued since then; and how many weapons have been handed in. [56296]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]There are two types of Personal Protection Weapons (PPWs) which can be held by personnel of the Royal Irish Regiment (R IRISH). These are MOD-issued PPWs, and privately owned and purchased PPWs held on Fire Arms Certificates (FAC) which are issued and renewed every 3 years by the RUC Firearms Licensing Branch.

  My Department does not hold details of R IRISH PPW holdings as at 10 April 1998. However, information on holdings based on returns collected from units between 21 April 1998 and 6 July are given in the table.

  Table 1

  MOD issued PPW

  PPWs held under Fire Arms Certificate

  Total

  1,172

  758

  1,930

  Details of PPW holdings as at 22 October 1998 are given in the table.

  Table 2

  MOD issued PPW

  PPWs held under Fire Arms Certificate

  Total

  1,083

  751

  1,834

  Table 2 shows holdings of 96 fewer PPWs on 22 October, than between 21 April and 6 July; this represents 97 weapons handed in, and one new weapon issued.

  My Department does not hold records of PPW issued under Firearms Certificates to former members of R IRISH.

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and 80
  percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his private office, as at 1 October 1997; [56801]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997. [56799]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 666–71.

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to make a decision on the proposed partnership between Matra-BAe UK Ltd and the Naval Bases and Supply Agency at RNAD Gosport; [57170]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the proposed partnership between Matra-BAe UK Ltd and the Naval Bases and Supply Agency at RNAD Gosport. [57169]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have now completed the formal consultation process with the Trades Unions over the proposed Partnering Arrangement between the Naval Bases and Supply Agency and Matra-BAe UK Ltd. The Trade Unions are fully supportive of the proposed arrangement, recognising that this presents an opportunity for both parties to secure the benefits of skills exchange and the optimum utilisation of resources and facilities.

  My Department has received no other representations on the Partnering Arrangement.

  We expect the formal signing of the Partnering Arrangement, between MBUK Ltd. and the Naval Bases and Supply Agency will take place shortly.

HEALTH

  Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior registrars are in post in each specialty; and how many have been given consultants posts in each of the last five years. [56741]

  Mr. Milburn
  Copies of the information requested will be placed in the Library. On 1 April 1996, the Specialist Registrar (SpR) grade was introduced. Existing registrars and senior registrars were given the option to enter the SpR grade. Since 1 April 1997, those Senior House Officers who are eligible and wish to enter higher specialist medical training have been able to do so only by entering the SpR grade.

  Clinical Psychologists
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the average life-time earnings of a clinical psychologist working in the NHS at current prices; [56449]

  (2) what are the mean and modal salaries of fully qualified clinical psychologists; [56575]

  (3) if he will list the real rates of increase in each pay award for clinical psychologists working for the NHS since 1990; [56444]
  81
  (4) what was the total salary bill for clinical psychologists in the NHS in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [56446]

  Mr. Milburn
  The current national pay scales for qualified clinical psychologists employed in the National Health Service range from £14,690 to £33,474 (in Grade A) and from £32,185 to £53,593 in Grade B. The latest Departmental survey of NHS earnings 1997 gives a mean salary figure of £33,100 and £42,600 for the modal salary, rounded to the nearest £100.

  Total salary bill information, including employers contributions, is collected and monitored locally by trusts. Information on the total salary bill is not collected centrally. The real rates at which clinical psychologists pay has changed as a result of pay awards since 1990 are shown in the table.

  Changes to Clinical Psychologists' pay in real terms: NHS pay awards 1990–98

  Percentage

  Clinical psychologists'pay awards in year change

  Pay settlement

  GDP factor

  Real terms increase

  1990–91 over 1989–90

  7.90

  7.83

  0.07

  1991–92 over 1990–91

  7.90

  6.20

  1.70

  1992–93 over 1991–92

  4.75

  3.31

  1.44

  1993–94 over 1992–93

  1.50

  2.66

  -1.16

  1994–95 over 1993–94

  2.35

  1.43

  0.92

  1995–96 over 1994–95

  3.00

  2.91

  0.09

  1996–97 over 1995–96

  2.80

  3.08

  -0.28

  1997–98 over 1996–97

  2.43

  2.60

  -0.17

  1998–99 over 1997–98

  3.47

  2.90

  0.57

  Notes:

  1. The pay awards have been compared with the gross domestic product deflator to obtain real terms increases/reductions.

  2. The pay awards represent annual changes of pay over each financial year (1 April to 31 March) since 1990 and includes the 1998 settlement.

  3. The effect of staging the 1997 and 1998 pay awards has been taken into account.

  Maternity Units
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital maternity units in(a) the North West of England and (b) England have been (i) closed and (ii) merged since 1 May 1997. [57179]

  Mr. Milburn
  No hospital maternity units in the north west of England have been closed or merged since 1 May 1997.

  Five hospital maternity units in England have closed since 1 May 1997, as part of local service developments. In one of these cases this change followed a merger.

  Midwives
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives have been subject to personal attack in the last year. [57599]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, officials in the National Health Service Executive are currently analysing the results of a survey of violent incidents in all trusts against all staff. The information from this survey will be used to 82
  set performance targets for the reduction of violent incidents. Violence to NHS staff is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current average pay for midwives; and how this has varied in percentage terms in each of the last two years. [57597]

  Mr. Milburn
  The great majority of midwives are graded E (salary range £14,705 to £17,030 from 1 December 1998), grade F (salary range £16,310 to £19,985 from 1 December 1998) or grade G (salary range £19,420 to £22,255 from 1 December 1998), with some at higher grades ranging up to the maximum of the Senior Midwife pay scale (currently £48,820 plus the possibility of local pay). Midwives may also receive significant extra earnings for evening, night or weekend duty. Midwives' on grades F, G, H and I are also eligible for discretionary points which could mean up to an extra £1,195 per year. Midwives' pay is based on the recommendations of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine. The pay award for the 1997–98 year was 3.3 per cent. (paid as 2 per cent. from 1 April 1997, 3.3 per cent. from 1 December 1997) and for 1998–99 3.8 per cent. (paid 2 per cent. from 1 April 1998, 3.8 per cent. from 1 December 1998).

  Norwich Community Health Partnership NHS Trust
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Norwich Community Health Partnership NHS Trust positions are currently vacant. [57488]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is currently one vacancy for a non-executive director on the board of the Norwich Community Health Partnership NHS Trust.

  Dental Fluorosis
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the incidence of dental fluorosis in children, and its relationship to areas where the fluoride levels in the public water supply exceed one part per million. [57461]

  Mr. Milburn
  A national survey of children's dental health is undertaken every ten years. The 1993 survey, in which the teeth of over 17,000 children aged between five and fifteen years attending state schools throughout the United Kingdom were examined, was the first survey to include examination for enamel opacities. Some 1,700 12-year-olds were examined of whom 39 per cent. had one or more enamel opacity. We estimate that about half of these opacities could have been due to dental fluorosis which is a cosmetic effect which, where required, can often be removed by non-invasive dental procedures. The sample was not large enough to investigate any correlation between the incidence of opacities and the level of fluoride in drinking water, but this will be among the items considered in the planning of the next survey.

  Ongar War Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Ongar War Memorial Hospital. [57408]
  83
  Mr. Milburn
  We will announce our decision when we have given full and proper consideration to the proposals.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average annual real terms percentage increase in funding for the NHS between 1979 and 1997; and what is the equivalent figure for the next three years. [57464]

  Mr. Milburn
  During the years 1979–80 to 1997–98, the annual average real terms increase in National Health Service total net expenditure in England was 3.1 per cent. The annual average real terms increase for 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 is 4.7 per cent.

  Pre-birth Care
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what payments are made to(a) doctors and (b) midwives for undertaking pre-birth care. [57595]

  Mr. Milburn
  Fees as set out in paragraph 1, Schedule 1 of the Statement of Fees and allowances are payable to general practitioners for the provision of maternity medical services.

  Basic salaries for midwives and hospital obstetricians already include payment for undertaking pre-birth care, as this is part of their normal duties.

  Nurses
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of nurses are employed in the National Health Service on a part-time basis; and if he will make a statement. [57863]

  Mr. Milburn
  The proportion of nurses directly employed by the National Health Service in England on a part-time basis (including those employed through a nursing 'bank') was 47 per cent. at September 1997. This is equivalent to 33 per cent. if part-time staff are counted in terms of full-time equivalents, for example where an employee working half the hours of a full-time employee is counted as 0.5.

  Palliative Care
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by former regional health authorities and NHS Executive Regions, the number of(a) palliative care in-patient beds and (b) day and respite care places per 100,000 population for each year since 1990. [58180]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of palliative care in-patient beds (and beds per 100,000) for each year from 1990 is shown in tables which are available in the Library. Information on the number of home care and day care services is available only for 1997 and 1998. This information is collected annually by the Hospice Information Service at St. Christopher's Hospice.

  Interpreters
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) demand for, and (b) cost of, interpreters employed on (i) a contract and (ii) a casual basis by East Kent hospitals and the East Kent Health Authority. [57548]
  84
  Mr. Milburn
  The demand for foreign language interpreters in East Kent has increased since the arrival of asylum seekers from Eastern Europe.

  The health authority has paid a full year cost of £19,000 for an asylum seekers nurse. In addition to this the Health Authority has paid £7,000 on interpreting services. Local hospitals also use on an ad-hoc basis and at no significant cost, a telephone service provided by an external organisation.

  Organophosphates
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research the Government have commissioned on the effects of organophosphates using human subjects; [57867]

  (2) what reports the Government routinely receive from independent research bodies relating to the effects of organosphosphates on human subjects. [57866]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publication PB 3814: "Official Group on OPs Report to Ministers" which gives details of all Government-funded research and development projects with a direct relevance to organophosphates. Copies are available in the Library.

  The Government do not routinely receive reports from independent research bodies relating to the effects of organosphosphates (OPs) on human subjects. However, as part of the approvals processes for products containing OPs, from time to time, data which have been obtained using human subjects may be submitted to the regulatory authorities by manufacturers. I also refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave him on 19 October 1998, Official Report, column 1057, which gave more information about the circumstances in which research data on human subjects may be required.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to modernise information technology in the NHS. [57740]

  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper "The new NHS—Modern, Dependable" made it clear that the National Health Service has to be underpinned by modern information technology. Together with leaders from the clinical professions, we launched our £1 billion strategy for achieving this on 24 September 1998. Entitled Information for Health, our strategy will support the many important actions that need to be taken between now and 2005. Copies of the strategy are available in the Library.

  Ear, Nose and Throat Services
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had regarding the proposed transfer of ear, nose and throat services from Cheltenham General Hospital to Gloucester Royal Hospital. [57884]

  Mr. Milburn
  Officials at the south and west regional office of the National Health Service Executive have had informal discussions with Gloucestershire Health Authority about the proposed transfer of ear, nose and
  85
  throat services from Cheltenham General Hospital to Gloucestershire Royal Hospital in the course of their normal performance management duties.

  Strokes
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amount of funding provided for research into strokes in the last five years for which figures are available.[58105]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government fund health and medical research in a number of ways:

  The Department funds research and development to support its work on policy development and evaluation in health and social care. The Department also manages the National Health Service research and development levy which is used to support research and development of relevance to the NHS both in NHS hospitals, general practice and other health care settings, and to fund the NHS research and development programme.

  In addition, the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry, funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the research base. The Scottish Office Department of Health (SO) also fund research.

  Central records show the following expenditure:

  Strokes

  £

  Year

  DH1

  MRC2

  SO

  1993–94

  3—

  n/a

  142,000

  1994–95

  3—

  2,086,000

  115,000

  1995–96

  3—

  2,207,000

  134,000

  1996–97

  3—

  2,560,000

  232,000

  1997–98

  3—

  43,319,000

  867,000

  1Further funding may be being provided by the Department of Health through the NHS R&D Levy detailed information about which is not held centrally.

  2The MRC also funds basic research including the study of molecules and cells, genetics and infections and immunity which will inform research in this area.

  3Approximately £6 million since 1994—It is not possible to give accurate annual spend. Projects include those in areas related to stroke.

  4Plus £2 million investment at Cambridge Cerebrovascular Centre

  Note:

  n/a indicates figures not available.

  Cancer
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amount of funding provided for research into(a) breast cancer, (b) childhood leukaemia, (c) cervical cancer, (d) prostate cancer, (e) colon cancer and (f) lung cancer for the last five years for which figures are available. [58104]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government fund health and medical research in a number of ways:

  The Department funds research and development to support its work on policy development and evaluation in health and social care. The Department also manages the National Health Service research and development levy which is used to support research and development of
  86
  relevance to the NHS both in NHS hospitals, general practice and other health care settings, and to fund the NHS research and development programme.

  In addition, the Medical Research Council, which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry, funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the research base. The Scottish Office Department of Health (SO) also fund research.

  Industry and medical research charities also make a substantial investment in cancer research.

  Central records show:

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Breast cancer

  DH2

  725

  888

  972

  953

  832

  MRC3

  1n/a

  3,641

  2,854

  3,098

  3,328

  SO

  111

  148

  306

  274

  179

  All leukaemia4

  DH2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  MRC

  1n/a

  2,925

  2,780

  2,384

  2,527

  Childhood leukaemia

  SO

  3

  0

  14

  15

  32

  Cervical cancer

  DH2

  99

  66

  0

  0

  0

  MRC3

  1n/a

  432

  445

  543

  460

  SO

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Prostate cancer

  DH2

  1n/a

  8

  69

  68

  29

  MRC3

  1n/a

  0

  0

  73

  18

  SO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colon cancer (Bowel cancer)

  DH2

  46

  37

  35

  209

  197

  MRC3

  1n/a

  623

  873

  1,207

  1,469

  SO

  85

  59

  64

  81

  100

  Lung cancer

  DH2

  100

  160

  171

  428

  187

  MRC3

  1n/a

  990

  718

  691

  691

  SO

  0

  12

  43

  35

  0

  1n/a indicates figures not available.

  2Further funding may be being provided by the Department of Health through the NHS R&D Levy—detailed information about which is not held centrally.

  3The MRC are also supporting 11 trials in the relevant cancers. The MRC also funds basic research including the study of molecules and cells, genetics and infections and immunity which will inform research in this area.

  4 It is not possible to disaggregate figures for childhood leukaemia.

  Notes:

  The fluctuation in levels of spend reflects the cycle of commissioning as projects start and finish.

  Dentists
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances a dentist can enrol on a course on(a) peer review and (b) clinical audit without first being given a dental vocational training number. [58091]

  Mr. Milburn
  Participation in peer review and clinical audit schemes is of most benefit to principal general dental practitioners. A dentist without a vocational training certificate cannot join a peer review and clinical audit groups or receive expenses payments for attending
  87
  their meetings. However, arrangements can be made for dentists seeking to acquire a vocational training certificate to sit in as an observer on a group and attend relevant study days in the local vocational training scheme without charge.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the dates on which future waiting list numbers will be published. [58272]

  Mr. Milburn
  The current pattern of publication of National Health Service waiting list statistics was set out in the 31 August 1998 "Statistical Press Notice on NHS Waiting List and Activity Figures". Monthly in-patient waiting lists statistics are published during the fifth full week after the month end, unless the month coincides with a quarter end when the figures are published a week later with quarterly National Health Service activity figures. The timetable for the next three months will be as follows:

  Figures relating to end of month

  Publication date

  September (plus activity for July to September quarter)

  Week commencing 9 November

  October

  Week commencing 30 November

  November

  Week commencing 4 January 1999

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what day in the current month the waiting list statistics will be published. [58518]

  Mr. Milburn
  September in-patient waiting list statistics for the National Health Service in England were published today, 9 November 1998.

  Health Authority Appeals
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the occasions when appeals against health authority proposals were upheld by his Department between 1979 and 1997; [58429]

  (2) how many appeals were made to his Department following proposals put forward by each health authority between 1979 and 1997. [58430]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his Department's policy is on the appointment of elected councillors to primary care group boards; [58358]

  (2) how many health authorities have indicated to his Department their intention to reserve places on primary care group boards for elected councillors; [58360]

  (3) what guidance he has issued to health authorities on the appointment of elected councillors to primary care group boards; [58359]

  (4) what guidance he has issued to local authorities regarding the nomination of elected councillors to serve on primary care group boards. [58357]
  88
  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 5 November 1998]Guidance (Local Authority Circular 1998/21) has been issued to local authorities regarding the nomination of elected councillors to serve on primary care group boards. Guidance (Health Service Circular 1998/139) has been issued to health authorities on the appointment of elected councillors to primary care group boards. The Guidance makes it clear that elected councillors may serve as lay members of Primary Care Groups. We are not aware of any health authorities indicating their intention to reserve places on primary care group boards for elected councillors.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the budget for managing primary care groups will be spent on allowances and expenses for board members. [58361]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 5 November 1998]The management costs of health authorities and their constituent primary care groups must be contained within management cost ceilings set for each health authority.

  It is for health authorities and their constituent primary care groups to agree what proportion of their management cost allocation will be available for each primary care group. The proportion of primary care group's management budget spent on board members' allowances and expenses will vary for each primary care group depending upon local circumstances, the constitution of the board and the level of delegated responsibility taken on by the primary care group.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 537–38, concerning local authority representation on primary care group boards, for what reasons he decided not to reserve a board place for an elected member of the relevant local authority. [58802]

  Mr. Milburn
  Primary Care Groups are concerned with the delivery of better local health services to their patients and how such services can be effectively integrated with social services. It is therefore important that at this operational level a local social services authorities officer should be the representative on the governing board of a Primary Care Group.

  Health authorities and local government authorities remain responsible for the strategic planning and delivery of these local care arrangements and it is at this level that we see local authority members as having an enhanced opportunity to influence the development and implementation of health care arrangements for their community.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 538, concerning primary care group boards, what plans he has to issue guidance to board members in dealing with potential conflicts of interest. [58801]

  Mr. Milburn
  Primary Care Groups, as committees of health authorities, are governed by existing guidance on corporate governance.

  Work-related Stress
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of
  89
  work-related stress in the NHS on levels of absenteeism; and what measures he is taking to reduce (a) work-related stress and (b) staff sickness. [57797]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 5 November 1998]Research has shown that National Health Service staff suffer substantially higher levels of stress than employees in the private sector and that this contributes to 40 per cent. of all sickness absence. The NHS Executive has issued guidance to all NHS trusts and health authorities on managing stress through its Health at Work in the NHS project and is piloting work based on this guidance at four trusts. The new strategic framework for managing Human Resources in the NHS is setting targets for reductions of sickness absence rates.

  Coal Burn (Pollution Effects)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the effect on rates of morbidity and mortality from cerebrovascular pulmonary and cardiac diseases of sustaining coal burn in the United Kingdom at present relative to continuing with change in the electricity generation mix towards gas-fired generation. [58707]

  Ms Jowell
  None. However, emissions from power stations will be taken into account as part of a review of the air quality strategy, which will be completed by the end of this year.

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 416, if he will publish the size of the waiting list at Mid Essex Hospital's NHS Trust calculated on the same basis as the figure provided in his answer. [58693]

  Mr. Milburn
  The total number of patients waiting at Mid Essex Hospital National Health Service Trust is 11,615 at September 1998.

  Internet Publishing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to require all task forces and equivalent bodies sponsored by his Department to publish their working papers and minutes on the Internet. [58773]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department is committed to encouraging greater openness of those public bodies which it sponsors, whenever this is practical or appropriate. Any decision to publish information on any of those bodies on the Internet will be taken on a case-by-case basis, in line with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information1.

  1 Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, Second Edition (1997), The Stationery Office Ltd.

  Care Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 538, concerning care home placements, what research he has commissioned to establish the scale of the problems. [58803]
  90
  Mr. Hutton
  No research has been commissioned specifically to look at this issue. Following the passage of the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1998 we are unaware of any major problems in this area.

  Registration and Inspection
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health care establishments and services that are not covered by a regulation and inspection regime(a) currently and (b) under proposals made by his Department. [58775]

  Mr. Hutton
  Statistics on unregistered health care establishments are not collected centrally. Currently, independent sector hospitals, clinics and nursing homes are required to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Partners in Europe
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the schools pack Partners in Europe; what feedback he has received from schools and pupils; how he intends to monitor the future success of the pack in schools; and if he will make a statement. [58747]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Partners in Europe pack for schools was distributed in January 1998 to all schools in the United Kingdom. No formal assessment of the impact of the pack has been made nor is any planned, as its use in schools is voluntary.

  The Partners in Europe information and resource pack for schools was produced in response to requests from teachers to update materials that were already in use in the classroom. The pack takes account of existing work in schools. It was produced in conjunction with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges.

  New Deal (Substitution)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the Government's evaluation of the New Deal for Young People will take into account the effects of substitution, dead-weight and displacement. [58876]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Yes: we are evaluating New Deal very thoroughly: that evaluation will take account of substitution, dead-weight and displacement. Details of the monitoring and evaluation of New Deal are contained in an article in the November issue of Labour Market Trends which has been placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pension Incomes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 547–48, on pension incomes, if

  91
  he will provide corresponding figures based on income excluding income from capital; and if he will provide a more detailed breakdown of the results for those below £70 per week. [58881]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  Pensioner benefit units disqualified from the proposed minimum income guarantee because of excess capital but who have incomes below Income Support levels, excluding income from capital, by band of income

  Income

  Pensioners

  Up to £49.99

  250,000

  £50 to £59.99

  150,000

  £60 to £69.99

  220,000

  £70 and over

  180,000

  Total

  600,000

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and are almost certainly subject to a degree of error; the true figures could be higher or lower than those given.

  2. This estimate should be treated with some caution as it is based on small sample sizes.

  3. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 cases.

  4. Sample sizes are too small to give a breakdown below £49.99.

  5. The estimates of income used here exclude income from savings and 'tariff income'. They also exclude any pensioners in full time work.

  6. A pensioner, for income support purposes, is a single person aged 60 or over, or a couple (married or living as married) where at least one of them is aged 60 or over.

  7. Of the total of 600,000, around 55 per cent. (340,000) have savings of over £20,000 and of these, approximately 190,000 have savings of more than £50,000.

  Estimated public expenditure effects of each of the proposed reforms over this period and in the long term

  £ million

  Measure

  1999–2000and 2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Long term

  Reform of Incapacity Benefit

  0

  -90

  -155

  -205

  -650

  -700

  Reform of Severe Disablement Allowance

  0

  -10

  -20

  -35

  -100

  -150

  Disability Income Guarantee

  0

  +60

  +65

  +70

  +70

  Disability Living Allowance: higher rate mobility component for 3 and 4 year olds

  0

  +15

  +15

  +15

  +15

  Notes:

  1. There are no effects in the first two years because the measures are not planned for implementation before 2001.

  2. There will also be administration costs arising from the implementation of these changes, the reform of the All Work Test, and measures to take forward a more active modem service for claimants of Incapacity Benefit, Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expect the final investigations under the Benefit Integrity Project to commence. [58972]

  Mr. Timms
  In his statement of 28 October 1998,Official Report, columns 339–55, and the exchanges which followed discussing the next phase of the Government's plans to reform the welfare state, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that we will introduce a modern, active approach to Disability

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the level of an adequate retirement income for the purposes of the stakeholders pension. [58828]

  Mr. Denham
  It is for individuals to decide for themselves what would be an adequate retirement income.

  At present many people who cannot join an occupational pension scheme also find personal pensions are too expensive or give poor value for money. The Government will set out their proposals in the Green Paper.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Government plans to introduce legislation for the implementation of the stakeholder pension. [58827]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to creating a framework for stakeholder pension schemes and will bring forward any necessary legislation at the appropriate time. Our proposals will be set out in the Pensions Green Paper.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 October 1998,Official Report, columns 339–42, if he will list the estimated public expenditure effects of each of his proposed reforms to disability benefits in each of the next five years, and for each the eventual effect once the measures are fully implemented. [58597]

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

  Living Allowance which puts greater emphasis on getting claims right first time and which allows for regular reviews of claims in payment. He also emphasised that there would be no return to the situation that existed before April 1997, when nothing was being done to check that people were getting the right benefit.

  The Benefit Integrity Project will be replaced by a new system which we will ensure is fair as well as sensitive. The characteristics of the new system and when and how it will be introduced will be the subject of future

  93
  discussions with the Disability Benefit Forum. We are keen to introduce this change as soon as possible but it is most important that we get it right.

  War Disablement Pensions
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) civilian internees and (b) former prisoners of war are in receipt of a war disablement pension relating to the Second World War. [58475]

  Mr. Timms
  At 31 October 1998 there were 254,209 War Disablement Pensions in payment. Statistics on the number of former civilian internees and prisoners of war receiving payment are not kept and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Security Benefits Expenditure 1978–79 to 2001–02

  1978–79

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (Cash)£ million

  FIS/Family Credit

  24

  425

  494

  626

  929

  1,208

  1,441

  Disability Working Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  7

  11

  WFTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DPTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Benefit Expenditure less DWA/FC/WFTC/DPTC

  15,681

  49,167

  52,832

  61,614

  69,839

  76,292

  78,439

  (Real terms–1997 to 1998 prices) £ million

  FIS/Family Credit

  75

  570

  614

  733

  —

  —

  1,568

  Disability Working Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  8

  12

  WFTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DPTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Benefit Expenditure less DWA/FC/WFTC/DPTC

  49,176

  65,860

  65,655

  72,114

  79,135

  84,210

  85,342

  (As % of GDP) Percentage

  FIS/Family Credit

  0.01

  0.08

  0.09

  0.11

  0.15

  0.19

  0.21

  Disability Working Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  WFTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DPTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Benefit Expenditure less DWA/FC/WFTC/DPTC as % of

  9.1

  9.4

  9.4

  10.4

  11.4

  11.8

  11.4

  Social Security Benefits Expenditure 1995–96 to 2001–02

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  (Cash) £ million

  FIS/Family Credit

  1,739

  2,084

  2,326

  2,498

  1,933

  —

  —

  Disability Working Allowance

  19

  34

  42

  51

  45

  —

  —

  WFTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  991

  4,042

  4,446

  DPTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  100

  116

  Total Benefit Expenditure less DWA/FC/WFTC/DPTC/

  81,547

  84,702

  85,686

  88,218

  93,512

  97,174

  102,274

  (Real terms–1997 to 1998 prices) £million

  FIS/Family Credit

  1,840

  2,138

  2,326

  2,429

  1,832

  —

  —

  Disability Working Allowance

  20

  35

  42

  49

  43

  —

  —

  WFTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  939

  3,738

  4,011

  DPTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  92

  104

  Total Benefit Expenditure less DWA/FC/WFTC/DPTC

  86,259

  86,902

  85,686

  85,778

  88,644

  89,868

  92,278

  (As % of GDP) Percentage

  FIS/Family Credit

  0.24

  0.27

  0.29

  0.29

  0.22

  —

  —

  Disability Working Allowance

  0.00

  0.00

  0.01

  0.01

  0.01

  —

  —

  WFTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.11

  0.43

  0.45

  DPTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.00

  0.01

  0.01

  Total Benefit Expenditure less DWA/FC/WFTC/DPTC as % of

  11.3

  11.1

  10.5

  10.3

  10.6

  10.5

  10.4

  Notes:

  1. The Social Security Expenditure is purely DSS Benefit Expenditure and excludes Local Authority, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Welsh Office on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and its predecessors. Forecasts are consistent with the Pre Budget Report.

  2. Consistent data for years from 1979–80 to 1988–89 are not readily available.

  3. FIS—Family Income Supplement;

  WFTC—Working Family Tax Credit

  DPTC-Disabled Persons Tax Credit

  DWA-Disability Working Allowance

  FC-Family Credit

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total level of expenditure or planned expenditure(a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms and (c) as a share of GDP on (i) social security benefits excluding family credit and disability working allowance, (ii) family credit, (iii) disability working allowance, (iv) the working families tax credit, including tax expenditure and (v) the disabled persons tax credit, including tax expenditures in each year from 1978–79 to the end of the planning period. [57148]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]The information is not available in the format requested. I have set out in the tables the information held by the Department.

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his private office, as at 1 October 1997; [56825]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997. [56823]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Answers my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave him on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 666–70.

  Estimated numbers of benefit units in receipt of Income Support, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999 after the introduction of all proposed policy changes for 1999–2000

  Thousand

  Family type

  Income Support

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Working Families Tax Credit

  Single (no children)

  2,900

  2,350

  2,690

  0

  Couple (no children)

  490

  640

  1,090

  0

  Lone Parent (1 child)

  470

  440

  470

  300

  Lone Parent (2 children)

  350

  290

  330

  160

  Lone Parent (3 or more children)

  200

  180

  200

  50

  Couple (1 child)

  130

  140

  160

  200

  Couple (2 children)

  130

  130

  140

  290

  Couple (3 or more children)

  180

  130

  150

  210

  Total benefit units with at least 1 person receiving benefit

  4,850

  4,320

  5,230

  1,200

  Total number of adults in benefit units where at least 1 person receiving benefit

  5,770

  5,360

  6,760

  1,890

  Total number of children in benefit units where at least 1 person receiving benefit

  2,900

  2,550

  2,790

  2,290

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey uprated to 1999–2000 prices, benefit levels and caseloads.

  2. Total caseloads of numbers in receipt of benefits are consistent with the Department's 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review forecasts.

  3. As estimates are based on survey data and then calibrated to forecasts based mainly on administrative data, the totals shown for each family type may differ from the true total.

  4. The total number of adults represents those aged 16 and over, except for those 16 to 18 year olds in full time education. The total number of children represents those aged under 16 or 16 to 18 year olds in full time education.

  Internet Publishing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to require all task forces and equivalent bodies sponsored by his Department to publish their working papers and minutes on the Internet. [58772]

  Mr. Timms
  Working papers and minutes of task forces sponsored by this Department are internal policy documents and as such we have no plans to request their publication. When reports or documents are subsequently published or made available by conventional means, publication via the Internet is automatically considered.

  Single Gateway
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what funding has been allocated for nationwide implementation of the single gateway following the completion of the pilot scheme. [58986]

  Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate is provided by his Department's Policy Simulation Model of the number of(a) adults and (b) children in benefit units receiving either means-tested benefits or the working families tax credit (i) in 1997–98, (ii) in 1998–99, (iii) in April 1999 after the introduction of the pensioner income guarantee, (iv) in October 1999 after the introduction of the WFTC and (v) once the changes to disability and incapacity benefits announced on 28 October have been fully implemented. [58598]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table. Benefit units may be in receipt of more than one of the benefits shown. Consequently, the sum of the totals will not represent an overall estimate for adults and children on income-related benefits.

  Angela Eagle
  We will use the single gateway pilots to find out what the costs are of operating such a service. We will then consider national implementation in light of these findings.

  Pensions (Age Additions)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 547, and of 10 December 1997, Official Report, column 603, on age additions, for what reason the means-tested benefit offset resulting from a £5 age addition is estimated to be lower in 1999–2000 than it would have been in 1997–98. [58767]

  Mr. Denham
  The answers were based on different models (a full suite of models for 1999–2000 is not yet available) and calibrated to different forecasts. Both answers provided the best estimate available at the time.

  Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes there have been in the speed with which settlements of personal injury cases are made since the passage of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997. [58410]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the working of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997. [58413]

  Mr. Timms
  Since the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act came into force on 6 October 1998, we have received a total of 168 representations about the working of the scheme. The majority concern individuals making representations about the way the scheme has affected their compensation payment.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have(a) applied for and (b) been awarded incapacity benefit in each year since April 1995 in (i) Staffordshire and (ii) the West Midlands. [58275]
  98
  Mr. Timms
  The administration of Incapacity Benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 5 November 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the number of people in the Staffordshire and West Midlands areas who have applied for, and been awarded, Incapacity Benefit (IB) in each year since April 1995.
  Information on the number of IB claims received is only available by each of the Agency's district, which do not match county boundaries. To obtain this information in the format requested would involve disproportionate cost.
  Information on the number of awards of IB broken down by geographical areas has only been available since November 1996. Information from that date is shown in the attached table.
  hope the information is helpful.

  Incapacity benefit awards

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  West Midlands

  24,516

  36,945

  5,053

  Staffordshire

  9,091

  15,809

  2,318

  Notes:

  Figures provided by Analytical Services Division.

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

TREASURY

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997; [56756]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown in numerical and percentage terms of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his private office as at 1 October 1997. [56758]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to him by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 669–70.

  Fixed-rate Preference Shares
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the repeal of section 255 of the Taxes Act 1988 on companies which have in issue fixed-rate preference shares created before 6 April 1973. [58349]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The effect of the repeal of section 255 of the Taxes Act 1988 was considered as part of the general assessment of the changes flowing from the Government's decision to abolish Advance Corporation Tax from 6 April 1999.

  The Government took into account the cumulative effect of twenty-five years' inflation on the value of any remaining shares to which section 255 applies, and subsequent changes, including those effective from 6 April 1999, to the taxation of companies and shareholders which mean that it no longer works as intended.

  Aviation Fuel
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue which would be raised if aviation fuel sold in the UK were subject to VAT at(a) 8 per cent. and (b) 17.5 per cent.. [58500]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Customs and Excise have no estimate.

  Prudential
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Prudential over the disposal of its surplus funds; what sums are involved; and if he will make a statement. [58721]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Prudential announced in 1996 that it was opening discussions with DTI on the attribution of the inherited estate in its long-term business fund. These discussions are continuing with the Treasury, which took over responsibility for insurance regulation from DTI in January 1998. The total amount involved was estimated by an official of the Prudential when the company gave evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on 2 July 1998, to be between £6 billion and £8 billion.

  It is the Treasury's policy not to comment publicly on discussions which it may have with companies in its regulatory capacity, in the interests of effective regulation and commercial confidentiality. But the Government's position on inherited estates was set out in a statement by the then Minister for Corporate Affairs in February 1995,
  100
  and reaffirmed by the then Economic Secretary in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) on 24 July 1998, Official Report, columns 750–52. The Treasury will deal with the Prudential's proposals, and any other proposals for attribution of the inherited estates of life offices, in accordance with the principles set out in those statements. The Treasury will place particular emphasis on protecting the interests of policyholders.

  Charity Taxation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current position with regard to the review of charity taxation policy; and if he will make a statement. [58543]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 46.

  Landfill Tax (Salt Extraction Industry)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce measures to reduce the impact of the landfill tax on the salt extraction industry; and if he will make a statement. [58581]

  Ms Hewitt
  The landfill tax applies to disposals of waste at sites that are subject to waste management licensing. The salt extraction industry currently pays the lower rate of landfill tax on the liquid waste that it deposits in salt cavities. It pays only on the solids content of the waste. Customs carried out a review of the tax, involving other Government Departments with waste policy interests, which reported in March 1998. The review considered the case for certain exemptions from the tax, including for salt extraction industry wastes, but concluded that no further exemptions should be granted. I understand that the industry has made representations that its waste disposal operations should be exempt from waste management licensing. The provision of exemptions is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I understand that his officials are examine the industry's case.

  Tax Burden
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 331–34, on taxation, when he intends to publish an updated version of estimates of the tax burden. [58329]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to table 2.8 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1998.

  Withholding Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to veto the EU proposal regarding the introduction of a 20 per cent. withholding tax on interest payments paid to non-UK resident recipients residing in the EU. [58792]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are in favour of effective international action against tax evasion, and we are taking an active part in discussions on the draft
  101
  Directive. We will not agree to any course of action which would seriously damage the UK and other European financial markets.

  Growth Forecast
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will set out the basis for revising the growth forecast for 2001–02; [58795]

  (2) if he will set out the basis for revising upwards the growth forecast for 2000–01; [58794]

  (3) if he will set out the basis for forecasting growth of 2½ per cent. in 2000. [58798]

  Ms Hewitt
  Full details of the Treasury's new forecasts were set out in the Pre-Budget Report, published on 3 November.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the effect of his revised growth forecast on unemployment in 1999. [58796]

  Ms Hewitt
  The economy continues to expand and create new jobs. Employment has risen by 400,000 since the election and unemployment has fallen by 280,000. With regard to future employment prospects, the Government have been putting in place a wide range of measures to address structural problems in the labour market. The key is to ensure that people are well trained and able to adapt to the changing circumstances of a modern dynamic economy.

  Resource Accounts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the dry-run resource account for 1998–99 will be published. [58797]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's intention is to implement Resource Accounting and Budgeting fully from 2001–02. In advance of full implementation, departments are producing dry-run resource accounts over the next three years when, subject to Parliamentary approval, resource accounts will replace Appropriation Accounts.

  For 1998–99, all departments will produce dry-run resource accounts which will be subject to a dry-run audit by the National Audit Office. There is no intention to publish these formally, although they may be made available to departmental Select Committees.

  Subject to the result of the NAO dry-run audit, accounts directions will be issued to departments in respect of the financial year 1999–2000. Two further full sets of dry-run resource accounts will then be produced by all departments in respect of the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. These dry-run accounts will be published, along with a report by the Controller and Auditor General, following audit by the NAO.

  Petrol Smuggling
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide estimates of the cost to the Exchequer in lost revenue of petrol smuggling from the continent for the last year for which figures are available. [58519]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Customs and Excise have no estimates for the revenue lost to the Exchequer through this activity.
  102
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of revenue was lost in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland and (c) North West Region through petrol smuggling in the last year for which figures are available. [58520]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Customs and Excise have no estimates for the revenue lost to the Exchequer through such activity in these regions.

  Imported Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to the Exchequer in lost revenue from the parallel import of motor vehicles from Ireland to the UK in the last year for which figures are available. [58521]

  Ms Hewitt
  No figures on the revenue loss from the parallel import of motor vehicles from Ireland to the UK are available.

  VAT (Hospitals)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rules governing reclamation of VAT by hospitals. [58522]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The business activities of hospitals are governed by the same VAT rules as those for other organisations. Private care provided by all hospitals is exempt from VAT, which means that hospitals cannot recover any VAT associated with those supplies. However, when providing free health care, the funding NHS hospitals receive from the Department of Health takes account of VAT. In addition, when NHS Trusts contract out services to the private sector, the tax they incur can in most instances be reclaimed.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if all lower rate and higher rate tax payers will receive the full value of his proposed 10 pence starting rate of tax. [58600]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government will introduce a 10 pence starting rate of income tax when it is economically right to do so. The new rate will be incorporated in the income tax system in the way that best meets the Government's objectives of improving work incentives and promoting a fair and efficient tax system.

  Taxation (Estimates)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of which taxes Treasury ministers receive estimates from the Inland Revenue of monthly receipts. [58601]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 6 June 1997,Official Report, column 277.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the current rates of vehicle excise duty, or equivalent, for (i) a 1600cc engined car, (ii) a goods vehicle with a gross or train weight of between 3,500 and 7,500 kg, (iii) a three axle tractor unit with a two or more
  103
  axle semi-trailer with a weight of 38,000 kg and (iv) a single-deck bus with capacity for 50 passengers in each of the countries of the EU. [58706]

  Ms Hewitt
  The current rates of UK Vehicle Excise Duty for the vehicles quoted are as follows:

  (i) 1600cc car—£150 per annum.

  (ii) A goods vehicle with a gross or train weight of between 3,500kgs and 7,500kgs pays £160 per annum.

  (iii) A three axle tractor unit with a two or more axle semi-trailer with a weight of 38,000kgs pays £2,820 per annum.

  (iv) A single deck bus with seating capacity for 50 passengers pays £320 per annum.

  Vehicle Excise Duty in other member states is based on a variety of different factors such as types of fuel, power output, weight and noise. It is, thus, impossible to make direct comparisons across the EU member states.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the yield will be in 1998–99 from (i) vehicle excise duty, (ii) fuel duty on petrol and diesel and (iii) VAT on sales of petrol and diesel. [58704]

  Ms Hewitt
  Table B10 of the November 1998 Pre-Budget Report forecasts that the yield in 1998–99 from vehicle excise duty will be £4.7bn and the yield from fuel duty on petrol and diesel will be £21.8bn. These figures do not include VAT receipts, which are not disaggregated to sales of petrol and diesel.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rules will govern the decision as to which employer delivers the working families tax credit where an employee works for more than one employer. [58978]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This is one of the issues currently under discussion between Inland Revenue officials and employer representatives and decisions will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures were taken to prevent fraud from collusion between employers and employees in designing the working families tax credit. [58977]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government recognise that most employers carry out their obligations honestly and properly. Working Families Tax Credit will build on Family Credit, but it will be administered by the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue has considerable experience of checking the operation of PAYE. It will use its expertise to detect and prevent collusive fraud in Working Families Tax Credit.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect the operation of the working families tax credit will have on the cashflow of small businesses with low-paid employees. [58974]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue officials have been consulting employer representatives, including representatives of small businesses. The effect on cash flow is one of the issues they are examining.

  Smaller businesses will benefit from the proposals that, while employer payments of WFTC will normally be set off against PAYE tax and NICs deducted, employers will
  104
  be able to apply to the Inland Revenue for funding if they have insufficient PAYE tax and NICs out of which to pay the tax credit.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his private office, as at 1 October 1997; [56798]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997. [56796]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 666–70.

  Food Production
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings he has had with the supermarket industry to discuss its influence on the food production policies of farmers; and if he will make a statement. [57304]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met representatives of the British Retail Consortium on 3 November. I was present, as was our noble Friend Lord Donoughue.

  Meat Inspection Charges
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which other EU countries meat inspection charges are levied on the industry; and at what rate. [57724]

  Mr. Rooker
  Council Directive 85/73/EEC (as amended) on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls requires Member States to recover the costs of those hygiene inspections conducted at licensed fresh meat premises in accordance with harmonised EC meat hygiene rules. The Directive sets minimum standard charges (in ECU) applicable in all Member States for hygiene inspections of red meat, poultry meat and game meat dependent on the species and size of animals being slaughtered. Subject to meeting specified criteria such as the efficiency of operations at individual plants, the Directive provides for the standard charge to be abated by up to 55 per cent. Conversely, where the actual cost of inspection exceeds the standard charge, the Directive provides for actual costs to be charged. Similar principles apply in respect of charges for cutting plants.

  The actual level of hygiene inspection charges levied on individual meat plants is set by the competent authority in each Member State within the framework laid down by the Directive. Information about the level of such charges in other Member States is not yet available. I am seeking such information and will write to the hon. Member, although this may take some time.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to require manufacturers to inform consumers when the content of food has been genetically modified. [57953]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is already a requirement of the EC Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulation (258/97) and EC Regulation 1139/98 concerning the compulsory labelling of foodstuffs produced from genetically modified soya and maize that foods are clearly labelled to show when they contain genetically modified materials.

  Maladministration Compensation
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that his Department's response to the instructions in the report of 28 August 1998 by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration with regard to compensation for Mr. D. J. Kennard conforms to Government Accounting Standards 3/97 amendment 7, chapter 36.3. [57970]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already paid to Mr. and Mrs. D. J. Kennard the compensation recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (in his report of 28 August 1998) relating to delays in the administration of the 1993 sheep quota national reserve. The payment was consistent with Treasury Guidance on financial redress.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy for compensating people whom the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration concludes have suffered an injustice as a result of maladministration by his Department. [57973]

  Mr. Rooker
  Where the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration concludes that an individual has suffered an injustice as a result of maladministration by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Ministry normally accepts and implements any recommendations for redress made by the Ombudsman, having regard to central financial guidance.

  Horses (Strangles)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations his Department has carried out into the recent trend in the number of cases of strangles in UK-based horses; and if he will make strangles a notifiable disease. [57874]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am aware that the horse industry is concerned over the prevalence of strangles reported in horses in the UK and elsewhere. However, this is a matter for the industry which is best placed to control it, and Codes of Practice published by the Horserace Betting Levy Board already incorporate guidelines on strangles. I have no plans to make strangles a notifiable disease.

  Honey Bees
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the 106
  danger to the native honey bee arising from imported honey bees; and if he will make it his policy to ban the importation of honey bees. [58221]

  Mr. Rooker
  Imports of honey bees are currently allowed from other Member States provided they are accompanied by a health certificate. Imports of Queen bees with attendant workers are also permitted from Australia, Fiji, Hawaii, and New Zealand under licence and with a health certificate.

  I have no evidence that such legal importation of honey bees poses any threat and therefore have no grounds upon which to base a ban. Our technical advisers at the National Bee Unit are currently undertaking a risk assessment to help us determine whether we should also allow imports of bee packages from New Zealand. No decisions will be taken until we have that assessment.

  Livestock Producers
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance his Department is currently giving to livestock producers; and if he will make a statement. [58274]

  Mr. Rooker
  Government action to assist livestock producers is constrained by the rules of the CAP. Nevertheless, we have successfully lobbied the Commission to grant Private Storage Aid in the UK in both the pigmeat and sheepmeat sectors. In addition, following representation from the UK and others, the Commission agreed on two occasions, most recently on 15 October, to increase payments of export refunds on pigmeat.

  With regard to the beef sector, we have agreed with other Member States that advance payments under the 1998 Beef Special Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Schemes will be increased from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. This means bringing forward some £100 million of payments to the industry which would otherwise not have been available until the spring of next year.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the estimated cost to his Department of the payment of grants to farmers who were unable to move cattle as a result of the radioactive fall-out from the Chernobyl accident. [58658]

  Mr. Rooker
  The only Food Protection Orders which came into force as a result of the Chernobyl accident concerned the movement, sale and slaughter of sheep. There were no Food Protection Orders on the movement of cattle. Therefore no payments of grants to cattle farmers were necessary.

  Imported Meat
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to enforce United Kingdom meat production standards on non-EU imported meat. [58568]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 431.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what recommendations have been made to his Department by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee following the finding of abnormal prion protein in the appendix of a patient in Torbay; what steps he has taken to implement the recommendations; and if he will make a statement; [57202]

  (2) what meetings his Department has had, with which bodies, following the finding of abnormal prion protein in the appendix of a patient in Torbay; and if he will make a statement. [57128]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 532–36.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings his Department has had with representatives of(a) the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and (b) the Central Veterinary
  108
  Laboratory following the finding of abnormal prion protein in the appendix of a patient in Torbay; and if he will make a statement. [57201]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 532–36. A member of the staff of the Central Veterinary Laboratory is a technical adviser at SEAC meetings.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he estimates the European Union beef ban will be lifted. [56458]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission's proposal for a Date-based Export Scheme (DBES) is currently being considered by the Standing Veterinary Committee. The DBES would permit the resumption of exports of deboned beef from UK cattle born after 1 August 1996. We wish the ban to be lifted as quickly as possible and hope the scheme will be adopted by the end of the year. The export of deboned beef from certified herds in Northern Ireland has been permitted since 1 June.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.
The Earl of Dunmore—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Royal Assent
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Competition Act

Human Rights Act.

Supermarkets: Overpricing
2.37 p.m.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to prevent any overpricing of goods by the major supermarket chains.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this Government do not want to see consumers paying high prices as a result of anti-competitive practices. The Director-General of Fair Trading has powers to investigate if prices appear to be the result of anti-competitive behaviour. He is currently investigating the profitability of the major supermarket chains in the grocery sector.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which is not entirely unexpected. However, is he aware, first, that one of the national newspapers has for some time been running a significant campaign demonstrating over-charging by the major supermarkets? Secondly, is he aware that the Office of Fair Trading has already produced a document entitled The welfare consequences of the exercise of buyer power, which deals with a number of these issues? Thirdly, is he aware that there are strong reports in the press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has established a "supermarket hotline"—the equivalent of the cones hotline, although, it is to be hoped, more successful than that proved to be—to examine these issues?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in accordance with the conventions of the House, I shall answer the first two questions. I assume that the first refers to the Daily Express, which has indeed been carrying out a campaign. When I last looked at the Daily
500
Express, its method of estimating differences in prices between the United Kingdom and other European countries was to send five families out to different countries and different supermarkets. As a survey researcher, I do not think much of that as methodology.
As to the noble Lord's second question, yes, I am aware of the pamphlet referred to; I have read it. It does not, of course, represent the official views of the Office of Fair Trading.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that to a farmer anti-competitive pricing would be like a red rag to a bull? Is he aware that there is much feeling among the hard-pressed farming community that supermarkets have not lowered their prices compared to those that farmers receive for their goods?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, I am very much aware of that. The noble Baroness may be interested to know that the Minister of Agriculture saw the heads of the most important supermarket grocery chains last week, together with the British Retail Consortium. He impressed upon them the need for a fair differential between prices at the farm gate, so to speak, and on the shelf. As a result, some changes in supermarket practices, particularly in the sale and import of pig meat, were made.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House some indication as to what are the criteria that enable a distinction to be made between legitimate competitive pricing and over-pricing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no single criterion which can be laid down. That is why the Office of Fair Trading is carrying out an investigation now and why it has carried out comparable investigations on a number of occasions in the past. One of the difficulties is that supermarkets are sometimes accused of anti-competitive pricing, in the sense of charging too much; but then they are sometimes accused of predatory pricing compared with the small shops, in which case they are accused of charging too little.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a fairer comparison of supermarket pricing policy would be to use the criterion of return on capital employed? It would show that British supermarkets have a return of 14 per cent., 7 per cent. less than food retailers on the Continent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware that the British Retail Consortium has argued that return on capital employed is a fairer judgment than net margins. I read the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, referred. It dealt with the increase in net margins for food retailers and shows an increase in net margins. I hear what my noble friend says about return on capital employed—and I do not contest what he said—but there is here a conflict which is not easy to resolve.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the reports in the Daily Express which compare prices here with those in the United States suggest that theirs are lower because supermarkets in the United States are much more price-driven than those in this country and the rest of Europe? However, the standards and quality are lower and there is far less service.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is not my personal experience. In terms of quality and presentation, some of the best shops and supermarkets I have ever been to have been in the United States.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, an acquaintance of mine recently took a sheep to market and sold it for £28. He then went immediately to the nearest supermarket in an attempt to buy, so to speak, the same sheep back. He found that it cost him £128. I am well aware that there are many steps between those two prices, but does the Minister feel that that kind of increase is reasonable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not comment on the price in an individual case about which I know no more than the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has told me. However, he will recognise that between the price at the farm gate or the market—that is the price the farmer receives—and the price the consumer ultimately pays there is a whole range of costs for distribution, marketing, preparation and so on which affect the final price. That is what the Office of Fair Trading is investigating.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in an individual case are borne out by much wider figures for the lamb industry generally?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not deny that. I am sure that many noble Lords, particularly those in this House, could produce circumstantial evidence. I have just been guilty of giving circumstantial evidence on supermarket quality in the United States, so I cannot complain.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that comparisons with Europe will be made easier once we go into the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that would certainly remove one of the difficulties in making comparisons between supermarket pricing in the 11 countries which are going into the euro. We are not going into it on 1st January 1999, but my noble friend is right: some comparisons will be simpler.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that standards and quality in my American wife's home state of Iowa are excellent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful that we now have two items of circumstantial evidence instead of one.

Freedom of Information
2.46 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst Lord Hardinge of Penshurst asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the delay in publishing their draft Bill on freedom of information (which was to have been published in September), what is the current position on this legislation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government remain committed to a freedom of information Act. The Home Secretary intends to publish a draft Bill early in the new year for pre-legislative scrutiny.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. We await the Bill with some impatience. Can he assure us that when it is published, the draft Bill will be based closely on the Government's good White Paper so forcefully endorsed by the Prime Minister in the preface and elsewhere? That is particularly as regards the crucial issue of the test for non-disclosure: substantial harm.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can confirm that the legislation will be based on the principles of the White Paper. The proposals will lead to a significant increase in openness, ending unnecessary secrecy and bearing due regard to the substantial harm test.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister able to assure the House that there will be no weakening of the principles in the White Paper? In particular, can he assure the House that the powers of the information commissioner, in dealing with appeals, will be as strong as indicated in the White Paper and that the exceptions will be only those genuinely necessary in the public interest?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I indicated, we propose to work on the information published in the White Paper. Since that publication, the Home Office has a good record. For example, we have released 150 previously withheld files, including the conviction of the Wheeldon family for the attempted poisoning of Lloyd George in 1916; Lord Alfred Douglas's matter in the libel of Mr. Churchill in 1924; and Radclyffe Hall's matter going back to 1928. So, by and large, I believe that we have done quite well.

Welsh Farm Incomes
2.48 p.m.
Lord Geraint Lord Geraint asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the present state of the agricultural industry in Wales.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the current problems in farming bring into sharp focus the need for Welsh agriculture to adapt. The Government's aim is to

503
create a viable future for agriculture and to encourage sustainable economic growth in rural Wales. I fully recognise the real difficulties facing the farming community in Wales.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that farm incomes in Wales have dropped by nearly 100 per cent. since his Government took office. Ewes and lambs have been sold this autumn for £1 each or less. Can the Minister give an assurance to the farmers of Wales that the Government will re-coup them for their losses?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone—let alone the noble Lord, Lord Geraint—would expect me to offer a blank cheque, or even an open postal order. However, we regard these matters with great seriousness. As I have said on previous occasions and happily repeat, it is not simply a question of economics because the farming community in Wales is extremely important socially, culturally and traditionally. It is fair to say that the previous Secretary of State for Wales carried out extremely important work in being open at all times to speak to all representatives of the agricultural industry in Wales. His successor, Mr. Michael, is having a meeting tomorrow with the Farmers' Union of Wales, the NFU Wales, and the Wales branch of the Country Landowners' Association.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord expresses sentiments with which one can entirely agree. Is he aware, however, that although the Government have expressed such sentiments, nothing has been done to help the farming community? There has been talk, but nothing more. It has been going on for months and months while the crisis has deepened. If he is concerned, as I know he is personally, about the social and cultural effects of the crisis in Wales, is it not time that we had some real action from the Government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the time of real action is in the past. Specified risk material legislation was amended with effect from 8th October to allow farmers to resume exports of unsplit sheep carcasses to listed cutting plants in France. We have secured private storage aid for the sheepmeat sector with effect from 19th October this year. The sheep annual premium value will rise significantly this year. We are presently listening to arguments about the closing of the calf processing aid scheme. So it is uncharacteristically unfair for the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to say that nothing has been done.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I never remember an occasion in my lifetime when the condition of the hill farmers in Wales was worse. Can the Minister tell us what he means by saying that they should now adapt?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's first proposition is a fair one. The fact is that it is necessary for all engaged in industry in this country to adapt to changing conditions. There are many
504
schemes open; for instance, in terms of Tir Gofal, the development of agri-tourism and the question of changing the emphasis of particular farms. The fact is that there is no industry, in what is an increasingly competitive market, that can always say, "We shall never change".
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the Minister knows of my personal respect for him, but does he not recognise that farmers in Wales have already adapted? The extent of support for, and take-up of, agri-environment schemes such as Tir Gofal which he mentioned among farmers is an indication of their willingness to adapt. Does he not recognise that adapting to the current crisis is made more difficult by the substantial drop in end-price support? Will he ensure that in terms of agri-environment schemes such as Tir Gofal there will be adequate income return for the loss of end-price support at the market? Will he also look at the issue of the renationalisation of the CAP in terms of Agenda 2000? If there is to be renationalisation, should not support be delivered by the National Assembly for Wales?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree that to alter one's farming practices will not be an immediate answer. I was saying in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that people must be astute to the fact that things cannot remain as they are. However, it is a fact that the Government have already made available £85 million of agri-monetary compensation. In Wales alone farmers have benefited by more than £12 million from the aid package: £8.3 million for suckler cows and £3.8 million for sheep producers. That is not a perfect answer but it is worth bearing in mind that it means almost £2,000 extra on average for most cattle and sheep farmers in the Welsh uplands.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the claims in the Welsh edition of today's Daily Post that the telephones of farmers' leaders in North Wales are being tapped? Is that true; and if so, what is the justification for it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, first, I have not read the Liverpool Daily Post. Secondly, I do not know whether it is true. Thirdly, if there is any evidence at all of unlawful activity, it should be reported immediately to the police.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as from today, Welsh farmers will be encouraged that he is handling their affairs?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Well, my Lords, I do not want to look even a gift horse in the mouth, so I am definitely encouraged.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there not in the mind of government an emergency package to

505
help the perilous state of agriculture, or is that a rumour? If it exists, can the noble Lord say something about it, because something more surely needs to be done?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, I can confirm that agriculture Ministers are considering urgently the representations that have been received about the difficult state of the industry and the requests for financial support. I recognise that there are serious difficulties. I can only ask your Lordships to be patient for a while.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have followed with some interest the claims that have been made on behalf of farmers in Wales who allege, either incorrectly or correctly—I have no information on that point—that lambs are being sold for a derisory sum of money; under £1 a lamb, I am told, in some instances? I am not in a position to verify that but, on the assumption that it approximates to the truth, may I inform the noble Lord that only last week I purchased from a leading multiple store four lamb chops for £2.59?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Well, my Lords, I think it is probably all the fault of Europe.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that farmers in the Highlands of Scotland, the hills of Cumbria and in Wales are changing and will change? They are changing because a large number of them will be unable to continue. In view of the fact that money is available from the European Union for the Government to draw on, although they have to pay as well, could they not set up a general scheme to assist the change via retirement schemes and other assistance which would allow reasonable change without people going out of business simply because they have lost all their money?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the answer is not as simple as the proposition the noble Lord puts. If money is available from European sources for compensation, it does not come as a blank cheque from Europe. It requires a substantial contribution—not far off three-quarters—from the United Kingdom Government. I repeat that £85 million of agri-monetary compensation has already been made available to livestock farmers. What the noble Lord says about encouraging retirement and trying to deal flexibly with individual farmers and their problems is a perfectly legitimate proposition which the Government have well in mind.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister really aware of the prospect facing Welsh hill farmers? The majority face a halving of their incomes this year and there is very little they can do about it. Can the noble Lord at least give an assurance that the levels of farm incomes will be taken into account in fixing the HLCAs?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course they will be considered. I have every sympathy with those
506
who are driven to change their livelihoods and, just as significantly, their habits of life. But I cannot say to your Lordships that the world is flat when I know it to be round. On other occasions a number of your Lordships who presently face me frequently commend the validity and moral value of a free capital market. There are bound to be changes for farmers. What we have to undertake to do is to make those changes as acceptable as possible and to view farmers with every sympathy. I believe that the Government's record is not a bad one in that regard.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last week lamb prices in Abergavenny market fell below 50 pence per kilogram and that in the area of Gwent in which I live many farmers who have been farming there for generations are being forced to give up farming? Does the Minister agree that to adapt is not the answer and more dramatic action needs to be taken to prevent total social collapse in Wales?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, to adapt is not the entire answer but it is a very significant part of it. Nor do I believe that the proper answer is 100 per cent. government subsidies. Those times have gone for ever.

The Post Office
3 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will reach a conclusion about the future of the Post Office.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, work on the Government's review of the Post Office has proceeded well. In accordance with its terms of reference the review has considered public sector option for giving the Post Office greater commercial freedom while continuing to provide a universal postal service under a uniform tariff structure with a nationwide network of post offices. We hope to announce our conclusions shortly.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he recall that the Post Office has been under continuous review since 1992? Does he agree that despite countless government documents, Select Committee reports and independent surveys the state of the Post Office remains undecided? Is he also aware that the Post Office faces growing competition nationally and internationally, including the challenge of new technologies in which it has very little resource to invest because the Government take up to 90 per cent. of its profit? In those circumstances, can the Minister indicate, bearing in mind the rumours that the Government have now decided to transform the Post Office into an independent publicly owned company, whether an announcement will be made about this very shortly, and without further delay for consultation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of the fact that the Post Office has been under review

507
for six years, only 25 per cent. of which has been under the present government. Even so this government have set manageable terms of reference for the review to ensure that it covers a limited number of options in the public sector. But the general complaint that the noble Lord makes about delay and the effects of uncertainty is undoubtedly justified. I cannot go further than I have done in saying that we hope to announce our conclusions shortly. I do not know the distinction between that and "very shortly".
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I welcome the assurances that the Minister has given. I declare an interest as a former postman of sorts and a Post Office pensioner. Can the House be told whether one of the objectives of the Government is to enable the Post Office to invest to the extent necessary to maintain a first-class competitive service?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to a very distinguished ex-postman, one of the principal objectives of the review that is being carried out is to ensure that the Post Office has the necessary commercial freedom to invest. To return to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we are very well aware of the prospects of increased competition, both nationally and internationally.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given the report in the newspapers today that the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry is considering an independent publicly owned corporation and the success of the privatised British Telecom, despite the unfounded doom and gloom of the party opposite, does the statement by the Minister today indicate that the Government have changed their mind and now realise that commercial businesses are best run from boardrooms staffed with experienced businessmen who are free from the shackles of Whitehall?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, apart from the political incorrectness of the noble Baroness's reference to "businessmen", I hope she will accept that I answer for the Post Office rather than British Telecom. I read the article in the Daily Mail today. I make two comments upon it. First, there were in effect four-and-a-half options considered by the review. Consideration has been given not only to the option of an independent publicly owned company but also to the possibilities of a minority share sale, a public sector trust and increased scope to raise extra finance without major institutional change. Those are the options that the review is considering, and Ministers will take a view in due course. My second observation on the article is that it is quite false for the Daily Mail to seek to drive a wedge between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and other members of the Government. There is no justification for that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the House has just heard an assertion from the noble Baroness—put in the nicest possible way—that the Government should make up their mind, but that when in power her party singularly failed to do anything of the kind for a very long period of time and in fact ran away from the issue?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps one of the difficulties faced by the party opposite when in power was its insistence in having decisions made by "businessmen" in the boardroom.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that indecision is becoming slightly infectious and that the Government themselves have caught a dose of it? Does the Minister accept that it would be very unfortunate if, as a result of the everlasting review, the Post Office was forced to rely on the Treasury as its banker?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am interested that the implication behind the noble Lord's first question is that any indecision was on the part of his government rather than the present Government. I thought I had made clear that in a much shorter time this Government had reduced the number of options being considered and therefore had made life that much easier for the Post Office in its day-to-day work. It is true that the longer term solution for the Post Office must be a degree of financial security to enable it to make investment plans over a period of more than one year. Direct support in the public sector without any change whatsoever was not one of the options before the review.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the postal service was nationalised over 200 years ago and, as such, has been an international model for all postal services, can my noble friend confirm that it is one of the most efficient services in the world and that perhaps the current arrangements will be another international model that can be deployed throughout the world?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right that the Post Office has risen as a public sector organisation but it is not alone in believing that the existing arrangements, which involve hand-to-mouth financing and a very high level of uncertainty about its capital investment programme, cannot continue for ever.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the humanitarian crisis in Central America and the aid being supplied by the United Kingdom.

Scotland Bill
3.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Extraordinary general elections]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 are linked with Amendment No. 1. I tabled these amendments at Report stage but in view of the fact that I had a heavy cold the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate kindly suggested that I should move them at Third Reading.
The amendment raises a general point about drafting on which I believe that it would be useful to have your Lordships' views. If noble Lords will consider Clauses 3 and 5 they will see the point. Clause 3(2) states that,
"If the Presiding Officer makes such a proposal, Her Majesty may by proclamation under the Scottish Seal"—
and there follow paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). It is not until one reaches the "and" at the end of paragraph (b) that one realises that it should also come at the end of paragraph (a). Similarly, Clause 5(7) states:
"A registered political party's regional list must not include a person",
and there follow paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). One then has to look back to realise that (a) and (b) also end in "or". A similar point arises on the following subsection.
Neither of those are particularly long tabulations. In many cases the tabulation continues to many later letters in the alphabet. What the draftsman has done here is to follow not only the accustomed and established rule of drafting but also the general literary scheme. But it is rather different in the case of a statute in view of the tabulation. Naturally, the draftsman does not want to change an accepted practice. But, for what it is worth, in my view it would be much easier and more consumer friendly if the statute in each case ended in "and" or "or" rather than postponing that conjunction to the penultimate paragraph.
As I said, it is existing practice. However, I believe that it would be of assistance if your Lordships ventured a view as to whether the statute could be made more user friendly in the way I suggest. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I scarcely ever disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on a drafting matter. He is a great expert. Over many years he has been a great supporter of the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman. However, with regard to the amendments he now proposes one should work on the principle that if words are not necessary it is necessary not to include them.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I knew that someone would say that. I had hoped that it would not come from the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has referred to a well established practice; and indeed it
510
is well established. I rather think that it may have prevailed in the drafting of statutes throughout this century. I have not studied closely enough the statutes of the previous century; but I really wonder whether we should add these extra words. I do not believe that it makes the matter more user friendly. I think that it just leaves the provision where it already is.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale will not take it amiss if I tell your Lordships that if we accede to the principle of the amendments to achieve drafting consistency we shall have to add on my count no less than 54 additional words to the Bill.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment explained, the amendments insert the words "and" or "or" into various lists which appear in Clauses 3 and 5. In those clauses, as in the rest of the Bill, the conjunctions are inserted only before the last item in each list. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, observed, it is a well established drafting convention followed in this and many other Bills that in lists such as these the conjunction indicating whether the items on the list are cumulative or alternative is inserted only before the last item.
I accept that the approach suggested by the noble and learned Lord would work equally well. It is a question of style rather than substance. However, as I said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, indicated, we would not support the amendment. We have followed the accustomed and established convention of drafting, and the courts and other users of the Bill will have no trouble determining the intention of Parliament on these provisions.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for raising an issue which, in view of my youth and inexperience, it would have been inappropriate for me to do.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the matter having been ventilated, I cannot claim universal support. Indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and my noble and learned friend take the opposite view, it obviously calls for caution on my part. As to what my noble and learned friend said about 54 extra words having to be added to the Bill if the amendment were adopted, I say only that I can guarantee to show that twice that number in the statute are unnecessary. Having said that, and having ventilated a matter which may be considered further academically, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Candidates]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 16, at end insert ("and any list of such candidates, submitted to the regional returning officer, shall appear on the ballot paper for regional members in that region.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 has been tabled to complete the discussions we have had on the issue. The Government have conceded the point that on the second top-up ballot the names of the candidates should be put down. The Government did not agree in Committee. However, by Report stage they had changed their mind and accepted the argument we put forward, partly driven by the fact that the Home Office had accepted the argument as regards the European elections and the lists there. The poor Welsh Office has been left behind because its Bill moved into law before the Government realised that it was a good thing to place names on the second ballot paper. However, I hope that they will do so as regards the Welsh elections.
I am grateful that we now have from the Government a sample of three drafts of the layout of the second ballot. It may be useful to have some discussion as to what might be the better arrangement. It is difficult to explain the drafts without the use of modern technology, overhead projectors and holding up the drafts, but none would be within the rules of order. Briefly, one of the ballot papers lists the candidates in vertical order, so there is a list numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The order of the list is very important because it determines who is elected. If only one person is to be elected, it will be No. 1; if two are to be elected, it will be Nos. 1 and 2, and so on. Therefore the ordering is important.
The other two ballot papers list the order horizontally in four columns. They read 1, 2, 3, 4 and then 5, 6 and 7, so that 5 comes below 1. I hope that that is clear to your Lordships who have not seen the draft. However, for my money, because the order is of such importance, I believe that the vertical numbering is the best and most obvious for the electorate to understand.
For reasons unbeknown to me, the officials preparing the draft ballot papers have chosen an interesting way of identifying people. The Conservative Party candidates are known by fruits; the Labour Party candidates by flowers; the Liberal Democrat candidates by trees; and, appropriately enough, the Greens by root vegetables. The Scottish National Party candidates are known by animals; I am not sure Alex Salmond will like that.
Perhaps I may use as an illustration the Labour list. Rose Hyacinth comes at the top. Clearly, the civil servant watches television. She is followed by Daffodil Tulip. It is clear from the vertical ordering that Rose Hyacinth would be No. 1 and that if the Labour Party won one seat, Rose Hyacinth would win. Daffodil Tulip would be No. 2, which is obvious, too. However, the trouble with the horizontal listing is that it is not clear whether Daffodil Tulip or Freesia Crocus would be No. 2—and I believe that I understand the electoral system! I know not what the poor electorate would make of drafts 2 and 3.
Noble Lords will, I believe, want to contribute to the debate. It will be interesting to hear whether Ministers have come to any decision. I believe that the vertical ordering is the most important.
Another important point concerns the draft ballot papers. They will contain the symbols, the emblems, of the political parties if the Registration of Political Parties
512
Bill is passed. It is amazing that in a country which believes it has attained pretty good literacy levels we have to return to what is done in countries where literacy is not high—except in the United States—and put symbols or emblems on the ballot paper. I do not believe that we shall see elephants and other animals, but we shall see symbols.
A problem in respect of the Registration of Political Parties Bill is that while in Scotland the parties can call themselves the Scottish Conservative Party, the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, they will be able to use only one UK symbol. That is not a problem for the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats, but it is a problem for the Conservative Party which in both Scotland and Wales has chosen different symbols from the torch used by the party in England.
I am sure that the Government did not intend to have a go at the Conservative Party when they framed the Bill. I hope that the Minister will contact his colleagues in the Home Office and explain the difficulties which will be caused for the Conservatives in Scotland and Wales and see whether we can resolve the issue before the various Bills, in particular the registration Bill, complete their passage through your Lordships' House this month. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for his explanation of why the amendment has reappeared in exactly the same form as on Report. Had he not described it as an opportunity for a debate on the ballot papers, since he is averse to reading his own speeches I should have read his comment as meaning that he was content that the provision was not on the face of the Bill. I assume that he will not be insisting on the amendment but proposes it in order to initiate debate on the ballot papers.
I have not had an opportunity to study the different draft papers, but, from the noble Lord's description, the vertical lists makes considerably more sense. Although I am interested in the choice name of "Mrs. Bucket" to lead the Labour Party, I am not sure whether in standing for the Liberal Democrats I am an oak, an elm or a rowan.
With regard to symbols, the noble Lord dismissed the lack of literacy in this country. I should not be so quick to do so. A substantial number of people in this country have failed to come out of the school system with adequate literacy skills. Even if they are a small minority they should not be disadvantaged. Despite the problem he raised in respect of the Scottish Conservatives' symbol, it is important that symbols appear if they will help people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, it has been useful to touch on this matter again and I am grateful for the points which the noble Lord made. I particularly take the point that the Conservative Party has not used the torch as its symbol in Scotland and Wales. There are two possible interpretations: first, it has already been put to the torch in Scotland and Wales; and, secondly, that in Scotland and Wales it is in a state of total darkness.

513
But that is a matter for the Registration of Political Parties Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to raise it in that respect. I shall make a note of his comment.
We have taken no final view on the format of the ballot paper. It is helpful to have noble Lords' observations, which we shall consider. We expect to lay the order around Christmas and that it will be debated in both Houses during January. Therefore, there will be an opportunity to examine the issue again. I understand that a parallel order for Wales has been issued for consultation which contains exactly the same provision we shall be including to ensure that names on the list of candidates appear on the ballot paper. I believe that there is a fair measure of agreement and I trust that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I indicated, I tabled the amendment in order to allow a brief discussion on the way the lists might be ordered on the second ballot. As we reached agreement late in the Bill's progress, I am sure that your Lordships do not mind a short Third Reading debate on this important issue. Some of my noble friends from Wales who were present when we first debated the subject will not recognise the position in which we now find ourselves. At the beginning, no names were to appear on the ballot paper, bar the independents. Now we have a much more satisfactory position. I am sure that that has occurred as a result of the argument put forward in your Lordships' House and because the Government listened and accepted them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 41, leave out from ("a") to end of line 43 and insert ("party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the first day on Report, noble Lords opposite tabled an amendment to provide that the definition of "registered political party" in the Scotland Bill would be a party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate agreed to consider whether we should make such a provision. We have concluded that it would be appropriate and Amendment No. 7 achieves that purpose.
Amendment No. 56 is a purely drafting amendment. It inserts the word "political" into paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 3. That provision ensures that standing orders shall include provision for ensuring that in appointing members to committees and sub-committees regard is had to the balance of parties in the parliament. The amendment simply reflects the fact that the kind of parties we are talking about are political parties and not, possibly for the avoidance of confusion and doubt, wild or fancy dress. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, Amendment No. 56 does not need much discussion
514
although it would be interesting to speculate on what other parties there might have been or might have defined themselves. I accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord. As regards Amendment No. 7, I am delighted that the Government have listened and taken on board the points I made at the previous stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Regional Vacancies]:
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 20, leave out from ("candidate,") to second ("the") in line 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a number of discussions about this matter on other amendments that offered different solutions. Having thought about what the Minister said, this is yet another solution. Basically, the problem is this. The second ballot decides on the number of members to be returned by each political party in order to achieve better proportionality in the parliament. If one of those elected to the top-up seats, as they are called, retires or dies, then the next available and still eligible person on the list is returned to the parliament. So there are no by-elections as we know them. There will be by-elections for the first-past-the-post seats, but not for any of the top-up seats.
One of the problems we discussed earlier is what would happen if the list ran out. It may not do so, but in order to prevent it the parties will probably need to put down a full raft of 12 candidates. In the course of four years people may be elected in an intervening election to this Parliament; they may be elected to the European Parliament or they may decide that they no longer wish to be elected to the Scottish parliament. It may be that someone has been elevated to your Lordships' House and did not want to attend the Scottish parliament any more. In those circumstances we might run out of candidates. That would be particularly true if a party did not nominate the full 12 candidates.
I put forward a number of suggestions and I argued against almost all of them myself when I started to think about it. But having listened to the Minister and re-read the debate, I decided that because it was the top-up and the people in the list are nominated by the parties in the first place, there did not seem to me to be any reason why we could not say that if the list runs out and another person is needed because a vacancy has to be filled, then why should not the party nominate someone? After all, that is what the party did initially at election time. It nominated a raft of people in order, so if the list runs out for whatever reason, why should not someone just be nominated? The important thing is that that retains the principal objective, which is to use the top-up seats to bring about greater proportionality than has been delivered by the first-past-the-post system.
Therefore, it seems to me to be wrong in principle not to fill any vacancy on the top-up list of the party. One would not be trying to achieve proportionality. As my amendment suggests, the only way around the problem is to allow the political party to nominate. I do not know

515
whether the Minister will be sympathetic. I hope that the amendment is drafted well enough so that if the Government see the point, even at this late stage, they will accept it. This amendment covers a very unlikely event, but I believe that one of the points about writing legislation is that one should attempt to cover for all eventualities. It would be quite wrong if a party were not to have its full top-up list for the duration of a parliamentary session just because its list of candidates had run out and it had lost a member through death or resignation. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have a certain sympathy for this amendment, but I believe that it is stretching a point to suggest that the whole list of candidates will run out. I believe that most people will insist on a full list so it is unlikely that death, disease or resignation, and all the other kinds of things that happen to political people, will mean that the whole list is wiped out.
The other objection I have to the suggestion is that the Liberal Democrat Party will be electing by postal ballot in the order of the list. For the party to nominate someone outside that list would be to do exactly the kind of thing that we have been objecting to; namely, that the public would be electing someone as an MP of whom they have no knowledge except that he had been nominated by the party. It is unlikely that this provision will be needed and there are also the snags to which I have spoken.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I recognise the real anxiety that the noble Lord feels about the possibility of a seat in the parliament remaining vacant if a party's list were to be exhausted. I believe that the noble Lord worries too much on that score. I do not believe that the concern is sufficient to introduce a rather important new principle into the electoral process, as envisaged in Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
To a large degree I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. What we have tried to do and what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has strongly urged us to do, is to make sure that all the names of all the members of the Scottish parliament are placed before the electorate. We have accepted that proposition. By these amendments we are departing significantly from that. In the event of the existing list being exhausted, an individual would be placed in the parliament, but whose name had never have been before the electorate previously with any form of endorsement. That is a dangerous path to follow. On reflection, I hope the noble Lord will have confidence in the fact that, by enabling 12 members on a party list, we are dealing with the problem of replacement and that there is no need to introduce the new principle that someone could become a member of the parliament whose name had never been placed before the electorate. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suppose I invited my previous arguments about the names being on the list to be played back against me. I
516
suggested that as the list ran out somebody should be nominated by the relevant political party. In my original remarks I accepted that such events were fairly unlikely. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that although I cannot pinpoint it in the many days of debate that we have had, his noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood suggested that he could not see the point of putting up 12 names because they just cluttered up the ballot paper. If a party took that view it is quite conceivable that, over a four-year term, it may well run out of names for a by-election.
At this late stage of the Bill I shall not press the amendment. I thought it worth a try if the Government were prepared to accept that it might be the way to guard against an unlikely situation where a party had to run for the remains of a parliament under-represented when it came to proportionality, which seems to be considered so important by some people. But clearly that is not quite as important as showing all the names in the ballot paper. As I have been arguing for that, I can hardly complain if the Minister uses that argument against me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Presiding Officer]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The Parliament may change the title "Presiding Officer" to such other title as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 24. We had an interesting debate on a number of occasions about this matter. It is like ships steaming towards each other in the fog and passing without actually seeing each other. We have been doing that with the Government on this issue for some time. I thought I should make one last attempt to put forward the principle that the parliament should be left to decide those matters.
The problem is that the Government have chosen two pretty unwieldy titles: one is "Presiding Officer", instead of "Speaker"; and the other is "First Minister" instead of "Premier" or "Prime Minister". They are also proposing "Scottish Executive" rather than "Scottish Government". In this respect, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood—who still seems to be driving around somewhere in Africa—and I joined an alliance in an attempt to persuade the Government that that is a fairly daft proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, had a splendid letter from Northern Ireland, where it turns out that the person who presides over the Northern Irish Assembly calls him or herself the "Speaker", and that is on the printed paper.
As your Lordships know, all over the world, especially the English-speaking world, the person who presides over parliaments is called the "Speaker". That has been drawn to our attention with the problems of Newt Gingrich, who does not wish to seek re-election as Speaker of the House of Representatives in America. The word "speaker" has nothing to do with me traditions

517
of the American parliament; its has everything to do with the traditions of the other place. It is an accepted word. We have had this argument a number of times.
I want to be absolutely sure in my mind. The parliament in Scotland will decide—as sure as this is Monday afternoon—that the person who presides over it will be called the "Speaker" and the Ministers will be called "Government Ministers" of the Government of Scotland. My view is that the First Minister will probably end up being called the "Prime Minister". I suggested that if we called him the "Premier" we might get that title to stick, but he will be called the "Prime Minister".
Lord Renton: My Lords, I put forward a small suggestion. Could there not be a compromise which relates to Northern Ireland? Instead of "Prime Minister", which refers essentially to the United Kingdom, could not the word "Premier" be used?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not blame my noble friend for not having been present during the many happy hours we had in Committee and on Report. I tried to propose this amendment at an earlier stage and, as always, I was rebuffed, very politely, by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, whose job it is to deal with this particular problem.
Without intruding into the private grief of the Labour Party, I could not help noticing in one media report—it was an electronic media report—the problems that the party was having in Wales. When describing someone to replace the person whom I shall not name, the report said, "effectively the Prime Minister of Wales". I gave a loud cheer and said, "There it is, proof positive".
This is another effort and I hope it is a joint effort with the Liberal Democrat Party. The suggestion is to leave the decision on those matters to the parliament and make it clear that it can use those more traditional titles. At least that will be a step in the right direction. The parliament meets on 1st May and by the end of next year, whether the Government like it or not, the titles will be those that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and myself have suggested. We want to know from the Government that the parliament will not be doing anything illegal and that its members will not be clapped in the Tower if they decide to ignore what this House and the other place insist upon but use the titles that are used in all parliaments around the world. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will be unable to find any inconsistency with the Liberal Democrat Party in this case. It is absolutely ludicrous to try to foist on the Scottish parliament names which are unprepossessing, unattractive, not Scottish and not British. The noble Lady and the noble Lord will know the expression "It is bairny" to insist on that. No self-respecting Scottish parliament would put up with it. I believe that they ought to indicate now that the Scottish parliament can call the ministers exactly what it likes, provided it is not rude.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 24 bring us back, again, to the question of whether the Bill should prescribe titles for the key office holders it creates. Noble Lords opposite have made their views very clearly felt on this subject on quite a number of occasions now. The Government's views on this issue are well known by this time and have been gone over during Committee and Report stage at considerable length.
In brief, it is important for the sake of legislative certainty and consistency in the law throughout the UK that the Bill prescribes the titles from the outset. It is important that everyone is clear exactly who is being referred to in this legislation, in future legislation and in other formal documents. As I have said before, this will ensure that there is no doubt about who should be carrying out any duties provided for in the Bill. By prescribing simple and straightforward titles, we hope to ensure there is no confusion between offices and positions so everyone knows where they stand and what their responsibilities are.
That will be particularly critical for third parties outside the Parliament. They will simply want to know that, for example, an official document is what it purports to be, or that a legal case should be raised against a particular person holding a particular office. The Government believe that these titles are clear and unambiguous and suit the purpose. They avoid any risk of confusion with the established titles used at Westminster. I think we are doing a substantial service to all those, very many, people who are likely to have dealings with the First Minister and the executive and the presiding officer, by providing for settled titles in the Bill for those offices.
In view of some of the views expressed by noble Lords in both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches in earlier stages of the Bill, I want to set straight, for the record, some facts about the situations regarding Wales and Northern Ireland. First, Wales. The Government of Wales Act prescribes titles for the first secretary and assembly secretaries. It also prescribes the names of some of the assembly's committees. It does allow the standing orders to prescribe a different title for the presiding officer and deputy presiding officer, but I understand that the National Assembly Advisory Group has recommended that the titles should be presiding officer and deputy presiding officer. Those will be specified in the assembly's standing orders, which the assembly can amend with a two-thirds majority.
The Northern Ireland Bill provides for a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister in Clause 14, the executive committee in Clause 18 and a presiding officer in Clause 37. There is no doubt that the titles First Minister and Deputy First Minister are now in common accepted usage for both Mr. Trimble and Mr. Mallon. Although I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about the First Minister in Northern Ireland being called "Premier", I believe that in the case of Northern Ireland the title "First Minister" for Mr. Trimble and "Deputy First Minister" for Mr. Mallon has come into common usage.

519
The initial standing orders drafted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland refer to the presiding officer. Much was made at earlier stages of the fact that it is understood that the members of the assembly who are involved in preparing the standing orders now are considering using a different title for presiding officer. The assembly is, of course, in quite a special situation in having been elected before the Bill is enacted. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to the letter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, at an earlier stage of the Bill. I do not know exactly what that letter was. I understood that it was from somebody who said he was an aide to the speaker, and "speaker" was the word he used. However, in front of me I have a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his official letter, as the presiding officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly is headed, "Initial Presiding Officer", which is the correct title and follows the title in the Bill.
I do not know whether we should compare letters but this is a letter dated 7th September 1998, so it is nothing if not current.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, surely the noble Baroness will not make a law on the basis of letters which are said to have passed between herself and my noble friend Lord Steel?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, indeed not, but that was the point I should have liked to make to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, at the stage at which he was waving his letter at me. I am talking about the fact that the Bill makes clear that the title is "presiding officer".
We shall see what happens in the case of Northern Ireland. However, the crucial point—and this really is the most important point that I wish to make to the House—is that there is no difference on that point of titles between the Northern Ireland Bill and the Scotland Bill.
The matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. He said:
"I am told that the Minister of State, in the course of official consultations, has confirmed that the term 'presiding officer' is a legal one and that it is entirely a matter for the assembly to determine what the presiding officer is actually called".—[Official Report, 22/10/98; col. 1681.]
There is no difference between that and what I said in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, when I said that,
"it would be possible for the parliament in its standing orders to make provisions about the forms of address to be used in the proceedings of parliament if it so wished. It may choose to use terms other than those prescribed in the Bill within its own proceedings".—[Official Report, 18/10/98; col. 2024.]
I then said that the parliament would no doubt wish to consider whether it was appropriate to address someone other than by the legal title and it would also doubtless take account of what became common public usage. I ended by saying that,
"Ultimately that usage would be a matter for the parliament to decide".—[Official Report, 18/10/98; col. 2024.]
520
We have tried to strike a balance throughout the Bill between prescription and flexibility. Noble Lords will have noted that our general approach has been to prescribe the minimum. It is not always easy to agree where a line should be drawn. However, that is one area where we consider that it is important that there is neither vagueness nor confusion. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness may be alone in believing that there will be no vagueness or confusion. The problem with these debates is that they do not seem to be very important in themselves but they have all to do with the status of the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, although I am not discussing Wales and Northern Ireland. The problem is that in my view, the Government are at sixes and sevens.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is not here, but he said when he discussed the letter:
"I have in my hand a letter with beautiful headed paper from the special adviser to the Speaker".—[Official Report, 22/10/98; col. 1669.]
My recollection of seeing the letter is that the word "speaker" was written in green print. It was not type; it was part of the headed notepaper. He went on to say:
"The draft Committee on Standing Orders in the Northern Ireland Assembly provides in paragraph 2 that the presiding officer of the Assembly shall be called Mr Speaker or Madam Speaker and shall be addressed by Members".
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was wrong about that, but I have no reason to believe that he was. I am sure that he is absolutely right.
Just to confuse your Lordships, in answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, said:
"A partial direct answer is that the parliament would not be able to change these titles by standing orders. However … it would be possible for the parliament in its standing orders to make provisions about the forms of address to be used in the proceedings of the parliament".—[Official Report, 28/10/98; col. 2024.]
I should not be surprised if your Lordships were lost by this time because I am fairly lost myself.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may assist. As I understood the Minister, in Wales, the advisory group has advised the use of the term "presiding officer", but of course she concedes that the assembly can call the presiding officer by what ever name it chooses. Is it any different for Scotland? If it is not, that is clear.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was just about to deal with that. It appears that in any legal documents, those people must be referred to for all time as "presiding officer" and, "First Minister". However, they can be called by everybody—indeed, the media already do so with regard to Wales—"Prime Minister" or "Premier" and "Speaker". If that is not a recipe for confusion, what is? It seems to me that those two gentlemen or ladies will wear two hats: one will be an official hat and the other will be an unofficial hat.

521
All around the English-speaking world, people are perfectly happy to use the titles "Speaker", "Premier", and "Prime Minister". I am so dissatisfied with those answers and the thought of having the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and myself, in the same Lobby makes me believe that I should test the opinion of the House.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Ampthill, L.

Ludford, B.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Blaker, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Maddock, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Calverley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monson, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Moyne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

De Freyne, L.

Newall, L.

Dearing, L.

Newby, L.

Denham, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dholakia, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Ezra, L.

Renwick, L.

Fookes, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Forbes, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Geraint, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gormanston, V.

Selborne, E.

Grey, E.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Harlech, L.

Sharples, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harrowby, E.

Stair, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Headfort, M.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Holderness, L.

Swinfen, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooper, B.

Inchyra, L.

Thurso, V.

Kintore, E.

Tope, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Waddington, L.

Leigh, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wharton, B.

Lindsev and Abingdon, E.

Wigoder, L.

522

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ahmed, L.

Alli, L.

Islwyn, L.

Amos, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jeger, B.

Bach, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnett, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Berkeley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Borrie, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Christopher, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dubs, L.

Northfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Peston, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Fitt, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goudie, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sewel, L.

Gregson, L.

Shannon, E.

Grenfell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hacking, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hanworth, V.

Simon, V.

Hardie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tenby, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Uddin, B.

Hoyle, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Whitty, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ilchester, E.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the humanitarian crisis in central America, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Humanitarian Crisis in Central America
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question being asked in another place on the humanitarian crisis in central America. The Statement is as follows:
"Nineteen ninety-eight has seen a record number of major natural disasters. Hurricane Mitch, the 13th and fiercest storm of the 1998 hurricane season, has caused widespread damage and severe loss of life across central America, particularly affecting Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatamala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Guatamala, Honduras and Nicaragua are worst affected.
"Official reports indicate that 7,000 people have lost their lives; 9,000 are missing and about 2.5 million people are badly affected. The terrible contrast between the death toll in central America and the much lower loss of life in the equally terrible floods in Bangladesh cruelly demonstrates the importance of disaster preparedness in countries that are vulnerable to natural disasters.
"Since May 1997 my department has been working to strengthen the capacity of the international system to respond very quickly to emergencies wherever they arise. In the past, unco-ordinated shipments of aid and expertise often exacerbated rather than assisted such crises. The first step following Hurricane Mitch was that UN disaster assessment teams were mobilised. A British expert was made available. HMS "Sheffield" was in the vicinity and at the request of the local authorities was able to make available helicopters, engineers and medical support. DfID immediately contacted NGOs who were already working in the countries concerned to offer support. We have made available £200,000 to the Red Cross Regional Appeal and supplies were flown in yesterday. In Honduras, we have contributed £60,000 to the Pan American Health organisation for basic health care needs; £94,525 to CAFOD for food and household items and a grant of £100,000 to Christian Aid to supply medicines, temporary shelters, blankets and water containers. In Nicaragua, we have channelled £32,585 through the NGO CARE for the provision of safe water, food and clothes. We are also sending medical supplies to El Salvador to meet the needs of 20,000 people for three months. HMS "Ocean" and RFA "Sir Tristram" are also in the area and, at local request, are providing search and rescue and reconnaissance service.
"The EC Humanitarian Office has in the past few days allocated 6.8 million ecu for the disaster. We will do our best to ensure that this is disbursed as soon as possible.
"DfID recently agreed a new, enlarged development programme for central America to which we have committed £6 million. We are currently refocusing the programme to assist with reconstruction when the immediate crisis is under control.
524
"On debt relief, which is of course irrelevant to coping with the immediate crisis but crucial for reconstruction, the Chancellor and I have been working since we formed our government to speed up the implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative. Our aim is to ensure that every heavily indebted poor country that adopts economic policies which will reduce poverty will be on track for debt relief by the year 2000. Before the crisis, Nicaragua was on track to qualify and Honduras was unlikely to need debt relief. Obviously the crisis will disrupt Nicaragua's IMF programme and, sadly, Honduras's economy is likely to deteriorate so that it may well qualify for debt relief.
"The Chancellor and I announced that we are approaching the IMF and World Bank to try to get agreement that post crisis countries should be treated more flexibly for debt relief. We are pursuing a similar proposal to benefit post conflict countries. Progress on debt relief will be crucial to the reconstruction effort but does not of course assist the immediate crisis. We must also ensure that post-crisis countries, such as Bangladesh, which are not heavily indebted receive assistance for reconstruction.
"Sadly, it is likely that the region will suffer similar hurricanes in future. We must therefore ensure that the reconstruction effort focuses on reducing vulnerability; for example, by flood protection and through the appropriate location of new housing. It will also be necessary to strengthen local and regional capacity to respond when disaster strikes. We have recently agreed a major programme with the International Red Cross to strengthen such capacity in all developing countries.
"We will continue to monitor the situation carefully through the United Nations, the International Red Cross and at local embassies. We will still be working in central America when media interest has moved elsewhere".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating as a Statement the Answer given in another place. From these Benches, we fully support the remarks of the noble Baroness about the people of Central America who have suffered such an appalling catastrophe.
One of my earliest memories of working for the Red Cross is of such terrible tragedies. What the people of Central America must be going through in the wake of losing over 12,000 fellow citizens is unimaginable. Does the noble Baroness agree that they will need and deserve our full support for many years to come?
Perhaps I may pay tribute to the aid agencies, especially the Red Cross which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, for acting with such speed in seeking to bring emergency relief to those countries. However, given the scale of this disaster, with a loss of life far greater than any we have seen in recent years, does the noble Baroness believe that Britain's response to date has been commensurate with the need? Does she

525
consider that the department has been sufficiently generous in making funds available? What plans does she have to make further funds available?
The noble Baroness rightly paid tribute to the anticipated role of the Royal Navy ships which are on their way to the region. What precise role does she expect our Armed Forces to play and to whom will they be accountable?
Can the noble Baroness confirm that the Secretary of State has now met the ambassadors of the Central American countries affected by Hurricane Mitch to discuss their specific needs face to face?
After two weeks of this crisis, with more lives being lost daily as a result of starvation and disease, what specific steps are being taken to avert the very real threat of more deaths from cholera?
The noble Baroness will understand that, in the context of such a devastating and distressing tragedy, we are reluctant to fire political criticism at Ministers when by far the highest priority is for Britain to play its full part in helping those who have suffered. However, is she aware that a humanitarian crisis, no matter how grave, is no excuse for sloppy government?
Can the noble Baroness therefore explain to your Lordships why, on the morning of Friday 6th November, the Secretary of State dismissed debt relief as misleading and irrelevant, but by the afternoon of Saturday 7th November, she issued a joint press statement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer which made debt relief an essential part of Britain's response to the crisis? Can the noble Baroness explain what changed the Secretary of State's position in that interim period of 24 hours? How had debt relief moved from being irrelevant on the Friday (without the qualification mentioned by the noble Baroness) to essential on the Saturday? Does she now accept that debt relief was relevant to the people of Central America the very second that Hurricane Mitch struck their towns and villages, and possibly even before that?
Far from taking a lead on this vital issue, does the noble Baroness accept that the Secretary of State has been led reluctantly to embrace a policy for which many world leaders had been calling since the crisis struck? Can she specifically confirm that the UK will now unilaterally suspend further debt repayments from these countries as well as calling for the IMF and other donor nations to do the same?
Finally, is the noble Baroness aware that tomorrow the Disasters Emergency Committee of our leading NGOs is launching an appeal for funds through the nation's media to provide for Central America? Can she confirm that this time, unlike with the Sudan appeal, Ministers will give unequivocal support to that appeal so that the great British public can give their money generously to the people of Central America, knowing that they have the Government's full backing?
4.16 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, it is fortunate that we have been given this opportunity at such an early stage to learn the Government's reaction to the horrific
526
situation in Central America. The death toll, which is staggering at the moment, will undoubtedly rise, not only over the next few weeks or months but also over the next few years because people will continue to be affected by the loss of their possessions, fields, crops and houses.
I have seen the effects of flash floods in Africa. When a bridge was lost it was helpful to know that the waiting supplies could nevertheless be brought across from the other side. The fact that supplies are not readily available seems to be the major problem facing Honduras and Nicaragua. I have also seen the effects of cholera. Work to prevent cholera must take place rapidly.
Debt relief has been mentioned. I support the position taken by the Secretary of Rtate that the immediate concern is to get the aid to where it is needed and to push for food, clothing and monetary support. I was gratified to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, state that money is being supplied to the NGOs in the area rather than to agencies which would have to be flown in. The NGOs on the ground are the most effective and efficient disbursers of aid.
My question on debt relief has already been answered; namely, whether Honduras and Nicaragua can be given post-crisis status. It should not be forgotten—I am sure that the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—that Nicaragua is now paying 1 million dollars a day in debt relief. That figure is totally unsustainable due to the loss of that country's infrastructure.
Is there any evidence that the severity of Hurricane Mitch was caused by global warming? If that was the cause—and it looks as though it was—there could be many more such disasters. The IMF and the World Bank may therefore need to take a new approach to post-crisis status for many countries, especially those likely to face such inclement weather.
I welcome the money that has been found from the DflD budget and from the already stretched disaster relief fund. I should be grateful if at some point—not necessarily now—the noble Baroness could say how much more could be found. How stretched is the disaster relief fund? Are any funds presently being made available to supplement that fund?
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for sharing our concern on this matter. I shall try to address all the points that have been raised. I should like to start with the point made by the noble Baroness in relation to debt relief and the comments made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that there has been no change in government policy as regards this matter. We are clear about the importance of focusing on the immediate need at times like this. Indeed, the immediate need is to ensure that food is taken to those areas where it is necessary and that we try to deal with shelter and the need for medicine.

527
There is a separate point involved; namely, the issue of debt relief and the longer term. Debt relief is not instantly possible. There is a complex process which must be followed. There is a need to consider the relationship between exports and debt. Therefore, we are dealing with the immediate and longer term. The statements made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are entirely consistent in that respect. We seek flexibility from international organisations in terms of dealing with such matters.
As regards the question of looking for further funds, I can tell the House that we are aiming to provide an internationally co-ordinated response. The next step in terms of following up immediate relief is to put in hand arrangements to help those countries in what will inevitably be a long process of reconstruction. We are reviewing our proposed development programmes so that we are in a position to help with the rehabilitation effort. In regard to the question about the Secretary of State meeting the ambassadors from the relevant countries, I can tell noble Lords that such meetings have not taken place. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and officials from the DfID have been in constant contact with those embassies.
I turn now to the Disaster Emergency Committee. I can confirm that we support fully the DEC appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the size of debt relief to Nicaragua. The latter was due to qualify for debt relief next year. Given the scale of the disaster, it is our expectation that that will not now happen. Therefore, we shall have to return to the issue, but we feel that Nicaragua will again qualify for debt relief in the longer term.
The noble Lord also asked about global warming. I can tell the noble Lord that the Government are as concerned as he is that some of the issues surrounding deforestation may be having an impact on the scale of natural disasters in the region. One of the measures that the department will be taking is assessing the scale involved and carrying out some environmental needs analysis. It is better if countries are able to prepare for such disasters. A good example is Belize, whose disaster preparedness was better than that of Nicaragua and Honduras. Belize was able to move people from the areas which were worst affected and there was not such a high loss of life.
The noble Lord also asked how stretched is the disaster relief fund. At this point in time I can tell him that we feel that the amount we have allocated is sufficient to meet those needs. However, the position will be constantly under review.
4.23 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as I am probably the only Peer who has actually lived in central America, having spent two years in El Salvador during the early 1960s, I hope that I may be permitted to ask the noble Baroness a few questions. This is a most terrible tragedy affecting an area which has suffered many different tragedies from natural disasters over the years. To be more specific, is the noble
528
Baroness aware that about 106 bridges in Nicaragua and about 93 bridges in Honduras have been destroyed? That represents an infrastructure disaster which will cause tremendous difficulty in terms of repair work and getting the economies of those countries going again.
Both countries have fragile export economies which are largely based on agriculture. Indeed, it is the agricultural potential, amounting to about 70 per cent of their export earnings, which has been effectively destroyed. Therefore, will the noble Baroness accept that one of the most urgent needs is for Bailey bridges, which can be assembled and put on site thus helping to repair the damaged roads and infrastructure? By the same token, there are other aspects involved which will need attention, including technical assistance in helping some of this reconstruction work to take place.
I believe that the noble Baroness has already said that the latter will be co-ordinated on an international basis and that in due course we will return to the subject of debt relief, which, as she rightly said, is a longer-term issue. However, the noble Baroness is perhaps not aware that I tried to table a Starred Question on this subject last week. I was not successful in that respect but tabled a Written Question instead. Therefore, if the noble Baroness does not have all the answers today, perhaps she could use the answer to that Written Question to elaborate further on the various points raised.
Finally, on the subject of non-governmental assistance, is the noble Baroness aware that the Anglo-Central American Society (a cultural and a social-related organisation, based at Canning House, whose president is my noble friend Lady Hooper) has been very active in this scene and launched an appeal which is worthy of support?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his questions. In particular, he mentioned the problems caused by infrastructure damage within Nicaragua. I should tell him that access has been opened up and communication has been re-established in that country. We need to focus particularly on reconstruction and on the long term. Indeed, the replacement of bridges would be an important part of that process. At present, the UN is engaged in a needs assessment exercise and we await the outcome of that process. As I said when repeating the Statement, the DfID has an adviser who is part of that needs assessment team.
As the noble Viscount will know, one of the strengths of the Department for International Development is its relationship with NGOs on the ground in Nicaragua. We have focused on using our relationships with those NGOs to ensure that we get immediate relief to people as they need it. We are concerned to ensure that all the relief efforts are co-ordinated so that they are as efficient and effective as possible. I shall write to the noble Viscount to deal with any other issues he raised that I did not fully address in my response today.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, when repeating the Statement the noble Baroness referred to the need to be prepared for disasters. However, how is it possible to prepare for a disaster so great that is destroys a very high proportion of the road and bridge network of the

529
region, as my noble friend pointed out? Frankly, I was flabbergasted by the response of the noble Baroness to the effect that the communications infrastructure has already been substantially replaced. I simply do not believe that to be the case. Indeed, the evidence which is being presented on television programmes suggests that that is not so.
Can the noble Baroness tell the House what, in addition to the helicopters of HMS "Sheffield", this country can do—possibly through our Armed Forces—to provide the Bailey bridges and other equipment so urgently needed to re-establish basic communications? Without that equipment it will simply not be possible to get the badly needed food, water and medical supplies to the suffering populations of these two unhappy countries.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in relation to the noble Lord's point about how it is possible to prepare for disasters, I should stress again the examples of Bangladesh and Belize. Hurricanes are not new in these regions, neither are floods. One of the things that we have tried to do is support those countries to enable them to prepare both in terms of strengthening the institutions and also by working with the populations, so that they know precisely what to do when a hurricane or a flood is predicted. This has resulted in not such a great loss of life when these disasters occur. That is an important point.
As regards the point about communications, I wish to make clear that access and communications are being re-established. I did not intend to say that these had been replaced, but we are pleased that access has been re-established because it allows us to work on the ground. Our ships were in the vicinity and have been asked to help not only with the provision of helicopters but also to give support with engineering and other such matters.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness. I understand this may be the first time she has answered questions on a Statement from the Dispatch Box. I know that it can be a gruelling experience. Given the scale of the disaster, the loss of life and the great human tragedy that has occurred and the great significance of the loss of life to the small populations involved, it seems to me that the 6.8 million ecu being offered as help from the European Union as a whole is very much a drop in the ocean. Does that represent a first tranche of aid from the European Union? If not, will the British Government push our partners in the European Union to increase the amount?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words. The £4.8 million allocated by the EC Humanitarian Office has not yet been disbursed. I think it is too early to say whether more money will be needed. We shall be in close touch with the EC Humanitarian Office on the need for further assistance for both relief and rehabilitation once the needs assessment has been carried out and once we know how the £4.8 million will be used. The priority
530
right now is to ensure that what has been committed is spent quickly and effectively on those most in need in the region. We shall be keeping a watchful eye on the matter.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister convey the warmest congratulations of your Lordships to the personnel of the British ships in the area on their wonderful rescue work and particularly the work of the helicopter crews in bringing to safety the lady who was adrift for five days in the ocean and whose remarkable recovery we all greatly welcome? Can the noble Baroness say whether the rescue efforts of Her Majesty's ships were sufficient to meet the needs or can any other ships be brought in from elsewhere in the region to supplement the tremendous work already done?
Further to the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, has any thought been given to training units of the British Armed Forces, particularly the Royal Engineers, in emergency reconstruction work so that they may enter a region such as Nicaragua or Honduras immediately after a crisis such as this and restore communications as rapidly as possible?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the warm congratulations of the noble Lord to the Armed Forces. As regards the point about whether the rescue efforts have been sufficient, certainly to date all the requests that we have had from local authorities have been met. At this time we do not anticipate a need for other ships to enter the region. We shall consider the matter, but clearly timing is important. As regards the training of the British Armed Forces, I shall write to the noble Lord on the training that currently takes place and any additional training which is being considered.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, the noble Baroness is to be strongly congratulated on the positive Statement. I should mention that I am president of the International Rescue Corps. Is the Minister aware that there is a team of the International Rescue Corps who wish to express gratitude for the help they have received from government agencies and in particular from the joint operation which has included HMS "Sheffield" as they work their way towards Waspán in Nicaragua on the Rio Coco? Is she further aware that first reports indicate that notwithstanding the immensity of the problems facing them they are achieving positive results along with other groups?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are all extremely proud of the efforts made by all the agencies and organisations which have been involved in the relief effort. Like the noble Lord, I believe that we need to pass on our thanks to those agencies and organisations which have been involved.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on her performance at the Dispatch Box. Will she elaborate on the role of the Armed Forces and in particular to whom they will be accountable?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Armed Forces will, as usual, report to their commanding officers and

531
through them to the Ministry of Defence. There will be close liaison between their work and the work of the Department for International Development.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us are glad to hear what I think I understood her to say; namely, that the suspension of debt repayment is under consideration? Has she any idea of the kind of timetable we can look for?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as regards debt relief, we are trying to ensure through working with our international partners that there is some flexibility in the process. At this time I am unable to tell the noble Baroness exactly what the timescale will be. However, once those discussions have taken place, I shall write and give a fuller reply.

Scotland Bill
4.37 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Third Reading resumed.
Clause 22 [Standing orders]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Power to call for witnesses and documents]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 42, leave out ("the Minister of the Crown,") and insert ("him (whether or not he continues to be a Minister of the Crown),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the second day of Report the Government agreed to consider the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that would extend to past Ministers of the Crown the same protection as is afforded to current Ministers of the Crown.
We have reflected on the amendment and conclude that it is indeed a valuable provision to make. Amendment No. 12 provides that the limitations set out in Clause 23(3) on the power of the parliament to impose a requirement on a person to attend its proceedings to give evidence, or to produce documents, also extend to former Ministers. We thought it sensible to extend this to former civil servants too, and that is what Amendment No. 13 does. In effect the parliament cannot impose requirements on a former Minister of the Crown or civil servant in relation to the exercise of ministerial functions, if it cannot impose such a requirement on the current Minister or his civil servants. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I welcome these two amendments which were discussed previously on 28th October, as the Minister said. They deal with a practical concern which I raised then. I am most grateful to the Government for responding positively.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 1, after ("person") insert ("who is or has been").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Scrutiny of Bills by the Scottish Executive]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 14, line 33, leave out from ("Parliament,") to end of line 39 and insert ("state that in his view the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament.
(1A) The Presiding Officer shall, on or before the introduction of a Bill in the Parliament, decide whether or not in his view the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament and state his decision.
(1B) The form of any statement, and the manner in which it is to be made, shall be determined under standing orders, and standing orders may provide for any statement to be published.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 to 17. Before I discuss the details of these government amendments I wish to make it clear that in proposing amendments we do not seek at this stage to disturb amendments made earlier by the House to Clause 32.
Government Amendment No. 14 revises the formulation of Clause 31 and extends it to require the presiding officer, on or before the introduction of a Bill, to make a statement as to whether or not a provision of a Bill would be within the legislative competence of the parliament. This is similar to the requirement placed on a member of the Scottish executive when introducing a Bill. It will ensure that the parliament is aware of the presiding officer's views on the vires of any Bill. This gives the parliament important guidance about the competence of the parliament and allows the presiding officer to express his concerns if he has any. The final part of Amendment No. 14 is about the form of the statement. It provides that the form of the statements made by the Scottish executive and the presiding officer shall be determined by standing orders.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 make consequential provision in Clause 32. Government Amendment No. 15 is a drafting amendment. It is consequential upon the amendment made by the House to Clause 32(2). Given the earlier amendment, there is no need to refer in Clause 31(1) to subsection (2) and so Government Amendment No. 15 removes a redundant provision.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain to your Lordships what our thinking is in relation to Clause 32 as it develops. Noble Lords have put forward a persuasive case regarding the difficulties that a presiding officer, challenged in this way, would face if the parliament were able to question his authority, and we do not disagree with their views. However, we have looked closely at what the amendment made earlier achieves and we do not think it has quite the right effect. It would give the presiding officer the right of veto over which Bills were to be introduced into parliament.
Our thinking at the moment is to seek a position which would have the effect of deleting subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 32. This will ensure that the parliament is well aware of the presiding officer's views and that the presiding officer is not left in the

533
uncomfortable and, we honestly believe, undesirable position of having an absolute veto over what Bills can be introduced into the parliament. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this addresses their concerns about the risk of conflict between the presiding officer and the parliament, but in essence that is a matter for a later date.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as the noble Minister very properly said, these amendments fall to be considered against what happened on the 28th July, when your Lordships first debated the detail of Clause 32, or Clause 31 as it then was, beginning at col. 1368. This resulted in a Division, in terms of which an amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was allowed, and another one in my name, which brought about the introduction of the words,
"A decision made by the Presiding Officer under subsection (1) shall not be capable of being overruled by the parliament".—[Official Report, 28/7/98; col. 1369.]
I have to confess that when I first read the amendments tabled for Third Reading my impression was that the Government were content to accept their defeat on that occasion and were not minded to reverse the defeat that they had suffered. I then remembered, with a little prompting, the amendments which were put down at Report stage in relation to these two clauses. Amendment No. 119 was in identical terms to Amendment No. 14, as we now have it, and the next amendment, Amendment No. 120, sought to leave out subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 31, as it then was, and effectively to reverse the defeat suffered at the Committee stage.
After certain discussions with the noble Minister, Lord Sewel, and through the usual channels, I understood that it had been accepted by the Government that it is against the conventions of your Lordships' House, and indeed against the Denham Convention, to seek to overcome at a later stage of a Bill's passage through this House a defeat which the Government have suffered at an earlier stage. Having listened to the noble Minister this afternoon I have a mild concern, to put it no higher than that at this stage, that Amendment No. 14 is at the very least a stepping stone, and presumably a necessary stepping stone, to reversing that defeat.
If that is correct, the allowance of this amendment at this stage might amount to a breach of the Denham Convention, which was followed rigorously by the previous government despite the wishes of certain very senior Members of that government in another place who took some persuading, I understand, that the convention fell to be honoured in the way that it was. I therefore noted that when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said he was not seeking at this stage to overturn the defeat, this was something that might well come at a later stage.
If all that the Government intend to do in another place is to make the Bill more effective, that may be acceptable. But if this Amendment No. 14 is an attempt
534
to overturn the earlier defeat then that may prove to be unacceptable, albeit that it may be something we are not really aware of until the Bill returns to this House, if that ever proves to be necessary. The noble Lord said it would be wrong for the presiding officer to have an absolute veto. It may be a necessary part of a devolution settlement of the nature which the Government are bringing forward that the presiding officer, and the clerks who work for him, may in fact have something in the nature of an absolute veto in deciding which Bills are presented to parliament and, indeed, which amendments to Bills are tabled.
To some extent the Clerks of your Lordships' House in the Public Bill Office have a veto in that in certain instances they can refuse to accept amendments because they do not fall within the Long Title or because they are in similar terms to amendments which have been debated and voted on at an earlier stage. I understand that in some instances the view adopted by the Public Bill Office is one which may not be particularly welcomed by the Government, and on other occasions it may not be welcomed by members of the Opposition parties. However, it is respected as a necessary and valuable procedure for regulating the affairs of your Lordships' House. So it may be wrong to rule out the presiding officer having an absolute veto, as the noble Minister rather suggested in his speech was the Government's intention.
So far as this afternoon is concerned, I would be content to allow these amendments to be accepted, but I hope that before any amendments are tabled in another place, and before the Government decide what view they should adopt when this Bill returns to another place, it may be possible for my comments to be given further consideration; and as always I would be happy to discuss the matter further with the noble Minister.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, is right. The Public Bill Office does have a veto, and I have enjoyed being in receipt of one on more than one occasion. I think I am content with the amendment because it is important that the presiding officer should form a view about whether the proposed legislation is intra or ultra vires. I suspect that in most cases it is unlikely that a Bill will be introduced which is wholly ultra vires and that this is a notice being served on the person proposing the legislation that they should get it sorted out during the process of scrutiny.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as regards the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, I wish to make it absolutely clear that Amendment No. 14 does not breach any convention. It would apply irrespective of the decision on the reversal of the defeat suffered by the Government previously. So, no matter what happens in relation to that separate clause, we should still seek the provision in this clause. The amendment simply ensures that the parliament has the presiding officer's views on the vires of any Bill. I

535
had hoped to be of some help to the House in indicating the way the Government's thinking was going; I have learnt my lesson.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wish to make a simple point about correctness to the Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. The expression, "noble Minister", is one that I dislike. Lords are "noble" by axiom and by custom. Ministers and ability are a matter of opinion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 17:
Page 14, line 40, leave out (", subject to subsection (2),").
Page 14, line 41, leave out ("Presiding Officer decides") and insert ("decision of the Presiding Officer under section 31(1A) is").
Page 15, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("Such a decision of the Presiding Officer").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 35 [Power to intervene in certain cases]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 16, line 20, leave out ("at any time during").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 18 to 21. I stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I should of course have referred to, "the noble Lord the Minister". Perhaps I may gently encourage the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, to look at his intervention in Hansard tomorrow to see whether, in addressing me, he referred to me in the correct terms.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My apologies, my Lords.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, one benefit that law officers and former law officers have is that they are always regarded as learned, whether or not that is justified.
I return briefly, but seriously, to a point that I raised on Report on 28th October. It is focused in Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 on Clause 35. I wish to take up a concern expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in Committee regarding whether Clause 35 as currently drafted might result in the judicial committee having to hear to completion references made under Section 33. The problem arose in terms of Clause 35(3)(c). The noble and learned Lord felt that, as drafted, the clause would require the judicial committee to go ahead with a case even if the Secretary of State knew all along that he would make an order within the terms of his power to do so under subsection (1).
On that occasion the drafting of my amendment was correctly criticised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I have redrafted the amendments and I hope that they are now immune from the criticism made on that occasion. The sole purpose of these amendments is to prevent the judicial committee carrying on with work which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, thought to be unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining Amendments Nos. 18
536
to 21. However, the Government do not consider that they are necessary, nor that they would meet the concern that he has raised.
As I understand the noble and learned Lord's explanation, he is focusing on the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in Committee. I assure the House that we have taken the point seriously. We appreciate that, if the Secretary of State uses his power to prohibit a Bill proceeding to Royal Assent after the judicial committee has determined that a Bill is within the legislative competence of the parliament, it could be argued that this would be wasteful of the time of the judicial committee. However, as I have explained, the noble Lords' amendment would not have the effect of preventing that. It would be prevented only if Clause 35(3)(c) was deleted.
As the Government have already made clear on a number of occasions, this and the other powers of intervention are meant to be long-stops. Their existence should be sufficient to ensure consultation between Whitehall and Edinburgh so that there may be no need for them to be used. The incentives to avoid their use will be particularly strong in the case of a Bill that has been examined by the judicial committee. Against that background we concluded that it was right for the Secretary of State to have the option of using his power under Clause 35 after the vires of a Bill have been established.
Perhaps I may explain the point in a little more detail. Under Clause 33 questions about devolution issues can be referred to the judicial committee by the law officers of the United Kingdom Government, followed by the Lord Advocate as law officer to the Scottish executive. There is a variety of reasons why that may happen. The United Kingdom Government might be concerned that the Scottish parliament was straying beyond its competence, or the Lord Advocate could have doubts about the vires of a Private Member's Bill.
In the Government's view, it should be for the law officer who made the reference to decide whether it should be withdrawn if the Secretary of State indicated an intention to use Clause 35. A law officer to the United Kingdom Government might choose to do that in some circumstances; however, in other circumstances there might be a strong case for the devolution issue concerned to be determined by the committee. Even if the Bill concerned does not subsequently proceed in the same form, it may be desirable for the issue of vires to be clarified. With that explanation, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, he is repelling this amendment on the grounds that the circumstances he described might happen. He has not said that the judicial committee's time could be wasted in certain circumstances. If that were the case, and in view of the important business conducted by the judicial committee—we have only to turn our minds to what is presently happening elsewhere in this House to see how important that can be—why not accept the amendment? I do not know whether it is

537
a matter of nobody listening to the noble and learned Lord when he talks to them, but this provision seems so sensible that I do not understand why he has not persuaded the Cabinet.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Baroness thinks that I do not listen. I assure her that I always listen to submissions on the part of noble, and noble and learned Lords. Perhaps I may explain what would happen.
If a reference was made to the judicial committee, and if after the four-week period but during the period of the reference the Secretary of State decided that he wished to make an order, what would happen is that the Secretary of State would make that fact known to those parties who were parties to the proceedings before the judicial committee. It would be for the law officer who had made the reference to the judicial committee to consider whether or not to withdraw it. I imagine that in most cases the law officer would withdraw the reference for the very reason given by the noble Baroness—namely, to save the time of the judicial committee.
However, there might also be cases where the law officer considered that the issue in the case ought to be determined by the judicial committee so that clarification could be sought from the supreme judicial body as to the proper construction, so that the same difficulty would not arise in future.
By rejecting the amendment, we keep the flexibility available to the law officer—not just the Lord Advocate but the law officer of the United Kingdom Government. As I said, the law officer of the United Kingdom Government may well decide, although the Secretary of State will be a member of the United Kingdom Government, in certain special circumstances that he or she still wishes for a decision of the judicial committee. It is for that reason that we invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment. I hope that this additional explanation has clarified my position. I apologise to the House if my explanation was not clear on the first occasion.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and again with the permission of the House, is it envisaged that the judicial committee will be kept informed about the kind of discussions to which the noble and learned Lord referred? I ask that question because it seems to me that on occasions some of the issues which require reference to the judicial committee will be extremely urgent. We have the experience, with matters going on upstairs this week, of the disruption to the programme of hearings which can occur if urgent cases are slipped in out of order.
Plainly it is the responsibility of the judicial committee to deal promptly with urgent cases; but if the case is one where hanging over the decision is the Secretary of State's view which will result in the
538
legislation not proceeding anyway, it might well affect the view about timetabling. It would be beneficial to the jucidial committee to know about it.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the rules for the judicial committee would be a matter for that committee. I see no reason why the committee should not be advised that the matter was in issue and that the case was therefore no longer as urgent as one might normally expect.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, it is quite obvious that since the matter was first raised much further consideration has been given to it. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for making that clear. As he rightly says, rules will have to be made for the work of the judicial committee. My recollection is that we have had some discussion already about the need for an order in council and whether it will be necessary to make a provision about the issue in the order in council. It may be a matter for further reflection.
So would the issue which the noble and learned Lord raised as to whether the law officer who made the reference would have the right to withdraw it. There may well be an argument that if one law officer has placed an issue before the judicial committee, it is not up to him to withdraw it unilaterally. There may be the view that the other law officers have a right to insist that it goes ahead and the judicial committee itself, having been seized of it, may fall to be given discretion or to have a role in the matter. That too is an issue which might be addressed in the Order in Council, a draft of which we have already seen.
I accept the force of the point made by the noble and learned Lord that in certain instances it may be desirable that the devolution issue raised be determined, even though it is intended that the Secretary of Sate should, in the fullness of time, proceed with a Clause 35 order because the judicial committee's decisions on determinations will be of value in future cases, not just in the one before them.
I am not entirely satisfied that my amendments would have precluded that from happening, but I am satisfied that the concern which was raised initially by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has been given much fuller consideration. For those reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Stages of Bills]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Proceedings by or against the Parliament etc.]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 18, line 45, after second ("the") insert ("Parliamentary").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to ensure drafting consistency in the Bill. It makes it clear that "the corporation" referred to in

539
Clause 40 is the Scottish parliamentary corporate body. As provided for by Clause 21(1), the SPCB is referred to throughout the Bill as "the Parliamentary corporation". The amendment brings the reference in Clause 40 into line with that. I beg to move,
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 44 [The Scottish Executive]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, line 5, at end insert—
("(3) A person who holds a Ministerial office may not be appointed a member of the Scottish Executive; and if a member of the Scottish Executive is appointed to a Ministerial office he shall cease to hold office as a member of the Scottish Executive.
(4) In subsection (3), references to a member of the Scottish Executive include a junior Scottish Minister and "Ministerial office" has the same meaning as in section 2 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report we accepted noble Lords' valid concerns that it would be inappropriate for a person to hold office as a Minister of the Crown and as a member of the Scottish executive. We agreed to come back at Third Reading with amendments which would prevent that. This is exactly what the amendment does. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I warmly welcome this government amendment. It has been quite a long haul to persuade the Government of its merits. I re-read the defences of the Government's position which were put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, at Committee stage. I will spare her blushes by not repeating any of the defences.
This is a sensible proposition. We have argued it through the Welsh and the Scottish Bills. We have received absolutely no agreement from the Government on the Welsh Bill and in some ways they have got themselves into a real jam, simply because they did not accept our amendment. If they had done so, their political problems in Wales would perhaps not be on the same scale as they are today. However, that is an aside. Why should I intrude on a private grief? I shall not even say that I have some sympathy with Mr. Rhodri Morgan. I hope that he has not allowed himself to be beaten into submission. The amendment we are now discussing would have made the position in Wales much clearer.
However, be that as it may, we have made progress with the Scottish Ministers who are clearly more enlightened and more open to argument than are our Celtic cousins who are looking after the Welsh Bill. This is sensible. Mr. Donald Dewar rightly recognised that at the beginning when for a few hours he thought he might manage to be the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister or Prime Minister for Scotland. He quickly saw that that was an impossible position and made it clear that he would not contemplate it. He was absolutely right and the Government are right. I am grateful to them for accepting our argument and warmly welcome the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I join in congratulating the Minister on moving such a sensible
540
amendment. I was astonished when I saw it on the Marshalled List in the light of the arguments that were advanced, day after day, in the various stages of the Welsh Bill, as to why we should not have a similar amendment. Initially I was ridiculed and told that the point I was making was absurd and that the whole thing was totally unnecessary.
When this House backed me and we sent our amendment to the Commons, the tone of the Government changed because they had discovered that quite a lot of their people in the other place thought that the proposition that there should be a dual mandate was pretty unsatisfactory. The Minister in another place conceded a large part of the case.
Nevertheless, when pressed by Mr. Dafydd Wigley to have a clear-cut amendment, the Government refused and referred to the need for transitional arrangements during the handover period, while the orders were being made. They argued that there might be future occasions on which it would be desirable to have a dual mandate and that therefore it would be quite wrong not to have scope for it; that the flexibility was needed. However, apparently now in the Scottish Bill flexibility is not needed. I am not sure why it should be needed in the case of the Welsh Bill and not in the case of the Scottish Bill, but there we are.
I take the opportunity to comment in the light of events taking place, I believe, this very afternoon in Wales, where decisions are being taken about the form of election to be held for the leadership of the Labour Party in the assembly in Wales. I remind noble Lords of the firm commitments that were given in both Houses as to what would happen in Wales. We did not succeed in getting a statutory prohibition written in, as is now the case in Scotland. But we received the undertaking that the dual mandate would only be held for a short transitional period. On the specific authority of the then Secretary of State for Wales, who on that occasion was sitting on the steps of the Throne, the Minister who replied to the House, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that he would be surprised and disappointed if the period of the dual mandate extended to as much as 12 months.
I hope that those specific undertakings, on the basis of which I withdrew the amendment, will not now be overlooked, that Ministers will hold to their promises, particularly in the light of the amendment that has now been moved for Scotland, and that there will be no question of a dual mandate being held by the present Secretary of State or indeed anyone else in Wales.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as would be expected, I welcome the welcome that the amendment has received. For the sake of accuracy, perhaps I may point out that it is not so much the blushes of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, that should be spared but my own. I plead that I was trying to look after the future employment prospects of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, when advancing those arguments. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that I almost came close to reconsidering my position on this amendment the further he advanced his case. The point we are making is that Scotland is Scotland and

541
Wales is Wales. Scotland will have a parliament with primary legislative responsibility. That is fundamentally different from the Welsh Assembly, which has only secondary legislative powers. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Exercise of Functions]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 23, line 17, leave out ("Subsections (3) and (4) do") and Insert ("Subsection (4) does").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is a drafting amendment to Clause 52 to remove an unnecessary reference to Clause 52(3) in Clause 52(5). Clause 52(3) provides that statutory functions of the Scottish Ministers shall be exercisable by any member of the Scottish executive. Clause 52(5) currently provides that subsection (3) does not apply in relation to the exercise of functions conferred on the First Minister alone and to the Lord Advocate's retained functions. However, as these functions would not be functions of the Scottish Ministers, it is unnecessary to provide that Clause 52(3) does not apply. Accordingly, the amendment deletes the reference to Clause 52(3). I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be delighted to hear that on this occasion I fully accept her explanation that it is a technical amendment. I have to say that, before she spoke, I did not think that it was, but I am now quite persuaded that it is. I do not oppose the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [General transfer of functions]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 24, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) This section and section 54 are modified by Part III of Schedule 4.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am tempted to say that this is yet another drafting amendment. The amendment makes it clear that Clauses 53 and 54, which transfer to the Scottish Ministers those ministerial functions which are exercisable within devolved competence, are modified by Part III of Schedule 4. I could give a good deal more detail if it were asked for. However, in the circumstances, I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we shall not contest the amendment but I have to express surprise about the use of the word "modified". It is a fairly new word to be used in the statute book. Indeed, I do not remember it being used until this Session. In the course of time the word will no doubt be given a particular meaning and effect, but I hope that the Government will resist using it as much as they can. I do not think it is a good expression to use. "Modify" generally means "reduce". That is not what is intended here. It is intended to say:
"This section and section 54 are to be considered in the light of Part III of Schedule 4".
542
I hope that I am not out of order in saying that we should in future be very careful about the use of the word "modify".
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble Lord's comments to the parliamentary draftsman. I am sure that what he has said will be read and noted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Existing debt]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 31, line 18, leave out ("This section applies") and insert ("Subsections (2) to (4) apply").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 78. These are technical amendments. Their purpose is to allow provision to be made to ensure that outstanding debt owed by the Registers of Scotland Trading Fund to the National Loans Fund is repaid after devolution when the Registers of Scotland become part of the Scottish administration.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland is responsible for maintaining various registers. He exercises those functions through the Registers of Scotland Executive Agency. It operates as a trading fund under existing trading funds legislation. That legislation will cease to apply to the Registers of Scotland when it ceases to be a United Kingdom government department and becomes part of the Scottish administration on devolution. That would leave outstanding debt owed by the trading fund to the National Loans Fund in limbo.
The effect of the amendments will be to enable the Secretary of State to order that the existing debt which is deemed to be owed by the trading fund to the National Loans Fund be treated as an advance from the Secretary of State to Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Ministers will have to continue to repay the debt on existing terms and conditions and the Secretary of State will pay the proceeds into the National Loans Fund. This will ensure that the outstanding debt can continue to be repaid to the fund. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I think it is a good job he did not say that it is a drafting amendment. It certainly sounded fairly technical and seemed to have some connection with debt relief, which is very fashionable these days. However, it sounded all right. I suspect that I shall have to read it fully to understand and appreciate it. I think we are content with the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that this is a technical amendment in the sense that it deals with the technicalities of advances from the Treasury. However, it is on the face of it a substantial amendment. In fact,

543
the whole of page 4 of the Marshalled List is made up of government amendments. So that calls for us to think what has happened.
When the Bill was introduced into this House it had already gone through the other place. However, it was still 96 pages long. The Bill we are now considering, as amended on Report, is 111 pages long. Most of the increase—15.5 per cent.—arises from government amendments; and so today we are adding more and more government amendments. We are bound to ask why we are in the position of constantly inflating the statute book from stage to stage. Even after the Bill has been considered by one House, we go on making it longer and longer at the instance of the Government. The reason is that we try to draft in an over-elaborate way.
The matter was referred to by the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation. In fact, it was referred to under the title "Over-Elaboration". In paragraph 6.5 of the report the committee quotes with approval a memorandum from two great Scottish judges, my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie and the late Lord Wheatley, who at the time were Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk. This is what they said:
"Most of the problems encountered by the Courts flow directly from the tendency of Parliament to ignore the virtue of enacting broad general rules in which the principal and over-riding intention can be readily seen, and to try to legislate in detail for particular aspects of the mischief which presumably the statute is intended to curb. It is an eternal truth that one can seldom foresee every combination of circumstances which may arise, and the practical consequence of attempting to do so and of drafting a statute so as to concentrate unduly on foreseen examples is more often than not to conceal the general intention and the ambit of that intention in a welter of detached provisions which leave one in doubt as to whether a particular combination of circumstances not expressly provided for was intended to be covered at all. It is probably the case that legislation in detail is resorted to because Parliamentarians harbour the suspicion that judges cannot be trusted to give proper effect to clear statements of principle. This, with respect to them (the Parliamentarians), is wholly unfounded. Indeed, so far as Scots judges are concerned, the strength of their common law system lies in its reliance upon broad statements of principle, and there is no reason to suppose that similar broad statements of principle in statute law would not, in their hands, be applied to the facts of any given case, to achieve the will of Parliament".
That is precisely true also of English common law principles, as I am sure the noble and learned friend will bear out, and why this Bill in particular is so massive and has grown and is still growing. That brings me back to ask the noble and learned Lord why that should be so.
Noble Lords will remember that Sir Robert Andrew, who was asked to advise on the Government Legal Services, advised that parliamentary counsel should be responsible to the Law Officers. That was his only recommendation that was disregarded. The same recommendation was made by an authoritative committee of the Hansard Society on legislation and its preparation under the chairmanship of the late Lord Rippon. I ask again: when will an important body of lawyers in the Government be made responsible to someone other than the Prime Minister, to whom at the moment they are solely responsible; for example a legal officer such as the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General who will ensure that the drafting does
544
not continue in this over-elaborate way but lays down general principles as recommended by the Renton Committee?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It is important that he reminds us of the views of the committee which are just as applicable today as they were as long ago as 1975 when the report was published.
The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that since the Bill came before the House a tremendous number of government amendments has been tabled. I am surprised by that, bearing in mind that the intention to legislate on this matter was expressed in the Queen's Speech as long ago as May 1997. In Scotland the Law Officers who advise the Scottish Office are responsible for parliamentary counsel. It is only in England and Wales and in general that parliamentary counsel in Whitehall are responsible to the Prime Minister but in Scotland it is different, and I believe wisely so.
This was not an easy Bill to draft and I am not surprised that there have been a number of government amendments, but I believe that the matter should have been considered in much greater depth at an earlier stage, even before the Bill reached another place. In another place legislation is not considered with the thoroughness that noble Lords display in this matter. I believe that to be due in part to the fact that the other place does not have the same degree of expertise and legal learning. Therefore, noble Lords have a very important task in considering the further amendments that the Government have introduced and, on their own initiative, improving the Bill in general as they have tried to do.
I am very reluctant to criticise the Lord Advocate because I believe that he has done great service to us in the course of this Bill. But I believe that there is a general matter for consideration here which applies especially to this Bill that devolves powers to Scotland. As the noble and learned Lord said, this is of very general application. I hope that in future sessions the Government will bear in mind that legislation is of vital importance, difficult and requires a great deal of consideration before Parliament is ever asked to consider it.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for their interventions. While the question of accountability of parliamentary draftsmen is a matter of general interest and importance, it goes beyond the scope of this amendment. Further, the procedures in the Scottish parliament, once it is established, for pre-legislative scrutiny by a committee will be a vast improvement on the present procedures in Westminster. I believe that to be a positive advantage of this Bill which I hope noble Lords will acknowledge.
I turn to the question of why this amendment is required. I apologise to the House if I have not already explained the matter. In the transitional period the Government are anxious to ensure that the registers can continue to operate broadly as they do at the present time.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene, we were not complaining of the noble and learned Lord's explanation. We were complaining about the length of the amendment introduced at this stage.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I understand that. Perhaps I may explain to the noble and learned Lord that other provisions in Clause 129 enabling an Order in Council to deal with transitional and transitory provisions will achieve the objective of enabling the registers to continue to operate broadly, as now. However, in considering these matters it was noted that provisions relating to the National Loans Fund could not be included in that general transitional provision or general Order in Council because there is apparently an agreement with the Public Accounts Committee that there must be specific provisions in primary legislation dealing with the loans fund. That is why the provision is brought forward. I apologise that that matter was not picked up before this stage. I hope that with that explanation noble Lords will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 31:
Page 31, line 35, at end insert—
("(4A) Subsection (4B) applies to any amount outstanding immediately before the commencement of this subsection in respect of the principal of the sum treated by virtue of section 2(3) of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 as issued to the Registers of Scotland Executive Agency Trading Fund on the day on which the order establishing that fund came into force ("the issue date").
(4B) The Secretary of State may, with the agreement of the Treasury, by order provide—

(a) for the amount to be treated as an advance made by him to the Scottish Ministers on the issue date, and

(b) for the advance to be repaid to him at such times and by such methods, and for interest on the advance to be paid to him at such rates and at such times, as were determined by the Treasury under section 2B(3) of that Act in respect of the sum referred to in subsection (4A).").

Page 31, line 36, after ("(4)'') insert ("or (4B)").
Page 31, line 38, after ("(4)") insert ("or (4B)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 79 [Supplemental powers to modify enactments]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 38, leave out lines 7 and 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 32 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 57.
Government Amendment No. 48 amends the definition of "enactment" provided by Clause 126 to make it explicit that it includes future Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation made under such Acts. This definition will apply throughout the Bill. It allows Amendments Nos. 32 and 57 to remove existing provisions which apply only for the purposes of Clause 79 and paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 4 and which are now redundant.
Government Amendment No. 47 is the so-called disappearing amendment. It replicates Amendment No. 204A which was omitted at Report stage because of
546
a printing error on the Marshalled List. Fortunately for everyone the error was spotted by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. I am very much in his debt for spotting it and alerting us to it. This makes amends for that. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. It is always a pleasure to be of help sometimes.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for the way in which he scrutinises legislation to make sure that the Government do not make mistakes. Perhaps I may revert back to the last debate. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will be happy to note that five lines have been taken out of the Bill and three lines added, with a net loss of two lines. I suppose progress is made slowly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 33:
Before Clause 86, insert the following new clause—

REVIEW OF IMPACT OF THIS ACT ON PARLIAMENT
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall review the impact of this Act on the functions, powers and composition of each House of Parliament and shall report thereon at such intervals as he considers appropriate.
(2) Any report under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I return to the subject of Scottish representation in both Houses of Parliament after devolution. Superficially what is different is that this time I have managed to bring forward a substantive amendment. For that I give thanks to the Public Bill Office and to the wisdom, or perhaps the desperation, of the staff.
The amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to review the performance after devolution of MPs and Peers from Scotland. It is true that there will be less Scottish legislation processed by this Parliament. Paradoxically, it is also true that this United Kingdom Parliament will make laws for Scotland and will modify the Scots law within the context of reserved powers legislation. In view of the imminent changes to the membership of both Houses, I believe that a watching and reporting brief will be necessary and useful.
In another place it seems likely that the number of Scots MPs will be reduced to around 58. I believe that we can expect these MPs to be regular attenders. In this House the number of Scots attending will soon be drastically reduced by the anticipated peerage Bill. The number of life Peers domiciled in Scotland is around 40. For many reasons it cannot be envisaged that they will all attend the House regularly. I believe that insufficient Scots will be domiciled Peers who will attend regularly and scrutinise Scots legislation.
I do not defend the hereditary Peerage. But I wish to assert that Peers from Scotland have attended this House by statute since 1707. Articles 22 and 23 of the Union Acts laid down the statutory principle of Scottish

547
representation in this House. The Union Acts were amended in 1963 by the removal of the restriction to 16 imposed on the Peerage of Scotland by the treaty. Curiously, the two historic subsidiary Acts which deal with elections to both Houses seem still to be on the statute book despite amendments in 1963.
I choose to make the same error as my historic predecessors in trying to regard the Act of Union as a part of a written constitution. Therefore the historic principle of Peers from Scotland being a statutorily guaranteed element in this House requires us to put in place a system of monitoring and remedy in view of the substantial and welcome changes that are being made at this time. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Earl makes an interesting point. But I do not know whether the amendment is the right way to confront it.
In his reply, can the Lord Advocate tell us what we shall and shall not be discussing in this House in relation to Scotland? Is there a boundary to what the House of Lords will be able to discuss? It is a matter of considerable concern in Scotland to those people who interest themselves in what is going on as regards the House of Lords. It will be interesting if the noble and learned Lord can give an answer. I do not think that we have had one during the passage of the Bill.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. My noble friend Lord Sewel dealt with the issue in some detail on Report. I refer the noble Baroness to the proceedings in Hansard. I shall write to the noble Baroness to give her the column number in Hansard at which a detailed answer was given as to precisely which issues may be dealt with here.
I agree with the noble Baroness that the noble Earl's amendment is interesting. However, I regret that it is not one that the Government can accept. The amendment explores what effect devolution will have on both Houses of the Westminster Parliament. The issue is already being considered by the Procedure Committee of another place. That committee is conducting an inquiry into the procedural consequences of devolution. If I understand the noble Earl's amendment correctly, he is proposing that role for the Secretary of State.
The remit of the Procedure Committee is to consider what changes are necessary as a consequence of devolution legislation not just in respect of this Bill but the Government of Wales Act and the Northern Ireland Act, too. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, the committee is considering issues such as whether it is possible to lay down clear principles as to the House's relationship with the Scottish parliament and Welsh and Irish assemblies. Consideration is also being given to the future of the Scottish Select Committee and the Scottish Grand Committee. The Government hope shortly to submit their evidence to the Procedure Committee. They will address the consequences of devolution to the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
548
The Government remain of the view that it is best to allow this Parliament to consider for itself the consequences of devolution. They do not believe that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to carry out such a review. Indeed, we should not look in isolation at the affect of any one piece of devolved legislation.
The point raised by the noble Earl in relation to the number of Scottish Peers working in this House is not a matter for this Bill, as I explained previously. The Bill makes no changes to the composition of procedures of your Lordships' House and I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that the Procedure Committee is examining the matter. It certainly needs to be examined and I look forward to reading its report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Scottish representation at Westminster]:
Viscount Dunrossil Viscount Dunrossil moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 40, line 29, at end insert—
("3B. A constituency which includes the Western Isles (na h-Eileanan an Iar) shall not include the whole or any part of a local government area other than the Western Isles.";").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my purpose in bringing forward the amendment is certainly not to try to embarrass the Government; nor is it to impose yet further delay in the passage of this important Bill. It has already been argued about at some length and is now in its final stages.
I should declare interests—one official and one personal—which may help briefly to explain why I feel obliged to propose the amendment to safeguard the Western Isles parliamentary constituency. First, I live in North Uist in the Western Isles where I currently serve as Lord Lieutenant. I am therefore deeply concerned about the Western Isles' general well-being. Secondly, as the amendment refers exclusively to the parliamentary constituency of the Western Isles, perhaps I may add that my father contested the constituency in 1924. He was a Conservative, and therefore at the time had no hope of winning the seat. However, he was also a native Gaelic speaker as both of his parents and their parents came from North Uist. Therefore, unlike some other distinguished contestants of the seat, he did not lose his deposit. I may say that his English improved considerably over the years and he ended his political life in Westminster as Speaker of another place from 1951 to 1960.
What has disturbed many people in the Western Isles is the manner in which we seem collectively to have stumbled into a position where an amendment along the lines I have suggested becomes not only desirable but essential if the people of the Western Isles are not to feel deep misgivings and a mistrust of the political process that has brought us to this situation. I will not rehash the arguments as to who should be held responsible for what is essentially a misunderstanding. It is, after all, set out at great length as a description of

549
assumptions, assurances and a lack of communication, in the Stornoway Gazette, which is available to all noble Lords, and it makes rather sad reading.
In essence, the parliamentary constituency of the Western Isles was set up in 1918. The unitary local authority covering the same area has been in existence since 1974. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had a hand in that when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. Both are natural expressions of the life and distinct culture of the people of those islands and there has been no serious move to alter the arrangements since their inception, and none is apparently foreseen by the Government.
One feature of life in the Western Isles is our vulnerability to the effect of changing wind direction and strength. Every winter we experience winds of more than 100 miles an hour. That makes us wary of assuming that structures will be permanent unless great care is taken to protect them. The wind blowing one way today may not be the same next week. So it is with this Bill.
It will not have escaped the notice of those noble Lords who listened to this morning's shipping forecast that a severe storm, force 11, has been forecast for today for the Island of Lewis. It is a reminder from the forces of nature that our shelters and defences should be in good order and repair. It is also an allegorical warning of why we need the amendment.
The people of the Western Isles, while proud of their individual way of life and identity, are not that strange, nor are they hostile to their mainland neighbours. They simply do not want to be merged with them so closely that they will be taken over by the sheer force of numbers only. At this time of remembrance, it is appropriate to recall that the island's contribution to the Armed Forces and Merchant Navy in two world wars, as a proportion of its total population, was massive.
At the recent referendum on devolution, the islanders produced a strong "yes" vote, little knowing that a threat to the integrity of their parliamentary constituency could be the maverick result and that what was claimed to be progressive mindless legislation could thrust them backwards into the pre-1918 situation which they so disliked.
All along they have believed and trusted Government Ministers when they have been reassured by them that any threat to their constituency's existence was "inconceivable". But the wind has certainly changed and on 22nd October the noble Lord the Minister in charge of the Bill said, in effect, "I shall have to put a stop to this somehow". He also asked, and I paraphrase, "If we give the islanders this, where do we draw the line?". Lines, he implied, are difficult to draw.
This is where my explanatory amendment could help. It will be simple to "put a stop to all this", as the Minister wishes, with no bad feelings by an act of generosity and some display of positive and sympathetic statesmanship by accepting this small amendment. As to drawing the line, it is not that difficult. Having dealt
550
with Orkney and Shetland, both with seats and voting populations smaller than ours, the line drawn is simple; straight down the Minches! I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my friends in the Western Isles have asked me to say a few words about the amendment. As indicated by the noble Viscount, in the early 1970s, as Secretary of State for Scotland, I made the Western Isles as well as Orkney and Shetland, which are not involved in the amendment, separate local authorities in the reorganisation of local government in Scotland. A new entity was invented; namely, the island authority. Three island authorities came into existence. Before that, nearly 30 years ago, when I was in the Shadow Cabinet, I stated from the Opposition Front Bench in 1969, when we were considering the report of the Wheatley Royal Commission, that I favoured three island authorities. That was one of the changes that I made as Secretary of State to the proposals in the Wheatley Commission's report. I shall be sorry if that principle were now to be discarded.
I would understand if the Government were to say that they do not wish to have any apparent restriction on complete discretion in future to devise constituencies. I believe that I would be sympathetic to that if I were still on the government Front Bench. But since my decision in about 1971, both the residents and the councillors of the Western Isles have rejoiced in being an island authority. It was quite new to them and it has given them great pleasure. I continue to receive letters and messages of congratulation on having taken that decision. So in principle I support what is proposed although I realise that this Bill may not be the place in which to make such a change.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I have extremely sympathetic views towards this amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Dunrossil, for having brought it before your Lordships' House, not least because it gives me the opportunity to correct a small mistake in the Official Report, which occurred when we were discussing the question of the Western Isles on the first day of the Report stage in the debate which has been mentioned. It states at col. 1609 that it was my noble friend Lord Alderdice who stated,
"My Lords, it was my understanding at Committee stage that the Government accepted this amendment. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, wishes it, we shall support him".—[Official Report, 22/10/98; col. 1609.]
In fact, it was I who said that and not the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who, I believe, was happily in Northern Ireland at that time. There is confusion with the facial hair: I believe that his is slightly prettier than mine.
In that debate on the first day of the Report stage we supported the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in the Lobbies. That was on a somewhat different question from the one we are facing today. The amendment put forward at that point by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, regarded representation

551
in the Scots parliament. In just the same way as this Bill has sought to give Orkney and Shetland two constituencies in the Scottish parliament, it was quite logical for us to support an amendment to give the Western Isles a constituency in the Scottish parliament.
However, we lost that vote. There is some consolation in that the amendments I moved, with the valued support of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, were carried in this House. They mean that the Scottish parliament will ultimately be responsible for looking at what the proper constituencies will be for the Scottish parliament in the future. Consequently, it will be in the hands of Scots to make the decisions in respect of the Scottish parliamentary constituency.
However, what we are discussing today as regards Clause 86 concerns representation at Westminster. It is my understanding that subsection (3) of that clause concerning Orkney and Shetland is required as a consequence. The introduction of Rule 3A is required as a consequence of having split Orkney and Shetland in the first place. Therefore, the principle involved here is that for the Scottish parliament there will be two constituencies, but in order to preserve the Westminster situation, this change is required to the rules. That is not quite the same thing and it cannot be applied to the Western Isles.
In other words, the creation of two constituencies for the Scottish parliament requires the changes to Clause 86 rather than the desire to pickle in aspic Orkney and Shetland as a constituency although, I believe, it has that effect. I fully support the sentiments which the noble Viscount has put forward. He referred to a Force 11 crossing the Western Isles. They come mostly from the West. In Caithness they tend to come from the North. They are just as strong, but a little colder. I have great sympathy for what the noble Viscount is putting forward, but I do not believe that this is the appropriate place for it. Therefore, I shall not be able to support him on this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to have my name associated with the noble Viscount, Lord Dunrossil. He explained to your Lordships his family connection with the Western Isles. Your Lordships will probably appreciate, therefore, that the noble Viscount's father was considerably more successful at persuading the people of the Western Isles to vote for his proposals than I was because he kept his deposit and I lost mine. However, as I said to your Lordships in Committee, that has not stopped me from having affection for the Western Isles and a regard for them. I managed to get them a new hospital about which they have been extremely kind ever since.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has referred to earlier debates. There is a relationship between Clause 86 and Schedule 1 of the Bill. In fact, we divided on Schedule 1 when it was a matter for the Scottish parliament. That is now water under the bridge. In Clause 86 we refer to Scottish representation at Westminster. I moved a similar amendment to this one at Report stage. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon does most of the drafting of the amendments which we put down. He had not put the
552
Gaelic name in brackets and that was about the only difference. I believe that was probably because neither the noble and learned Lord nor myself speak any Gaelic. The amendments are the same.
The Minister said that the reason we had to put down Orkney and the Shetland Isles in the way that it is done in Clause 86 was to tie it back, so to speak, to Schedule 1. I understood that. But it seems to me that that does not necessarily need to be the only reason. Clause 86 not only ties this matter back to Schedule 1, but tells the Boundary Commission for all time to come that a constituency which includes the Orkney and Shetland Isles,
"shall not include the whole or any part of a local government area other than the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands".
While that may be necessary in order to tie it in with Schedule 1, it also secures the position of the Orkney and Shetland Islands as one constituency to the United Kingdom Parliament.
Therefore, having reflected on the matter, I agree with the noble Viscount that the Western Isles deserve protection. That is particularly important when one reads Clause 86(4), which tells us that the electoral quota in future in Scotland is to be raised from 54,000 to 69,000, which is the same as that in England at the moment.
When that happens the position of the Western Isles with only 22,000 electors will appear anomalous. I suggest to your Lordships, as I suggested before, that there is a danger that in achieving 69,000 a future Boundary Commission may well decide that the Western Isles could be tied up with some other parts of the Highland mainland or even the Isle of Skye. I believe that that would be the most obvious tie-up. That would be appropriate in order to increase the numbers from 22,000.
For the reasons which the noble Viscount clearly spelt out, and with which I agree, that would be unwise. Just because it has not happened in the past does not mean to say that it will not happen in the future. In the past the Boundary Commission was considering an electoral quota of 54,000, which is considerably different from one of 69,000. Therefore, in order to protect the position of the Western Isles, in future the Boundary Commission will have to increase the size of the other constituencies in Scotland by a considerable amount.
Although the reasons for this provision being in the Bill are mostly Scottish parliamentary reasons, the side effect is that it protects Orkney and Shetland for Westminster parliamentary reasons. That is a simple fact. Therefore, I believe that the parliamentary—that is, the House of Commons'—position on the Western Isles should also be protected. If it is not protected, I could easily make out a case some time in the future for praying in aid the very fact that it is not protected as being a reason why the Western Isles constituency could be added to in order to achieve for the whole of Scotland the 69,000 quota and the reduction to roughly 58 seats from 72. I have no hesitation in supporting the noble Viscount's Amendment No. 34.
6 p.m.
Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Dunrossil. Unlike my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I have not been asked by my friends in the Western Isles to intervene, but my friends in the Western Isles have not asked me not to intervene. I am glad to do so because, like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I too was responsible for the reform of local government in Scotland and the redrawing of boundaries. Amending the Western Isles boundaries was considered at the time together with the possibility of Skye and one or two other islands being linked with it. My reaction to that was, "Give them a Minch and they'll take an isle". It is best to have nothing to do with it.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish makes the point extremely effectively as to how vulnerable the Western Isles might be in a Westminster parliamentary sense if and when the electoral quotas are changed in Scotland to create larger constituencies. The Government would greatly reassure people in the Western Isles and beyond that their future, in terms of parliamentary constituency representation, would be secure by accepting the amendment so ably moved by the noble Viscount.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I start by making it clear that there is nothing in the Bill that threatens to disturb or change in any way the existence of the Western Isles as a separate local authority. That possibility was referred to by at least one noble Lord. That is not a possibility. That does not touch local government at all. The noble Lord, Lord Lang, was the last person to reorganise local government in Scotland and I believe that it can settle down for some considerable time before anybody else has a crack at it.
Amendment No. 34 offers the House yet another opportunity to express its views on whether the Bill should make special provision for a separate constituency for the Western Isles. I welcome the noble Viscount to this debate. It is not a new debate. It is something that we have discussed before on two occasions. On both those occasions the House, on Report and in Committee, was content with what the Bill said.
I understand that the council of the Western Isles has made representations on this point in the Bill. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has, I understand, seen members of the council this morning to explain the Government's position.
The noble Viscount argued extremely persuasively that the Western Isles is a distinct and separate geographical, cultural and social entity. I hope there is no one in the House who would argue against that. That is the case. He also recalls that the islands have had a separate parliamentary constituency for over 80 years. It has a robust knack of surviving as a separate parliamentary constituency, no matter how strongly the winds blow or from which direction.
I hope it will help if I make it quite clear that the Bill does not in any way change the well-established position of the Western Isles. For exactly the reasons adduced,
554
the Boundary Commission is always likely to place considerable weight on the special nature of the islands, as it has for the past 80 years. In reviewing constituency boundaries the Boundary Commission must give effect to the statutory rules set out in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Rule 6 already expressly provides that the commission may depart from the strict application of the rules concerning electoral quotas and the boundaries of local authority areas,
"if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, appear to them to render a departure desirable".
I believe that should give enough confidence to the noble Viscount.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State explained to the council this morning, the Western Isles is the most obvious example of where that rule has applied. The long-standing position of the Western Isles is surely a demonstration that those rules can be relied upon to work effectively without any further addition. The Government believe as a matter of principle that they should not interfere with the independent working of the parliamentary Boundary Commission and therefore the Bill makes the minimum necessary changes to the rules.
I recognise that the council believes that it is unfair that the Western Isles has not had the same treatment in the Bill as Orkney and Shetland. However, I am afraid to say that that is based on a misunderstanding. There is no question of unfair treatment of the Western Isles, and I shall try to explain why.
The Bill simply does what it has to in order to ensure separate representation of Orkney and Shetland at Holyrood. Therefore it is important to make sure that there is no undermining of that change by adjustments to the Westminster constituencies, if adjustments to the Westminster constituencies would merge one of those areas with another area, such as Caithness. The problem has arisen simply because Orkney and Shetland do not already have their own separate Westminster constituencies. The Scottish Constitutional Convention argued strongly that they should have separate Scottish parliamentary constituencies for the Scottish parliament, and we accept that. To make that secure, we have had to ensure that in Westminster terms Orkney and Shetland are not added to another part of the mainland. Clearly, if that were the case, it would be impossible to have a separate Orkney constituency and a separate Shetland constituency.
Therefore, on the face of the Bill there must be provision for the existing constituency to be split for the purposes of the Scottish parliament. That issue simply does not arise in the case of the Western Isles, where it is a well-established, separate constituency.
Clause 86(3) ring-fences a Westminster position for Orkney and Shetland as a consequence of what is proposed for the Scottish parliament, or as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, termed it, a side issue. That is true. The principle that we have adopted in the Bill, which is about Scottish devolution and the arrangements for a Scottish parliament and the electoral arrangements for a Scottish parliament, is to introduce rules and changes

555
that affect only Westminster parliamentary constituencies where there is a direct and a necessary reason to do that. That is because of the pledge to give separate representation for Orkney and Shetland, and it does not arise in respect of the Western Isles, which is a separate parliamentary constituency in any case.
I hope that I have been able to clear up what I believe is a misconception about unfairness. I hope that on Report I was able to explain to the House why it was necessary to have the provision for Shetland and the Orkney Islands and why that issue does not arise in relation to the Western Isles.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand the argument he is making, as I indicated I did in my original remarks. However, he seems to be avoiding the point that as a direct consequence of the next subsection, the electoral quotas in Scotland will increase from 54,000 to 69,000. That must have an impact on the boundaries drawn for the new Scottish consistencies. That may have an impact on the Western Isles.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is very keen on quotas and, indeed, the equal size of constituencies, on which I am sure we shall hear from him later. But the point is that the difficulty about the Western Isles is already covered by Rule 6 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. That allows the commission to depart from the application of the rules on electoral quotas and the boundaries of local government areas if specific geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, appear to the commission to render a departure desirable.
I have confidence that in looking at its task in the future the Boundary Commission will be very much aware and seized of that rule.
Viscount Dunrossil: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us such a detailed and well thought out reply. The problem which we have raised has exercised his mind considerably. However, I feel that we are faced with two misunderstandings. I believe that the misunderstanding may persist for a long time, eroding some of the confidence which the people of the Western Isles have; namely the misunderstanding that somehow or other they have missed a trick and that those wily people down south have tricked them once again.
That may not be rational politics but it is politics and it is psychology. We may share the Minister's confidence that we have a special case but it is quite clear from his considered remarks that he is giving away nothing in substance. Therefore, I should like to see whether we can still further reinforce our little building up in the north-west against the changing winds. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Leigh, L.

Attlee, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Balfour, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bethell, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McConnell, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brentford, V.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Carnock, L.

Moran, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clyde, L.

Newall, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dunrossil, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Eames, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fookes, B.

Rees, L.

Forbes, L.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Glentoran, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Greenway, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harlech, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Henley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stair, E.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Strange, B.

Hylton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Inchcape, E.

Sudeley, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Vivian, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kintore, E.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Addington, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ahmed, L.

Christopher, L.

Alli, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Amos, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bach, L.

Craigavon, V.

Barnett, L.

Crawley, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

David, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blease, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Borrie, L.

Dixon, L.

Bragg, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Burlison, L.

Dubs, L.

Calverley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

557

Evans of Watford, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Geraint, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gilbert, L.

Northfield, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grenfell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Puttnam, L.

Hardie, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Razzall, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rea, L.

Haskel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hayman, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Russell, E.

Hoyle, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

Islwlyn, L.

Sewel, L.

Jacobs, L.

Shepherd, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Simon, V.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Judd, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thurso, V.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Uddin, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Warner, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Whitty, L.

McNair, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winston, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.21 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth The Earl of Dartmouth moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 40, line 36, at end insert (", subject to any increase made under subsection (4A) below.
(4A) In applying rule 5 for the purposes referred to in subsection (4) above, the Boundary Commission for Scotland shall increase the electoral quota to take account of the fact that Scotland does, and England does not, have a devolved Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have just spent 40 minutes discussing the boundary of only one parliamentary constituency; namely, the Western Isles—I shall spare the House my rendition of its Gaelic name. That clearly entitles me to spend 640 times 40 minutes discussing Amendment No. 35 which addresses the boundaries and electoral quota for all the Westminster constituencies. I know that that is something to which your Lordships will look forward in three or four days' time; mercifully, my remarks will be brief.
I have every expectation that this amendment will be characterised as being somehow anti-Scottish. But nothing could be further from the truth. That is assuredly not the case. The amendment concerns fairness, equity and the continuing survival of the Union in anything like its present form.
On the 1997 electoral roll there were 3.9 million electors for Scotland and approximately 3.77 million for the area of Yorkshire and the Humber—the area for which I have the honour to stand for my party in the June Euro elections. In what I am about to say I do not represent the views of my party as a whole; indeed, I am speaking only for myself and for the electors of Yorkshire and the Humber for whom these are matters of deep concern.
In the 1997 general election the 3.9 million electors in Scotland elected 72 MPs; the 3.77 million electors of Yorkshire and the Humber—only 130,000 fewer people—elected only 56 MPs; that is to say, 16 or 28.5 per cent. fewer. That is extremely unfair and even more unfair in the context of the Scotland Bill as a whole.
To give credit where credit is due, I am glad to say that the Government accepted—albeit grudgingly and insufficiently—the principle behind this amendment. Indeed, there is one small genuflection towards fairness to the English regions in the Scotland Bill; that is, Clause 86 which lays down a parity of electoral quota between Scotland and England. However, that is nothing like sufficient to address the blatant unfairness towards the English regions at the heart of this Bill. What is significant is not what the Bill contains, but what it does not contain.
For example, in the rest of the Bill there is no hint of any reform of the Barnett formula whereby in the fiscal year ending 1996, for example, £871 per head of extra identifiable public expenditure was spent on the residents of Scotland. There is no attempt to reform regional selective assistance grants which induce companies to relocate. They go disproportionately to Scotland, despite the fact that Scotland is second only to the South-East as the richest region in the Union. And even in relation to the minor reform of the electoral quota which the Government conceded, the execution of this slight but urgent reform is not to have any effect until the general election after next. That point is being dealt with in a subsequent amendment.
I return to the central point of my amendment. Even if parity with the English quota proposed by Clause 86 was introduced tomorrow, it would be wholly insufficient. Mere parity with the English quota is not enough. The whole point of the Scotland Bill is that it creates a Scottish parliament with full powers; indeed, no less an authority than the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, a mere 55 minutes ago, pointed out that the Scottish parliament has primary legislative powers; that is, it is a real parliament. By comparison England and the English regions have only Westminster.
It is not sufficient therefore for the electoral quota for Scotland as laid down in Clause 86 to have parity with England. In logic and in equity the quota must be substantially less. Precisely how much less is something

559
that the Boundary Commission can determine in the normal way on the basis of representations made to it, but with it being statutorily obliged to take fully into account the fact of a Scottish parliament in all its powers.
Amendment No. 35 has been carefully considered. It goes a long way to correcting the inequity—the self-evident and blatant unfairness towards the English and the English regions at the heart of this Bill—and in so doing will help to preserve the Union in something approaching its present form. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this is an interesting amendment. The Scottish parliament will have approximately the same powers as the Stormont parliament had between 1922 and 1972. As a quid pro quo for having been given so many devolved powers, during that period the Northern Irish were allowed only 70 per cent. of the representation at Westminster to which their numbers would otherwise have entitled them. On an equivalent basis, Scotland would therefore have only 39 or 40 seats at Westminster.
I believe that there are fairer ways of solving the West Lothian—or for that matter North Belfast—question and we will be touching on the former in a moment. However, this is an important matter which deserves to be raised.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I detect the sound of gunfire in this amendment and it is not for me to argue a case against my native land. But we are edging very near to the West Lothian question and the repercussions from the Bill which this amendment undoubtedly brings out.
For my part I cannot escape the logic of the case that has been made, particularly the reference to the fact that in the past the Boundary Commission looked at representation at Westminster in the light of the powers that had been devolved to Northern Ireland. All that I would say is that this will not go away. I believe that because of the powers that are not being devolved from the Westminster Parliament to the English regions, the Boundary Commission for Scotland will have to take into account the position there relative to that south of the Border and the quota of members thereof. Perhaps this is the unacceptable face of devolution so far as concerns Scottish representation at Westminster.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble Earl's amendment runs headlong into the psychology of Scottish Unionism. He attacks two of its central bulwarks; namely, substantial representation at Westminster and economic advantage. That is the purpose of the treaty. He is very unwise to attack it.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, this amendment is of considerable significance as it relates to the representation of Scotland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I note that the noble Earl said that he was speaking for himself—although adding himself to the people of Yorkshire and Humberside—and that he was not speaking for his party.
560
However, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who is a former Minister, spoke in a way which although not endorsing the noble Earl, came close to indicating a degree of support for him. In those circumstances and because Scotland's future representation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom is such a major issue and of significance in Scotland, I should be pleased to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, if he would like the opportunity to repudiate the argument put forward by his noble colleague. If he does not intervene, I shall take it that, as the Official Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, he does not want to repudiate the noble Earl's argument which I think will be utterly unacceptable to the people of Scotland. They have as much interest as any other citizens of the United Kingdom in issues such as foreign affairs, defence, macro-economic policy and social security—that is, in all the issues that are being reserved.
We have recognised that the present requirement placed upon the Boundary Commission, which results, I am happy to say, in a strict population over-representation in Scotland, is indefensible now that we are about to have a devolved parliament, and that a move towards parity is the way forward. However, the argument that Scottish citizens are somehow second-class citizens in the sense that they do not have a legitimate interest in all those matters that are being reserved and therefore should not be properly represented at Westminster is totally unacceptable to the Government. I had hoped that it would be totally unacceptable to the Official Opposition, but that is clearly not the case.
Perhaps I may deal now with Northern Ireland. The point was made that under earlier arrangements with Stormont, Northern Ireland had a 70 per cent. level of representation. It is well known that that was subsequently changed. I believe that Northern Ireland's representation is now at virtual parity with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. There has been no suggestion during the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill that somehow Northern Ireland's representation should be reduced in recognition of the fact that it will have devolved political institutions. Of course, the noble Earl's amendment does not relate to Northern Ireland but, again, I do not see why Scotland should be treated any differently from Northern Ireland. I consider this amendment to be grossly offensive. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in responding to his somewhat leaden-footed attack on the Opposition, may I ask him to explain exactly what he understands will be the effect of subsection (4) of Clause 86?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as far as I understand it, Clause 86(4) gives expression to what I stated was the policy; namely, to remove the requirement that the Boundary Commission should apply a number for Scottish representation which would put it above the

561
population quota for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is by that means that the number of Scottish MPs is reduced to parity.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I should like briefly to respond to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. He said that the great bulwarks of Unionism were disproportionate representation and additional funding, if I noted his second phrase correctly. He is, of course, correct, but the whole point is that it would appear that the people of Scotland do not want the Union; they want some accelerated form of home rule. My point was that they cannot similarly expect to have what goes with, or used to go with, the Union.
I should like to express my great disappointment at what the Minister said. He has a distinguished record, as I understand it, as an academic. As the possessor of no fewer than three degrees, I welcome being taught logic by a distinguished professor such as the Minister. He had two points. First, he found my arguments offensive. It is therefore a pity that he did not respond to them. Secondly, he said that the people of Scotland would find my arguments unacceptable. They are not here to respond to them.
The Minister referred to the question of Scottish MPs at Westminster. Perhaps I may respond briefly. After the next general election, there will still be 72 MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster unless Amendment No. 35 is accepted by the Government. There will certainly be 58 MPs representing Scottish constituencies thereafter.
As I understand it—I am willing to be corrected—the new Scottish parliament will cover health, education, transport, the environment, economic development and agriculture. That is not meant to be a comprehensive list, but it is pretty much a majority of what constitutes parliamentary business in the House of Commons. It is also much more than a majority of what makes up the average MP's postbag. Those 72/58 Scottish MPs, who will be receiving a full salary, will be seriously under-employed. At best, they will spend a high proportion of their time twiddling their thumbs; at worst, they will interfere in purely English matters of health, education, transport and agriculture which in logic and in equity should be none of their concern.
That hideous anomaly, coupled with Scotland's tremendous fiscal privileges, which the Scotland Bill leaves untouched, will almost inevitably create a deep antipathy between Scotland and the English regions. Just because it is not there now, does not mean that it will not be there in a very strong form in short order. The only possibility of ameliorating that and at the same time saving the Union would have been for the Government to accept the amendment—and to do so gracefully.
I should have liked the amendment to be pressed to a Division, but unfortunately I have been unable to attract the support of my noble friends on this occasion. This will not be the last that the Government will hear of this matter, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 40, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) At the beginning of rule 5 there is inserted "Subject to rule 5A below,".
( ) After rule 5 there is inserted—
"5A. No more than one tenth of the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, excluding those formed by rule 3A, shall have an electorate more than 10 per cent. greater or smaller than the electoral quota.'"').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we turn to an issue which I have addressed on a number of occasions when, frankly, I have had pretty unsatisfactory answers from the Government. Perhaps I may deal with these points for a last time to see whether I can achieve a better answer from the Government today.
The position at present is that Scotland has 72 parliamentary constituencies with an electoral quota of some 54,000. However, there are some amazing variations within that figure. As my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser or Carmyllie pointed out a few minutes ago, the situation will change when the Bill is enacted in that Clause 86(4) will come into play and the electoral quota in Scotland will actually go to the same number as the electoral quota in England.
I understand from a Parliamentary Answer in another place recently that the latter will take the Scottish quota to something like 69,000. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that; indeed, I suppose it is probably about 69,500 but let us call it 69,000. That is up from 54,000. In my view, the result will be that the number of Scottish seats will be reduced to about 58. Again, I should like the Government's view on what they think their own legislation means. In other words, am I right in thinking that the electoral quota will go to 69,000 odd and that the consequence of that will be that the number of Scottish seats would go down to 58?
In my view, if such a dramatic change will be undertaken by the next Boundary Commission, we ought to address the problem which I have drawn to the attention of the noble Lords on a number of occasions; namely, that the Boundary Commission has been singularly bad at actually achieving the electoral quota for the majority of seats in Scotland. One of the consequences of the seats being badly out of kilter, not just in Scotland but also in England and Wales, is that the "distortions", as they are called, of the first-past-the-post system relative to the number of people who vote are actually increased. It is simply but mathematically true that if the seats were closer to the electoral quota then the results of general elections in the number of seats gained by first-past-the-post would be closer to the proportionality of votes gained around the country—not exactly, but certainly closer.
Getting closer to electoral parity is important, given all the other points that we discussed earlier about Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles having special consideration and, therefore, very small numbers. Indeed, one accepts that, and I absolutely agree. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was kind enough to read out Rule 6 to the House; in fact, he read it out

563
twice. He clearly said that if specific geographical considerations apply the Boundary Commission should reduce the number.
With an electoral quota of 69,000, and if the Boundary Commission behaves the way that it has done in the past, my worry is that the disparity in seats in Scotland will actually increase. It is not Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles, or Caithness and Sutherland that I worry about; it is urban seats. I have to use the existing situation as an example because that is all we have. But if noble Lords were to project it forward, they would recognise the problem I pose and the one which I am attempting to resolve by way of my amendment.
Let us take the current quota of 54,000. All the seats in the city of Edinburgh amount to more that 60,000 votes; in fact, it has an average of about 62,000. All the seats in the city of Glasgow amount to under 60,000; indeed, some are under 50,000. Their average is 51,000. Therefore, all the seats in the city of Glasgow are actually under the electoral quota. I wonder whether specific geographical considerations apply to the seats in the constituencies in Glasgow—seats which, without any trouble, one could easily walk across when taking a brisk Sunday afternoon stroll. There is no logic at all in that position. As I said, those seats have an average of 51,000. Hamilton South, which I suspect one could walk across in half a Sunday afternoon, has 47,000 electors. Yet, at the other extreme, Carrick, Cumnok and the Doon Valley, which is a very large geographical constituency in Strathclyde as it was, has 66,500 electors. Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, which stretches from the North Sea across Scotland to the Atlantic, has 66,500. There are a number of further examples that I could give to the House, but I believe that those I have given illustrate my point.
It has always been said by the defenders of disparity, "The reason is that we want to give small numbers to the big rural seats". In actual fact, they have not done so. Indeed, from my memory, Dumfries has 62,000 odd whereas Inverness West and Skye—I believe that there is a word in between the two that I have forgotten—is actually pretty close to the average. However, it still ought to be under the average, because it stretches, again, from the North Sea to the Moray Firth and all the way across to the Atlantic Ocean.
If noble Lords were to study Scottish parliamentary seats they would be as puzzled as I am about how the Boundary Commissions have decided which seats should be heavily under quota and which should be over quota. Indeed, they are not just under or over quota by a little; they are over and under by a considerable number. When this goes up to 69,000 as it will do, and quite rightly—I think that the Government are right because I believe that it addresses the West Lothian question in part and I agree with them in that respect‹—I believe it will become more important that some tie, so to speak, or some other rule is imposed on the Boundary Commission in order to say, "You really must do better in getting close to the 69,000".
If we exclude the constituency of Orkney and Shetland—and, frankly, I should like to have excluded the Western Isles as well, but we were not allowed to
564
do so earlier—I suggest that only 10 per cent of seats, which in Scottish terms would be about six seats, should be outside 10 per cent on either side of 69,000. That means that almost all the seats in Scotland would have to hit a range of 62,000 to 76,000. If that were imposed on the Boundary Commission I believe that one would actually see it address the ridiculous situation in West Central Scotland.
I have a mild suspicion as to why it is always West Central Scotland—in other words, constituencies like Glasgow and Lanarkshire; indeed, all over the place—which are well under the average population size. Alternatively, on the east coast, the city of Edinburgh, which has not always been dominated by the Labour party, actually has averages of 62,000. In fact, Edinburgh would not need to change to just catch my limit, although one or two of the seats would need to go up a little.
My point is that I do not believe the Boundary Commission has done a very good job in the past of hitting close to the target of the electoral quota. It has shown a scatter which defies logic in that some of the smaller seats, apart from the very special ones, have been the smallest geographically; that is to say, the smallest in number and the smallest geographically: in other words, the tightest seats with absolutely no defence under Rule 6, which the Minister read out to the House. It seems to me that we ought to tie the Boundary Commission in a little tighter, especially when it comes to re-dividing Scotland into 58 seats with an electoral quota of 69,000.
I hope that noble Lords and the Government agree with me. Frankly, at this late stage I hope that even if the Government will not accept my amendment they will signal from the Dispatch Box that the Boundary Commission, which looks at the issue again under Clause 86, will actually take into account in a better manner than its predecessors the need to get most constituencies pretty close to the electoral quota. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie pointed out that, with Lady Cosgrove as the chairman of the Boundary Commission, I should be quite optimistic that that would happen. However, just in case, perhaps I may suggest to the Government that if they require anyone to give the commission a lesson on such matters I would not even look for a fee in order to do so. I do not know whether it would advantage the Conservative Party, but I know that it would advantage the first-past-the-post system and make it fairer. That is important. I believe that governments of all parties—and I include my own when I suggested it from the Back Benches opposite in the early 1990s—have walked away from the issue.
When the Government act sensibly by reducing the number of Scottish members to 58 to give parity with England so that after devolution England and Scotland will be on all fours as regards representation, I hope that they will also address the important issue of ensuring

565
that the Boundary Commission has a better hit record on the electoral quota than its predecessors have had. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, sets out to try to sort out the serious problem of under-sized parliamentary constituencies in the Glasgow area which just happen to be held by the Labour Party. At the same time we have to consider the special problems of representation on the remote island groups and in sparsely populated areas of the mainland. It comes as no surprise that the noble Lord has brought forward an arithmetic formula in his amendment. I suspect that he may have it generally right, but if a formula is less generous than is ultimately desired for rural and remote areas it will not be of assistance to the Boundary Commission for Scotland. It will be found to be perhaps too prescriptive. I cannot support the amendment but at the same time believe that it constitutes good general advice and encouragement to the Boundary Commissioners.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I hope that those on the Front Bench opposite will listen closely to what my noble friend has said about this matter. We return to a point which I believe I raised earlier in the course of this Bill in your Lordships' House. I do not think it is any good just expecting the parliamentary Boundary Commission to deal with this matter without also considering the local government Boundary Commission for Scotland which constructs the building blocks for the parliamentary constituencies. In the early 1990s I considered these various constituencies. At every turn we were told that the building blocks for a parliamentary constituency—whether it is Glasgow, Hamilton or wherever—were the local government wards, districts or whatever one likes to call them. In trying to deal with this particularly difficult matter I suggest that the Government ask the parliamentary Boundary Commission in Scotland to seek the right answer. But one will only get that if one gets the size of the wards or districts correct as designated by the local government Boundary Commission for Scotland.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, this amendment would provide that 90 per cent. of the Westminster constituencies for Scotland would have to be within 10 per cent. of the electoral quota, leaving aside Orkney and Shetland. Noble Lords will appreciate that setting constituency boundaries is not an exact science. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that it is a mistake to seek to apply mathematical certainty to this exercise by the commission. As the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said, such an approach is too prescriptive.
Before I discuss the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I should confirm that the calculations for the future will obviously depend on the population at the time. However, our present estimate based on the present population is 60,000 to 69,500 as the electoral quota. Applying that quota to present
566
figures would produce somewhere between 58 and 59 seats, as the noble Lord has said. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden. Of course the commission needs to deal with building blocks. From memory—if I am wrong in this, I shall write to the noble Lord to correct the matter—I believe that at the previous commission the electoral division was a regional division, whereas there is now a desire to move to smaller building blocks. That may have the effect of achieving the object—or at least go some way towards this—which the noble Lord seeks.
As I understand it, at the next review there will be more flexible divisions available in the sense that local government divisions as opposed to regional wards will be used. If this new approach of using local government divisions had been available at the time of the previous report of the commission, the commission may have been able to contemplate using four as opposed to three divisions in Glasgow. The noble Lord made a good point in identifying that the problem for the commission has been the unit that it has had to apply in drawing up a constituency. That may explain some of the discrepancies in numbers that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has highlighted.
However, I am concerned at the suggestion, or implication, by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that somehow some political influence has been brought to bear. There was clearly a heavy innuendo to that effect. I regret that not because of the implication as regards the Labour Party but more particularly from the point of view of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. It is an independent body chaired by a judge which comprises independent members who take evidence and apply the rules to the best of their ability independently of political influence. The noble Lord and his party in Scotland, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats had the opportunity to appear before public inquiries and make representations and to suggest that a constituency should be larger or smaller. At the end of the day the impartial commission has reached a decision. If there was any suggested or implied criticism as regards the impartiality of the Boundary Commission for Scotland I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
The current rules quite properly allow the Boundary Commission to take other factors into account apart from electoral quota. I could see the point of the noble Lord's amendment if one was simply confined to the world of mathematicians, but there is more to the construction of electoral boundaries than simply mathematical formulae. One has to look into the special geographical considerations, including the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency. I shall discuss Glasgow in a minute. One must take into account the boundaries of local government areas and local ties. These amendments would largely prevent the Scottish Boundary Commission—but not its counterparts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—from taking these factors into account. They would require the commission to concentrate solely on the mathematical formulae in 90 per cent. of the constituencies. We think that that would be wrong and unfair.

567
We are not prepared to tie the hands of the Boundary Commission for Scotland in this way. We think it is important that this independent and impartial tribunal under the chairmanship of a judge—a senator of the College of Justice—should be allowed to consider all the factors, including of course the electoral quota, and reach its own decisions and make its own recommendations to the Secretary of State and to lay the report before Parliament. At the next review the commission will of course apply the same quota as in England and we shall have to await the outcome of its deliberations.
During the debate today and on previous occasions the noble Lord has made much of his concerns—I am sure they are impartial concerns and are not influenced in any way by party political issues—about the relative sizes of constituencies in Glasgow compared with other urban areas, particularly Edinburgh.
I think the noble Lord has already been referred to the fourth periodical report of the Boundary Commission for the detailed reasoning of the commission as to why that happened. Part of it is the explanation I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden. The Boundary Commission report made clear what exactly it took into account in its proposals for each constituency. I think the noble Lord will find that it showed many factors that the commission quite properly took into account.
The reasons for making its recommendations cannot be summed up in a few words. The reviews are considered and thorough. So far as concerns constituencies in Glasgow, the noble Lord asked why they were so small. With respect to the noble Lord, I think he is wrong in trying to look at just part of the Boundary Commission's review instead of looking at what was proposed for Glasgow as a whole. You cannot simply take little pockets of the report which might suit your own aims or objectives: you have to look at the report as a whole.
At the time of the last review the number of seats in Glasgow was reduced from 11 to 10. That was the factor that the commission had to take into account. It was done to reflect the reduction in the number of electors in Glasgow. The commission then quite properly considered the best way of achieving that. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, one looked at that stage at regional electoral divisions. Glasgow had 30 such divisions which had been brought into operation following a local government Boundary Commission's second statutory review. As I have explained since then, the building block has gone down to local electoral divisions.
The commission considered various implications for dividing those electoral divisions. For example, it considered combining some of them within the city with constituencies outside the city, but it concluded that that would not be appropriate. Nor did it think that the number of constituencies should be reduced below 10. The commission concluded that the best way of achieving 10 constituencies would be to create them from three electoral divisions—that is, 30 divided by 10. It recognised that this would result in some seats being
568
smaller than the electoral quota, but the reduction in the number of seats meant that there would be significant changes to some of the boundaries and that some electors would be joined with areas with which they had no previous ties.
Noble Lords will recall that earlier I said that one of the factors that the commission had to take into account was that of local ties. So it properly considered that and decided that it would not be appropriate to split those constituencies in that way. The commission strove, as it is obliged to do, to keep disruption to a minimum. In short, what I am trying to explain—and I do not know if I am doing it terribly well—is that the commission goes through a very thorough exercise. It takes into account electoral quotas which it tries to achieve. But it also has to take into account other factors. The anomalies that the noble Lord outlined in relation to Glasgow have been explained by the fact of reducing the number to 10 seats, so Glasgow is losing one seat. At that time the commission was obliged to create constituencies out of electoral divisions which were really too large. That is a situation which will not occur again, and with that explanation I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had an interesting short debate and, if I may say so to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, he has explained the position well. I am not entirely satisfied that he has succeeded in justifying it, and there is a difference between the two. However, first, may I say that I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for his support in principle. I fully accept that perhaps I have been over-prescriptive in saying one-tenth. There were other ways of doing it, but as I did not think the Government would accept any amendment that I drafted I did not think it was worth burning too much midnight oil. Indeed, I think that your Lordships will see that I was fully justified.
My noble friend Lord Sanderson quite rightly identified local government building blocks. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has pretty well prayed that in aid as the justification for the imbalances that I have highlighted. Indeed my noble friend Lord Sanderson is right. The trouble has been the primacy given to local government boundaries and that has seemed to be an immovable object. Indeed in the constituencies of Ayr and Carrick, Cumnock and the Doon Valley, that is what led to this large geographical constituency having 66,500 electors and the nearby pocket constituency—perhaps I might describe it in that way, without being disparaging but giving purely a description of its size in comparison—of Ayr being in the lower fifties. That would have been a simple way of doing it, but it would have meant splitting a regional government division, and they simply were not prepared to do it. That may be the effect of the legislation, in which case my view is that the legislation is clearly wrong. That is an opinion I have held for a long time. I would be quite happy if none of the things had primacy over the others, but I would actually prefer the numeracy to take primacy.

569
Your Lordships and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate might have thought I was attempting to say that every constituency bar one-tenth would actually hit 69,000 next time round. But I was not doing that. I was actually saying that they should hit somewhere between 62,000 and 76,000. That is a fairly wide target even for a Boundary Commission to manage to hit: not difficult at all. I have listened to the explanation in the case of Glasgow, but in that case even nine seats would have meant an electoral quota lower than that for the City of Edinburgh. There was no justification for leaving Glasgow with 10 seats, none at all.
The idea that by leaving them at 10, and not taking them to nine, communities were somehow held together and nobody disputed them is really, if I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, an indication that the noble and learned Lord lives in Edinburgh and not in Glasgow because at least one of the seats straddles the River Clyde, with one part on the north side and one part on the south. There is no greater divide in Glasgow than between the north and south of the River Clyde. You could do anything you liked on the north side and anything you liked on the south side, and the idea that you could actually join people from the one side of the river to the other side and say they have a community of interests is simply nonsense.
I am afraid that it was more to do with the 30 building blocks and it started there. We have 30. Nine into 30 does not go but, my goodness! 10 into 30 does, and if as a consequence Glasgow was totally over-represented—I speak as someone who lives in Glasgow and I am not very happy with my representation: that would not surprise your Lordships—there is no reason for Glasgow being so totally over-represented. We could go on and on with this, but I shall not do so. I am just disappointed that the noble and learned Lord does not see that my argument about the Boundary Commission has nothing to do with the lack of impartiality. It has more to do with the lack of numeracy than impartiality. However, I very much hope—one must clutch at straws in these matters—that the point made by the noble and learned Lord about the next Boundary Commission starting off with much smaller building blocks will mean that after the next parliamentary Boundary Commission in Scotland these enormous anomalies which have no justification will be removed and constituencies in Scotland, with the exception of the very obvious ones that deservedly are very small, are much nearer to the electoral quota and that the 58 Members of Parliament, bar a few, represent roughly the same number of electors each. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 40, line 38, at end insert—
("(6) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall submit a report under section 3(1) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 no later than twelve months after the first ordinary general election of the Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State shall make an order giving effect to the report mentioned in subsection (6) within three months of its submission.
(8) An order under subsection (7) shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is 20 years since Mr. Tam Dalyell commendably drew the attention of Parliament and the public to what is termed the West Lothian question. During all this time the West Lothian question has remained unanswered. Now, with devolution finally become a reality in a few months' time, the unanswered West Lothian question is set to become the West Lothian outrage. I use the word "outrage" because, while English MPs will no longer be able to exert power over Scotland's internal affairs, Scottish MPs will remain able to exert power—possibly critical power, if there is a hung Parliament—over England's internal affairs.
This amendment is identical in every respect to that tabled on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench which was not moved owing to the extreme lateness of the hour. I have no doubt that the Conservatives are as enthusiastic about this amendment today as they were a week ago. It is a milder amendment, a compromise version, of one which I moved in Committee, when it was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. In fact it received widespread support from various quarters of the Committee, in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. I expect this amendment to attract even greater support since it represents a compromise and meets the Government half-way, or more than half-way. It extends the period that the Boundary Commission will have to produce its report from three months to 12 months after the election of the first Scottish parliament.
Of course the amendment would not in itself obliterate the West Lothian outrage. However, it would make it somewhat less outrageous, in that the disproportionate power of Scottish MPs over England's internal affairs would be reduced before the next general election rather than being prolonged until the subsequent general election, which might not take place until the year 2007.
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is facing more stimulating challenges on the continent of Africa today than those presented by the final stages of the Bill before us. As the noble Lord said on 6th October, a change such as the one suggested is not an answer to the West Lothian question, but it would be an alleviation of the problem. The noble Lord went on to say:
"I do not know where the idea came from that it"—
that is, the proposal to reduce Scottish representation to English levels—
"should be delayed until after the next election. I believe that that would provoke a lot of reaction among English, Welsh and Northern Irish Members, and with some justification. I believe that that reduction should take place within the life of this Parliament so that at the next election the boundaries are based on the revised and reduced numbers".—[Official Report, 6/10/98; col. 356.]

571
The noble Lord was speaking officially for the Liberal Democrats, but also unofficially, I suspect, for noble Lords of all parties and none. I beg to move.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. The whole question of the number of Scots MPs, in respect of both the Edinburgh parliament and that at Westminster, is beginning to resemble a game of musical chairs. It is an absolute shambles and is all too typical of the incoherent approach of this Government, which is to legislate now and contemplate later. The Government just will not face up to the English dimension and accept that devolution will not work unless it is seen to be fair to the English. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has conducted the proceedings on this Bill in a very friendly and pleasant manner. However, it seems extraordinary that he cannot bring himself to mention the words the dreaded "E" words, "England" and "the English". Perhaps his spin-doctors have included a stipulation in his brief that such words are never to be mentioned. I have been present for most of the proceedings on the Bill, and never once have I heard England or the English mentioned by the noble Lord.
This amendment is a most important one. It should have the support of all unionists of any shade of opinion in Scotland—not merely of Conservatives, who are presently rather thin on the ground in Scotland, but of Labour and Liberal Democrat unionists. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, reminded us of the comments made on this matter in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood.
The Government do not seem to recognise that setting up a new, full-blown parliament with tax-raising powers in a large part of the United Kingdom—that is to say, Scotland, consisting of nearly 10 per cent. of the population and not far short of 40 per cent. of the land area—is of such monumental importance that it necessitates immediate and urgent action to address the gross over-representation of Scots MPs.
As was pointed out, the Government's intention is to allow that situation to continue for some eight years after the Scots parliament is established, which would take us to around 2007. Even that timetable could easily be kicked into the long grass if, as a result of a referendum some time in the next Parliament, there were to be far-reaching changes to the voting system for another place.
This is all quite unacceptable. The Government may get away with it until the end of this Parliament, but after the next general election the representation of English constituencies could be very different from what it is now. It does not need a very large swing for there to be a Conservative majority in the English constituencies after the next general election. Stranger things have happened. Then we are in the potential nightmare scenario whereby decisions could be imposed on the English by way of Scots MPs.
At present, the Westminster parliament is fully sovereign and responsibilities are spread equally throughout the UK. But after devolution English MPs will have substantially fewer powers and England will be diminished while the sovereignty of Scotland will be
572
enhanced. Scotland will have her own parliament, substantial over-representation at Westminster and a higher proportion of spending and privileges at the expense of England. That will have huge implications for the rest of the UK; and once vast amounts and areas of legislation and administration are removed from the direct responsibility of Westminster, we are in a totally different situation and in reality no longer a unitary state.
As a result, the Government cannot continue sheltering behind the usual alleged administrative difficulties and sleepy timetable of the Boundary Commission, which is unacceptable. In Committee we heard much about a redoubtable lady, Lady Cosgrove, who is chairman of the Boundary Commission for Scotland and who, we were assured by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, could accomplish the task within a very short space of time. It is utterly ridiculous that this far-reaching Bill can be put through in one Session of Parliament, yet the boundaries of some 72 constituencies cannot be altered for many years. Resolute and urgent action is needed so that we all know where we are before the next Westminster election. As I have said, a speedy and relatively small reduction in Scots MPs will not solve the West Lothian problem in itself, but it will at least alleviate it and, most important, the Government will be seen by the English not to be totally unaware of the problem.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, when I hear expressions such as "the West Lothian outrage" being used by Members of this House, it strikes me that the speaker has forgotten what has fuelled the call for devolution in both Wales and Scotland. It is the Westminster question—that is to say that, over the centuries, English Members of Parliament have run the internal affairs of both Scotland and Wales. One example that comes to mind is the imposition of the poll tax in Scotland by a government who were barely represented there.
There is talk of over-representation in Scotland and in Wales. If there had been an enormous economic advantage that one could see from the over-representation; if Glasgow, the most prosperous city in the whole of the United Kingdom, or if the Highlands and Islands were the most prosperous part of Scotland, in those circumstances—
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me, there is an economic advantage. Under the Barnett formula, each Scottish resident receives an extra £871 per year or 23.5 per cent. in expenditure.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the statistics for Scotland are not in my head, but I can say that in Wales Wrexham and Flintshire are the most prosperous areas with the highest per capita income; that is, 10 per cent. below the average per capita income for England as a whole. I am sure that the same applies in Scotland and therefore the over- representation that is talked about has not resulted in economic prosperity.

573
I approve of the way in which the Government have approached the matter, and I speak as one whose wife was born in and who comes from West Lothian. The West Lothian question is mentioned far too often. The true causes that have fuelled the devolution debate in this country are not understood by the people who use that expression.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord's information about Scotland is not correct. The figures relating to prosperity in Scotland do not match those for Wales, as he described it. However, perhaps that is another point.
I do not know what my noble friend on the Front Bench will say, but I believe that it is increasingly recognised in Scotland that there is a degree of unfairness in the representation at Westminster. There was a good deal of concern about how things would work out for Scotland because, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—when it comes to voting about social security, for example, the whole membership of the Westminster Parliament will need to be involved because the Bill will also involve Scotland. How the Government or the Boundary Commission will sort it out I do not know.
We must bear in mind that the mystique about the length of time the Boundary Commission is bound to take to come to its conclusions is invented by politicians. The Boundary Commission simply has to calculate a number of sums. If it incorporated my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on its strength, it would do it quite quickly. He has everything at his finger tips and I dare say the commission has also. There is something in the amendment because it could all happen quicker than the Government seem to think is required. I do not believe that the people of Scotland will mind it. They believe it is fair, they know that the Boundary Commission is fair, they understand it. They are interested in having the Scots parliament and, in fairness, at Westminster. That is because a great deal of Scottish business will still be decided at Westminster and they understand that clearly. There is a lot to be said for the amendment. We shall see what happens to it in this House and whether people support it, but let us not discard it.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is singularly ill informed about Scotland and it is the Scotland Bill that we are discussing. Just for the record, I mentioned in my earlier remarks on Amendment No. 35 as a question of fact that Scotland is per capita the second most prosperous region in the United Kingdom, after the South East. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, might bear that in mind, should the subject ever be discussed again when he is in the Chamber.
I wish briefly to address my remarks to the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It was a Labour Prime Minister, the late Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, who, like me, had roots in the Huddersfield area, who coined the term: "A week is a long time in
574
politics". By that token, the seven or eight years' delay which is expected for bringing in Clause 86 must represent a kind of double eternity.
Earlier, on Amendment No. 35 in my name, the Minister characterised my suggested changes to the quota as being offensive. However, the principle of change in the quota has already been agreed by the Government. To give credit where credit is due, it is a gracious concession to English priorities and English sensibilities. But that gracious concession of principle has a great deal taken away from it if the execution is delayed for the time proposed. That is, something akin to seven or eight years. It will not be executed until the parliament after next.
In closing, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I should say that if there is sufficient good will to change the quotas, there should and must be sufficient good will to change the quotas in a timely fashion.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I start by trying to outline what we are agreed about on all sides of the House. As outlined in Clause 86(4) which we have already discussed, it is that the electoral quota in Scotland, as a result of devolution, ought to rise to the same as the electoral quota in England. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate kindly confirmed, it would mean that the electoral quota in Scotland would rise to 59,500 and the number of seats would decrease to about 58.
The reason the Government have come forward with the suggestion, and the reason I agree with them, is that the position after devolution will be markedly different from that pertaining at present. I do not wish to enter another argument, we have had plenty on the Welsh Bill with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Up to now we have had a unitary parliament. One part of the country has been like every other part, with Members from one part involved in the business of every other part. The argument put forward sounds like the argument we heard in the mid-1980s and 1990s that the Tories have no mandate to govern Scotland. It is an entirely nationalist argument put forward by people who think the country should be divided because even if there were devolution and a Conservative Government in the United Kingdom many matters would be governed by the Conservative majority in the United Kingdom. I wonder whether the noble Lord would then say that the Government had no mandate to govern Scotland or Wales. It is a dangerous trail for noble Lords to go down unless they wish to sign up for either the Welsh National Party or the Scottish National Party. Otherwise, they should not use that argument.
After devolution, the position will be different. Many important legislative matters will be devolved to the Scottish parliament, much more than to the Welsh assembly. The Government have rightly recognised that that was an inevitable consequence on the number of MPs represented in the other place who come from Scotland. They have agreed with that. I agree with them entirely and with subsection (4).
My disagreement with the Government and agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in his amendment is that we should not wait until the next

575
ordinary decision or review of the Boundary Commission. That would have been fine if nothing else had changed. But something will change dramatically next May. After next May there will be a Scottish parliament up and running.
It seems to me that if subsection (4) is to come into play in five years' time, there is no argument against it coming into play almost as quickly as it can after the May elections. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is not here. My understanding at the times when we have debated it in the past is that he and I agree entirely on it. I think I am right in saying that he believes that, as an immediate consequence of what happens next May, the number of Scottish seats should go down to 58.
Ministers will tell us that it takes the Boundary Commission much longer than 12 months. It need not. It could be done much more quickly. The commission could start now and be ready next May to put out its proposals. It could be that at the next general election for the UK the situation which the Government agree should pertain in the election after that would pertain from the next election on. It seems to me that if it is right for the future, it has to be right for the immediate future. I therefore support the amendment. A similar amendment was tabled in my name at an earlier stage but we were rather late in the evening to come to it and I thought that it should be discussed at a better time.
I cannot understand how the Government can say, "Yes, we are going to do this, but not yet". I cannot remember which saint had an expression about that, but one of them certainly had an expression about sin. The Government should not get into sin on this matter. If it is right that it should be done, it is best done as quickly as possible after the Scottish parliament comes into being. I am happy to support the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to my noble friend Lord Steel, who is not in his place today for reasons to which the noble Lord has referred on previous occasions. It is absolutely true that my noble friend Lord Steel supports the thrust of the amendment and believes that we should move to 58 Members, or whatever the number will be, as soon as possible after the Scottish parliament has been created. However, one point has come up today on the Boundary Commission to which I should like briefly to refer. It comes very much from the previous amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on the percentage numbers. The point I wish to raise is the need for rules for the Boundary Commission to follow in order to achieve the result which I think noble Lords on all sides of the House would like to see achieved.
I am reminded of a saying in computing. It is GIGO—garbage in, garbage out. Therefore, if the rules governing the Boundary Commission are such that it is not permitted to come to the right result, it will never get there. The one element that is missing before such time as we can come to the right result is definitely the need to review the rules in respect of, particularly, the
576
rural constituencies in Scotland. I can give one small example. The commission has just reviewed the local government wards and has plucked the village of Reay and its surrounding area out of Caithness, where it has been since time immemorial, and stuck it in Sutherland. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will have a flood of correspondence on his desk in that regard. That happened because the Boundary Commission could not take account of the local circumstances but had to obey the particular rules.
Perhaps I may make one other point. The noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, had a spirited go at my noble friend. At one point I was slightly reminded of the ant climbing up the tail of the elephant, but I will go no further on that. The noble Earl is wrong in one regard. One point about Scotland is that there are large regional variations. If, as I do, you come from an area such as Caithness, you will know that the per capita income is considerably lower than in most other parts of the United Kingdom. Unemployment is considerably higher and the prospects for the future are not particularly good. Therefore, in many of the rural areas of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the noble Earl's point is simply not true.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, when the Minister replies on this important issue, can he say whether the local government building blocks are in place for the parliamentary Boundary Commission to consider this matter expeditiously or otherwise?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may immediately answer that question. I am afraid I do not know. I shall get in touch with the noble Lord at the earliest opportunity.
Perhaps I may deal with the point about England and the English, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough. As someone who was born in Hackney and was brought up in Bradford in Yorkshire, I am quite happy to mention England and the English. It is just that I happened to have to go to Scotland to find employment at the time, which is the reverse of the normal case.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for narrowing down the area of debate and the area of difference between us. Perhaps I should not need to, but I think I must remind some noble Lords who contributed to the debate that the Government accept the case for reducing the representation of Scotland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That seemed to be the main theme of some of the speeches in the debate. The point has been accepted by the Government and has found expression in the Bill. What we are dealing with is the speed at which the Boundary Commission should progress its next report.
Some noble Lords have been critical of the way the Boundary Commission goes about its work and about the outcome of the Boundary Commission's deliberations. I just wonder what would be the reaction of some noble Lords if the Boundary Commission, having done a rush job, came up with a conclusion which they did not like. I really wonder what the response of some Members of your Lordships' House would be if that circumstance came about.

577
Why are we adopting the timetable that we propose to adopt? It is basically as simple as this. The Boundary Commission needs a proper amount of time to do the job. I put it to noble Lords that because of the reduction in the number of seats in Scotland for the Parliament of the United Kingdom which will come about following the next review, that review is likely to be more difficult than previous reviews. The Boundary Commission must quite rightly provide opportunities for public hearings and must take evidence. I should have thought that people would very much wish to make representations to the Boundary Commission—I am sure that the political parties would wish to make representations to the Boundary Commission—considering that such a major change in the political geography of Scotland is envisaged. I do not think that ought to be done on the basis of, "Put the program in the computer and see what comes out". That is not satisfactory and would be rejected.
Under the present procedures a Boundary Commission review normally takes three to four years to complete. There are good reasons for that and I would not wish to bump the Boundary Commission into coming out with a half-considered or ill-considered set of proposals. But given the three to four-year period that is required, if the Boundary Commission started work tomorrow it could not produce a report in time for changes to be made and implemented before the next Westminster general election, which must be held by May 2002. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked about the reason for delay. I do not think it is a delay, but I would rather get it right than get it done quickly.
The argument is simply that the amendment, which requires the Boundary Commission to report some 12 months after the first ordinary election, is impracticable. It is impossible to deliver with anything like the due consideration, thought, scrutiny and inquiry which the Boundary Commission properly brings to its task. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me when it is envisaged that the next Boundary Commission will start its work and when it is envisaged that it will report? May we have an absolute guarantee that it will report for the new constituencies to be in place before the election after the next one?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall reply to that question but, first, I may be able to deal with an earlier question which I answered with a "Don't know". I am told that the Local Government Boundary Commission is currently concluding its review of the Scottish local authority wards. That review and its conclusions will be available to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission in carrying out its next review. The answer is that it is not absolutely in place. If the Parliamentary Boundary Commission were to begin now those new building blocks would not be available to it, but by the time it came to consider the matter in normal course they would be. I believe that that is another powerful argument for sticking to the original timetable.
578
I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The timetable is driven by the fact that the Boundary Commission should report not less than eight or more than 12 years from the date of its last report. The commission submitted its last report in December 1994 and its next mandatory report is due to be submitted between December 2002 and December 2006.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for their powerful and well-argued support. As for the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, he appeared to be singing from a totally different hymn sheet from that of most of his noble friends—certainly his Scottish ones. However valid his criticisms may be of how things worked in Scotland and Wales in the past, I am sure he agrees that two wrongs cannot possibly make a right.
The Government argue that the Boundary Commission will need much more time than the time provided by this amendment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, with his great mathematical expertise, has argued convincingly that that need not be so. Perhaps I may again quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood:
"there is no reason why the Boundary Commission could not start now and finish well before the three-year deadline".—[Official Report, 6/10/98; col. 360.]
I wonder whether the Government realise that there is a danger that cynical people will suspect that they are trying to postpone the reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster until after the next general election for reasons of party political advantage. I am surprised that New Labour wants to run such a risk to its good reputation. The Conservatives have supported this amendment and at Committee stage most of the Liberal Democrats were strongly in favour of the principle of a much more radical amendment. Therefore, I feel that I must test the opinion of the House.
7.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Forbes, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Grantley, L.

Attlee, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Byford, B.

Harlech, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Inchcape, E.

Carnock, L.

Inglewood, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Jenkins of Roding, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kingsland, L.

Courtown, E.

Kintore, E.

Dartmouth, E.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Ellenborough, L. [Teller.]

Leigh, L.

Elton, L.

Lyell, L.

Fookes, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

579

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Mancroft, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Mountevans, L.

Sharples, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stair, E.

Strange, B.

Norton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Torrington, V.

Rawlings, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renton, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ahmed, L.

Alli, L.

Islwyn, L.

Amos, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bach, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnett, L.

Judd, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Berkeley, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McNair, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Northfield, L.

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dixon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Russell, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Fitt, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gallacher, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Geraint, L.

Sewel, L.

Gilbert, L.

Shepherd, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grenfell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hacking, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hardie, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hayman, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Uddin, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hollick, L.

Warner, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Whitty, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, 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.
7.50 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 39:
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause—

VETO ON CHANGES TO SCOTTISH TIME ZONES OR SUMMER TIME
(" .—(1) No provision that would or might alter—

(a) the time zone applicable in Scotland, or

(b) the application of the Summer Time Act 1972 to Scotland,

shall have effect unless a draft of the provision has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Parliament.
(2) In this section "provision" includes—

(a) primary legislation, and

(b) subordinate legislation (including subordinate legislation to bring into force primary legislation).").

The noble Lady said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 39 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 77 which is consequential. Many of your Lordships will remember that at Report stage last Tuesday I moved an amendment to Schedule 5 to give the Scottish parliament control over time zones and the subject matter of the Summer Time legislation. Some of your Lordships will also remember that while the amendment attracted a lot of sympathy, it did not attract any support, so I withdrew it. However, I said that I would act on a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecicnish, that the issue should be left to the United Kingdom Parliament, perhaps with an armlock from the Scottish parliament. I acted on his suggestion and this amendment is designed to give the Scottish parliament that armour.
I do not propose to rehearse again the arguments against Summer Time in winter for Scotland. I am sure that most of your Lordships already know them by heart having heard them again less than a week ago, although I shall be happy to rehearse them again if any noble Lord wishes me so to do.
I hope that the amendments will find greater favour with the Government than did my previous amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lady is making valiant efforts on behalf of her fellow Scots to ensure that a change in the arrangements for Summer Time is not brought about in a way that Scots do not wish. I do not know whether the noble Lady will agree with me, but the amendment does not prevent the Westminster Parliament keeping Summer Time in England and Wales throughout the year but excluding Scotland. If the Westminster Parliament agreed to that, it would happen and Scotland would still have to follow suit if it did not want a different time zone. I am not sure how the amendment cures the problem. I hope that I am wrong. The noble Lady is trying extremely hard. I agree that the people in Scotland do not yet want that

581
change. I find an increasing number in the farming community coming round to it, but it has not happened yet. I am sure the noble Lady is right to try to protect us.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I find difficulty with Amendment No. 77 which refers to Scotland having a veto. A veto means conflict; and conflict is the one thing we want to avoid between Westminster and Edinburgh.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have been voting happily all day in support of my noble friends on the Front Bench and my Government. However, on this occasion I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. One of my reasons for supporting her is that, being a veto, it prevents conflict rather than suggesting it. I realise that that is a Jesuitical argument, but none the less I quite like it.
The amendment takes up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, of putting an armlock on the English-dominated Parliament. I do not wish to go into the arguments in favour or against Central European Time. We have discussed them over and over again in this House in the past five years. I have spoken on the subject at least six or seven times. I no longer listen to my speeches; I do not think that anyone else does! The arguments have been trailed over and again. What appears to be advantageous in the south-eastern part of England, especially to those who are strongly devoted to Europe, as many of us are, would be disadvantageous to Scotland. More especially, it would be disadvantageous to the construction industry in Scotland.
The only argument in favour of Central European Time which had any merit was that it might reduce slightly the number of road casualties in the evening. Against that one has to balance a salient statistic; namely, that during the previous three-year experiment in the late 1960s and early 1970s while the number of casualties on the roads were reduced slightly, due to the change in time and vagaries of the weather, and so on, injuries in the construction industry increased by a third. Against the safety on the roads, which is valuable, of course, one balances the increased dangers to the construction industry. I think that the armlock should be applied. I sincerely hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will support the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, time and again over the years I have found myself in agreement over time zones with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. Quite often it has been the two of us against the rest. On the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Lang—he was in his place earlier—made it three. I agree again wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, and accordingly with my noble friend Lady Saltoun. I think that the amendment represents a sensible compromise.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lady's proposals. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who occasionally talks good sense but sometimes strays a little.
582
It is an ingenious amendment. I detect that the master hand of the great intriguer is at work in advising on these matters. I believe that this is a bad amendment because it is a veto on 60 million people by the people of Scotland. That cannot be right. If the English nation and parts of the Scottish nation wished to change to Summer Time, surely we in Scotland in all justice could not veto that.
It is more logical for Scotland to have control of its own Summer or Winter Time and the change in hours because then it would inconvenience only the Scots if they insisted on keeping the old time. The arguments for a level time—whether it be Summer Time all the year round or the status quo—throughout Britain are absolutely irrefutable. There must be the same time-zone throughout Britain.
The amendment gives rise to total injustice to people in the deep south and it does no particular good for the people of Scotland.
Reverting to the question of Summer and Winter Time, there is no doubt that the argument about children walking to school in the dark and the danger that involves no longer applies. Hardly a child in Scotland walks to school these days; they are all driven there by parents or take the school bus.
8 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am grateful for his earlier kind words; he and I are old friends. He says that children are driven to school. However, he will have noticed the Government's proposals for an integrated transport system, with my right honourable friend Mr. Prescott trying to encourage people to walk and cycle rather than to be driven to school. He thinks that that is a great mistake.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government, foolish though they may be, intend that to apply to five, six and seven year-olds. The figures show that there are far more accidents at night than in the dark in the morning. In the morning people are far more cautious than at night when they are tired. I cannot support the amendment. It produces an injustice to England which is greater than any injustice to Scotland.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as a total Sassenach, I hesitate to intervene. I support the noble Lady's amendment because I believe that the Scottish parliament, if we have to have one—and it appears that we have to have one—should make the decision. However, having lived in Australia, with its north/south time-zones, I wish to issue a word of warning. Enormous problems were created. East/west time-zones are understandable but north/south are not. A child leaving home at 8.30 in the morning arrives at school over the border at eight o'clock. She leaves at four o'clock and arrives home at half-past five. As regards homework and so forth, that makes no sense. The same difficulties apply applies to business men.

583
I support the amendment and the proposal that the decision should not be made by Westminster. However, I issue a word of warning that it makes no sense at all.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, at col. 246 of the Official Report of 3rd November the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, suggested to my noble friend that she might bring back a suitable amendment at Third Reading. On that evening, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, by his arm movements—unless he was merely cuffing his noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate—appeared to me positively to welcome the proposal. A suitable amendment has been proposed and it would be churlish for the Government to reject it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have learnt one thing; that the Liberal Democrats agree with British Summer Time all year round. That will probably be news to people in the north of Scotland and in Orkney and Shetland, but never mind.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, that is not accurate. I said that arguments are being adduced which make the previous arguments appear a little unreasonable.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it still sounds like coming down off the fence. But I shall let it pass. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has come forward with a proposal which leaves the power to this Parliament but puts an arm-lock on the issue if it is held by the Scottish parliament. I suggested that she might do so. My noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out that the Scottish parliament can act only for Scotland. That is true; we could not suggest that a draft provision be laid before the Scottish parliament which affected England. However, I do not believe that the United Kingdom Parliament would ever countenance different time-zones within the United Kingdom.
Your Lordships know my simple view that if the Americans manage to operate with different time-zones it is not because they are more clever than the British or the Europeans. I do not understand the great obsession with having the same time-zone over the whole of Europe, but it is important for the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that the UK Parliament would proceed for part of the United Kingdom if the Scottish parliament said that the change could not be made in Scotland. I believe that the UK Parliament must take that into account. To that extent, the noble Lady has achieved her objective in the amendment and I would support it. I can think of nothing more divisive occurring in the next few years than the Westminster Parliament, driven largely by English interests which seem unable to live with a time-zone different from the Continent, deciding to have Summer Time all year round, with the Scots being as opposed as ever.
It is well worth remembering that after three or four years the experiment collapsed because of pressure not only from Scotland but from the north of England and the west. As was explained clearly on a previous occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, it is not just a case of northward but also of westward. The
584
United Kingdom does not lie north/south; as one goes further north it inclines heavily to the west. Therefore, that factor must be taken in account, too. I am happy to support the noble Lady's amendment.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, we are all agreed that it is inappropriate to have different time-zones within the United Kingdom. It is in everyone's interest that there should be a common time-zone. I understand what the noble Lady is trying to achieve with the amendment; she does not wish Central European Time to be introduced in Scotland and on Report she stated that she was unsure that the United Kingdom Parliament would consider Scotland's interests after the Scottish parliament had been established.
With great respect, I cannot agree with that assertion. After devolution, Scotland will remain fully represented both here and in another place. In addition, it will be open to the Scottish parliament to make its feelings known if the issue is ever discussed in Westminster.
There is a further difficulty. As was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Forbes, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Howie of Troon, the amendment introduces a veto. I would go further and say that it is anomalous. It appears to allow the reservation of the issue of time-zones and the Summer Time Act 1972 but then effectively devolves to the Scottish parliament the final say on time-zones applicable to Scotland. That approach is quite unacceptable to the Government and I hope to the rest of the House. Nothing else in the Bill is treated in this way. No other reserved issue is then pulled back as a devolved issue. I cannot think of any valid reason why this issue should be treated differently from the other issues covered by the Bill. Indeed, I believe that this amendment offers a dangerous approach which might run the risk of undermining the devolution settlement. I am sure that would be furthest from the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like to say that he seems to be putting undue weight on the capacity of the United Kingdom Parliament, dominated, let it be said, by Englishmen—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend must realise that we are at Third Reading. He did not rise to ask a question, but to make a different point. Surely that cannot be acceptable.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, well—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, I must ask my noble friend to resume his seat.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I was just about to do so. If I may say so, my noble friend leapt up the second time a little too rapidly.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, we have had an interesting and rather amusing debate on this amendment. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have

585
supported me. I am very sorry that the Government are determined not to accept it because our parliament should have some control, over a matter which affects the lives of us Scots so much. Therefore, I ask for the opinion of the House.
8.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 103.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lyell, L.

Attlee, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Byford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Chesham, L.

Monson, L.

Courtown, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Northesk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fookes, B.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Geddes, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sharples, B.

Inglewood, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kingsland, L.

Stair, E.

Kintore, E. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Leigh, L.

Wedgwood, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Addington, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Alli, L.

Gallacher, L.

Amos, B.

Gilbert, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Goudie, B.

Bach, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Barnett, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hacking, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hardie, L.

Blease, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bragg, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Burlison, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hollick, L.

Christopher, L.

Hoyle, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Crawley, B.

David, B.

Islwyn, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Judd, L.

Desai, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dixon, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Dubs, L.

Lockwood, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

586

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Sawyer, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sewel, L.

McNair, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Simon, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Northfield, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Uddin, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Warner, L.

Rea, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Whitty, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Russell, E.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.20 p.m.
Clause 91 [Maladministration]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 43, line 24, leave out ("118") and insert ("117").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 117 is one of a set of clauses—Clauses 117 to 124—which is concerned with how existing enactments are to be read. The Scottish parliament is to make its own provision about maladministration. For that reason functions under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 are not to be transferred to Scottish Ministers. In that context, Clause 91 already provides that Clause 53, the clause that deals with the transfer of functions, does not apply in relation to functions confirmed by or under the 1967 Act.
Clause 91 also provides, or it was the intention that it should provide, that all relevant clauses which say how Acts are to be read, where functions transfer down, similarly do not apply. However the reference to Clause No. 117, the first in the set of relevant clauses, was inadvertently omitted at an earlier stage in the drafting of the Bill. The amendment simply remedies that omission and leaves the way clear for the parliament to develop its own arrangements for dealing with maladministration. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Appointment and removal of judges]:
Lord Hardie
Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 45, line 29, leave out from ("ground") to end of line 32.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 deletes the requirement for a two-thirds, rather than a simple, majority in the parliament in order to approve a Motion by the First Minister for the removal of a judge. There is no point in requiring the parliament to approve the Motion by a two-thirds majority if the tribunal has already found that

587
the judge is unfit. Indeed, the requirement for such a majority could prevent the removal of a judge who was unfit.
An identical amendment—Amendment No. 175—was part of the package of amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on Report. However that amendment was, in the event, not moved.
It may be helpful if I expand and explain what the Government propose to do in response to the decision on this clause on Report. Having considered the strength of feeling expressed in the House on all sides, the Government intend to bring forward amendments to the Bill in another place which will place a duty on the parliament to make provision for an independent tribunal. The First Minister will be required to receive a report recommending removal from this tribunal before he may satisfy himself that a judge is unfit for office.
We would still wish to leave it largely to the parliament to decide the question of composition of the tribunal and its procedures. However, we believe that the tribunal should be chaired by a suitably qualified person, and we intend to specify that the chairman should be a person who is eligible in terms of Clause 103 to be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in proceedings under the Bill.
Provided those proposals are accepted in another place, this House will, of course, have an opportunity to discuss and debate the matters at a later stage. I felt that it was important to explain the thinking to enlighten your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, from these Benches we support the amendment which is the logical consequence of the Government's acceptance of the need for an independent and impartial tribunal to deal with the removal of Scottish judges.
As it may become contentious in another place, perhaps it may be possible to seek clarification on one important matter. When the matter was debated in the House on Report on 2nd November the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate explained that the Government's view was that the removal of a judge did not involve the determination of a civil right because there was,
"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".—[Official Report, 2/11/98; col. 67]
That is important because it seems to us that there is an obligation upon both Houses of Parliament to ensure that in enacting legislation they do not authorise or require unnecessary breaches of convention rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. It seems to us that there are indeed two kinds of civil rights at stake when a judge is to be removed from public office. One is the civil right to reputation, which could be gravely affected were the judge to be removed without just cause. The other is that although judicial pensions are not themselves to be devolved to the Scottish assembly, a judge needs to earn his pension and, if prematurely
588
removed from office, his pension rights, which are part of property rights, as the Government accept, will be jeopardised by a premature removal from office.
Therefore it seems to us that the Government have been wise in accepting the spirit of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and they may wish to flesh it out in some form or another in another place. Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate able to confirm that there are civil rights at stake? One may reach a situation where there is a conflict with the European convention if we do not create an independent and impartial tribunal, established by law, to deal with the removal of Scottish judges in the way now happily agreed on all sides of the House.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I fully support the amendment. It reflects not only the amendment spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, when we discussed this on Report, but also an amendment which I tabled on the ninth day of Committee, on 5th October. As I pointed out then, the idea of a judge surviving, because there was not a majority of two thirds against him, was one which I found unacceptable. I well understand why the Government have brought forward the amendment. I welcome it.
I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for explaining the Government's intentions as far as concerns the wider issues: namely, the removal of Scottish judges. It is clearly a non-political issue. When I spoke on Report I made it perfectly clear that I had no absolute views as to the detail of the mechanism involved. However, it will not have escaped the Government's notice that the amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, put to a vote, was one that had appended to it the names of my noble friends the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and myself. Without disclosing too many secrets, it was an amendment framed in consultation with others. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible for the Government to consult with myself, my noble and learned friend and my noble friend when finalising the detail of what is proposed for another place.
It would be extremely unfortunate were there to be any further controversy on the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said, the issue of convention rights undoubtedly arises, but there are more practical issues such as the number of personnel who should compose the tribunal and what qualifications, if any, they should have other than those described for the person who will chair the tribunal. To avoid further difficulty it may be prudent to be given as much notice of that as possible. I stress my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for giving us as much notice as possible of the Government's intentions.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I too support the amendment for the reasons which have been

589
expressed. I add my own words of thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the explanation which he has given us about the Government's thinking.
There is one point which I should like to stress; that is, the importance of ensuring that the Scottish parliament has power to make arrangements for members of the Privy Council and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to sit as members of the tribunal.
Doubts were expressed on the last occasion as to whether, without power given to it from this Parliament, the Scottish parliament would be able to involve people who held those positions in such an arrangement. It must not be forgotten that the tensions which are likely to arise in Edinburgh, should one of those events ever occur, would be considerable. It would be invidious for the question of removal to have to be decided by judges who sat on the same Bench as the judge who was at risk of being removed. For that reason, I am particularly glad that the noble and learned Lord was able to tell us that it is proposed to give that particular power to the Scottish parliament.
As for the question of the removal of the qualified majority, it is eminently sensible that should a positive report be reached—that is, that a particular judge is not suitable or is unable to sit—that that should not fall by reason of a failure to reach the qualified majority.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. As I indicated, the amendment which will be tabled to be considered by the other place will make specific provision for the chairman to be qualified under Clause 1 or 3, so that would overcome that particular difficulty.
As regards the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, the amendments dealing with the removal of judges are expected to appear on the Commons Order Paper tomorrow for discussion on Wednesday. There will not be time for a vast discussion but I should be happy to explain the proposals to the noble and learned Lord if he wishes.
I deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It is not necessary to become involved in that discussion in the context of what we are doing now. I expressed our view on Report. There is a distinction between civil rights in the public and private sectors. That is still our position. But, happily, if the amendment is accepted in another place we shall not have to exchange views with each other across the Dispatch Box.
If the noble Lord wishes to know my opinion, it is not appropriate that I should give it here and certainly I should not give it to him and not give it free.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sure that no opinion that is given from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate comes free in the sense that it is not fully considered.
The House needs to be informed about its international obligations. I shall not pursue the matter but I simply ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord
590
Advocate to consider the points which I have made which are new and separate from those which have been raised already. They may be important hereafter. The point about reputation and deprivation of the opportunity to earn a pension seem to us to be important. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate consider those points and ponder upon them in the light of his previous statements to the House?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am always happy to consider any matter which the noble Lord raises. I thank all noble Lords for their support on the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 46, line 4, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has all the appearance of a drafting amendment but it is a little more important than that because it deals with the tribunal which has that significant role to play with regard to deciding whether or not there is a situation in which a judge should have his appointment terminated. That is a great responsibility given to that tribunal. If it consists only of two persons, then there is a risk either of a disagreement or of an unsatisfactory compromise decision.
I sat many times in the Court of Appeal with a tribunal of two. I rarely found it a comfortable occasion because one was deeply anxious as to whether one's colleague would suddenly depart in a direction with which one did not agree. A two-judge court is an invitation to the possibility of disagreement and if you have the disagreement, what then? You have to start all over again and if there is no provision for three judges, you will have to start all over again with two other judges who may disagree. And so it may go on.
Therefore, on the occasion when this matter was last raised on Report, I suggested that the two should become three. My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, whose amendment I was referring to in that very moderately critical way, accepted that there should be three judges, if that were the will of parliament.
I wish to take this opportunity to amend the record in a small way. I must have been suffering from ideas above my station when I sought to recollect what occurred 20 years ago when a humble Address was moved, or was likely to be moved, to remove me from the office which I held as a Justice of the High Court. That Address was not made in this House. It was made in another place.
As I indicated to your Lordships, an amendment was tabled. I said that it was tabled by Lord Broxbourne. He was not then Lord Broxbourne. The amendment was tabled by Sir Derek Walker-Smith. His proposal was to delete all that was in the humble Address and to put in its place what I suggested contained a list of qualities that even my best friends may not have recognised in me.

591
By way of mitigation, in support of what I have said, I shall read out the amendment tabled by Sir Derek Walker-Smith, and your Lordships can see the strength of my observation. His proposal was to,
"leave out from 'That' to end and add 'this House recognises in Mr Justice Ackner the qualities of fairness, clarity, patience and courtesy which make him eminently fitted for high judicial office; deprecates ill-considered criticism of him, whether deriving from ignorance or political partisanship; and hopes that he will for many years continue to serve successfully the cause of British justice'".
Having read that out, my only regret is that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is not present to hear it. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am delighted to speak after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but perhaps I can assist. I indicated to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that we will be accepting this amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall be brief and wish to make only two points. First, there was one lapse in the career of Mr. Justice Ackner in his extra judicial capacity which is that I recall he sponsored me for Silk. That showed a certain cloud in his judgment at the time. In all other respects Sir Derek Walker-Smith—Lord Broxbourne—understated the position.
In relation to two-judge courts, I am delighted to hear that the amendment is to be supported by the Government. In my experience as an advocate there is nothing worse than a two-judge court; it is a recipe for weakness. Finally, it seems to me that a three-judge court recognises the gravity of what is at stake when a judge is being considered for possible removal.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, it is only right that I should confess that it was at my suggestion that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, changed his original proposal, which was a tribunal of two or three, to a tribunal of two.
I have sat on a two-judge court which was responsible for removing a sheriff under statute. Perhaps it was against the background of that experience that I made the suggestion. It was made largely having regard to the strain on manpower that might be caused if three Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—that was the suggestion at one time—had to sit on the tribunal. However, I am content to give way to those wiser than myself who recognise the virtues of a three-judge court. No doubt in the framing of the amendment to be considered in another place, the Scottish parliament will be given power to select a suitable three-person tribunal from a sufficient body of people to avoid the kind of strain on manpower that I had in mind.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as I indicated, the Government are happy to accept the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We intend to take his arguments into account in moving amendments of our own in another place.
592
I should have said in respect of the previous amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, regrets that he is unable to be here this evening as he is undertaking judicial duties.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for his willingness to accept this amendment and for agreeing to deal with the major proposals which this House accepted on Report in the way he indicated.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Clause 103 [The Judicial Committee]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 49, line 4, leave out from ("1876") to end of line 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 44 is simply to enlarge the potential pool in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to include not only British judges from the four corners of the United Kingdom, but also senior Commonwealth judges who have a considerable body of experience in deciding constitutional and human rights cases.
On the second day of Report the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said,
"We should stick for the time being with the Judicial Committee. It has a long history of dealing with cases and appeals of a constitutional character from the Commonwealth".—[Official Report, 28/10/98; col. 1985.]
I respectfully agree with that and it is precisely that experience in hearing constitutional appeals from the Commonwealth which will be so beneficial in the determination of devolution issues, with or without human rights implications.
We have the enormous benefit of senior judges such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, who sit at present both on the Appeal Committee and on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We will be depriving ourselves of a source of judicial experience and wisdom if we narrow the pool. It will be strange to narrow the pool so that a retired Court of Appeal judge from England, who may have no great experience of public law cases or constitutional issues, is to be within the pool, but a constitutional judge from the Commonwealth who can sit, for example, on the final court in Hong Kong, for precisely similar reasons would be disqualified from sitting as a member of the Judicial Committee.
We are happy that the Government will take an inclusive rather than an exclusive view of membership of the Judicial Committee by widening the pool. There will be the added practical advantage that the great burdens that are now being imposed through the heavy caseload upon Lords of Appeal in Ordinary will be better shared if one can widen the pool so that there are more potential members of the Judicial Committee to deal with cases of that kind.
The amendment seeks to enhance rather than to diminish the authority and experience of the Judicial Committee. It is difficult to think of any good reason against it other than a kind of blinkered English, Scottish or Northern Irish insularity of which I am sure the Government will plead not guilty. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise to endorse entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. The fact that we are in danger of being deprived of the remarkable intellect and enormous experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, on these devolution issues is the best possible reason for supporting this amendment.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: My Lords, I can hardly fail to rise to that bait. It is obvious from the remarks that preceded me that I have to declare some sort of interest, small and highly contingent though it is.
I hope to be forgiven for claiming your Lordships' attention for a few moments, if only on the score of time. I have been a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council since 1977. If the Gods are kind, I have yet a few more years of judicial service before time takes off the bails at the age of 75. Astonishingly enough, it would seem that there is no other presently serving member of the Judicial Committee who happens to have enjoyed the privilege for so long.
It seems to me that two points are worth bearing in mind in relation to Amendment No. 44. It is partly repetition of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said but, first, if the Judicial Committee is to be the final tribunal for Scottish constitutional issues, why change its ordinary membership by excluding the handful of Commonwealth judges? For long the Judicial Committee has decided constitutional issues, even the most arcane of them from former colonial territories now independent. Some of the judges by now have more extensive experience of human rights issues than the United Kingdom judiciary have yet had the opportunity of gaining. Why reject all possibility of some little help from that quarter or indeed of augmenting the currently circumscribed membership of the Judicial Committee?
Secondly, there is a development in the direction of international judicial co-operation. I have previously ventured to mention to your Lordships the composition of the Bloody Sunday inquiry in Northern Ireland. There, an English Law Lord is chairman. Two retired Commonwealth judges are the other members. One is my former colleague from New Zealand, Sir Edward Somers, and the other is Mr. Justice Hoyt of Canada. Both Sir Edward Somers and the chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, are members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has already done, I add a further example, of Hong Kong. Under the Sino-British agreement, the way of life in Hong Kong—the capitalist system and the rule of law there—is to remain unchanged for 50 years. The Hong Kong court of Final Appeal at present consists of four permanent local judges, residents of Hong Kong, plus
594
one member drawn from a panel of members of other common law jurisdictions. There is, in fact, a panel of six, of whom two are from the United Kingdom, two from New Zealand and two from Australia. Of those six, four are members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is early days yet, but so far the court is working well. It has jurisdiction over human rights and constitutional issues.
In population, Hong Kong is rather larger than Scotland but one may hazard a guess that no Scot will feel any inferiority on that account. Might not something broadly similar be advantageous and far-sighted in the present constitutional system or, may I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, is a more insular view to prevail and, if so, why?
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment and to make two particular points perhaps to assist your Lordships to understand the arguments which are being put forward. The first is that to express the proposition as widening the pool has to be understood in the context of how wide that widening will be. As I understand it, there are two requirements for qualification to be a member of the Judicial Committee in this context. One is that the jurisdiction from which the Commonwealth judge comes is a jurisdiction which sends its appeals to the Privy Council. The second is that the jurisdiction in question recognises Her Majesty the Queen as head of state.
The practical consequence of that under our arrangements today is that Australia, for example, is excluded because Australian appeals no longer come to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Trinidad and Tobago, for example, which has a very distinguished Chief Justice, is also excluded because it is a republic. Hong Kong, of course, is now excluded because it is no longer part of the Commonwealth. Canada, although it too has distinguished judges, is excluded because it too does not send appeals to the judicial committee.
Therefore, in practice, the number of jurisdictions from which these appointments are likely to be made are very few and probably restricted at any given time to one or possibly two people from the Caribbean in those countries which recognise Her Majesty as head of state, and New Zealand. It is particularly the contribution from New Zealand which I should like to stress. For the reasons explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Cooke of Thorndon, New Zealand judges are given the opportunity to contribute on a worldwide basis. In their own jurisdiction, they have experience of the sort of problems with which we shall have to deal.
In the short time that I have spent as a member of the Judicial Committee, I have had the privilege of serving with New Zealand judges and I can speak at first hand of the very significant contribution they make to our discussions.
The other point is a point of principle. In our very useful debate on an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. with regard to

595
the constitutional court, I think the point was made that one of the matters the Government were anxious to avoid was anything that might suggest that the choice of membership of the Judicial Committee was made with regard to national origins. Certainly, it is true that as the Judicial Committee sits at the moment, national origins do not matter because it is a body which is complete in itself. In a way, by excluding the Commonwealth judges who at present serve on the Judicial Committee, the Government are going against that principle because that excludes people who, by national origins, have no direct concern with the people of the United Kingdom. It would be more consistent with the approach of keeping the Judicial Committee as it exists already to recognise the contribution which those judges make and to accept the point which has been made; namely, that they should continue to offer their assistance in these new and important issues.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, no one who has the privilege of serving with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, in the Privy Council would fail to appreciate the very real contribution that he and, indeed, the few others like him have made, and can make, to the workings of that body.
I strongly support the proposed amendment. However, I am conscious that almost everything that can be said in favour of it has already been said. I would add only one further consideration: one cannot foresee with confidence how much work will be imposed on the Privy Council under this legislation. But I suspect—and I think that I am not alone in suspecting—that at least early on there may be a considerable quantity. Why, then, should there be any hesitation in enlarging to such a small extent as may be possible the potential membership of that body and certainly adding immeasurably to its skill and expertise?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. We may well be talking about a small number of individuals. However, it is obvious from what has been said by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Clyde, that we are talking about the potential of adding a great deal of informed and experienced expertise to the work of the Judicial Committee in the first few years of its work on devolution issues.
If particular individuals are qualified to serve on the Judicial Committee in London dealing with other business, it seems difficult to articulate a good reason why they should not do so in London or, indeed, in any other part of the United Kingdom, when the Judicial Committee is addressing devolution issues.
From time to time in the debates on this Bill I have posed the question: What harm would there be in allowing or agreeing the amendment? That question seems to arise very succinctly in relation to this amendment. Far from there being any harm, there is potential to add a great deal of valuable experience. I warmly support the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I regret that the Government cannot accept the amendment. Noble and learned Lords and noble Lords have explained their reasons for supporting it, but perhaps I may begin by saying that both I and the Government also recognise the significant contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, to the deliberations of the Judicial Committee over the years.
This Bill, like the Government of Wales Act, which is already on the statute book, and the Northern Ireland Bill, also before this House, currently provides that those who hold or have held the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or high judicial office in the United Kingdom can sit on the Judicial Committee for cases involving devolution issues. "High judicial office" includes a judge of the Court of Session in Scotland and a judge of the High Court or Court of Appeal in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment would extend this so that judges, albeit a very small number, from Commonwealth countries could be selected.
To amend this Bill as suggested would provide a different potential membership for devolution cases under the Scotland Bill, as opposed to cases emerging under the Welsh and Northern Irish legislation. This in turn would, for no intrinsically good reason, lead to inconsistency as to who could consider cases relating to the various parts of the UK. I do not believe that that would be a sensible step. We should surely be seeking to maximise the degree to which experience gained in handling devolution cases under this Act can be drawn upon in cases concerning another.
Moreover, noble Lords will recall the interesting, detailed and indeed lengthy debate of last week about the constitutional court which was provoked by an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. In that debate, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the Liberal Democrat amendments were a marker for the longer term. I have to say that I find today's amendments rather at odds with ambitions for a constitutional court. These amendments surely would make the transition to a constitutional court more difficult by building into the consideration of certain devolution issues in the short term Commonwealth judges who might well, if the hopes of noble Lords opposite are fulfilled, have no longer-term involvement with this type of litigation. I was sorry that the noble Lord opposite did not acknowledge the implications of this wider context in introducing these amendments.
Therefore, the Government think that the current provision in the Bill is the appropriate one. It will allow the senior Lord of Appeal to select from a pool of judges with relevant experience and, conversely, for the experience of those judges over time to be pooled for their mutual benefit. This amendment, coming as it does after the passage of the Government of Wales Act, would instead tend to make sharing and developing that expertise less easy.
In making this provision for devolution cases, the Government do not for one moment mean to suggest that the experience of eminent Commonwealth judges

597
does not play a valuable role in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. However, for devolution cases, we think that those who have held office in the United Kingdom will bring the relevant experience of the various judicial systems within the United Kingdom against which it will be necessary to consider devolution cases. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords from all sides of the House who have spoken; and, indeed, I am especially grateful to all noble and learned Lords for their support. The arguments in favour which have been put forward by other speakers have not been replied to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He introduced two arguments. The first is that—and I put it in the vernacular—the pass has already been sold in relation to the Government of Wales Act and, therefore, rigid adherence to the Welsh template demands an identical pool of membership of the Judicial Committee in dealing with Scottish and Northern Irish cases.
Quite apart from the fact that it would, I suppose, be open to the Government to introduce a one-clause Bill amending the Government of Wales Act in that respect if they wished to do so in the next Session, that does not seem to me to a very compelling argument, for the following reason. The membership of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not to be fixed; indeed, it is to be drawn from a very large pool. Therefore, it is not as though there will be a fixed membership of the same judges as there would be in a final constitutional court dealing with Welsh, Scottish and, indeed, Northern Irish cases. If the senior Law Lord chooses, he will make that choice from differing judges, some of whom may, for example, be retired members of the English Court of Appeal or the Scottish Court of Session. The membership will vary. There will also be difference when the House of Lords comes to decide cases which may to some extent overlap with devolution cases. Therefore, with respect, the argument based on the Welsh legislation does not seem to be at all compelling. Indeed, it does not deal with any of the points raised.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that, were we to pass the amendment, it would somehow impede the desirable objective of producing a final constitutional court of the kind that exists in other jurisdictions. It is probably a failure on my part, but I simply do not understand that argument. The fact that in the interim we would be drawing upon wide and senior judicial expertise to reinforce the strength of the Judicial Committee surely would not impede some long-term broader reform when a different view might be taken.
The spirit of the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, must be unhappy listening to this debate. I say that because it was he more than anyone who dreamt of a Commonwealth court that would transcend national frontiers and be able to deal with such cases. Of course, he was far too late in the 1960s for that great idea to come to fruition.
598
I am very sorry that the Government have not been able to accept my amendment. If this debate were taking place earlier in the day and not at 9 o'clock in the evening in a situation where the Government have a giant strength, I would have tested the opinion of the House on the matter. There is no point in doing so. I just believe that, with the benefit of hindsight, the Government will come to regret the fact that they have made an error of judgment and deprived us of the great benefit of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, and others like him. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 [Power to make provision consequential on this Act]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved].
Clause 107 [Legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 46:
Leave out Clause 107.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to raise two questions in relation to Clause 107 (b), which is that part of the clause which deals with the circumstances in which subordinate legislation is made when a member of the Scottish Executive exercises a function improperly.
I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for raising this issue in a manner which is often described as a probing amendment. At the Committee stage he addressed the House at length on Clause 107(a); and at the Report Stage my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, in a moment of uncharacteristic inadvertence, withdrew this amendment when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would have had the opportunity to answer the questions that I now ask.
The first issue concerns the definition of ultra vires. Is ultra vires in Clause 107(b) ultra vires in the sense of a member of the Scottish executive exercising a function which encroaches upon reserved powers; or does ultra vires have a meaning in the wider and more general sense of ultra vires in administrative law?
The second issue concerns the circumstances in which it is discovered that a member of the executive has exercised this function ultra vires. Quite often the discovery will be made in connection with judicial proceedings. I can quite see why subordinate legislation might be made subsequent to judicial proceedings to correct a matter which has encroached upon the reserved powers. But in my submission it would be quite improper for such legislation to be made during judicial proceedings. Indeed, were that done, it would breach the fundamental principle of the separation of powers which has been a hallmark of our constitution for the past 300 years. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by apologising to my noble friend for my inadvertence to which he understandably drew attention. Noble Lords who have followed our debates with interest will know that on a number of occasions we

599
have touched on the terms of both Clause 105 and 107 and other clauses which give either to the United Kingdom Government or to the new Scottish executive the power to make subordinate legislation of a quite wide-ranging nature. Therefore I am sure the whole House—and, more importantly, perhaps the lawyers who will need to interpret this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament—would very much welcome an answer to the two succinct points that my noble friend raises.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, with Amendment No. 46 noble Lords opposite seek to delete Clause 107. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, recognised that as a probing amendment device. He will not be surprised to hear that we consider Clause 107 to be an important part of the Bill and that we cannot accept its deletion.
Clause 107 gives a power to the UK Government to make any provision that may be necessary or expedient in consequence of an ultra vires Act, or a suspected ultra vires Act, either of the parliament or of the executive. It enables problems which may result from an ultra vires provision of an Act of the Scottish parliament or actions of the Scottish executive to be addressed. Subordinate legislation will be able to make such provision as is necessary or expedient to remedy the problem. The subordinate legislation which does this may be retrospective in effect and may amend any enactment including an Act of the Scottish parliament or secondary legislation.
I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible provision. There may be occasion where it is necessary for the remedial action to be taken quickly to address the consequences of ultra vires legislation or action. In most cases, of course, we would expect the Act to be referred back to the Scottish parliament. However, this may not always be possible. There will be circumstances where it would be outwith the competence of the Scottish parliament to pass any necessary remedial provision. Clause 107 gives the UK Government the power to make provision. Ultra vires in this context relates to the functions of a member of the Scottish executive which are those conferred upon him or her by the Bill, but the provision is not limited to that and would extend to other ultra vires matters although it is aimed at the specific competence of Scottish ministers.
It is not intended that the power contained in this clause should be used as a form of legislative override, and for this reason it is intended that this power should only be used with the consent of Scottish ministers, where that has not been a court decision. If there was no such consent then the appropriate method for resolving any dispute about vires would be to raise the matter in the courts as a devolution issue. I hope that gives some help to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in relation to the questions that he asked.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he please clarify one point that he made in relation to the power not being used except with the consent of the Scottish ministers? As I
600
understand Schedule 7, the procedure to be followed for exercising the power under Clause 107 would be Type G, which would require that,
"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".
That procedure, as I understand it, would not require the consent either of the Scottish executive or of the Scottish parliament. I rather suspect that the two questions my noble friend has identified are really rather good ones. It may be a little late in the day to consider revising the terms of Clause 107, but I suspect there is force in the points he made. That suggests to me that the prudent course for the Government to follow would be to accept this amendment, reflect on the arguments which have been advanced by my noble friend and bring forward in another place a substitute for Clause 107 which would take account of the valid concerns he has raised not only as to the breadth of the clause which would cover any form of ultra vires but also the timing of such an order were it to impinge on the separation of powers.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I could refer to Amendment No. 64 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. In that addition to the last part of Schedule 4 perhaps Clause 105 should be added to Clause 107. I thought, from what has been said, that provisions in this additional paragraph to Schedule 4 cover quite a lot of what has been said.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister replies, I wonder if I could—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is an Opposition amendment and the Opposition spokesman has already wound up, as far as I can tell. We have now had three interventions and I do not think we can have any more.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, is quite right. This is a Type G procedure, which means that it falls to Westminster alone. However, the expectation is that the convention would develop in the way that I outlined in my original contribution.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am not sure whether the prohibition of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, extends to me, as the mover of the amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, has, as on so many occasions in the past, saved me from the intellectual effort of rounding off my amendment, save for this: I hope the noble Lord the Minister will consider very carefully the scope of ultra vires in Clause 107. I listened very carefully to his reply and I think he went part of the way towards me but not quite as far as I would have hoped. It would be constitutionally a very questionable exercise if, for example, subordinate legislation could issue to, in effect, change the decision

601
of a court that a Minister had breached the rules of natural justice. In my submission, Clause 107(b) is not clear about whether that would be the case or not.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to move or to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in the circumstances I think it would be wrong of me to press this matter to a Division and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 [Regulation of Tweed and Esk Fisheries]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 52, leave out line 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 126 [Interpretation]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 59, line 12, at end insert ("and includes an enactment comprised in, or in subordinate legislation under, an Act of Parliament, whenever passed or made").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 60, line 3, at end insert—
(""standing orders" means standing orders of the Parliament,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not want the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, to become as sensitised to my use of the word "drafting" as he did at an earlier stage to my use of the word "technical", but Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 are indeed drafting amendments. They add to the Bill a definition of "standing orders" for the purposes of the Bill. Amendment No. 49 makes it clear that references in the Bill to standing orders are always to those of the parliament itself. A further amendment, Amendment No. 51 to Clause 127, adds that definition to the index of defined expressions. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, what else could "standing orders" mean—standing orders of the House of Commons, of the House of Lords, of a county council? One has only to read the Bill to see that "standing orders" can only mean standing orders of the parliament. This is yet another example of overloading a Bill with a whole lot of unnecessary verbiage.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as a layman, I am inclined to agree. However, parliamentary draftsmen think otherwise. They wish it to be absolutely clear that it means standing orders of the Scottish parliament. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 60, line 37, leave out ("administrative law") and insert ("judicial review of administrative action").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which is intended to clarify what is meant by the reference to "administrative law" in the definition of Scots private law in Clause 126(4) as meaning the "judicial review of administrative action". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 127 [Index of defined expressions]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 62, line 53, at end insert—

Standing orders

Section 126(1)

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 130 [Commencement]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 63, line 21, after ("23") insert ("(1) and (6)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Sewel indicated at the end of the Report stage, this technical amendment is to correct a small error in Clause 130 to ensure that only the provisions in paragraph 23 of Schedule 8, amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 which deal with disqualification of members of the Scottish parliament, come into force immediately on Royal Assent, and not other provisions of that paragraph dealing with the functions of the Registrar of Companies in Scotland, the Assistant Registrar of friendly Societies for Scotland and the Accountant in Bankruptcy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Constituencies, regions and regional members]:
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 64, line 33, leave out ("85") and insert ("86").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, sitting on these Benches, these are words that I do not usually hear myself say, but these are "drafting amendments of a minor and technical nature". I hope that in making that statement I have not cast a fly over the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. These amendments are consequential on the amendments that were accepted on Report. If one looks at Clause 85, one sees that it refers to exemption from jury service, which clearly has nothing to do with membership of the Scottish parliament, whereas Clause 86 has to do with representation at Westminster.
Amendment No. 54 relates to what was merely a slip of the pen. The sub-paragraph should have read, "2005", instead of "2003". I understand that the Government have indicated that they are willing to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the Government have no objection to these amendments. We see them as part of the package of amendments that noble Lords made to Schedule 1. However, I should make it clear that, while

603
we accept the amendments as part of that package, we are still considering the implications of the amendments generally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 65, line 2, leave out ("2003") and insert ("2005").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Standing orders—further provision]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 55:
Page 68, line 41, at end insert—
("Scrutiny of subordinate legislation
. The standing orders shall include provision for the types of procedure to be followed by the Parliament for the confirmation, approval or annulment of subordinate legislation made by a member of the Scottish Executive.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since putting this amendment down, I have received a useful letter from the Minister which is lodged in the Library. I shall therefore not move it.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 69, line 22, after ("or") insert ("political").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have one question concerning "political parties". Is it envisaged that there will be no Cross-Benchers or independents?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is possible that there will be independents and Cross-Benchers and I do not believe that they are struck out by the wording. I indicated that the amendment was to clarify what "parties" meant. The distinction I sought to draw earlier today was to exclude wild and fancy dress.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enactments etc. protected from modification]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 70, leave out lines 33 and 34.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 70, line 47, after ("17(5),") insert ("19(7),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 59 and 62 are the Government's amendments to ensure that Schedule 4 does not prevent the Scottish parliament from modifying Clauses 19(7) and 69(3). These clauses provide that the validity of any act of the presiding officer or a deputy is not affected by any defect in his election and that the validity of any act of the Auditor General for Scotland is not affected by any defect in his nomination by the parliament. The parliament was given power to modify other similar provisions inserted at Report through the amendments
604
to Schedule 4, but for technical reasons it was not possible to confer similar powers over Clauses 19(7) and 69(3) at that stage. We have now taken the opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this is a whole group of amendments including one which has not been moved. They are almost a shining example of the over-elaboration, to which I ventured to refer earlier, so as to be almost incomprehensible.
As I understand it, paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4 forbids the Scottish parliament from modifying the Act. Subparagraph (2) modifies subparagraph (1) by allowing it to modify certain provisions. I cannot make head or tail of why the provisions are included or are to be added or taken out. This provision deals, I believe, with the defect in the election of the presiding officer or his deputy. Is that provision necessary at all?
There is a doctrine of the English common law whereby an officer, even if he is defective in his appointment, nevertheless can act validly as an officer de facto even though not de jure. That is not frequently relied on. It was drawn attention to in an article by one of the greatest common lawyers of the Commonwealth, the late Sir Owen Dixon, the Chief Justice of Australia. I do not know whether that is part of the Scottish common law. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can tell us or perhaps write to me later if he does not have the information at his fingertips as I did not give him notice of my question.
There is also the question of how it is intended that this provision should be modified. As I said, paragraph (1) seems to say that the provision may not be modified. Paragraph (2) derogates from that and sets out the power to modify. Now we have an amendment which derogates from paragraph (2). If one wanted a really complicated provision that would be designed to mislead and mystify every reader of the statute book, that could hardly be better exemplified than by this amendment. Is the intention that the Scottish parliament may modify Clause 19(7), as it will be; and if so, how and why?
The same question arises on the other government amendment, Amendment No. 62. That provision relates to the Auditor General and says that he may act validly notwithstanding any defect in his appointment. Is that necessary? Would he not be an officer acting validly de facto? I may say that the leading case on this branch of the law is the decision by the New Zealand Court of Appeal, which went so far as to say that the judicial act of a judge invalidly appointed, including his jurisdiction in criminal cases, was nevertheless valid because he was an officer de facto even if not de jure.
I come to my second question. As it is intended, I presume, that the Scottish parliament may not modify Clause 69(3), why is that provision now added? I have not dealt with the amendments tabled by the Opposition but the purpose of many of them appears to be equally difficult to understand. Perhaps I should leave that matter until they are formally moved. In the meantime, I should be most grateful to have an answer to my questions on the two government amendments.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble and learned Lord for asking those specific questions. The parliament will modify the provisions by an Act of the Scottish parliament. He is correct to assume that the amendment has the effect of giving the parliament the power to modify Clauses 97 and 69(3) which deal with the acts of the presiding officer or the deputy. This adds for the sake of completeness, and completeness only, to a range of modifying powers.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my question was why.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as to why, these are the last elements of a package of powers provided to the parliament to modify certain provisions in the Bill. For example, one relates to protections which received full support in your Lordships' House. The idea that the parliament should develop its own protections was welcomed by noble Lords opposite. It is because the provisions in Clauses 97 and 69(3) fall into that group of powers that theoretically it is sensible to allow the parliament to modify them. But for the life of me I cannot think of any circumstance in which the parliament would wish to modify those powers.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, in the spirit of co-operation I suggest that one possible example is the need to consolidate legislation.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps that will do it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I can ask a question only before the noble Lord sits down, or at least settles down. Does he really think it is desirable that the House should be discussing questions of this intricacy to which the noble Lord confesses he does not know the answers at 20 minutes to 10 at night on the Third Reading of a lengthy and complicated Bill?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in spite of the distinction of the noble and learned Lord, is his question not out of order on Third Reading?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I do not wish to make a comment of any kind on that matter. I believe that we must address the issues as they come before us at whatever time of the day and at whatever stage of the Bill they are brought up, and I am happy to do that to the best of my ability.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 70, line 48, after ("50,") insert ("69(3),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 73, line 19, at end insert—
(". If any pre-commencement enactment or prerogative instrument is modified by subordinate legislation under section 105, a function under that enactment or instrument (whether as it has effect before or after the modification) is not transferred by virtue of section 53 if the subordinate legislation provides that it is not to be so transferred.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 105 provides a power to make provision consequential on the Scotland Act by subordinate legislation. This amendment ensures that where subordinate legislation modifies a pre-commencement enactment or prerogative instrument it may provide that a function under that enactment or instrument is not transferred by virtue of Clause 53.
This power may be necessary where a provision in the order is consequential upon some provision in the Bill other than Clause 53 which devolves functions to the Scottish Ministers. The general intention is that amendments made by Schedule 8 and under Clause 105 will show what the position is immediately after devolution. This amendment ensures that the necessary powers are in place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Reserved Matters]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 75, line 9, leave out from ("in") to ("when") in line 10 and insert ("it").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have looked again at the layout of Part II of Schedule 5 and have concluded that improvements can be made to its layout to make it easier to read and to use. We therefore propose to make a number of printing changes to Part II of Schedule 5. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has placed in the Library copies of a letter sent to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, which includes a version of Schedule 5, including these changes. These will make the headings more eyecatching and introduce a numbering system which will give each section its own unique identifying number. They will also shorten Schedule 5 by a few pages, which I am sure the whole House will welcome.
Amendments Nos. 65 to 69 are linked with those changes and are purely drafting changes. I can give specific examples of those changes if noble Lords wish. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness of Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness of Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment Nos. 66 to 69:
Page 75, line 10, leave out ("other entries") and insert ("illustrations, exceptions or interpretation provisions").
Page 75, line 11, leave out ("The other entries") and insert ("Any illustrations, exceptions or interpretation provisions").
Page 75, line 11, leave out (", unless otherwise indicated").
Page 75, line 12, leave out (""exceptions from reservation" does not generally") and insert (""exceptions" does not").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 76, line 18, leave out ("1984") and insert ("1998").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that this is the last occasion on which I shall appear before your Lordships saying that these are primarily technical amendments to the Bill. The Bill currently reserves the subject matter of the Data Protection Act 1984 and the subject matter of the 1995 EC Data Protection Directive. However, the 1984 Act is prospectively consolidated and repealed by the Data Protection Act 1998 which received Royal Assent on 16th July of this year. It is therefore appropriate to replace the reference to the 1984 Act with the 1998 Act and that is what Amendment No. 70 does.
However, much of the 1998 Act is not expected to come into force until the middle of next year. Amendment No. 71 therefore ensures that the amended reservation of the subject matter of the 1998 Act will be fully effective even if some of the provisions of the 1998 Act are not in force when Schedule 5 is brought into force. I trust that that is clear. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 76, line 20, at end insert—
("Interpretation
If any provision of the Data Protection Act 1998 is not in force on the principal appointed day, it is to be treated for the purposes of this reservation as if it were.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has been spoken to previously. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 79, line 13, at end insert—
("Regulation of particular practices in the estate agents' profession for the purpose of regulating that profession in the provision of estate agency services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75.
Housing is a delegated subject to the Scottish parliament. One of the most important aspects of housing is the buying and selling of houses. In this process the work of estate agents is an essential element. Therefore, it makes sense to devolve estate agency along with housing. Furthermore, if solicitors are to be regulated by the Scottish parliament, then estate agents providing similar services should be subject to the same regulations issued by the Scottish parliament. It is in the consumers' interests that the regulatory regimes of similar services are, or should be, within the competence of the Scottish parliament. This would ensure a level playing field in competition law regulation in respect of identical or similar activities. If Scots civil and criminal law and Scots housing law are to be devolved, it surely makes sense to devolve regulation of estate agency as well, whether practised by solicitors or estate agents.
Amendment No. 75 is consequential on Amendment No. 72. The legal systems north and south of the Border are different. One of the perceived benefits of the Scottish system is that there is no gazumping in house selling and buying. It is therefore appropriate that Scots
608
estate agents working in this field should be subject to Scots law and practice and be regulated by Acts of the Scottish parliament.
Amendment No. 74 raises the issue of future developments with regard to the definition of the legal profession. Historically, notaries public and solicitors have been separate offices, although in many cases solicitors are also notaries public. Again, clarification is necessary. The amendment anticipates three developments: opportunities for foreign lawyers to establish themselves in Scotland to provide legal services; the creation of multi-disciplinary practices (partnerships between lawyers and non-lawyers); and the creation of multi-national practices (partnerships between Scots lawyers and foreign lawyers). It is therefore appropriate to anticipate possible change rather than create a potential need for the Scotland Bill to be amended in future. I earnestly hope that the Minister will accede to the amendments so that the Bill need not be amended in due course. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, these amendments have much to commend them. The anomaly being created within the estate agents in Scotland is difficult to understand. Having tabled similar amendments in Committee, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can still be content with the Bill's proposal to split parliamentary control of solicitor estate agents and non-solicitor estate agents.
Amendment No. 74 is forward looking. It refers to the likely possibilities of new legal businesses setting up in Scotland in its new constitutional form.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I support the amendments and will not be moving Amendment No. 73 which is in terms similar to Amendment No. 74. Amendments Nos. 72 and 75 were discussed previously. It may well be that as much as can be said about them has been said. However, I recollect that Amendment No. 74 arose out of the comment made in Committee and it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could give the Government's response to it.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as regards Amendments Nos. 72 and 75, the White Paper specifically referred to the Government's intention to reserve the regulation of estate agents and their work. It is presently regulated on a UK-wide basis under the 1979 Act and the Director General of Fair Trading has the duty of enforcing the provisions of that Act. It is in the interests of consumers that the provisions of the Act apply in the same way on both sides of the Border. I believe that the noble Lord is under some misapprehension. Where a solicitor is acting as an estate agent he or she will still be regulated by United Kingdom legislation and subject to the Director General of Fair Trading. Therefore, there will be uniform regulation across the United Kingdom.
Turning to Amendment No. 74, the position is different in England and Wales as regards notaries public. In Scotland all notaries public are solicitors so there is no need for a separate reference. As regards the EC establishment directive, member states are required

609
to give effect to it by 14th March 2000. When it is in place, the directive will give European lawyers the right to practise in Scotland and to integrate into the legal profession here. They will be subject to the same rules of professional conduct and disciplinary proceedings as Scottish solicitors and advocates. Any provision made by the Scottish parliament by virtue of this exception should therefore apply to such foreign lawyers when practising as a solicitor or advocate in Scotland.
As regards multi-disciplinary partnership practices, although the primary legislation prohibiting MDPs was removed by the 1990 Act, the Solicitors (Scotland) Practice Rules 1991 and the Solicitors (Scotland) (Multi-Disciplinary Practices) Practice Rules 1991 prohibit such arrangements. It may well be that if such arrangements are eventually permitted, it will be on the basis of anyone participating in such a practice will be subject to the relevant rules of the legal profession. However, if such arrangements are allowed and should it be thought in that event that the current definition is too narrow, that is a matter which could be addressed by a Clause 30 order.
As regards multinational practices within the definition of the legal profession for the purposes of this exception, as noble Lords will be aware, although it has never been commenced, Section 32 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 provides for the establishment of multinational practices between Scottish solicitors and registered foreign lawyers. Again, as I have already said in the context of multi-disciplinary practices, it may well be that if such arrangements are eventually permitted, it will be on the basis that anyone who participates will be subject to the relevant rules of the legal profession. If the current definition in this exception is too narrow, again a Clause 30 order could be made to rectify that. For the reasons given I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 82, line 9, at end insert—

SECTION 16—FORESTRY
Reservation
The Forestry Commission.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, largely due to an oversight on my part the issue of forestry was not debated in Committee. The amendment moved in my name at Report stage was withdrawn for other reasons. At this time of night I do not want to pursue the matter other than to say that it is an important one. Many of us interested in forestry are puzzled as to how the Forestry Commission will operate. I do not believe that there are any other forestry experts in your Lordships' House at this time of night. I shall be content with an assurance
610
from the Minister that he will write to me to say how he sees the Forestry Commission operating in its new devolved form and yet still carrying on as one body, as a UK Forestry Commission structure. Perhaps he would put his reply in the Library so that noble Lords who are also interested in forestry will have a chance to see what the noble Lord has to say, as the current UK forestry Minister, about the way in which the Forestry Commission is to be split up and yet carry on as one body. I could make a long speech, but at this time of night what I have said may be a good start. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am not a forestry expert despite having grown and cut down trees and done a number of other things like that. It is absolute nonsense to believe that forestry concerns could not be dealt with by a Scottish parliament. I know that there will be co-ordination difficulties, but they can be overcome. Certainly it should not be a reserved subject.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am not a forestry expert, but I have a family interest to disclose as regards a property that I turned into a discretionary trust. It is very important that we have clarity in this matter. The Forestry Commission has acted on a United Kingdom basis and it has been financed by the United Kingdom.
It has been extremely active in south-west Scotland. In that part of the United Kingdom it has covered more acres than anywhere else. In some ways they seem a little remote at times, and at other times it is convenient to be able to get in touch with the local manager. However, we have to look at the subject from a national point of view. From that point of view, it is better that the matter should be reserved for the United Kingdom.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. If the Minister is to write to my noble friend on the Front Bench and also put a copy in the Library, perhaps he could send copies to those of us who have joined in the debate tonight. How the Forestry Commission is to operate is a matter of great importance. It is a huge industry. It matters enormously to Scotland and to the rest of the United Kingdom. We are very concerned about the mechanics.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend, while he is taking account of the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, whether he will bear in mind that a few years ago I recall being reprimanded in the House of Commons when I asked questions about English forestry of the Scottish Secretary of State. I had to point out to Mr. Speaker that it was the only way in which an English Member of Parliament could pursue English forestry questions. I have every faith that the arrangement which emerges will be splendid, but I hope that in that arrangement there will be adequate opportunity, both in this House and in the other place, for English Members to ask questions about English forestry.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, having been a forestry Minister, I have some sympathy with the

611
Government on this point. I believe that there is a way through so that the Scottish trees can be administered by the Scottish parliament. That does not mean to say that the difficulties of the Forestry Commission are overcome, but perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to let us know how it will work and then I shall be a lot wiser than I am at the moment.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall be more than happy to write to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, outlining the way in which we see the Forestry Commission working. I shall not make a long speech this evening. Basically, the matter can be summed up fairly simply. Forestry is a devolved function. Legislative competence devolves to the Scottish parliament. The Forestry Commission is seen as continuing as a cross-Border GB body and not a UK body. That will mean that the Forestry Commission will deliver forestry policy set by the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive. Effectively, the Forestry Commission will prepare and work to a Scottish corporate plan and Scottish Ministers will be able to give direction to the Forestry Commission for forestry in Scotland.
In essence, forestry in England, Scotland and Wales will have the opportunity to be developed and delivered in a way which will perhaps be more sensitive to the priorities in the three countries. I should imagine, for example, that in Scotland commercial forestry would be of greater salience than perhaps will be the case throughout most of England. We are going down this road in order to recognise the diversity involved in forestry policy and bring it closer to the priorities of the constituent countries.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, will the Minister cover in his letter whether the headquarters of the Forestry Commission will remain in Scotland?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I do not know whether I can cover that in my letter. That is something that at any stage can be decided one way or the other. It is not something that is fixed for all time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It was my fault that I took my eye off this particular ball in Committee. Clearly, judging by the number of noble Lords who have intervened, we could have had an interesting debate. Given the position of the hands of the clock and the stage of the Bill, it would not be fruitful to debate the matter now. I hope when the noble Lord replies to me and sends copies to noble Lords who have spoken that he will also address the question of the users of forestry. It is not just the planting that has to be looked at on a Scotland and on a UK basis but also the users. I look forward to the letter from the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Procedure for subordinate legislation]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 99, line 22, at end insert—

("Section 71(4B)

Type K")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. On the little rubric that I have it says, "If you make a speech", and that is underlined. On this occasion, I believe that that is an invitation not to make much of a speech, and I do not intend to do so.
This is a truly historic occasion. Apart from what may be a little local difficulty later, we have reached the end of the parliamentary process of establishing a Scottish parliament. That is a milestone. It is some five months ago since I introduced this Bill into your Lordships' House. For many of us, the road has been a lot longer than five months. In my case, it goes back something like 20 years and more. I know that some have joined the road at a later stage but there is nothing wrong with that.
We have made good progress with this Bill. I understand that we have spent nearly 104 hours deliberating on it. Indeed, the rough calculation is that more than 1 million words have been spoken in addressing the various points at issue during the course of our debates.
The Bill establishes in Scotland a parliament for Scotland which will have real powers over those matters of public policy which are of most direct importance and relevance to the people of Scotland. That is good and right. We have established also a fair electoral system. In many ways, it is a ground-breaking electoral system to make sure that the interests in Scotland are properly and adequately represented.
We are now on the point of bringing into law a parliament which will serve the people of Scotland in a way which will enable legislation in the devolved areas to be more responsive to the needs, priorities and values of Scotland. That in itself is an enormous advance.
I wish to say something about the way in which we have considered the Bill. When I introduced it on Second Reading, I said that the Government would listen; that they would take account of the arguments they heard from all Benches in the House and that, if they were convinced of their value and merit, they should seek to incorporate them into the Bill. We have been as good as our word. We have listened and, on a number of occasions, we have been able to come forward with modifications and amendments to the Bill which have strengthened and improved it. I wish to give credit to all those who have helped in that process.
A great value of the Bill has been the way in which it has been discussed; namely, in a constructive and good-humoured way. There has been no sense of negativism or obstruction in the way that noble Lords

613
have come to the Bill. There has been a great deal of challenge as we have argued points backwards and forwards. That is the way it should be. That is the way we do our business, and rightly so. There has also been quite a bit of fun and enjoyment along the way.
I do not wish to go through the list of all those who have contributed to our debates. However, I obviously recognise and thank the Mackay twins, who have always been up to the mark. Similarly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. If only he had not turned left when he was approaching Johannesburg, he might be with us today. Whether he will actually make it to the Scottish parliament is most likely not a matter of losing direction. Something else may intervene there.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for their contributions, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. On the main Opposition Benches, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I thank too the scrutineer of all parliamentary legislation, the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who always keeps us on our toes and, on the Cross-Benches, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.
This has been a great parliamentary experience. All noble Lords who contributed to our debates brought something to them. I say in all humility that we ended up with a better Bill than we were given to begin with. That is a credit to individuals and to the House collectively. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sewel.)
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, from these Benches there is unalloyed joy that this Bill is now coming on to the statute book. My record in this is that since 1950—the first election in which I took part—I have been advocating a Scottish parliament for Scottish affairs within and co-operating with the United Kingdom. The grandfather of my noble friend Lord Thurso was advocating a Scottish parliament back in the 1920s and the 1930s. Indeed, it has been part of Liberal policy. The Labour Party advocated a Scottish parliament, but dropped it for a while. However, they came back to the fold. The joy of someone returned is very great, whether or not they bring with them a fatted calf.
The Minister referred to my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood and his part in this. But he and the noble Baroness laboured for years in the constitutional assembly to produce the framework we followed in this Bill. I have heard people express fears, and exaggerated fears, that it will all lead to a rush of independence; that we will all split apart and so forth. But the Scots people are far too sensible. I find that many people who would never dream of standing for Westminster—people of quality and position—want to stand for a Scottish parliament. They want to do so because it is part of their background and they feel that they can do some good there. That is what devolution of power does.
614
This is a sensible Bill. It has been improved even by the doubting Thomases. In fact, the doubting Thomases—the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon—contributed greatly to the good sense at the end and occasionally greatly to my boredom; but taken on the whole, they have done admirable work in spite of their opposition at the start to the whole concept.
I have enjoyed all the debates. They probed properly. The Government rightly and properly gave way on certain matters, notably to the lawyers, whom I think for once were talking sense. The Bill has been greatly improved by many interventions from a whole lot of people. I am extremely happy with it. We on these Benches are happy with it. We know that there may be troubles and difficulties ahead, but good will come from this Bill.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I confess that I have never been enthusiastic about devolution for Scotland for the simple reason that it will probably lead to friction between Westminster and Edinburgh. The last thing that we want is conflict between England and Scotland. However, we are about to get devolution and I wish it well. I hope that it will work. If it does not work, if it leads to separation, the Government will never be forgiven because our strength is in the United Kingdom. Never must that unity be broken.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, although noble Lords sitting around me on the Back Benches do not want to say anything, perhaps I may say a brief word.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who is not in his place today, commented on several occasions that he was surprised that Scottish Peers on the Conservative Benches, although fearful that the Bill might well turn out to have problems for Scotland within the United Kingdom, have in fact sought to strengthen rather than weaken it. I do not think that the noble Lord should have been surprised. We have, indeed, tried to strengthen the Bill.
We have spent many hours concentrating on the arguments, joining in and assisting. We have all tried to amend the Bill so that it will work better and more smoothly; so that the considerable potential for conflict between Holyrood and Westminster will be reduced and so that the new arrangements will work as smoothly as possible. I think we have succeeded, but I believe there are considerable areas with which the Scottish National Party at any rate will make great play and may make great trouble. What Scotland needs now is a Bill that works well and to the satisfaction of the people of Scotland so that they are not easily persuaded that they want to leave the United Kingdom. We have tried to achieve that.
From these Back Benches, I must particularly thank and congratulate, first and foremost, the members of my own Front Bench: my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. They have done

615
a great deal of work in preparing and speaking to amendments. I believe that from time to time they have been sorely tried, but they have never lost their cool or sense of humour. We all admire that.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, have kept their cool too and we admire that also. It must have been very trying. They had instructions to change mighty little. I am not sure whether they always agreed with their political masters down the corridor. If they did not, it must have been even more difficult. Again, we admire that. They have persuaded the Government to make a number of changes that improve the Bill. However, there are still many controversial areas which may give trouble in the future. I thank them for their courtesy and patience to us all. Some of us are not as good at this as others. Those of us who are still very amateurish after many years in this House—I include myself—appreciate their patience.
It is now for the people of Scotland to accept this Bill and to do what they will with it. I, for one, hope that they will make a great success of it. I shall not play a part in trying to do anything to obstruct that. I am grateful to have taken part in the passage of the Bill. I feel that we have been taking part in an historic occasion.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may take a brief moment of your Lordships' time to commend the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 127 on page 61. This clause is an index of the 69 words and expressions used throughout the Bill which have a special meaning elsewhere in the Bill. As your Lordships will see, the left-hand column on page 61 enumerates all the specially defined words and expressions, whereas the right hand column simply states the number of the clause containing the definition. That device is not often used by draftsmen but an index is of immense value, not only to lawyers but also to all officials and laypersons concerned with the legislation.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of the value of an index in this Bill. Clause 107 states the remedial action available if an Act of the Scottish parliament is not,
"within the legislative competence of the Parliament".
Something outside the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament sounds an easily understood situation; namely, a Scottish Act which mistakenly deals with a reserved matter. However, the careful reader will wish to know whether the expression has a wider meaning and, if so, in what section of the legislation that meaning is to be found. Clause 127 will tell the reader at a glance that "legislative competence" has indeed a special meaning. The clause will direct the reader to Clause 29 where he will find that the expression relates to four other subject matters and not merely to reserved matters.
An index of defined expressions is a wonderful time saver in the case of a long Bill. Unfortunately, it is not put in a long Bill as often as one would wish. I hope that this user-friendly device will continue to find favour in the next Session of Parliament and be more widely used in drafting.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking especially my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon not only for taking, I suppose, half of the Bill—certainly all the legal and rather complicated constitutional parts—but also for all the work he did in scrutinising the legislation beforehand and in devising many of our amendments. I am deeply grateful to him. Indeed, I must say that the number of changes made to the Bill is a tribute to his record as regards the number of hits he achieved. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Courtown, who is the Whip in these matters and, as always, is silent but helpful and, indeed, keeps me in order.
Like others, I too should like to thank the three Ministers involved in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and myself are old sparring partners from our Glasgow university days. It was a pleasure to be sparring with her again. All three Ministers answered our questions—that is, after the first rather uncertain day—courteously and in some detail. They also sent me a fair number of letters. I suppose that one should add the officials to our thanks because, at one stage, I thought that the entire post of the Scottish Office was directed at me, but perhaps others were also receiving correspondence. I should like to congratulate the three Ministers in particular, because the lack of support from those sitting behind them as day succeeded day was, I believe, very obvious—except in the Division Lobbies on three occasions.
The tribute to what your Lordships have done must be in the something like 350 government amendments which will now make their way down the Corridor when we release the Bill. My understanding from the gossip down the Corridor is that the Commons will have to consider something in the order of 180 groups of amendments. I shall not say that the Bill was ill considered, and so on. Clearly, what happened here was the government Ministers were prepared to listen to the arguments put forward and accept them, sometimes in whole and sometimes in part, and then come forward in many cases with their own amendments either entirely taking on board or partly taking on board what we were saying. In some cases the debate stimulated here caused them to think about other matters in the Bill and bring forward amendments which we had not addressed. That is a tribute to your Lordships' House.
I was about to be a little less charitable to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, but after the kind things he said about the Mackay twins I shall draw back a little. Just occasionally—as he admitted—he showed some impatience at our probing and at our amendments. Sometimes I thought that if this had been left to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the Committee stage would have lasted half a day and the Report stage a quarter of a day. Dare I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that I do not believe we would have made the improvements we did if we had proceeded in that way?
We have made a fair number of amendments. I attempted to list them. I shall not read them all out but I believe that the rules on residency could prove

617
important if the parliament ever decides to use the Scottish variable rate. The assurances we received on the SVR and pension contributions were important. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon spoke in debates which led to some useful and—so far as the parliament is concerned—important amendments as regards the competence and privilege of the parliament. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie was also involved on that issue.
The Government's acceptance that the Speaker and his deputy should not belong to the one party was a useful measure. I refer also to the protection gained today for Ministers of the Crown and the acceptance that Ministers in this Parliament cannot be Ministers in Scotland. That is an important step forward. All these things arose from the debates we have had. Not only my noble and learned friend and myself took part in these debates but also all my noble friends behind me took particular interest in these debates. It is fair to say that my noble friends and other noble Lords elsewhere in the House who come from Scotland gave this Bill the kind of scrutiny that it certainly deserved. While many of us are unsure about what may happen in the future we all took part in the discussions in a positive spirit given the election result and given the referendum result.
We look forward to seeing what the Government will do with the 129 members. I very much hope that the other place will appreciate the points that we have made. I do not want to repeat what was said but I believe that if the Bill remains the way it is—or, rather, the way it was, as the Government tried to restore it—they will be stoking up trouble in the future for the Scottish parliament, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and ourselves. The only beneficiaries will be the Scottish Nationalists. I certainly hope that the Government take that into account.
The judges can speak for themselves on the amendment that they made in their impressive manner. Again I hope that the Government will listen to their concerns. I hope that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny. I think that, if anything demonstrates the need for pre-legislative scrutiny, it is the 350 government amendments made to this Bill. I think that we can be pleased with what we have done. However, as the Bill leaves your Lordships' House for the other place I have to say that I watch it launched to the next stage and towards next May with both my hands behind my back and my fingers firmly crossed because, despite all the good nature shown on this Bill and the way we have tried to co-operate, I am still not convinced that this is not the start of the unbundling of the UK. I am still not convinced because George Robertson's phrase that devolution would kill the SNP stone dead has not come to pass. There is no sign of that yet; quite the contrary is the case.
The governing party will now have to defend the new Union. They are the people in a leading position in Scottish politics who will have to defend the new Union. They will have to change their tune markedly from the one they have played over the past 18 years. We heard a little of that today from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who
618
harked back to the theme that the Conservatives have no mandate to govern Scotland. That is the kind of language that the governing party will now have to forsake absolutely and completely, otherwise they will continue to play the Nationalists' tune, which they played to their advantage and to the Conservative Party's disadvantage but also to the advantage of the Scottish National Party. They are going to have to drop easy phrases such as the one they devised for my noble friend Lady Thatcher; that she was an Englishwoman with no mandate in Scotland. They are going to have to forget that kind of language and to forget the kind of language they used against my noble friend Lord Lang when he was Secretary of State.
I must say to them that from my experience of being a member of the party defending the Union that they are going to have to do better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer did last week, because while it might have been a perfectly good argument in the 1970s to say that independence would lead to customs barriers, to extra costs and barriers against trade with England, it certainly is not true now when in fact we are in the European Union. Whatever happens in Scotland we will all continue to be in the European Union and there will not be trading barriers—"new and costly barriers", as the Chancellor called them. Nor, especially coming from the Chancellor, who is so much in favour of the single currency, can you really pray in aid financial transactions in different currencies, because these currency differences may not exist a few years down the line, whatever I or my party may think.
Really this kind of stuff, coming from the Chancellor and from Mrs. Liddell, will not aid the Government in their defence of the Union. If they will take that piece of advice in the genuine spirit in which it is given from somebody who has attempted to defend the Union against the Scottish National Party over very many years and, frankly, also against the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, at some stages over the last 20 years, then I believe that we might keep the Union together.
What we have to argue is that in this island we have a common heritage, we have a common language and a common culture. Even on the 11th of November, do I have to say we have a common history? We share all those things in this small island. We have intertwined economies and intertwined personal and family relationships. These must be the arguments that we all put forward if we want this devolved system to work and if we do not want to see the Scottish National Party gain advantage and unbundle the Union. As I say, the arguments put forward by the Chancellor and his friends recently simply will not do. New arguments have to be the arguments that are brought forward. I say to the Government that if they use these arguments and use them sensibly, and realise that we in the Conservative Party are with them as far as these arguments are concerned, then perhaps I can uncross my fingers and this will work. However, it is going to take a lot of effort, given the kind of negative publicity and campaigning that there has been against the Union by the other parties in Scotland over the past 20 years.

619
These are my final remarks and I conclude on perhaps a more optimistic note by saying that I look forward to the various pieces of secondary legislation coming forward and renewing this little battle, if at a slightly lower level than during this Bill.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, could I just very briefly reply to thank all noble Lords who have just spoken. I think everybody is right to draw attention to the work that we have done and to the way in which we have done it in relation to this Bill.
I will make just three short comments. One is to make clear that everything is not done and dusted as the Bill leaves this House, because we intend in due course to issue a statement about the circumstances in which the First Minister will take over the functions of advising Her Majesty on the exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative and statutory powers. That is something still to come, and there is secondary legislation still to come that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, looks forward to with such relish. I am not quite sure that I do. Can I also at this stage thank my noble friends Lady Ramsay of Cartvale and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, who have made an enormous contribution to the passage of this Bill. They have been
620
more than capable in advancing the Government's case on the amendments that we have faced. I owe a great debt of gratitude to them and to all the civil servants and support staff.
I wish to state a simple matter of substance. I recognise that a number of noble Lords sincerely and honestly have reservations about the Bill and the idea of devolution. They fear that it will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that it is possible to build a new, stronger union based on and recognising the value of diversity.
In conclusion, I wish to make a personal comment. I have argued for devolution within my party and beyond it for over 20 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, there were times when my party was not in support of that position. I argued the case and I believe it is the right way forward. However, if for a moment I believed that devolution would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom and to the sterile road of separatism, I should have opposed it as strongly as I have supported it. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eleven o'clock.

  IACS Grants
  IACS Grants
  Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Annual Report
  Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Annual Report
  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Kevin Maxwell
  Mr. Kevin Maxwell
  Human Rights Actions: Costs
  Human Rights Actions: Costs
  Economic Activity, GDP and GNP
  Economic Activity, GDP and GNP
  Satellite Television Channels: Proscription
  Satellite Television Channels: Proscription
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Investigation
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Investigation
  Drug Crime: Confiscation of Assets
  Drug Crime: Confiscation of Assets
  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  Religious Discrimination
  Religious Discrimination
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  Muslims and Racial Discrimination
  Muslims and Racial Discrimination
  Sexually Transmitted Disease in Prisons
  Sexually Transmitted Disease in Prisons
  Kosovo: Education Agreement Implementation
  Kosovo: Education Agreement Implementation
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Terrorist Weapons: Decommissioning
  Terrorist Weapons: Decommissioning
  Territorial Claims: RN Historical Records
  Territorial Claims: RN Historical Records
  Badger Carcases: RTA Survey
  Badger Carcases: RTA Survey
  IACS Payments at the Millennium
  IACS Payments at the Millennium
  Fish Stocks: Protection from Pollution
  Fish Stocks: Protection from Pollution
  Imported Foods: Pesticides Surveillance
  Imported Foods: Pesticides Surveillance
  Fisheries Council, 22 October
  Fisheries Council, 22 October
  Genetically Modified Crop Consents
  Genetically Modified Crop Consents