Sitting of 10 November 1998

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

    Midwives
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about the grading of qualified midwives. [57349]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The great majority of midwives are graded E to G and will earn salaries up to £22,255 from 1 December 1998.
    Mr. Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the excellent work of midwives, such as those whom I met at Nevill Hall hospital last Friday? Will he work with his Welsh Office colleagues to ensure that midwives working in trusts in Wales receive as a minimum the F grade recommended in England?
    Mr. Milburn: Yes, I join my hon. Friend in recognising the invaluable work performed by midwives in the NHS. The Government accepted last year's pay review body recommendations, which urged us to reflect any changes in midwives' roles and responsibilities in the appropriate grade and pay. That message has been communicated directly to all NHS trusts. We expect each and every trust to take that issue seriously but, equally, we expect them to ensure that grading reflects real responsibilities and clinical expertise.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that no Minister was willing to come over to Westminster Central hall three weeks ago to face the 1,000 midwives— [Interruption.] That is quite true. The midwives were clear that a few of them had a meeting in private at the Department, but Ministers were not willing to meet the rally in Westminster Central hall. Given that there is clearly a huge crisis in staffing and morale not just among midwives, but among nurses and other health workers, how much of the £21 billion announced in July will be used to improve the pay and conditions of midwives, nurses and health workers? It is no good modernising equipment and buildings in the NHS without modernising pay and conditions, and paying any salary increase in one go rather than in stages.
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman has made two foolish points. First, my right hon. Friend the Minister for
    128
    Public Health did meet midwives on the day that they lobbied Parliament and, in addition, my noble Friend Baroness Hayman met the leader of the Royal College of Midwives. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do that the process for determining pay and conditions for midwives and nurses is governed by an independent pay review body, and its work is now under way. As I understand it, all parties in the House subscribe to that process, as do nurses and midwives. We have submitted our evidence, and the midwives and nursing trade unions have submitted theirs. Our evidence makes it clear that we want to see a fair pay rise for all nurses and midwives which is affordable to the NHS. In particular, we want to see progress on the starting rate of pay for nurses. If we are to do that and to end staging, as we want to, the review body must come up with recommendations that allow the NHS to live within its means.

    Ambulance Service
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: If he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the ambulance service. [57350]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): We are committed to modernising the NHS and improving services to patients, including ambulance services. Our plans include achieving faster and more appropriate response times for patients, including wider use of call prioritisation.
    Mrs. Brinton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave concerns surrounding the performance of the East Anglian Ambulance NHS trust which serves my constituency and is currently under investigation by the regional health authority? Ambulance staff are frightened to speak out about what they know is wrong. Does my hon. Friend agree that the days of gagging clauses ended when the Labour Government were elected in 1997? Will my hon. Friend assure me that, under this Government, my constituents can rely on a top-quality ambulance service, and that all NHS staff will be respected as well as protected? [Interruption.] I do not find those desires funny.
    Mr. Hutton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurances that she seeks. As she will be aware, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), has already written to chairmen of NHS trusts and health authorities on that issue. Confidentiality clauses discriminate against staff's rights and responsibilities to bring unacceptable practices into the open and there is no place for them in the NHS. NHS employers are expected to allow their staff maximum freedom of speech, consistent with their obligation to maintain patient confidentiality. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also be aware that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which will come into effect in January 1999, will, for the

    129
    first time, provide statutory protection for employees who are subject to a detriment as a result of blowing the whistle.
    Mr. John Randall: Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will ensure that 999 ambulance calls are always responded to by blue-light ambulances?
    Mr. Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the Audit Commission's recent conclusions on that. It is sensible to answer life-threatening emergencies first. Matching resources to clinical needs will help us to improve emergency care. Call prioritisation is about when, not whether, to send an ambulance.

    NHS (Development)
    Mr. Paul Goggins: What steps he is taking to ensure that young people are consulted on the future development of the NHS. [57351]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The involvement of all who use the health service, young and old, is essential in rebuilding a public service that is open and accountable to the people whom it serves, shaped by their experience and responsive to their needs. That is why the voice of patients will be heard at every level, whether through primary care groups, the national institute for clinical excellence or the increased involvement of local people on trust boards. That involvement is part of building a national health service in which people have confidence— no longer one governed by a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, or where people are treated as numbers, but a partnership to build quality and responsiveness.
    Mr. Goggins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed and encouraging response. May I draw her attention to Manchester's healthy school initiative, under which 50 school children recently communicated their views about the national health service directly to managers and providers in south Manchester? Does she agree that such events are important in ensuring that young people have a say, and because they can lead to real improvements in the delivery of health care services?
    Ms Jowell: I commend the initiative of my hon. Friend's health authority. It is part of the health action zone, and I hope that that example of the involvement of young people in developing the national health service is one which other health authorities will seek to copy.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Many young people would regard the Minister's response as totally at variance with their experience locally. There may be a consultation exercise for NHS development, but all too often it is a total charade. The wishes of thousands of people, including young people, appear to be ignored. What practical steps will the Minister take to ensure that their wishes are translated into action inasmuch as they pay for the health service and those in my constituency want to see their local hospital, Mount Vernon, built up rather than run down?
    Ms Jowell: Perhaps one of the most important changes that has marked the past 18 months is that consultation in the NHS no longer means simply a period of time. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, where a consultation is undertaken and the views expressed are completely disregarded, people's confidence in the process will begin to diminish. We regard consultation and the views of those who use the health service as essential to developing it, which is why, for the first time in the history of the NHS, we are now conducting a patient survey of about 100,000 people who are being asked about their views and experiences of the service. The feedback from that survey will be vital in assessing the performance of the health service against the national performance framework.
    The hon. Gentleman had better accept that nothing effective happened to involve local people, young or old, under the previous Government. We are developing a programme of consultation and partnership with people who use the health service.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Has my right hon. Friend considered communicating with young people, especially young women, through the medium of their magazines? A visit to any newsagent would show how many such magazines are published. Is she not disturbed when she analyses their contents? There may be a lot about breast enhancement surgery, but there is very little about the dangers of smoking or the causes of breast cancer and other cancers. Given that young women do not read newspapers, will my right hon. Friend use those magazines to get through to them?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I have recently had two meetings with the editors of teenage magazines, at which we discussed young people and smoking, and young people and teenage pregnancy. He is right that, if we want young people to listen and to hear what we have to say, it is much better if the information comes from the magazines that they read and the people to whom they relate rather than from middle-aged Ministers.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In projecting to young people the future developments of the national health service, will the Minister bear in mind the need to project the attractiveness of NHS careers for nurses, dentists and doctors? Unless that is done more positively and the attractions are underlined more effectively, there is a danger that there will not be enough people to train for that important work.
    Ms Jowell: That is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State recently launched a competition for school children specifically to awaken their interest in a career in the national health service. We must inspire young people with the prospects that a career in the NHS can offer. If any young people in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency would like to enter the competition, it is still open.

    Beta-interferon
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What representations he has received concerning the funding of beta— interferon; and if he will make a statement. [57352]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): In the past 18 months, the Department's records show that we received 177 written representations from Members of Parliament, patients' groups and the public about the prescribing and funding of beta-interferon. I also met representatives of the Multiple Sclerosis Society in May.
    Most health authorities now have procedures in place by which patients can receive treatment with beta-interferon. More generally, the Government want greater consistency in the delivery of cost-effective clinical services to patients, wherever they live.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that many MS patients in North Derbyshire have been prescribed beta-interferon, but have been lucky enough to receive it only if they are in the top eight on the list for treatment; have successfully pursued a court case, as one of my constituents has; or have decided to go private until the money runs out, such as Lesley Coombes of Ashover? Reassessments have been made to take off the list between 40 and 50 people who had hoped to receive beta-interferon. Is there not a case for earmarked resources for such authorities as North Derbyshire so that it can handle that massive problem?
    Mr. Milburn: I would be very glad to look into the individual case that my hon. Friend has highlighted, and I hope that North Derbyshire health authority feels in a rather more comfortable financial position as a result of today's extra allocation of resources. The extra £ 13.9 million that my hon. Friend's health authority will receive next year represents a cash increase of 6.6 per cent.
    I know that my hon. Friend has not done so, but it is terribly important that no one raises any false expectations about the ability of beta-interferon or any other drug to combat an extremely debilitating and distressing condition. Beta-interferon is not a cure for multiple sclerosis; there is no cure for it. The evidence seems to suggest that some patients with a particular form of the disease can benefit briefly from the use of beta-interferon. Sadly, the evidence also suggests that those short-term improvements are not always sustained. The Department will be commissioning new research into the appropriate usage of beta-interferon, and we will be issuing new guidelines before too long to ensure greater national consistency in the uptake of the drug.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Given the inconsistent availability of beta-interferon, does the right hon. Gentleman continue to believe that there is no such thing as rationing in the national health service?
    Mr. Milburn: Opposition Members are in terrible danger of fermenting a crisis on this issue in the national health service. It is important to remember that for the vast majority of patients, in the vast majority of places, for the vast majority of the time, the vast majority of treatments are available on the national health service. Under this Government they will continue to be available on the NHS.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: I know that the Minister is aware of the work on beta-interferon by Professor Blumhardt in Nottingham. I understand that
    132
    the prism trials have now been published in The Lancet. I support the argument for earmarking funds, but will my right hon. Friend's assessment take account of the study in The Lancet? Will he introduce consistency to the prescribing process in decisions about whether beta-interferon is appropriate for MS sufferers?
    Mr. Milburn: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The products currently on the market are for a particular form of MS— the relapsing, remitting form— whereas the article in The Lancet is about the more serious, progressive form. The product to which my hon. Friend referred has not yet been licensed through the European procedures, let alone in this country. It is our intention to examine all beta-interferon products to achieve the greater national consistency in prescribing that all right hon. and hon. Members want.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: First, may I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) to the Dispatch Box for the first time? He has important responsibilities, and I assure him that we have every intention of keeping him as busy as possible.
    Many people will question the Minister's answer to his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), and he did not answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). Will he admit that there is rationing in the national health service? There always has been, although the Secretary of State persistently refuses to admit that. The inconsistency in the availability of beta-interferon and many other inconsistent availabilities in the national health service prove that. If the Minister is not prepared to admit that there is rationing, there is no way that we can have a grown-up debate about the future of the health service. Will he admit it now?
    Mr. Milburn: I am not sure that grown-up debates and the hon. Gentleman are always as compatible as they should be. The real reason why the Opposition are seeking to foment a debate about rationing is not beta-interferon, but the Conservative party's failure to match our record levels of investment in the national health service. It is about time the Opposition came clean. If they are not prepared to match pound for pound the extra investment in the hon. Gentleman's health authority and others, they should list item by item, procedure by procedure and treatment by treatment, those patients who will lose out and will not now be treated on the NHS, and will be forced to go private. The difference between the hon. Gentleman's party and the Labour party is that we believe in treatment being available according to clinical need and not ability to pay.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the investment he is making to reduce NHS waiting lists over the next three years. [57353]
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will estimate the total cost of his planned reduction in waiting lists; when he expects to achieve that reduction; and if he will make a statement. [57354]
    Mr. Tom Cox: If he will make a statement on his Department's funding for reductions in NHS waiting lists over the next three years. [57361]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Waiting lists have fallen by more than 98,000 since April. The Government are investing an extra £21 billion in the national health service over the next three years, and I announced today the main allocation of next year's funds to health authorities, amounting to a total of £31 billion. That includes £320 million specifically for reducing waiting lists, to help us to deliver our promise to reduce them to a total 100,000 lower than the total that we inherited.
    The extra allocation announced today for Coventry—which covers the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham)—is £13.7 million. The extra allocation for West Surrey, which covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), is £19 million. As for the two health authorities that serve the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham will receive an extra £38 million, while Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth will receive an extra £25 million. All that is in addition to what the Tories planned to provide.
    Mr. Cunningham: I am sure that many people, not only in Coventry but throughout the country, will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that the shadow Chancellor has said that our investment in the national health service is reckless, and that the shadow Secretary of State for Health has said that it is a waste of time spending money on waiting lists? What is more appropriate—the investment of money in reducing waiting lists or the recklessness of the Tories in not investing any money at all?
    Mr. Dobson: I fully expect all honest Tory Members to say now that, as the shadow Chancellor says that our health spending is reckless, they do not want the money to be spent in their constituencies.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: I congratulate the Secretary of State on attempting to match the previous Government's record of real increases in health spending. May I point out, however, that the number of patients waiting for more than 12 months has risen by more than 30,000? Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that the only reason for the general decline in waiting lists is that simple, quick operations are being performed before longer, more complex ones?
    Mr. Dobson: No—and the number of people waiting for more than 12 months for treatment has fallen by 9,000 since June this year.
    Mr. Cox: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. It is very different from the statements that I heard under the last Administration: in those days we repeatedly sought meetings with Secretaries of State, only to be told, "No money is available for your area".
    Are not the facts that there is extra money, that more people are being treated and that waiting lists are being reduced a clear indication of this Government's commitment? I hope that my right hon. Friend will announce those facts not just in the House but throughout the country, because it is not just areas such as mine that are benefiting from the Government's policy: the whole country is benefiting.
    Mr. Dobson: I have to agree with my hon. Friend. The two health authorities that serve his constituency will receive more than £62 million extra to serve the people next year, which will bring spending in those two areas—many parts of which are very deprived—to nearly £8 billion. That is hugely in excess of the funds that the previous Government made available in the past, or intended to make available in the future. I am glad that we are doing this; I am proud that we are keeping our promises; and I am confident that the excellent 1 million staff in the health service will be able to deliver the better, quicker, more efficient top-quality health service that we all want.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when he said yesterday in the House that patients waiting for the removal of internal fixations have never been included in official waiting list statistics, he was utterly incorrect?
    Mr. Dobson: No.
    Miss Widdecombe: Then can the right hon. Gentleman explain why a very clear memorandum issued by Bradford hospitals trust makes it clear that before June, when these convenient falls began to happen, such patients were included in its monthly statistics, whereas after that they were not?
    Mr. Dobson: As for the practices in Bradford, I have no control over what that trust has been doing directly, but, as I explained to the right hon. Lady yesterday, the rules that were introduced by her Government, whether they are being complied with in Bradford or not, stated that, if someone with a broken arm had a metal plate inserted and was told by his doctor, "You need it in for 18 months, so you do not come back to have it removed for a further 18 months," that person did not count as someone who was waiting for an operation for 18 months. The previous Government were daft in a lot of respects, but they were perfectly sensible when they said that such people should not be included on the waiting lists.
    Miss Widdecombe: We may have been perfectly sensible in suggesting that such operations should not be included in the monthly returns, but the fact is that they continued to be so in some authorities, including Bradford. They have now been taken out of the monthly returns, so part of the fall in waiting lists announced by the right hon. Gentleman can be accounted for by patients who have not actually received their treatment.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman now do three things? First, will he admit that his statement yesterday was incorrect? Secondly, will he apologise to the nation for making it and, thirdly, will he admit that an awful lot of those drops in waiting lists up and down the country represent numbers being fiddled and patients being diddled?
    Mr. Dobson: Up and down the country, in the first six months of this year, 250,000 more people were treated by the national health service than were being treated in the equivalent half of last year, and the year before that. The right hon. Lady apparently wants us to include in waiting lists people whose doctors have said that they should not have an operation for six, 12 or 18 months. To repeat

    135
    what I said yesterday, to advocate that is just as daft as suggesting that a woman who discovers she is pregnant today should count on the waiting list for the next nine months.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: I warmly welcome the 3.92 per cent. increase in real expenditure that my right hon. Friend has made available to Shropshire health authority. I ask him to remember, as the House will remember, that each month that the waiting lists increased was met by vociferous criticism from the Opposition. I ask him therefore to place in the Library all the letters of congratulation that he will receive from Opposition Members now that waiting lists are falling.
    Mr. Dobson: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commons Librarian will not need to set aside much shelf space for that purpose, but I am sure that, in common with their elected representative, people in Shropshire will be glad to know that they will benefit from an extra £15 million towards their health care next year. That, of course, is merely the first round of the available extra money.
    Mr. James Paice: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, however hard the NHS works, it has to have a throughput on beds? How on earth could the NHS in Cambridgeshire expect to fulfil its obligations when the right hon. Gentleman granted the local social services £1 million less in cash terms in their standard spending assessment? We now have serious problems, particularly with elderly people who remain in hospital beds long after they should simply because social services have no money to fund their care outside?
    Mr. Dobson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore welcome the extra £250 million that the Chancellor announced next week—
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Next week?
    Mr. Dobson: I meant last week. I must not give the game away. I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will therefore welcome that £250 million extra, which will help local social service departments, hospitals and the rest of the national health service. That money will ensure that people, particularly frail, elderly people who should not be in hospital if they could be properly looked after at home will receive such care at home, and that those in hospital who could be discharged if there was someone to look after them at home will also be properly cared for in their own home. That is what that £250 million is for.
    In Cambridgeshire, as in other parts of the country, people working in the national health service and in social services departments did a brilliant job last winter with slightly less money and I expect them to do an even better job with a bit more money.

    Medical Audit
    Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will make a statement on progress in establishing a system of medically auditing the effectiveness of various therapies employed in the NHS. [57355]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): In July we published "A First Class Service" which set our plans to establish the new national institute for clinical excellence early next year.
    For the first time, NHS professional staff and their patients will be able to look to a single authoritative source for clear guidance about the effectiveness of therapies.
    Mr. Beard: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer and the long overdue steps that are now being taken to disseminate best practice throughout the national health service with the national institute for clinical excellence and the Commission for Health Improvement. Does my hon. Friend agree that the rapid development of medically relevant biotechnology is now likely to provide new therapies that mimic the body's own biochemical processes, allowing the early diagnosis of disease and providing indications of predisposition to disease in certain circumstances, all of which are likely to revolutionise medical practice? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that new arrangements for medical audit will promote the early introduction of those innovations into the NHS and that there will be the fullest collaboration between the NHS and British companies and research organisations to progress those new developments towards medical use?
    Mr. Milburn: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he rightly said, we could be on the verge of some extremely exciting medical breakthroughs that will revolutionise patient care and the life chances of thousands, if not millions, of patients. It is important, therefore, that we achieve our aim, which is to ensure the introduction of more effective treatments into the national health service more quickly than has been possible before. We will do that through the national institute for clinical excellence and our new national service frameworks. We will also do it by abolishing the old internal market which inhibited collaboration and so fragmented decision making that we ended up with thousands of competing health units instead of a single national health service. We want to see a single national health service, providing care according to clinical need rather than depending on where a patient lives or who happens to be their GP.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: Is the Minister aware that one direct casualty of the abolition of GP fundholding and a move to commissioning groups has been the provision of physiotherapy services? In West Sussex, many of my constituents who need physiotherapy because they are elderly or have suffered severe accidents are now faced with either not having those essential services or having to pay for them privately, which many of them cannot afford to do.
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Before too long—hopefully within the next three weeks—

    137
    we will be issuing new guidance to health authorities and to primary care groups in their shadow form, urging them to ensure the retention of proven and effective services provided by GP fundholding, and that their benefits are spread to all patients. We want to see a levelling up, not a levelling down. In particular, we want to see the end of the two-tier system that GP fundholding introduced into the NHS.

    Booked Admissions
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What action he is taking to promote booked admission pilots in the NHS. [57356]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): On 24 September I announced 24 pilot schemes to develop systems of booked admissions so that patients can arrange to go into hospital at times that suit them. A total of £5 million pounds has been made available this year and £20 million will be provided for further schemes next year. We hope that, eventually, the entire system will go nationwide.
    Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, as my constituents can book their holidays and various appointments by telephone, it is about time that they were also able to book by telephone their hospital appointments, rather than waiting anxiously for that brown paper envelope through the letter box?
    Mr. Dobson: I certainly agree with that. It is a strange irony that it is difficult for people to make bookings and other arrangements in the national health service—which, for more than 50 years, has served the United Kingdom 24 hours a day, every day of the year—because of its communications system.
    We want to enable people who have been told by their GP, "I think you need an out-patient appointment, because they should do some tests at the hospital," to be able—there and then, from the GP's premises—to book an out-patient appointment that suits them. At an out-patient appointment, if they are told by the specialist, "I think you'd better come in as an in-patient," they should—again, there and then—be able to make a booking, preferably for a day of the week and time of the year that suits them. Such a change would be a good step forward and would in many ways reflect the fact that, although services are available 24 hours a day, every day of the year, the system gives a different impression.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: We welcome development of a booked admissions system. However, booked admissions will help only those who are fortunate enough to have secured a specialist out-patient appointment to get on to the waiting list initially. The Secretary of State has been asked repeatedly to publish figures on the number of people waiting for out-patient appointments. The figures are already collected and reported to the NHS executive by hospital trusts; all he has to do is to add up the figures. Is not the reason why he refuses to publish the figures that they will
    138
    show that, taken as a whole—elective surgery and specialist out-patient waiting lists together—NHS waiting lists are going up, not down as he would have us believe?
    Mr. Dobson: I have heard of people trying to change the goalposts once the match has started, but the hon. Gentleman seems to want to change the stadium. In the first six months of this year, the national health service dealt with 67,000 more out-patients than previously.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: What about out-patients?
    Mr. Dobson: If the right hon. Lady would just keep quiet and let those who are supposed to answer the questions do so, and stick to her appointed job of asking questions, we might get somewhere.
    There is some evidence of a build-up in the number of people waiting for out-patient appointments. We have never denied that. I am asking managers and others in the national health service to make use of the additional funds that we are providing to deal with waiting lists and the £250 million extra that we are providing to deal with the winter to try to pay more attention to those people.
    Hitherto, figures have been collected on a basis established by the previous Government—to show how well the then Government were doing in meeting the patients charter. Those figures have been collected, and they will continue to be published. However, I should like to move towards more detailed and up-to-date figures. It is very revealing that the new Government have not only started publishing monthly in-patient waiting list figures but, for the first time, have started collecting such figures monthly. The hapless crew on the Conservative Benches collected the figures only once every three months.
    Dr. Howard Stoate: May I, on behalf of my GP colleagues across the country, welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative in ensuring that patients will be able to book out-patients appointments directly from GPs' surgeries? May I also ask him to ensure that, once the initiative has been implemented, out-patient appointments will be booked on the basis of clinical need, to ensure that patients who need to be seen as soon as possible are fast-tracked through the system—thereby eliminating a very significant cause of waiting?
    Mr. Dobson: Ever since we were elected, we have tried to make it clear that clinical need should be the major determinant of how quickly people are treated. I hope that, as the information technology system becomes more sophisticated, doctors' and other clinicians' capacity to express their views, and to have their views heeded, will be improved, as that will be to the benefit of everyone. Both patients and those who treat patients like to know that everyone is being treated fairly. People are comfortable doing something that they believe to be fair, and very uncomfortable if asked to do something that they do not think is fair.

    Tobacco White Paper
    9. Mr. David Rendel: When the White Paper on tobacco will be published. [57357]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): Soon.
    Mr. Rendel: Given that there are now hundreds of deaths every day from tobacco-related diseases, does the Minister agree that it is vital to discourage children from ever taking up smoking in the first place and that school nurses have an important part to play in that? What steps does she intend to take to ensure that there are no further cuts in the community school nursing service such as, sadly, are now threatened in Berkshire?
    Ms Jowell: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of protecting children from the impact of tobacco advertising and of taking every effective step to make it very hard for them to get hold of cigarettes. However, there is more to it than that—we have to change young people's attitude towards cigarettes and, in turn, change their behaviour, making them not want to buy cigarettes. I entirely agree that school nurses have a very important role to play in this, as do parents and teachers and the whole range of professionals with whom children come into contact. Measures to prevent children from smoking are already an important part of the healthy schools programme and will feature very specifically in the tobacco White Paper.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the answer that she gave to the initial question simply means that the frustration felt for many months now by the health lobby will continue? However, more important than the publication of the White Paper is that it should be comprehensive and should address the issues around smoking, which has for decades been the biggest killer in this country. I am pleased that we now have a Government who are prepared to take on these issues on behalf of the public.
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the very great efforts that he made while in opposition to try to protect children from the impact of tobacco advertising. It is in no small part due to his efforts that we now have, for the first time, a comprehensive Europe-wide ban on the advertising and promotion of tobacco. The way in which that will be implemented in the United Kingdom will be set out in detail in the forthcoming White Paper. There is impatience about the publication of the White Paper and getting the policy implemented. We have worked with impatience and a sense of urgency over the past 18 months because absolutely nothing was done in the previous 18 years.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: If the Minister believes that school nurses have an important role to play in this and other respects, will she explain why Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority has effectively abolished the role of school nurses? Will she undertake to evaluate what the adverse implications of that have been before other health authorities, such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), go down the same path?
    Ms Jowell: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that his constituents will be receiving
    140
    £14.7 million more for their health care, which will go some way to dealing with precisely the problems that he identifies. Yes, I do think that the contribution of health visitors and school nurses should be effectively evaluated so that we can ensure that what they do is based on the best possible evidence that it will work in practice.

    NHS Direct
    Miss Melanie Johnson: If he will estimate the number of people to be covered by NHS Direct by April 1999. [57359]
    Mr. Alan Johnson: If he will estimate the number of people to be covered by NHS Direct by April 1999. [57364]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The second wave of NHS Direct, which will be operational by April next year, will cover 20 million people, or more than 40 per cent. of the population of England.
    Miss Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. My constituents and I are green with envy that coverage is being achieved elsewhere in the country. As the millennium is approaching, and given the potential of NHS Direct in changing the way in which the ambulance service works and the demands upon it, may 1 have an assurance that my constituents will have NHS Direct by 2000? May I have a pledge from my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Milburn: Yes. Like all our pledges, it will be kept. We are a Government who keep our promises. By the end of 2000, NHS Direct will be available in my hon. Friend's community and in every community in the land. The Government have made available an extra £44 million to spread the availability of NHS Direct, not just to second-wave areas but beyond, to ensure that all communities have the benefit of instant access to 24-hour, 365-day-a-year care from expert nurses at the end of a telephone. That is already proving its worth in many communities and we are determined to spread its benefits everywhere.
    Mr. David Amess: Will the Minister confirm whether the general public will be able to use the telephone line to ask why the research and development budget has been cut by £10 million, which has been switched to the hospital waiting lists initiative? Will my constituents be able to use the telephone line to ask why, as a result of Government pressure, a local orthopaedic consultant has cancelled an out-patient clinic in order to carry out operations and that, as a result, the waiting time for outpatients has risen from 26 weeks to 40 weeks? Are my constituents right to believe that the figures are being fiddled?
    Mr. Milburn: No. The hon. Gentleman's constituents are wrong. That is not the appropriate use for NHS Direct. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that his health authority will receive an extra £28 million as a consequence of my right hon. Friend's decisions today. I hope that he and his constituents will welcome that.

    Acute Beds
    Mr. Bill Michie: What action he is taking to identify the number and use of acute beds in the NHS. [57360]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 30 September the establishment of a national inquiry into hospital beds. This work is already well under way within the Department and the findings will be published next spring.
    Mr. Michie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the £367 million plus to Sheffield health authority. The money will certainly help and it is very welcome. May I raise the issue of mental illness, which to a large extent is still considered to be the Cinderella service within the national health service? It needs special attention at present and I am asking whether that would be possible.
    Ms Jowell: Obviously, my hon. Friend raises an important point. Certainly it is absolutely crucial to have an adequate number of psychiatric beds to ensure that mental health services can meet and respond to the range of needs in psychiatric patients—for example, by providing day care services locally. My hon. Friend will be aware that an expert group is drawing up a national service framework in order to develop a proper national framework for the delivery of psychiatric services. His point about ensuring an adequate number of beds in relation to those provided for other services will be part of that consideration.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the figures for acute beds in the NHS specify how many of them will be in mixed-sex wards in acute psychiatric units? Does the Minister recall the Secretary of State's categorical pledge to me earlier this year that he would put a stop to the building of any new mixed-sex wards in psychiatric units? How does she square that pledge with advice given by the NHS executive to Goodmayes hospital which restates all the old discredited arguments in favour of mixed-sex wards in such units?
    Ms Jowell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stopped the development of a mixed-sex ward last time the subject was raised in the House. He will do the same again, if the hon. Gentleman would like to supply details.

    NHS Hospitals (Funding)
    Mr. David Borrow: What was the average annual real-terms percentage increase in funding for NHS hospitals between 1979 and 1997; and what is the equivalent figure planned for the next three years. [57362]
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What was the average annual real-terms percentage increase in funding for hospitals in the NHS between 1979 and 1997; and what is the equivalent figure for the next three years. [57363]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): During the years 1979–80 to 1997–98, the annual average real-terms increase in NHS total net expenditure in England was 3.1 per cent. On 14 July, I announced the Government's investment of an extra £21 billion in the NHS—an average of 4.7 per cent. above inflation over the next three years. Next year's allocation, which was announced today, will mean an extra £9.7 million for the health service in South Lancashire and £12.5 million in Northumberland.
    Mr. Borrow: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which demonstrates the Labour Government's commitment to the NHS. I am concerned that residents of South Ribble have to wait 18 months for drug rehabilitation treatment. The Government have announced an extra £12 million for drug advisory services next year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging South Lancashire health authority to give a higher priority to drug services? Reducing the waiting lists would have beneficial effects for the health service and important implications for crime.
    Mr. Dobson: We have included some earmarked funds to deal with drug treatment over-subscription and drug misuse. I hope that that will benefit my hon. Friend's area.
    Mr. Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Stephen Thornton, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, has described the level of investment in the health service as beyond his wildest dreams? How many more wonderful dreams does my right hon. Friend have up his sleeve for the health service?
    Mr. Dobson: I have been called all sorts of things, but I have never been called a conjurer—so far. I am not sure that I have much left up my sleeve, or even up my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's sleeve—he has a rather more important sleeve than I do. When various pointy-headed academics, those on the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal party were demanding an average increase over the next three years of 3 per cent., we came up with 4.7 per cent., but standards of courtesy have fallen so low that they never thanked us for it.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: The Secretary of State's announcement of more money for the health service is welcome to every hon. Member, but in Oxfordshire there is real concern about how much of the money will find its way into the local health service. At the Radcliffe infirmary, waiting lists for day in-patient treatment have risen by 119 per cent. in the past 18 months. At the Nuffield Orthopaedic hospital, only four people waited more than 12 months 18 months ago; today that figure has risen to 137 people. I have written four times to the Secretary of State on behalf of my constituents about the impending closure of Burford hospital, without receiving any replies. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to reassure my constituents that he will not close a single bed in Witney and that he will save Burford from closure until he does something to reduce the calamitous rise of waiting lists in Oxfordshire?
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman knows well that I shall eventually have to adjudicate on the propositions

    143
    being put forward by Oxfordshire health authority. I am prohibited from announcing my decisions until I have reached them, because I have to be fair to everyone. Today I met a delegation with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about one of the community hospitals in Oxfordshire. Other delegations are coming to see me. I shall listen carefully to them. My officials will confirm that, sometimes to their chagrin, I do not always agree with the proposals that are put to me. It will help that Oxfordshire will be receiving £22.5 million extra next year in order to provide services. Not every delay in Oxfordshire is to do with funding; some of it is to do with the way in which things are run.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: May I anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's response to my question by welcoming any new money that his Government are proposing to spend on Worcestershire health authority? Whatever that new amount may be, will it be enough to stop cuts that his Government are imposing on Worcestershire? Will it be enough to keep open the
    144
    accident and emergency department at the Alexandra Healthcare NHS trust hospital in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith)? Will it be enough to keep open the Kidderminster general hospital in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock)? If there is not enough money to keep hospitals and A and E departments open, then it simply is not enough.
    Mr. Dobson: I am glad to discover that at least one Conservative Member wants to be even more reckless than we are with public funds. She knows that proposals for changes in services in Worcestershire must come to me for decision. I shall announce my decision when I have taken it. The £18.2 million extra that Worcestershire will receive as a result of today's announcement ought to improve services and the performance of everybody in the county. That should benefit the people whom the hon. Lady represents. During debates on the next Finance Bill, I trust that she will be putting her feet where her mouth is and voting with us in the Lobby for the money that we are providing.

Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) (Amendment)
3.31 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 to require the Secretary of State to produce a report on reducing traffic levels to below 1997 levels by 2002.
Only a few months ago, I spent six or seven hours in Committee considering what was then called the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill—now, of course, the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. During debates on that Bill, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), told hon. Members on at least seven occasions that the Government believed in reducing the level of traffic on the roads. That was no slip of the tongue. When questioned persistently by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on whether the Government intended to reduce traffic or merely slow down the rate at which traffic increased, she said:
"I thought that I had made the position clear … I shall have to be infinitely more precise in my choice of words … My argument—which, I am sure, will be endorsed by all Committee members—is that there should be a reduction in road traffic."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 18 March 1998; c. 55.]
That is hardly surprising; after all, the Under-Secretary was only repeating the policy on which Labour fought the election, the promise that she gave her constituents before the election and promises given in an interview in The Guardian by the Deputy Prime Minister. I shall come to those promises in detail later.
Why did the Under-Secretary tell my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) just one week ago that she intended merely to "reduce traffic growth"? She knows as well as every hon. Member that that falls far short of what she, her colleagues and her party promised before and since the election, and during the election campaign—promises that have been repeated in the House. That is why I am introducing the Bill.
The Bill requires the Government to ensure that, when they publish reports under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, they set out policies and measures aimed at reducing traffic over the lifetime of this Parliament. It is a matter of deep concern that I have to introduce the Bill, but I am so rapidly losing confidence in the Government's intention to keep their promises on traffic reduction that I am left with no alternative.
The Government must be tough on pollution and tough on the causes of pollution, especially as, since the election, the World Health Organisation guidelines on nitrogen dioxide have been exceeded more than 110 times; on ozone, 472 times; and on sulphur dioxide, more than 80 times.
The Government fought the election promising that they would "reduce and then reverse" traffic growth. That promise appeared on Labour's election internet site, in their policy handbook and in policy briefings sent out by Millbank to voters. The message is clear—that they will "reduce and then reverse" traffic growth. Reversing traffic growth means reducing the number of cars and lorries on our roads. There can be no doubt about that.
146
The Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that policy shortly after the election, when he told The Guardian on 6 June 1997:
"I will have failed if in five years time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it."
His hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate was also clear about her belief in reducing traffic. In the run-up to the general election, and at the request of constituents, she signed early-day motion 289, which called for a 10 per cent. traffic reduction target. Two weeks later, in Hampstead high street, she signed a national petition, for which signatures were being collected by the local Friends of the Earth group, calling for exactly the same targets. She could not have made it clearer to those voting for her that she believed that traffic levels in Britain should be reduced.
The hon. Lady also made it clear during the passage of the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill that the Government supported reducing traffic. Not only did she state the Government's support for traffic reduction on at least seven occasions: she actually urged Committee members to vote against an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch that focused on what he correctly called the "vital issue" of the difference between road traffic reduction and reducing the rate of increase of road traffic. Despite all that, the White Paper failed to set out policies to achieve traffic reduction. In paragraph 2.24, it stated clearly:
"The New Deal for Transport therefore sets the framework to reduce traffic growth."
Again, Ministers know that that is a step backwards.
I challenged the Deputy Prime Minister on that point at Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when I asked whether he would keep his promise to The Guardian, and Labour's pre-election promises. His reply was clear:
"I agree to keep to that commitment: judge my performance in five years".—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317. c. 1071.]
Yet, only days later, his Under-Secretary was saying the opposite in a written answer:
"in order to tackle the congestion and pollution that is caused by road traffic, we need to reduce the rate of road traffic growth. "—[Official Report, 3 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 458.]
Not only does that break her repeated earlier promises, but it is patently rubbish. Tackling congestion by planning to allow more cars on the road, which is what this policy means, is a policy doomed to fail.
The White Paper predicts that, over the next 20 years, traffic could grow by over one third. The Under-Secretary promises that she will slow that growth. If she reduces it to 30 per cent., will she claim that as a success? Will she claim that congestion has been relieved? Will she admit that she fought the election promising a 10 per cent. reduction in traffic, and achieved 30 per cent. growth instead?
The signals that the Government are planning to backtrack on their election promises are strong. The Under-Secretary seems keen to ditch her own promises, too—a warning sign, perhaps, to voters in the London mayoral election, and one to which I can promise the Liberal Democrats will draw people's attention.
The Deputy Prime Minister at least restated his promise to me last week, yet even his own Ministers seem determined to undermine him, and we have all heard about the teenyboppers at No. 10 destroying his radical intentions.

147
Against that background, my Bill is crucial. As the Under-Secretary told the House on 24 April 1998:
"The country cannot continue as it is—there must be a reduction in road traffic."—[0fficial Report, 24 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 1119.]
I urge all Members of the House to support the Bill.
Labour Members, in particular, should back it. I believe that it is a Prescott Bill, as it would put the words of the Deputy Prime Minister into statute. Let the House remember his words:
"I will have failed if in five years time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it."
My Bill will hold him to it. I hope that the House will support it enthusiastically.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tom Brake, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Norman Baker and Mr. Andrew Stunell.

Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) (Amendment)
  ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION (NATIONAL TARGETS) (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Tom Brake accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 to require the Secretary of State to produce a report on reducing traffic levels to below 1997 levels by 2002: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 257].

Factory Closures
Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.40 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move,
That this House is concerned about the continued spate of factory closures and job losses; condemns the Government's failure to take urgent action to give manufacturing a chance; believes that this Government's actions in increasing business taxes and regulation have made the position worse; asks the Government to explain how far they will go in implementing the McKinsey Report on productivity; and urges the Government to change policy before more jobs are lost.
We urge the House to use this opportunity today to have a serious discussion on the current problems in manufacturing business. I would be surprised if Labour Members felt so strongly that they would wish to break their word to the Whips and vote for our motion, although it is framed in a way that they should find entirely acceptable—it is about the present and the future, and it urges the Government to do something to help all those manufacturing companies that are now in trouble.
I am a realist—I do not see many brave souls on the Labour Benches who are about to vote for our motion. However, I hope that they will use this opportunity in the debate to speak for their constituents and the companies in their constituencies. We know that they are suffering and that they need a strong voice in Parliament. We will be that voice from the Opposition Benches, but we think that it is time for some voices from the Government Benches to tell the Government the truth about the factory closures and job losses.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: If we are to have a sensible debate about the future, we must remember the past. Why was manufacturing standing at 30 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1979 and down to less than 20 per cent. when the Conservative party left office?
Mr. Redwood: Gross domestic product went up massively and the service sector grew even more rapidly, therefore increasing its share of the action. However, I know the argument that will come from the Government. We have heard it many times, so let us do the routine quickly so we do not waste too much time on it. Yes, we got it wrong in the early 1990s. Yes, the Labour party fully supported the actions we then took. Yes, we have apologised. That is not the point of today's debate. There has been a general election since then, and many things have changed.
The new leadership of the Conservative party wants to look to the future and offer heartfelt advice, based on our successes and our mistakes during our period in office. I hope that that means that the Secretary of State can now ditch most of his speech and tell us about the present situation—in which manufacturing is suffering—and the actions that he may take with his right hon. Friends to make things better for manufacturing.
Yesterday was just another day in the sorry progress of manufacturing under the Government. ICI closed a works in Billingham. Cooper's tools transferred its

149
manufacturing to Germany and to Mexico from that important plant in Washington new town in the north-east. I hope that the Secretary of State understood that—the company closed the plant down not because of a worldwide shortage in demand but because it thought that it was cheaper to make things in Germany.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the north-east. In my constituency, Wilkinson Sword, the razor blade manufacturer—an American company—closed down entirely and invested in a company in Germany. When I asked the company why, I was told that it had nothing to do with the pound or with interest rates. The company said that it was cheaper to sack British workers than German workers.
Mr. Redwood: I would be surprised if that were the only explanation of the company's actions. Why would it want to sack the British workers? A company does not sack workers because it is cheaper to sack them here than somewhere else; it does so because it can no longer make money in the market concerned and in this country and thinks that it can benefit its business by transferring the work elsewhere.
If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about that factor, he should urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do something about it. I do not agree with him about why Wilkinson Sword decided to pull out. It decided to pull out of the north-east, like many other firms that have done exactly the same in recent weeks and months, because the Government have made it too dear for manufacturers to make things in Britain and that area is suffering as a result—[Interruption.] Labour Members seem to deny that. Are they forgetting that Siemens has reduced its work force by 1,100 and cancelled a major plant and investment in the north-east? Three hundred and fifty jobs have gone from Wilkinson Sword, 600 at the Vickers tank factory, 2,000 at Claremont Garments, 500 at the British Oxygen Company, 730 at BASF and 660 at Grove Cranes. I have here a long list of job losses in the north-east since June, which I will not bore the House by reading. However, every one represents an industrial tragedy and a series of family tragedies for the people tied up in it. It is about time that the Government woke up to what is going on in the backyard of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in his constituency of Hartlepool.
Helen Jones: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, every job lost is a tragedy, will he explain why, when he was in the previous Government, he allowed 8,000 manufacturing jobs to go from my area and never said one word about it?
Mr. Redwood: I never thought that the loss of manufacturing jobs was a good thing. The hon. Lady does not know what I was saying within the Government when we were facing those problems. We were governed by collective responsibility and, as I have said, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged on behalf of the party that mistakes were made in the early 1990s. The fact that such mistakes have been made should
150
be a reason for the Government to learn from them, not to crow about them and then make exactly the same mistakes or worse.
Mr. Ian Bruce: We need to start looking forward, but let us try to strike a balance. The last two factories in which I worked have now been closed. The first closed in 1975, when I had the painful job of working with the people who were being made redundant to help them find other jobs. Before then, I had worked at a factory in the borders of Scotland that produced printed circuits. The Government have now ensured that that factory has to make all its workers in Selkirk and Galashiels redundant, but the Government' s only comment is that we need more productivity. They do not understand, so they should stop sneering.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Our sadness is that fine jobs are going and fine factories are closing—factories that we fought to get in this country or that decided to locate and grow here because they liked the economic policies that were being pursued. So much of that good legacy has been dissipated in 18 short months under this Administration.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry strolls on the Copacabana in Rio, plays courtier to the Prince of Wales, opens a motor show early to suit his personal and social convenience and turns a blind eye to the true problems of British business. We hear him in blunder after blunder, saying that he is no fan of greasy overalls or of horny-handed toilers in industry. As one who has never worked in industry, he obviously finds it difficult to understand how one makes things and the sort of background that one needs to do so profitably and to sell them abroad.
The right hon. Gentleman has become the Minister for manufacturing recession and the Minister for factory closures. He still thinks that he can spin enough to spin business out of trouble, but the more he spins with the odd piece of good news, the more ridiculous he looks and the more interest there is throughout the country in gloomy survey after gloomy survey and closure after closure.
Ms Helen Southworth: Has the right hon. Gentleman spoken recently to the Chemical Industries Association Ltd? Three of its members are located in my constituency. When I spoke to the chief executive last night, he expressed serious concern that the Opposition were talking down the economy and the industry. He said that he was having to make considerable efforts to counteract the effects of that talking down, which is damaging his markets.
Mr. Redwood: It is a case of the Government doing down the chemical industry, not of the Opposition talking it down. My colleagues and 1 have been scrupulously careful never to talk us into a recession. Whenever I have been invited by broadcasters to go that bit further and predict an overall recession here, I have said that I do not wish to do so because I have no wish to make things worse than they already are.
It defies both logic and evidence, however, to say that there are no problems in manufacturing industry. I hope that the hon. Lady reads the surveys. I hope that she has

151
read the profit and loss figures being reported. I hope that she has read all the news of closures and redundancies. If she has read and understood any of that, she will realise that we are not talking industry into problems. The problems are real, and they are immediate. It is up to the Government to change their policies before they do even more damage.
Mr. John Randall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not just manufacturing is affected? The retail trade, in which I have an interest, is also being hit. We do not want to talk down the economy, but one of the first things that one learns in business is to identify a problem, admit to it and deal with it. The Government singularly fail to do that.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the debate will persuade the Government to recognise, even at this late hour, that there is a problem. We are not making it up. The Confederation of British Industry, the other big business institutes and companies up and down the country share that view. One need only read Ceefax or the financial pages day after day to see how serious the problems are.
Mr. Christopher Gill: It may help my right hon. Friend to know of some headlines in the Shropshire Star: in September, "County dole figures show a sharp rise" and, in October, "300 workers take pay cut". The latter story noted:
"More than 300 workers at a Shropshire company are to take a pay cut to save their jobs."
A week later, the front-page headline was "Rover crisis hits county". The difficulties are real. There is no use the Government pretending that there is no crisis. The crisis is here, and it is affecting people's jobs in Shropshire.
Mr. Redwood: Many of my hon. Friends could make equally powerful points about their constituencies. The problems are real, and the Government must listen to us.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State likens himself to John the Baptist. I think that John the Baptist was closer to being an atheist than the Secretary of State is to understanding British manufacturers. He has invited us all not to a baptism, but to a funeral for British industry. He will discover that his enthusiasm to drive the story of factory closures out of newspapers and off the media will backfire terribly. There is so much worry in the country that the media will have to pick up that concern despite the right hon. Gentleman's guidance to the contrary that it is of no interest to people outside the House.
I trust that, when the Secretary of State speaks, he will not play too heavily on the welcome news of new jobs in construction announced by British Petroleum yesterday. We need lots of such announcements, because, by its nature, construction work expires every time a contract finishes. New contracts are always needed to keep construction workers in employment. The Secretary of State should not be confused into thinking that those jobs are new jobs in manufacturing or chemicals. The jobs tally for BP's investment is plus 225 new jobs for the new plant when it is up and running, but minus 150 jobs at Baglan, where there will be a compensating closure. The sum of the good news for the chemical industry is a gain
152
of 75 jobs, but that small, though welcome, announcement was more than swamped by yesterday's other announcements of losses elsewhere in manufacturing.
Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend is advancing a powerful case. In support of it, will he recall the simple, salient fact that there have been 19,000 job losses since the Secretary of State assumed his post?
Mr. Redwood: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intelligence. I had not counted the figures up in that way, but his figure sounds entirely possible. Perhaps the total is even more. I have noted announcement after announcement in the press, on television and on the radio since the Secretary of State took up his responsibilities.
The Secretary of State recently made a trip to the United States of America. I welcome the fact that he is learning from businesses there; they have things to teach us. However, I hope that he will not ignore successes at home. Far from wishing to talk down British business, I spend much of my time talking it up, to counter the awful words of the Secretary of State. He blames everyone but the Government for what is going wrong in fine, productive, successful companies that are in deep trouble because of the Government's policies.
The Secretary of State claims to have had a flash of inspiration and light, to the effect that clusters work. If lots of large and small investors can be placed side by side, he claims, that will generate more jobs, more companies and more success. I wonder whether he has ever thought about the fact that, just a few miles from here, a little east of Westminster, is one of the oldest and most successful clusters of business in the world. It is called the City of London. The City of London was a successful cluster of inward investors and home-grown businesses before Columbus even sailed to America. But what does the Secretary of State do? He does not go to the City of London to congratulate it and see what he can do to help it; he, with his colleagues in Brussels, threatens it with a withholding tax and with dire consequences if it does not follow his political agenda. He will have to learn that even great success stories such as the City of London need care and attention from Ministers when economies are in troubled times.
Does the Secretary of State ever pause to think that Hatton garden and Harley street are also examples of successful clusters developed by the United Kingdom a long time ago? He is right to think that Silicon valley in the United States of America is a great success story, but is he aware that, if he travelled 40 miles to the west of London, he would be in the heart of a great British success story—another silicon valley called the Thames valley? He may not want to come to my constituency, where there is an enormous amount of enterprise and where unemployment is 0.9 per cent., but he may like to go to the constituencies of his hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), where he will see great success. Why does he not go there and learn from those experiences? Why does he not then take an interest in Hartlepool, where unemployment is 10 per cent. and where male unemployment is 13.5 per cent., and why can he not apply some of the success stories from the Thames valley to Hartlepool, which is what I would want him to do if I were one of his constituents?
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree with me on the right hon. Gentleman's record on clusters. I am pleased that he acknowledges that clusters are vital to our economy, but, having admitted that, will he reflect on the Conservative Government's performance after 1992? I offer some statistics. In 1992, under the Tory Administration, 62,767 businesses failed—such a glowing acknowledgement then of clusters and their effectiveness in the economy. In 1993, there was a rapid improvement, with 55,000 failures. Why do we not go to the year before the Conservative Government were unceremoniously ousted, when their glorious achievement in recognition of the significance of clusters throughout the nation resulted in only 36,000 business losses?
Madam Speaker: Order. I hope to call the hon. Lady during the debate.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady has probably made her speech already; she clearly has not been listening, because I dealt at the beginning of the debate with the point that she has rather tardily made.
The truth is that the Government have transformed the United Kingdom from being the number one place for new investment for multinational companies to the number one place for closures. Now that there are some problems in the world economy, where do such companies turn to to dismiss their staff and close their factories first but the United Kingdom, because they know that it is in the United Kingdom that the climate has deteriorated most dramatically.
Mr. Michael Clapham: The right hon. Gentleman refers to investment, but he must be well aware from the figures shown, for example, in the McKinsey studies for the Treasury that, because for 18 years the Conservative Government failed to invest at the rate of our competitors, we are now in a situation where the Germans invest 67 per cent. more per worker than we do, the Americans invest 52 per cent. more, the Japanese 55 per cent. more and the French 46 per cent. more. Moreover, it is a little rich of him to talk about clusters when he was part of a Government who, in one fell swoop, put 32,000 miners on the dole.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has not realised that the McKinsey report is based on entirely arbitrary exchange rates—purchasing power parity rates—considerably below recent market exchange rates. That is why it shows output per head in the United Kingdom as lower than output per head in west Germany. Incidentally, it compares us not with the whole of Germany, just with west Germany. Were we to make the comparison at recent high market exchange rates, we would have a very different picture of Britain's relative success.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Johnson and Johnson, which makes orthopaedic parts, is closing its plant in my constituency and moving to Cork. It is doing so not because it is unwilling to invest—it will invest a great deal in Cork—but because the Government have made the climate for investment so hostile.
Mr. Redwood: That is another good example of the point that I am making. The danger—indeed, the reality—
154
is that investment intentions will be transferred from the UK, which is now regarded as a hostile climate for investment, to countries such as Ireland and Germany, also within the EU. Although costs in those countries used to be much higher, the relative advantage is now rather different because the Labour Government have made it so dear to make things in Britain.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has clearly read not the original McKinsey report but only a briefing supplied to him by the Labour party. Had he read the report, he would have seen that it makes it clear that we should compare ourselves with America, and that our economy and that of Europe generally are becoming increasingly less competitive because of over-regulation of the type imposed by the Labour Government on British industry.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. The exchange rate differential is less important in the case of America because McKinsey believes that its rate is closer to the true rate and because, in recent months under this Administration, it has not been as high, relatively, as the Deutschmark rate. Thus there is a technical as well as a sound reason, based on the relative performance of economies. I agree with my hon. Friend that labour productivity in this country is not as high as it is in the US. Later in my speech, I shall discuss what the Government should do about that.
The House may like to remember what some large overseas investors were saying about this country just a little while ago when they decided to set up business here. For example, when Siemens decided to build an important plant in Britain in 1995—quite recently—it said:
"Our decision to build the new semiconductor plant here in the UK is a recognition of the pro-business environment which exists and the skills and commitment of the British workforce.… we have not invested here because we see the UK as a low-wage economy."
Siemens recently decided to close that plant because none of those conditions remains true, as the Government have decided to make it too dear to make things in Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."' Hon. Members say that that it is not true. What other explanation is there? Siemens has not closed its factories elsewhere in the world, but it has decided to close the British factory, despite the fact that, a short while ago, it felt that Britain was the best place to invest.
If business taxes are increased by £25 billion and business regulation is increased by …14 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament, Britain will become very uncompetitive. The productivity problem is not of industry's making; it is of the Government's making. It is they who are bleeding industry dry by taking money out of its tills and coffers and putting it into the Treasury or administration.
Maria Eagle: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to quote Siemens's reasons for closing its factory as carefully as he quoted its reasons for coming here in the first place? As I recall, it spoke about the worldwide recession and the collapse in its market. Is it not easy to see why it would choose to make

155
redundancies here? One legacy that the previous Government left this country is that it is now much easier to sack people here than it is in other countries.
Mr. Redwood: Of course there are problems in the microprocessor market worldwide. We have always accepted that. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has not been listening. I have always said that on the Siemens issue. The question that I have always posed is why, given that there are problems, Siemens closed the British factory and not the others. Why has it chosen to close a modern, state-of-the-art factory, having made such a huge investment in Britain so recently, and why has it changed its view of Britain dramatically since 1995? Rather than close factories in Portugal or Germany, it chose to close the most modern plant—in Britain—because it had become too costly.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with this. The Siemens management, from the chairman and chief executive downwards, have made it consistently clear in all public statements and all discussions with me that the closure of the plant on north Tyneside had nothing whatever to do with domestic economic considerations. The reason that they cited was the collapse of the world market in semiconductor products. If the right hon. Gentleman is to be taken seriously in the rest of this debate, he would do well to withdraw his ridiculous claim.
Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State must explain why Siemens closed in Britain and not elsewhere. That is the important question.
Mr. Mandelson: What is more, the right hon. Gentleman should be aware that that was not the only plant that Siemens closed. It even closed down lines in those products in its home city, Munich, as well as elsewhere. He needs to think again and get his facts right.
Mr. Redwood: Britain was the place where Siemens chose to close a complete factory of a most modern kind because the numbers no longer looked nearly as good as they did in 1995, when it was praising the United Kingdom and the policies being followed.
Mr. David Borrow: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that things are rather more complicated than he suggests, and that currents of investment between Europe and the United Kingdom go each way? Leyland Trucks, in my constituency, will next year produce an extra 4,500 trucks—which means more than 300 jobs—as a result of a transfer of production from Holland and Belgium. That current is going in the opposite direction to that suggested by the shadow Secretary of State. Perhaps he will accept that things are a little bit more complicated than the black and white picture that he paints.
Mr. Redwood: I am not arguing that all the industry will close, but a significant number of factories will close because the Government have made it so much more difficult for business to survive. Of course, there will be some success stories—we shall welcome every one,
156
because they are good news—but they are a drop in the ocean compared with the massive attrition that is going on in manufacturing.
I remind the Secretary of State of the case of Rover. In 1994, when BMW purchased it, Rover was working at full capacity. A BMW spokesman said:
"Plants at Rover are operating at the limits of capacity, and in some instances special shifts were worked."
In 1995—as late as October—the chairman of BMW said:
"Great Britain is currently the most attractive country among all European locations for producing cars. This results from the structural reforms initiated by Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s, the most significant factor being the rearrangement of industrial relations between companies and trade unions".
That was said by the company that is now talking about the possible closure of all or most of Longbridge, which is one of our most important car plants.
It is obvious that something has gone horribly wrong. In respect of the particular factor singled out by the chairman of BMW, we know that the Government are about to throw a spanner in the works of our successful industrial relations reform, but we also know that Rover has moved from reasonable profits to heavy losses and has had to issue a warning that it will not be making profits for the rest of this century.
Why is Rover making those losses? The reason is quite obvious. Rover has some good cars—they are not the problem, and the Secretary of State will share our pride in the marvellous new models that it launched at the motor show that he and I visited. The problem is the numbers: the high tax bill, the exchange rate and the high regulatory cost are wrecking the numbers at Rover.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the price fixing that is taking place in this country? Surely there would be many more benefits to Rover if that were taken away, because it would be able to sell cars much more easily, and surely he must be blaming BMW management in what he is saying.
Mr. Redwood: I look forward to the Secretary of State's answer to that question, and I should like from him replies to a series of questions that I sent him yesterday in the hope that he would get advice and give us the answers in the House today.
I asked the Secretary of State a series of questions about how he intended to respond to the detail of the McKinsey report. Although I disagree with the McKinsey methodology, the report concludes that the reason for the apparent or actual productivity shortfall that it identifies is, largely, Government policy. McKinsey says that it is a series of mistaken restrictions imposed by Brussels and London Governments on various product markets.
I hope that the Secretary of State will answer my questions, building on the point made by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) about the car market. Is it correct that the right hon. Gentleman is to lift all restrictions on car imports into the United Kingdom? Why did he not know about that last week, when it was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The Secretary of State seemed to be completely unaware of the policy, although it should fall in his bailiwick.
Is it correct that the Government think that we have insufficient milk quota from Brussels, and what will they do about it? Would we not have a much more successful

157
dairy industry if we had more milk quota here in the United Kingdom, so that we had more raw milk to process in this country for higher value-added uses by the food industry? Will the Secretary of State and his colleagues fight in Brussels to get us the milk quota that we need to deal with the problems identified in the McKinsey report?
Will the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends remove the restrictions on the building of large out-of-town retail developments? The McKinsey report says that that is the main reason why our productivity in food and non-food retailing is lower than that of the United States of America, where out-of-town hypermarkets with large, free car parks are common. How does that square with the Government's much-vaunted policy of restricting out-of-town developments—the very policy that McKinsey says lies at the heart of the productivity difficulty?
Do the Government intend to remove the restriction on building new hotels? That policy is based on arguments similar to those used about hypermarkets, and is also identified in the McKinsey report as the main reason why hotel productivity is lower than in the United States of America.
Does the Secretary of State, as the ultimate regulator of our telephone system, intend to switch our system to that used in America, where local calls are free or very cheap, but where it is more expensive to get access to a phone? I thought that that was against the whole thrust of Labour's policy of opening up access to a phone. The McKinsey report says that, without such a system, our productivity in telephones will never match that of the United States of America.
Does the Secretary of State intend to remove planning restrictions on high-tech developments? The McKinsey reports says that we do not have bigger and better high-tech clusters, like Silicon valley in the United States, because of planning restrictions.
Will the right hon. Gentleman lift the restriction on the licensing of pharmacies, because McKinsey says that the main constraint on higher pharmacy productivity is the restriction on the number, size and type of development?
Will the right hon. Gentleman lift the wholesale exclusive distribution franchise arrangements in the automotive industry? Of course, car prices could be lower if there were car hypermarkets without franchises, but does he think that this is the right time to make that change, given that all manufacturers in the United Kingdom are struggling for profits because of the terrible problem of costs that they face as a result of the Government's policy?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us more detail on the competition policy that he wants to follow in other sectors? Let us take the newspaper industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Competition Act 1998 will provide a more competitive system. Does that mean that he will get rid of the recommended cover price for newspapers? Will he abolish all protected price systems in the newspaper industry? Will he open up distribution to anyone who wants to distribute, thus breaking the current exclusive distribution arrangements?
Those are serious questions, and I gave the Secretary of State full notice of them so that he could prepare serious answers. We shall give him scope to answer, even though
158
he has not yet published his competitiveness White Paper. Many of the answers have been leaked or have already been given to the country: many of them were supplied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the green Budget papers. I hope that the Secretary of State has now read them, and has caught up with what the Chancellor has already announced.
This is the day when we need to know. British industry needs to know and will read the Secretary of State's words. Those in motor manufacturing who are struggling to make a profit or avoid a loss need to know whether their prices will be cut soon or immediately and, if so, by how much, and which of these arrangements the right hon. Gentleman intends to change. Those struggling to make a living in the food manufacturing industry would like a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who will fight for them in Brussels and get more, desperately needed quota.
The whole nation will be fascinated to know how far the right hon. Gentleman intends to go on the licensing of large, out-of-town superstores and different types of big hotel. I suspect that he will get into trouble with his colleagues in the Government if he backs that aspect of the McKinsey report.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a difference in infrastructure, design, work and social patterns as between the American and the British way of life? They are totally different. Is he suggesting that we should adopt the American system for our way of life by supporting the McKinsey recommendations? Many of us disagree with McKinsey.
Mr. Redwood: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view. I favour the British way of life, as hon. Members may know. There are obvious differences between the United States of America—a country which I admire greatly—and the United Kingdom, which has a long history and a much smaller geographical area. Some planning policies that may work in the USA would be offensive in the UK. The Secretary of State will walk all over that difficult balance if he tries both to defend McKinsey and to say that he will not implement quite a few of the report's important recommendations.
I should be very happy to give the Opposition's view on all these matters, but 1 think that I should hear the Government's view first. I have made it clear in my exchanges with the Secretary of State that I fully support the demand for more milk quota from Brussels. That would be a welcome removal of an important block on the food industry. I would want to hear more about the impact on the motor manufacturing industry if precipitate action were to be taken, because I am conscious of the great weakness of that industry at the moment, although I like the idea of a better deal for customers. I hope that the Secretary of State will have something useful to say about the balance of those problems, given that I trust that he, like me, wants a strong motor manufacturing industry, as well as strong distribution.
Mr. Michael Jack: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the topic of agriculture and food, will he tell me whether he agrees that the Government's agriculture policy has been a major contributor to the

159
downturn of the agriculture engineering industry, and to the current failures in the agricultural business industry? The effects of the Government's bad policies are not restricted to one part of manufacturing.
Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend is correct, but I must not stray too far from the DTI brief. I raised the subject of milk quotas because I assumed that the Secretary of State was still technically responsible for the productivity agenda, and, to some extent, for the food manufacturing industry. The recommendation that I mentioned is an important part of the McKinsey report, which in other contexts the right hon. Gentleman praises considerably.
The Secretary of State must tell us what he will do about the textile industry. Is he aware that Marks and Spencer is about to decide to obtain many fewer of its products from the United Kingdom? Has he seen the predictions of trade unions, and of other independent forecasting bodies, that at least 60,000 jobs will go? Is he aware of the dangers facing the motor car industry? When he was having discussions with the management at Rover and trying to blame the work force, did he appreciate that there was a serious threat to jobs at Rover, and that production could be moved outside the country unless he and his colleagues did something about the current situation?
Will the Secretary of State take advantage of today's debate to put the Post Office out of its misery, and tell us whether he will let it expand abroad? How will he square the difficulties with Treasury rules, if he is now ruling out a privatisation—which we would be happy to support, if it would be of any assistance to him?
The Secretary of State and his colleagues are in a fix. They know that everything that they are doing in regard to working time, the minimum wage and the social chapter is deeply regulatory, and is imposing more and more cost burdens on British business. Because they do not wish to admit that, they are trying to close down the whole subject of manufacturing, to tell people that it does not matter, and to suggest that the creation of more jobs in supermarkets is a fair exchange for the factory closures and job losses that they are now recording.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to explain to the House why his Government left a legacy allowing only one region in the country to achieve gross domestic product per head that was at or above the average achieved by European regions? Will he also explain why he opposes the establishment of regional development agencies whose remit is to work with the private sector to invest in manufacturing and other industry, paying heed to local sensitivities and opportunities?
Mr. Redwood: I seem to remember that we left this country in extremely robust economic health. If the hon. Lady cared to look at the comparisons in regard to recent exchange rates, she would see that we are a relatively rich country, in the world and within Europe. She and her right hon. and hon. Friends would discover that if they examined the euro scheme in a little more detail—a scheme that would entail our paying higher taxes to send
160
massive transfers to the 100 million or more people elsewhere in euro-land who are not nearly as well off as the average person in this country.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: While we are talking about the euro, which has many implications for manufacturing, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to agree with Michael Portillo, who says that the Conservative party should rule out joining the euro for ever?
Mr. Redwood: I entirely agree with the leader of the Conservative party, who has made a series of superb speeches about the euro, saying that it is far too hazardous a project for this or the next Parliament, and who will lead our strong opposition to this dangerous notion. The hon. Gentleman is rather inexpert at tempting people further; he will have to learn a little more about the ways of the House.
The true plight of British manufacturing is made much worse by a Government who meddle, send bills, interfere and cost far too much. I have here a small selection of the documents that a business man must read before he is even allowed to practise in this country: "Insurance Contributions", "Statutory Sick Pay", "Statutory Maternity Pay", "The Rules Governing Cars", "Manual for Employers on National Insurance", "Small Firms Employing Staff' and "Employers' Further Guide to PAYE and NICs". A small business man would have to read, understand and comply with all that before being allowed to trade. On top of that, and I freely concede that we left quite a lot of burdens on business at the end of our period of government, we have £14 billion more in regulatory costs as a direct result of this Government's actions.
If the Secretary of State wants to know why British industry is suffering, he should just look around him and see what the Government are doing. If he wants to know where the true productivity problem is in Britain, it is in the Government. If he wants to know why British companies are dipping into loss and experiencing very hard times, it is because of the tax bill, the regulation bill, the interest rate bill and the sterling bill with which the Government have saddled them.
British manufacturing needs a break from this Government's wild ideas. It needs a lower cost base. The Government can deliver the lower cost base if they wish to. The fact that they do not wish to shows that they do not care about all those job losses already recorded and are going to do nothing to stop job losses to come.
The Government should heed the advice of the trade unions, which say that several hundred thousand manufacturing jobs are going to go. They should heed the business surveys that show confidence at a new low for this decade. They should heed the advice of all those business people who say that they cannot make things and sell them at a profit from a British base. They should heed the advice of all those foreign companies which, two or three years ago, thought that Britain was the best place in which to do business but which are now closing here first as world economic conditions deteriorate.
The Chancellor may live in fantasy forecast land and the Secretary of State may rather spend time in Rio than in Hartlepool, but we want some answers. We want to know what the Secretary of State will do, how he will respond to the McKinsey productivity challenge and how any of that would make it easier for British business.
4.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"recognises that the last thing business wants is a return to the boom and bust policies of the past, with interest rates of 15 per cent., inflation above 10 per cent. and a budget deficit averaging £41 billion a year from 1992 to 1996; welcomes the Government's decisive action in taking politics out of interest rate decisions, a move which the Opposition clearly does not support; notes that employment is currently 400,000 higher than it was when the Government came into office, and that long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years; welcomes the measures that the Government has taken to encourage enterprise, investment and innovation, and to help unemployed people into jobs; welcomes the McKinsey Report as an important contribution to the productivity debate and notes that, unlike its predecessor, this Government acted to increase competitive conditions through a new Competition Act; and condemns the Opposition for its own record in government, when manufacturing employment declined by 2¾ million and Britain went into deficit on manufacturing trade for the first time ever in peacetime."
Despite the fine words of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the Opposition have not chosen their timing well for this debate. It follows the announcement of the decision of the Bank of England to reduce interest rates further by 0.5 per cent., which was welcome news for British business, including those in manufacturing—a decision that came too late for the Opposition to decide on a different topic for their Opposition day today. It comes the day after BP announced the creation of thousands of jobs—however hard the right hon. Gentleman tries to discount those jobs—with its investment in Scotland and in Humberside, and it comes on the day when the Confederation of British Industry president, Sir Clive Thompson, buried—or should I say filled in—the Conservatives' so-called black hole in the public finances.
As we all know, Sir Clive is a first-rate business man and an excellent CBI chief, but he is not especially well known for his pro-Labour sympathies, so let me quote him in full:
"I do not believe we have a government that is slack on public spending or cavalier with our money, whatever Francis Maude may claim about black holes."
Despite that discouragement from his erstwhile friends, the right hon. Gentleman is not to be held back in his mission to spread doom and disinformation about the economy. His speech contained more negatives than a photographer's studio. In his world, there are grey skies just around the corner, and every silver lining has a cloud. One almost expects his dispirited colleagues on the Back Benches to start swaying from side to side before breaking into a rendition of "Always Look On The Dark Side Of Life."
Why are we being treated to all this pessimism and alarmism? Presumably the answer lies in a carefully researched electoral strategy by Conservative central office, as it is only if the British people were to feel complete despair, utter self-loathing and a total loss of self-respect that they might start to identify with the Conservative party again.
162
Lest I be accused of being unfair, I must recognise that there are some industries which are promoted by the Opposition. The manufacturers of myth, the peddlers of half-truth and the merchants of doom will all find a good market for their goods in Smith square.
Mr. Redwood: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has given way. He is obviously enjoying himself, but he is replying to a speech that I did not deliver. Will he recognise that, in my speech, I was full of praise for many manufacturing and industrial achievements in this country? However, it is time that the Government were held to account for their many mistakes, which have made things worse. Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer my points?
Mr. Mandelson: As Sir Clive Thompson might say, "When you're in a hole, stop digging".
The right hon. Member for Wokingham dwelt on the McKinsey report, and I want to deal with that straight away. The report is undoubtedly a valuable contribution to the national debate on productivity, and I agree with much of its thrust. However, let us be clear about the thrust of the report, which is that our productivity, relative to that of our main competitors, did not improve during the Tory years, and that that remains a serious challenge for the whole country.
The right hon. Gentleman does not accept that. He rejects the findings of the McKinsey report, and wants to pretend that there is no such challenge for British business and the British economy. He does not even accept that a productivity problem exists. In his speech to the CBI last week, he referred to McKinsey's findings as a stream of "fiddled figures". If there is no productivity problem, how else does he explain the fact that our national income per head is still lower than those of the United States, Germany and France, much as it was 25 years ago?
The fundamental point to emerge from the McKinsey report is the paramount importance of competition. On that score, the Government have already taken major and decisive action by introducing the Competition Act 1998. That is a belated and much-needed piece of legislation, which the previous Administration failed to deliver and which the right hon. Gentleman refused to have anything to do with when he was in the Department of Trade and Industry. So much for the right hon. Gentleman's clarion call for more competition and greater competitiveness. When he had the opportunity to act, he did absolutely nothing; he did not lift a finger.
Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Mandelson: I will come to the hon. Gentleman later. I want to save him up. It would be wrong to squander him too early in the debate.
I do not want to dwell on the McKinsey analysis. However, all the important questions raised in the long letter that I received from the right hon. Member for Wokingham—milk quotas, new hotels and price systems in the newspaper industry—will receive an answer from me in writing in due course.
Mr. Gill: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Mandelson: I will give way presently.

163
As the right hon. Member for Wokingham demanded of me, I want to address seriously what I think are the basic issues for debate today. I want to discuss what is happening to the global economy—the real world, if Opposition Members can remember what that is—and what we are doing to help British businesses and individuals throughout the economy, not just in manufacturing, in what we recognise are difficult times. Also, I want to lift our sights a little and look beyond the immediate questions to the future and the challenges facing the British economy.
Mr. Bermingham: I hope that my right hon. Friend understands my question far better than the right hon. Member for Wokingham understood my intervention during his speech. The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not understand a word of what I was saying. All I was saying—perhaps the Secretary of State agrees—is that the McKinsey report must be read in the context of our infrastructure and our social patterns. If it is read in that context, our competition policy a propos hotels and so on will be built to the way in which we work as a nation. I assume that that is what the Government intend to do.
Mr. Mandelson: I did not read any argument or analysis in McKinsey contradicting my hon. Friend's comments. Moreover, I did not read any argument in McKinsey on social standards or on the way in which the United Kingdom—in many respects, fortunately, unlike the United States—seeks to combine competitiveness and fairness in a modern economy. That is what McKinsey is all about, and that is what we shall be pursuing.
Mr. Gill rose—
Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mandelson: I give way to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).
Mr. Gill: Before the Secretary of State takes us on a tour d'horizon of events in the rest of the world, may I bring him back home—to what is happening in this country? Does he realise that what matters in competitiveness is the unit cost of producing a product, and that there are many components to that cost—not only the factor that he has already mentioned, productivity, but also overheads?
The one factor that is within the Government's gift—that it is within their power to do something about—is the one that we call "overheads". Last week, the House debated the working time directive regulations, which, over a full year, will add £2.3 billion to costs to industry. The Government now propose to lift the cap on compensation in industrial tribunals. May I put to the right hon. Gentleman the not-so-hypothetical case of a west midlands engineering company—possibly employing 50 people, and possibly with a turnover of about £3 million—that, if it had an award against—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should probably now come fairly quickly to his question.
Mr. Gill: Does the Secretary of State realise that the consequence of proposals now in train could be that half
164
the profit of many typical companies could go in just one award in one industrial tribunal case? Is that the way to encourage British industry?
Mr. Mandelson: I was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's diatribe against the working time directive—although I have not heard Opposition Front Benchers state that they will ensure that the United Kingdom does not have statutory three-week per year holidays for every employee. I do not know whether that is the Opposition's policy. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman's diatribe might have been delivered more appropriately during the time of the previous, Conservative Government. They signed up to the working time directive, not us. We are simply implementing something that the previous Government agreed to.
Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way at last. Given his unwise invocation—in his own support—of the comments of the president of the Confederation of British Industry, has he noticed that, as recently as 3 November, the CBI president said that, since Labour took power, the business horizon had darkened because of the "creeping paralysis" of regulation introduced by the Government? The president added that, unless Ministers did something to stop and reverse that trend, the only growth industry in Britain—with the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State—would be regulation. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of that record?
Mr. Mandelson: Sir Clive and many others would have been recalling that, although the previous Administration did indeed repeal 3,000 such regulations—on which I congratulate them—they introduced 10,000 more. Such a record does not allow the hon. Gentleman to give any lectures on business regulation. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like now to deal with the real world and events in the global economy. Those events are serious, affect us all and have to inform this debate.
As the right hon. Member for Wokingham barely recognised in his remarks—coming as they did from his own rather extra-planetary world—all is not well in the global economy. Asia caught a very serious bout of flu, with repercussions reverberating around the world. No one is immune to the contagion. A quarter of the world is now in recession, which is a fact of life with which we have to live.
Mr. David Chidgey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although it is predicted that there will be a 7 per cent. growth year on year in world manufacturing export markets over the next four years, it is also predicted that our exports will increase by only 4 per cent? Markets are growing, but we are not taking advantage of them.
Mr. Mandelson: That is exactly the point that I made at the outset, and I shall return to it later. The markets are there—what we need is the competitiveness to make sure that our share of those world markets is keeping up, and, indeed, expanding. That is exactly what our policies are focused on.

165
No one disputes the fact that there is a very serious downturn in the world economy. There will be inevitable job losses as a result. The question is how much Britain will suffer. Can we withstand the worst?
Mr. Barry Jones: I support my right hon. Friend's rational and robust defence of the Government's policies. I know that his Department aims to help British manufacturing, but yesterday, because of the conditions that he is outlining, major redundancies were announced in my constituency by Umbro, the sports manufacturer.
I wonder how my right hon. Friend and his Department might assist my constituents who are to lose their jobs. I hope that he will accept the memorandum that I have sent to him, which deals with why my constituency should retain assisted area status. Finally, I remind him of my invitation to him to visit Deeside, and specifically the European Airbus factory, which is a great success.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that such a visit will be possible before long. As he will realise, I am extremely concerned about the effect of the decision to which he refers on the employees and their families. I shall deal a little later with the action that the Government are taking to help precisely the individuals and localities that are being hit. As for the assisted area map, my hon. Friend will know that we are currently reviewing it. We have consulted many local authorities, and will consult Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will be doing that.
I was talking about the world recession. No one disputes the fact that there is a serious downturn and that there will be job losses. The question is how much we will suffer from it.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Mandelson: No.
It is important to understand the weaknesses in the domestic economy—weaknesses that we inherited, and with which the world downturn is making it more complicated to deal. The fact is that we needed to slow down the economy because it was in danger of overheating. It was expanding at an unsustainable rate. Everyone knows that we could not carry on like that if we wanted a platform of economic stability on which we could build sustainable jobs and wealth.
If people are in any doubt about that, they have only to remember where Tory policies landed us in the early 1990s. Of course, the right hon. Member for Wokingham does not like to be reminded of that. He is currently in denial mode, disowning the Tories' record in government as he continues to nurse his rather lukewarm leadership ambitions.
Let us go back to the early 1990s. Before then, the Tory Government had cheerfully and irresponsibly let go of the reins, sidestepping necessary decisions on interest rates, public spending and taxation. We all know the result—an unsustainable boom—but only the Tories have failed to learn the lesson.
166
The Tories then had to slam on the brakes, plunging the economy into recession. Interest rates jumped to 15 per cent., business cash balances were drained, and many businesses went to the wall. Manufacturing output collapsed, and, in total, 1.8 million jobs were lost. In other words, we went from boom to bust as a result of the policies pursued by the very people who now have the audacity to lecture us about our management of the British economy.
We cannot afford to make such mistakes again. That is why since coming to office we have taken decisive action to get inflation under control, to reduce Government borrowing and to put the public finances on a sound footing, and that is why we are now in a strong position to withstand the worst of this difficult time in the world economy.
No one can be sure that we have seen the end of the crisis in Asia and elsewhere, but the best judgment that the Government can make is that we can and will avoid recession in the United Kingdom.
I have no doubt that the Opposition will find that very disappointing because they are never known to put national interest above party interest. They are absolutely crying out for recession. It is clear from their every utterance that they pray for it, they revel in it and they see it as their only route to political salvation. They care not a jot about the consequences for people's work and people's jobs. It is all propaganda to them.
Thankfully, independent economic forecasters do not wish to play that game. Almost all forecasts show modest growth next year. The International Monetary Fund forecast is close to that of the pre-Budget report. [Interruption.] It is an important matter. I suggest that Opposition Members listen to the economic argument that I am making, as I might be able to tell them something that they did not know or refused to acknowledge.
Mr. Hayes rose—
Mr. Graham Brady rose
Mr. Mandelson: I shall give way in a moment.
I know that no politician should place excessive weight on one set of economic forecasts, but equally I am determined that the Tories' wilful pessimism on the economy should not translate into wish fulfilment in its implications for the rest of us and for the British economy.
We should be giving British businesses the benefit of the best and most informed judgment that we can make. We should be talking up the efforts of British businesses and giving them support to ride out the storm, not making the waves rise higher and fall even harder as the Opposition are doing, wantonly and irresponsibly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct the impression that his right hon. Friend gave.
Mr. Hayes: Rather than this diatribe, would not the right hon. Gentleman do better to emulate the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who a few days ago addressed the House in a mood of contrition and humility? Would not a degree of humility and contrition go some way towards satisfying people who have lost their jobs in

167
Alyn and Deeside and elsewhere that the Government do indeed care about them? If the Secretary of State must have an iron fist, he should at least use a velvet glove.
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman, in speaking about humility and contrition, might address the record of the previous Government and the loss of 1.8 million jobs in the British economy as a result of their policies. As for what we are doing about it, I am trying to explain that.
To the extent that it is possible to make any sense of the analysis by the right hon. Member for Wokingham this afternoon—if his outpouring of false assertion, contradiction and lack of logic could be dignified by such a word—and in his previous speeches and statements, all of which I have taken seriously and read carefully, including his article in The Times today, he was trying to make two arguments.
The right hon. Gentleman argued first that the Government's public spending policy is keeping interest rates high, and, secondly, that our policies on taxes and social costs have worsened the business environment—we heard a little more about that this afternoon. He is wrong on both counts.
First, let me deal with public spending. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman give the Government credit for sticking to our predecessors' spending limits for the first two years. However, generous acknowledgement of our prudence is rather difficult to square with his simultaneous charge that our new three-year spending plans explain why interest rates have risen under Labour. I find that difficult to follow.
One has only to look at the connection that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make between interest rates and what he calls our extravagant investment in the health service and education and our extravagant expenditure to help children in need and pensioners. Without exception, all the increases in interest rates that the Bank has announced took place well before the Chancellor's announcement in the summer. So what is the connection? Where is the link between our spending plans and the increases in interest rates, which, as the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, are now coming down?
Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State will have to try to read a little better than that. I made it clear in my article that the extent to which the Government deviated from our plans in their first two years in office was damaging. For example, welfare to work, which we opposed, was an expensive, failed programme, and was one of the reasons why expenditure was higher than under the Conservatives. The Bank explicitly mentioned in its recent comments on the economy both the minimum wage, which was known to be coming in from the early days of the Government, and the expenditure plans. Will the Secretary of State now read those minutes, and understand their influence on the Bank of England?
Mr. Mandelson: I have read the minutes, I have talked to the Governor of the Bank of England, and I have met members of the Monetary Policy Committee; and not one of them has once criticised the Government's setting of the national minimum wage. They have made no argument at all that it will have the adverse impact that the right hon. Gentleman describes. However, he has not told me in his intervention about the connection that he claims between the level of interest rates and our public spending plans.
168
Nor is it clear to me what alternative interest rate policy the right hon. Gentleman believes Britain should have followed. Would he have interest rates lower and take risks with inflation? Is that his policy? Is he saying that we should keep interest rates down to keep the exchange rate down? That was Nigel Lawson's policy in the late 1980s. Does he want a re-run of that? I really do not think so.
The right hon. Gentleman's second line of argument is that the Government's policies are worsening the business environment in the United Kingdom. He quotes a very big number for the increases in business taxes. I have looked carefully at that figure. I take very seriously any claim that we are unreasonably and inappropriately increasing the burden on British business and increasing costs unnecessarily, so I looked very carefully at how he reached such a gargantuan figure. I discovered that he mixed together the windfall tax, which was one off and restricted to the privatised utilities, with various other measures which either affect pension funds rather than companies or are measures to tackle tax avoidance, which I assume he would not wish to condone.
In fact, under the Labour Government, British business enjoys one of the most favourable tax regimes in the European Union. We have lowered corporation tax from 33 to 30 per cent. from April next year, and small business taxation from 23 to 20 per cent. That compares with tax rates of 41.6 per cent. in France, 37 per cent. in Italy and 35 per cent. in Spain. So the right hon. Gentleman's charge falls.
Our action on corporate tax rates and small firms' allowances will reduce companies' tax bills by about £4.5 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. We have introduced a long-term capital gains tax rate of lop in the pound. All those measures, without exception, have been welcomed by business, because the reality is that new Labour means low business taxes—and long may that remain so.
Mr. Brian Cotter: The Secretary of State mentioned small businesses. I hear what he is saying about regulation. Would he be prepared to commit the Government to producing an annual report assessing the impact of regulation on small businesses? That would enable us to see whether what he says is true.
Mr. Mandelson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously. I am glad to say that the Government's better regulation task force is about to embark on a close examination of the impact of regulation on small and medium enterprises—and not before time.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham misunderstands the thrust of the Government's policy on the application of social policy to business. It is to combine flexibility with decency. I am sorry that that is an alien concept to him. All seriously concerned and committed business people in this country support the idea.
The right hon. Gentleman ignored the offsetting benefits of the working time directive, which include higher productivity, reduced absenteeism and improved employment relations. What is more, it was agreed under the Tories. Would they campaign in Brussels—not that it would do them any good—for the repeal of the statutory

169
three weeks holiday a year for people in work in this country? Is that the policy of the Conservatives? Their silence is very telling.
Mr. Ian Bruce rose
Mr. Mandelson: No, I am sorry. I want the official line from the official Conservative spokesman, not the provisional wing of the Conservative party.
Mr. Redwood: rose—
Mr. Mandelson: And here it is.
Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State should remember that we asked for a debate on the issue. Unfortunately, he was obviously not interested enough to listen to what I said. I set out our position at great length, and produced a number of helpful suggestions to make it cheaper for businesses to implement the directive. Our criticism was directed particularly at the massive administrative cost. We do not think that it will help people on low incomes as much as it will create a massive bureaucracy. That is what the right hon. Gentleman should be addressing. I am sorry that he did not bother to read my remarks.
Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate, and he got it. I want an answer to my question: would he repeal the directive? Does he believe that it would be right to deny people in this country a statutory three-week holiday a year? Is that so wrong? Is that so unacceptable?
Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
Mr. Mandelson: No, I am sorry. I want the official Conservative party policy.
The welfare-to-work programme, which the Conservatives also attack, makes the labour market more flexible. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should just listen for a moment, and I shall explain. It creates greater flexibility by breaking down the barriers that trap people in long-term unemployment. It increases the supply of labour in the economy, its quality and its employability. That is the point of the new deal and other welfare-to-work measures. I am very sorry that the Conservatives are so short-sighted and narrow-minded that they cannot understand that our measures are helpful to flexibility and employability, and therefore helpful to the competitiveness and success of the British economy.
Mr. Brady: I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's rather odd definition of flexibility. Which European economy does he consider to have the most flexible labour market?
Mr. Mandelson: Britain compares with the best in the European Union. Indeed, we exceed the flexibility of many other member states. We are determined to protect that, and build on it. The Conservatives refuse to accept that flexibility can be combined with decency and minimum standards for working people.
170
The Government's actions are designed to steer a stable course through the world's turbulence, and to offset the immediate repercussions. I have already said that I am saddened by any job loss, every family hit by unemployment, and every locality hit by closure. That is why we have taken steps to reduce the hurt, not by bailing out firms—of course not—but by providing training and employment opportunities for those affected by closures; by working with the companies concerned, such as Fujitsu and Siemens, to try to save jobs by finding new owners for the plants; and by targeting the areas most in need through the single regeneration budget, European funds and assistance to companies.
The Government have introduced a package of measures to provide immediate help for those affected by major redundancies. It includes rapid response teams to provide counselling, careers guidance and advice on retraining opportunities.
For example, in response to the closure in September of the Fujitsu plant near my town in County Durham, the Government are providing £625,000 from the rapid response fund for additional training resources. Already, 123 people have found new jobs, and 377 are engaged in training. That is action that could be expected of a Labour Government in the face of an economic downturn. We shall strengthen our programme of measures in the coming months wherever necessary.
Mr. Colin Breed: Siemens and Fujitsu received considerable grant assistance for setting up. Will some of that be repaid to go towards the retraining costs, the redundancy costs and all the costs involved in encouraging people and helping them back into work? Surely those companies should provide at least some contribution to those costs.
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important issue, which we need to keep under review as we assist Siemens to find a future buyer for that plant. If those efforts are not successful, the issue of repayment of the grant will arise. Siemens did not receive all the money, and the management has told the Government that the initial grant will be repaid, as is right.
We are doing a great deal. In each region, the single regeneration budget will provide support for areas affected by closures. Following the Chancellor's comprehensive spending review, the Government are allocating new funding to regional development agencies across the country over the next three years. In the context of the RDAs' regeneration activity, projects helping areas worst affected by closure will be treated as a priority.
That is important work. I ask all hon. Members to keep a sense of perspective in their understandable and real concerns about job losses. There is certainly no comparison between the conditions we face today and those during the recession which was manufactured by the Tories in 1990.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham called this debate to paint a picture of doom and gloom across the country. I know that the CBI regional trends survey talks of falling optimism, but let us look at just some of the

171
facts and the picture across the country. In the eastern region, there has been a net gain of nearly 11,000 jobs over the past four weeks.
Mr. Bob Russell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mandelson: I should like to develop this passage of my speech.
In the east midlands, there has been a net gain of more than 1,600 jobs over the past four weeks. In the north-west, there has been a net gain of nearly 2,500 jobs over the past four weeks–300 new jobs at Zeneca Pharmaceuticals in Cheshire, and 1,000 new jobs at the Vauxhall car plant in Ellesmere Port.
In the north-east as well, there has been a net gain of nearly 500 jobs over the past four weeks–200 new jobs in ship repair at A and P Appledore in Wallsend only last week. In Scotland, there has been a net gain of nearly 4,000 jobs over the past four weeks–270 new jobs at Seagate microelectronics, and 1,000 new jobs in new Virgin Trains call centres. In London, almost 1,900 new jobs have been created since the beginning of the financial year.
I am not saying that the picture is not mixed: of course it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Only a Tory Member of Parliament, trying to make political capital, could ignore the simple fact that the British economy is still creating more jobs than it is losing: more than 400,000 since May 1997. Indeed, it is still growing, albeit modestly.
Mr. Redwood: Before the Secretary of State concludes his remarks, will he answer the questions that I have asked him in the motion, which I worded, and in the letter that I sent him in advance so that he had plenty of warning to research his answers? The House and industry needs to know which of the many public policy recommendations in the McKinsey report he and his colleagues will implement; otherwise, business will be mired in uncertainty, making its task even more difficult.
Mr. Mandelson: I have already responded to the right hon. Gentleman about his letter on milk quotas, new hotels and the like—questions on all of which are perfectly important and serious. They will, of course, receive a serious and considered reply in due course. That is exactly what he would expect.
I have not yet finished my speech—the right hon. Gentleman will be disappointed to hear—because I want to make the point that not only do this Government have a good record in job creation, but we continue to attract record levels of inward investment. We are still, this year, leading the way in Europe. If the Tory analysis were right, surely investors would be turning their backs on us. The facts show otherwise.
A report from the United Nations, which will be out tomorrow, will show that the UK received substantially increased inward investment flows last year. Our share of EU investment rose to 34 per cent., compared with 28 per cent. in 1996. Over recent months—this is very important—the case load of the Invest in Britain Bureau has risen by 10 per cent. compared with the same period last year. That is a significant and reassuring development. I notice that it has not been cheered by the
172
Opposition—it is, of course, bad news for them. What is good for the British economy is obviously bad news for the Conservative party.
Mr. Leigh rose—
Mr. Mandelson: No, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is too late. He had his chance to cheer.
In the concluding part of my speech, I want to talk about the future. To emerge with strength from what is without doubt a very difficult period for the British economy, we need to continue to attract high-quality overseas investment. We are far from complacent; there is a always a great deal more for us to do to attract high-quality inward investment. In addition to inward investment, we must bolster Britain's supply of home-grown productive capacity and competitiveness. That task is certainly equal to coping with the short-term problems brought about by the global downturn.
Our predecessors had no such ambition or creative vision. They specialised only in destruction—of industries, jobs, regions. Of course things needed to change in British industry and the economy. The problem was that their policies failed to support the creation of successful British businesses, with expanding numbers of jobs rooted firmly in the UK. They failed to bring Britain into the fresh industrial revolution—the revolution of the new knowledge age. That is the challenge that I have set for my Department.
Mr. Redwood: Claptrap.
Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Claptrap." What world is he living in?
Mr. RedwoodWill the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Mandelson: No. The right hon. Gentleman does not realise that the generation, harnessing and application of knowledge is the sole source of comparative advantage in our economy.
Mr. Redwood indicated dissent.
Mr. Mandelson: He says that that is rubbish. We do not want any more of his rubbish. We need knowledge applied throughout the British economy. The theme of the White Paper that I shall publish next month will be to equip Britain to succeed in the knowledge-driven economy.
We are already world leaders in some of the most advanced sectors of the economy, such as computer games and biotechnology. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That is not a result of what your Government did—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not my Government.
Mr. Mandelson: That is as a result not of the Conservative Government, but of what entrepreneurs and business people did for themselves. They are the ones to be credited with the success of the computer games and biotechnology industries—not the Tories. The problem is that no big British business has grown out of those sectors—no Microsoft, no C1SCO, and not even a

173
software house such as SAP in Germany. Once upon a time, we grew such companies—and not just through mergers. I want this country to do so again.
We shall see, too, firms in traditional sectors innovating constantly—not just sunrise and new technology companies. Mature industries and companies must apply knowledge, innovation and imagination to what they do just as much as everyone else, in order to improve production and processes, and to keep and grow their market share.
There are some important success stories in Britain in our pharmaceutical and aerospace industries, but too many firms are just not innovative enough. They do not spend enough on research and development to generate knowledge. They do not put enough into skills. I want innovation to be the watchword of all business in Britain. How we achieve that has already been touched on in the pre-Budget report, and will be addressed further in the White Paper, although I can say that we shall succeed only if we create open, competitive markets in which British companies can compete, thrive and achieve rising market shares.
We shall succeed only if we create and exploit knowledge, including our science base, upgrade skills, spread knowledge of best practice—to help businesses learn from other British businesses so that best practice can flow throughout the economy and there can be lasting improvement is as important a job for the Department of Trade and Industry and the Government as any—and, above all, help entrepreneurship to thrive once again, harnessing through enterprise the best of Britain's brilliant record in scientific discovery.
That is why the Government will invest to give our entrepreneurs the knowledge with which to work, why we are putting £1 billion into British science, and why we shall forge better links between our universities and businesses, so that new enterprises and businesses spin off, and we excel not just in scientific discovery but in scientific enterprise and business. That is the challenge facing us.
Amid all the undoubted pressures on British business, it is vital to realise that it is possible to talk ourselves into a greater slowdown than is necessary. That is what we have heard from the Conservatives this afternoon. They must understand that, for perfectly understandable reasons, confidence in many British businesses is fragile. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That is a lesson for us all to heed, not only those of us in government.
However, I am afraid that today's Tories do not have the guts or the integrity, when they start talking about the British economy and the prospects for British business, and as they indulge themselves in their doom-laden language, to act on the recognition that they, too, have a responsibility. That is why their motion is unworthy, self-serving and a discredit to them. It deserves to be rejected by the whole House.
5.10 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: At least until the last couple of minutes, I was beginning to agree with the Secretary of State in his aspirations for the future of our economy—including our manufacturing industry, which
174
is the subject of the motion. However, I am afraid that some of what he said much earlier I also did not find convincing.
The right hon. Gentleman made great play of the need to avoid talking down the British economy, and I agree that we should have confidence in our economy and in our work force. However, when he commented on the forecasts that he had seen concerning whether we were going into recession, he was careful to speak in terms of "the economy". I agree that the economy is not going into recession—but the debate is about manufacturing industry, and that is a different story.
I am not here to talk down manufacturing industry for any political advantage. I am talking about it because I am concerned about it, and I have to say that an incredible degree of complacency has been shown towards the crisis that it faces. If we do not recognise that crisis, how can we start to help?
Why are the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer so confident that manufacturing industry can avoid recession next year, when almost every other analyst forecasts such a sharp fall in output? I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that every month the Treasury contacts 29 City analysts and forecasters to find a private sector consensus on the economic forecast for the following month.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, after last week's pre-Budget report, my colleagues contacted all 29 of those analysts to establish their latest consensus on GDP growth and manufacturing output growth? The consensus forecast for manufacturing output growth next year was minus 1.2 per cent. Whether we like it or not, and whether we are trying to boost our manufacturers or not, the forecast is for a manufacturing recession. We should be aware of that, and take measures to try to ameliorate or even avoid it.
The Treasury uses the same forecasters—the ones who are forecasting minus 1.2 per cent. growth—so where did the Treasury dream up its forecast of zero growth next year, which carefully avoids slipping into the negative? That is not good enough.
It is interesting to note the response of the private sector and the City analysts. The Hong Kong and Shanghai bank says that the Chancellor's expectation that output will dip only to zero in 1999 is
"so far out of line with the survey evidence on the sector that it is barely credible".
I heard what the Secretary of State said about the latest CBI survey, but we should still listen to what the CBI says, because its survey takes place across industry as a whole; it is not made to prove any particular debating point. The latest CBI survey underlines the crisis. According to the Deutsche bank, the results of that survey were "truly awful".
No wonder the survey is truly awful if exports are falling at the fastest rate since measurement in volume terms began. No wonder, if output is falling so much more rapidly than expected, at the sharpest rate for more than seven years—
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Chidgey: I shall make a few more points first.

175
Even more worryingly, the fall in domestic orders has been the greatest on record since 1992. We used to worry about skill shortages, but with manufacturing heading for recession, restraints on output due to shortage of skilled labour are at their lowest level for four and a half years.
Mr. Bruce: The Government misunderstand why we are so passionate in trying to tell them that they have got their statistics wrong. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when we last went into recession, but many of us will remember going as Back-Bench Members to see Ministers and tell them that businesses knew that business was going into recession, even when the Treasury statistics said that it was not and that everything was fine. The position is not exactly the same now, because there has been a change of Government, but the Treasury and its statisticians are still the same.
Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to hear that I was, I believe, employed in the construction industry at the time to which he refers. I won a by-election, which, as he will know, is not a recipe for continued employment in this place. None the less, I remember saying when I won my seat in Parliament, during that recession, that as a by-election winner I was glad to have a safer job than before. That made the point to my colleagues in the construction industry.
The last time that the CBI quarterly industrial trends survey was as negative as it is now was in 1981, when manufacturing output was falling at 5 per cent. per annum.
I am not trying to talk down British industry. I am proud of what my colleagues in industry have managed to achieve over the centuries and will continue to achieve in the future. However, if we do not recognise the problem we cannot start to provide solutions.
The net result of the slump, and of the Government's failure to act decisively to stabilise the economy and to improve the climate for business, is the forecast of minus 1.2 per cent. growth. If that trend goes further, we could see 400,000 job losses in the next two years.
I would not wish that on any Government, let alone on the individuals who will suffer from it—but that is what we face, and that prospect is what we must address if we are to improve conditions for British industry. Manufacturing industry is now in a life-and-death struggle. Over the past 20 years, employment in manufacturing industry has dropped from 7 million to about 4 million. If that goes on, as the forecast trend suggests, it will drop to 3.5 million in two years.
The Government have to ask themselves how close, if that happens, Britain's manufacturing industry will be to falling below the critical mass that we need to maintain ourselves as an international manufacturing base. How long would it be before Britain no longer had the manufacturing capacity, the resources or the skills to compete with the major players in the global market?
It is a long time since this country was a major manufacturer of machine tools. I am sure that other hon. Members too, get frustrated when they go round factories and see that every machine tool is manufactured in Germany, Switzerland or anywhere else but in Great Britain. We led the world in industrialisation.
Mr. Tim Boswell rose—
Mr. Chidgey: May I finish my point?
176
I could name a host of manufacturing products which have disappeared from the list of products made in this country. Wind farms are one of the greatest ideas for capturing energy resources and developing sustainable energy, yet people who try to buy equipment to build a wind farm in this country find that it is all made elsewhere. We do not even manufacture windmills to augment our energy resources.
Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is making a characteristically thoughtful speech. Does he acknowledge that at least half the machine tool use in this country is still represented by home production, and that major machine tool manufacturers such as Germany and Japan also have a lively import trade because there is much exchange of technology and specialisation in that sector?
Mr. Chidgey: I am heartened to hear that; at least all is not lost. My concern, however, is that we are on the verge of losing all that.
The Secretary of State was quick to follow the Government line of blaming the global economic downturn for the problems that our manufacturing industry faces. The collapse of the Asian markets was mentioned, and the right hon. Gentleman was quick to blame low productivity and poor management for our problems.
The reality is that the collapse of the economies of south-east Asia, Latin America and Russia has had little effect on UK exports. We export more to the Netherlands than we do to south-east Asia, Latin America and Russia put together. In reality, UK manufacturing export markets are predicted to grow. Tables A2 and A5 of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report show that, over the next four years, UK manufacturing export markets should grow at an average rate of 7 per cent. a year. That is our export markets—not the global economy. My concern is that Britain's exports to those markets will grow by only 4 per cent. Why are we taking up only half the opportunities that exist in those growing markets? I ask the Secretary of State to accept the Chancellor's figures.
The reason why we are not capturing those markets or penetrating them as much as we should is the overvalued pound. That is an old cry, and Government Back Benchers will try to drown out that point of view. However, the Secretary of State must agree with his Treasury colleagues that since the Government came into office, sterling has lost more than 10 per cent. of its competitiveness. That has had a direct bearing on how well we can succeed in our export markets for manufactured goods.
Will the Secretary of State accept the acknowledgement in the pre-Budget report that, over the next year or so, the effects of the pound's overvaluation will work its way through into our manufacturing economy in the form of lost orders and lost jobs? Both the high pound and high interest rates are a direct result of the Government's failure to rebalance economic policy.
While businesses are calling for a clear statement on where the Government stand on the single currency, the Government seem content to kick the matter into the long grass—to use a phrase which has become fairly current recently. [Interruption.] Government Back Benchers may criticise, but this matter is very important to manufacturing industry. Businesses need clear guidelines.

177
The Cabinet seem to be engaged in a curious dance around the issue. The Secretary of State is reported to have said, "When we join the single currency." Then, quick as a flash, the Government enforcer said, "If we join the single currency." Some Ministers say "in", others say "out". It is, "In, out, in, out, shake it all about"—new Labour, new hokey-cokey.
Industry needs a decision. Firms want clear guidance. It is not good enough to stand on the sidelines, watching the game, saying, "If the play is going our way, we might join in." By that time, the game will have moved on, and we will be left for ever on the sidelines in the reserve team. That is not good enough. If the Government are serious about helping manufacturing industry overcome the approaching crisis, they must make a statement of intent. They must set out a clear programme for a referendum and clear proposals for what they intend to do about the joining date for the single currency.
Even if the Government made a statement of intent—and that would be weak enough—it is generally accepted that the process would still take three years. No one in British industry will start to make the preparations and investment that will be needed unless they have clear guidelines.
The Government need not only to try to avert the immediate crisis facing manufacturing industry—and the forecast of hundreds of thousands of job losses—but to address long-term practices. I was interested to hear the remarks of the Secretary of State about how he intends to set up some initiatives to try to improve the skills base of the country, and his response to the suggestions in the McKinsey report. Chapter 3 of the pre-Budget report, on productivity, sets out the problems clearly, and I agree with most of the analysis. However, I find trouble with the proposed solutions. The Government show clear signs of tinkering around the edges and covering the whole lot up with a large dollop of waffle. I want some clear ideas.
The Government are proposing tax breaks for research and development. The Secretary of State may, however, be aware that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has said that such broad tax initiatives are rarely, if ever, able to achieve their objectives. Does the Secretary of State agree that targeting assistance to small, start-up firms—the sort of firms that he was describing—would be far more effective than a broad-brush approach across the whole sector?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the proposed broad-brush tax breaks are a drop in the ocean compared to the extra taxes imposed on business? I do not wish to follow the Conservative party's line of claiming that every measure to try to improve conditions in the workplace should by definition be abandoned. The Secretary of State knows that I do not believe that. Let us be fair and honest, however. When we talk about taxes and tax relief on business, the right hon. Gentleman should know that the money that business is saving through cuts in corporation tax amounts to only about half the additional direct taxes that the Government have placed on business since they have been in office.
Does the Secretary of State accept the view in the McKinsey report that the major causes of poor productivity are not necessarily poor skills and low investment? The report suggests that those factors could
178
be effects rather than the root cause. I should be interested to know the Government's response. If the Secretary of State accepts that the root cause of industry's problems is the need for modern commercial regulations which remove from businesses all the barriers that prevent them from adopting best practice—of which he is in favour—he has a responsibility to make sure that the Government strip away the bureaucracy that is stopping British companies performing at their best.
Combining the pre-Budget report with the McKinsey report produces some interesting concepts of what could be done, and of what is not being done. The pre-Budget report put great emphasis on education and training. Who would argue with that? Liberal Democrats have long argued for the need for long-term investment in high-quality education and training for all those under 19.
Mr. Bercow: And for themselves.
Mr. Chidgey: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) clearly demonstrates that he has need of further training himself.
The pre-Budget report sets out plans for the long term. However, even if the Government provided the funds for those plans to work, it would take a generation before we started to reap the benefits in manufacturing industry. The crisis is now. The interesting thing is that we have a pool of skilled labour facing unemployment—up to perhaps 400,000 people in the next two years. Surely those people should be first in the queue for investment in up-skilling and retraining.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State refer to the work that he is overseeing on the rapid response fund and the single regeneration grants—and I think he said that the regional development agencies would get extra money. However, the infrastructure, the bureaucracy, the training and enterprise councils and the training budgets should be much more sharply focused, so that high-quality training can be provided to those people who are losing their jobs now. If the Government take the action that they should, and there is an upturn in manufacturing industry, those people—with a proven record as good employees—will get back into work and will be ready to do their jobs, putting British industry back on the map, where it belongs.
5.28 pm
Mr. David Borrow: This has been an interesting debate.
On a general point, we must judge the Opposition's motion against their record in government and their policies for the future to decide whether the two match and whether they could improve on the policies that the present Government advocate.
British manufacturing industry faces three difficulties. First, we are in the downturn of the business cycle. We cannot do away with that cycle, but the art and trick of economic management is to ensure that the peaks are not too high and that the troughs are not too low, so giving businesses the long-term confidence and stability to invest in the future.
The second problem, which is peculiar to British manufacturing, is that, although we have many first-class manufacturing companies which can compete with the

179
best in the world in terms of productivity, performance and quality, we also have a long tail of companies that have not yet reached world class. Part of the job of government is to assist in the preparation and development of those companies to make them world-class performers. In the past few years, the difficult exchange rate has exposed such companies' weaknesses and it has been more difficult for them to compete internationally.
Thirdly, we must not forget the extent to which specific sectors of the economy have been hit by the recession in the far east—they have lost both markets and competitiveness. Many job losses in the north-east have little to do with the first two factors but a great deal to do with the downturn and recession in the far east, and we must be realistic about that.
I am not an expert on manufacturing industry, but during my time as a Member of Parliament I have tried to get in touch with businesses in my constituency. I can compare the performance of the previous Government with that of the present Government by dealing with a number of local companies and with what is happening in my part of central Lancashire. I mentioned earlier the problems of Leyland Trucks. In the early 1990s, the company, which was then owned by DAF, went into receivership. Leyland's 100-year history of truck manufacture nearly went down the pan.
According to the local papers, my predecessor as Member of Parliament seemed more concerned about the performance of England's cricket team than about retaining those jobs in Leyland. The company was preserved, largely owing to assistance from Lancashire county council—which was then led by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman)— through Lancashire Enterprise, which put together a package. The company brought in new production methods. It has now been taken over by Paccar—an American company which also owns DAF—and production of 4,500 trucks a year has been transferred from Holland and Belgium to my constituency. At the time of the crash in the early 1990s, the company employed 500, but it now provides about 750 jobs, and the figure will increase to more than 1,000 with new truck production. Those jobs have been clawed back and transferred because the company has developed a world-class competitive base and has been able to compete with Europe.
The aerospace industry, with its factories in Warton and Salmesbury, is the major employer in my constituency, even though the factories are not based there. I visited Farnborough this year and am a member of the parliamentary forum of the Society of British Aerospace Companies Ltd., which develops close links with parliamentarians. Clearly, our aerospace industry is enjoying a period of great success. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Government are playing a key role in forging the consolidation of that industry throughout Europe, which is crucial if the industry in Britain is to provide jobs for future generations. That is one way in which our Government can be and are being proactive.
More jobs are also being created in my constituency as a result. A few weeks ago, British Aerospace announced that it would transfer the production of Airbus parts from the Salmesbury plant to Scotland to make room for the
180
increased production of military aircraft at Salmesbury—in particular, Eurofighter, which is soon to go into production.
There are clear signs, however, of a skills shortage in the skilled engineering industry in central Lancashire. The local authorities and the training and enterprise council need to put in place packages to ensure that the skills base is there for the future to support the aerospace industry and the chain of small and medium enterprises that supply it.
On a different tack, Schwan's pizzas—an American company—is one of the major employers in my constituency, with 700 employees. I presented awards to members of staff at one of its gatherings earlier this year. At the time, the company was talking about changes in production and the possible closure of a plant in the south-west. I bumped into the managing director at a business awards ceremony a few weeks ago at the University of Central Lancashire and asked how things were going, expecting that if all the tales we were hearing about recession were true, he would be talking about laying people off. In fact, the factory in the south-west had not closed because demand was so high, and he had taken on additional staff in Leyland to meet production targets. Those may only be straws in the wind, but the picture of universal recession in manufacturing is not justified for all locations.
Since the general election, I have met South Ribble business leaders every three months at business breakfasts. I also have regular meetings with the Central and West Lancashire chamber of commerce. Indeed, I attended a meeting there last Friday. Again and again at those meetings, people have expressed concern about interest rates—the reduction last week was welcome—and exchange rates. We recognise that the exchange rate against European currencies is lower than it was at the time of the general election, but there are still problems in markets in the far east. Businesses in my constituency want stability. People have pointed out to me that interest rates increased from 5 per cent. at the general election to a peak of 7.5 per cent., but they are now down to 6.75 per cent., which is a favourable rate compared with the 15 per cent. that we had for a year in the early 1990s. We have not seen the big swings that took place under the previous Administration.
Business men are concerned about bureaucracy and the amount of paperwork facing small businesses. Some movement and change is necessary there. The important thing is that this Government will listen. The figures that the Secretary of State outlined at the beginning of the debate show that even though the Conservative party talks about doing away with regulation, they introduced more than they got rid of. Small businesses appreciate that fact.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making a considered speech and we are all listening with interest and courtesy, but I must pick him up on the point about regulation. Will he at least acknowledge the factual position, which is that in the last two and a half years of the previous Government—after enactment of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994—there were 37 deregulation orders, whereas in the first 18 months of this Government, there have been only five?
Mr. Borrow: I shall not argue with the hon. Gentleman's statistics, but the business leaders to whom

181
I have spoken did not see the previous Administration as being supportive in getting rid of regulation. I can only give the House my own impression.
As regards regional development policy, it is important to recognise that the economies of different parts of the United Kingdom operate differently. I have been greatly encouraged to see the communities of Preston, South Ribble and Chorley come together in a public-private sector partnership to develop the Central Lancashire development agency, with a view to working with the regional development agency for the north-west when it is established next year to develop an economic policy for central Lancashire. I am a CLDA board member, and I was encouraged at last Friday's meeting to see the way in which the business community and the private sector are working together to bring jobs to the area.
Two major sites in central Lancashire are primed for economic development. One—the former Royal Ordnance site—sits largely in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). The second is in my own constituency, at Bamber Bridge. Both sites could provide thousands of jobs, and the community wants them to be developed to provide well-paid and highly skilled jobs. One benefit of having a development agency is that the community can have its say and play its role in the development of economic policy. Matters are not then driven entirely by market forces and by whoever buys the land for ad hoc development.
Problems exist for manufacturing industry. In speaking with members of the business community, I have heard that companies are looking through their order books and considering what is going into their banks. The feeling that there may be a huge recession round the corner is causing companies with good order books and sound businesses to fall into the danger of putting off investment and spending decisions. That feeling that conditions may turn down rapidly is not justified by the facts, but we must recognise the scale of the problem if we are to handle the downturn and the problems that have resulted from the collapse of the far east economies, the business cycle and the competitiveness of UK manufacturing industry, particularly in relation to our European competitors. We must be carried away neither by complacency nor by pessimism.
I shall conclude with a comment on Conservative policies, particularly the Conservative policy on Europe. I have yet to attend a meeting with business leaders at which there has been a groundswell of opinion in favour of our not joining the European single currency. The message that comes to me frequently, particularly from manufacturing industry, is that single currency membership should come sooner rather than later. That would make it easier for our businesses to operate, and to compete.
5.43 pm
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am glad to be able to speak in an important debate, and I congratulate my colleagues on the Front Bench on obtaining a debate on manufacturing industry and factory closures. I was extremely disappointed by the arrogant—some might say sneering—response of the Secretary of State to the legitimate concerns that have been raised. Manufacturing
182
and factory closures are particularly important to the west midlands. I am disappointed not to see a single Labour Member from my part of the world listening to the debate. Nor has any Member from Birmingham been here to make a point about the grave concerns facing manufacturing industry in the west midlands.
A small part of Rover's Longbridge plant is situated in Bromsgrove, and the rest of it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), which borders mine. Some 14,000 people are employed at Longbridge, and 40,000 further jobs across the west midlands would be at risk if the plant were to close. Sadly, difficulties at Longbridge mean that 50 supply industry jobs in Bromsgrove—at UEF, which hon. Members may remember under its former and more famous name of Garringtons—have already gone because of the problems created for manufacturing industry by the Government's economic policy.
Some 1,500 jobs were cut at Longbridge in the summer when people on short-term contracts were told that the contracts would not be renewed. It will be a miserable Christmas for many of my constituents, because they have been put on short-time working, and their so-called Christmas holiday will be extended to keep them away from work. BMW management say that 25 per cent. of components for Longbridge should in future be outsourced abroad rather than in the west midlands, at an estimated saving of £250 million.
On top of that, there is the Mini. We were all looking forward to the relaunch of the Mini at its historic home at Longbridge, but the relaunch is in jeopardy as the car may be made at Rover's Cowley plant instead. The bottom line is that the Government have been told by BMW's management that they have until the end of November to come up with a scheme to ensure that Longbridge is not run down or discontinued. They have until then to ensure that the plant has a safe long-term future, a future that is in the interests of all of us, but particularly in the interests of my constituents.
It is legitimate to ask how we came to that position. How did our great flagship plant come to face such difficulties? It is a shame that the Chancellor is not obliged to appear this evening, for it was he who blamed the Longbridge workers for their situation, telling them that they were not productive enough. He said that it was their fault that the plant faced the terrible prospect of closure. The Chancellor's remarks were deeply offensive and hurtful following the great strides taken by workers at the Longbridge Rover plant. The days of Red Robbo under an old Labour Government in the 1970s have been left far behind. The work force have vastly improved their working practices, showing great willingness to protect their jobs by working in a modern market.
It is not true to say, as the Government do, that the workers are to blame and that productivity is the problem. It is not comparing like with like to say that Nissan workers in Sunderland have created the most efficient car plant in the country, with 98 cars per worker, while Rover's productivity is much lower, at 33 cars per worker. Nissan has a purpose-built plant on a green-field site with the most efficient and modern equipment, which produces the most efficient output possible. The Longbridge plant has existed for many decades. It is a distinctive brown-field site, situated on three little hills. Therefore,

183
the two cannot possibly be compared and it cannot be said that it is purely the workers' fault that productivity is so low.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend may not know that the all-party motor group visited Land Rover at Solihull. I think that both sides of the House acknowledge—certainly the previous Secretary of State opened it—that that is probably among the most modern plants in Europe, if not the world. I wrote privately to the then Secretary of State about that plant's concern at the way in which the economy was being managed. The pound and interest rates were much too high and its German owners had said that it would not continue with the expansion and would have to start cutting back. That shows that it is nonsense to blame the lack of productivity at Longbridge for its problems.
Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend makes the point to which I wanted to come. The problem is not one of productivity alone. Workers and management understand that productivity must be addressed. The Government acknowledge that, but, most unfairly, blame productivity for the problems at Longbridge. The crisis in the Longbridge car plant is the result of the Government's management of the economy. The high pound and the high exchange rate created the present difficulties.
Maria Eagle: I have the front gate of a car plant, although not the plant itself, in my constituency—Ford at Halewood—and Vauxhall is at Ellesmere Port in the north-west. Both are old car plants which are now expanding vastly. How does the hon. Lady explain the difference between what is happening at Longbridge and what is happening at Halewood and Ellesmere Port?
Miss Kirkbride: I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised those issues. If she will forgive me, rather than give a direct answer now I shall address those points in my speech; the House will understand my speech better if I am allowed to deal with those points in the order that I see fit.
The Longbridge plant suffered particularly from the high exchange rate resulting from the Government's decision to make an independent Bank of England which misjudged the rate at which interest rates should be set because it was not capable of knowing the Government's wider economic policy. Interest rates were kept too high for too long with the result that the pound shot through the DM3 ceiling, which I cannot remember its reaching before. For some time the pound reached a completely unacceptable level for manufacturing industry.
Earlier this spring the Longbridge plant was able to hedge its currency transactions. It had bought forward at an exchange rate of DM2.40 to the pound. Sadly, that arrangement came to an end just when the Government's exchange rate policy meant that there were over DM3 to the pound. The effect of that was that the price of the Rover 400 made at Longbridge shot up in Germany from DM29,000 to DM39,000, vastly overpricing that car in the German market, with the result that Rover exports completely collapsed.
At the same time, Rover faced difficulties in its home market. Because the pound was so high, resulting in cars coming from abroad at a much cheaper rate than had
184
previously been experienced, the British car market was flooded with Italian, French and German cars, which, because of aggressive marketing, could be sold more cheaply in Britain. Other European companies were looking for somewhere to sell their cars because, as a result of the collapse in Asia, they were not able to sell their cars in the same volume in that market. They looked to our market which provided easy pickings because of the Government's exchange rate policy. As a result, by the end of this year, BMW will face a £600 million loss at the Longbridge plant.
Mr. Hoyle: What the hon. Lady says does not quite add up, because Rover cars are 30 per cent. cheaper in Europe than in the United Kingdom, and, in fairness, French cars coming to Britain are up to 40 per cent. dearer than in their own market. Therefore, I cannot see the logic of what she is saying. Is she looking for a cash investment for Longbridge from the Government? Is that what is needed?
Miss Kirkbride: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is only making a debating point and that he really does know that every home market has its own considerations and, sadly, the price of cars on the continent does not necessarily impact on the price of cars here. Like must be compared with like, and a DM10,000 increase on Rover cars in the German market would clearly cause a major problem for BMW when it tried to sell the Rover 400 in that market.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asks what should be done. The first point, which I hope will not be lost on the Minister, is that the Government's economic policy has some bearing on the situation. I notice that, for all the protestations that the Bank of England is independent, Treasury Ministers at least have recently asked it to listen to their pleas for a reduction in interest rates which, to the satisfaction of the House, is what we had last week.
Mr. Leslie: Would the hon. Lady suggest that independence for the Bank of England be scrapped?
Miss Kirkbride: It is difficult to say that the Bank of England is truly independent when members of the Monetary Policy Committee are appointed by the Government on relatively short-term contracts. Independence is not as clear cut as it might be in America and Germany. However, that is something of a red herring when we are discussing the real issue of my constituents' jobs at the Longbridge car plant.
The biggest problem facing Longbridge is where to go from here. It is clear that the unions have shown their willingness to co-operate in any way that they can to make those jobs as secure as possible, and I congratulate them on that. Although criticisms have been made of the BMW management they are rather unfair. BMW has invested £2.5 billion in the Rover car industry in the United Kingdom since it took it over. Land Rover has been a great success. The Cowley car plant is clearly doing better than Longbridge. BMW has shown itself willing to invest in the production of the new Rover 75, which had a fabulous reception at the motor show until the management acknowledged the difficulties at Longbridge. That clearly has put rather a damper on things.
The success of the Rover 75 needs to be reflected in other new models that can be built alongside the Mini at the Longbridge plant if the jobs of my constituents are to

185
be secure. To that extent, I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I think that I am right in saying that, earlier this year, £43 million was given to the Ford plant at Halewood. Similarly, Vauxhall has had money through restructuring grants in order to improve its productivity and its production plant. Conservative Members, and, I hope, Labour Members, do not want to go back to the situation whereby good money was poured after bad into plants that would never be productive and which could never be a success story for British industry.
Where there is willingness to invest in new models and new plant, DTI grants are available which could help BMW to restructure and to provide jobs and security at Longbridge. When will the Government talk to the BMW management in order to secure those jobs? When will the amount of money that is available within the framework of DTI grants be negotiated with the BMW management so that we can all feel that there is not just a more secure Christmas ahead of us but a secure new year and a secure 2000 and beyond for the Longbridge Rover car plant? I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to the concerns that I have raised, and if her boss would respond to them before the 30 November deadline.
5.59 pm
Maria Eagle: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. The Opposition motion before the House condemns
"the Government's failure to take urgent action to give manufacturing a chance".
It is interesting that the Opposition now want to give manufacturing a chance. I believe in judging people by what they do as well as by what they say. In that context, it is important to look at the record. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made clear his view that mistakes were made at the time of the recession in the early 1990s. Although he was in government at the time, he hinted that he had not agreed with the then policies and had taken action behind the scenes—to the extent that a Minister can while retaining collective responsibility—to try to change them.
My memory of the previous Administration goes back a little further than 1990, to 1979. There was not just one major world recession which the previous Government's policies made worse than it need have been; there were two. The first was between 1979 and the early 1980s, and I shall concentrate on the period between 1979 and 1981. The Opposition motion condemns
"the continued spate of factory closures".
The previous Administration were not content with closing factories; they shut down entire industries. They were not concerned with a factory here or there, but closed most of our shipbuilding and steel industries and almost all of our mining industry.
Within 18 months of coming to power, the Conservatives had managed to close more than 20 per cent. of our manufacturing industry. It did not happen uniformly across Britain but affected some constituencies more than others. Although I did not represent my constituency at the time, I was watching closely what happened in my city of Liverpool. The previous Government closed most of the automotive factories in
186
my constituency, including Dunlop and Triumph—Ford managed to survive the shock, thank goodness—and the matchmaking factories. They closed 25 per cent. of Liverpool's manufacturing industry within 18 months of coming to office. Is that what the motion means by giving manufacturing a chance? It is not my definition.
When studying a Government's record, one must also look at their general election manifestos. Given the absolute devastation that had been visited on Liverpool, particularly on its manufacturing capacity, I looked at the 1983 Conservative election manifesto and at what they claimed they had done. I noticed with interest that the years 1979–81 were missing from the statistics. One would have thought that the Conservatives had first been elected in 1981. The result was that all the lines on the graph went up instead of down.
The Opposition have been working at collective amnesia for years. It is not new to them. They have got it down to a fine art in the motion before us. They appear to forget that they gave manufacturing no chance when they were in power, when they had the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Hayes: It is most interesting to hear a history lesson, but if the hon. Lady is so interested in manifestos, I refer her to the Labour party manifesto, which talks about improving chances for businesses, boosting employment and giving business more support. How does she reconcile that with recent job losses, closures and ever greater regulation on businesses of all sizes?
Maria Eagle: I shall go on to answer those points. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman does not want Labour Members to deal with history. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Wokingham made that very point in his speech and tried to pre-empt any reference to history by Labour Members. The previous Government's 18-year record needs to be looked at, given what they are calling on the Government to do. The hon. Gentleman will admit that 18 months is not as long as 18 years. The time will come—at the next general election—when the people of this country can judge this Government on their record. There are already welcome signs that the Government are taking more heed of the needs of manufacturing and employment—of individuals seeking employment and those who need to shift from job to job and industry to industry—than the previous Government did during 18 years in office.
The Government's amendment recognises the fact that it was not just in my constituency that manufacturing jobs were destroyed under the previous Administration: 2.75 million manufacturing jobs were destroyed during that period. The Opposition may not want to be reminded of that record, but it is relevant to the debate.
Mr. Brady: The hon. Lady has laboured the point that Conservative Members do not want to discuss history. Is it not more important to discuss what our constituents and people throughout the north of England want to hear about—what the Government will do to stop factory closures and job losses? She is perfectly entitled to raise issues of history, but she would be well advised to focus on what people outside want to hear.
Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will deal with those points

187
when she winds up the debate. I have only about 10 minutes, which is not enough time to go into much detail.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady is subcontracting.
Maria Eagle: Back Benchers cannot subcontract to Ministers. I have less time than my hon. Friend the Minister to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I simply seek to discuss the Opposition motion, which finally
"urges the Government to change policy before more jobs are lost."
I was listening carefully to the initial remarks by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, which were extensive, to hear precisely what the Opposition's policy prescriptions were, but I heard not one suggestion. We should be told in a little more detail what policy changes the Opposition would suggest to put the problems right. Given their extensive experience of the destruction of manufacturing jobs, they might just have a helpful suggestion. Perhaps in the winding-up speeches, the Opposition Front Bench will say what we should do.
The House will probably be glad to hear that, as other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall discard about half my speech.
There are now 400,000 more jobs than when the Government came to office, although they are not in manufacturing and we must look closely at that. However, it is a sign of improvement. We have low long-term interest rates to encourage manufacturing investment, which will help in the medium and long term. Hopefully, the new deal for the long-term unemployed and people who were excluded from the labour market during the previous Administration will help people to get the jobs which they are currently unable to access. In the medium term, that will make a big difference to individuals, manufacturing and employment creation.
6.8 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for being brief, and I shall be brief so that other hon. Members can speak. I am rather sad, however, because the hon. Lady had an opportunity to tell Government Front Benchers what her constituents want. Of course it is good fun to knock the previous Government, but Conservative Front Benchers cannot, for the next few years, give her constituents what she is looking for.
I listened with care to the Secretary of State. One never wants to insult or attack someone who has decided to leave the Chamber and not listen to the speeches, and we are told that he is a man of great ability, a great wit and a great spinner, but what he was spinning today was great nonsense. I understand that his grandfather, Herbert Morrison, was asked what socialism was. He replied, "Whatever a Labour Government do." That makes him the grandfather of all spin doctors.
The Secretary of State tried to pretend that the 400,000 jobs that have been created since the Labour party came into power were not created because of Conservative party policies, and tried to pretend that the fact that unemployment has been coming down in the United Kingdom for a long time, under Conservative and Labour Governments, was also not due to Conservative party policies. I think that I have been consistent in my advice
188
to Conservative and Labour Governments about listening to what is happening out in the real world, and the Government are foolish in the way that they treat advice from Conservative Members.
I can speak about factory closures. I was made redundant in 1975 because of the closure of the Edwards Scientific Instruments factory, which operated on behalf of Sinclair in producing calculators. That was a growth market and one of the areas that should have been thriving, even though the then Labour Government were creating unemployment in all directions. The company listened to the blandishments of the Labour Government to take people on—through one of the schemes that they introduced to try to prevent unemployment—in subsidised employment.
The scheme was so complicated that it took the Government a year to come back to the company and say, "For some technical reasons, we have decided that you will not be allowed to get the money." The plug was pulled on the £500,000 that it thought it would receive through that wonderful scheme to employ hundreds of people to make electronic calculators in Yorkshire. The company was so extended by expanding its work force that, once the plug was pulled by the Government, the bankers said, "Oops, sorry, we'll pull the plug as well." The company went down and hundreds of people lost their jobs.
I tell that tale not because I want to bash the previous Labour Government—although, clearly, as a Tory I would love to do that—but because it reminds us of what is happening today with the Government. When the Labour party came into power, it rightly identified long-term unemployment as the part of the unemployment figures on which it should concentrate. The figures had been coming down rapidly under the Conservatives, and the momentum continued when the Labour party kept to most Conservative spending limits.
The Government keep telling us about the new deal, however. I asked the Library to find the figures showing long-term unemployment coming down, using statistics for the past 10 years.
Maria Eagle: The new deal has only just started.
Mr. Bruce: The new deal has only just started, but let me give the figures. When the Government were operating under Conservative party policies—in the April to July 1997 quarter–27,000 young people, and 37,000 over-25s, came off the long-term unemployed list. In those days, we had fresh start interviews, job clubs and an economy that was working well. Obviously it is early days, but what happened for young people between April and July this year, after the new deal came in and we had all those pilot schemes? Not 27,000 off the list, and not hundreds of thousands of people going on to the new deal, as we have been told, but 2,500 people off the list—a tenth of the number—and that under the same Labour Government.
What about older people? The new deal has not come in quite so quickly for them, so the figure has gone down from 37,000 off the long-term unemployed list to 10,000 off it.
Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bruce: Perhaps the hon. Lady thinks I am being unfair, but let me finish the statistics, or she may dig herself a hole.

189
I have not mentioned the worst quarter—January to April 1998—when the Government were telling everyone how much they would do under the new deal. The number of long-term unemployed went up by 1,200. We shout at Ministers to allow us to intervene in their speeches and say that the new deal is not working. No wonder they do not allow me to intervene, because I have the statistics—all the deal.
New deal was a new deal, but it contained four jokers, I reckon: the Government stopped the fresh start interviews, which were working so well; they closed the job clubs; they took all sorts of money out of the jobcentres; and £5 billion in extra taxes was put on the utilities. Those companies could have reduced their prices to consumers by £5 billion, or they could have been told to spend the £5 billion creating new jobs, but no: the £5 billion was taken out and used for this so-called new deal—the four jokers.
What happened in the rest of the economy? We were warned that boom and bust would come again. We were getting up to growth rates of almost 3 per cent.—the boom—so we had to jam on the anchors. Interest rates had to go up, exchange rates were pushed up and we had all these extra regulations. That was completely wrong. When we were in office, I argued with my own Front Benchers that interest rates were too high. I experienced the charm offensive years ago, when people told us, "If only we had an independent bank, interest rates would come down automatically—overnight—by at least 1 per cent."
Real interest rates are the ones that people talk about. Remember, German inflation is about 1.5 per cent. and real money is borrowed at 4 per cent. The real interest rate is about 2 per cent. or 2.5 per cent. What is it here? Our interest rate for borrowing money is 9 or 10 per cent.—not the bank rate—because there has to be 1 per cent. or so on top. That is more than three times the rate of inflation, which is why we have great problems with investment in this country. If independence for the Bank of England gives us that, I for one would say, "It is proven; we were right not to give it independence." By the next general election, we will be able to judge whether we should bring the Bank back into political control.
If people do not believe my arguments, they should page the parliamentary data and video network and look up Peter Shore. He made the same speech on the Bank of England almost all the time, and his speeches would persuade Labour Members, as well as Conservative Members, that independence for the Bank of England was no panacea.
What about this unsustainable growth of 3 per cent. on which we had to slam the brakes, to prevent us from reaching such a level? What is the Chancellor telling us? He is saying, "We will have terrible growth this year and next year, but we will get back up to 3.1 per cent." Why did we put the brakes on? Come on: if it was right to put the brakes on and to put on high interest rates because of whatever legacy the Conservatives were supposed to have left, it certainly was not right when all the disasters in Japan, the far east, the middle east and south America happened. That world recession was certainly enough to put the brakes on.
Mr. Hayes: I am most interested in my hon. Friend's analysis. Is not the truth that the Bank of England was
190
remarkably insensitive to that change? It was slow; a politician would have been more reactive and more sensitive to opinion and circumstances and would have been able to react more quickly. The Bank of England has done too little, too late.
Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The Government trust in bankers and their good sense, so why have they appointed Mr. Don Cruikshank to persuade the bankers to lend money to industry in a more sensible way, even though we rely on bankers to tell us what interest rates should be for our industry? That is completely wrong.
I want to mention the working time directive, because there is an issue of bad drafting. How many people realise that someone who starts working for a company on 1 July, in a couple of years will get four weeks' paid holiday, as he has always done, but each year he will have to take all his summer holiday by the end of June? Do Labour Members realise that? People will not be allowed to save any of those four weeks forward.
Every company for which I have worked had a policy of allowing a week or so to be transferred forward. That could be agreed, but there are absolutely no derogations in the working time directive on holiday pay. That will affect all our constituents, because hon. Members did not bother to consider the regulations closely.
What about the position locally? I am fortunate enough to have in Weymouth an economy that is working well. Unemployment is still going down, and we have not yet had any disasters. I do not talk the economy down or try to destroy jobs. When the Royal Navy was leaving Portland in my constituency, the previous Government had policies that amazed me. Every Department seemed to know that there was a problem in Weymouth and Portland and was able to do something about it, whether it was building a new land registry or building new roads.
What do we have now? We have First Portland and Portland Port Ltd., and an enterprise centre is being set up using the single regeneration budget grant. We are facing hard times, however, because the single regeneration budget and assisted area status are under threat from the Labour Government. We were promised a relief road, but that has been delayed. The South Dorset economic partnership was established with little Government money. The money came from the training and enterprise council, but TECs have had money taken away from them and given to the regional development areas, so the South Dorset economic partnership has had to close. We are now to lose the last bit of the Navy base. The Government have it in their power to release this land for productive use. At least three people want to bid for it, but the Government will not release it until next year.
The Government must look at the lessons that we learned during our last recession and accept that it is not Conservative Members who are talking down the economy: they have done that for themselves.
6.21 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this important occasion.
Under the Tory Administration, which this nation endured for 18 years, a business went bust, on average, every three minutes of every working day. That is not a

191
record of which to be proud. One in five households with someone of working age had no one in work, and at the end of their period in office there were more than 1 million fewer jobs than when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Prime Minister. Moreover, 800,000 people earned less than £2.50 an hour, and in-work benefits cost every taxpayer £160 a year. Britain slumped0 from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league, and our investment level was one of the lowest of the 24 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Total manufacturing investment was lower in real terms in 1996 than in 1979. That is fact.
By contrast, we believe that industry and small and medium businesses are vital to Britain's economy because of the wealth that they create, the jobs that they provide and the ideas and technology that many of them develop. The Tories claimed that they were the friends of small businesses, but their actions told a very different story. In 1992, 65,000 businesses closed. The Tories were responsible for record business failures, with all the misery that that brings, more red tape and total inaction on late payment, crippling many small businesses. Taxes went up for small businesses and petty regulations multiplied.
Since the Labour party was elected, what have we been doing? We have been asked what we intend to do, but what have we already done? We have introduced a statutory right to interest on late payments, we are providing SMEs with better information and support and we are committed to cutting unnecessary bureaucracy and compliance costs. That is action: we are trying to do something, because something is better than nothing, which is what the Tories delivered in 18 years.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: No.
We are intent on giving British industry what it needs to thrive. We have set tough rules on spending and borrowing to ensure low inflation and to strengthen the economy, so that interest rates can be kept as low as possible. We are putting in place a medium-growth strategy, which encourages long-term investment and sustainable growth—not short-term growth, but sustainable growth for the long term.
We have rightly transferred the task of setting interest rates to the Bank of England. The Tories used interest rates as a cosmetic tool to hide their failure. We are making a major monetary activity more effective, open and accountable, and free from short-term Tory manipulation. Even the suggestion that the Tories may take back ownership of that important monetary policy dismays me, and would probably dismay most of British industry.
The Labour Government recognise that investment in training and in a skilled, flexible work force is crucial to Britain's future competitiveness. The Tories abandoned the young and those people with considerable skills who were forced into redundancy. The previous Administration had an abysmal record. I had the unfortunate pleasure of working in the docks, and I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friends. You were responsible
192
for the wholesale closing of industries, and you did not give a damn what happened to those communities as a consequence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary language.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: No.
Britain's work force have fewer skills than those of our major competitors. You may not like—my apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat that the hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary language.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: The Opposition may not like to hear these facts, but they are true. Britain's work force have fewer skills than those of our major competitors. Less than half our work force are qualified to NVQ level 2 or above. According to the 1996 world competitiveness report, Britain has fallen from 42nd to 48th in the international education league. Youth training has failed more than half its trainees, many of whom have left within a few weeks of starting their training schemes.
Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: When I have finished these points.
What has the Labour party done to address those issues? Contrary to what Opposition Members have said, the new deal is giving young people the first chance they have had to participate in the workplace. I am delighted that that programme is now being extended to older workers and to lone parents, who are vital contributors to the economy and were ignored by Tory Administrations.
Improvements to and extension of the Investors in People programme has encouraged more employers, especially smaller firms, to train their work force. We have seen the biggest ever investment in the research budget, which is vital for investors and for the academic infrastructure.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: After I have finished this point.
That investment of £1.4 billion over three years includes a substantial contribution from Wellcome, and is one of the most significant private-public sector partnerships that this country has ever seen.
Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: When I have finished.
A radical numeracy and literacy drive has ensured that children in primary schools today will have the skills and ability to be the wealth generators of tomorrow. Industry and manufacturing were totally neglected by the Tories,

193
but they are embraced by the Labour Government. We are not merely paying them lip service; we are introducing practical measures to enable them to survive and thrive.
Mr. Hayes: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I do not want to interrupt her flow, although perhaps that is not quite the right word to describe it. Before coming to the House, she spent most of her time in higher education.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas indicated dissent.
Mr. Hayes: The record suggests that she spent more time in higher education than in business.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: No.
Mr. Hayes: Perhaps the record is wrong. The hon. Lady may acknowledge that those of us who have spent some time in business understand the importance of overheads. What estimate has she made of the damaging effect of overheads as a result of the increasing bureaucracy and regulation imposed by the Government? Drawing on her enormous business experience, what estimate has she made of the effect that that will have on employment and jobs?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I have spent most of my working life in industry, in both the private and the public sectors. A small part of my working life was in the academic environment.
On overheads, I enjoyed—if "enjoyed" is the right word—the over-zealous activity of the Tory Administration, who produced the largest set of overheads that industry has ever seen.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady tell the House why the definition of a small firm that the Government use for the purposes of the late payment of commercial debt differs from the definition that they deploy for trade union recognition?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I shall allow the Minister to answer that interesting question on my behalf.
6.28 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: It has been useful for the House to debate these serious matters, which bear on the future of Britain as an industrial nation. They directly influence the mechanisms by which wealth is created before it can be spent on the social agenda of any of us. We need to create the wealth before we can spend it.
I shall make a few points clear at the start. First, Opposition Members want Britain to succeed as a modern industrial country. We have no intention of selling British industry short. Given my experience, and given the fact that my constituency contains Silverstone and the greater part, or a significant part, of the Grand Prix and formula one industry, I know what engineering excellence can amount to, and I realise how vital it is to the preservation and, indeed, creation of jobs. I recognise the central importance of manufacturing industry, alongside the service industries.
194
Equally—as long as there is proper consultation, along with correct and sensitive treatment of any redundancies derived from those closures—there need be no suggestion from Opposition Members that factory closures are always and ipso facto wrong. It might be entirely proper to close a factory in order to rationalise production and to increase productivity, which is the objective—albeit not always perfectly expressed—of the McKinsey report and, I think, of all who have spoken today. It may even be sensible to replace one factory with another, on the same site or elsewhere, to expand production or the product range. I am fond of saying, as a throwaway line, that any Member of Parliament can go along and open a factory; the really interesting task is opening a factory extension, or a new facility replacing an old one.
Decisions such as those are the daily responsibility of boards of management and business people. Given the Secretary of State's sneering responses to the reasonable comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about productivity, it is possible that he is not the one who has experience of making such decisions; it may even be that he is the one who should be sharpening up his act. In view of the stress that he and others put on inward investment, however—rightly so, and we have a good record in that respect—let us not forget that there is no law of nature requiring foreign investors and their boards to come to this country. There is worrying evidence that that welcome tendency of recent years may be turning down. Nevertheless, we want boards based abroad, and overseas investors, to see Britain as a continuing base for their investment.
Secondly, we recognise that overseas economic conditions, disturbing as they are at present, are a vital part of the scene. They cannot be wished away, however much any of us would like that. I still find it strange that the Government can entertain the thesis that they have abolished boom and bust, while at the same time expressing worry about economic conditions. Perhaps they can explain how the two parts of that conundrum can be reconciled.
Mr. Bercow: In his characteristically polite and understated fashion, my hon. Friend suggested that it might be the Secretary of State who needed to sharpen up his act. Is his view not reinforced by the fact that, only last week, the Secretary of State said that the Government had no plans or proposals to lift restrictions on Japanese car imports? Two days earlier, in his pre-Budget statement, the Chancellor had announced precisely that.
Mr. Boswell: I was given a report to that effect, and I did not think much of the Secretary of State's reported contribution; but, if we are educating the right hon. Gentleman, that is an important part of our function.
Opposition Members do not feel that a one-sided caricature of our record in office over 18 years is a sufficient response from the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government to serious, current, pressing issues. Government Back Benchers made interesting comments. In one contribution in particular, there was clear evidence—given the vehemence of the attack on the outgoing Government—of real concern about the Government's ability to deliver their objectives, however commendable those objectives were considered to be.

195
Let me put something on the record. I was particularly interested by a comment from the head of McKinsey, Mr. Bill Lewis, which was reported in The Birmingham Post on 30 October. He conceded that Britain
"had made great advances in the 1980s and early 1990s in deregulating its labour and capital markets and these were now every bit as competitive as those in the US."
I wonder who did that.
"The challenge now",
said Mr. Lewis,
"was to carry through the same sort of structural reforms in product markets".
That is a reasonable objective, and it is right that we should consider it.
It is clear to us, as we open our newspapers, that the industrial casualty list is lengthening day by day, with news of further closures and job losses that were well set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and others. My constituency is poised between the—already known—major cuts at Barclaycard in Northampton, and the possibility of up to 5,000 job losses at Rover in the west midlands, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) in a worthy contribution. There is also the likely spin-off affecting components suppliers and the service industries. Only today, someone mentioned a "multiplier estimate" that, for every job lost in manufacturing industry, 3.5 jobs could be lost in the economy as a whole.
The examples that I have cited make the interesting point that not all job losses are in manufacturing industry. The financial services industry is also haemorrhaging, and it is of equivalent importance. We are concerned about both sectors.
Notwithstanding the reported remarks of the Governor of the Bank of England, this is not solely a question of one hard-hit region, although the problem is concentrated in the north-east. In towns on the south coast, losses are reported at Guardian Royal Exchange in Eastbourne and Folkestone, and Philips is to close its kettle factory at Hastings. I believe that, at its peak, it employed only 800 people, but now there are to be 160 job losses.
I do not wish to make Cookson a target of my criticism, but it provides another example of what has been happening to mainstream industrial materials groups. A weekend report of its results was described as offering a more gloomy than expected trading statement, with a share price fall of nearly 10 per cent. Profits had fallen sharply in the third quarter of the year. Cookson is a company that is central to the local economy.
Nor are prospects more encouraging. My right hon. Friend mentioned, in the context of the trading difficulties of Marks and Spencer, a report that the textile industry faces an estimated loss of 60,000 jobs. PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts a 40 per cent. increase in the number of insolvencies by the end of the millennium, only about 14 months from now. The Machine Tool Technologies Association's survey on demand, which I have before me, reveals some dreadful trend figures. We do not need to run down industry, because there is already an acknowledged problem.
Mr. Bob Russell: During the debate, news was faxed to me that the Colchester-based Spottiswoode Ballantyne and Ipswich-based Cowells printing firms have gone under, with a loss of 228 full-time employees.
Mr. Boswell: That makes the point eloquently. I am only sorry for those who have lost their jobs.
196
It is not terribly surprising that the Secretary of State should extend his new Labour initiatives to taking a close interest in the insolvency laws. That reflects the current equivocation in his Department. On the one hand, it is all right to introduce measures to enforce statutory late payment of debt; on the other hand, those who want to get their money back may not get it back from their creditors.
We now come to the Government's own role in this. They, of course, are programmed to deny: it is anyone's fault but theirs. Yet it is they who have increased business taxation through their acceleration of corporation tax payments, their raid on pension funds and a number of other measures—such as fuel duties—that have directly affected industrial costs. On top of that, they have piled on regulatory burdens to the tune of an estimated £14 billion over this Parliament, figures derived from their own compliance cost estimates. That is, of course, where we have those estimates. Only this week, I was told that we are not to have a compliance cost assessment for the "Fairness at Work" White Paper until the legislation comes forward. That is also before we aim off for what I might call a certain insouciance in calculating the figures, for example, for the Competition Act 1998 compliance costs.
Ministers never understand the sheer gut-wrenching effort that is required by a small business, for example, to comply with the requirements of record keeping, with a 17-week reference period for the working time directive and a separate four-week period for the national minimum wage. Only today, a medium firm employing 100 people told me that it would be taking on an employee. That employee was required for record keeping for those two functions, and so was not a productive employee, but that is the only type of employment that the Government can encourage. Of course, those figures are all on present labour costs, not on future ones.
The effect of all that is to load some £1,500 on to the cost of each British job. It is not surprising that there will be fewer of them. The effects have been damped by economic buoyancy—the golden legacy that the Government inherited from us—and the ability of firms to take out a year's foreign exchange cover, but, just as those are running out, we shall find the industrial consequences of last year's hike in interest rates and the escalation of the pound coming through.
The euro could make matters even worse if it is now going to work to a left-wing political agenda. If it softens and the pound stays high, that would be another blow to British industry.
My first advice to Government is simply to acknowledge the problem that they have. The second is to take some practical action to tackle it. Investment is not helped by the extra taxes on savings that they have introduced. Employment is not helped by the extra cost burdens that have been imposed on employers.
Just as the Government go around saying that industrial management should sharpen its cost cutting—and so it should—so Government can do some practical things to cut burdens on business: call a stop to extra regulatory burdens; freeze "Fairness at Work" until other burdens that they have already imposed have been assimilated; not impose green taxes on business unless other burdens on business are reduced at least commensurately; remember that other Government Departments have the capacity to do collateral damage to business unless the Government

197
practise the joined-up thinking that they always talk about; remember that excess government spending is inevitably feeding through into interest rates; and put some downward pressure on both.
Maria Eagle: Just as we thought, the hon. Gentleman's prescription appears to be: pay lousy wages and cancel investment in the health service and education.
Mr. Boswell: If the hon. Lady believes that, she is providing a prescription for the destruction of jobs that has always accompanied past Labour Governments and will, I fear, accompany this one.
Somehow, I doubt whether the Government could do those things. I think that they will use the McKinsey report not to improve productivity but as an opportunity for grandstanding and showing off at the expense of business. They will not give credit to business and the unions for the achievements of the past 10 years in making at least a large part of British manufacturing internationally competitive. Rather, they will use it as a platform for windy exhortation.
It is the Government, not the others, who should be sharpening up their act. It is not kind to someone who is sweating their guts out to get orders to tell them they should do, yet any minor douceurs offered by the Secretary of State and the Government, for example, to small and medium enterprises or high-tech companies will pale into insignificance alongside their matching increases in business costs. For all Ministers' proud rhetoric, they still do not understand the simple fact that a 1 per cent. uplift in costs, although apparently minor in itself, translates itself into a much higher percentage effect on the bottom line, which is the basis of all business success and new investment.
British manufacturing industry, then, is in a serious situation, but that situation is not terminal if the Government help. Ministers have claimed that they have put an end to boom and bust, yet their real concern is to pass the buck. Their attitude to British industry is four soundbites and a funeral.
If the Secretary of State finds sweat, scurf and dirty overalls too distressing for his fastidious tastes, perhaps he should remember Oscar Wilde: "To lose one parent"—or perhaps to lose one factory—"may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose more than one looks like carelessness."
Ministers have already done great damage. Their amendment stinks of complacency. Our motion, which I commend to the House, tells them that, if they do not mend their ways and sharpen up—or, if they cannot do that, show even a little human compassion for the casualties of their folly—this will return to haunt them.
6.45 pm
The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Today's debate has shown a cynical and desperate Opposition talking down the economy. Conservative Members are desperate for a recession for their own political ends and for nothing else, and what do they do to bring that about? They fly in the face of reality. They ignore the facts. They ignore the real
198
job gains, and the fact that it is this Labour Government who are creating the economic conditions for long-term economic growth.
Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Roche: Let me make a little progress first.
Unlike the Opposition, the Government are in touch with reality. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has rightly pointed out, there is a serious downturn in the global economy and, yes, its effects have been felt by some companies in the United Kingdom. With one quarter of the world, including Japan, in recession, no country is immune from the effects of the instability in the world economy, but we are in a good position to survive the worst because of the prudent economic policies and actions that have been pursued since May 1997 to ensure the underlying strength of the economy.
The Government's job, amid all that, is to continue to ensure stability at home to withstand the worst effects of the world downturn and to create the conditions for sustained and steady growth. The response of all politicians—from the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House—should be that we should not talk ourselves into recession.
The UK's economy is still growing. There is net job creation. I have yet to hear someone from the Conservative Benches admit that. Our economic fundamentals are sound, despite what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) would have us believe.
Mr. Brady rose—
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mrs. Roche: What an embarrassment of riches, but it has to be the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) because I missed him at the Select Committee on Trade and Industry today, so he has his opportunity to ask me questions now. I was there for him this morning, but he was not there.
Mr. Bercow: I had a personal family commitment, so I hope that the hon. Lady will be understanding.
Why did the Secretary of State tell the Select Committee on Trade and Industry last week that his Department had made no estimate of the annual cost of the parental leave directive, when his Department had already published an estimate of an annual cost of £55 million? Why is he so palpably ignorant of the matters for which he is responsible?
Mrs. Roche: It is such a shame, because the hon. Gentleman tries so hard. I have great admiration for his efforts, but he must get a grip on reality. That is not what the Secretary of State has said. He does not need to get back to the school drawing board.
As I was saying, we should not talk ourselves into recession. The economy is growing. Despite the scaremongering by Conservative Members, our economic policies are grounded in reality.
Mr. Chidgey: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Roche: Let me make a little progress, please.

199
Our economic policies are grounded in reality, ensuring long-term economic stability and employment; encouraging business to improve its competitiveness; very importantly, exploiting Britain's science base; and meeting the challenges of the new knowledge-based economy. Let us ground ourselves in reality and look at the facts. Since May 1997, 420,000 new jobs have been created in the United Kingdom. Over the past four weeks alone, companies have announced 13,000 more new jobs created than jobs lost. Those are all new jobs in manufacturing industry, which reflect the Government's commitment to long-term economic stability.
Mr. Boswell: In view of her Department's concern about productivity and the fact that even the Chancellor has produced an estimate of growth in the economy next year that is far below the trend rate for productivity, will the Minister advise the House whether, and to what extent, job losses will rise in the year to come?
Mrs. Roche: I have some respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he must get a grip on reality. Under this Government, more jobs have been gained than lost. Of course the Government have been concerned about productivity, which is why my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor have been engaged with industry in looking at our productivity. That is what we want to address.
Mr. Chidgey: The Minister is talking about reality and saying that we should not talk ourselves into recession. Is it not right that she should make a distinction between the economy as a whole and manufacturing industry, which is what the debate is about? Does the Minister accept that the 29 City analysts that the Treasury uses to make its forecasts are telling us that, next year, there will be growth of minus 1.2 per cent., which is a recession? We should address that.
Mrs. Roche: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to make some progress, I would tell him that, as a result of the global downturn, we accept that some companies have announced closures. However, the picture in manufacturing is mixed and some manufacturing companies are doing very well.
Unlike the Opposition, who seem to pray for redundancies and care only about the job losses that occurred in their party in May last year—that is what the debate is really about—the Government understand what factory closures mean for the real lives of those who work there and for the areas affected. We have taken steps to reduce the hurt caused by job losses by introducing rapid response groups, providing training and employment opportunities for those affected by closures and by working with the companies concerned, such as Fujitsu and Siemens, to help safeguard jobs.
Mr. Richard Burden: Within that context, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the partnership being established in Birmingham between Birmingham city council, the local training and enterprise council and the chamber of commerce to help the supply chain in the wake of the difficulties being faced at Rover? It is helping to ensure that that city is as well-equipped as it can be to withstand the challenges ahead. I ask my hon. Friend to welcome
200
the visit made to Rover by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He visited the partnership and heard the discussions that took place last week.
Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I congratulate all the partners involved. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks about the visit made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I know has a great deal of admiration for what is going on there.
We are targeting areas most in need through the single regeneration budget, European funds and assistance to companies. In drawing up our proposals for the competitiveness White Paper, we are taking into account the importance of small firms—much has been made of that issue, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). It was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who has a great deal of experience as a chartered engineer in industry. All those points were well made.
Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
Mrs. Roche: I must make some progress.
In May 1997, we inherited an economy where growth was running at an unsustainable rate and where inflation was heading way above target. The public finances were in substantial deficit—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like the facts, but they are going to hear them. We have determined not to repeat the mistakes made by the Conservative party. That is why we have taken tough and decisive action—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members must stop shouting at the Minister. No one should be shouting at the Minister.
Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not mind Opposition Members shouting if they do not have any arguments.
We have taken action to prevent a return to the stop-go cycles of the past. We are determined to keep on course.
Mr. Bruce rose—
Mrs. Roche: I must make some progress.
The economy is still expanding and creating new jobs and inflation is at its 2.5 per cent. target. There must be no return to the boom and bust of the late 1980s and 1990s when inflation rose to nearly 10 per cent. and interest rates hit 15 per cent.
Overall, nearly 3 million jobs were lost in manufacturing when the Opposition were in power. They do not like to be reminded of that, but they are going to hear it. The Opposition had the cheek to suggest today that our policies are damaging employment prospects.
Mr. Brady rose—
Mrs. Roche: Please sit down.
The Opposition's attitude was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) in an impassioned speech. We have the policies for

201
employment growth. We have achieved that through what we have done with the corporate tax system, with our reforms of capital gains tax and what we have done on better regulation.
The Conservative party had the cheek to say—the hon. Member for Daventry mentioned this—that our election to office would lead to inward investment drying up. Let us come back to reality. During 1997–98—the first year under a Labour Government for 20 years—my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau recorded more inward investment projects than ever before. There were no fewer than 618 in one year. It is the first time that the annual total has ever exceeded 500. I am expecting the letter of congratulation from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in the morning.
Mr. Bruce: The Minister, who is always kind to me, can just catch her breath. I wonder whether she can deal with the important point which I made in my speech and which I think may have alarmed colleagues throughout the House. Article 13 of the working time directive deals with the fact that people have to take the leave to which they are entitled within the leave year. If somebody starts on 1 July, they must finish their summer holiday by 1 July.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is far too long.
Mrs. Roche: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will know that, when we drew up the regulations, we consulted industry. Under the previous Administration, under the premiership of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), 10,000 new regulations were introduced. I do not think that we need any lessons from the Opposition.
We have Ericsson of Sweden planning to move a major international operation to London and Silicon valley's CISCO Systems, a world leader in internet technology, is to build a major research and development centre in Britain. Volkswagen has confirmed heavy investment plans at the Rolls-Royce plant in Crewe where the work force of 2,500 is expected to grow. Those companies come here because they see the advantage of locating in the United Kingdom. They are attracted by economic stability—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has just made an intervention. He is now making a speech while the Minister is speaking. We cannot have that.
Mrs. Roche: I am saddened by the behaviour of the Opposition, but I am not surprised, because they do not care. They do not want to hear the facts.
Inward investment cannot be our only source for new jobs. It must be matched by the creation of new home-grown companies and industry. That is what we want to do. We want more high-quality start-ups and more creative start-ups. We want to back those who want to take long-term risks and ensure that they can go on and prosper. That is why we are consulting industry and why we shall shortly publish our White Paper on competitiveness. That White Paper will include new
202
proposals for promoting enterprise in the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that those objectives are achieved both regionally and locally.
Today's debate has shown that the Conservative party is out of touch with the people of the United Kingdom. I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion and to support the Government amendment.
Question put, pursuant to the Order [5 November]. That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 323.

Division No. 372]

[6.59 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Amess, David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Gorrie, Donald

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Green, Damian

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Greenway, John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Grieve, Dominic

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Baker, Norman

Hammond, Philip

Beggs, Roy

Hancock, Mike

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Harris, Dr Evan

Bercow, John

Harvey, Nick

Blunt, Crispin

Hawkins, Nick

Body, Sir Richard

Hayes, John

Boswell, Tim

Heald, Oliver

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Horam, John

Brady, Graham

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Brake, Tom

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Brand, Dr Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Breed, Colin

Jenkin, Bernard

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Keetch, Paul

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Burns, Simon

Key, Robert

Cash, William

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

(Chipping Barnet)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Chidgey, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Chope, Christopher

Lansley, Andrew

Clappison, James

Leigh, Edward

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Letwin, Oliver

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Lidington, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Collins, Tim

Loughton, Tim

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Cotter, Brian

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Cran, James

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Curry, Rt Hon David

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Day, Stephen

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

May, Mrs Theresa

Duncan, Alan

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Moore, Michael

Faber, David

Moss, Malcolm

Fabricant, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Fearn, Ronnie

Norman, Archie

Flight, Howard

Oaten, Mark

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Öpik, Lembit

Foster, Don (Bath)

Ottaway, Richard

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Page, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam

Paice, James

Gale, Roger

Paterson, Owen

Garnier, Edward

Pickles, Eric

Gibb, Nick

Randall, John

Gill, Christopher

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Rendel, David

203

Robathan, Andrew

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Tredinnick, David

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Trend, Michael

Ruffley, David

Tyrie, Andrew

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wallace, James

St Aubyn, Nick

Wardle, Charles

Sanders, Adrian

Waterson, Nigel

Sayeed, Jonathan

Webb, Steve

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Wells, Bowen

Shepherd, Richard

Whitney, Sir Raymond

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

Whittingdale, John

Spring, Richard

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wilkinson, John

Steen, Anthony

Willis, Phil

Streeter, Gary

Wilshire, David

Stunell, Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Swayne, Desmond

Woodward, Shaun

Syms, Robert

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Sir David Madel.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Ainger, Nick

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Alexander, Douglas

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Allen, Graham

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Clelland, David

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Clwyd, Ann

Ashton, Joe

Coaker, Vernon

Atherton, Ms Candy

Coffey, Ms Ann

Atkins, Charlotte

Coleman, Iain

Barnes, Harry

Connarty, Michael

Barron, Kevin

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Battle, John

Cooper, Yvette

Beard, Nigel

Corbett, Robin

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Corston, Ms Jean

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cox, Tom

Benton, Joe

Cranston, Ross

Bermingham, Gerald

Crausby, David

Berry, Roger

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Best, Harold

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Blackman, Liz

Cummings, John

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Blizzard, Bob

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Dalyell, Tam

Boateng, Paul

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Borrow, David

Darvill, Keith

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Davidson, Ian

Bradshaw, Ben

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Browne, Desmond

Dawson, Hilton

Buck, Ms Karen

Denham, John

Burden, Richard

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Burgon, Colin

Dobbin, Jim

Butler, Mrs Christine

Donohoe, Brian H

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Caborn, Richard

Drew, David

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Drown, Ms Julia

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Edwards, Huw

Cann, Jamie

Efford, Clive

Caplin, Ivor

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Casale, Roger

Ennis, Jeff

Caton, Martin

Etherington, Bill

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Chaytor, David

Fisher, Mark

Clapham, Michael

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Clark, Dr Lynda

Flint, Caroline

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Flynn, Paul

204

Follett, Barbara

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Laxton, Bob

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Lepper, David

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Leslie, Christopher

Foulkes, George

Levitt, Tom

Fyfe, Maria

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Galloway, George

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gardiner, Barry

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Gerrard, Neil

Linton, Martin

Gibson, Dr Ian

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Lock, David

Godman, Dr Norman A

Love, Andrew

Godsiff, Roger

McAllion, John

Goggins, Paul

McAvoy, Thomas

Golding, Mrs Llin

McCabe, Steve

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McDonnell, John

Grocott, Bruce

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Grogan, John

McIsaac, Shona

Gunnell, John

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Hain, Peter

McNamara, Kevin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

MacShane, Denis

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McWalter, Tony

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McWilliam, John

Hanson, David

Mallaber, Judy

Healey, John

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marek, Dr John

Hepburn, Stephen

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Heppell, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hesford, Stephen

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hill, Keith

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hinchliffe, David

Martlew, Eric

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Maxton, John

Hoey, Kate

Meale, Alan

Home Robertson, John

Michael, Alun

Hood, Jimmy

Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Milburn, Alan

Hopkins, Kelvin

Miller, Andrew

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mitchell, Austin

Howells, Dr Kim

Moffatt, Laura

Hoyle, Lindsay

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hurst, Alan

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hutton, John

Mudie, George

Iddon, Dr Brian

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Illsley, Eric

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Norris, Dan

Jenkins, Brian

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Johnson, Miss Melanie

O'Hara, Eddie

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Olner, Bill

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Perham, Ms Linda

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Ms Jenny

Pike, Peter L

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pollard, Kerry

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pond, Chris

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pope, Greg

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Pound, Stephen

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Powell, Sir Raymond

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Primarolo, Dawn

Kemp, Fraser

Prosser, Gwyn

Khabra, Piara S

Purchase, Ken

Kidney, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Kilfoyle, Peter

Quinn, Lawrie

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Radice, Giles

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Rammell, Bill

Kingham, Ms Tess

Rapson, Syd

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

205

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Rooney, Terry

Stringer, Graham

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Rowlands, Ted

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Roy, Frank

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Ruane, Chris

(Dewsbury)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd w)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Salter, Martin

Timms, Stephen

Sarwar, Mohammad

Tipping, Paddy

Savidge, Malcolm

Touhig, Don

Sawford, Phil

Truswell, Paul

Sedgemore, Brian

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Sheerman, Barry

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Vaz, Keith

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Ward, Ms Claire

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wareing, Robert N

Skinner, Dennis

Watts, David

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

White, Brian

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wills, Michael

Snape, Peter

Wilson, Brian

Soley, Clive

Winnick, David

Southworth, Ms Helen

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Spellar, John

Wood, Mike

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Woolas, Phil

Steinberg, Gerry

Wray, James

Stevenson, George

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wyatt, Derek

Stinchcombe, Paul

Tellers for the Noes:

Stoate, Dr Howard

Jane Kennedy and

Stott, Roger

Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [5 November], and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises that the last thing business wants is a return to the boom and bust policies of the past, with interest rates of 15 per cent., inflation above 10 per cent. and a budget deficit averaging £41 billion a year from 1992 to 1996; welcomes the Government's decisive action in taking politics out of interest rate decisions, a move which the Opposition clearly does not support; notes that employment is currently 400,000 higher than it was when the Government came into office, and that long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years; welcomes the measures that the Government has taken to encourage enterprise, investment and innovation, and to help unemployed people into jobs; welcomes the McKinsey Report as an important contribution to the productivity debate and notes that, unlike its predecessor, this Government acted to increase competitive conditions through a new Competition Act; and condemns the Opposition for its own record in government, when manufacturing employment declined by 2¾million and Britain went into deficit on manufacturing trade for the first time ever in peacetime.

Orders of the Day

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
  Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.
  Lords Reason:
  The Lords insist on their Amendments in page 2, lines 2, 15 and 18, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:
  Because electors should be able to vote for the individual party candidate of their choice.
  7.15 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments, in page 3, line 46, at end insert—
  'Review of electoral system

  (1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons—

  (a) to review the operation of the system of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section 1 of this Act, and

  (b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment.

  (2) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.

  (3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.'.

  Mr. Straw: I hope that I can be brief because we are covering some well-trodden ground. The other place has now voted twice to amend the Bill to change the nature of the list system for which it provides. On both occasions, I should add, had it not been for the votes of the hereditary Conservative peers, the Government would have won the day comfortably. The issue has now gone way beyond whether we have closed lists, open lists or Belgian lists: there is now a challenge to the authority of this democratically elected House by hereditary Conservative peers.
  The Government have carefully studied reports of the debates in another place, as would be expected, and the arguments advanced in support of the amendments that were made, including the arguments advanced by the hereditary peers. However unsatisfactory its composition might be, of course we accept that the other place is a revising chamber. We therefore give proper consideration to any suggestion that it might make that a piece of legislation ought to be revised. Having done so, I am moving an amendment to make one important change to the Bill which we hope will meet some of the concerns that have been expressed.

  207
  The amendment would provide for a review of the new system to be carried out shortly after the first elections using it. It makes it clear that there will be a thorough examination, that one or more persons will be appointed by the Secretary of State
  "to review the operation of the system of election"
  and make a report to the Secretary of State
  "within six months from the day of appointment",
  and that any such report shall be laid before each House of Parliament. I then anticipate that it will be subject to a very full debate.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Home Secretary say according to what criteria the review will be undertaken, and what the terms of the review will be?
  Mr. Straw: The review will be very wide, as set out in the amendment—should the House and the other place approve it. The amendment states:
  "The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons—
  (a) to review the operation of the system of election provided for by … the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978"—
  as amended by the Bill—and
  "(b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment."
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
  I must make it clear that a review of the operation of the system does not simply mean a review of the counting process. If this House and the other place approve the amendment, the review will consider whether the closed list system itself operated satisfactorily. We are dealing with fundamental issues.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the review. It is very good news, and it will be greatly appreciated by people across the country.
  Mr. Straw: For all the mocking laughter from the clones from the Opposition Whips Office, any welcome from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) comes at a very high price.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the review enable the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to review in their own right how the lists operate in Scotland and Wales?
  Mr. Straw: The review relates only to the operation of European parliamentary elections. The Bill is concerned only with European parliamentary elections, so it could not possibly refer to any other elections. With respect to the hon. Lady, that has to be a matter for inclusion in the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill. I do not doubt that, once the elections are over, there will be many reviews of the way in which the system works; that is entirely right, as they are all new systems.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The review is a wonderful idea that has been much greeted by
  208
  Labour Members, but would it not have been better, given the views expressed by their Lordships, by Opposition Members and most importantly by Labour Members when we debated the issue last week, to have an open list and review that?
  Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall come to the fundamental issue in a moment, but first I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Graham Brady. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Lansley: If such a review were to conclude that the closed-list system had operated in an unsatisfactory way, would it be possible to revert to an open-list system or another system without primary legislation? If that were not possible, the entire structure of the proposal would be undermined.
  Mr. Straw: Before replying, let me remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), a very fine Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is just as well that I was not drawing up any lists.
  Mr. Straw: I shall work that into my speech later, when I come to the problem that the British public will encounter in differentiating between one Conservative candidate and another. Although the correctly named hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is in error over his views, he is otherwise okay, as he went to a good school—the same one as I did.
  There is a very good reason why it should not be possible to change the voting system by statutory instrument. We are dealing with fundamentals of our democratic system, and it would be wrong to change them by statutory instrument. If the review concludes that the closed-list system is the wrong system as it has produced all sorts of perverse results—and if that is what Parliament finally accepts, and I hope it is—there will be huge pressure on the Government to change. In any event, there will have to be a debate on the result of the review.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: As I have taken five interventions in eight minutes, I should like to make some progress. I shall then take interventions from my hon. Friends.
  The other place decided to push for a fully open system in place of a closed-list system, which we believed was the most appropriate way for voters in Great Britain to elect their Members of the European Parliament. Let me explain—particularly to Opposition Members—how an open-list system would work, as the results of an open-list system are not quite as they might anticipate.
  Under such a system, the elector casts his vote for a particular candidate on a party's list, or for an independent candidate. He cannot cast his vote for the party's list as a whole. The votes received by each candidate on a party list are then added together to give the party total. That figure is used to determine how many seats the party

  209
  has won using the method devised by our old and sadly departed friend Victor d'Hondt, the famous Belgian. That is already set out in the Bill, and is relatively straightforward.
  The party candidates must then be ranked in the order of the number of votes they have each received, and the seats are allocated in that order. So if the party wins three seats in a region, the seats are allocated to the three party candidates who won the most votes.
  On the face of it, it seems a simple and fair system. However, as I explained previously—and with the approbation of the House—it has some perverse results and some major drawbacks. The first is that, under the open-list system, the candidate with the most votes is not necessarily elected. To the Conservative party, which believes so strongly in the first-past-the-post system for every election, that would be an overwhelming objection.
  Let me explain how distortion and perverse results can occur. Under the open-list system, a party's total vote is the sum of the votes cast for its individual candidates. It may well happen that the total vote of one party—as I wish to be neutral, we shall call it party A—is high, but that that is due almost exclusively to the popularity of the first candidate on its list. Another party—party B—may have a smaller total vote, but that vote may be more evenly spread among all the candidates on its list. Each party B candidate could poll more votes than all but one of the candidates on party A's list, but party A would win more seats. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is looking confused.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Astonished.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady ought to be astonished by the astonishing result of the system that she proposes to vote for later this evening.
  Mr. Eric Forth: The Home Secretary does not know why my hon. Friend is astonished.
  Mr. Straw: I know exactly why the hon. Lady is astonished. Therefore, the second most popular candidate on party A's list will win a seat, even though he or she polled fewer votes than all the candidates on party B's list who are then not elected.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that we are likely to gain anything new from the review that we do not know already? Under the closed system, we will centralise power, and a few party hacks will determine who becomes a Member of the European Parliament. For us in the Labour party, that makes a bad situation even worse, as we all know that the people at the top of the list for the European elections have been decided not by one person, one vote, but once again by a panel of about a dozen people.
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says about the system of selection that we have used for establishing the lists. Conceptually, there is no difference between the closed-list system for multi-vacancy constituencies in the European elections and the system
  210
  under which my hon. Friend and all Labour Members were selected. We are on party lists of one in our constituencies.
  Sir Norman Fowler indicated dissent.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is shaking his head, but he is wrong. There is no reason at all why, if we chose to do so, we could not have single-member constituencies, but open lists in which each party put forward two or three candidates and left it to the elector to choose. That would be the logical position for the Conservative party, but it is not what happens. If people want to vote Labour in Blackburn, they have only one choice. They have to put a cross against my name. Like it or not, in Blackburn Labour is Straw. In Blaenau Gwent, Labour is Llew Smith. They are closed lists. We have all accepted it for Westminster, and there is no difference of principle in respect of the European Parliament.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The Home Secretary is inviting the House and the country simply to vote for a party. He is not giving people the opportunity to vote for a candidate. As recent experience has shown—with Labour candidates such as Gordon Walker—if the public do not like a particular candidate, even though he has the Labour label, they reject him. That is the point.
  Mr. Straw: I do not call what happened in one constituency in 1964 recent experience, even given the longevity of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.
  Sir Norman Fowler: What about Tatton?
  Mr. Straw: "What about Tatton?" he says, sotto voce, as well he might. That makes my point. There was a party list of one person. The right hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that the Conservative candidate for Tatton was rejected not just because he was Neil Hamilton, but because he was the Conservative candidate.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: That clearly proves the point, because the other parties in Tatton withdrew to avoid the dilemma of people who wanted to vote for their party, but did not want to vote for their chosen candidate. Is not the defect in the Lords amendment, which the Conservatives are supporting, that it would not allow people to vote for a party if they chose to do so, as so many do? The Belgian system, which the Conservatives failed to support, would have allowed that option.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I noticed that the language of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield suggested that voters should have an opportunity to vote either for a candidate or for a party. He said that they should have that choice. The open-list system does not give that choice, but requires voters to choose between anything up to 11 candidates on a list.
  Dr. Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend rightly points out that all systems have anomalies. Under first past the post, it is possible for a losing candidate to get more votes than another candidate who wins. I welcome my right hon. Friend's review, because reviews are splendid things, but I do not understand how it is possible to review a principle. It is possible to review a procedure to see whether it is working well, but it is not possible to review a principle. Either one believes in voter choice or one believes in—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was far too long. The hon. Gentleman might be able to catch my eye later.
  Mr. Straw: With great respect to my hon. Friend, it is perfectly possible to review the operation of the closed-list system, as I hope Parliament will accept, and to review it in the widest possible terms, as I responded to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I do not follow my hon. Friend's other point. The one truth about first past the post is that, in any constituency, the candidate who wins the most votes wins the seat. He may not have won a majority of the votes, but he has to have won more votes than any other candidate. It is a very simple system.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed rose—
  Mr. Straw: If I am able to make progress, I hope to give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  I was explaining that the open-list system could have the perverse result that a candidate could be elected with fewer votes than one who is not elected. That apparent inconsistency between the wishes of the electorate and the result would be difficult to explain to voters. It could also cause problems to a candidate elected with considerably fewer votes than a rival from another party. Would any of us like to be in that situation, going to the European Parliament having received 10,000 or 20,000 fewer votes than someone who was not elected? That winning candidate may have difficulty establishing themselves as a credible representative of the electorate.
  There are other important drawbacks to the so-called open system. Already, very few people know who their Member of the European Parliament is or have any contact with them.
  Mr. David Ruffley rose—
  Mr. Straw: Please allow me to make progress. I always do my best to give way to hon. Members from both sides, but if I give way all the time, it eats into the time available to other hon. Members to speak.
  I am not criticising the current MEPs, many of whom, from all parties, work very hard. However, there are only 84 MEPs for the whole of Great Britain, and the European Parliament's functions are not such as to permit the traditional constituency representation role performed by Members of Parliament and some leading councillors.
  With the new, large electoral regions, that will continue to be the case. Many—indeed, most—electors will have no knowledge of any of the candidates standing in their region. The names of the candidates on the Conservative party regional list may well mean
  212
  nothing to a Conservative supporter. Under an open-list system, he would be obliged to make a choice from among those candidates. He could not simply cast his vote for the Conservative party, as he would probably prefer.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be a good thing for people to pay some attention to who they are voting for?
  Mr. Straw: We know from nearly 20 years' experience of European Parliament elections that, given the nature of the institution, the size of even the existing constituencies and the nature of the functions, only a handful of MEPs have more than a small chance of gaining sufficient publicity to be as well known as each of us in our constituency and beyond.
  I have the internal Conservative party leaflet about the London region Conservative European Parliament team. The party sets out clearly on the front that it disagrees with the proportional representation system and is just trying to operate it if it goes ahead. The only candidates on the list who are reasonably known are two former Members of Parliament—John Bowis and Ian Twinn—who were well known in their constituencies. However, the idea that they could become well known across Greater London is unrealistic—and they are not even at the top of the Conservative party list.
  Not knowing any of the candidates, a voter is forced to make an arbitrary decision. It is highly likely that they will choose the simple option, and vote for the first candidate on the list. However, there is evidence that, if the first candidate is a woman—as is the case on the Conservative list in London—or the candidate's name identifies them as coming from one of the ethnic minorities, the elector will head for a male candidate or one with a traditional British-sounding name elsewhere on the list.
  There is also a danger that an elector who knows that they will be forced to make a decision between candidates of the same party but feels unqualified to do so, may choose not to vote. Unfortunately, the turnout for European Parliament elections in this country is already low. We do not want it to fall any further.
  That is why the Government consider the closed-list system to be the most appropriate for the elections. The elector casts a vote for a party list as a whole, or for an independent candidate. There is every scope for independents to stand. There is no option of voting for an individual candidate on a party list instead.
  Mr. Sayeed: I have a rather non-British name, but I was also elected. One of the problems with the closed-list system as operated by the Labour party is that the order of the candidates is determined by the party machine. This is where most of the objections in the Lords came from. The candidate will feel responsible to the party machine rather than to the electorate. At least John Bowis, Ian Twinn and all other Conservative candidates were selected and put in order by party members at an open election.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is objecting to the internal processes of another party. Our party is run democratically. The Conservative party is now moving

  213
  towards that happy state. I understand some of the concerns, but it is a parody of the system that we have used to suggest that selection was carried out simply by the central party apparatus. [Interruption.] Let us be clear that, in transferring to the proposed system of parliamentary elections, we were generously—almost certainly—handing out seats to the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. [Interruption.] It is true.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No.
  We had to manage that change, which resulted in very many fewer Members of the European Parliament than would otherwise be so, simply as a result of the elections.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I should like to make progress.
  Opponents of the closed-list argue that being unable to vote for an individual candidate is somehow undemocratic or, dare I say, un-British. I profoundly disagree. Political parties are a vital and necessary part of our modern democratic process. Voting on party lines is not an alien concept to the electorate of today. As I have already said, each of us in the House stands on closed party lists of one.
  It does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to suggest that we have an open list—we do not. If they wanted an open list for the Westminster Parliament, they should propose changes in our voting system so that two or three candidates stand for each of the parties, and the voter selects one. That is an open list. In Westminster, we have a closed list, and what we are proposing for the European Parliament is also a closed list.
  Mr. Gill rose—
  Mr. James Paice rose—
  Mr. Straw: I want to make progress; this is a relatively short debate.
  Under a closed-list system, there is no prospect of an anomalous result. Nothing is hidden from the voter. When voters cast their vote for the party of their choice, they can see the order in which that party's candidates will win seats, and vote with that knowledge. If voters dislike the first candidate on the party's favoured list, they are in exactly the same position as under the first-past-the-post system. Voters can choose not to vote for that party, or grit their teeth and put the party first despite its poor taste in candidates.
  The closed-list system has the great benefit of simplicity. That is an important consideration, which we should not ignore. [Interruption.] On Thursday, Conservative Members complained about the Jenkins proposals on the basis that they were complicated. That was one of their many objections. Yet the system that they
  214
  are proposing in this debate is gratuitously complicated, and will produce even more perverse results than some systems of proportional representation.
  I remind hon. Members of what Professor Patrick Dunleavy and Dr. Simon Hix of the LSE, and Dr. Helen Margetts of Birkbeck college, said in their publication "Counting on Europe":
  "Open list ballot papers are more complicated. The ballot paper will be much longer because all the candidates will have to be listed with tick boxes. People may feel obliged to look over all the names. a lengthy business in the South East region where with 11 seats there could be 40 or more candidates … some people such as the elderly, those who have difficulty reading, first time voters, and people who are just attached to the existing way of doing things may dislike the ballot paper or find it confusing …
  A major study of voting systems carried out just after the 1997 general election provided good survey evidence that British voters do not like complicated ballot papers with multiple names and tick boxes and strongly prefer simple short ballot papers."
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it as a compliment if I suggest that all that he has said in the past half an hour is an excellent argument for sticking to first-past-the-post elections?
  Mr. Straw: No, I do not take that as a compliment, much as I admire the hon. Lady. I set out my position on Second Reading on 25 November—almost a year ago; it has been consistently consistent. I made it very clear that the system of voting should be appropriate to the institution that is being elected. Nobody can seriously argue that acting as if the very large European Parliament constituencies were Westminster constituencies is satisfactory.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Some of us are opposed to lists whether they are closed or open. Some of us are opposed to closed lists because of problems of bureaucracy and who controls them, and open lists because members of the same party fight each other for a seat. That is not an argument against proportional representation, because different PR systems can function. I know where I stand on the Lords amendments: I will abstain in the vote, as I did previously. The Government's amendment in lieu proposes a review. I need to know how I stand on that. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that Lord Jenkins will not be in charge of the review?
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Straw: Lord Jenkins is far too busy to do it. I cannot absolutely guarantee that, but I think that the possibility is remote. I shall quote Lord Jenkins later.
  I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to take into account another consideration before they vote. The Conservative party needs to think about this very carefully. We have been debating this issue for getting on for a year, during which all parties have undergone a selection process and have chosen the candidates for their lists. If Parliament were to reject the Bill, the consequences for the electoral system would be very severe.

  215
  Although I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) did not agree with the principle of the Bill when he spoke on 27 October, he said the following sage words, which Conservative Members ought to heed:
  "parties have already chosen their candidates. We are coming to the end of the Session and to implement change at this stage would cause chaos and difficulty."—[Official Report, 27 October 1998; Vol. 318, c. 192.]
  Mr. Forth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Straw: No; I wish to proceed. I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants me to consider very carefully some words in the Jenkins report.
  One thing has changed since we discussed this issue at the end of October: the report of the Jenkins commission has been published. We discussed it at some length on Thursday, and I do not want to go over that ground again. I shall just deal with one point, which was raised in the other place, about what the Jenkins report said about open and closed lists. The Jenkins commission was concerned purely and exclusively with elections to this House. We are discussing elections to the European Parliament—a body very different in composition and scope from the other place. As I said a moment ago, the electoral system for the European Parliament—and many other institutions—ought to be appropriate to that institution.
  The people of the United Kingdom have always enjoyed close links with their Members of Parliament, and that would remain if the system recommended by the Jenkins commission were adopted—whatever views people take about its merit. By contrast, only 84 MEPs are elected from 11 regions for the whole of Britain. In such circumstances, voters will not be in a position to have detailed knowledge of the candidates or to make informed choices between them.
  Lord Jenkins dealt, in his customary elegant prose, with what would happen if we ended up pretending to give voters choice but did not give them information. He says:
  "Where that choice offered resembles a caricature of an overzealous American breakfast waiter going on posing an indefinite number of unwanted options",
  the system
  "becomes both an exasperation and an incitement to the giving of random answers".
  It is fine prose, and accurate, too. The report continues:
  "In voting rather than breakfast terms, exasperation may discourage going to the polls at all and randomness lead to the casting of perverse or at least meaningless votes. Some people may want to be able to choose between candidates of the same party, but many are interested only in voting for parties, and would not appreciate being forced into choosing between candidates of the same party about each of whom they know little".
  The Lords amendments would force electors to vote for candidates of a party about whom they know little, or, on occasions, next to nothing.
  Mr. Forth: I refer the Home Secretary to the point that he made in passing, alleging that there would be chaos if we, as a result of the parliamentary process, had to revert to the first-past-the-post system. I remind him that, exactly 20 years ago, all parties were faced in the first European elections with the task of selecting candidates for an election that was exactly the same length of time away. They were all able to do so—even to the extent that
  216
  my party had the extraordinary good sense to select me for a European constituency. The electorate showed even greater good sense by electing me.
  Mr. Straw: I rest my case. If ever there was an argument against that system, that is it.
  In the other place, there was some suggestion that the Jenkins report recommended an open-list system, and therefore—oddly, given the position that they have taken on the report—the Opposition prayed Jenkins in aid. However, Jenkins did not recommend an open-list system for the top-up Members, nor did it recommend the Belgian semi-open list. Instead, it recommended its own variation of the Belgian system.
  The report's solution was, it must be said, somewhat complicated. Voters would be able to vote either for the list as a whole or for individual candidates on the list, as in the Belgian system. Although the list votes would help to determine which party or parties got the additional seats, only the votes cast for individual candidates on the list would determine which candidates were actually elected.
  Mr. Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Straw: No; I have already given way, and I want to get to the end of my speech.
  No electoral system is perfect. All we can do is to attempt to match the most appropriate electoral system with the body that it is being used to elect. In the closed-list system, we believe that we have found the best match. It is no coincidence that it is the system that voters in Germany, France, Spain, Greece and Portugal use to elect their Members of the European Parliament. Of course, that is not a reason in itself for adopting the closed-list system, but it shows that we are not embarking on some astonishing constitutional innovation. Our proposal is not the great leap in the dark that has been portrayed.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Home Secretary has made a distinction between the way in which the closed list operates as between the parties and the electorate, and the way in which any list, closed or open, is used in terms of the internal party processes to select Conservative or Labour candidates. Will he explain one thing to me, in my ignorance?
  Is there not one way in which the internal processes of, let us say, the Labour party intersect with the measure before us, in that the one advantage of an open-list system is that it prevents a party from slipping a Mickey Finn into the cocktail? Does it not thus prevent a party from putting a person who for some reason would not be popular with the electorate, high up the list, so that the voters can do nothing about it?
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept my hon. Friend's reasoning, but to pick up his metaphor, plenty of Mickey Finns have been elected from time to time on both sides of the House—people who are not especially acceptable to the electorate, but who have been put into safe seats, sometimes by their party machines. The electorate have closed their eyes, voted for those people as candidates on the closed list of a party, and they have been elected. I do

  217
  not suggest that my hon. Friend was elected through that system, but I remind him again that he was selected, and appeared on a closed list of one. The principle at stake here is no different from that according to which he and I—and every other Member of the House—was elected.
  I ask Opposition Members to bear my final point particularly in mind. They claim that the closed-list system is anathema to the British constitution, has never been used before and breaches some fine democratic principle—a principle so important that it makes it acceptable for hereditary peers to override the will of the elected House of Commons.
  What the Opposition, in their high-blown phraseology, forget is that they were the first party to use the closed-list system in the United Kingdom. That may come as a matter of some astonishment to them, but they voted for it; they introduced it. Of course, that was in Ireland, so perhaps they think that it does not count. However, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Sayeed: It had a particular problem.
  Mr. Straw: Oh, it had a particular problem, did it? So the system was okay for Ireland, was it? I think that I shall take that as an admission. Now we have an admission that the closed-list system was all right for Ireland because there was a particular problem, and it needed an election using what the Conservatives said was a fair system.
  Indeed, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), did not say that Ireland needed the closed-list system because it had a particular problem. Speaking of the identical system, including d'Hondt, to that which is now before the House, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome".—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498.]
  Sir Norman Fowler rose—
  Mr. Straw: That is what the former Prime Minister said about the system, and that is what we believe about the same system for election to the European Parliament. I commend the amendment in lieu to the House.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The Home Secretary sat down very quickly then—and rightly so. What he said at the end of his speech was one of the cheaper points that he has made. The example that he used was drawn from an election for the deliberative forum on Northern Ireland, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Gentleman quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister. I should point out that, on the same occasion, my right hon. Friend, replying to a point made by the then Leader of the Opposition, said:
  "I agree with his view that the electoral solution is not ideal".
  He went on to say:
  "I have to say that there is no precedent that I know for the circumstances and complexities that exist in Northern Ireland. If I had been able to find an easier compromise more familiar to people
  218
  across Northern Ireland, I assure the House that I would have found and advanced such a compromise."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 500-02.]
  The Home Secretary's example was a cheap debating point that does not match up to the seriousness of the issue before us. The right hon. Gentleman has had difficulty with the subject, and he has convinced neither the Opposition nor, in my judgment, his own side of the House. We certainly shall not accept the proposal for review, in spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), because it does nothing to answer the case against the closed list in principle.
  The right hon. Gentleman's case seems to be that choice is far too difficult for the public, so he will make the decision for us. It is not so much a matter of "trust the people" as of "trust the party". That goes totally against what most Members on both sides of the House believe. The Home Secretary was more at home when he was having a bash at the House of Lords than when he was defending his own proposals.
  The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was correct: there is one simple clear issue in the debate—the difference between a closed list, whereby the public vote for a party and not a candidate, and the open list, whereby the public can choose a named candidate to represent them. If that is the only choice that we have in the debate—and it is—I have no hesitation in opting for the open list.
  I make it clear that the Opposition do not support proportional representation or the regional list. We prefer and would support the first-past-the-post system. That is what we have argued for and, judging by my own experience of the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was then my local Member of the European Parliament, represented that area of the west midlands exceptionally well, it works in the European context.
  The Government, with their overwhelming majority, have forced through their proposition none the less. The House of Lords has not challenged that basis for the election. As we are to have proportional representation and a regional list, the only issue at stake is how the public will elect their Members of the European Parliament.
  The Government say that the party should choose Members of the European Parliament who will represent the public, and that the public's right to choose will be confined to voting for a party. They can vote Labour or Conservative or Liberal Democrat, and the party will provide the list of candidates in the order of ranking—
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Or SNP.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Yes; the public can vote for other parties too. I do not wish to offend anybody. The point is that the Government want the party to decide the list of candidates and the order of ranking.
  The Home Secretary criticises the House of Lords and the role of the second Chamber, but he avoids the real criticism: the fundamental argument against his proposed system is that it is anti-democratic. It leaves the final decision in the hands of a party.
  Even if a party does what the Conservative party has done and holds a one member, one vote selection conference, or does what the Liberal Democrats have

  219
  done and holds postal votes, the decision remains with the party. There is no escape from that—the party decides who will be elected. Thus we will have the kind of position to which I referred when we last debated the issue.
  8 pm
  To return to the subject of the west midlands, I wish to refer to the case of Christine Oddy. Miss Oddy is a sitting Labour Member of the European Parliament, representing Coventry and Warwickshire North. In the selection process, she was defeated by a former "EastEnders" actor, whose main claim—according to Labour's press office—was that he had been in a show at the Birmingham rep earlier that year. Not surprisingly, Miss Oddy was irritated—I put it no higher than that—at the selection. Her case was set out in the Birmingham Post on 24 September under the headline "My Anger at Labour Betrayal."
  Miss Oddy modestly claimed on radio this week that she was better known than Edwina Currie. I am tempted to respond, "Particularly in her own family." However, let us accept her claim, which goes to the heart of what we are debating tonight. Under the system proposed by the Government, her knowledge of the west midlands and her reputation do not matter a jot. She could be better known than Margaret Thatcher and Barbara Castle put together and it still would not matter, because the party has put her seventh in a list of eight candidates. No one—least of all the Labour party in the west midlands—expects to win seven seats in the European elections.
  I am not likely to vote for Miss Oddy and, frankly, the Home Secretary—had he a vote—would not be likely to vote for her either. The point is, however, that she has been deprived of standing as a named candidate on her record, and the public have been deprived of judging that record and expressing their choice.
  Dr. Tony Wright: Is there not something slightly "Oddy" about the right hon. Gentleman's argument? Last week, we listened to his colleagues, to a man and woman, arguing for a closed list of one and against voter choice. Now we are hearing exactly the contrary arguments. Are we witnessing a conversion, or simply a contradiction?
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman may have heard that we would prefer the first-past-the-post system, but, lest he did not, I will underline that again for him. I thought that I had made that clear, as had a number of my hon. Friends. In this case, however, first past the post is not a choice that we have: the choice that the Government propose is not first past the post but a system of PR. The issue—and the hon. Gentleman may have been the first to say this—is whether we have a closed or an open list.
  Let us be frank. There are very few people outside of the Government Front Bench who support the proposed system. The last time we debated it there were about two dozen Labour Members here, and there were about two dozen arguments against the proposal. No serious figure on the Labour Back Benches has come forward so far in favour of the Home Secretary's proposals. The reason is simple: the system transfers power to the party bosses—we all know that—and to the centre. The system takes power away from the people.
  220
  Frankly, it is an extraordinary system for the Labour party, and a Labour Government, to propose. That is why the leader in today's edition of The Times, under the headline "An open and shut case", said that closed lists are bad for democracy. It went on:
  "Mr Straw's patronising approach puts backroom machinations of party politics above the will of the electorate."
  It called on the Home Secretary to think again—not that he showed much inclination to do that.
  We all know that the Home Secretary does not believe in the system either. That is why he so is thankful to move from defending the closed list to attacking the House of Lords whenever he has the opportunity. Even that will not work, however. Among those who have voted against the Government in the upper House are well-known "Tories" such as Lord Shore of Stepney, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Baroness Jeger.
  Perhaps the most significant contribution to the debate in the House of Lords on 4 November came from another former Labour Member of Parliament who abstained from voting but demolished the case for the Government's proposals. Actually, I think that Lord Callaghan also deliberately abstained. The Labour peer to whom I am referring was Lord Evans of Parkside, a Member of this House for almost 24 years. He said that he had known the Home Secretary for many years and had worked with him closely. He had served for three years on the national executive of the Labour party. He even said that he had the greatest respect for the Home Secretary and for the pamphlets that he had written.
  Lord Evans added, however, that he was sure that the Home Secretary would not be too upset if he said that the Home Secretary's speech on 27 October in the House of Commons was
  "not one of his most profound."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 281.]
  Lord Evans always did understate his case. He added—most significantly—that every Labour Member of Parliament who had spoken to him on the subject had made it clear that they were opposed not only to the closed list, but to the Labour party's method of selecting the candidates.
  The only people consistently to have supported the Home Secretary's plans are, of all people, the Liberal Democrats. The irony of that is that they say they believe in the open-list system. They have argued for it, but when it has come to a vote they have consistently voted against it—the kind of politics that the Liberal Democrats have made distinctively their own in this country.
  Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that, in Committee, we proposed an open-list system—the Belgian system—but that he and his colleagues did not support it. Can he explain why that happened, and why he is now supporting a system that does not even allow the ballot paper to show the order in which the parties choose to rank their candidates?
  Sir Norman Fowler: The Government rebuffed the right hon. Gentleman, as he well knows. In debates since then on the open list, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have consistently voted with the

  221
  Government—although, in fact, they are still arguing in favour of the open list. That is what I find so odd about the Liberal Democrats' position.
  Mr. Richard Allan: It is realistic politics.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Oh. It is "realistic politics." My advice to the Liberal Democrats is to get off their knees and vote for what they think is right. They might get further and they would certainly win more respect.
  I am not impressed by the Home Secretary's views, or by his attack on the House of Lords—which I gather he also carried out on lunchtime radio. In my view, the House of Lords has done a substantial public service. The Government's proposed closed-list system has few friends and, frankly, the House of Lords is right to challenge it.
  Personally, I would advise the Home Secretary to be cautious in his argument about hereditary peers as compared with life peers. I notice that one of the life peers faithfully voting for the measure was his friend Lord Warner, who was a special adviser to the Home Secretary. It is not instantly evident why putting placemen in the Lords is a better way of arranging this country's affairs, nor do I think that simply turning the House of Lords into a giant quango is a change that many people will respect. I promise the Home Secretary that we will come back to that subject.
  It is not just the House of Lords which backs the open list against a closed list. The Electoral Reform Society has said that a closed-list system is
  "bad for voters, bad for candidates and bad for democracy."
  Charter 88 says that
  "we believe that voters should be able to choose between candidates of the same party."
  Lord Jenkins—a marvellous man, whom both sides can quote to their advantage in the same debate—said that it would be an argument against any new system if
  "any candidate, by gaining party machine endorsement for being at the head of a list, were to achieve a position of effective immunity from the preference of the electorate."
  That seems to be a powerful case, and obviously the view of Lord Jenkins—the Prime Minister's adviser—will count heavily with Labour Members, given the affection in which Lord Jenkins is obviously held by them.
  I do not believe that any sensible, objective observer believes that the Home Secretary has made his case. The more the public understand what is being proposed, the more the opposition to the Home Secretary's proposal is likely to grow. We do not support the Government amendment, which is not intended as a serious response to the vote in the other place and answers none of the points raised there, or indeed, here.
  The amendment makes no sense even in its own terms. The Government promise a review of the workings of the closed list, but only after the election has taken place. That cannot be a sensible answer to the arguments, and it does not remotely satisfy the concern that the measure is anti-democratic and would deprive the public of a choice that should be theirs.
  222
  We do not want a review of a voting system that is obviously flawed. We want the Government to drop their opposition and to concede that an open-list system is a better way to conduct the European elections. That is what the public want and what the House should vote for.
  Mr. David Winnick: I am not in favour of the closed-list system, I have never voted for it and I do not intend to do so tonight. However, in a contest between the two Houses it would be inconsistent for me to argue that the views of the House of Lords should prevail over those of the Commons. Although I will not be in the Lobby tonight, I believe that where there is such a contest it is right and proper for the elected Chamber to have its way. It would be inconsistent with all that I have said about the other place for me to argue differently.
  Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that the closed-list system is desirable or democratic. In fact, it is heavy in democratic deficit. I listened carefully to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which was persuasive. If a good case could be made for the system, he undoubtedly made it, but I do not accept the premise of his argument in the first place. Lord Evans has been quoted in this debate and, like him, I have great admiration for the Home Secretary. I do not say that so as to stand a reasonable chance of getting to a higher place should there ever be a ranking system for election to Westminster. I have a genuine admiration for my right hon. Friend and I hope that I will not make him blush when I say that he is one of the best Home Secretaries that we have had in the post-war period. However, that does not mean that he is always right and I believe that he happens to be wrong today.
  The ranking system is undesirable, despite all that my right hon. Friend has said. There is a difference between the way in which we are selected as parliamentary candidates for the Labour party and the way in which the system would operate for the coming European elections. We have been selected by the local party membership, with no intervention—as far as I know—by party headquarters or the regional office, and in my case that is just as well. The closed-list system, which would rank people first, second, third or fourth, is different. The choice may be made democratically and fairly and those deciding the ranking may well consider gender and ethnic minorities, which is desirable, but it is important not only that the system should be fair but that it should be seen to be fair.
  Undoubtedly, there is a feeling in various regions that people have been placed at a disadvantage—they have been placed well down the ranking system not because they have done a bad job as Labour Members of the European Parliament but because their views have been unorthodox. One case has been cited. It has been said that that person has been ranked low because, about two years ago, she committed the cardinal sin of signing a newspaper advertisement that stated that the old clause 4 of the Labour party constitution should be retained. Some people may criticise her for that, but my own view is that it is not an offence for which she should go before the international war crimes tribunal.
  If that MEP has been criticised for placing such an advertisement and has therefore been ranked low—that may not be the reason—so that her chances of being re-elected are that much smaller, I wonder about my own position. I not only may have signed an advertisement

  223
  about that clause: I argued for it—and I think I won the day—at the 1994 party conference. [Interruption.] I do not know what the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is muttering, but it may not be complimentary.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that an open-list system has all sorts of disadvantages. It will come as no surprise to those who know my views that I am not in favour of proportional representation. If the closed-list system is an example of PR, let us hope that we never have it for elections to Westminster. For one reason or another, a commitment to proportional representation was in our manifesto. If we are to have PR, with all its disadvantages, we should nevertheless have an open system. If the Government are saying that that is not possible and that there is no point in pursuing that line of thought, what is the purpose of the review? Admittedly, it is to be held after the European elections next year, but surely it is intended to reconsider the matter and, if there is no purpose in that, there is no point in having a review.
  During our last debate on the Bill, I said that this is an on-going controversy. It will not go away. The system will come into operation—unless the Lords decide that they will not accept the Government's proposal. If they do not accept it, we will be in a totally different situation. We are all aware of the Parliament Act, the 12 months' delay and all the rest, but as I said the views of the elected Chamber should prevail.
  I hesitate to speak for my hon. Friends, but it is doubtful—I shall put it no higher than that—that a majority of the parliamentary Labour party is in favour of the closed-list system. The Liberal Democrats are in favour and in the other place Lord Evans said that they were happy to go along with the proposal because they will have PR.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Hon. Members will be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that a majority of the Labour party are not in favour of the closed list. It follows that there is not a majority in the House in favour of the proposal. If that is the case, why is the hon. Gentleman unhappy about the other place insisting on its view?
  Mr. Winnick: My answer is simple and I thought I had made my reasoning clear. In a contest between the two Houses, the views of the elected Chamber should prevail.
  Mr. Hogg: They are not the views of the elected Chamber.
  Mr. Winnick: If the Government get a majority tonight, which they undoubtedly will, whatever the private views of the majority of my colleagues, that is how the House operates. That was true for the poll tax. The majority of Tory Members may well not have been in favour of that tax, but the Government had their way. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) voted for the tax when he was a member of that Government.
  In conclusion, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will bear these words in mind, the Labour party has a long tradition of favouring every form of democracy, not least internal democracy. I do not want to
  224
  antagonise Conservative Members since they have probably agreed with me, but the Conservative party did not even get around to electing its leader until 1965, following an election defeat. We have elected people to national and local party posts from the very beginning. Whatever blemishes the Labour party has and whatever criticisms could be made against it, it is a democratic party and it saddens me that we do not have tonight the most powerful case on this issue. Although the European elections will almost certainly go ahead under the closed-list system, I must tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that I hope that his review will be no charade. It must not be a means of saying that as there is a row, we must satisfy the other House.
  Many of us are deeply uneasy about a system that gives too much authority to people in a party who have not necessarily been elected. It gives too much authority to people who will be able to decide whether or not a particular candidate's views are orthodox. That is not democratic, and it is therefore impossible for me to support the Government in the Division Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Richard Allan: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has made us a seductive offer in asking us to join the Conservatives in sustaining the amendments proposed by their hereditary peers. We confess openly that we are caught between a rock and a hard place. We have stated our support for the single transferable vote system used in Northern Ireland, which is the best possible form of proportional representation. During the early stages of the Bill, we also argued for an open-list system along the lines of the Belgian model, and that led to a vote in June, to which I am sure Conservative Members will refer, and which was lost in the other place by 15 votes as it did not have the support of the same Conservative peers who turned out to support the amendment that we are discussing now.
  There are three paths before us. First, we could proceed with the closed-list system and the review, as the Government suggest. Secondly, we could reach agreement on the open-list system proposed by the Conservatives, with all the problems that that would entail. Thirdly, we could fail to resolve the dispute so that the Bill runs into the buffers at the end of the Session. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has come out as an overt and unashamed first-past-the-poster, because the debate should be seen in the light of that fact. We believe that every Conservative Member, and most Conservative peers, would prefer the third option—the buffers—rather than the other two more desirable options. We could then return to a closed-list system of one, as the Home Secretary elegantly described the first-past-the-post system. As the debate has proceeded, more and more light has come from the Home Secretary, and more understanding of our criticisms over many years of the current system.
  The open-list system proposed by the Conservatives suffers several problems. It has a certain arbitrariness, particularly if it means that people are simply listed alphabetically, which would give highly random results. As my name begins with A, I should be all right, but I might find that aspiring young politicians were changing their name to Mr. or Ms Aardvark. The alphabetical soup of selection that might result is a substantial problem.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has pointed out the further problem that it would theoretically be possible

  225
  under the Conservative system for someone to be elected without any votes at all. If a single popular candidate received all the votes for his party, but that party received a substantial chunk of the total vote, some of the candidate's votes would be distributed to other candidates who had received no votes. The Belgian system seems preferable to that Finnish system with all its vagaries.
  It is increasingly common to hear phrases such as "d'Hondt divisor" or "Sainte-Lague divisor" tripping from the tongues of Conservative Members. However, their background in proposing constitutional reform is not strong. The proposed closed-list system meets one—but only one—of our two objectives, which is that it would secure fairer representation so that every voter in the United Kingdom would have a vote that counted. Our second objective, however, is an increase in voter choice, and the closed-list system fails to take us closer to achieving that. All that can be said is that the proposals do not take us back to the closed-list system of one that exists under the first-past-the-post system, which is, in principle, equivalent to the system that would operate under the proposed closed-list system.
  Hon. Members have asked what happens to people at the bottom of party lists. Under current procedures for choosing candidates for Westminster constituencies, those who come second or third in selection battles are denied any ability to put themselves forward to the voters. The arguments of the Conservatives have not seduced us into voting with the Tories tonight. Two parties stood for election on 1 May 1997 on the clear platform of pressing for fairer votes in the European elections. Those two parties secured about 60 per cent. of the vote, and that is a significant mandate. We feel anger and resentment at seeing the single party that tried to resist change at the general election continue to propagate its resistance through hereditary peers who have never stood for election.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case with which I disagree. The Conservatives lost about 4.5 million votes at the general election, for a wide variety of reasons. Why did the Liberal Democrat party lose 800,000 votes—quite a crash—if its policies were so popular?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing any party's policy tonight.
  Mr. Allan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for preventing me from entering a debate into which I did not want to go and which would not be germane to the subject in hand.
  Sixty per cent. of the electorate voted in favour of fair votes for the European election. A much smaller proportion voted against. Several of the smaller parties, such as the nationalist parties, shared our platform. We have a clear mandate, and the other place goes against that mandate at its peril in seeking to advance retention of the first-past-the-post system.
  I have listened with interest to Labour Members. I do not seek to intrude on private grief, except to say that much of the criticism of the closed-list system is not criticism of the system in principle but of the practice
  226
  used by Labour in implementing it. The debate within the Labour party has saddened us. It does a disservice to PR in general when the public see Labour Members pulling each other apart over a system that the Liberal Democrats would not adopt. Our members would not have the closed-list system, and they would turf us out if we tried to introduce such a candidate selection process. Our party rightly demands one member, one-vote, and that is what happens in our selection process.
  Labour's selection battles have done a disservice to the closed-list system. The system itself takes us no further back, but to accept it would be to miss an opportunity to extend voter choice. The Conservatives offer no such opportunity by introducing tonight's debate at such a late stage in the Bill's proceedings. The European elections will not give us all that we want. We would have liked to extend voter choice, and we shall press that point when we come to the review. However, we shall support the Government tonight to bring in the closed-list system now before we move on to argue our case at the review. Warm and welcoming though the offer was that we should join Conservative Members, we believe that they are clinging to an outmoded system that would deny UK electors the real worth of their votes next June. We do not support that system, and that is why we shall support the Government.
  Dr. John Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) argued, with good grounds, that there is no majority in favour of the closed-list system in the parliamentary Labour party. Yet, he also argued that the Government would have a large majority tonight. I ask the House to think about that contradiction. If there is no majority in the Labour party, but the system is such that the Whips and the Patronage Secretary can dragoon Members through the Lobby—and I admit that I will be dragooned when the time comes—what legitimacy does the elected Chamber have in comparison with the unelected Chamber whose Members may, by and large, vote according to their own judgment on the right course of action for the country?
  Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a second difference? In the other place, most Lords actually listen to debate, but we will have a Government majority although there are no more than about six Labour Members in the Chamber at the moment.
  Dr. Marek: I understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, although I would not entirely go along with it because I am often working in my room with the new television system on, so I listen to many of the debates without being seen in the Chamber that often. Under the present system and the way in which we organise the House of Commons, it is not necessarily always right to say that the elected Chamber is superior to the unelected Chamber and must prevail.
  I, too, have the highest regard and great admiration for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He is often right, but on this occasion he is not. He has got it wrong. This policy was decided not by any vote within the parliamentary Labour party; it came down from on high, from the leadership, that there would be a closed list. Something may have been said about receiving opinion. It certainly received my opinion, but to no avail; we still have a closed list. There is no democratic system within

  227
  the Labour party for deciding by discussion and a vote whether an issue such as this should go one way or the other.
  Mr. Grieve:Would the hon. Gentleman care to enlighten the House as to any reason that he can think of why the diktat came down from on high in the way that it did?
  8.30 pm
  Dr. Marek: I shall not be sidetracked. Clearly there are issues central to Government policy where the Government will have to say that if we want them to govern, we have to support them. But my contention is that this is not an issue where the Government have to pronounce what they want and how they intend to achieve it and then use the Whips to dragoon their side through the Lobbies. This would have been an excellent example of where we could have had options A, B and C and a free vote of the House. I do not see what difference that would have made to the Government. We could have had the Belgian system, the House of Lords' system and the Home Secretary's closed-list system, and we would have had a much fuller House. The House would have been packed if we had had three options. That was done in the previous Parliament and it could have been done in this Parliament. It would make the House a better place if we empowered Members on both sides to use their judgment rather than be dragooned through the Lobbies.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary put forward a few arguments. He said that the authority of the House must prevail over the other place, then 10 minutes later he said that the Government consider that the closed-list system is right. He cannot have it both ways. It is perfectly right to argue the case as a member of the Government. I would have been happier if he had done so, having at least obtained the vote within the parliamentary Labour party. That is what happens in countries such as Australia and New Zealand. In most Commonwealth countries such matters go to a particular caucus. I do not know what happens in the Conservative party, but they do not go to any caucus in this party. However, my right hon. Friend cannot claim in aid the authority of the House and his authority as a member of the Government.
  My right hon. Friend talked about the closed-list system of one. I thought that I was elected by an open-list system of one. It could have been ordered in any particular way. It was a list of one and it was completely open. Is my right hon. Friend trying to pull the wool over our eyes? Have I been labouring under a delusion? I have always thought that it was an open list; if people did not want to vote for me, they did not have to. If I am wrong in that logic, perhaps my right hon. Friend or the Under-Secretary will intervene and put me right. At the moment, I do not think that they intend to do that.
  The last bit of obfuscation that we had from my right hon. Friend was that open-list systems are complicated and the British people are too stupid to understand them and do not like them. We hear that from all those who have an unsound case and want to pull the wool over people's eyes. It is not true. There are systems whereby one can vote for a particular party on the top row, and then have the opportunity to order candidates if one so wishes.
  I think that I could have lived with the closed-list system if my own party's procedures in selecting candidates had been open, above board and honest,
  228
  but clearly they have failed to be so. For example, I took part in a vote, with many of my fellow members of the north Wales Labour party, for those whom we thought should be on the list for the Welsh constituency of five members. We voted for our sitting candidate, Mr. Wilson, by, I think, about 98 per cent., yet, at the last stage, after the matter went to Millbank tower, where heaven knows what happens, a candidate from across the border in England appears on our list in Wales in third position—[Interruption.] That is not a criticism; he could have been from Ethiopia. However, he came from outside the area; we in Wales had no knowledge that he was interested in being on the list in Wales; and he was not considered as one of those in contention for a place on the list by the Labour party members in north Wales. Yet there he is in third position and the candidate for whom 98 per cent. of Labour members in north Wales voted is in fourth position—an unlikely winning position for the Labour party in the elections.
  That cannot be right. It is not open. There is no doubt about that. It is not democratic because 98 per cent. of Labour party members voted for somebody else. They did not vote for the candidate who was put in.
  I fear that my party has sabotaged its argument for the closed-list system by the way in which it is selecting its candidates for the European elections. At the end of the day, if I have the choice, I am an open-list person.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. Would he demur from what the Home Secretary was saying earlier and agree that by far the most democratic selection of candidates in his area of Wales will have come from the Conservative party in Wales or any other region of the United Kingdom, where every member had an equal vote in the selection of those candidates? Does he agree that that is by far the most appropriate system?
  Dr. Marek: I am reminded that my Conservative opponent joined the Labour party yesterday for other reasons to do with the Conservative party's inability to form an Opposition. I am sorry about that because it ought to form an Opposition on this. I do not wish to be rude, but simply putting one's head in the sand and saying that one is for first past the post or nothing is not the best way of opposing what I think is a sleight of hand on the part of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his Front-Bench team.
  I agree that the system should be one member, one vote. If new Labour means anything, it means one member, one vote. But my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will tell the House that it is difficult to get one member, one vote in the election for Labour candidate for the National Assembly for Wales. Somehow or other, the Labour party, or at least Millbank tower, seems to think that new Labour and one member, one vote is all very well for certain things, such as getting rid of clause 4, but when it comes to electing the Labour candidate for the National Assembly for Wales, it is not the best system and we must consider all sorts of other possibilities.

  229
  The election that took place between my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West in the summer had, as one section of that electoral system—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Dr. Marek: Bear with me for 10 seconds, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am talking about open and closed lists. That election had something called party units where members have two or three votes, which was not right.
  At one end of the spectrum, open lists give electors as much access as possible so that they can distribute their votes between the candidates according to their individual judgment. At the other end, one member, one vote puts everybody on an equal basis, with no weighting between one set of electors and another. Unfortunately, the closed-list system allows fixers to get their way, which is the real reason why I oppose it. As there is no possibility of the Government not having their way this evening, I hope that they have listened to what I and other hon. Members have said and that, in the 24 hours or so that remain, they will do something to get this measure right.
  Mr. Sayeed: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), for this debate is not about proportional representation, despite what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said, or about the House of peers, as the Home Secretary implied. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is doubtless embarrassed to propose a system that most of his party thoroughly dislike. This debate is about the Government's decision to enact a system of closed lists, which shows a contempt for democracy and elevates the self-centred interests of the party machine above the wishes of the people.
  In so doing, the Government misunderstand their duty. The duty of any Government is to look after the interests of the United Kingdom—which means everyone in the United Kingdom—not to look after the interests of the Labour party. We have seen examples of that in Scotland and Wales; in the fact that the Neill committee report appears to be cherry picked; in the debate on the House of Lords; and in the elections for a London mayor and a European Parliament. As the hon. Member for Wrexham made absolutely clear, there are different rules and interpretations of the rules by the Labour Government. The choices that they make are in the interests not of the country but solely of the Labour party. That is wrong.
  If Ministers think that I am unfair, I ask them to consider this proposition. If a person in receipt of the Labour Whip, who was elected on a Labour manifesto, decided to stand for London or Wales and was the preferred choice of the Labour supporters in London or Wales, would the Labour party allow him, whether he was the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) or the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), to stand in the Labour interest? [Interruption.]
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), appears to be leaving the Chamber. I doubt that a Minister will answer that
  230
  question, but the answer is probably that the executive of the Labour party, not Labour supporters, will decide who the candidate is.
  Nothing more clearly shows the Government's determination to govern in the interests of party advantage than the shuttlecock passage of the Bill. Labour Members should not blame hereditary Conservative peers. It is worth repeating the words of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Lord Shore of Stepney, a Privy Councillor and for many years a Member of this House—highly respected, extraordinarily able and very honest—said:
  "But the dangers of cronyism, patronage and corruption are obvious in a system which concentrates power in such an important area on so few people who are basically self-selected. These seem to me to be very powerful reasons why we should not have a list system at all and why we certainly should not have a closed list."
  Lord Evans of Parkside said:
  "There is little doubt so far as the Labour party is concerned that Labour candidates who are successfully elected to the European Parliament under this system will regard their responsibilities, so far as their future careers are concerned, to lie in obeying the demands and requirements of the National Executive Committee and the leadership of the party."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 742-44.]
  Mr. Allan: I do not wish to detract from the hon. Gentleman's arguments, which are a fair criticism of the way in which the Labour party has operated over selection, but does he agree that the same criticisms could be levelled against the Westminster selection system if the national executive committee of the Labour party or any other party chose to impose candidates in the same way? The problem is not the principle of closed lists but the way in which the Labour party has operated that system. That is not a PR issue.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Sayeed: The way in which the Labour party will operate the closed-list system is utterly objectionable and extraordinarily undemocratic. Most Labour Members believe that as well; I only wish that they would show it in their votes. There are profound objections to the closed list per se, but the way in which the Labour party is operating it is the worst of all worlds.
  Lord Stoddart, referring to the Lords amendments, said:
  "What the amendments seek to achieve is to give the electorate a voice in who is elected to the European Parliament".
  It is clear and simple—it is called democracy. A Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Russell, said:
  "The basic point is that democracy involves the right to choose both what party and what person will represent us".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 1323–28.]
  Not one of those speakers in the other place was a Conservative, and only one—the Liberal Democrat—was a hereditary peer, yet their views are clear: they are against the closed list, particularly the way in which the Labour party intends to operate it.
  Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is depressing that Liberal Democrats in this place now kowtow so much to the Government that they will support them this evening, whereas some of their noble Friends are willing to stand up for their consciences and principles?
  Mr. Sayeed: It may be disappointing, but it is not surprising.

  231
  Organisations outside this place are interested in democracy as well, although they may not be keen on my party. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has already quoted the Electoral Reform Society, which said of the closed-list system:
  "It is bad for voters, bad for candidates and bad for democracy."
  Charter 88 said:
  "We believe that voters should be able to choose between candidates of the same party. We are especially concerned that voters are not given the impression that the new voting system is being introduced for party political benefit".
  It went on to say:
  "We are concerned that if the government insist on the use of closed lists voters may be left with the impression that the voting system has been manipulated for party political aims".
  If we continue with a closed-list system, voters would be right to believe that.
  We must not leave out Lord Jenkins. I was interested to see how partial the Home Secretary's quotes were. I should like to give him one back, which supports the arguments that I have been making and that some of my hon. Friends will make.
  Paragraph 138 of the Jenkins report states:
  "Under a reform system it is crucial that the voters' right to express their view of individual candidates should be at least maintained and preferably enhanced."
  Jenkins goes on:
  "It would be a count against a new system if any candidate, by gaining party machine endorsement for being at the head of a list, were to achieve a position of effective immunity from the preference of the electorate. This is the essence of the case for open as opposed to closed lists".
  I disagree with most of Lord Jenkins's report, but a phrase or two is rather good. That is one of them.
  Lord Jenkins makes most elegantly the case against closed lists, which is simply that the person who is selected is selected by the party. Under the Labour operation of the closed list, the person who is selected is selected by the party machine. Therefore, that party clone will not be responsible to the electorate and will not have to take the will of the electorate into account; he will have only to keep the party bosses sweet.
  We Conservative Members who believe that it should be our country first, our constituency second and our party last believe that a Government who operate so undemocratically and in a way that is so contemptuous of democracy should have any such proposal defeated. The Lords amendment should stand.
  Mrs. Gorman: It is difficult to speak after the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). His honest description of what goes on in the Labour party was a most amazing insight into the true workings of the Government party and the way in which it seeks to control every aspect of the administration of its party affairs. A spillover of that into the way in which people are able to show their support for individual candidates is a serious matter for us all.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of course touched his forelock to the Home Secretary, as is often the way of those on the Back Benches, and told us what a wonderful fellow he is, but his presentation bordered almost on megalomania at times. It was, "Ve vill
  232
  haf vays of making you vote." The system seems to be, "You vill get no choice of candidate." That is far from being a reputable performance from the Home Secretary.
  Even when there were many more Labour Members in the Chamber than at present, the Home Secretary was unable to get a single supporter from his own side. He had possibly one watery supporter, but most Labour Members are obviously strongly opposed. I applaud them for that, because we all know that that will not do their career prospects a great deal of good.
  If we want to know what is really happening, we can pray in aid the situation in Wales, which has already been well described, and let us not forget London, where another candidate, who is apparently not looked on particularly favourably by the Labour Administration, is struggling to become a Labour candidate. Those difficulties are not present in the Conservative party. For that reason—although we deplore the proposed system—we are in favour of open lists.
  Labour Members suggested that we were inconsistent because we favour a closed, one member voting arrangement for the parliamentary elections, but they destroyed their own argument. As they pointed out, the member who emerges as a candidate for the parliamentary election goes through a democratic primary—certainly in the Conservative party, where all members of an association choose from a variety of candidates. Any member of the public is welcome to join the Conservative party and take part in that process. For the Home Secretary to pray in aid that argument in an attempt to denigrate the principled position taken by Conservative Members is simply nonsense. It does not hold water, even with his own Back Benchers.
  The Home Secretary went on—this was very disturbing—to complain bitterly that the public do not turn out to vote in European elections. In my view of democracy, people have the right to vote for "none of the above". If they regard an election as irrelevant to their life style, or as something that they deplore, absence from the voting booth is itself a public demonstration of their attitude to the institution that they are being asked to support.
  I do not, as the Home Secretary seems to do, denigrate people's unwillingness to come out and vote. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman he had shown a little more courtesy, and shown less arrogance and a less patronising attitude, towards the voters of this country, but I do not need to touch my forelock to him, because he is not likely to affect my promotion chances. [HON. MEMBERS: "What chances?"] Indeed, I am a demonstration of the fact that this democratic party tolerates the dissident voice on certain matters. Here I am in the Chamber, strongly supporting the case that was made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler).
  There is not much to add after the demonstration and the remarks from Labour Members, except to mention the Liberal Democrats and their love affair with Brussels. Brussels makes decent truffles, but I do not know what else it does, except deal in the most ludicrous political trifles. For the Liberal Democrats to pray them in aid tells us how much notice we need to take of that party.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will think again, because he is showing contempt for the democratic process—not only to the electorate, but to those within his party and in the other place. For him to suggest that

  233
  the life peers—large numbers of whom have recently been placed in the Lords under the patronage of the Prime Minister in a manner that would have made Lloyd George blush—are an alternative to the present system is a travesty.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Government have created a chimera in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which they will come to regret. We are not considering a choice between the status quo and an alternative, but a choice between the closed and open-list systems. The problem is that both systems will alienate the electorate, and will have the effect of lowering the already low turnout for European elections. Both systems are less democratic than the present system.
  The Home Secretary proudly came to the House tonight with the announcement that this time it would be all right to overrule the Lords amendments, because he intended to have a review. When I asked him on what criteria the review would be based, he would not answer me. Will it be a 30, 25 or 20 per cent. turnout? Will it be on the basis that the closed system will result in the election of more Labour MEPs than the open system? We do not know, because he has not told us. The closed system concentrates power in the hands of the Executive even more than the present system.
  What will happen if a Labour MEP elected under the closed system dies or resigns? The electorate will not decide the alternative: someone else on the Labour list will be substituted. What is to prevent pressure from being put on a wayward Labour MEP who does not conform to Labour party policy to resign, so that someone else can be put in his place? What is to prevent the Labour party executive from downgrading people such as Christine Oddy, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) mentioned, so that they are so far down the list that they will never be elected?
  The closed-list system concentrates huge power in the hands of the Labour party executive. That cannot be democratic. The closed-list system is secretive: we do not know what is going on in the minds of the electorate.
  The Home Secretary said that the public in large Euro-constituencies would be confused by ballot papers with a huge number of names. That is extremely patronising. The electorate will certainly be able to make a choice under an open system and to decide for themselves whom they want to elect.
  Mr. Sayeed: The Home Secretary has obviously never seen a ballot paper in India. Ballot papers in India, where most of the populace cannot read and write, sometimes have 14 or 15 names. There are symbols for the candidates. The Indian people manage to vote, and they do so in large numbers. In the United States, the ballot papers have a long list of names. My hon. Friend is right to say that it shows great contempt for the electorate in this country to suggest that they cannot deal with large ballot papers.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party is contemptuous of the electorate, as it has been on the other constitutional changes that it has proposed. One day, the electorate will wake up and chuck out the Government for that very reason.
  234
  The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has whistle-blown in no uncertain terms. He has clearly shown us how the Labour party will operate in its selection of candidates under a closed list. It is secretive and undemocratic. It is trying to prevent the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) from becoming the prime candidate in Wales, and it is trying to prevent candidates from being selected for the post of Lord Mayor and for the European Parliament. It is a control freak to the highest degree.
  As for the Liberal Democrats, they have no principles whatever. In their desire to gain Cabinet seats, they are facing both ways, as they do time and again. Men of principle in the other House are prepared to say what they think and to vote the way they think. In this House, Liberal Democrats say one thing and vote differently.
  Mr. Allan: We have expressed our firm view that we want fair votes for the European elections. We are working on the basis of that principle, but we take a pragmatic view of the fact that we have 46 Members of Parliament and we do not yet form the Government.
  9 pm
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the way in which Liberal Democrats vote is based on the fact that they have only 46 Members of Parliament, I invite them permanently to vote with the Opposition and they may see some worthwhile change. We do not know which way they will vote on any particular issue. I have no doubt that some of them will vote one way this evening, and some will vote a different way—we shall see.
  The Government have not given us a real choice. Unfortunately, they do not intend to have a proper review of the election next June, so that they can decide whether the open or the closed-list system has worked or is likely to work, and if not, whether it would be desirable to go back to the first-past-the-post system. If they want to keep a genuinely open mind—
  Mr. David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall give way to my neighbour in a minute. He should not get so excited.
  The Labour party should keep a genuinely open mind on this matter. The Home Secretary has made it clear that any change to the system would require legislation, so it would require legislation to change from a closed to an open-list system or to change back to the first-past-the-post system. The matter would have to come back to the House and the other place for a change in the primary legislation. Why can the Minister and his hon. Friends not tell us this evening why there cannot be an open review of the operation of the system next June?
  Mr. Drew rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will give way to my next-door neighbour.
  Mr. Drew: I honestly do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The whole point of the proposal is that it gives the opportunity for a full review. That was said on Second Reading, and is now explicit in the House.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is a question for the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Under-Secretary, to answer

  235
  later. I understood from what the Home Secretary said in opening the debate that the option of the first-past-the-post system was not to be considered under the review. If I have misunderstood the system, no doubt the Minister will either intervene now or, when he winds up, make the position entirely clear. The electorate deserve to know.
  Is the Minister going to intervene? If not, we must assume that we do not have a full and open review, and that the first-past-the-post system will not be an option.
  In short, what we are asked to decide on this evening is a pig in a poke. The electorate will have their say. I believe that next June's elections will be a thorough muddle, and I hope that one day my own party, when re-elected, will consider changing the system back.
  Mr. Lansley: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who eloquently presented some of the difficulties posed by the Government's proposals.
  In a sense, the debate differs from our earlier debate on this House's disagreement with a Lords amendment. The Government are now proposing an amendment in lieu. Nevertheless, the motion strikes me as a transparent effort to cause their Lordships to change their minds about an important amendment that they have tabled, and I think that it has much more shadow than substance. Effectively, by virtue of the review, the Government are merely setting out to say to the Lords, "Give us an excuse to move from your resistance to the closed-list system."
  As was made clear in the opening exchanges with the Home Secretary, the review itself could not give rise to a change in a subsequent electoral system, except by virtue of future primary legislation. The Home Secretary said, in response to an intervention, that, if there were a need for a review, it would arise from great public anxiety about the result.
  The issue is this. Must we go through the process of an election through a closed-list system, with all the difficulties that will ensue when voters go into the polling booth and are presented with a ballot paper that gives them no opportunity to choose between candidates standing for a party? I confidently predict that there will be a great deal of public anxiety after that; but we have to have a review, and the prospect of taking on the burden of primary legislation, in order to make a change.
  I know, and the Government know perfectly well in their heart of hearts, that the process of securing primary legislation is long and difficult, as the Bill amply demonstrates. They will not readily concede that, and—as I am sure Ministers, in their hearts, understand—they are not contemplating changing the electoral system after the European parliamentary elections next June; they are merely offering a device through which they can continue to send the proposals back to the Lords. This is not a realistic review. In truth, we are thrown back on arguments that have been rehearsed here previously, and have been amply argued in another place: the arguments for a closed list and for an open list.
  When I read the debate that took place in the Lords last Wednesday, I see that their lordships did us the service of reading carefully the arguments presented in the House of Commons. Lord Shore explicitly said that he had looked carefully at what the Home Secretary had had to say before, to see whether there was a new argument that
  236
  would justify his changing his mind. He did not find one then, and I submit that he will not find one when he comes to read this debate.
  We should examine very carefully the Home Secretary's arguments in favour of the closed-list system. Even in our earlier debates, the right hon. Gentleman has got away with a few arguments that he should not have got away with. Let me take the first one, which I think is the most important. On that occasion, and on previous occasions, the Home Secretary has argued that a perverse result can arise from the open-list system—that it is possible for someone to be elected with fewer preferences than someone who is not elected. It is undeniably true that, statistically that can occur. However, two arguments wholly countermand the Home Secretary's argument. The first is this. In the open-list system, we can at least see what the preferences of voters are as between the individual candidates of a party.
  Mr. James Clappison: Within a party.
  Mr. Lansley: Within a party. My hon. Friend rightly corrects me. In a closed-list system, we cannot see what the voters' preferences are between candidates within a party. Therefore, some highly perverse results may occur under a closed-list system: candidates may be elected who are deeply unpopular with the voters who support a given party. Indeed, the arguments that we have been hearing from hon. Members in previous debates suggest that that may be the case—what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to as the Mickey Finn slipped into the system is precisely that sort of person. However, it is important that we understand that the closed-list system, far from being without perverse results, simply hides the perverse result.
  Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend accept that, although it is not an edifying sport, the British electorate like to pick off unpopular candidates in an election?
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is right. He may want to elaborate exactly that point.
  The second point is that the fact that, under an open-list system, a candidate with relatively few preferences might get elected, arises from the fact that another candidate on that same party's list attracts a large number of preferences. We are dealing with a proportional system. I am not here arguing the merits or otherwise of a proportional system, but it is a proportional system. The Home Secretary argues that most voters are guided by party rather than personality, as it were—that they vote for party first. Indeed, it will be true that, by some mechanism, under an open-list system, the parties will contrive to present perhaps well-known candidates, or candidates to whom they give the greater part of their publicity, and that there will be a candidate on that party's list who secures the greater number of preferences. It may be a much greater number than some other candidates on the rest of that party's list.
  Out of the fact of proportionality, arises the fact that that party has to attract a certain number of seats. It may be that individual preferences within that party for that candidate are relatively few, but the fact that that party attracts a large number of votes gives the reason why it

  237
  attracts that seat, so the result is not wholly perverse. The individual preferences for a less preferred candidate on a party's list would not necessarily lead voters to conclude that another candidate on another party's list is in fact preferred to someone who has relatively few preferences within the list of the party to which they subscribe.
  I am sorry that that is a slightly elaborate argument, but I see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) at least understands my point. Therefore, it seems that the first and, in fact, most often repeated argument that the Home Secretary has presented against an open list is not a good argument.
  The second argument that the Home Secretary now presents is that to change would be disruptive. He will know that party machines often try to persuade one that to change things, especially to change things when they have started down a particular track, is highly undesirable. The more determined a party machine is to have its way, the more likely it is to argue that to change now would be disruptive.
  The fact is that party machines can be surprisingly flexible when the occasion demands. The last thing that we should do is to change the view of what is the most acceptable electoral system by the standards of the voters just to meet the demands of party machines that find it inconvenient at a late stage to move from this proposed system to another one. It is perfectly clear what voters would prefer. Way back in February, the Electoral Reform Society undertook some research with the McDougall Trust. The findings showed that
  "although voters claim to vote on the basis of a party, they react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves."
  9.15 pm
  The Home Secretary said that voting for a party is not an alien system—in a sense he is right because most voters choose a party—but not to have an opportunity to vote for a candidate of choice is an alien system in this country. Let me repeat a point that I made during a previous debate on the subject: for voters to be presented with a choice of party but not the ability to vote for the candidate whom they recognise as a personality seeking their vote, is an alien system. The divorcing of candidate from party would be new and would be regarded as wholly undesirable by the electorate. So the argument about disruption is not true.
  Other hon. Members have rightly said, that to argue that voters would be confused, and the way in which they cast their vote arbitrary, is dismissive of voters' behaviour. In fact it is wrong because, if an open list demands it, party systems will be extremely good at presenting the electorate with information about candidates. As it happens, that is an argument for an open list. Under a closed list, one has to tell the voters not about the candidates, but only about the party. Under an open list, one has to tell voters about candidates and give them information. There may be a relatively small turnout at a European election, but it is likely to be an informed turnout. Voters are more likely to be informed of the respective merits of candidates under an open-list system.
  If those arguments do not have credibility as the reasons for the Home Secretary's opposition to an open-list system, what is it all about? Hon. Members have
  238
  made it clear—I agree with them—that it is all about reasserting the control of the party machine over the outcome of the election. The voters who support the Labour party are not to be given an opportunity to substitute their choice for the choice of the party machine in Millbank tower. That is what it is all about. The other arguments do not sustain the Home Secretary's opposition to an open-list system. That is the only rationale for persisting in the self-evidently misjudged proposal for a closed-list system. The Labour party's machinations, its outrageous system for the selection of candidates and its manipulation of the closed-list system bring into disrepute the Home Secretary's proposal, and the House would be wise to reject it.
  Mr. Swayne: I always find the Home Secretary persuasive and I found him so again this evening. Particularly persuasive was his argument that this is all a question of horses for courses. There is something to be said for the horse that he has selected for this course.
  I come to the argument from a slightly different point of view. I remember the time in 1975 when Roy Jenkins, as he then was, said that it was inconceivable that we would have direct elections to the European Parliament. I found some comfort in that. I have difficulty with the concept of a European Parliament as I have never felt that there was a European people for that Parliament to represent. It struck me that there was something eminently sensible about the system of nominating representatives to the European Assembly. There is something attractive, therefore, about the closed-list system proposed by the Home Secretary because it is almost a return to a system of nominating delegates.
  We come to the Bill late in the day and we have to accept most of it as we find it. Although we are given a certain latitude with the amendment before us, the rest of the Bill remains the same. Part of that is the absurdly large constituencies which, in my case, involves a constituency stretching from the Isle of Wight to Milton Keynes. I appreciate the amount of chaos—if, indeed, it is possible to measure chaos—mentioned by the Home Secretary. However, what of the chaos of having 11 Conservative candidates in the election in my region, campaigning against one another to secure a higher preference?
  The Home Secretary's arguments were persuasive, but not quite persuasive enough. We have to weigh against the Home Secretary's arguments the corrosive and corrupting effect of centralising power under political parties—something that has been drawn to our attention, in a most staggering way, in both this debate and last week's debate, by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). Selection of candidates for the election has been a quite extraordinary process. The House owes Labour party members another opportunity to be liberated from the tyranny that they have imposed upon themselves in Wales, in London and in arrangements for the European elections.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: And in Scotland.
  Mr. Swayne: Indeed, and in Scotland. However, I shall confine myself to the matter that we are debating.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, in his most recent report, Lord Jenkins drew attention to the matter of open and

  239
  closed lists. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to go on, as he has today, rubbishing an open-list system. However, in his report, Lord Jenkins was quite clear on the distinction between open and closed lists. On page 41, he said:
  "It would be a count against a new system if any candidate, by gaining party machine endorsement for being at the head of a list, were to achieve a position of effective immunity from the preference of the electorate. This is the essence of the case for open as opposed to closed lists".
  Lord Jenkins may have written his report with Westminster elections in mind, but there is no reason why the report's principles should not apply as much to Westminster elections as to European parliamentary elections. I reject the report in total. I am not in favour of the Jenkins report. Nevertheless, I am absolutely certain that Lord Jenkins was right in his preference for open over closed lists.
  A hugely important principle is at stake. Although the Home Secretary's arguments were persuasive, they failed to persuade us that a dreadful precedent will not be set in using closed lists in democratic elections. Closed lists abolish completely any concept of representative democracy. How can one possibly have a representative whom one has not specifically voted for or against? Representative democracy is posited on the existence of candidates on a list, and to do away with candidates in closed lists is to do away with representative democracy.
  There is some merit in the argument that there will be chaos in huge constituencies in which candidates from the same party compete against one another. An equally powerful case could be made that political parties—in the views that they are expressing on the issue that will be addressed next June—are not entirely consistent and homogenous within themselves. The Conservative party has a number of views on the future of the European Union. I am glad to say also that democracy is not dead among Labour Members, who still offer a variety of views on the matter. It is therefore entirely appropriate that people should be able to select candidates on the basis of how close a candidate's view is to their own. There will undoubtedly be candidates who are particularly enthusiastic about the current development of the European Union. just as there are candidates who are unenthusiastic about it. It is entirely appropriate that those candidates should make their opinions known and should seek votes accordingly. I suspect that that will do much more for voter turnout than denying voters a choice would.
  Mr. Allan: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is now a convert from the first-past-the-post system, whereby the voter has no choice but simply has to accept a Euro-sceptic, a Europhile or whichever single candidate is presented by each party?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has strayed outside the terms of the amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) will not follow him.
  Mr. Swayne: I should dearly love to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) down that track, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but of course I shall not.
  240
  I admitted that the Home Secretary was persuasive in many respects, but, in spite of that, the case for open democracy—within the parties and, beyond, to the electorate—has been made very clearly. The House should agree with the Lords in their amendment.
  Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary said that we were going over well-trodden ground. That may be so, but the debate has reflected the widespread concern about the course that the Government are following, and their choice as between open and closed lists.
  Once again, there has been no support, from any corner of the House, for the principle of the closed list. There was no support for it in the interventions or the substantive speeches of Labour Members. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) once again made it clear that he does not support the principle of a closed list. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), in what the House will agree was a highly principled speech, expressed the unease that he and many colleagues feel. He spoke for many people when he put the issue in the context of other changes that are taking place.
  We also heard excellent speeches from various Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) made a cogent and well-researched speech, and was right to draw attention to the authoritative voices that have spoken out against the principle of the closed list. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a reflective and closely argued speech, in which he demolished the Home Secretary's arguments. I shall deal with some of those arguments in a moment. We also heard excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who all spoke with real conviction.
  It was ludicrous for the Home Secretary to suggest that the debate was got up by hereditary Conservative peers. It might be convenient and easy for the Home Secretary to take that line, but it does not do justice to the merits of the Lords amendment or to the principle at stake. The House of Lords has reflected the widespread concern that is felt not only in both Houses of Parliament but outside, by many organisations that are interested in electoral matters but which take no particular party line.
  As the Home Secretary knows full well, the principle at stake is whether voters should have a choice of individual candidates, or whether only parties should appear on the ballot paper. It is unwise for him to keep on trying to demolish particular forms of the open list offered to the Government as variations.
  At the beginning of the whole process, the Government had a choice. They had made a bald commitment to change the system, and had the choice of adopting an open or a closed-list system. The Government decided to go for a closed-list system, which was very instructive about their priorities. Since then, the Home Secretary has said that various systems are too difficult for us to understand. That is an insult to the House and the British people.
  How is it that so many other countries in the European Union struggle along with an open-list system? Why is it that an open-list system is not invincibly difficult for voters in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy,

  241
  Luxembourg and the Netherlands? Why is it that voters in those countries can cope with an open list, but voters in the United Kingdom cannot?
  The Home Secretary tried to draw comfort from other countries in the European Union that have a closed list, but he will know that it is a different system from that proposed, as it operates at a national rather than regional level. The fact that the proposed system operates at a regional level makes it even more conducive to centralised party control.
  Mr. Straw: How?
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Clappison: I refer the Home Secretary to the excellent work of the constitution unit. It makes it more difficult for smaller parties to stand, as they have to obtain a higher threshold of votes to achieve representation. A regional closed-list system is a double whammy for party control. That is what the debate is all about, as was made clear by the interventions that the Home Secretary took from the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), among others.
  In more forceful terms even than we would have used, they sought to characterise the closed-list system as one in which centralised party control and opportunities for cronyism are rife. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, West said, it is a system that makes it possible for party bosses to slip a Mickey Finn into the list, without the voters being able to do anything about it. As a result, in the fulness of time, MEPs will represent their party bosses rather than the voters of their region, and there will be no incentive for individual MEPs to stand up for the interests of their region or their constituents. They will be totally beholden to and owned by the party bosses.
  That point has been made clear tonight. It puts the debate into a wider setting, and is certainly consistent with the pattern of behaviour of the Labour party in an increasing number of other settings, such as London and Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said.
  If we need any more evidence that the proposal is all about exerting centralised party control, we can find it in the way in which the Labour party has chosen its candidates. The Home Secretary was right to say that those are internal Labour party matters, and we do not propose to venture into them, but they supply compelling evidence. Unlike Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, who are individual party members who have had the opportunity to have a say, Labour Members have had no such opportunity.
  The Home Secretary's argument about party lists was well demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, who drew attention to the important fact that, at least, within an open-list system, after the party bosses had drawn up the list, the voters would have the opportunity to express a preference for candidates on the list. In the closed-list system, that is not possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire asked whether the Home Secretary's amendment in lieu was transparent and could be relied on. Given the history of the year in which we have debated the matter, I do not think that it could. The Home Secretary said that he had always been consistent. We recall his words on Second
  242
  Reading. He may have been consistent by his own criteria, but we recall a slightly different tone being set in those early debates, when he boasted about the consultation that was taking place. On Second Reading, he told us that he had an open mind on these matters, and that, although he had a preference, he was prepared to listen to the arguments. He even put a paper in the Library—
  Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman criticising me for that?
  Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary asks whether he is being criticised. It is a matter of record that he said that he was prepared to listen. We believe that every representation that he has received from Labour Members, from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members and from every outside organisation, is against the principle of the closed-list system, yet the Home Secretary and the Government decided to adopt that principle even though everyone else was against it. The Home Secretary discarded the Belgian system for reasons that he knew all about in the first place, and did not look at the other seven EU countries that also had a modified form of the open-list system. They were all cast aside. Every system has been ridiculed as far too complicated and difficult for voters to understand.
  If Labour Members want to set any store by the amendment, they should look at the earlier amendment that was tabled by their own Back Benchers, calling for an evaluation by the Home Secretary of the open-list system after the elections had taken place. The amendment was tabled by the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). It was an honourable attempt to give the Government the opportunity to think again, but they refused to do so.
  That adds force to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, who has drawn attention to the fact that the Government's proposal means that primary legislation would be required for a change to be made. If the Government had been prepared to listen to the arguments, they could have had a report ready by now, and implemented its conclusions in the Bill at this stage. However, they were not prepared to listen.
  The real motive throughout has been to enhance centralised party control. This is a revealing glimpse of the real character of new Labour—more opportunities for cronyism and for centralised party control. We would do well to reflect on the widespread concerns outside the Chamber, and consider carefully the Lords amendment, which gives us an opportunity to have an open-list system. We do not prefer that to a first-past-the-post system, but it would strike a blow against centralised party control.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I shall be brief. We have discussed the nature of the list system at every stage of the Bill's passage through the House, and everything that needs to be said has probably already been said.
  The Government remain strongly of the view that the list system for which the Bill originally provided is the most appropriate for Britain to use to elect our Members of the European Parliament. I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and his hon. Friends have not understood that we are talking

  243
  not about elections to this House or to local councils, but about elections to the European Parliament, where 84 people represent the whole of Great Britain. Once they are elected, the MEPs do not perform the constituency functions that are familiar to members of this House, because the European Parliament is not responsible for housing, social security, individual employment matters, education or any of the issues that provide us all with so much of our constituency case work.
  The public have far less opportunity to get to know the MEPs and aspiring MEPs in their region.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in due course. I shall let him in if there is time.
  If the Lords amendment were accepted, voters would be forced to choose between candidates of the same party, which would inevitably involve some arbitrary and irrational choices. If anyone doubts that, they should bear in mind my experience during the 1970s, when I was a member of a local authority in a six-member ward. Every four years, two of us stood for election. My fellow Labour candidate was always Maurice Spillane, the local chemist, who, sadly, has since died. Every time that we stood in tandem, I came first because the first letter in my surname is "H", and Maurice Spillane came second. Thankfully, we were always both elected—it would have been surprising in that ward had we not been. Although I fondly believed that I always managed to beat him because of the sheer force of my personality, the truth is that it was because my name began with "H".
  That will happen again. The evidence shows incontrovertibly that the choices would be exercised to the detriment of female and ethnic minority candidates. The Government are not prepared to countenance that.
  There is also the problem that the open-list system, which the other place wants to introduce, might well—in fact, probably would—produce perverse results. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary carefully demonstrated how the candidate who receives the most votes might not win a seat. I genuinely ask Opposition Members to consider the implications of that.
  Much has been said about how electors will feel about not having a choice between named candidates. Such criticism deserves an answer. Having chosen a candidate, how would a voter feel when he or she found that the majority of people who voted chose the same candidate, yet that candidate was not elected? That is not just a fanciful notion; it could happen if the system proposed in the other place were adopted. That argument is incontrovertible.
  I turn to the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which demonstrated his commitment not just to the House but to many other issues. He is a very passionate democrat. I enjoyed his speech, although I obviously did not agree with all his conclusions. As a democrat, is he prepared to abstain, as I think he said he would—even abstention would be an endorsement of the proposal—or to support in the Lobby a vote that was won in the House of Lords on 20 October by a majority of 44 simply because hereditary peers took part? On 4 November, there would not have been a majority of 29 without the intervention of hereditary peers. I ask him to reflect on that. I would be very happy if he joined us in the Lobby.
  244
  I turn to the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who showed a far greater understanding of the systems than any Conservative Member, including those on the Front Bench.
  Sir Norman Fowler indicated dissent.
  Mr. Howarth: If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept that, he should compare the speech of the hon. Member for Hallam with his own. It will become clear to him that the hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister explain why, in two debates, not a single Labour Back Bencher has spoken in favour of the Front-Bench spokesman?
  Mr. Howarth: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Division Lists. My hon. Friends indicate their assent by the way in which they vote at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Now say that with a straight face.
  Mr. Howarth: I do say it with a straight face.
  I turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I should like to pick him up on one point. If I heard him correctly, he said that he was elected on an open list of one. He will correct me if I am wrong, but when the good people of Wrexham went to the polling booth, they found that he was the only Labour candidate on the ballot paper. He therefore stood on a closed list of one. I do not think that he can argue with that.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I am coming to my comments on the hon. Gentleman's speech. If he is not happy after I have made them, I shall give way to him.
  For three consecutive parliamentary evenings, I have sat here and listened to speeches by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Although I have not agreed with them, I must admit that they have improved each evening. However, they started from a pretty low point. I make this as a political point, and would not want it to be misunderstood as anything else, but I have a fear that I shall share with the House. It is that, when I wake up in the middle of the night I shall see before me a vision of the hon. Gentleman speaking, because it seems as if, every time I look up, there he is. Despite that, I enjoyed his speech tonight.
  The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked about what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the review that will take place after the European elections to see how the system has worked in practice. I shall not add to what my right hon. Friend said, but as the hon. Gentleman asked about it, I shall make clear the intention behind the review. There will be a full and thorough review of the operation of the system. Nothing should be ruled out, and that includes comparisons with the way in which other systems might hypothetically have worked.
  Mr. Drew: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Howarth: I shall not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, because the House has further business to deal with after the debate.
  We have introduced an amendment that will ensure that, after the first elections using the system, a review will take place. I hope that, when our proposal is considered in another place, careful account will be taken of that commitment.
  To elect their Members of the European Parliament, almost all the larger states of the European Union already use the system that the Government propose. It is true that nine member states use open or semi-open-list systems, but, with the exception of Italy—which I might venture to suggest offers no lessons when it comes to electoral systems—all those countries are small, and their political traditions are different from ours.
  For all those reasons, the House should reject the amendments that were made to the Bill in another place thanks to the votes of those who have never been elected to any Parliament. We believe that the system that the Bill provides is appropriate and simple, and offers no prospect of perverse results. The idea that unelected hereditary peers can overturn the type of democratic system that the House proposes is too bizarre to contemplate.
  Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments:—
  The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 125.

  Division No. 373]

  [9.47 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Burgon, Colin

  Ainger, Nick

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caborn, Richard

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ashton, Joe

  Caplin, Ivor

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Casale, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caton, Martin

  Barron, Kevin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Battle, John

  Chaytor, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Clapham, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Benton, Joe

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clelland, David

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Boateng, Paul

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Borrow, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Connarty, Michael

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corbett, Robin

  Breed, Colin

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cox, Tom

  Browne, Desmond

  Cranston, Ross

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Crausby, David

  246

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

  Jamieson, David

  (Perth)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Darvill, Keith

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kemp, Fraser

  Etherington, Bill

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kidney, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Flynn, Paul

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lepper, David

  Foulkes, George

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fyfe, Maria

  Levitt, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Linton, Martin

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Goggins, Paul

  Lock, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Love, Andrew

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McAllion, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Grogan, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gunnell, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hain, Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Heppell, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Meale, Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hutton, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  247

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Snape, Peter

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Soley, Clive

  Norris, Dan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Plaskitt, James

  Stott, Roger

  Pollard, Kerry

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pond, Chris

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Pope, Greg

  Stringer, Graham

  Pound, Stephen

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Prosser, Gwyn

  (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Radice, Giles

  Timms, Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rapson, Syd

  Touhig, Don

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Truswell, Paul

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rooney, Terry

  Vaz, Keith

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Roy, Frank

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ruane, Chris

  Watts, David

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Webb, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  White, Brian

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Salter, Martin

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wills, Michael

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wilson, Brian

  Sawford, Phil

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wray, James

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wyatt, Derek

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Keith Hill and

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burns, Simon

  Beggs, Roy

  Butterfill, John

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Bercow, John

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Chope, Christopher

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Collins, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Colvin, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  248

  Cran, James

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maples, John

  Day, Stephen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan, Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Faber, David

  Page, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paice, James

  Flight, Howard

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Randall, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Robathan, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gibb, Nick

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ruffley, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Green, Damian

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Greenway, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spring, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hammond, Philip

  Steen, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Hayes, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heald, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Wardle, Charles

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Wells, Bowen

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Whittingdale, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Leigh, Edward

  Wilkinson, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wilshire, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lidington, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sir David Madel and

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Question agreed to.
  Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, again considered.
  Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments agreed to.

  Income Tax
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Personal Equity Plan (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1869), dated 31st July 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July, be annulled.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Individual Savings Account Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1870), dated 31st July 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Individual Savings Account (Insurance Companies) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1871), dated 31st July 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July, be annulled.
  Mr. Gibb: We are glad to have an opportunity to debate the regulations on the Floor of the House. There is concern outside the House, as well as among the Opposition—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not continue extraneous conversations when an item of business is before the House.
  Mr. Gibb: There is concern that the Government are over prone to using secondary legislation, particularly under the negative resolution procedure, on tax matters. I trust that our debate will prove to be a precedent for dealing with future important, tax-related, negative resolution statutory instruments on the Floor of the House.
  The regulations are the latest, but undoubtedly not the last, stage in the catalogue of disasters that makes up what might be called the Government's savings policy. The Government themselves predict that their policy will lead to a fall in the savings ratio from 10.5 per cent. when they took office to 7.75 per cent. over the lifetime of a Parliament. Their savings policy has in fact already led to the ratio falling to 7.75 per cent. within 18 months of their coming to power. That is not so much a savings policy as a dis-savings scandal.
  Labour's election manifesto said that the Government would
  "introduce a new individual savings account to extend the principle of TESSAs and PEPs to promote long-term savings."
  True to his word, the Chancellor announced in his first Budget that the Government would
  "introduce from 1999 individual savings accounts, extending the principle of TESSAs and PEPs and continuing to offer favourable tax reliefs for savings."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 306.]
  The Government then inflicted enormous damage on people's confidence to save, first, by their imposition of a £5 billion a year tax on people's pension funds, and, secondly, in December 1997, by the Paymaster General's announcement that personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts would be abolished, and that individual savings accounts would be introduced. Abolition is hardly an extension. It is totally at odds with
  250
  the Labour manifesto, and flatly contradicts the words of the Chancellor in his first Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"[Yes, where is he?
  The new ISA, with its initial £50,000 lifetime limit, penalised the thrifty and the self-employed whose savings had been built up in lieu of a pension. With the announcement of those retrospective and draconian changes to the taxation of savings, people became understandably concerned that at some future date a Labour Government might do the same again. The damage inflicted by the announcement last December alone is incalculable—another major success of the Paymaster General. Perhaps that is why he is not here to defend the regulations which he published on 31 July 1998; he cannot be trusted to defend them himself.
  The fanfare and hype that accompanied the Paymaster General's announcement last December, with the Prime Minister boasting that there would be 6 million extra savers—6 million people who would be able to save who could not then—were outdone only by the shock that Treasury Ministers received when faced with the public outcry.
  There was outcry at the £50,000 limit on transferring from PEPS into ISAs. There was outcry at the retrospective taxation that was inherent in the new regime as it was introduced. There was outcry at the reduction in tax relief for savers from £10,800 a year to £5,000. There was outcry from the Financial Times, which said that the new system was "unfair", "unattractive" and "bureaucracy gone mad". There was outcry as well from the Consumers Association, which said that it could not see the point of ISAs. It said:
  "We see no real advantages but a lot of problems."
  There was outrage from the Government's favourite economists, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which said that the replacement of PEPs and TESSAs by the ISA would reduce the pool of savings; how right it was with that forecast, with the savings ratio already down to 7.75 per cent. That outcry extended to the postbag of every hon. Member and to the 5,900 letters received by Ministers from members of the public.
  I note that, yet again, the Economic Secretary is to defend the Government's case this evening. I cannot understand why the Government do not put up the gaffe-prone Chief Secretary, the Paymaster General or the Financial Secretary. What is up with the rest of the Treasury team that the Chancellor seems able to trust only the Economic Secretary? She is to be congratulated on that, or perhaps pitied for it.
  Will the Economic Secretary answer the following points tonight? The Government's stated objective was to have millions of new savers depositing their spare cash at supermarket checkouts. Last March, the then Chief Secretary said that he wanted to extend the variety of outlets from which ISAs can be bought, including supermarkets.
  In defending the regulations, will the Economic Secretary say how many supermarkets will be selling cash ISAs, or equity or insurance ISAs, at the checkout? Will she not admit that the ISA regulations before the House today contain complexity and costs which make it impossible for supermarkets to sell them at the till, which is why the supermarkets have said that they will not be doing so?

  251
  Does the Economic Secretary agree with Marks and Spencer that ISAs cannot be offered through the till, or does she agree with Stuart Sinclair, the chief executive of Tesco personal finance, who said:
  "Like many in the industry we believe that the Government missed an opportunity to put together a basic plan to appeal to the mass market. It is a bit of a non-event."
  Or perhaps the Economic Secretary agrees with Roger McArthur, chief executive of Sainsbury's bank, who said:
  "We believe that it is important to recognise the commercial realities in which the potential ISA providers operate … the ISA will work properly only if it is cost-effective for providers as well as customers."
  Many supermarkets such as Marks and Spencer may well provide ISAs through their normal mail order financial services operation, but none will operate ISAs through the checkout till, which was a central plank of the Government's objective of extending the number of savers by 6 million. Nothing in the regulations is likely to make that a realistic target.
  The catalogue of incompetence continued. In March, the Government finally backed down on their absurd £50,000 lifetime limit and the Chancellor announced details of his proposed scheme. He said that
  "the individual savings account will … offer complete freedom to move cash in and out".
  That is not true, as the details published by the Treasury make clear. Cash can be moved out, but investors can reinvest it only if they have not already put in £1,000 in that tax year, regardless of whether the £1,000 remains.
  The Chancellor also said that
  "the individual savings account will receive a 10-year guarantee that savings up to £5,000 a year can be invested with all existing… reliefs."—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1102.]
  That is not true either, because after five years the tax credit rebate disappears—a slight case of ISA mis-selling by the Chancellor. Many people suspect that the 10-year guarantee introduces a £50,000 lifetime limit by the back door.
  ISAs were not really intended to extend savings, but are yet another method by which the Government hope to raise tax revenue. In March, the Chief Secretary admitted that. He said that the problem was that the cost in terms of lost revenue of tax relief for TESSAs and PEPs was £1.5 billion a year, rising on current trends to £2 billion by 2007. That seems a small price to pay when some 3 million people have PEPs and 4.5 million have TESSAs, and those numbers were increasing.
  TESSAs and PEPs were very successful savings incentives. As Andrew Dilnot of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, almost all the objectives of the ISA
  "could equally have been achieved by abolishing the five year lock-in period on TESSAs and leaving things as they were."
  The Institute of Chartered Accountants—[Interruption], which I am always keen to quote, said:
  "It is our conclusion that it would be more straightforward to amend the existing PEP and TESSA savings schemes rather than introduce a wholly new scheme, particularly as the … ISA does not appear to offer improved savings incentives, and in fact may well discourage many individuals from saving."
  The tax incentives set out in regulation 22 of the ISA regulations are much less. The shares ISA will have a tax credit of only 10 per cent. and only until 2004, whereas under the previous Conservative Government PEPs had the full 20 per cent. tax credit. Will the Economic
  252
  Secretary tell the House what the tax advantages are for a basic rate taxpayer who holds equities through an ISA? Given that such an individual is unlikely to use his annual capital gains limit, and that ISA charges, even with the cost access terms standards, are likely to exceed the tax credit, what are the advantages? If the hon. Lady insists that there are advantages, will she tell the House by what date she expects the Prime Minister's forecast of 6 million more savers to have been met?
  Despite all the changes to ISAs since their original launch last December, the savings industry still believes that they are too complex. The regulations add to that complexity. The PEP and ISA Management Association points out that a significant number of PEP holders broke the rules, usually by subscribing to two managers in one year, and had their PEPs declared void; and that, as ISAs are even more complicated, more mistakes will be made.
  There are three types of ISA: cash, shares and insurance. They have different limits, but a higher limit in the year 1999–2000. There are maxi and mini ISAs. Mini ISAs are designed so that investors can chose different managers, but maxi ISAs can have only one manager. One cannot have both a maxi and a mini ISA in one tax year. On top of all that, there are the continuing rules for PEPs and transitional rules for moving from a TESSA to a cash ISA, at regulation 5 of the Individual Savings Account Regulations 1998. Today, The Sun exposes an enormous loophole in the regulations—an ISA and a TESSA can be held in the same tax year.
  There is concern in the industry that the regulations make it difficult for any one organisation to offer an ISA with a full range of cash, life assurance and equity components, because the regulations allow ISA providers to link up with only one other specialist organisation. There is also concern about the absence of statutory compensation for depositors if an ISA manager who is not himself a deposit taker defaults on cash held before passing on the cash to the deposit taker. Why is there nothing in the regulations to deal with that?
  Those problems are compounded for the industry by continued Government delays in publishing regulations and details, which make it nigh on impossible to develop the necessary information technology systems by April 1999, when the regulations come into force—particularly given that there are millennium bug problems to deal with as well. We believe that the Government should delay the introduction of the ISA for at least a year to give the industry the chance to implement new IT systems correctly. They should allow new PEPs and TESSAs to continue during that period.
  In its compliance cost assessment of ISAs, the Inland Revenue calculates that the cost of running a cash ISA will be up to £4 per annum per account higher than the annual running cost of a TESSA, and that the cost of running a shares ISA will be up to £2 per annum per account higher than the cost of running a PEP. That is in addition to the £250 million set-up cost which the Inland Revenue estimates for the new ISA.
  Those are significant extra costs, and I cannot understand how a more complex and more expensive savings regime with fewer tax incentives will encourage lower-income individuals without savings to start to save. Perhaps the Economic Secretary would elucidate.

  253
  No wonder that Standard Life, the largest mutual life assurer in Europe, is refusing to offer the insurance ISA. Peter Robinson, the marketing manager at Standard Life, said:
  "We did some focus groups with customers."
  The Economic Secretary and her party know all about focus groups.
  "They could see the point of the cash ISA and the Stocks and Shares ISA but not the insurance ISA.
  If they are struggling with the point of it, we were going to be struggling with selling it."
  Gordon Maw, of Virgin Direct, said:
  "We wouldn't touch it with a barge pole."
  Other companies simply think that it is not commercially viable. Nothing in the Individual Savings Account (Insurance Companies) Regulations 1998 makes it an appealing stand-alone product. Perhaps the Economic Secretary can tell the House how she expects the insurance ISA to succeed.
  There are a huge number of concerns about cost access terms marks in the savings industry. They appear to give a halo to the ISA provider—almost a Government guarantee, even though the standard concerns itself only with administration charges and accessibility. The Personal Investment Authority, for instance, has said:
  "The development of the CAT standards amounts in effect to product endorsement. This could lead to the danger that investors could be steered away from other products … more suitable for their needs, but which did not meet the CAT requirements."
  The level of charges will also act as an anti-competitive barrier to entry. Only those equity ISA providers with large portfolios will be able to charge only 1 per cent. per annum, thus keeping new providers out of the market altogether.
  Can the Economic Secretary also clarify a point on which the savings industry is finding it difficult to get an answer? Will she confirm that, for the purposes of the CAT mark, the 1 per cent. charge permitted for shares ISAs does not include costs incurred by the fund in relation to stamp duty on share transactions in the underlying investments?
  Although Conservative Members welcome some of the changes to the regulations that have been made since they were published in draft in May, especially those relating to the transitional rules and the extended time limits for reporting requirements, there are still many concerns in the industry over issues such as the determination by the Inland Revenue that protected funds and short-term gilts should be excluded from ISAs because of concern that they will become cash substitutes.
  Some in the industry think that the restriction in regulation 7(6) is unnecessary and counterproductive in that these are the very products that best fit the Government's objective of encouraging people to save for the long term, and to obtain a return that is better than that from a deposit account.
  There is also concern about the constitutional propriety of CAT marks that have been issued in a Treasury press release, without any legislation or statutory instrument—under either the negative or the affirmative procedure—coming before the House, and which the Financial Services Authority considers binding as law.
  254
  The introduction of ISAs and the abolition of PEPs and TESSAs has been a catastrophic mistake by the Government. It has been a catalogue of incompetence by a Minister who is not even here to defend his policy, but has left it to the Economic Secretary to pick up the pieces. This policy is costly to the savings industry, has damaged savings and has added to the Government's macro-economic blunders. The Government's savings policy is a shambles, and I urge the House to oppose these regulations.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) referred to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) said, from a sedentary position, although his remarks were audible to us, "How much are they paying you?"
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The matter may come up in debate, but I did not hear that remark.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a signatory to the motion—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can already advise the hon. Member that that is pursuant to a point of order that I have ruled is not a point of order.
  10.21 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I thank the Opposition and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) for giving us another opportunity to debate individual savings accounts. We have done precisely what the Opposition did when they introduced PEPs by way of regulations rather than through primary legislation. However, what we have done that the Opposition did not do with PEPs when they were in government is to consult widely about the detail of ISAs. The House has already debated ISAs on a number of occasions and at some length.
  The consideration that the House has given to ISAs and the extensive consultation outside the House have helped to lay the ground to make the introduction of ISAs a success. ISAs are, indeed, going to be a great success, and that is now widely accepted within the savings industry.
  A recent circular sent out by a stockbroking firm says:
  "We were pleased to see so many readers at our recent presentation. Some were surprised by our comments on the new Individual Savings Account. Contrary to what newspapers may say, readers should be in no doubt. ISAs should be big, very big. After April, they will be the prime savings product, heavily promoted, with much greater investment scope than PEPs. And Catmarking should be beneficial. It will encourage the development of direct marketing of low cost products."
  Mr. Tim Loughton: Who said that?
  Ms Hewitt: Hoare Govett.

  255
  Annulling the tax regulations now, as this motion seeks to do, would spread uncertainty and alarm throughout the savings industry. That is what the Opposition are seeking to do, and such a step would be deeply unpopular. Firms are currently busy designing their ISA products and their advertising campaigns.
  Mr. Loughton: Of the more than 7 million people who own PEPs and TESSAs, how many does that financial, foreign-owned firm have on its books?
  Ms Hewitt: I am astonished to hear a Conservative Member apparently objecting to a stockbroker firm operating in this country because it is foreign owned. I shall happily quote the literature of Virgin Direct and Marks and Spencer, which enthusiastically welcome ISAs.
  Let me return to my point about the Opposition motion. Firms are busy designing their ISA products and their advertising campaigns. The time and effort that they are putting into ISAs would be wasted if the regulations were annulled, and that would certainly not be well received—especially when it was discovered that the motions were technically flawed, as they are.
  Let me give two examples. First, the motions seek annulment of only three of the four ISA-related sets of regulations that were laid before Parliament on 31 July. Secondly, they would leave cash savers high and dry. I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton served on the Finance Bill Committee, on which I understand he was known to his colleagues as "Mr. Bean from Bognor". The Act that the Bill became prevents tax-exempt special savings accounts from being opened after April 1999.
  I see no merit in the motions, but what I can do is commend the ISA initiative. We designed ISAs to encourage people to save in a fair and efficient way, and to raise the level of long-term savings. Half the population have less than £200 in savings, and half those people have no savings at all. Many people—I know this from my constituency, Leicester, West—have no bank accounts, let alone any form of savings. This Government are determined to help people who are not saving to get started, and to help people who are already saving to save more.
  Offering tax incentives is an important way of encouraging people to save, but we need to balance that against the cost to the public purse. As a new Government, we set about looking at how we could rebalance the cost of the PEP and TESSA schemes that we had inherited. We wanted to encourage more people to save, and at the same time to distribute the available tax relief more fairly.
  It may be helpful if I now dispel one of the common myths about ISAs. They were not introduced to reduce the cost of tax relief. The cost of ISAs to the public purse is broadly what PEPs and TESSAs would have cost if they had continued unchanged. That cost is forecast to grow to about £2 billion in five years' time. ISAs are very much about distributing tax relief more fairly among more people; they are not about reducing the overall tax relief on savings.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Does the Minister accept that PEPs and TESSAs probably did little to
  256
  increase aggregate savings, simply encouraging people to put whatever they were already saving into more tax-privileged facilities? What does she think ISAs will do to change that?
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I shall explain in a moment, in the design of ISAs—and the design of CAT standards—we have overcome some of the most important barriers that are mentioned when those who would like to save, and know that they should be saving, are asked why they are not doing so.
  As well as ensuring a wider distribution of tax relief, we were determined to widen the range of savings products in comparison with what had formerly been available. A wider range, including life insurance, will attract new savers and encourage small savers to save more. It was clear to us that PEPs and TESSAs could not be modified in a practical way to meet our objectives. We therefore decided that a completely new approach was needed, and the ISA was developed.
  We appreciated that we would get a better product if we tapped into the experience and expertise of savers and the savings industry. We therefore engaged in open, wide-ranging and constructive consultations at every stage in the development of the ISA. Consultation papers have been issued on the structure of the scheme, the detailed tax regulations, CAT standards and product regulation.
  It has been widely recognised that the Government listened during the consultation, and that we have acted on what we heard. When I spoke at a recent conference of PEP and ISA managers, several speakers praised all involved for the constructive way in which they had listened and responded. Praise for the Inland Revenue, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority all at the same time is not, in my experience, common, but I heard it, and on several occasions.
  The results of that approach are often presented by the Opposition as some sort of climbdown or U-turn. That completely misunderstands what consultation is about. Consultation is a much better approach than the excessive secrecy under which such changes were introduced in the past. The previous Government introduced PEPs in 1987 without such consultation and had to relaunch them in a substantially modified form just two years later.
  We are committed to open, genuine and honest consultations and we are grateful to all those who contributed to the ISA consultation. Their input has been highly valued and highly valuable. We have modified our approach, including the detail of the regulations, as a result of their comments. We have a better product as a result.
  I turn to the details of the ISA. It offers, of course, tax-free savings, with a broad and flexible range of schemes. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, it has three different components: cash, a life insurance policy or stocks and shares. It offers the flexibility of one manager managing all three components within a so-called "maxi" account, or the different components can be managed by up to three different managers with so-called "mini" accounts. That flexibility is one of the features that was introduced into the scheme as a result of the consultation.

  257
  Research that we have commissioned in the Treasury, confirming results of research by other people, shows that 90 per cent. of people want easy access to savings and that two thirds of them are worried about the small print. ISAs address both those points.
  Mr. Loughton: The hon. Lady again mentions research done within the Treasury. How does she gel that with the statement by Paula Diggle, head of financial services at the Treasury, who said at a PEP conference in June:
  "We do not have a market research budget—I wish we did"?
  Ms Hewitt: I am delighted to say that the civil servant to whom the hon. Gentleman refers assisted me in the research that I commissioned.
  ISAs and CATs are designed to address those barriers to savings that our research and that of many other people have established are a problem. At the moment, someone investing in a TESSA has to lock their money away for up to five years to qualify for tax relief—one of the biggest barriers to saving by people who would like to save, but are terrified that their money will not be available in an emergency when they need it. With the ISA, there is no minimum lock-in period and, indeed, no minimum subscription. That is why saving with a cash ISA is so simple.
  Mr. Gibb: If the hon. Lady has done so much research, perhaps she will tell the House by which date the Prime Minister's forecast of 6 million new savers will be met.
  Ms Hewitt: There is no target for the number of new savers or new accounts, but we are confident, because of the way in which the design of ISA and CAT standards responds to the concerns of those who are not currently saving, or those who are only saving very little, that, over some years, ISAs will build up extremely successfully.
  As I have said, half this country's population have savings of less than £200. There is a large market out there, which we need to reach. I hope that Opposition Members will support us in that aim.
  Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hewitt: I have already given way twice to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will forgive me if I try to make some progress.
  The ISA scheme is guaranteed to run for 10 years. We will review the future of the scheme at the seven-year point, but it means that anyone contributing to an ISA will have a level of certainty that has never been available in the past. Of course, we will keep the scheme under review and we will make changes where necessary to help ISAs run more smoothly. However, the scheme itself is secure for 10 years. Existing PEP and TESSA holders will not be disadvantaged in any way. PEPs can run on, though without additional contributions, and TESSA holders can continue to contribute to existing schemes within the current limits. When the TESSA matures, the capital can be rolled over into an ISA.
  I shall deal now with the CAT standards, a feature of the ISA scheme which we believe will help to attract new savers and new savings. I have referred to the research
  258
  which shows that people are worried about the small print on existing savings products. It puts many people off saving. They fear that they may be ripped off by people who know considerably more than they do about finance. It is not surprising that people have those fears when, as we all know, too many people have been ripped off in the past. The pensions mis-selling scandal, which we are now having to clear up, shows that only too clearly.
  The Government have looked at ways to help investors. For some years now there has been a regime of disclosure. It has been beneficial, but insufficient to increase competition when inexperienced consumers are faced with expert providers. So we opted for a system of voluntary benchmarks that will empower consumers and strengthen competition in the financial services marketplace.
  We have introduced CAT standards. The term is designed to avoid any confusion and describes quite succinctly the purpose of the benchmarks. CAT standards will set levels for costs, for access and for terms of ISA products. If an ISA account meets the CAT standard, people will know that it offers fair charges, easy access and decent terms.
  Under the CAT standard, charges will be fair and transparent and will not exceed the set upper limits. For example, on a standard stocks and shares ISA there will be an annual charge that cannot exceed 1 per cent. and the saver will not face the hidden charges which, all too often, exist at present in addition to the annual charge.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about precisely what is covered in the annual charge. There is no confusion on that point. Let me make it clear that, whenever they have been asked, Treasury officials have spelt that out to applicants who want to become managers for ISAs, and to others seeking guidance. The annual charge includes dilution levies and the stamp duty on the individual investor's unit, but it does not cover the cost of transactions in the underlying fund. The single price that will be required for a fund to meet the CAT standard is struck after the costs of transactions, stamp duties and dealing costs have been covered. In other words, the price automatically takes account of them and they are not logged against the annual management charge.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Is it not possible that people may be misled into thinking that something that has a CAT standard is entirely appropriate for their circumstances, whereas it may be inappropriate for that investor? Is there not a danger that the introduction of CAT standards will lead to even more widespread mis-selling?
  Ms Hewitt: That is an important point and it is something that we thought about carefully before deciding on the nature and design of the CAT standard for the equity ISA.
  It is clear from research carried out by the Financial Services Authority and on its behalf, that investors faced with the sort of basic information that will be required for a CAT standard ISA understand very well that it is not a Government guarantee. The CAT standard spells out that there will be an investment risk. We believe—we have good reason to believe it on the basis of that research—that the CAT standard will strengthen consumers in

  259
  inquiring about the difference between a CAT standard equity ISA and a non-CAT standard product. Therefore, providers offering non-CAT standard products, either instead of or alongside CAT standard equity ISAs, will be able and even encouraged to explain to potential investors why their product, although its annual charge may perhaps be higher than that for a CAT standard ISA, may none the less be more appropriate for a particular investor. That is precisely what we mean by empowering consumers, making the market more transparent and enhancing competition.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: How does the hon. Lady respond to the suggestion that the CAT standard will prevent smaller and more recently established providers from coming into the market?
  Ms Hewitt: I do not accept that there is any evidence for that proposition. It is obvious that the CAT standards that we have set—although they are challenging, and deliberately so, to the market—are sustainable. New providers are already coming into the market. On cash ISAs, National Savings—which was debarred from the market by the previous Government—has announced its intention to offer a CAT standard ISA.
  On access, the important point about a CAT standard ISA is that access will be easy and that people can have confidence that they will be able to get their money out if they need it. With an insurance ISA, for example, people will be able to get at least their premiums back after three years or more. There will also be no discovering—as currently happens all too often—that one's money has vanished if one has to cash in a policy early.
  The third element of the CAT standards is that terms will be fair. Nothing will be hidden, and there will be no nasty surprises in the small print. There will be no restructuring of accounts once customers have signed up or interest rates cut after deposits are made.
  There are those in the savings industry who have been concerned about the CAT standards and claim that the limit set for charges is too challenging. We shall certainly be monitoring the impact of the CAT standards once the system goes live, and we shall make changes if they are needed.
  I should stress that the CAT standards are voluntary. Firms will offer CAT standard products if they want to, and some have already said publicly that they intend to do so. Other firms have said that they will offer products that do not meet the CAT standard but that—as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) suggested—may be more appropriate for certain consumers, perhaps covering riskier investments, and therefore requiring more management and higher fees but offering the potential for higher returns. That is precisely the type of choice that we want in a competitive marketplace for savings.
  If firms decide not to offer a CAT standard ISA, their marketing will have to show that the ISA does not meet the CAT standards.
  The other main criticism of CAT standards has been that they will be seen as a form of guarantee. As I said, CAT standards give no guarantee—because nobody can—about the performance of an investment. CAT standards themselves require providers to make the investment risk
  260
  clear in marketing information on the product, just as the Government's publicity will make it clear that a CAT standard is not a Government guarantee.
  CAT standards will address features of savings that we know worry the small saver or put off entirely the potential saver. They will help to remove the worry of getting ripped off, help savers get fair and decent treatment and give savers greater confidence.
  There is now less than six months to go before the launch of ISAs, and a great deal of work has been done by ISA managers to prepare products for launch in April. The Government still have their part to play. The Inland Revenue will shortly be tendering for the publicity campaign that will increase awareness of ISAs and ensure that they get off to a good start next April. As part of that awareness campaign, a leaflet will be produced later in the year to provide details of the ISA and how it can be used.
  The savings industry wanted early notice of the rules for ISAs, so that it could move ahead with its planning. The Inland Revenue's tax regulations give them that notice, and the work that is now being done by the industry is based on the detailed tax regulations that were laid before Parliament on 31 July 1998. The industry wants to be left to get on with its work. It wants to be able to develop its products, so that when April comes, ISAs will be widely available in the market. We can see the early signs of its work in the information that is already coming through our letter boxes and in the pre-ISA accounts being offered on the high street.
  What the industry and the consumer do not need is indecision. The Opposition's prayers do nothing constructive. If accepted, they would introduce unnecessary worry and concern and would result in the waste of a great deal of time and money already invested by savings firms. We should be thinking about our constituents—how we can help them consider their existing savings plans or how they might start to save.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I have been listening to the hon. Lady with great interest. One thing that unites all parts of the House is that we should encourage our constituents to save. Given what the hon. Lady has said about promoting ISAs, not in opposition to PEPs and TESSAs but as a complement to them, how much does she think her proposals will increase the amount that our constituents save in net terms next year?
  Ms Hewitt: As I said, half the people in this country have savings of less than £200 and some have no savings at all. One of the biggest barriers to saving for people who could afford to save a bit and who know that they ought to be saving is the danger that they will not be able to get their money back when they want it. The cash ISA, especially the CAT standard cash ISA, removes that and other barriers that my constituents have outlined to me. We are confident that new savers, as well as existing small savers, will take advantage of the new ISAs next April and in the months and years that follow.
  We now need to let the savings industry get on with the work that it has in hand. With the Government Departments involved and with, I hope, the support of the Opposition, the savings industry will then be able to make ISAs a success for all our constituents. We should reject the prayers, and I am sure that the House will support me in doing just that.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Tim Loughton: I am grateful for having caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must declare an interest, as set out in the Register of Members' Interests, in that I am guilty of professionally managing personal equity plans since their inception in 1987 and have owned some for many years.
  The independents savings account debacle is a textbook example—
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My memory was jogged by talk of Members' interests. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor, is a director of Gartmore Shared Equity Trust plc, which manages PEPs and from which the right hon. Gentleman receives £8,500 a year. Is it in order for him to fail to draw attention to that fact when he is a signatory to one of the motions that deals with PEPs?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is not a matter for the Chair. Any complaint of that nature should be made to Sir Gordon Downey.
  Mr. Loughton: Labour Members become very anxious when a Conservative Member who knows something about the subject being debated rises to speak. When we debate financial affairs, it is only a matter of nanoseconds before a Labour Back Bencher comes up with that well-worn phrase "pensions mis-selling", whatever the subject we are debating, because that is the sum total of Labour's knowledge of the financial industry in general.
  The episode started on 2 December last year with the publication of the ill-fated Green Paper by the Paymaster General, who I regret is not here to see through the fruits of his work, which has not yet ended. The regulations that we are now debating eventually crept out during the recess at the beginning of October after numerous delays and, whatever the Economic Secretary says, after numerous U-turns and double U-turns. The main document was entitled "Making Savings Easy", but it actually made saving rather more difficult and met with widespread outcry or outrage from the professional investment community. It was all in aid of a vastly inferior product to the highly successful PEPs and TESSAs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said, because of the Chancellor's need to produce a new-labelled product for savings with his own name on it.
  The whole debacle has not been helped by the last-minute regulations, directive and instructions that have sneaked out. There are now just 146 days to go until ISAs supposedly go live. It has been estimated that it will cost the financial community more than £100 million just to set up the computer systems. Inevitably, those costs will be passed on to the users and consumers of ISAs. A survey has found that probably at least one third of potential ISA fund managers will not be ready to go live with ISAs on 6 April next year and that is almost exclusively down to the dilly-dallying, delay and obfuscation of Ministers and Treasury officials.
  However the Economic Secretary may dress it up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ISAs will cost you, me and all our constituents more. The Treasury has estimated that ISAs will be between 30 and 40 per cent. more expensive to run
  262
  than PEPs and TESSAs. In August, the Inland Revenue estimated that the cost of setting up and running ISAs for the first year would be about £250 million—a sum that has increased because of the Government's delay and dilly-dallying. ISA fund managers will also have the added computer costs of dealing with the year 2000, the single pricing that will come in with open-ended investment companies—OlECs—and a whole raft of other new financial measures.
  As for the Economic Secretary saying that it has been absolutely clear what the charges would include, that only crept out about a week ago. Until the end of October, the national financial press was still raising questions about that matter. This evening provides the first record of a Minister making it clear—if, indeed, it is clear—what the charges will include, only 146 days before ISAs start.
  Standard Life, one of the largest mutual societies in Europe, has condemned ISAs as being generally seen as substandard replacements for PEPs and TESSAs. Whatever gloss the Economic Secretary puts on it, ISAs are inferior to PEPs and TESSAs because the amount that people will be able to invest in them after the first year will be £5,000 per annum. Under the PEPs and TESSAs regime, the annual amount was £10,800 per annum—more than double. It is an inferior product that will encourage less savings into the tax-advantageous environment. ISAs will also be inferior because the tax credit goes down to 10 per cent. For the average taxpayer, that means a saving on the income by being in ISAs of just £15 a year at most before charges. In reality, charges will rub out the whole tax saving that they may have gained.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the view of Standard Life is all the more pertinent since the Government recently invited the chief executive of Standard Life to be a deputy governor of the Bank of England?
  Mr. Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but it is yet another inconsistency in the way in which the Government work.
  When the Paymaster General deigned to come to the House after announcing the whole ISA scheme outside, he reminded us that simplicity, flexibility, accessibility and fairness were the hallmarks of that great new product, but as time went on certain of those terms disappeared.
  Let me dwell on the accessibility argument and the new providers, or rather their absence. I am sorry that the Economic Secretary declined the challenge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to name some of the new providers. As he succinctly put it, the supermarkets have given it a serious thumbs down. Tesco, Sainsbury's and Marks and Spencer are unlikely to be offering the products at the checkout, as was specifically encouraged in the preface to the Green Paper on 2 December.
  Some of the larger providers in the financial community have also given the plan the thumbs down. Pearl Assurance is concerned that the charges will be set so low that it will not be able to produce a CAT standard ISA. Standard Life has decided not to sell mortgages backed by ISAs, claiming that they offer no advantages over traditional endowment policies. It has also decided not to sell the life assurance element of the ISA. Its chief

  263
  executive said that the company did not expect that the tax treatment of ISAs would make it any more attractive to invest for mortgage repayment through them than through an endowment. It has decided to withdraw its PEP mortgage product from sale.
  That has implications for those who have regular PEP savings plans–1.5 million people choose to save in PEPs in that way—particularly those who use them to fund their mortgages. If new ISA providers do not appear and if their existing PEP mortgage provider decides not to provide ISAs, how will they save every month against their mortgages using a tax-advantageous scheme? It has been claimed that the drop-out rate will be as high as 20 per cent. for those whose firms do not roll over into ISA schemes. That is a damaging possibility for those who fund their mortgages in that way.
  At the press conference that launched ISAs, the Paymaster General said that marketing was key. We seemed to be promised that a duff product would yet again be dressed up in Labour spin doctors' best clothes and flogged to an unwary public. Yet the princely sum of £1.2 million has been set aside as the promotion budget for ISAs. That includes nothing for television or major media coverage and compares with the £25 million that was set aside to promote Hector the friendly tax man. It will need a lot more than hope and £1.2 million of flimsy marketing budgets to explain the complexities of the ISA scheme to savers, particularly the ubiquitous 6 million virgin savers, if I may call them that. Whatever the Economic Secretary may say and however she may try to wriggle out of the target of 6 million savers that was bashed at us time and again, the Prime Minister said on 3 December:
  "The announcement … is good news for middle Britain. There will be 6 million extra savers as a result—6 million who will be able to save but at present cannot."—[Official Report, 3 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 349.]
  That sounds to me like a target. I should like to know when, on the long road between 2 December last year and tonight, that ceased to be a target. It sounds like one of those early pledges that are not, in fact, early.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whereas last week we were treated to Peter Pan economics, this is a case of Tinkerbell targeting?
  Mr. Loughton: That is a soundbite worthy of Labour's best spin doctors, if I may compliment my hon. Friend.
  The 6 million virgin investors are the great mystery of our times. Where is the great queue of people clamouring outside the doors of the Treasury to hurl their money into the new ISA schemes? Who are these people? In the final list, the Economic Secretary may even be able to name them, because there will be very few. The mystery of the 6 million is a mystery greater than the Loch Ness monster, large cats in Norfolk and anything that could be thrown at us from "The X files".
  All the inferior considerations of the ISA scheme that I have listed might just imaginably be worth while if the Government could prove that it really would encourage a greater saving mentality among the supposed 6 million people. There is no evidence whatever—there has been no evidence since 3 December—that the scheme will encourage a single virgin investor to become a saver. I challenge the Government again: who are the 6 million people?
  264
  I was not comforted by the Economic Secretary's disclosure that Paula Diggle helped her in the research. It has been plain all along that, before the Treasury produced the Green Paper, it had done no research into the savings mentality and regime. It is now patently clear that, since then, it has still conducted no such proper research. The finance industry has been left to do its own research.
  A MORI poll, commissioned by the Midland bank and the Financial Mail on Sunday in the summer, found the following. Only 47 per cent. of the public are aware that PEPs and TESSAs are to be replaced by ISAs in April—quite a challenge for the £1.25 million promotion budget—but 51 per cent. of them are unlikely to take out an ISA. Only 3 per cent. of adults earning less than £11,500 per annum said that they were very likely to invest in an ISA, and 32 per cent. said that PEPs offered greater tax efficiency—against only 12 per cent. who said that ISAs did.
  A similar poll, carried out at the same time by the Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds, found that only 18 per cent. of PEP holders plan to invest a similar amount or more in ISAs when they are introduced next year. That is the research that the Treasury failed to do when it embarked on this lamentable scheme. If such research is correct, the start for ISAs next year and the subsequent few years will not be attractive.
  I shall touch on the many other complications in the ISA scheme. The Inland Revenue will have one hell of a job monitoring maxi and mini ISAs, all the different providers that one ISA investor can employ, and the scale of withdrawals and subsequent reinvestment. The news that there is a substantial logjam in many Inland Revenue offices, such that sacks of mail from as early as April lay unopened and tagged with the date, and are being opened in chronological order only now; the fact that an estimated 1 million people were last year sent incorrect tax bills during the first year of self-assessment; and the future challenge of corporate self-assessment later this year do not instil confidence in me that the Inland Revenue will be able to cope with the complexities of the scheme.
  I will not touch on CAT standards—my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton covered that issue satisfactorily. Suffice it to say that, right from the start, it was clear that the cat had used up its nine lives before it was born. The ultimate absurdity of CAT standards, as the Economic Secretary almost admitted, is the fact that savings and investment accounts backed by the Government at the moment fail signally to meet such standards—even though the Government envisage national savings playing an important role in the development of ISAs.
  I shall skim through several other minor details. Cheap capital protective funds have been excluded from ISAs, yet futures and options funds can reduce the risk for cautious new investors. Until the Financial Services Authority assumes full control of ISAs—if such a Bill proves to be part of the Queen's Speech—a dissatisfied ISA holder may have to deal with three separate regulators. The Government could have amended PEPs and TESSAs—an already successful savings culture. If it ain't bust, don't fix it.
  How many providers have registered an interest in providing ISAs from 6 April next year, and is the financial press right to say that, far from the target of 500 to

  265
  600 which appeared in the Economic Secretary's answer to one of my parliamentary questions, little more than a dozen have so far signalled their intent?
  The ISA programme represents a major lost opportunity to update and streamline the existing PEPs and TESSAs and to encourage savings. The system could perhaps have been linked with benefits system, to provide a kickstart incentive for the less well off to save.
  Instead, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, the initiative is harming the existing savings mentality and driving down the savings ratio. It is a sorry tale, and I back the calls by my Front-Bench colleague for a 12-month moratorium during which PEPs and TESSAs continue with their full allowances until the Government have proved that a substantial number of new investors will be attracted in by the ISA scheme. If they fail to prove that, as I am sure they will, we should stay with what we already have, because it works rather well.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) has said by observing how clear it is that the Government's decision to change the savings schemes was simply an attempt to rebrand a Conservative success story. Only someone who lived in wonderland would believe that changing the name from "PEP" to "ISA" would increase the number of people who want to subscribe to savings schemes.
  The almost 8 million people who had either a PEP or a TESSA before the Labour party came to power had saved a total of more than £60 billion between them—a sum greater than the pension savings in the entire German economy. Such an achievement in the 10 years since PEPs were launched by the Conservative Chancellor of the day is a measure of the success of the previous Government in targeting and promoting genuine long-term savings.
  The Minister complained that under the Conservative scheme there was a five-year lock-in. However, as everyone knows, if one invests in the share market there may be ups and downs in the short term, and only if one is prepared to invest in the longer term do the benefits show through.
  Ms Hewitt: Will the hon. Gentleman correct that statement? TESSAs, which had a lock-in period, were cash accounts.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: That is correct, but PEPs were not.
  Ms Hewitt: But as the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, was about to say, there was no lock-in period for PEPs.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: There was a penalty for withdrawing from PEPs in the early years, as the hon. Lady well knows. The point is that long-term incentives coupled with a tax incentive are part of the winning formula that the previous Government developed.
  266
  That follows on from the principle of pension savings. Those have a much longer lock-in period, and let us consider how successful they have been. Pension savings, with the tax incentives that the Conservative Government promoted, have given us in this country the best savings rate for our retirement of almost any country in the world. Our pension savings are greater, cumulatively, than those of the rest of the European Union put together.
  Long-term savings with long-term tax breaks and a long-term lock-in are a successful formula for savings in our country. Does the Economic Secretary believe that the level of national savings matters? There are left-wing economists who maintain that in the new global economy, the level of savings in one individual country is not especially significant.
  Perhaps the hon. Lady has that sophisticated point of view, and does not worry about the fact that the savings level in this country has declined so disastrously since her party came to power. Does the Economic Secretary care about that, and what, in practical terms, will she do? The evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) is that ISAs are not part of the solution to the fall in the savings rate that has occurred since Labour came to power.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the disaster of the Government's plans has been that, when they were announced, they included the particularly unattractive ceiling of £50,000, and it was only because the feelings of so many constituents of all Members of Parliament were that that was a completely disastrous policy that the Government were forced to change their mind? Does he agree that that completely undermined the City's faith in what the Government were originally setting out to do, which was to change PEPs and TESSAs?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I was about to make myself. The implication is that, without the stout opposition of Conservative Members of Parliament, the Government would have got away with a mis-selling that would have put any other mis-selling in the shade. The Government promised in their manifesto that they would not jeopardise PEPs and TESSAs; yet, until we piled on the pressure, that is exactly what they proposed doing.
  Many other hon. Members wish to speak, and I wish them to have full force. I therefore conclude by saying that a tax break was involved in PEPs and TESSAs, but it was available to those who were prepared to take responsibility for their own lives. In changing to the ISA, there is a suspicion—as pinpointed by The Economist—that, by putting a cap on new savings, far from trying to appeal to those who do not have the money to save anyway, the Government are attempting to attack the middle classes and their attempts to look after their own lives and to provide for their own futures.
  11.11 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: When the concept of ISAs was introduced, my colleagues and I were complimentary about the vision of a large expansion of savings, which was initially envisaged as being from £6 million to £12 million. In the early stages of the discussion, the Government showed some willingness to

  267
  listen to criticism, and that is why we had the retreat on the lifetime savings question. However, as the details of the proposal have developed, there has been a growing scepticism—even among those of us who are well disposed to the idea—about how it will work in practice.
  The first important issue is whether the proposal satisfies the problem of low-income savers. The Economic Secretary described the underlying reasons behind ISAs—that providing liquidity for low-income savers would encourage savings behaviour. All the research has shown that that is totally inadequate as an incentive for the low-income saver. Roughly 30 per cent. of households pay no tax and will derive no tax benefit from a scheme of this kind.
  A more serious problem is the large number of people on very low incomes—who are in debt in many cases—and the many people who are in the benefits system. The Government have understood, particularly in relation to work, the extent and difficulty of the poverty trap: as people work more, they lose benefit and run into tax threshold problems, and there is a disincentive to work. The Government have begun to address those difficulties, but there is a similar poverty trap in relation to savings, as represented by the capital limits. The Government have shown no move so far to address that problem.
  I recall addressing that point to the Paymaster General more than a year ago, and he promised us a comprehensive review of the savings trap for low-income savers. Nothing has been said about it. Judging by the development of Government policy—particularly the growth of means testing for the elderly—all the signs are that the poverty trap for low-income savers will become more, rather than less severe.
  I hope that the Economic Secretary will tell us what the Government plan to do in parallel with ISAs to deal with the problem of savings for those who are not tax beneficiaries. That also links to the question of CAT marking. I have spent a lot of time talking to people who are in the specialist business of trying to market savings instruments to low-income savers. Pearl—a company that has a niche in that area—has been mentioned. The friendly societies also do so. Over and again, those providers of means of saving to low-income families say that, to do the job, they have to do it on a house-to-house basis. They collect regular, small-scale contributions and offer advice with their products. That cannot be done within the charges limits that the CAT system operates. It is a major disincentive, which is why the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will find that friendly societies will not offer CAT-marked ISAs. Perhaps, in her reply, the hon. Lady can summarise the evidence that she has received from that group of providers in response to her consultation.
  CAT marking has been dealt with, but it is important to emphasise that many of the reservations about the principle have been expressed not merely by those who have a vested interest but by objective analysts. I do not know whether the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has seen the evidence supplied by the Consumers Association—a totally impartial body that caters particularly to middle and low-income savers. It makes the explicit point that, while it is a strong supporter of benchmarking and product rating, it is nervous about the idea of CAT-marking ISAs. It feels that awarding kite marks may lead to a false confidence on the part of consumers that ISAs are suitable for them at all times
  268
  and in all circumstances. The Government must reflect carefully, given the force of the objections from such bodies.
  Finally, some of our growing reservations about the way in which the ISA system is being implemented concern its budgetary implications. Some time ago, we asked a City accountant, together with the House of Commons Library, to estimate what the change in the tax system would mean for the budget over the next five years. We came up with a global figure of about £3 billion to £5 billion in savings to the Treasury as a result of the shift from TESSAs and PEPs to ISAs. I want some sign from the Government as to their arithmetic. If there will be substantial savings, clearly the Government could respond to many of the concerns expressed in the debate. They could rescind the ceiling, for example, and provide more generous bounties to people at the low-income end of the savings bracket. It is important that we have confirmation from the Treasury of its estimate of the impact of the reform on total tax take.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: First, I must declare an interest as the chairman of an investment management business that offers PEPs.
  When the Government announced their proposed changes, they made it clear that their key objective was to offer something that would be attractive to the less well off—to lower income groups. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury also argued that the new arrangements were not motivated by the desire to save the tax cost of the scheme and that they would be redistributive. However, the Green Paper made it abundantly clear that one of the key objectives was to stop the growing tax-loss cost of the old PEPs and TESSAS. Also, the new arrangements will be tax disadvantageous to those paying no income tax or the lowest rate after the loss of the 10 per cent. advance corporation tax refund in 2004.
  I cannot understand how the new scheme will be the slightest bit attractive to those in low-income groups. The Economic Secretary argued that many people will use the cash ISA and that the old cash TESSA was unattractive because of the lock-in. We all know that it would not have been a problem to abolish the lock-in on the TESSA. That is a false argument and, if it is the sole argument on which the Government base their case, it is a pretty poor case.
  The attitude of the industry has been illustrated in tonight's speeches. In the main, it is, "Let's get on with it. We've got to make it work. We've got to do the best." However, without party political prejudice, the industry in general regards ISAs as an inferior product to the old PEPs and TESSAs. The ISA has one advantage, which is the wider flexibility of equity investment. The rules on PEP equity investment—and for that matter on bond investment—had little logic.
  I want to highlight some mechanical problems. The principal stupidity is that two different systems will run in parallel, with all the costs and problems that that will involve. Even the advantage of flexibility will be undone by the need for parallel vehicles to meet the PEP rules and the ISA rules. Client reporting will differ for ISA clients and PEP clients. Reporting to the Inland Revenue will also change, and that will add extra administration costs. The mini and maxi schemes are quite

  269
  incomprehensible to most of the industry. How on earth the Government can believe that someone passing through a supermarket will understand them, I simply cannot imagine. As has been said, virtually all supermarkets have made it clear that they will not offer ISAs, although the Government's key message was that supermarkets would sell ISAs.
  I am greatly relieved that the Government have climbed down on their half-baked proposals to CAT-mark indexed schemes. That would have sent investors a most unwise message. As the pension trustees of the House of Commons pointed out to me recently, indexed investment is likely to perform less well in bad markets, although it may outperform in good markets. There are arguments both ways, but to favour one over the other would have been foolish.
  I broadly welcome CAT-marking principles, if they merely show that a product is reasonably and fairly priced, and properly run. I have written to the Economic Secretary with a question, but I have received no reply in a month. The proposals for cash ISAs seem most peculiar in that they give deliberate advantage to large, cartelised banks and building societies. America has been successful in developing money funds to compete with banks and to improve people's returns. The CAT marks will apply to money ISAs in relation to the rates of interest that they will pay, not the charges. That means that only a bank or a building society will be able to provide a CAT-marked cash ISA. The Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds has confirmed that money funds—no matter how cheap and efficient—cannot qualify for CAT marking. Will the Economic Secretary clarify that point? If it is correct, it seems wrong in principle. A major objective should be competition with the banks, which will drive down their charges and drive up their competitiveness.
  The change does not meet the Government's original targets. The Opposition want more and more people to own capital, not fewer and fewer. I should like to see a real fiscal incentive for those who have lower incomes. Perhaps some subsidisation would be appropriate if the Government mean what they said about increasing wide ownership of capital.
  11.22 pm
  Ms Hewitt: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to this interesting debate. Just as the president of the Confederation of British Industry yesterday dismissed the views of the shadow Chancellor on the public finances, so the savings industry does not share in the cynicism and nit picking that we have heard from the Opposition. The industry is getting on with making ISAs a success. Virgin Direct says that individual savings accounts combine the most attractive elements of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts, and that CAT-marked ISAs are likely to have wide appeal. Midland bank says that the new scheme has features that will attract many new savers, particularly those with smaller amounts to invest. Fidelity says that 80 per cent. of its PEP and TESSA holders are considering investing in ISAs.
  270
  Some 200 managers are already approved by the Inland Revenue, a point raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). Another 100 have applied for a help visit from the Revenue. From April, ISAs will be available by phone and mail, through the internet and by personal application.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) raised the specific point about the savings disincentive, something that we are considering in the context of the pensions review. That is not an issue for that half of the population with savings below £200 for the simple reason that a means-tested benefit results in a savings disincentive—a benefit reduction—only if savings are £3,000 or more. It is obviously a concern for people, particularly elderly people, with savings at that level, but it is not an issue for those who have little or no savings.
  With the help of consultation, we have achieved what we set out to do with ISAs and CAT standards, which is to overcome so many of the barriers that stand in the way of people who, at the moment, have little or no savings—the many not the few; the people who are of concern to Labour. They are the people who will particularly benefit from the new ISAs and CAT standard regime; they are the people whom the new regime is designed to assist.
  As there have been some unfair implications this evening, I end by paying tribute to civil servants at the Treasury and the Inland Revenue who have worked so hard with the industry to ensure that the scheme will be the success that we believe it will. I hope that, in future debates on the subject, Conservative Members will join me in welcoming the extension of safe savings products to low-income and below-average-income savers and potential savers in Britain.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Gibb: This has been a short but important debate on the regulations which dismantle the PEP and TESSA reliefs and replace them with the inadequate ISA regimes.
  Just to put the record straight, I do not receive any money from the Institute of Chartered Accountants; I pay it an annual membership fee.
  We have heard an enormous amount of complacent language from the Economic Secretary. She insists that ISAs will attract more savers, yet refuses to give a target date for achieving the 6 million new savers. She talks about consultation, but it is clear from her response that she has not listened to people's concerns about complexity, cost and the lack of tax relief, and she is not even listening to me now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), in a well-informed contribution to which the Economic Secretary would have done well to listen, pointed out that we now have an inferior savings scheme, introduced all in the name of producing a new scheme for the new Labour Government. He was right to point out that the 6 million target has somehow been dropped tonight on the road to 2 December.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), in a short but high-quality contribution, talked about the highly successful TESSA and PEP schemes, which have added £60 billion to savings in Britain. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who is not in his place now, as he was not at the beginning

  271
  of the debate—[Interruption.] I apologise; he is present. He pointed out that people initially well disposed to ISAs have now become disillusioned with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) rightly pointed out that a key motive in abolishing PEPs was to reduce the tax relief costs, which is what the Chief Secretary said in March.
  Two months after coming to power, the Government began their assault on savings. A £5 billion a year tax on people's pension funds was followed a few months later by an announcement of the end of PEPs and TESSAs, which inflicted a colossal cost in reducing people's confidence in the continuity of tax incentives to save. The initial £50,000 lifetime limit and the retrospective element to the change in the reliefs caused people to believe that the savings regimes were no longer to be relied upon for the long term.
  Long-term confidence is the key to a successful policy. The Government's savings policy has resulted in a huge drop in the savings ratio—from 10.5 per cent. when they came to office to 7.75 per cent. now. The Prime Minister claimed that 6 million new savers would result from ISAs, but the savings industry believes that ISAs are over-complex, expensive to administer and offer tax relief that barely covers the charges. ISAs are unattractive to non-taxpayers and to basic-rate taxpayers—the very people whom the Government claim to want to encourage. They are unattractive to supermarkets, insurance companies and the public.
  Many people now believe that we should keep PEPs and TESSAs. Their abolition was an act of wanton vandalism that has damaged savings. I urge the Government to withdraw the regulations or, at the very least, delay them for a further year. That would give them time to put right the regulations, and industry time to upgrade their IT systems. In the meantime, I urge the House to vote against these badly thought-through regulations.
  Question put:-
  The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 293.

  Division No. 374]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Day, Stephen

  Bercow, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Blunt, Crispin

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Flight, Howard

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Garnier, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Cash, William

  Gill, Christopher

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Green, Damian

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grieve, Dominic

  Collins, Tim

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Colvin, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  272

  Hammond, Philip

  Paice, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Paterson, Owen

  Hayes, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Heald, Oliver

  Randall, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spring, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Streeter, Gary

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Swayne, Desmond

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Syms, Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Leigh, Edward

  Tredinnick, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Trend, Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Wardle, Charles

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Luff, Peter

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maples, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Wilshire, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Woodward, Shaun

  Moss, Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Norman, Archie

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

  Page, Richard

  Sir David Madel.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ainger, Nick

  Casale, Roger

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caton, Martin

  Allan, Richard

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Allen, Graham

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Atkins, Charlotte

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Baker, Norman

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coleman, Iain

  Berry, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Cooper, Yvette

  Blackman, Liz

  Corbett, Robin

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boateng, Paul

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Borrow, David

  Cox, Tom

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Crausby, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cummings, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Darvill, Keith

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Caborn, Richard

  Davidson, Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dawson, Hilton

  Cann, Jamie

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  273

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dowd, Jim

  Keetch, Paul

  Drew, David

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Edwards, Huw

  Kidney, David

  Efford, Clive

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Flint, Caroline

  Laxton, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Linton, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lock, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAllion, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hain, Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hanson, David

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Healey, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hesford, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Maxton, John

  Hill, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate

  Mitchell, Austin

  Home Robertson, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mullin, Chris

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hurst, Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Plaskitt, James

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Radice, Giles

  274

  Rammell, Bill

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rapson, Syd

  Stunell, Andrew

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  (Dewsbury)

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Roy, Frank

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Touhig, Don

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Truswell, Paul

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Salter, Martin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Vaz, Keith

  Sawford, Phil

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watts, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Webb, Steve

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  White, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wilson, Brian

  Snape, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wise, Audrey

  Spellar, John

  Wood, Mike

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Woolas, Phil

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Wray, James

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    AGRICULTURE
    That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Local Government (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.
    That the draft Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 23rd July, be approved.—[Mr. Hanson.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    SOCIAL ACTION PROGRAMME (1998–2000)
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8238/98, a Commission Communication on its proposed Social Action Programme for 1998–2000; supports the Government's view that the Programme rightly places jobs at the heart of its framework for action; and also supports the Government's intention to give due consideration to specific Commission proposals as they come forward.—[Mr. Hanson.]
    Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Ordered.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
    That the Environmental Assessment (Forestry) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1731), dated 21st July 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd July, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
    CATTLE DATABASE
    That the Cattle Database Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1796), dated 20th July 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Hanson.]

  Paul Edwards
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I begin by welcoming the Minister to his new role. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the problems faced by my constituent, Margaret Edwards, and others, who, as lone carers, work hard to look after their disabled children at home. Paul Edwards is totally immobile, and suffers from severe cerebral palsy and epilepsy. He requires constant care. Margaret has devoted a large part of her adult life to caring for him, and has sought available assistance by presenting the compelling facts connected with Paul's needs, rather than merely complaining about the very difficult situation that she and Paul face daily.
  I think that we would all accept that the birth of a child lays a responsibility on the parents. Equally, it can be easily accepted that, if a child is severely disabled, the parent's responsibilities become much harder to meet. How much more must that be so in the case of a parent who has to care for a disabled child alone.
  Margaret Edwards's plight, sadly, is not unique; but it is true that many people in her position might feel, with some justice, that they could not avoid putting their child into some form of permanent institutional care. Margaret Edwards has resisted that option throughout the 19 years for which she has cared for her son, but circumstances have made her choice increasingly unsustainable. I have been doing what I can to assist Margaret and Paul since I entered the House, and have seen at first hand the tremendous efforts that Paul's mother has made to offer him something approaching a normal existence.
  At every stage, Paul's mother has made great efforts, on her own, to keep Paul at home and to give him proper care. I corresponded with Motability, and, although progress was made, Margaret Edwards sacrificed her existing car, which meant that she could no longer collect friends to see her and Paul, and took out a loan to purchase a vehicle capable of taking a wheelchair and occupant without transfer. She could only afford an older vehicle, and it has generated its own costs and problems. We worked together to seek timely assistance from the local social services department, and I pay tribute to the devoted staff there.
  By the time Paul was 16, he weighed the same as his mother—nine stone—and Margaret Edwards found it increasingly difficult to deal with the average number of 33 lifts that were required each day to cater for Paul's needs. Special adaptations have been made to Paul's home, but it has always taken time, and carers like Margaret find it increasingly difficult to wait—sometimes for years—for practical support of that kind.
  I am keen for the House to consider the plight of my constituent, not least because—as Margaret has acknowledged—she is not in a unique situation. We know that many families are held together by the largely unsung work of carers. The Carers National Association has advised me that there are an estimated 5.7 million carers throughout the United Kingdom—about one in eight people. The majority of those carers provide limited assistance, but some 1.7 million provide 20 hours of care or more a week.

  277
  To highlight the position of Margaret Edwards, it is worth recording that the number of carers who care single-handedly has increased over the past few years, and that more than a third of carers carry out their task without outside help. As I have said, there are a considerable number of lone carers, and they deserve our special attention.
  Paul is now 19, and has left school. Although his school years were also difficult for his mother—especially during the long holidays—the problems, particularly financial, have worsened considerably since Paul entered adulthood. It is likely that, if he were not severely disabled, he would be preparing to leave home and make his way in the world; his mother would be able to take up full-time employment again, if she wished, and broaden the scope of her life with new pastimes and a wider circle of friends. All that is denied to both Paul and his mother.
  Although Paul attended a day centre, its working hours are less than normal school hours. Margaret Edwards found herself in a grim "Catch 22" situation. Because of her caring role and the fact that Paul will never be able to support himself, she was unable to work enough hours to earn enough to be fully independent and get off income support. Indeed, when she had to have an operation and go into hospital, and was thereafter recuperating, after four weeks her benefits were stopped, and her income was reduced to £40 a week. She also discovered that she was not entitled to respite care for the ensuing two years.
  In the past, the Government have expressed their desire to review the social security system, with specific regard to provision for disabled people and their carers. Unfortunately, my correspondence with the Department of Social Security and others on Margaret Edwards's behalf leaves me concerned that the special problems experienced by lone carers may be overlooked. Indeed, a number of ministerial answers contain suggestions that go very little way towards appreciating, let alone addressing, the needs of lone carers.
  One suggestion was that Paul might benefit from the social fund towards one-off expenses that he might need to meet. Most expenses that are associated with Paul's care are certainly not one-off. Carpets must be replaced frequently, and special bedroom and bathroom equipment purchased, most of which will probably have a definite life span.
  One of Paul's particular needs was for an adjustable bed. His mother approached the social fund for support. I am glad to say that help was forthcoming, but Margaret was told that the fund did not normally provide finance for such equipment, and certainly not for items costing more than around £500; it is worth noting that specialist care equipment is very expensive, and physical adaptations will often be required to the carer's home to ensure that it is safely installed.
  However, what carers mainly want is not charitable handouts, although any help is appreciated. Rather, lone carers such as Paul's mother would prefer to have a benefit and tax system that supported them in their desire to seek employment, where possible, and to lead normal, or near to normal, lives, while at the same time maintaining responsibility for their dependent relative.
  Carers relieve the state and the rest of society of much cost and responsibility: the state is saved an estimated £34 billion a year as a result. A recent study by London
  278
  Economics found that small changes in the number of carers could have a profound economic effect. The same study found that, with increasing opportunity costs of caring, fewer people were likely to care, but we all have a responsibility to people such as Margaret Edwards, who give up their lives to care full time for disabled and sick relatives.
  Returning to the suggestion that applications to the social fund, for example, address anything other than limited short-term needs, I quote from a letter sent to me by Margaret Edwards:
  "As for applying to the Social Fund each time Paul or I need `extras' for the home, this is precisely the point carers are trying to make, and which the Government continue to fail to understand. We are NOT unemployed people, and do not want to spend the rest of our lives living off charity. We want to be given full recognition, with a recognised wage, consistent with the work we do, and the actual costs of our disabled relative's needs and cost of special equipment, as well as our quality of life (or rather lack of it!)"
  Lone carers such as Margaret face additional problems, which are faced by anyone dealing with a difficult domestic situation on their own. As I have described, she literally cannot afford to fall ill, or fail in her commitment to Paul. It will no doubt be said that schemes of respite care are available that should enable Paul to receive adequate care while his mother takes a break, but the reality, certainly in East Sussex, is that respite care centres are often called on to deal with admissions, perhaps in the mental health sector, which cause a shortage of space for people such as Paul, and may create an unsuitable environment for young disabled people.
  Respite care that might be available only once every few weeks is not sufficient to give Margaret Edwards the support she needs. In her case, the weekend placement had at least once to be cancelled without notice because of a problem involving another client at the respite care home.
  It appears that, although carers as a whole deserve increased support, the position of lone carers vis-a-vis couples does discriminate against the former. The earnings limit for single carers on income support and invalid care allowance should be the same as that for married or partner carers who are not in receipt of income support, but do receive invalid care allowance.
  I am frankly humbled by the fortitude and hard work that is shown by carers such as Margaret Edwards. We must remember that such carers relieve society of an enormous administrative and financial burden. Such carers do not seek rewards—merely the tools to do the job that they often willingly take on for themselves and their loved one.
  What should be done to help? The Department of Health has talked about a national strategy for carers as part of a broader assessment of the working relationship between health and social services. Such a strategy, if properly resourced, would enjoy wide support among carers and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Lone carers' particular difficulties should be considered at the outset of any such policy discussions. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that any public consultation arising in this sector would be as thorough and wide-ranging as possible.
  Such a strategy would add little to the lives of people like Margaret and Paul Edwards unless it sought to focus resources more closely towards areas of need, and

  279
  succeeded, for example, in cutting the average waiting time for special care equipment such as beds and commodes. Such a strategy should also address the need for greater co-ordination between the agencies and professionals with whom both carers and cared for have to deal. That could help further focus resources towards those most in need.
  The psychological costs of caring must be reduced by increasing the number of short-term breaks for carers, ensuring that less time is spent organising care, by having more seamless support systems and easier access to that support and improving benefits for carers. The whole question of financial support for carers should be examined. Put more appropriately, the current financial disincentive to be a carer, particularly a lone one such as Margaret Edwards, must be addressed. Margaret Edwards says:
  "I feel particular notice should be given to the differences between a lone carer and a family where there is a full-time wage earner as well as the main carer. Almost all of my problems could have been resolved far quicker. and with much less stress, had I not been so dependent upon the current social security system."
  My constituent wanted to help herself and care for her son. Let us help to make that hard task easier, and so acknowledge in an appropriate way the great sacrifices made by all carers.
  Sadly, any new steps taken to create a carers network or to focus more clearly on the inequitable position of lone carers will come too late for Margaret and Paul Edwards. In a letter dated Monday this week, Margaret tells me that, because of her own poor state of health, she has been forced to take the step that she has fought for so long to avoid—she has had to put Paul into a residential home. As she put it so poignantly:
  "I am being very cruel to him, in trying to keep him at home. I just do not have the money to give him a life outside these four walls. From when he comes home from the day centre, he becomes a prisoner in his own home."
  Because of the lack of suitable local facilities, Margaret will face an 86-mile round trip to see Paul, and is already worrying about the costs involved. Margaret's feelings of helplessness are summed up clearly when she says:
  "'Normal' children are able to visit their parents from time to time. For Paul and I this is not an option. They also have the knowledge that their children are capable of letting them know how they are. I will still have all the emotional trauma that will undoubtedly be there, not knowing if he is being cared for properly, and the knowledge that he is unable to inform me of his feelings. In short, I have to put my complete trust in his carers."
  All Margaret Edwards and other carers want is adequate recognition for the work they do and the necessary support to carry out their labour of love. Lone parents deserve our particular support, and I ask the Minister, on behalf of Margaret and Paul and many others, for that support.
  11.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on his success in securing time to debate this very important subject. I am particularly grateful for his kind words of welcome at the beginning of his thoughtful and constructive speech.
  The Government value the role that carers play. We recognise that they play an important part in the fabric of our society. One in eight adults gives informal
  280
  care and one in six homes has a carer. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, that means that there are nearly 6 million carers in the United Kingdom today
  Carers fulfil a vital role in helping relatives or friends and, without their support, many disabled or elderly people would lose the chance to stay in their own homes or with their own families. Caring is something that touches us all. Most of us will have had some experience, either in our own family, or through friends or colleagues, of illness and disability. We therefore know some of the difficult decisions families face and can appreciate the great responsibilities that carers like Margaret Edwards undertake over long periods of time.
  On a number of occasions, the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred specifically to the circumstances in which his constituents, Margaret and Paul Edwards, find themselves. It might be helpful if I make one or two remarks about the case to which he has drawn our attention.
  East Sussex social services department has agreed a substantial package of support services for Paul and his mother. As the hon. Gentleman said, the services include attendance five days a week at a day service centre, three nights a week of respite care, a Crossroads sitting service and domiciliary care provided in response to requests from Mrs. Edwards. A social worker has been allocated to the family, who I think has—I stand to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman—developed a very good working relationship with the Edwards family.
  Equipment has been provided and adaptations have been made to allow Paul to live at home. He has a wheelchair and a specially contoured bed, and ceiling tracks have been provided to lift him in and out of bed. An application by Mrs. Edwards to extend that system to the bathroom, to replace the hoist currently in use, is being considered by the social services department.
  The examples that I have given show that the East Sussex social services department has already provided a range of help to Paul and to Margaret, and 1 am sure that the department will continue to consider sympathetically any additional requests for help from them.
  Most people do not plan to be carers. Moreover, many people who provide care regard themselves not as carers but simply as people providing the love and comfort that comes naturally to them. It is a role that arises from mutual bonds of family, duty and affection, sometimes at significant personal cost to carers themselves.
  In recognising the contribution of carers, we should not ignore the fact that families and carers can sometimes feel over-burdened, unaided and unsupported in their task. Government and statutory agencies clearly have a responsibility to listen to carers and ensure that the right support is available for them at the right time. That is why, on 10 June 1998, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that he was asking the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) to lead a Government-wide review of measures to help carers as part of a national strategy for carers.
  The objective of the national strategy is to bring together a range of initiatives designed to address carers' concerns and to give them support. The strategy's terms of reference include drawing together existing work within government that impacts on carers; taking account

  281
  of the emerging findings of the royal commission on long-term care; and assessing whether any key needs have been overlooked.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne has raised the issue of social security benefits and of how the rules and regulations concerning those benefits impact on the lives of carers. I shall specifically address those issues in a moment. First, however, I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we wish to ensure that there is across Government an integrated approach to carers. The strategy is building on work that has already been done in the past 18 months to strengthen links between Departments on carers' issues and is also maintaining a meaningful dialogue with carers' organisations.
  I was concerned at parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech, when he seemed to imply that all the problems that carers are now experiencing date from 1 May 1997. They do not. The previous Government had 18 years to deal with some of carers' particularly pressing concerns, and conspicuously failed to do so. On 1 May 1997, the new Government began to start addressing those issues.
  The national strategy for carers is built around ensuring that carers' concerns are no longer ignored. Our approach is both inclusive and flexible. The Government are involving in our work on the issue carers' organisations, carers themselves, recipients of care, representatives of the statutory services, various Departments and people from industry and commerce.
  On 30 July, my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State chaired a meeting of Ministers from Departments with an interest in meeting carers' needs. That was the first ministerial meeting ever held specifically on carers' needs. Ministers decided that, within the strategy, work will be undertaken on four specific themes: respitex2014;to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred; employment issues; community networks; and meeting health needs.
  Working groups to examine each of the four themes have now been established and have all met at least once. The groups each include representatives from key stakeholder groups. Additionally, however—to capture the views of an even wider range of people—next week, there will be in London a full-day UK consultative conference at which we shall discuss how the needs of carers might be better met. Those invited include Ministers and other representatives from both this House and the other place; people from both national and local carers' organisations; representatives of local government; industry and commerce; representatives of religious and ethnic minority groups; and—most important of all—individual carers who have written to tell us about the issues that concern them most.
  I deal now with social security benefits and the national carers strategy. The strategy will be taking a critical look at all aspects of invalid care allowance and the other benefits that support carers in their valuable role. We will want to see what is currently available, how well the benefits meet the needs of carers and what changes may be appropriate for the future. It is too early to say what the results of that examination will be, but we expect to include any proposals in the strategy's consultation document. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that consultation process will be wide and meaningful.
  282
  Nevertheless, social security benefits already make a substantial contribution, whether directly or indirectly, towards informal care. As well as specific provision for carers in their own right through invalid care allowance—which will, incidentally, exceed £830 million in 1998–99, topped up, for those less well off, with income-related benefits—in excess of £24 billion goes towards the income replacement and extra costs needs of long-term sick and disabled people.
  Despite that level of spending, there are undoubtedly unmet needs. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security recently announced the latest stages of the process of reforming the welfare state. The Government are determined to help disabled people, and, by extension, those who care for them, especially where the carer and the cared for live in the same home, as is the case with the Edwards family.
  We want to help disabled people get back into work. To achieve that, we have announced our intention to modernise incapacity benefit, so that it provides information on what people can do, not what they cannot do, and to help people plan their return to work.
  We also intend to introduce a single work-focused gateway. It will help sick and disabled people and their carers consider opportunities for work through personal advisers and a common entry point for all benefits. That will help to improve the service that we give our clients and help them avoid benefit dependency. At the moment, too many claimants experience duplication and confusion. We need to tailor our services to provide a more personalised and professional service and seek to help people become more independent. Obviously, if a carer's duties are particularly onerous, an immediate focus on work would be inappropriate, but we do not intend that people will lose access to their personal adviser.
  Also, we are going to provide security for those disabled people who cannot work. We will focus that help on those in the greatest need by introducing the disability income guarantee—a new increase in income support for those severely disabled adults and children with the greatest needs. We expect that some 145,000 adults and 25,000 children will benefit from the disability income guarantee from April 2001. We shall also be reforming the severe disablement allowance so that it provides greater help to those who become disabled early in life, and we shall be extending to children aged three and four the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance.
  In conclusion, the strategy will be ready for consultation early in 1999. We already know from the research available to us and from the many letters that people send us that carers' main needs are the means to have a break, recognition of the importance of their role, reliable and satisfactory services, relief from social isolation, and information.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising some very important issues, both for carers and for those whom they care, and for the constructive tone of many of his remarks. I assure him that his views will be fed into the strategy process. If we, as a Government, can help to meet the needs of carers, then we shall have succeeded in making a very important contribution to improving the quality of life of many of our citizens.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement on the use of bronze in the New Parliamentary Building. [58782]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  The initial brief for the building was set out in the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), Session 1990–91 (HC551). The Committee recommended a building of"durable, high-quality materials which are in keeping with the area and will weather well".

  In his subsequent report to the House, the architect, Sir Michael Hopkins, advised that the materials which had been selected were consistent with the requirements of a high-quality building with a minimum life span of 120 years. The major components of the building, including the main structural elements, would be designed to last for the life of the building.

  Aluminium bronze was selected for the roof for both its durability and good structural properties. The use of bronze has been continued down the elevations as a facing for the duct panels and the frames to the windows.

  The first of the fenestration and duct units will be installed before Christmas with work on the roof starting early in the New Year. Hon. Members will have then the opportunity to see the contribution the use of bronze has made to the high quality of the design of the building as well as to achieving the functional requirements.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Council if she has completed an audit of the state of readiness for millennium compliance in the public sector. [59268]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) first reported to the House on the progress that was being made by central government departments and agencies in achieving millennium compliance on 27 November 1997,Official Report, columns 1104–05. Arrangements were then put in place to monitor progress on a quarterly basis. Three subsequent statements on progress across central government have since been made. The results of the last review, which I published on 9 September, showed that good progress is being made by departments and agencies in tackling the millennium bug. Work on correcting priority, business-critical, systems is particularly well advanced.
  110
  The Government also reported on progress across the wider public sector in their statement in the House on 8 June 1998, Official Report, columns 716–18. More detailed information on key parts of the wider public sector was then made available in the September statement.

  It is intended to issue the next statement on progress in tackling the bug shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the names of those people she has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed, and whether they receive remuneration. [56762]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have placed in the Library a list of those individuals who have been appointed to public bodies in Northern Ireland in the period 6 December 1997 to 23 October 1998, with details of their position and whether they receive remuneration. Details for the period 1 May to 5 December 1997 were given in my answer of 15 December 1997,Official Report, column 40.

  Assaults (Direct Action Against Drugs)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many serious violent assaults in Northern Ireland since 11 April(a) have been admitted by and (b) are believed to have involved Direct Action Against Drugs. [58205]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Lone Parent Benefit
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for(a) lone parent benefit and (b) child benefit were made from (i) 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 and (ii) 1 April 1998 to 30 September 1998; of these how many have been approved; how many were refused; and how many await determination. [58666]

  Mr. McFall
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Thompson, and I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.

  Letter from Chris Thompson to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 10 November 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of applications for lone parent benefit and Child Benefit.
  The number of claims for Child Benefit for the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 was 32,817 and for the period I April 1998 to 30 September 1998 was 15,744.
  During the period I April 1997 to 30 September 1998 46,530 claims were approved and 366 claims were refused. At 30 September 1998 there were 1,665 awaiting determination.
  There is no separate benefit for lone parents only a higher rate of Child Benefit. It is therefore not possible to give separate figures for lone parents.
  111
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for renewal books were made in respect of(a) child benefit and (b) lone parent benefits from (i) 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 and (ii) 1 April 1998 to 30 September 1998; how long it took on average to process such applications; and how many applications are still outstanding. [58665]

  Mr. McFall
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Thompson, and I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.

  Letter from Chris Thompson to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 10 November 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of applications for renewal order books for Child Benefit and lone parent benefit.
  All renewal order books for Child Benefit are automatically issued to the customer so there is no need for an application to be made. Order books are normally issued to the post office 4 weeks before a customer's current order book is due to expire. Accordingly there is no information regarding the length of time it takes to process a renewal or how many renewals are outstanding.
  The number of Child Benefit renewal order books issued for the period I April 1997 to 31 March 1998 was 387,636 and for the period 1 April 1998 to 30 September 1998 was 232,051.
  There is no separate benefit for lone parents only a higher rate of Child Benefit. It is therefore not possible to give separate figures for lone parents.
  You will know that Child Benefit Office has experienced some problems following the introduction of a new computer system. This has undoubtedly had some impact on the issue of renewal order books but no separate figures have been kept. I am pleased to say we are over the worst of our difficulty.

  Paramilitary Attacks
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each week in October the number of(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland indicating how many were in each category committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [59231]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of paramilitary style attacks for each week in October is shown in the table:

  Paramilitary assaults

  Paramilitary shootings

  Period

  Attributed to Loyalists

  Attributed to Republicans

  Attributed to Loyalists

  Attributed to Republicans

  1-4 October

  3

  0

  0

  0

  5-11 October

  2

  2

  0

  0

  12-18 October

  2

  0

  0

  0

  19-25 October

  1

  0

  0

  0

  26-31 October

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Totals

  8

  4

  0

  1

  Note

  These figures are subject to minor amendment in the light of further information becoming available. The figures refer to casualties as distinct from incidents.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 7 November the number of(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland; and if she will indicate how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalists and (ii) Republicans. [59244]
  112
  Mr. Ingram
  The number of paramilitary style attacks during the period 1–7 November 1998 are shown in the table:

  Paramilitary assaults

  Paramilitary shootings

  Attributed to Loyalists

  1

  2

  Attributed to Republicans

  1

  1

  Note

  These figures are subject to minor amendment in the light of further information becoming available. The figures refer to casualties as distinct from incidents.

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will introduce a charter for persons with autism in line with the charter adopted at the fourth Autism European Congress in May 1992; and if she will make a statement. [57627]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Office of Public Service on 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 558–59.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership Scheme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many beneficiaries of the Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership Scheme there were(a) in total and (b) newly approved in the last full year for which data are available for (i) the UK, (ii) London and (iii) the London Borough of Richmond. [58589]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department is responsible for housing matters in England and the following figures therefore refer to England rather than the UK as a whole.

  (a) between its start in 1991–92 and 1997–98, the Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership Scheme has assisted a total of 23,306 households in England; of which 5,659 were in London and 72 in the London Borough of Richmond.

  (b) in 1997–98, a total of 2,238 households were assisted in England; of which 619 were in London and 10 in the London Borough of Richmond.

  Heathrow Airport
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what risk assessment has been made of the simultaneous use of the Kew and St. Margaret's western approaches at Heathrow. [58501]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The KEW and St. Margaret's western approaches are used simultaneously only rarely when the scheduled demand of aircraft waiting to land at Heathrow exceeds the capacity of the designated landing runway. This procedure conforms with the International
  113
  Civil Aviation Organisation's standard operating procedures and requires the maintenance of standard separation criteria between landing traffic. It does not, therefore, require special risk assessment.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that no area is disproportionately affected by overflying aircraft landing at Heathrow. [58496]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Landing aircraft need to make their final approach aligned with the runway, which limits the scope for varying their final approach track. The Aircraft Noise Monitoring Advisory Committee (ANMAC), which advises the DETR on aircraft noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, is currently investigating the feasibility of setting noise limits for arriving aircraft and other possible means of ameliorating arrivals noise. ANMAC has also established a working group which is looking at the causes of variability in the noise levels of landing aircraft.

  In the second stage consultation paper on night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, to be issued shortly, we will be inviting views on various options for changes to the preferential use of Heathrow's runways at night.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment the Government have made of the safety impact of recent steps to reduce horizontal distances between planes on landing at Heathrow. [58494]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Safety concerns are paramount to both the Government and to our aviation safety advisers, the Safety Regulation Group (SRG) of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). SRG approved stringent procedures for using reduced horizontal spacing for arriving aircraft at Heathrow in January 1998 after exhaustive trials had confirmed that safety was in no way compromised. Reduced separation can be implemented only in daylight hours; for certain types of aircraft; when there is an arrivals backlog; and is subject to prevailing weather conditions. SRG will continue to monitor the use of these procedures to ensure that the safe operation of the airport is maintained.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will establish an independent monitoring body to measure aircraft noise at Heathrow. [58497]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no plans to do so. Aircraft noise is already measured satisfactorily by Heathrow Airport Limited to check compliance with the take-off noise limits set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to detect infringements. The integrated aircraft noise and track-keeping (NTK) system installed by BAA plc. in 1993 is used for this purpose. Data from the system are also used by the Department of Operational Research and Analysis of the CAA/NATS in producing the annual historical aircraft noise exposure contours published by the DETR, and for study purposes.

  Aircraft noise around Heathrow is monitored by the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC) and has been the subject of technical studies by DORA on behalf of the Aircraft Noise Monitoring Advisory
  114
  Committee (ANMAC), which advises my Department. Both include representatives of local government, local interest groups and the aviation industry.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what statutory provisions traffic commissioners allow small public service vehicle operators to run unregistered bus services. [58724]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The bus services which have to be registered with the traffic commissioner are 'local services', as defined in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985. Broadly speaking, local services are those using public service vehicles for the carriage of passengers at separate fares, with stopping places less than fifteen miles apart, and which are not trips organised privately by persons acting independently of vehicle operators etc. (as set out in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981), or services operated under a permit under section 19 of the Act. The requirement to register services is imposed by section 6 of the 1985 Act, which applies irrespective of the size of the public service vehicle concerned.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will issue guidance to regional development agencies on their sustainable development role and responsibilities in respect to rural areas; [58729]

  (2) if regional development agencies will be given guidance on their sustainable development obligations and responsibilities for rural areas before they prepare their regional strategies. [58659]

  Mr. Meale
  Yes. We published draft guidance to RDAs on their regional strategies on 20 October, and have invited comments by the end of November. Work is in progress on supplementary guidance to RDAs on how they should contribute to sustainable development and on rural policy, on which we will consult interested parties in due course. The aim is to finalise all these documents early in the New Year. RDAs will be fully operational from April 1999, and we envisage that they will produce their regional strategies by October 1999.

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 454–45, if he will list the companies which submitted bids for disposal of (a) computers, (b) CD-Roms, (c) office equipment and (d) boardroom furniture, indicating which bids were accepted for each of the above categories of equipment after the demise of Teesside Development Corporation. [58675]

  Mr. Meale
  I understand that a large number of firms were approached in connection with the disposal of TDC's furniture and equipment. Three expressed interest and two definite bids were subsequently received, the higher of which was accepted. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, the names of these firms cannot be divulged.
  115
  I further understand that, in subsequent negotiations, it was agreed that the bulk of TDC's computers would also be sold to this firm. The remainder of the computers and some other furniture were made available to the remaining staff of the Corporation for sums which exceeded the relevant "benchmark" figures submitted by an office equipment company.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 454, if he will list those individuals who have kept a record of information which was previously stored on (a) CD-Roms or disks and (b) on paper after the demise of Teesside Development Corporation. [58779]

  Mr. Meale
  I understand that, upon its dissolution at the end of June 1998, the TDC bequeathed some 600 boxes of files to the Commission for the New Towns, as the residuary body. The CNT is currently working on cataloguing the information in these boxes before putting them away for long-term storage.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by local authority the level of charges set for registration of houses in multiple occupation. [58583]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities are required to charge a reasonable fee which does not exceed the maximum specified by the Secretary of State. This maximum is £80 per property under a notification registration scheme, and £60 per habitable room under a registration scheme with control provisions. Information on the levels set by authorities who have introduced schemes is not held centrally.

  Integrated Transport Policy
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on how his integrated transport policy will apply to rural areas. [58478]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The measures in the Government's White Paper will produce a transport system which increases choice for all—including those who live in rural areas. There are specific measures targeted at rural areas; the White Paper announced the creation of a new Rural Transport Partnership fund to help get extra resources into rural transport where it counts. In addition, the Chancellor announced on 17 March 1998,Official Report, column 1109, an additional £50 million a year to improve the public transport alternative in rural areas.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what acreage of land in England is registered as(a) areas of outstanding natural beauty and (b) sites of special scientific interest. [58814]

  Mr. Meale
  The total area of land in England within designated areas of outstanding natural beauty is 5,039,360 acres; sites of special scientific interest extend 116
  to 2,440,318 acres. About one third of the area of sites of special scientific interest is within areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  Flood Damage (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he will make available to Shrewsbury to deal with recent flood damage. [59153]

  Ms Armstrong
  Local authorities affected by an emergency or disaster, such as severe flooding, can apply to my Department for special financial assistance under the Section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (the 'Bellwin scheme'). The scheme is intended to help local authorities deal with the immediate aftermath of such an event in their area or among their inhabitants. Grant is discretionary and is normally paid on qualifying expenditure at 85 per cent. above a threshold. The threshold is related to an authority's Standard Spending Assessment.

  Supermarket Developments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what meetings he has held in the last six months with representatives from supermarkets. [58883]

  Mr. Prescott
  In the last six months, I have met representatives of many organisations, including supermarkets, who have interests in the subject areas for which I am responsible and the many consultation documents my Department has issued.

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to meet the management of Connex South Central to discuss its performance and services. [59228]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers will be meeting representatives from all of the train operating companies and Railtrack on November 26, to discuss future railways policy and in particular ways of improving poor performance generally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 574, concerning rolling stock replacement, when he expects the Franchise Director to conclude his exploration of options with Connex South Central. [59227]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that the position reached in the Franchising Director's exploratory discussions with Connex South Central is that the Company is now considering how it wishes to proceed. The Franchising Director will examine and respond to any further approach from the Company. There are no time limits on this process of dialogue.

  Buses and Coaches (Speedometers)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the public
  117
  service vehicle regulations, how often the speedometers of (a) fare stage buses and (b) coaches must be recalibrated; and if he will make a statement. [58755]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There is no legal requirement for the speedometers in either fare stage buses or coaches to be recalibrated. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 require that speedometers must be maintained in a good working order. If the vehicle is fitted with a speedometer in accordance with either EC Directive 75/443EEC or UN ECE Regulation 39, then the accuracy requirements are that the speed indicated by the speedometer must never be less than the true speed at which the vehicle is travelling.

  BEST Trustees
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if negotiations between the Government's lawyers and the BEST trustees have begun; what outstanding issues remain; and when he expects a final settlement to be reached. [59157]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Discussions with the lawyers for the National Bus Company pension trustees have begun. They were started immediately after the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister on 30 September of the intention to achieve a just out-of-court settlement of the trustees' claim for return of the pension surplus paid over following NBC's privatisation.

  High priority is being given to achieving as soon as possible a conclusion to these discussions which is satisfactory for all concerned.

  Motor Coaches (Vehicle Condition Check-ups)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the number of motor coaches stopped by the police forces during the month of September for a vehicle condition check-up, how many(a) were found to have faults and (b) were refused permission to complete their journey, pending repairs to their vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [58298]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Figures for the numbers of motor coaches stopped by police officers during September are not available centrally, but I can report the coach checks recorded by the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) in that period. Police officers exercise their power to stop moving traffic to enable VI to examine vehicles during multi-agency checks, and the VI also examines coaches whilst they are parked to minimise traffic disruption. In the latter cases, police officers would not be involved.

  Checks on coaches by Vehicle Inspectorate examiners during September 1998

  Number

  Full roadside checks by VI examiners

  1,328

  Prohibition notices issued

  164 (of which 76 had immediate effect, preventing coaches from continuing their journeys)

  118

  Checks on coaches by Vehicle Inspectorate examiners during September 1998

  Number

  Roadside emissions checks by VI examiners

  659

  Prohibition notices issued

  19 (of which one had immediate effect)

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firefighters
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to legalise the payment of compensation by fire authorities to firefighters who are permanently incapacitated or to dependants of firefighters killed on duty. [58590]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades to give statutory authority for compensation payments, originally set out in the Council's Scheme of Conditions of Service for members of fire brigades. I am considering how this can be done.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the imposition of an administration fee in addition to the fine imposed upon drivers for exceeding the speed limit in cases detected by speed cameras. [58688]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office has received representations from the Association of Chief Police Officers' Traffic Committee that an administrative charge should be added to fixed penalties for speeding offences detected by cameras. In addition, we have received a large volume of correspondence about increasing the funds for speed cameras by hypothecating the fine income from them.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to introduce an administration fee payable by drivers who have been detected speeding by speed cameras in addition to any other penalty they may face. [58689]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are currently reviewing the funding arrangements for speed cameras to see what more might be done. The suggestion that an administrative charge be introduced is one of a number of options which are being considered.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the future licensing of the use of animals in skin corrosivity and phototoxicity tests, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [58667]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On receipt of the statement on the scientific validation of the 3T3 NRU PT test from the European Commission in November 1997, the Chief Inspector advised that in vivo tests of phototoxicity will no longer be authorised in research applications in the
  119
  United Kingdom and will not be permissible in safety testing unless the regulatory requirement can be demonstrated. This advice was updated when validation of the alternative test was extended to UV filter chemicals in May 1998.

  Similarly, the TER and EPISKIN in vitro skin corrosivity tests were substituted as soon as the statement of scientific validation was received in April 1998. In vivo skin corrosivity tests are now not authorised in relevant research work and will be permitted in regulatory safety testing only while regulators demand in vivo data. This advice was conveyed to Certificate holders in a newsletter on 29 June 1998.

  The Home Office policy in actively taking up validated alternative tests was discussed when my noble Friend the Minister of State visited the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods in May 1998.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the figures in Home Office Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain, Table 2, column 2, include animals imported from sources outside the EU to United Kingdom suppliers and then sold to designated establishments. [58668]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Animals used in scientific procedures which are listed in Schedule 2 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and must therefore be obtained from designated supplying establishments in the UK, are accounted for in column 2 of table 2. This is the case, even if the animals were obtained by those supplying establishments from other countries, either inside or outside the European Union.

  "Election Expenses"
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates following the(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987 and (d) 1992 General Elections the Home Office published "Election Expenses"; and when he expects the volume for the 1997 General Election to be published. [58539]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office, Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office published the Election Expenses volume following the last four Parliamentary general elections as follows:

  1979: 11 February 1980

  1983: 12 December 1983

  1987: 20 April 1988

  1992: 15 April 1993.

  It is hoped to be able to publish the volume relating to the 1997 general election before the end of the year.

  Video Evidence
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government intend to implement the outstanding recommendations of the Pigot report. [58670]

  Mr. Boateng
  The majority of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Video Evidence, chaired by Judge Pigot, were implemented in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Those which have not been implemented were considered by interdepartmental Working Group on Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses, the establishment of 120
  which was announced on 13 June 1997 by my right hon. Friend. The Working Group's report "Speaking up for Justice" was published on 10 June this year by my right hon. Friend for the purpose of consultation, and included recommendations to implement the outstanding recommendations of the Pigot Report. The consultation exercise has now been completed and the Government are urgently considering the responses. We are determined to improve the treatment of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, including children in the criminal justice system.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 385, concerning children in prison, how many children aged 15 years or under (a) are in young offenders' centres and (b) in adult prisons. [59251]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Provisional information shows that of the 203 persons aged 15 years in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 September 1998, 162 were held in accommodation dedicated to young offenders and 41 were held in other accommodation containing adults. Young persons held in adult prisons are normally accommodated separately from adults.

  Former Secretary of State for Wales
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information was passed by Home Office(a) Ministers and (b) officials to the Prime Minister's Office prior to 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 27 October regarding the actions of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies); and if he will make a statement. [59278]

  Mr. Straw
  When the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Mr. John Stevens, told me in a telephone call shortly after 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 27 October, that Mr. Davies had been involved in an incident, I passed that on in a telephone conversation to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Mr. Jonathan Powell. By coincidence, Mr. Stevens then came to the Home Office on other business and looked in on me. During that meeting, Mr. Stevens also spoke on the telephone to Mr. Powell. 1 cannot properly disclose the contents of the conversations because of the risk of prejudicing any criminal proceedings. At that stage, the police had not taken a formal statement from Mr. Davies and we were talking only about the initial information which was available and lines of inquiry which were being followed by the police.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what briefing was received by(a) him and (b) Home Office (i) Ministers and (ii) officials from the Metropolitan Police before 11.00 am on Tuesday, 27 October, regarding the actions of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies); and if he will make a statement. [59279]

  Mr. Straw
  The first information provided to Ministers or officials at the Home Office was given by the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Mr. John Stevens, when he spoke to me on the telephone shortly after 10.00 am on Tuesday, 27 October. By coincidence, Mr. Stevens then came to the Home Office on other
  121
  business and he looked in on me. The Permanent Secretary, Mr. David Omand, attended that meeting, which took place before 11.00 am.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Sheldon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average costs of recruitment of policemen(a) in the Metropolitan area and (b) in the rest of England. [58838]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner tells me that the current average cost of recruiting a police officer for the Metropolitan Police Service is estimated at £780.

  Information about the cost of police recruitment for the rest of England is not collected centrally and could be obtained from each police force only at disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 6 October to the Under-Secretary of State regarding the right of abode of a constituent. [59063]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 9 November.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the role of the TA in contingency planning scenarios for the millennium bug; [59161]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on emergency preparedness for the millennium bug (a) in the UK, (b) in Scotland and (c) north of Inverness of planned reductions in the Territorial Army. [59159]

  (3) what representations he has received from the Secretary of State for Scotland concerning the role of the Territorial Army in responding to civil emergencies resulting from the impact of the millennium bug on electricity supply and telecommunications; and if he will make a statement; [59158]

  (4) if his contingency planning scenarios for the millennium bug include a role for the TA infantry and TA engineers. [59160]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Procedures are already in place for the provision of military aid to the civil authority and these arrangements are under regular review in the run up to the Millennium date change. The deployment of the Territorial Army in response to requests for aid is an operational matter for consideration within the Ministry of Defence.

  Adoption
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a national register of couples wishing to adopt. [58248]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.
  122
  We have no plans to introduce a national register of couples wishing to adopt. However, the recent Government initiative 'Quality Protects', and publication in August of the Local Authority Circular 'Adoption—Achieving the Right Balance' set out the Government's commitment to improving services for children, including adoption. Local authorities must be pro-active in avoiding undue delay in placing children for adoption and in recruiting prospective adopters able to meet the needs of children needing new and permanent families. We will monitor closely progress by local authorities on the placement of children for adoption.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many local authorities with responsibility for provision of leisure facilities have a strategic sports facilities plan; and if he will make a statement. [57892]

  Mr. Banks
  The English Sports Council (ESC) advises me that some 170 local authorities have such strategies currently in place, with around a further 70 in draft form.

  Government and the English Sports Council (ESC) see such strategies as an important element of delivering sport at the local level. They should set the context not only for the provision of new facilities, but also for sports development and the protection of playing fields. To help assist local authorities assess their facility needs in preparing their strategies, the ESC has developed a Facilities Planning Model, and this service will be available in the Spring.

  We are seeking to raise the importance of these strategies through a number of channels. Planning Policy Guidance for Sport and Recreation (PPG17) advises planning authorities which sport and recreation matters should be included within Development plans. Planning authorities are advised to consider sport and recreation strategies when they prepare those plans. This PPG is currently being updated with a revised draft for consultation around the turn of the year. In addition, as well as tying this work with the production of its Lottery Strategy, the ESC will be producing revised guidance on preparing local sport and recreation strategies early in the New Year.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will ensure that the proceeds from auctions of analogue spectrum are used to assist all consumers and communities in the United Kingdom to receive the same quality of digital television service; [58502]

  (2) when the switch-off date will be for analogue transmissions; [58503]

  (3) if he will provide financial support to households that currently receive analogue terrestrial television, but which cannot receive digital terrestrial television to enable them to receive the digital television service via (a) digital satellite television and (b) otherwise. [58684]
  123
  Janet Anderson
  We have not set a date for the switch-off of analogue terrestrial transmissions or yet taken a view on whether any spectrum so released should be auctioned and whether any direct Government measures should be taken to assist the migration from analogue to digital reception. These issues and others were raised in our consultation paper "Television: the Digital Future". We are currently considering the responses to that consultation exercise and an announcement on next steps will be made in due course.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate he has made of the number of households which will need to purchase new antennae in order to receive digital terrestrial television; [58720]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of households in the United Kingdom which will not be directly served by digital terrestrial television; [58733]

  (3) what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that the digital terrestrial television network provides the same level of coverage as the existing analogue network; [58725]

  (4) how many residents in the Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber constituency will not be directly served by digital terrestrial television; [58722]

  (5) which regions will experience difficulties in being directly served by digital terrestrial television. [58723]

  Janet Anderson
  The launch phase of digital terrestrial television has been jointly planned by the BBC and Independent Television Commission so that the 81 transmitters used will reach around 90% of the UK population by the end of 1999 though the coverage of all six multiplexes will vary and in some cases be less. Extending digital services beyond the reach of the first 81 digital terrestrial transmitters was one of the issues raised in our consultation paper "Television: the Digital Future" the responses to which are currently being considered.

  The Independent Television Commission published estimates of digital terrestrial television coverage by existing aerials in their Invitation to Apply for Multiplex Service Licences. For the first multiplex carrying the BBC's services, the ITC estimated that 81-87% of the UK population should be able to receive the service with their existing aerials.

  I understand that digital terrestrial transmissions from the Rosemarkie transmitter are expected to cover the Inverness region. The BBC and ITC have jointly produced a CD-Rom containing coverage predictions for each multiplex for each transmitter site. Copies of the CD-Rom have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many civil servants are currently employed at his Department(a) in total and (b) in each policy area covered by his Department. [58859]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]There are currently a total of 362 staff within DCMS. The number of staff in each policy area (not including Central Services or senior management) is as set out.124

  Policy area

  Number of staff

  Arts

  18

  Buildings, Monuments and Sites

  54

  Broadcasting Policy

  24

  Creative Industries Unit

  4

  Media

  14

  Libraries

  14

  Millennium Unit

  12

  Museums and Galleries

  25

  National Lotteries

  12

  Regions

  6

  Sport and Recreation

  23

  Tourism

  20

  "Modernising Local Government"
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions have been held between his officials and the Local Government Association about the implications for(a) the performing arts, (b) the visual arts, (c) museums and galleries and (d) libraries of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' White Paper "Modernising Local Government". [58861]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]Discussions with the Local Government Association about the development of cultural strategies have included discussions on the implications of the White Paper.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions regarding the White Paper "Modernising Local Government". [58964]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]The subject has been discussed in correspondence and at the Central Local Partnership meeting I attended in July. Officials of both Departments are discussing how best to take forward the White Paper proposals in areas where I have an interest.

  Internet Publishing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [58768]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]My Department encourages greater openness of the public bodies it sponsors, wherever practical and appropriate. My Department supports the proposals in "Quangos: Opening The Doors" which recommends that public bodies be encouraged to follow best practice in producing and distributing information on their role and achievement on the Internet. The extent to which the records of any specific task force or equivalent body are published or placed on the Internet will depend upon the individual circumstances and specific tasks undertaken. However, the presumption will be that the final report or recommendations will be made public unless there are good reasons to the contrary.

  World Heritage Sites
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Government will announce their list of prospective world heritage sites to be put forward by the UK to UNESCO for consideration. [59019]

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

  Youth Music Trust
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates he has made of the costs of establishing the Youth Music Trust. [59234]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  There are various costs associated with the establishment of the Youth Music Trust, including administrative support and the cost of expert advice on the development of the Trust's underpinning policy and structure. My Department is supporting the work to establish the Trust, both financially, and in kind.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Council (Director-General)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the resignation of the Director-General of the British Council and place a copy of his resignation letter in the Library. [59274]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Dr. David Drewry resigned from his post as Director-General of the British Council having successfully completed a review of the Council's purpose and strategy. I understand that he saw this as an opportune time to return to his interest in academia. There is no letter of resignation: Dr. Drewry communicated his intention to resign orally in a private meeting with the Chair of the British Council, Baroness Helena Kennedy.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to Indonesia about East Timor. [59283]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I visited Jakarta on 8 October and met President Habibie and members of his Cabinet. I reinforced our commitment to the United Nation's efforts to seek a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution to the East Timor issue.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) Indonesia and (b) Australia following the decision of the International Commission of Jurists that five Australian journalists were killed by the Indonesian Government at the time of the invasion of East Timor. [59282]
  126
  Mr. Fatchett
  I raised the issue of the deaths of two British born journalists in Balibo in 1975 with President Habibie in Jakarta last month. He undertook to look into the matter. We are aware of reports in Australia of new information on the incident and welcome the Australian government's decision to refer this to Mr. Tom Sherman for his consideration.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is intending to take to reduce the incidence of child abuse in the Third World by western tourists. [59281]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK has adopted tough legislation to strengthen action against those who organise or participate in the sexual exploitation of children overseas. There are also extensive arrangements in place for assisting other countries in the investigation and prosecution of offences involving the sexual exploitation and trafficking of children, as well as for responding to extradition requests.

  Following a joint UK-Philippines initiative at the Asia-Europe Summit (ASEM), the UK hosted a conference on Child Welfare in London in October, involving government and non-government representatives from the 25 ASEM countries. The meeting focused on practical cooperation to tackle the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

  Pakistan
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the UK's policy on sanctions against Pakistan. [59277]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The measures which the UK and the international community took in response to nuclear tests by Pakistan and India are kept under constant review. We regularly consult our partners on the two countries' progress on nuclear non-proliferation and regional security, most recently at a meeting of the Task Force of Senior Officials held in London on 30 October.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the imposition of sanctions on Pakistan by the USA on the prospects of Pakistan signing the Non-Proliferation Agreement. [59280]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We welcome the progress made by Pakistan on regional security and nuclear nonproliferation since its nuclear tests at the end of May, namely Pakistan's stated intention to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, its participation in negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and the resumption of talks with India. We attach importance to further progress, in particular the unconditional signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

  Counter-drug Agreement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 July 1998,Official Report, columns 692–93, when he will place in the Library a copy of the agreement by the United Kingdom and United States concerning maritime

  127
  and aerial operations in the Caribbean, signed in Washington on 13 July, together with the explanatory memorandum. [59042]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We expect to place a copy of the agreement by the United Kingdom and United States concerning maritime and aerial operations in the Caribbean in the Library of the House by the end of the year.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teachers' Pay
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number and percentage of classroom teachers in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools who are paid on each point of the pay spine. [57699]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The numbers and percentages of full-time classroom teachers in England and Wales at 31 March 1997' in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools, on each point of the pay spine, are given in the table.

  1Provisional data. Excludes around 13,000 teachers whose pay details are not yet available.

  Maintained nursery and primary

  Maintained secondary

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Spine point 0

  400

  0.3

  420

  0.2

  Spine point 0.5

  30

  1—

  20

  1—

  Spine point 1

  370

  0.3

  510

  0.3

  Spine point 1.5

  30

  1—

  20

  1—

  Spine point 2

  7,800

  5.7

  6,080

  3.6

  Spine point 2.5

  140

  0.1

  110

  0.1

  Spine point 3

  7,950

  5.8

  6,390

  3.8

  Spine point 3.5

  180

  0.1

  200

  0.1

  Spine point 4

  7,200

  5.2

  5,700

  3.3

  Spine point 4.5

  250

  0.2

  250

  0.1

  Spine point 5

  6,200

  4.5

  4,920

  2.9

  Spine point 5.5

  220

  0.2

  210

  0.1

  Spine point 6

  5,640

  4.1

  4,630

  2.7

  Spine point 6.5

  220

  0.2

  210

  0.1

  Spine point 7

  5,200

  3.8

  4,080

  2.4

  Spine point 7.5

  220

  0.2

  200

  0.1

  Spine point 8

  5,120

  3.7

  4,100

  2.4

  Spine point 8.5

  320

  0.2

  260

  0.2

  Spine point 9

  36,410

  26.5

  25,100

  14.7

  Spine point 9.5

  1,420

  1.0

  930

  0.5

  Spine point 10

  26,740

  19.4

  19,150

  11.2

  Spine point 10.5

  670

  0.5

  670

  0.4

  Spine point 11

  19,950

  14.5

  30,820

  18.1

  Spine point 11.5

  540

  0.4

  1,020

  0.6

  Spine point 12

  3,690

  2.7

  21,970

  12.9

  Spine point 12.5

  110

  0.1

  610

  0.4

  Spine point 13

  480

  0.3

  22,880

  13.4

  Spine point 13.5

  60

  1—

  630

  0.4

  Spine point 14

  70

  0.1

  7,300

  4.3

  Spine point 14.5

  10

  1—

  160

  0.1

  Spine point 15

  10

  1—

  550

  0.3

  Spine point 15.5

  10

  1—

  60

  1—

  Spine point 16

  10

  1—

  150

  0.1

  Spine point 16.5

  2—

  1—

  30

  1—

  Spine point 17

  2—

  1—

  60

  1—

  Total

  137,640

  100.0

  170,350

  100.0

  1Less than 0.05 per cent.

  2Less than 5 teachers

  University Drop-outs
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students(a) applied for
  128
  primary teaching courses, (b) began the courses and (c) subsequently failed to complete the courses, in each of the years 1992 to 1998. [56197]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following tables give information on:

  (a) the number of applications to primary initial teacher training (ITT) courses, separately for undergraduate and postgraduate, for the years 1992 to 1998;

  (b) the number of students entering primary ITT courses, separately for undergraduate and postgraduate, for the years 1992 to 1997; information for 1998 is not yet available;

  (c) the information requested on the number of primary ITT students beginning courses each year who subsequently fail to complete the course is not available centrally.

  Table 1:Applications1 to primary ITT courses, 1992–93 to 1998–99—England and Wales

  Year

  Undergraduate3

  Postgraduate

  1992–93

  n/a

  11,910

  1993–94

  n/a

  12,720

  1994–95

  n/a

  10,950

  1995–96

  n/a

  12,250

  1996–97

  92,290

  12,580

  1997–98

  78,120

  13,220

  1998–992

  65,420

  12,730

  1UCAS count up to six applications per applicant, whilst GTTR count one application per applicant. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2Provisional figures

  3Comparable undergraduate information is not available prior to 1996. The figures include all courses where students may opt for a teaching certificate, and may exclude a number applying at the clearing stage.

  Sources

  Undergraduate applications—Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Postgraduate applications—Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR)

  Table 2: Intake to primary ITT courses,1 1992–93 to 1997–98—England and Wales

  Year

  Undergraduate

  Postgraduate

  Total

  1992–93

  12,109

  6,255

  18,364

  1993–94

  11,268

  6,218

  17,486

  1994–95

  9,447

  5,640

  15,087

  1995–96

  9,236

  5,696

  14,932

  1996–97

  8,363

  5,454

  13,817

  1997–98

  7,803

  5,217

  13,020

  1Includes SCITT

  Sources

  England—DFE Annual Recruitment Survey 1992–93 to 1993–94; HESES 1994–95;

  TTA Survey of ITT Providers 1995–96 to 1997–98

  Wales—DFE Annual Recruitment Survey 1992–93 to 1993–94; Welsh Office 1994–95; HESES 1995–96 to 1997–98

  New Deal (Construction)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places have been filled on the New Deal for Construction programme for the latest available date. [575561]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]A total figure for New Deal clients moving into jobs in construction is not yet available, because an analysis of those starting unsubsidised jobs by industrial
  129
  sector is not yet available; however, the number who had started subsidised jobs in construction was, by the end of August 1998, 750.

  The construction industry has a relatively good vacancy to placing ratio, which suggests that young people are finding construction jobs attractive and have the skills and qualities required by the industry.

  We are grateful for the positive contribution the construction industry is making to the New Deal.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what target the Government have announced for the number of places to be taken up on the New Deal for Construction programme from the date of its launch to 31 December. [57557]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]The Government have announced no target but, when the Construction Industry New Deal framework was launched in February 1998, the industry expected to offer opportunities to around 3,000 young people each year.

  New Junior Schools
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new junior schools, in which local authority areas, have been(a) started and (b) completed in each of the last five years. [58285]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No statutory proposals to establish new junior schools have been approved in the last three years. Accurate information for earlier years is not available.

  Full-time Students
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 11 to 18 year olds were in full-time state education in(a) 1998 or the latest available date, (b) 1988, (c) 1978 and (d) 1968. [58346]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of full-time 11 to 18 year old pupils in maintained schools is shown in the table.

  Figures as at January of each year

  Year

  Pupils

  19681

  2,897,922

  1978

  4,108,619

  1988

  3,084,372

  19982

  3,074,899

  1 Maintained primary and secondary schools only

  2 Includes Pupil Referral Units but excludes sixth form colleges

  School Budgets
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was(a) the lowest and (b) the highest sum of money allocated per state (i) primary and (ii) other school pupil in full-time education in 1997–98. [58290]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out the education standard spending assessment per primary pupil and per secondary pupil for all local education authorities in England for 1997–98. The lowest sum of money allocated per primary pupil and per secondary pupil was 130
  £1,902 and £2,466 respectively, and the highest sum of money allocated per primary pupil and per secondary pupil was £3,576 and £7,247 respectively.

  1997–98 SSA per pupil

  £

  LEA

  Primary Per 5-10 pupil

  Secondary per 11-15 pupil

  Isles of Scilly

  3,576

  4,702

  Tower Hamlets

  3,217

  4,262

  Hackney

  3,179

  4,331

  Lambeth

  3,106

  4,403

  Southwark

  3,029

  4,030

  Cith of London

  3,017

  7,247

  Islington

  2,999

  4,027

  Camden

  2,975

  3,741

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,955

  3,827

  Lewisham

  2,936

  3,889

  Greenwich

  2,810

  3,680

  Westminster

  2,789

  3,579

  Wandsworth

  2,779

  3,670

  Haringey

  2,762

  3,722

  Newham

  2,752

  3,619

  Kensigton and Chelsea

  2,711

  3,631

  Brent

  2,648

  3,579

  Waltham Forest

  2,563

  3,400

  Ealing

  2,480

  3,331

  Slough

  2,448

  3,278

  Hounslow

  2,440

  3,155

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,429

  3,214

  Enfield

  2,398

  3,132

  Knowsley

  2,381

  3,178

  Croydon

  2,361

  3,126

  Manchester

  2,359

  3,138

  Redbridge

  2,323

  3,037

  Merton

  2,314

  3,030

  Barnet

  2,300

  2,976

  Liverpool

  2,295

  3,022

  Harrow

  2,267

  3,000

  Nottingham City

  2,264

  2,996

  Hillingdon

  2,262

  2,969

  Luton

  2,244

  2,958

  Birmingham

  2,240

  2,961

  Thurrock

  2,239

  2,939

  Sutton

  2,219

  2,866

  Leicester

  2,208

  2,899

  Bexley

  2,206

  2,888

  Middlesborough

  2,199

  2,936

  Bromley

  2,180

  2,840

  Blackburn

  2,179

  2,849

  Southampton

  2,179

  2,889

  Havering

  2,176

  2,853

  Brighton and Hove

  2,173

  2,847

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,171

  2,847

  Oxfordshire

  2,047

  2,670

  Herefordshire

  2,046

  2,707

  St. Helens

  2,045

  2,696

  Durham

  2,043

  2,686

  Stoke on Trent

  2,043

  2,692

  West Sussex

  2,043

  2,675

  Norfolk

  2,042

  2,675

  Bolton

  2,042

  2,674

  Lincolnshire

  2,041

  2,676

  Leeds

  2,041

  2,681

  North Lincolnshire

  2,039

  2,673

  Barnsley

  2,038

  2,687

  Sefton

  2,038

  2,687

  Darlington

  2,037

  2,684

  Rotherham

  2,037

  2,655

  Plymouth

  2,034

  2,645

  Bournemouth

  2,033

  2,650

  Lancashire

  2,026

  2,657

  Tameside

  2,025

  2,649

  Devon

  2,024

  2,668

  131

  1997–98 SSA per pupil

  £

  LEA

  Primary per 5-10pupil

  Secondary per 11-15pupil

  Cumbria

  2,022

  2,644

  Northumberland

  2,016

  2,639

  North Tyneside

  2,015

  2,665

  Hampshire

  2,007

  2,630

  North Yorkshire

  2,006

  2,603

  Shropshire

  2,000

  2,612

  Northamptonshire

  1,999

  2,621

  Somerset

  1,996

  2,621

  Newbury

  1,994

  2,591

  Trafford

  1,993

  2,603

  Cambridgeshire

  1,989

  2,613

  Wakefield

  1,988

  2,604

  Wiltshire

  1,988

  2,603

  Suffolk

  1,983

  2,599

  Swindon

  1,979

  2,601

  Gloucestershire

  1,977

  2,585

  Bury

  1,972

  2,559

  Nottinghamshire

  1,969

  2,581

  Wigan

  1,969

  2,573

  Dorset

  1,963

  2,565

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,961

  2,561

  Solihull

  1,961

  2,540

  Warwickshire

  1,960

  2,573

  Warcestershire

  1,957

  2,558

  Dudley

  1,954

  2,559

  Cheshire

  1,952

  2,542

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,168

  2,825

  Isle of Wight Council

  2,166

  2,841

  Portsmouth

  2,163

  2,832

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  2,159

  2,835

  Reading

  2,153

  2,897

  Bradford

  2,151

  2,845

  Wolverhampton

  2,150

  2,849

  Sandwell

  2,139

  2,808

  Salford

  2,139

  2,814

  Hertfordshire

  2,135

  2,789

  Southend

  2,135

  2,809

  Milton Keynes

  2,133

  2,814

  Halton

  2,128

  2,811

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,126

  2,728

  Conventry

  2,123

  2,787

  South Tyneside

  2,121

  2,780

  Doncaster

  2,116

  2,783

  Rochdale

  2,114

  2,806

  Surrey

  2,109

  2,764

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,105

  2,739

  Kent

  2,104

  2,759

  Essex

  2,104

  2,761

  Bracknell Forest

  2,104

  2,753

  Oldham

  2,102

  2,732

  Wirral

  2,100

  2,764

  Peterborough

  2,100

  2,756

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,098

  2,705

  Hartlepool

  2,098

  2,754

  East Sussex

  2,094

  2,753

  City of Bristol

  2,093

  2,784

  Medway Towns

  2,092

  2,750

  Sunderland

  2,089

  2,744

  Derby

  2,085

  2,747

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,077

  2,729

  Gateshead

  2,074

  2,737

  Walsall

  2,071

  2,702

  Sheffield

  2,068

  2,725

  Kirklees

  2,066

  2,707

  Buckinghamshire

  2,066

  2,719

  The Wrekin

  2,060

  2,701

  Bedfordshire

  2,055

  2,696

  Torbay

  2,055

  2,688

  Calderdale

  2,050

  2,690

  132

  1997–98 SSA per pupil

  £

  LEA

  Primary per 5-10 pupil

  Secondary per 11-15pupil

  Blackpool

  2,048

  2,739

  Derbyshire

  1,952

  2,565

  York

  1,946

  2,565

  Poole

  1,942

  2,540

  Rutland

  1,942

  2,466

  North Somerset

  1,942

  2,553

  Stockport

  1,939

  2,548

  Warrington

  1,939

  2,544

  Staffordshire

  1,935

  2,534

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,933

  2,484

  Wokingham

  1,913

  2,517

  Leicestershire

  1,905

  2,504

  South Gloucestershire

  1,902

  2,497

  Total

  2,130

  2,782

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many secondary schools were in the maintained sector in(a) 1998 or the most recent available date, (b) 1988, (c) 1978 and (d) 1968.v [58345]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Number of maintained secondary schools in England

  January of each year

  Number

  1968

  5,222

  1978

  4,711

  1988

  4,153

  1998

  3,567

  Todmorden Road Primary School
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he proposes to take on the leaking of the draft OFSTED report regarding Todmorden Road County Primary School, Burnley; and if he will make a statement. [58541]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Arrangements for confidential oral feedback of OFSTED findings are set out in the Framework for School Inspection. I deplore any case in which normal publication arrangements are pre-empted by a breach of confidentiality, but this is not a matter in which the Department can intervene and I am not in a position to make any judgment on the case referred to.

  Todmorden County Primary School is failing to provide an acceptable standard of education and requires special measures. The school and Lancashire LEA must now produce urgent plans to resolve the key issues identified in the OFSTED report so that it can be removed from special measures within 2 years.

  New Secondary Schools
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new secondary schools have been(a) started and (b) completed in each of the last five years; and in which council areas the schools are located. [58800]
  133
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the number of proposals approved and implemented in each Local Education Authority to establish new maintained secondary schools in each of the last three years. The list includes proposals which have been determined by the Local Education Authority and proposals by independent schools to join the maintained sector. A number of proposals have been decided but not yet implemented. Accurate information for earlier years is not available.

  Number approved

  Number implemented

  1996

  Sutton

  1

  —

  East Sussex (pre 1 April 1997)

  1

  —

  Surrey

  1

  —

  Staffordshire (pre 1 April 1997)

  1

  —

  1997

  Trafford

  2

  2

  Kent (pre 1 April 1998)

  1

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  —

  Croydon

  1

  1

  Ealing

  1

  —

  Birmingham

  1

  1

  Milton Keynes

  1

  —

  Buckinghamshire (pre 1 April 1997)

  —

  1

  Sutton

  —

  1

  Surrey

  —

  1

  Kent (pre 1 April 1998)

  —

  1

  Staffordshire (pre 1 April 1997)

  —

  1

  1998

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1

  —

  Wandsworth

  1

  —

  Haringey

  1

  1

  Wolverhampton

  1

  1

  Kent (pre 1 April 1998)

  1

  1

  Hillingdon

  1

  —

  East Sussex (pre 1 April 1997)

  1

  1

  Islington

  1

  —

  Ealing

  —

  1

  Education Funding (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of his Department's funding for education for the year 1997–98 has been allocated to the London Borough of Wandsworth. [58826]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department's funding for education in Wandsworth in 1997–98 consisted of some £91.7 million through the education SSA system, £1.5 million through grant for education support and training, £0.1 million for capital expenditure, and £0.1 million for the New Deal for Schools. These allocations represent 0.5 per cent. of the Department's total funding for education.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority the percentage of children in that local authority with statements of special educational needs. [58989]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]The latest available data are drawn from schools' Annual Census returns to the Department and relate to January 1998. The table indicates, for each local 134
  education authority as at January 1998, the proportion of pupils attending schools in the authority's area who had statements expressed as a percentage of the total number of pupils in such schools.

  Percentage of pupils with statements, January 1998

  LEA

  Percentage

  Hartlepool

  2.41

  Middlesbrough

  3.21

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2.14

  Stockton-on-Tees

  3.10

  Darlington

  3.38

  Durham

  3.56

  Northumberland

  2.92

  Gateshead

  2.31

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2.58

  North Tyneside

  2.80

  South Tyneside

  2.97

  Sunderland

  3.55

  Cheshire

  3.34

  Cumbria

  3.92

  Bolton

  2.82

  Bury

  2.60

  Manchester

  2.47

  Oldham

  1.53

  Rochdale

  2.31

  Salford

  2.14

  Stockport

  2.68

  Tameside

  2.90

  Trafford

  1.73

  Wigan

  4.12

  Lancashire

  3.89

  Knowsley

  3.69

  Liverpool

  2.80

  St. Helens

  5.01

  Sefton

  2.92

  Wirral

  3.41

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2.38

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

  2.37

  North East Lincolnshire

  2.14

  North Lincolnshire

  2.39

  York

  2.54

  North Yorkshire

  2.41

  Barnsley

  3.06

  Doncaster

  5.34

  Rotherham

  3.41

  Sheffield

  2.89

  Bradford

  2.44

  Calderdale

  2.43

  Kirklees

  4.03

  Leeds

  3.22

  Wakefield

  2.90

  Derby

  3.08

  Derbyshire

  3.34

  Leicester City

  3.81

  Rutland

  1.66

  Leicestershire

  2.73

  Lincolnshire

  3.27

  Northamptonshire

  2.59

  Nottinghamshire

  1.20

  Hereford and Worcester

  2.83

  Shropshire

  4.01

  Stoke

  3.01

  Staffordshire

  3.35

  Warwickshire

  2.68

  Birmingham

  2.58

  Coventry

  2.42

  Dudley

  2.25

  Sandwell

  2.45

  Solihull

  1.85

  Walsall

  2.79

  Wolverhampton

  2.60

  Luton

  2.99

  Bedfordshire

  3.05

  135

  percentage of pupils with statements, January 1998

  LEA

  Percentage

  Cambridgeshire

  3.19

  Essex

  2.25

  Hertfordshire

  2.77

  Norfolk

  3.38

  Suffolk

  3.08

  City of London

  0.11

  Camden

  3.16

  Hackney

  3.19

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3.38

  Haringey

  2.55

  Islington

  3.54

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1.27

  Lambeth

  3.76

  Lewisham

  3.15

  Newham

  2.70

  Southwark

  2.83

  Tower Hamlets

  3.77

  Wandsworth

  3.10

  Westminster

  2.07

  Barking and Dagenham

  2.61

  Barnet

  1.85

  Bexley

  2.36

  Brent

  2.78

  Bromley

  3.28

  Croydon

  1.81

  Ealing

  2.21

  Enfield

  2.13

  Greenwich

  3.81

  Harrow

  2.68

  Havering

  2.80

  Hillingdon

  3.09

  Hounslow

  2.74

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2.31

  Merton

  2.83

  Redbridge

  1.69

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2.00

  Sutton

  2.89

  Waltham Forest

  3.27

  Berkshire

  2.92

  Milton Keynes

  3.83

  Buckinghamshire

  3.02

  Brighton and Hove

  4.27

  East Sussex

  2.98

  Portsmouth

  2.71

  Southampton

  2.89

  Hampshire

  2.60

  Isle of Wight

  3.89

  Kent

  3.19

  Oxfordshire

  2.39

  Surrey

  3.16

  West Sussex

  3.13

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2.72

  City of Bristol

  4.03

  North Somerset

  3.11

  South Gloucestershire

  3.13

  Cornwall

  4.30

  Isles of Scilly

  1.10

  Devon

  3.48

  Bournemouth

  2.31

  Poole

  3.10

  Dorset

  2.81

  Gloucestershire

  2.76

  Somerset

  2.92

  Swindon

  3.20

  Wiltshire

  2.37

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 29 October 1998,Official Report, columns 233–34, if the research project to assess the relative costs, benefits and practical implications of educating children with moderate learning
  136
  difficulties in mainstream and special schools covers children assessed as having emotional, behavioural and psychiatric problems. [58992]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]The research project recognises and allows for the fact that pupils with moderate learning difficulties may also have other special educational needs. The project, which is small-scale, does not cover those with emotional and behavioural or other difficulties who do not have moderate learning difficulties.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received on special educational needs. [59291]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We received over 3,600 responses to consultation on the Green Paper,Excellence for all children: meeting special educational needs. In the light of these, and the advice of the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs (SEN), we published Meeting Special Educational Needs A programme of action, earlier this month. This sets out the practical steps we will take to support and promote developments in SEN over the next few years.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines his Department has issued on staffing levels at special needs schools for children with(a) severe and (b) moderate learning difficulties. [59258]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department issued guidance on staffing for pupils with special educational needs in 1990, in Circular 11/90. The Circular outlines the factors which Local Education Authorities and schools ought to consider in determining staffing levels, and is not intended to be prescriptive. Local Education Authorities and schools are best placed to determine their staffing needs in the light of local circumstances.

  LEAs (Project Funding)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the funds which have been made available to(a) local education authorities and (b) schools for projects as part of the £19 billion extra spending on education as announced in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 187–211. [58988]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]England's share of the additional £19 billion for education over the next three years is £16 billion. Increases in Education Standard Spending Assessments account for £7.135 billion of this. Local education authorities and schools will also benefit from substantial other additional resources, including an additional £1.5 billion for schools capital and a big increase in the Standards Fund. A number of areas are still to be finalised, and full details will be published in the Department's Annual Report in the spring.

  Veterinary Science and Medicine Primary Degrees
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the typical offers of A-level grades required for students wishing to
  137
  pursue primary degrees in (a) veterinary science and (b) medicine in universities, broken down by university, for each of the last five academic years. [59294]

  Mr. Mudie
  The expected A-level grades required for entry to first degree courses in veterinary science and medicine are set out in the Universities and Colleges Entrance Guide published by the Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS). Copies of the latest edition (covering 1999 entry) and those for the previous four years are available in the Library.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the examination failure rates for undergraduate students in universities pursuing primary degrees in(a) veterinary science and (b) medicine, broken down by (i) university and (ii) year of study for each of the last five academic years. [59296]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information on first degree examination failure rates by individual course and university or year of study is not compiled centrally.

  Work is currently being undertaken by the funding bodies in the UK to produce progression statistics for each institution. After a period of consultation with individual institutions, this is intended to lead to the publication next year of progression rates which will reflect the numbers of students who do not complete courses, which will include those who do so as a result of examination failure.

  Access to Work
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the answer of 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 404, concerning access to work, what assessment he made of the implications of creating full-time councillors in drawing up the proposals for directly elected mayors and cabinets contained in the White Paper, In Touch with the People. [59229]

  Ms Hodge
  Access to Work provides help for disabled people who are in, or about to start, paid employment. Help can be provided for people who are employed or self-employed, full or part-time, permanent or temporary. Councillors do not come within the scope of the programme because their activities are not regarded as their main paid employment. If this situation changes, and the activities of councillors become their main paid employment, then they may be eligible for Access to Work support.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish a table showing the levels of unemployment in each of the areas currently designated as(a) development areas and (b) intermediate areas under the provisions for regional selective assistance. [58718]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  138
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 10 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on unemployment.
  The information you have requested can only be derived from the monthly claimant count of people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits). Essentially, all people who were claiming these benefits on the count day are counted.
  The number of people claiming unemployment-related benefits in each of the areas currently designated as (a) development areas and (b) intermediate areas under the provisions for regional selective assistance can be obtained from the Nomis database which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Uganda
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in relieving the debts of Uganda owed to OECD countries. [57903]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 24 April this year, Uganda became the first country to reach its completion point under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt initiative. This last tranche of multilateral debt relief resulted in a further debt reduction of $347 million in NPV terms (approximately equivalent to $650 million in nominal terms), on top of previous concessional reschedulings and aid loan write offs.

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (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; [56807]

  (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. [56805]

  Clare Short
  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.

  Central America (Hurricane Mitch)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to provide aid to Nicaragua, and other Central American countries devastated by Hurricane Mitch. [59142]

  Clare Short
  We are responding to the immediate relief needs of the region as part of the international relief effort. This includes a contribution of £200,000 to the Red Cross Regional Appeal, approximately £60,000 to the Pan American Health Organisation for basic health care needs, £94,525 to CAFOD for food and household items and £
  100,000 to Christian Aid to supply medicines, temporary shelters, blankets and water containers for Honduras. In Nicaragua, we have channelled £32,585 through the non-governmental organisation CARE for the provision of safe water, food and clothes. We are also sending medical
  139
  supplies to El Salvador to meet the needs of 20,000 people for 3 months. In addition, HMS Sheffield provided immediate disaster assistance to Honduras, and RFA Sir Tristram and HMS Ocean are providing further support. We have also provided a UK expert to the United Nations Assessment and Co-ordination teams working in the region.

  We have recently agreed an enlarged development programme for Central America and committed £6 million. We are currently refocusing the programme to take account of reconstruction needs.

  Nicaragua and Honduras are both Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, as defined by the World Bank and IMF. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have called on the IMF and World Bank to look urgently at the case for special treatment in the matter of debt for countries afflicted by natural disasters which severely damage their economies. We are urging the international community to consider what exceptional debt relief measures might be appropriate in the short term for these countries.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid the UK Government are providing to victims of Hurricane Mitch; and if she will make a statement. [59255]

  Clare Short
  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, uncoordinated 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 was helping in Belize 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 on Sunday.

  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 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.

  We have recently agreed an enlarged development programme for Central America and committed £6 million. We are currently refocusing the programme to take account of reconstruction needs.
  140
  We must 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 more effectively when disaster strikes. We have recently agreed a major programme with the International Red Cross to strengthen such capacity in all developing countries.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid has been requested by the Nicaraguan Government from the UK to help the victims of Hurricane Mitch. [59256]

  Clare Short
  The Nicaraguan Government have requested international assistance to provide food, medicines, tents and construction materials to cope with the aftermath of the disaster. Our contributions so far have been channelled through the Red Cross and the non-governmental organisation CARE.

  We continue to monitor the situation in Nicaragua closely through the United Nations, the Red Cross and our Embassy and we are in close contact with British non-governmental organisations about support to their relief activities. Beyond the immediate response to the emergency, we are considering how we can best use our recently enlarged assistance programme to help with reconstruction.

  Nicaragua, is a heavily Indebted Poor Country, as defined by the World Bank and IMF. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have called on the IMF and World Bank to look closely, as part of the work they already have in hand on post-conflict debt relief, at the case for special treatment in the matter of debt for countries afflicted by natural disasters which severely damage their economies. We are urging the international community to consider what exceptional debt relief measures might be appropriate in the short term for these countries.

  UNESCO
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will make a statement on the UK National Commission for UNESCO; [59252]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the process for appointing members of the UK National Commission for UNESCO. [59253]

  Clare Short
  The structure and funding of a UK Commission for UNESCO, including the process for appointing members, are currently under discussion. It is my intention that the Commission be effective and economical. I hope that an announcement on the establishment of the Commission will be made shortly.

  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the costs of the UK's membership of UNESCO in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [59254]

  Clare Short
  The identifiable costs of the UK's membership of UNESCO were £16,185,671 in 1997–98, and are projected to be £11,304,718 in 1998–99.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (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; [56817]

  (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. [56819]

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

  Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts are under investigation by his Department under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994. [57530]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]None. My Department has no powers to investigate complaints under the Regulations.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the combined heat and power schemes sanctioned this year and those schemes for which there are applications for consent outstanding, indicating the capacity of the scheme. [59165]

  Mr. Battle
  The following is the information requested:

  Consents granted under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 during 1998 (England and Wales1)

  British Sugar, Bury St. Edmunds: 80 MWe

  Bridgewater Paper, Ellesmere Port: 65 MWe

  Applications currently under consideration under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (England and Wales1)

  Shotton Paper, Flintshire: 215 MWe

  BNFL/Urenco, Capenhurst: 65 MWe

  ICI Runcorn, Cheshire: 140 MWe

  British Sugar, York: 70 MWe

  Hickson & Welch, Castleford: 56 MWe

  Sappi Europe, Blackburn: 60 MWe

  Slough Heat and Power, Slough': 92 MWe

  Michelin Tyres, Stoke on Trent: 58 MWe

  Clearances given under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 (Great Britain2)

  British Sugar, Bury St. Edmunds: 80 MWe

  Bridgewater Paper, Ellesmere Port: 65 MWe

  BPB Paperboard, Mugiemoss: 49 MWe

  BP Grangemouth, Stirlingshire: 130 MWe

  Notifications currently under consideration under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 (Great Britain2)
  Three notifications are currently under consideration. However these contain information which is classified as commercially confidential. When a decision on the particular notification is made it will be announced by way of Press Notice and placed in the Library of the House.

  1The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for those applications relating to Scotland.
  142
  2Section 14(1) empowers the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to regulate, for reasons of energy policy, the construction of power stations to be fuelled by natural gas or oil.

  3 This is an increase from 80 MWe to 92 MWe of an existing combined heat and power station. The increase will be fuelled by bio-fuel.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the EC Directives due to come before Parliament in the session commencing November 1998 which will be the responsibility of his Department. [585301

  Mr. Mandelson
  Scrutiny by Parliament of European legislation is a continuing process involving deposit in Parliament of documents which fall within the terms of reference of the scrutiny committees of both Houses of Parliament. These include formal legislative documents such as proposals for Directives, Regulations and Decisions.

  The Commission's work programmes, which are deposited in the House, outline areas in which it will seek to legislate and give an indication of the Directives which may come before the Scrutiny Committees in the next session.

PRIME MINISTER

  Life Peers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the procedures for and list the committees, and their membership, involved in selecting candidates to be proposed for appointment as life peers; and what changes to these arrangements he proposes to make following the abolition of hereditary peers' rights to vote. [58681]

  The Prime Minister
  Under this and the previous administration, there has been no formal committee structure in the selection of candidates for appointment as life peers. We will announce our proposals for changes in the way life peers are appointed in due course.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many persons are presently working in the Anglo-Irish Secretariat at Maryfield; on what date Maryfield will be closed; and if he will make a statement. [59287]

  The Prime Minister
  The British and Irish sides of the Secretariat comprise 26 full and part-time British and Irish civil servants.

  The offices of the Secretariat at Maryfield will close by the end of the year.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many non-departmental public bodies have been(a) established and (b) abolished since 1 May 1997. [59208]

  The Prime Minister
  Since I May 1997, the Government have abolished 44 non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and have established 30, including bodies such as the Low Pay Commission, the Disability
  143
  Rights Task Force and the New Deal Task Force which will help the Government fulfil their Manifesto commitments. The Government have also announced plans to abolish a further 37 NDPBS and Ministers are continuing to examine all the NDPBs they sponsor with a view to identifying further candidates for abolition.

  Surveillance Commissioners
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an announcement about arrangements to appoint the Surveillance Commissioners under Part III of the Police Act 1997. [59445]

  The Prime Minister
  I appointed Sir Andrew Leggatt as the Chief Surveillance Commissioner in July. In accordance with section 91 of the Police Act 1997, I have, in addition, appointed six Surveillance Commissioners for a period of three years. There will be three Commissioners for England and Wales, two for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. However, the remit of each Commissioner will cover the whole of the United Kingdom so that any Commissioner will be able to act in jurisdictions other than his own.

  The Commissioners, who must hold or have held high judicial office, are:

  For England and Wales

  Sir Christopher Staughton—retired as a Lord Justice of Appeal in December 1997.

  Sir Michael Hutchison—a Lord Justice of Appeal who will be retiring in January 1999.

  Sir Charles McCullough—retired in January 1998 as the senior judge of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court.

  For Scotland

  Lord Davidson—retired in 1996 as a Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland.

  Lord Bonomy—a Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland since 1997.

  For Northern Ireland

  Sir John MacDermott—retired in August 1998 as the senior Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland.

  The Commissioners are the first to be appointed under the provisions of Part III of the Police Act 1997. Since the authorisation of intrusive surveillance operations forms a key component of the Government's response to serious and organised crime, I attach considerable importance to the early implementation of these provisions, and I am delighted that the Commissioners have accepted their appointments. In conjunction with Sir Andrew Leggatt, their substantial judicial experience, particularly of the criminal justice system, will provide independent oversight of surveillance operations, which although operationally important, must also be subject to stringent safeguards.

  In the more sensitive categories of intrusive surveillance, application will be made to a Commissioner for prior approval of authorisations and renewals given by chief officers of police, the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and HM Customs and Excise. The Commissioners will also be responsible for scrutinising notifications and renewals of all other surveillance operations, together with cancellations, and for investigating complaints that authorisations have been improperly given.
  144
  The Commissioners will have the power to quash or cancel authorisations where there are no reasonable grounds for believing that they meet the criteria set out in Part III of the Police Act 1997. They may also order the destruction of records (other than those required for pending criminal or civil proceedings) and the payment of compensation where a complaint is upheld. The decisions of the Commissioners will be subject to appeal to the Chief Commissioner, but are not liable to be questioned in court.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 915, what advice he received on the production of EMPTA as a bi-product of tests on insecticides and pesticides for use in Africa. [57344]

  The Prime Minister
  On the basis of information available to them the Americans advised that there are no known commercial reasons to produce EMPTA nor are CBD Porton Down aware of any commercial uses for EMPTA.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he has been notified of the exact circumstances surrounding the finding of EMPTA at the El Shifa plant; and in what quantities they were found; [57345]

  (2) what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to verify the information from the United States concerning the strike against the El Shifa factory; [57346]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998, Official Report, column 915, what assessment he has made of the possibility that the EMPTA alleged to have been found in soil samples close to the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan could have been the hydrolysis product of an insecticide or germicide chemical for (a) military and (b) commercial test purposes; [57347]

  (4) what (a) independent scientific organisations and (b) United Kingdom universities have been invited to assess whether the American claims about the Sudanese factories are true. [57348]

  The Prime Minister
  It is established practice under Section 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information received in confidence from foreign Governments.

  Economic Forecasts
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 870, if he will list the forecasts which indicate that there will be a pick-up in growth after next year. [59293]

  The Prime Minister
  Full details of independent forecasts for the medium-term were published in "Forecasts for the UK Economy" by HM Treasury on 19 August.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Members of Parliament (Criminal Offences)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Attorney-General what contact he or his Department have had with(a) the Crown

  145
  Prosecution Service and (b) the Metropolitan Police following recent allegations of criminal offences involving a Member of Parliament. [58850]

  The Attorney-General
  It is the practice that I am informed (but not usually consulted about) any case involving a Member of Parliament under consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service. I have not been informed of any such case in the recent past but on two occasions the Crown Prosecution Service raised with my officials concerns about the possible impact of publicity on a criminal case. It is my policy not to give details of discussions about individual cases.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the(a) tonnage and (b) value of British beef sold in the United Kingdom during September; and if he will make a statement. [57438]

  Mr. Rooker
  This information is not held centrally. However, the market research company Audits of Great Britain conducts a monthly survey of household consumption on behalf of the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC). The latest figures, for the four week period up to 20 September 1998, show that 16,988 tonnes of beef were consumed in this period and expenditure on this beef was £76.5 million. It should be noted that these figures include imported beef but exclude beef consumed in NI, beef used in processing and beef used in the catering sector. Separate information from the MLC suggests that, for the first half of 1998, 79 per cent. of all beef consumed in the UK was home produced, up 7 percentage points on the same period last year.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of the fisheries regulating authority of the Commission of the European Community in respect of(a) off-quota catches by line fishermen in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and (b) fisheries within territorial limits of a member state shown to be self sustainable. [57483]

  Mr. Morley
  All landings of fish of stocks subject to quotas count against Member States' quotas whether or not the fish are caught within territorial waters and regardless of the means used to catch the fish. Such restrictions do not apply to stocks of fish and shellfish for which quotas are not set.

  Member States are able to apply additional national conservation rules to their own fisherman. Many such rules are applied by Sea Fisheries Committees within the 6 mile limits around the coasts of England and Wales.

  Battery Cages
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the policy his Department will adopt on the European Commission proposals on battery cages; and how he will ensure that third country imports comply with EU regulations. [57746]
  146
  Mr. Morley
  Our policy is to negotiate for an early phase out of the battery cage, improved standards in the interim and appropriate EU wide standards for non-cage systems. We recognise that the implications of any different standards applying in the case of third country imports have to be taken into account and have already taken steps to ensure that these are considered: an obligation has been placed on the European Commission to produce a report on this aspect by 30 June 1999.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps he plans to take to encourage red meat and poultry slaughterhouses to have a written welfare policy for the protection of animals; and if he will make a statement; [58169]

  (2) what steps he plans to take to (a) encourage slaughterhouses to keep detailed records of the testing and maintenance of all stunning devices and (b) encourage red meat and poultry slaughterhouses to ensure that all staff involved in the stunning and slaughter of animals have received formal training in animal welfare; and if he will make a statement; [58171]

  (3) what steps he plans to take to require poultry slaughterhouses to have devices for the metering and monitoring of the electric current supplied at stunning. [58166]

  Mr. Morley
  I have welcomed the recommendations of the Meat Hygiene Service Animal Welfare Survey Report 1997–98 that slaughterhouse operators should develop a written policy for the protection of animals in their care and increase formal welfare training together with other recommendations in respect of stunning equipment and record keeping. The Survey assessed compliance with the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 and was also designed to identify slaughterhouses operating to standards beyond the statutory minimum and to encourage other premises to adopt these higher standards. As a part of the Survey process, Official Veterinary Surgeons discussed reports with individual slaughterhouse operators to initiate, where appropriate, changes intended to improve animal welfare standards.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) sheep, (b) goats, (c) cattle and (d) chickens were slaughtered by a religious method without prior stunning in 1997. [58167]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is not held separately on the number of animals slaughtered by a religious method without stunning. The Meat Hygiene Service Animal Welfare Survey Report 1997–98 indicated that, at the time the survey was carried out, 26 slaughterhouses killed cattle and/or sheep and 19 poultry by the Jewish or Muslim method without stunning.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take to ensure that slaughterhouses using electrical stunning apparatus comply with the requirements of the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 that(a) the apparatus must incorporate a fail-safe device which prevents its operation unless a current sufficient to stun the animal unconscious can be passed, (b) a device indicating the voltage and current being used must be

  147
  clearly visible to the operator and (c) the apparatus must incorporate an audible or visible device indicating the length of time of its application to an animal. [58170]

  Mr. Morley
  The development of new systems which measure impedance and control current flow will make it easier for slaughterhouse operators to comply fully with this requirement. We are closely monitoring the work being done on this so that as soon as such systems become commercially available we will be ready to take any additional enforcement action which may be necessary. In addition, the Meat Hygiene Service will provide Official Veterinary Surgeons with additional technical information and guidance on electrical stunning systems to help them to assess existing equipment.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect of World Trade Organisation decisions on animal welfare legislation in the United Kingdom. [58224]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]WTO rules have no effect on legislation on the welfare of farm animals in the UK. There is, however, a need for attention to be given to the question of animal welfare standards to which products imported into the EU are produced. As a result of initiatives made during our Presidency, the European Commission has been expressly charged with producing a report on the implications of third country welfare standards which differ from those in the Community.

  Milk
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to revise his Department's advice on the safety of milk following the finding of abnormal prion protein in the appendix of a patient in Torbay; and if he will make a statement. [57000]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to revise present advice relating to the safety of milk. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) advises Government on all matters connected with Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies. As part of its remit SEAC is kept informed of new scientific findings and keeps its advice on matters under review. At its meeting in April it re-affirmed earlier advice in relation to milk that no further measures were needed to protect public health.

  The finding of the abnormal prion protein in the appendix of a patient who subsequently died of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease tells us nothing about the possibility of infectivity being present in cow's milk. Furthermore milk from clinically affected cattle has been tested by bioassay in mice and no evidence of infectivity has been found.

TREASURY

  Labour Statistics (Scotland)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in each constituency in Scotland (i) in May 1997 and (ii) at the most recent available date. [58340]
  148
  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 10 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on full-time and part-time employment in each constituency in Scotland.
  The statistics you request are derived from the ONS Annual Employment Survey (AES). However, the latest results are for September 1996, and before then at September 1995. This information can be obtained from the Nomis database which is accessible by the House of Commons Library.
  The figures for September 1997 are planned to be available from NOMIS from May 1999.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what number of unemployed people has been assumed for each of the next three years for the purpose of calculating social security spending plans in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [58507]

  Mr. Byers
  In line with the convention adopted by previous governments we do not publish forecasts for unemployment.

  Abortions
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of abortions in Clwyd, South were funded by the NHS in the last year for which figures are available. [58719]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Martyn Jones, dated 10 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on abortions.
  Information on the number of abortions performed on residents of each parliamentary constituency is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  ONS routinely publishes abortion statistics by regions and health authorities (HA). In 1997, the latest year for which provisional figures are available, 86 per cent. of abortions performed on residents of North Wales HA were funded by the NHS.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage of abortions funded by the NHS for women living in Harrow, West in each of the last five years. [58833]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, dated 10 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on NHS abortions in Harrow West.
  Information on the number of abortions performed on residents of each parliamentary constituency is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  149
  The ONS routinely publishes abortion statistics by regions and health authorities (HA). The following table shows the percentage of abortions funded by the NHS for residents of Brent and Harrow HA.

  Percentage of abortions funded by the NHS for residents of Brent and Harrow HA, 1993–97

  Year

  Percentage

  1993

  52

  1994

  53

  1995

  62

  1996

  69

  19971

  77

  1Provisional

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department has taken to advertise the benefits of the United Kingdom Government's decision not to join the euro to potential inward investors. [58680]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury's assessment of the impact on inward investment in the UK of the Government's decision not to join the single currency in the first-wave was set out in the five economic tests assessment published in October 1997. The UK currently 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 workforce and a commitment to lasting economic stability.

  The Government believe that, while the UK remains insufficiently converged with the other European economies, there would be risks for stability, and hence for inward investment in the UK, if the UK joined EMU. The Government have set in place new frameworks for fiscal and monetary policy which will help to deliver the economic stability which international investors look for in making their decisions.

  The Government continue to promote in all major international markets, the inherent strengths which have made, and will maintain, the UK as the most attractive European location for inward investment.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the terms of reference of the Committee on Implementation of the Euro which he is establishing and on its accountability to the House. [58872]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]The Cross-Party Advisory Group on Preparations for EMU is an informal group which will act as a channel for the exchange of information and develop cross-party awareness of the continuing preparations for the euro. It will also play an advisory role in relation to the Standing Committee on preparations for EMU.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter of 6 July from the right hon. Member for Wells requesting that he give estimates for the change-over costs of joining a single European currency. [59100]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Shortly.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in the Tynemouth constituency who will benefit from the introduction of the minimum wage. [59007]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Alan Campbell, dated 10 November 1998:
  As the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the introduction of the minimum wage.
  The national minimum wage (NMW) will become effective in April 1999 and has been set at £3.60 for workers aged over 21. A development rate of £3.00 per hour will apply for those aged 18 to 21. Workers aged 16 and 17 and all those on apprenticeships will be exempt.
  The Low Pay Commission, in arriving at their recommendations, had to adjust 1999 pay rates to 1998 values. Their methodology produces £3.50 and £2.90 as the 1998 values of the government's preferred rates.
  The preferred method for assessing the coverage of the proposed NMW is to present adjusted NES and Labour Force Survey (LFS) data for the number of employees earning less than the proposed NMW rates. This method adjusts for the fact that the NES is based on a one per cent. sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff, earning below the tax-threshold, and in particular those who work part-time. It is not possible to use this method for small areas, and information solely from the NES, has therefore been provided. Regrettably, NES cannot provide statistically reliable estimates for Tynemouth constituency, therefore information for Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County has been provided.
  The latest available information from the 1998 New Earnings Survey shows that 4.5 per cent. of workers over 21 years of age in Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County earn less than £3.50 per hour and 4.7 per cent. of workers aged 18 to 21 years earn less than £2.90 per hour. The information is given as a proportion of workers because appropriate grossing factors for the NES sample are not available at very detailed levels of disaggregation.
  The extent of the bias in the NES data may be estimated for the North East by using the adjusted NES and LFS data for all employees. This suggests that the estimate of the overall proportion of full-time employees aged over 21 years earning below £3.50 could understate the true position by as much as 5 percentage points. However, it is unlikely that the occurrence of lower paid jobs is uniform across the region, and so it would be wise to treat this figure as broadly indicative rather than as a precise estimate. I am unable to provide the bias for employees aged 18 to 21 years because the sample size is too small for a reliable estimate to be produced.

  Marriage (Special Licences)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were married by special licence in (a) England and (b) Wales in each of the last five years. [59022]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, dated 10 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of people married by special licence in England and Wales.
  151
  The information required is as follows:

  Number of marriages solemnised in the Church of England/Church in Wales on issue of a special licence granted by, or on behalf of, the Archbishop of Canterbury

  Country of marriage

  Year of marriage

  England

  Wales

  1991

  2,974

  54

  1992

  2,876

  53

  1993

  2,761

  49

  1994

  2,328

  35

  1995

  2,201

  36

  Source

  Marriage, divorce and adoption statistics, annual reference series FM2

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the number of people in the Tynemouth constituency who will benefit from the disabled person's tax credit; [59008]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of families in the Tynemouth constituency who will benefit from working families' tax credit. [59011]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that estimates for individual constituencies are not available.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessments his Department has made of the risk of fraud and wage substitution in relation to the introduction of the working families tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [58277]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) will build on, and replace, Family Credit from October 1999 and it will help make more families better off in work than on benefit. WFTC will be administered by the Inland Revenue who have considerable experience and expertise in detecting and combating fraud.

  The Revenue's compliance strategy is being designed with input from those currently involved in running Family Credit and countering fraud.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are proposed to ensure that employers do not claim working families tax credit and then fail to pass it on to their employees. [58973]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]Employers will not be able to claim working families tax credit on behalf of their employees. They will pay the tax credit to their employees when notified by the Inland Revenue and they will generally set off the amount of tax credit against their tax and NICs liabilities. The Inland Revenue will put in place arrangements to monitor the operation of the new WFTC system.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where a claim form for the working families tax credit is issued if it will be addressed to the principal carer or to the worker in the couple. [58976]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]Claim forms will be available from a number of sources but where they are sent out by the Inland Revenue they 152
  will generally be addressed to the person who requests it. In addition, claim forms will be sent to those who are approaching their renewal date.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average weekly gain from the introduction of the working families tax credit; and if he will provide a separate estimate for(a) homebuyers, (b) renters and (c) non-householders. [58596]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]Estimates of the average weekly gain for those in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit in Great Britain in 1999–2000 are given in the table. Estimates relate to gains in Working Families Tax Credit.

  Average gain, £per week

  Owner Occupiers

  19.50

  Renters

  15.10

  Non-householders

  17.00

  Total

  17.20

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where a family opts not to receive the working families tax credit through the pay packet, by what means it will be delivered if the claimant does not have a bank account. [58975]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]A couple will have the option of which one of them is to receive the Working Families Tax Credit. From April 2000, if the person who is to receive the WFTC is not in employment they will be paid directly by the Inland Revenue, who are looking at how this can best be done, including to those without bank accounts.

  Fuel Excise Duty
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the current rates of excise duty per litre on (i) standard unleaded petrol, (ii) leaded petrol, (iii) standard diesel and (iv) low-sulphur diesel in each country of the European Union. [58705]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]The current rates of excise duty per litre on (i) standard unleaded petrol, (ii) leaded petrol, (iii) standard diesel and in each country of the European Union are:

  Leaded petrol pence per litre

  Unleaded petrol pence per litre

  Standard diesel pence per litre

  Austria

  n/a

  28.34

  19.81

  Belgium

  38.66

  34.68

  19.83

  Denmark

  n/a

  30.94

  21.02

  Finland

  n/a

  38.23

  20.81

  France

  43.17

  40.32

  25.36

  Germany

  n/a

  34.27

  21.68

  Greece

  24.18

  20.93

  15.34

  Ireland

  31.36

  26.11

  22.75

  Italy

  39.33

  36.17

  26.45

  Luxembourg

  27.31

  23.75

  17.29

  Netherlands

  n/a

  39.27

  23.16

  Portugal

  34.25

  32.03

  19.24

  Spain

  27.24

  25.01

  18.16

  Sweden

  n/a

  33.69

  20.14

  United Kingdom

  49.26

  43.99

  44.99

  153
  The excise duty rate in the United Kingdom for low-sulphur diesel is 42.99 pence per litre. Rates of excise duty on low-sulphur diesel are not available for the countries of the European Union other than the United Kingdom.

  VAT
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a decision will be made on the review of the VAT registration threshold. [58889]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The representations received by Customs to their consultation document on the Review of the VAT Registration Threshold are currently being evaluated. No decisions on the various proposals will be made until after this evaluation is complete.

  Growth Forecasts
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the margin of error used in his growth forecast for the next financial year. [59295]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on error margins surrounding the Treasury's growth forecasts was set out in table A7 of the Pre-Budget Report published on 3 November.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rules will apply to(a) European commissioners, (b) members of the European Parliament and (c) accredited diplomats regarding the payment of excise duties on alcohol and tobacco products after 30 June 1999. [59269]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Diplomats who are accredited to the Court of St. James are entitled to certain privileges and immunities in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961. These privileges and immunities will continue after 30 June 1999.

  The fiscal arrangements for officials and representatives of European institutions are determined by the host nation within which the institution is located.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason projected revenues from tobacco duty for 1998–99 have been reduced; and if he will make a statement. [59270]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs' forecast for tobacco duty receipts in 1998–99 has been reduced because receipts in the financial year to date have been lower than hitherto expected. It is too early to have a robust explanation for this decrease.

  Project

  Funding partners

  1998–99

  Melatonin receptors in finfish

  EU

  Identification of species in processed seafood products using DNA-based diagnostic techniques

  EU

  Advanced methods for identification and quality monitoring of (heat) processed fish

  EU

  Metabolic manipulation of milk protein output in the dairy cow

  Milk Development Council/Purina Mills/Hendrix Voeders

  Effect of transforming growth factor on proton co-genes, tumor suppressor genes and cell cycle regulators: growth arrest versus apoptosis

  EU

SCOTLAND

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (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; [56816]

  (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. [56814]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 666–70.

  Community Land Purchase
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much is planned to be made available annually from National Lottery funds for community land purchase in Scotland. [57761]

  Mr. Galbraith
  A consultation paper on proposed new initiatives to be funded by the New Opportunities Fund will be published shortly. Ministers will subsequently consider the allocation of funds to whatever new initiatives are brought forward in the light of that consultation.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the income for hill farmers in Scotland as(a) a total and (b) an average per farmer in 1997–98; and what are the predictions for income in the current financial year. [58015]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Estimates of Hill Farm Incomes will be published by The Scottish Office on 30 November with accompanying statistical tables placed in the library of the House.

  Rowett Research Institute
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the research projects at the Rowett Research Institute which the Government have provided part funding for in each of the last five years; and who its research funding partners have been in each case. [57912]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Listed in the table are the research projects at the Rowett Research Institute which the Government have provided part funding for in each of the last five years. The research funding partners are shown alongside.
  155

  Project

  Funding partners

  Effect of copper in the food chain on human health

  EU

  Improving the quality of nutritional value of processed foods by optimal use of food antioxidants

  EU

  Seasonal dietary antioxidant levels in relation to human health

  EU

  1997–98

  Melatonin receptors in finfish

  EU

  The identification of canned tuna species by characterisation of the nucleic acids

  EU

  Identification of species in processed seafood products using DNA-based diagnostic techniques

  EU

  Metabolic manipulation of milk protein output in the dairy cow

  Milk Development Council/ Mills/Hendrix Voeders

  Advanced methods for identification and quality monitoring of (heat) processed fish

  EU

  Effect of transforming growth factor on proton co-genes, tumor suppressor genes and cell cycle regulators: growth arrest versus apoptosis

  EU

  Effect of copper in the food chain on human health

  EU

  Improving the quality of nutritional value of processed foods by optimal use of food antioxidants

  EU

  Increased fruit and vegetable consumption within the EC: potential health benefits

  EU

  The comet assay: application in genotoxicity testing and as a screening method for assessing the exposure of human populations

  EU

  1996–97

  Metabolic manipulation of milk protein output in the dairy cow

  Milk Development Council/Purina Mills/Hendrix Voeders

  Effect of transforming growth factor on proton co-genes, tumor suppressor genes and cell cycle regulators: growth arrest versus apoptosis

  EU

  Effect of copper in the food chain on human health

  EU

  Improving the quality of nutritional value of processed foods by optimal use of food antioxidants

  EU

  Increased fruit and vegetable consumption within the EC: potential health benefits

  EU

  The comet assay: application in genotoxicity testing and as a screening method for assessing the exposure of human populations

  EU

  Translation modification of gene expression to promote secretion of intercellular proteins

  EU

  Dietary enzymes to improve nutrient flow in ruminants

  J. Bibby Ltd./Nutec/Novo/Roche/Trouw UK/Trident Foods

  Dry fractionation of cereal straw to separate botanical components

  Compak/Dalgetty/Turner/Finfeeds/St. Regis/Silsoe

  Enhanced recovery from crop materials

  Home Grown Cereals Authority/ Dalgetty/BOCM/Finfeeds/Roche/Rhone/Novo/Park Tonks

  1995–96

  Metabolic manipulation of milk protein output in the dairy cow

  British Petroleum/Milk Marketing Board

  Increased fruit and vegetable consumption within the EC: potential health benefits

  EU

  The comet assay: application in genotoxicity testing and as a screening method for assessing the exposure of human populations

  EU

  Translation modification of gene expression to promote secretion of intercellular proteins

  EU

  Dry fractionation of cereal straw to separate botanical components

  Compak/Dalgetty/Turner/Finfeeds/St. Regis/Silsoe

  Enhanced recovery from crop materials

  Home Grown Cereals Authority/Dalgetty/BOCM/Finfeeds/Roche/Rhone/Novo/Park Tonks

  Utilisation of crop residues and supplementary feeds

  EU

  Pig muscle fibre characteristics as a source of variation in eating quality

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  1994–95

  Metabolic manipulation of milk protein output in the dairy cow

  British Petroleum/Milk Marketing Board

  Increased fruit and vegetable consumption within the EC: potential health benefits

  EU

  Dry fractionation of cereal straw to separate botanical components

  Compak/Dalgetty/Turner/Finfeeds/St. Regis/Silsoe

  Enhanced recovery from crop materials

  Home Grown Cereals Authority/Dalgetty/BOCM/Finfeeds/Roche/Rhone/Novo/Park Tonks

  Utilisation of crop residues and supplementary feeds

  EU

  Pig muscle fibre characteristics as a source of variation in eating quality

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  156 157
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the United Kingdom Government funding which has gone to the Rowett Research Institute for each of the last five years. [57911]

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  6.231

  6.190

  6.225

  6.244

  6.249

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  0.489

  0.540

  0.757

  0.860

  0.850

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  0

  0.010

  0.012

  0.024

  0.002

  Scottish Office Department of Health

  0

  0

  0

  0.052

  0.045

  British Council

  0.002

  0.002

  0.003

  0.002

  0.003

  Others

  0.004

  0

  0.002

  0.009

  0.011

  Total

  6.726

  6.743

  6.998

  7.191

  7.161

  Public Expenditure Summaries
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the public expenditure summaries published in Cm 3914; and if he will make a statement. [57926]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]Public expenditure figures published in Cm 3914 have now been superseded by those announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper, Cm 4011. I am placing a detailed breakdown of the latest figures for 1998–99 to

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total

  A

  F

  A

  F

  A

  F

  A

  F

  A

  F

  A

  F

  A

  F

  Central

  46

  0

  49

  0

  44

  0

  49

  0

  62

  0

  43

  0

  293

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  44

  0

  52

  0

  71

  0

  84

  0

  23

  5

  22

  0

  296

  5

  Fife

  116

  0

  78

  0

  91

  0

  129

  0

  68

  1

  79

  0

  561

  1

  Grampian

  101

  0

  267

  0

  173

  0

  106

  1

  123

  0

  119

  0

  889

  1

  Lothian and Borders

  95

  1

  339

  0

  363

  0

  359

  0

  234

  0

  340

  0

  1,730

  1

  Northern

  28

  0

  34

  0

  37

  0

  123

  0

  35

  0

  41

  0

  298

  0

  Strathclyde

  456

  2

  504

  0

  688

  2

  714

  0

  575

  3

  551

  0

  3,488

  7

  Tayside

  149

  0

  147

  0

  159

  0

  102

  0

  111

  0

  116

  0

  784

  0

  Total

  1,035

  3

  1,470

  0

  1,626

  2

  1,666

  1

  1,231

  9

  1,311

  0

  8,339

  15

  Note:

  A—Number of accidents

  B—Number of fatalities

  Disabled Tenants
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amounts were allocated to housing associations for aids and adaptations for disabled tenants in each of the last five years; and what is the estimated amount for 1998–99. [59216]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information requested is not held centrally. Since Scottish Homes is responsible for allocating funding to housing associations in Scotland, I have asked the Chairman, Mr. John Ward, to write to my hon. Friend with the relevant information.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his policy to support the retention of a TA engineering presence in Scotland. [59250]
  158
  Mr. Macdonald
  The table lists the United Kingdom Government funding received by the Rowett Research Institute for the last 5 financial years.

  2001–02 in the library of the House of Commons, and making them available to all main political parties in Scotland.

  Police Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police vehicles from each police force in Scotland have been involved in accidents in each year since 1992; and how many fatalities have resulted. [58271]

  Mr. McLeish
  The number of police vehicles from Scottish police forces involved in accidents and the number of fatalities that resulted are shown in the table.

  Mr. Dewar
  I support a TA presence in Scotland that fulfils the modern role envisaged for the TA in the Strategic Defence Review. The detail of the structure of the TA is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he believes civil authorities in the North of Scotland will be in a position to respond effectively to electricity or telecommunications failures which may result from the millennium bug. [59242]

  Mr. Dewar
  I am aware that the wide range of authorities who have responsibilities for responding to such failures, from whatever source, are constantly at a high level of preparedness.
  159
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision he has made for civil emergencies in(a) Scotland and (b) the North of Scotland as a result of the millennium bug. [59248]

  Mr. Dewar
  A wide variety of means has been employed to raise awareness, in both the public and private sectors, of the potential for problems arising and to stimulate appropriate action. This has been on an all-Scotland basis.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it will be his policy to request the use of TA engineering units in the event of civil emergency resulting from the millennium bug. [59243]

  Mr. Dewar
  Should any kind of civil emergency arise as a result of millennium bug problems, I am confident that the Scottish Executive would request military assistance if it considered that desirable. It would be for the armed services to determine whether any specific assistance was provided by the TA or otherwise.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the provision of Territorial Army assistance to civil authorities in(a) Scotland and (b) the North of Scotland in the event of a civil emergency resulting from the millennium bug. [59249]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have emphasised to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence my concern that the ability of the Territorial Army in Scotland to provide military aid to the civil community should be maintained, and have drawn attention to the particular importance of this at a time when millennium bug problems could potentially pose a threat to key services. These points were made with respect to Scotland generally.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra resources(a) have been and (b) are planned to be made available to (i) local authorities, (ii) the NHS and (iii) the emergency services in Scotland to deal with millennium bug compliance. [59247]

  Mr. Dewar
  An additional £10 million is being made available to local authorities in Scotland for 1999–2000, to help them respond to demands placed on them by the millennium date change issue. Local authorities have discretion in the use of this money; they may use it to support action across any of the services they provide, including emergency services.

  The Government have provided £151 million of new money for 1998–99 for the National Health Service in Scotland (NHSiS) on top of the £98 million which was already planned. Action in the NHSiS on the Millennium Date Change problem is being funded from within these increased general resources.

  I do not expect to have to make further additional resources available. However, the situation remains under constant review.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which minister in his Department has responsibility for millennium bug compliance in Scotland. [59246]
  160
  Mr. Dewar
  My noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston is responsible for Scottish Office action on the Millennium date change issue. That includes oversight of progress in the public sector in Scotland generally. However, primary responsibility for ensuring that particular public services in Scotland are not materially affected by the Millennium date change lies with senior managers of the services concerned.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56824]

  Mr. Denham
  The information has been placed in the library.

  Children Support
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of children in the UK living in families dependent on supplementary benefits or income support in each year since 1979, and for each year these as a proportion of all children in the
  UK. [58297]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Number of children in families on Supplementary Benefit/Income Support as percentage of child population—Great Britain,

  Year

  Children agedless than 16

  % of child Population

  1979

  923,000

  7.3

  1980

  1,088,000

  8.8

  1981

  1,493,000

  12.3

  1991

  2,368,000

  20.9

  1998

  2,224,000

  19.0

  Number of children in families on Supplementary Benefit/Income Support as percentage of child population—United Kingdom

  Year

  Children aged-less than 16

  %of child population

  1982

  1,826,000

  14.8

  1983

  1,900,000

  15.7

  1984

  2,059,000

  17.3

  1985

  n/a

  n/a

  1986

  2,250,000

  19.3

  1987

  2,236,000

  19.3

  1988

  2,202,000

  19.1

  1989

  2,143,000

  18.5

  1990

  2,155,000

  18.5

  1991

  n/a

  n/a

  1992

  2,831,000

  23.9

  1993

  2,979,000

  25.9

  1994

  3,105,000

  25.7

  161

  Number of children in families on Supplementary Benefit/Income Support as percentage of child population—United Kingdom

  Year

  Children aged less than 16

  % of child population

  1995

  3,090,000

  25.5

  1996

  3,048,000

  25.2

  1997

  2,399,000

  19.8

  Notes

  1. Figures for Northern Ireland for the years 1979–81, 1991 and 1998 are not available

  2. No figures were produced for 1985 in the United Kingdom table as a result of industrial action

  3. Children are defined as aged 0–15 years

  4. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand

  5. Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit in 1988

  6. Sample sizes: 1979–82 Supplementary Pension cases 1 in 200, Supplementary Allowance cases 1 in 50. 1983–87 Supplementary Pension cases 1 in 200, Supplementary Allowance cases 1 in 50. E (Unemployed) cases 1 in 100. 1988–93 1 in 100. 1994 to date 1 in 20

  7. n/a denotes UK information not available

  8. Figures are given for May of each year, except for 1982 to 1984 when the month was December, 1979 the month was November, and 1986 the month was February

  9. Numbers from 1997 exclude children in families receiving Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance which replaced Income Support for the unemployed from October 1996

  10. Percentage population figures for 1998 are based on Office for National Statistics mid-term estimates for 1997

  Source

  1. Income Support/Supplementary Benefit Statistics Annual Enquiries 1979–93

  2. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries 1994–98

  3. Income Support Statistics, Northern Ireland

  4. Office for National Statistics mid-term population estimates 1979–97

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people who have ceased to receive incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance and who are drawing the disability working allowance who will gain a two year cover to return to benefit should they be forced to give up their job because of ill health. [58302]

  Mr. Timms
  Everyone who moves on to Disability Working Allowance from Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance can take advantage of the two-year linking rule which allows them to return to their former benefit, should they be forced to give up work because of ill health.

  At April 1998, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 1,261 people who qualified for Disability Working Allowance via receipt of Severe Disablement Allowance, and 2,383 people who qualified via receipt of Incapacity Benefit.

  Cyclical Benefit Payments
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total spent on cyclical benefit payments for each month from May 1997 to September 1998. [58506]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is set out in the table.162

  Estimated outturn of cyclical social security on a monthly basis for the financial year 1997–98

  £ million

  Month

  Estimated outturn

  May 1997

  1,003

  June 1997

  1,012

  July 1997

  1,090

  August 1997

  974

  September 1997

  1,037

  October 1997

  1,040

  November 1997

  916

  December 1997

  1,092

  January 1998

  932

  February 1998

  904

  March 1998

  987

  Notes

  1. Final outturn figures will be published in the 1999 Departmental Report

  2. Figures on a similar basis for 1998–99 will not be available until November 1999 when the Appropriation Accounts are published

  3. Cyclical Social Security has been defined as Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support to the under 60s

  Expenditure Forecasts
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of future social security expenditure if the growth in output of the United Kingdom economy is(a) 0 per cent. for 1998–99 and 1 per cent. for 1999–2000 and 2000–01, (b) 0.5 per cent. for 1998–99, 1 per cent. for 1999–2000 and 1.5 per cent. for 2000–01 and (c) 1 per cent. for 1998–99, 1.5 per cent. for 1999–2000 and 2 per cent. for 2000–01. [58508]

  Mr. Darling
  Forecasts of future Social Security expenditure was published as part of the Pre-Budget Report (CM 4076) on 3 November 1998.

  Disability Income Guarantee
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which parts of the disability income guarantee will be means-tested. [58510]

  Mr. Timms
  The disability income guarantee will provide extra help for the poorest disabled people with the highest care needs. It will be paid as part of Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based), Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and will take the form of a new, higher rate of disability premium and a new, higher rate of disabled child premium for those getting the highest rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated expenditure on family credit for the current tax year. [58554]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimated expenditure on Family Credit for the current tax year is £
  2,498 million.

  Note:
  This figure is consistent with that in the Pre-Budget Report of 3 November 1998.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps were taken to publicise
  163
  the consultation paper on the draft regulations to bring non-cash vouchers into Class 1 National Insurance liability; and what specific steps were taken to consult those organisations affected; [58480]

  (2) if he will assess the impact on jobs in the UK catering sector of the proposal to bring luncheon vouchers into Class 1 National Insurance liability; [58481]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the weekly cost to those employees in receipt of luncheon vouchers of the proposal to bring them into Class 1 National Insurance liability; [58511]

  (4) to what extent the procedures outlined in the "Better Regulation Guide", published on 10 August, have been followed in respect of the draft regulations to bring non-cash vouchers into Class 1 National Insurance liability. [58479]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government proposals were announced during the passage of the Social Security Bill, 22 July 1997,Official Report, column 786 and 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 468–69, and in DSS Press Release 97/127. The proposals are intended to introduce greater fairness in the National Insurance treatment of cash and non-cash earnings. The technical detail of the regulations were subject to a public consultation exercise which ran from 14 August to 14 September. Over 100 businesses and representatives were contacted, about 50 organisations or individuals replied.

  An explanatory and financial memorandum, and a regulatory appraisal, were published alongside the Bill in July 1997. The regulatory costs and impact of the proposal to make non-cash vouchers liable for National Insurance in the same way as cash vouchers was set out in the Social Security Compliance Cost Assessment published in December 1997. A copy of that regulatory appraisal accompanied the consultation paper on the draft regulations issued in August.

  The Better Regulation Guide gives Departments discretion to adopt an approach best suited to the scale of the proposal and the data available.

  The weekly cost to those employees in receipt of luncheon vouchers will vary depending on the value of the voucher and the level of earnings. On current standard rates, the extra National Insurance liability will be 50 pence a week for an employee receiving a £5 a week luncheon voucher and earning between the lower and upper earnings level. Some employers may choose to meet the costs of their employees' National Insurance contribution liability on vouchers.

  Residential Living Allowance
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to equalise the residential living allowance between local authority residential care homes and private residential care homes; and if he will make a statement. [58664]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have established an independent Royal Commission to consider the future funding of long-term care and to make recommendations. Issues such as benefit provision for people in long-term care fall within the Royal Commission's deliberations. The Royal Commission will report at the end of the year.
  164
  Officials in the Department have been asked to consider whether Residential Allowance is meeting the objectives of community care. This is not a formal review with specific terms of reference, and it is too early to give a commitment on whether, or when changes will be introduced.

  Benefit Entitlement
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department plans to introduce to place a responsibility on claimants to report improvements in their medical condition which may affect benefit entitlement. [58572]

  Mr. Timms
  We want to ensure that disabled people on Incapacity Benefit get the benefits to which they are properly entitled and that they receive the advice they need to help them achieve independence. Equally we want to reinforce the principle that the right to benefit is balanced by responsibilities. Currently many people, once they get Incapacity Benefit, have no further personal contact with their social security office, and often do not realise that changes in their medical condition may affect their benefit entitlement. We intend to make it clear in legislation that improvements are changes that should be reported and will explore ways of keeping in closer contact with claimants to ensure that the information held is up to date.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to exempt carers from the contributions requirement in respect of incapacity benefit. [58578]

  Mr. Timms
  Carers currently have to pay a minimum amount of National Insurance contributions at some point prior to the claim, in order to qualify for Incapacity Benefit. This will continue to be the case in the future. However, as we made clear in our consultation paper "A New Contract for Welfare: Support for Disabled People" we are planning to modify the proposed new contribution test so that carers who received Invalid Care Allowance are not disadvantaged because they were unable to pay contributions due to their caring responsibilities in one of the two tax years before the claim.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what funds his Department plans to make available for each of the three stages of pilot schemes for the introduction of a single gateway. [58674]

  Angela Eagle
  Final decisions have still to be taken on the amount of additional resources to be made available to fund the single gateway pilots. Detailed work on costs is still being undertaken. An important reason for piloting the single gateway is to measure costs in order to inform decisions about national implementation.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many examinations for disability living
  165
  allowance and incapacity benefit have been processed by the Glasgow office of the Benefits Agency medical services in each of the last 12 months. [58270]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of Social Security benefits 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 H. Donohoe, dated 9 November 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many examinations for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Incapacity Benefit (IB) have been processed by the Glasgow office of the Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) in each of the last 12 months.
  A decision to contract BAMS out to the private sector was announced by the Secretary of State on 31 July 1997. This decision was in line with the Government's commitment to modernising the delivery of Social Security to make it better, simpler, and more efficient. On 19 February it was announced that the BAMS contract had been awarded to the Sema Group for the next five years. They continue to use the Glasgow Medical Services Centre for medical examinations.
  Information about the number of DLA and IB examinations carried out at the Glasgow Medical Services Centre is given on the attached table.

  Number of DLA/IB examinations performed at the Glasgow Medical Services Centre

  Month

  DLA

  IB

  October 1997

  1,635

  4,082

  November 1997

  2,503

  4,672

  December 1997

  1,548

  4,388

  January 1998

  2,108

  4,548

  February 1998

  1,974

  4,175

  March 1998

  1,882

  4,879

  April 1998

  1,274

  4,338

  May 1998

  1,650

  3,919

  June 1998

  1,852

  4,521

  July 1998

  1,609

  4,117

  August 1998

  1,605

  3,817

  September 1998

  1,273

  3,628

  Note

  Figures are provisional and subject to change

  Source

  Figures provided by Medical Services on behalf of Sema Group

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence was evaluated by his Department prior to determining the age limit of three years for the mobility component of disability living allowance. [58569]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government took account of the views of medical advisers as well as research by the then Office for Population, Censuses and Surveys, by the Disability Alliance and by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children are expected to benefit from the extension of the mobility component of disability living allowance to children of three and four years old; and what estimate he has made of the number who would benefit if it was extended to children below the age of three years and of the cost to his Department of that extension. [58573]
  166
  Mr. Timms
  8,000 children a year are expected to benefit from the extension of the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to children of the ages of three and four. The cost of extending this to disabled children under three is difficult to estimate given that the current criteria for help is based primarily on an inability or virtual inability to walk, and that all children under three are unable to walk any substantial distances.

  Guaranteed Pensioner Income
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people in the Tynemouth constituency who will benefit from the introduction of a guaranteed pensioner income. [59012]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. As at May 1998, there were approximately 8,000 pensioners in receipt of Income Support in the area covered by North Tyneside Local Authority. The above-inflation increase in the Income Support rates, providing a guaranteed minimum income of not less than £75 per week for a single pensioner and £116.60 for a couple, will benefit pensioners entitled to Income Support from April 1999.

  Notes

  1. Estimate rounded to the nearest thousand, and based on a 5 per cent sample of Income Support claimants.

  2. "Pensioners" are defined, for Income Support purposes, as single persons aged 60 or over, or couples (married or unmarried) where one or both members are 60 or over.

  Source Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry May 1998.

  Income Support
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of income support in the Warrington, North constituency had weekly deductions paid to(a) British Gas and (b) North West Water for each of the past five years. [58316]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Income Support is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Helen Jones, dated 9 November 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in receipt of Income Support in the Warrington North constituency had weekly deductions paid to (a) British Gas and (b) North West Water for each of the past five years. As Mr Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Benefits Agency (BA) collate Income Support (IS) statistics by BA District which do not correspond to Parliamentary Constituency boundaries. The BA North Cheshire District with offices at Warrington and Widnes is one such District. Information for this District is shown on the attached table.
  It has not been possible to list payments solely to British Gas nor North West Water. Direct payment statistics record a deduction as either "fuel" or "water". No distinction is drawn between gas and electricity suppliers, or between the different water suppliers.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  167

  Number of IS recipients in the North Cheshire BA District having weekly deductions for fuel and water 1993–98

  Year

  Fuel deductions applications accepted

  Water deductions applications accepted

  1993–94

  1,799

  1,745

  1994–95

  1,901

  1,922

  1995–96

  2,117

  1,843

  1996–97

  1,484

  1,684

  1997–98

  1,470

  1,097

  Notes

  1. A customer may be recorded more than once if their claim to IS ended and they later reclaimed.

  2. Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Source

  Figures supplied by the Central Data Unit of BA Banking and Accountancy Branch.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to meet the Disability Benefits Forum to discuss his plans for replacing the Benefit Integrity Programme. [59230]

  Mr. Timms
  We value the help provided by the Disability Benefits Forum as we take forward our plans to reform disability benefits and we meet them regularly. Yesterday, at our most recent meeting, we discussed the latest position on the Benefit Integrity Project and we announced further administrative improvements in its operation. From 16 November 1998, the Project will no longer contact people receiving the highest rate of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) mobility component with either the highest or middle rate of the DLA care component, where the award pre-dates April 1992. Nor will it contact people receiving both components of DLA at the highest rates whose main disabling condition is recorded (on the DLA computer system) as Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Neurological Disease or Mental Subnormality.

  Cases in action will be finalised but no new cases will be selected from these groups. This change builds on other improvements that have been made since we inherited this Project which ensure that it operates in a way that is both sensitive and cost-effective. At the same time, we invited the Forum to continue to work with us and officials as we develop a new fairer way of reviewing people's entitlement to DLA, which will replace the Benefit Integrity Project. A special working group will be set up to take this forward.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of calculating housing benefit and council tax benefit for lone parents using the applicable amounts used for couples. [59156]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimated cost of calculating Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for lone parents using the applicable amounts used for couples would be £185 million in Housing Benefit and £25 million in Council Tax Benefit.

  Notes

  1. Information drawn from the 1995/96 Family Resources Survey, uprated to 1999/2000 prices and benefit levels.

  168

  2. Estimated caseloads adjusted using May 1997 administrative data and calibrated in line with the Department's forecasts consistent with the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).

  3. Estimates are at 1999/2000 prices and are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  4. The reply assumes that the lone parent rate of the Family Premium will continue for those who qualify for it.

DEFENCE

  Head of Defence Export Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the contract of the current Head of Defence Export Services finishes; who his successor will be; and what the salary of the post is. [58963]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am announcing today that the Prime Minister has approved the appointment of Mr. Tony Edwards as the next Head of Defence Export Services in succession to Sir Charles Masefield. Mr. Edwards, who will be seconded to the Ministry of Defence from TI Group plc., will formally take up appointment on 14 December 1998 when Sir Charles Masefield, who has been seconded to the Ministry from British Aerospace, will take up a new appointment in industry.

  Mr. Edwards will receive a salary from the Ministry of Defence of £165,000 a year plus an annual performance related bonus of up to £15,000. In addition, the Defence Industries Council, acting on behalf of the defence industry as a whole, will provide a top-up element so that Mr. Edwards' basic remuneration package will remain on a par with what he is currently receiving from TI Group plc.

  Police and Guard Services
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, by rank(a) the establishment and (b) the current operational strength of (i) the Ministry of Defence Police, (ii) the Military Provost Guard Service and (iii) the Ministry of Defence Guard Service. [58330]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Rank

  Complement

  Strength

  Ministry of Defence Police

  Chief Constable

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief Constable

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  3

  3

  Chief Superintendent

  2

  2

  Superintendent

  27

  28

  Chief Inspector

  55

  55

  Inspector

  125

  123

  Sergeant

  596

  569

  Constable

  2,979

  2,863

  Totals

  3,789

  3,645

  Military Provost Guard Service

  SSgt

  4

  4

  Sgt

  19

  19

  Cpl

  20

  20

  LCp1

  32

  32

  Pte

  43

  38

  Totals

  118

  113

  169

  Rank

  Complement

  Strength

  Ministry of Defence Guard Service

  CS01

  4

  4

  CSO2

  14

  15

  CS03

  82

  78

  CSO4

  562

  538

  CS05

  3,608

  3,424

  Totals

  4,270

  4,059

  Notes

  CSO—Civilian Security Officer

  All figures are as at 1 November 1998

  White Fleet Contracts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will issue an invitation to negotiate on the white fleet contracts for Scotland, Central, London and Southern regions; and if he will make a statement. [58331]

  Mr. Spellar
  Invitations to submit proposals for MOD `white fleet' requirements for the Scotland, Central Britain, London and Southern projects are expected to be issued shortly.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the target dates for the award of white fleet contracts outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [58332]

  Mr. Spellar
  The target date for contract award of the Scotland, Central Britain, London and Southern 'white fleet' contracts is August 1999. That for the South Western project is December 1999.

  Challenger II Tanks
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the contracts will be awarded in respect of the new transporters for the Challenger II tanks; and if he will make a statement. [58333]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are currently considering industry's proposals for this programme and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Mechanical Handling Equipment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will let the contract for tri-service mechanical handling equipment; and if he will make a statement. [58334]

  Mr. Spellar
  If a PH solution is adopted it is estimated that a contract will be awarded in February 2000.

  Military Bands
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military bands each of the armed services had in(a) May 1979 and (b) May 1997; how many each has at the present time; and what proposals he has to alter the number. [57174]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of bands of the Armed Forces, in each of the years specified, is as follows:

  May 1979

  May 1997

  October 1998

  Royal Navy

  9

  5

  5

  Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve

  0

  0

  0

  Army

  179

  30

  30

  170

  May 1979

  May 1997

  October 1998

  Territorial Army

  24

  24

  24

  Royal Air Force

  5

  4

  3

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  0

  0

  0

  1 This figure is based on a study undertaken in 1981, but is believed to be representative of the number of bands which existed in May 1979.

  We have no plans to alter the present number of regular Service bands.

  Military Bases (Land Quality)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those occupied and unoccupied sites of military bases that his Department has identified as areas of environmental concern, indicating the principle causes of environmental problems on those sites; and if he will place copies of the relevant land quality statements in the Library. [56295]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]The need for more information on the extent to which the Defence Estate might have been contaminated through being used for military purposes was recognised, and a programme of Land Quality Assessments was initiated in 1996. The scope of this programme is extensive and, given the capacity of specialist firms to undertake this work, it is estimated that this programme could take up to 10 years to complete. Accordingly, effort is being concentrated in the first instance on those sites allocated for disposal.

  The provision of LQAs is the responsibility of the unit or organisation occupying the site. No central record of these documents has been maintained. However, arrangements are now being put in place to ensure that the Defence Estate Organisation will, in future, receive copies of all LQAs produced.

  At any one time, there are approximately 400 sites in disposal, many of them very small and handled by local offices. It would not be practical to put a copy of every land quality statement in the Library of the House; statements related to specific sites, could, however, by made available on request.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the consultation document on the restructuring of the TA was first made available to the TA command; and on what date it was first made available to the Secretary of State for Scotland. [59239]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Initial proposals on the restructuring of the TA were first circulated internally within the Army chain of command and to Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations on 21 July; and were subsequently provided to officials of the Scottish Office on 20 August.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland concerning the proposed disposition of TA infantry and engineering units in Scotland. [59238]
  171
  Mr. George Robertson
  I have discussed the proposals for the TA in Scotland with the Secretary of State for Scotland on a number of occasions as they have developed.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had with other Ministers concerning the anticipated role of the Territorial Army in contingency planning for the millennium bug; [59235]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential role for Territorial Army units in cases of civil emergency as a result of the millennium bug. [59236]

  Mr. George Robertson
  My Ministerial colleagues and
  I have participated fully in the Government's work in addressing the Year 2000 problem. Long-standing arrangements exist under which local authorities can request military assistance, whether from the regular or the volunteer forces, in the event of a civil emergency. As yet, we have received no requests which would indicate any major requirement for military assistance to the civil authorities over the millennium period.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision he has made for availability of Territorial Army or regular army units in the north of Scotland in case of civil emergency as a result of the millennium bug. [59237]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The arrangements for providing military assistance in the event of civil emergency are long standing, well understood by local authorities and apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he will announce his proposals for the restructuring of the Territorial Army. [59240]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I hope to do so next week.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to retain a TA engineering presence in(a) Scotland and (b) the Highlands. [59241]

  Mr. George Robertson
  This will be subject to decisions on the future structure of the Territorial Army as a whole, on which I hope to make an announcement next week.

HEALTH

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of long-term care. [57365]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report of the Royal Commission on Long-term Care is due at the turn of the year. Other publications in the coming months include the Social Services White Paper and the Long Term Care Charter.

  NHS (Best Practice)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to identify and spread best practice in the NHS. [57366]
  172
  Mr. Milburn
  We are taking positive action to disseminate best practice throughout the National Health Service, including establishing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and a database of good practice on the National Health Service web. We are making available £10 million a year to identify and promote 100 beacon local health services. And we are abolishing the internal market which created such obstacles to sharing best practice in the NHS.

  NHS Direct
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for extending NHS Direct in the west midlands. [57367]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will be extending NHS Direct to cover the Black Country from the beginning of January 1999 and Birmingham from April 1999.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of people to be covered by NHS Direct by April 1999. [57372]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson),Official Report, column 140.

  Chiropody Services
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to improve the provision of chiropody services in East Sussex. [57368]

  Mr. Hutton
  Provision of chiropody services is a matter for the health authority. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that the targeting of resources on those with clinical need has reduced podiatry waiting lists from 14 to 2 weeks and resources have been released for other county-wide priorities such as cancer care.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to identify the number and use of acute beds in the NHS. [57369]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie),Official Report, column 141.

  Free Eye Tests
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of senior citizens who are eligible to benefit from free eye tests. [57371]

  Mr. Milburn
  We estimate that, from 1 April 1999, some 7 million more people aged 60 and over will become eligible for free National Health Service sight tests.

  Global Warming (Health Effects)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies he has made of the effects of global warming on health. [57373]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government, through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), support research on the global impacts of climate change on human health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The Department of Health itself has
  173
  not yet commissioned any studies directly related to the effects of global warming on health. However since the Climate Change Impacts Review group of the DETR identified possible health effects we are in discussion about research areas with the Environmental Change Unit at the University of Oxford.

  NHS Resources
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effect of the availability of resources on (i) nurses' and midwives' pay and (ii) the rationing of drugs or procedures in the health service. [57374]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Comprehensive Spending Review produced a settlement which can accommodate fair pay rises for nurses and midwives and will ensure that cost effective drugs and procedures are available in the National Health Service. The Government are determined to ensure that patients receive the full benefit of this new investment so pay review bodies will need to strike a careful balance between fairness and affordability.

  Breast Screening
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the value for money of the breast screening programme. [57375]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Breast Screening Programme is based on the recommendations of the 1987 Forrest report. This report included an economic appraisal of the costs and benefits of breast screening, including a comparison against other health service activities.

  Over one million women aged 50–64 are screened each year in England at a cost of around £35 million. In 1996–7 over 6,500 cases of cancer were detected.

  Booked Admissions
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to promote booked admission pilots in the NHS. [57376]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster),Official Report, column 137.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to promote booked admission pilots in the NHS. [57382]

  Mr. Milburn
  On 29 September 1998, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced that 24 sites had been selected to pilot innovative systems to enable patients to book hospital admission dates convenient to them. £5 million has been made available this year, with £20 million next year to enable the programme to be extended.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on special grants for children's services and their relationship with "Quality Protects" action plans. [57378]
  174
  Mr. Hutton
  On 5 November, we published the Government response to the report of the Children's Safeguards Review. This set out our plans for a new children's services special grant, which will amount to £375 million over three years, and its link to our "Quality Protects" programme. We shall be publishing, later this week, a circular to all local authorities, copied to National Health Service bodies and the voluntary sector, giving them further information about the special grant and its relationship with Quality Protects action plans.

  Acheson Report
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans to take in response to Sir Donald Acheson's report on the causes of health inequalities. [57379]

  Ms Jowell
  Sir Donald's report will be published shortly.

  The Government are committed to taking action to redress the effects of health inequalities. This is one of the key aims of the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", published in February this year. Action is already being taken through a broad range of Government initiatives, notably the Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bringing Britain Together". Cutting health inequalities is one of the top priorities for local health and social services, as identified in "Modernising Health and Social Services: National Priorities Guidance 1999/2000–2001/02", issued recently. Early next year we will publish our White Paper on a health strategy for England with further proposals for action.

  Health Visiting
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to promote health visiting in the NHS. [57380]

  Mr. Milburn
  On 22 October my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health announced that an Innovation Fund of up to £1 million will be set up to explore new ways of working, new partnerships and new roles for health visitors. The health visitor will be key to delivering "Our Healthier Nation" objectives.

  Heart Attacks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to shorten the average time taken to deliver treatment to victims of heart attacks. [57381]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department has introduced various initiatives to reduce the time taken to treat people who have heart attacks. There is now considerable evidence that delays in providing emergency treatment have been reduced and more patients are receiving early thrombolytic therapy.

  However, more remains to be done. This is why the first National Service Framework on coronary heart disease includes the management of heart attack. The Emerging Findings Report, which will be published shortly, contains draft standards which include the pre-hospital care of people who suffer heart attacks as well as emergency treatment in hospital.

  Out-patient Consultations
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people awaiting out-patient consultations on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 1998. [57383]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information is not collected centrally in the form requested. Available data on outpatient appointments are collected and published quarterly in a statistical bulletin. Copies are available in the Library.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to improve conditions for patients and staff in accident and emergency departments. [57384]

  Mr. Hutton
  As part of the National Health Service Modernisation Fund, the Government have announced an extra £30 million to modernise Accident and Emergency Departments next year.

  Hip Replacements
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the reduction of the waiting lists for hip replacements; and if he will make a statement. [57385]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on waiting lists for individual procedures is not available nationally. However, the £417 million additional resources made available this year will enable the National Health Service to make progress in tackling waiting lists for hip replacements.

  Metal-based Amalgams
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has undertaken to evaluate the risks involved in using metal-based amalgams in dentistry; and if he will make a statement. [57386]

  Mr. Milburn
  Two projects have been commissioned this year. These are a pilot study of the incidence of adverse reactions associated with dental materials and a study of neuropsychological functioning of dentists exposed to chronic low levels of mercury.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): nursing and midwifery staff working in the registered midwifery area of work, as a proportion of Registered Midwives by grade and by region, in England, as at 30 September for each year

  Percentage

  1993

  1994

  Grade D

  Grade E

  Grade F

  Grade D

  Grade E

  Grade F

  England

  1.1

  35.1

  17.4

  1.1

  36.4

  18.8

  Northern

  6.8

  39.9

  13.9

  3.1

  46.5

  14.5

  Yorkshire

  0.8

  44.4

  10.9

  0.5

  44.0

  15.2

  Trent

  0.4

  33.8

  13.3

  0.5

  34.2

  14.4

  East Anglia

  0.2

  33.9

  14.6

  0.5

  38.6

  14.1

  North West Thames

  0.8

  30.5

  25.9

  1.1

  28.7

  28.3

  North East Thames

  0.3

  25.1

  25.4

  0.3

  26.7

  28.3

  South East Thames

  1.0

  28.7

  19.7

  1.3

  28.9

  22.1

  South West Thames

  1.3

  32.5

  21.7

  1.0

  32.1

  22.6

  Wessex

  0.3

  36.3

  18.2

  2.8

  36.0

  18.5

  Oxford

  1.0

  35.9

  10.8

  2.6

  34.6

  13.7

  South Western

  1.2

  37.2

  15.0

  0.5

  39.0

  15.9

  Hospital Beds (National Inquiry)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the national inquiry into hospital beds, which he announced on 30 September. [57387]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 30 September 1998 the establishment of a national inquiry into hospital beds. The findings of that inquiry will be published next Spring.

  Waiting List (Orthopaedics)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the waiting list size for orthopaedic consultants nationally relative to the average waiting list size for all NHS consultants. [57388]

  Mr. Milburn
  At the end of June 1998, the number of patients waiting for elective admission to trauma and orthopaedics was 254,470. This represents 20 per cent. of the total list.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the investment he is making to reduce NHS waiting lists over the next three years. [57377]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham),Official Report, column 133.

  Midwives
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of midwives are on(a) D, (b) E and (c) F grades (i) nationally and (ii) by region for each of the last five years. [56929]

  Mr. Milburn
  The table shows the percentage of registered midwives in the National Health Service in England for the years 1993 and 1994, broken down according to grade and region. Figures are not available for 1995–97 as the Department's non-medical workforce census, the source of this statistic, does not collect information by clinical grade. In addition, the NHS Executive has gathered information from trusts about how the grading guidance is being applied to midwives.
  177

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): nursing and midwifery staff working in the registered midwifery area of work, as a proportion of Registered Midwives by grade and by region, in England, as at 30 September for each year

  Percentage

  1993

  1994

  Grade D

  Grade E

  Grade F

  Grade D

  Grade E

  Grade F

  West Midlands

  0.7

  29.9

  22.4

  0.8

  32.6

  22.7

  Mersey

  0.1

  42.3

  14.2

  0.5

  44.2

  15.3

  North Western

  0.9

  41.1

  15.9

  0.9

  43.3

  15.3

  Others

  4.7

  31.4

  5.7

  0.0

  22.4

  16.8

  Notes

  Percentages were calculated using whole-time equivalents

  Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  Source

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Palliative Care
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of demand over the next five years for(a) in-patient, and (b) respite and day care provision for palliative care; and if he will make a statement. [58178]

  Mr. Hutton
  In Executive Letter (95)22 regional health authorities were asked to ensure that health authorities should agree service contracts for specialist palliative care to meet the needs of their resident populations. This was followed by Executive Letter (96)85 which gave further advice on epidemiologically based needs assessment for palliative and terminal care.

  We are committed to ensuring that the principles and practice of palliative care are adopted in the care of all people with life threatening illnesses in all settings. Significant advances have been made in pain and symptom control and there is greater emphasis on maximising the quality of life of patients.

  In June this year we issued Health Service Circular 1998/115 pointing out the need to integrate the principles and practice of palliative care for all those facing life threatening illnesses into the whole of National Health Service practice. To support this, with the circular the Government also circulated three documents published by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services which provide guidance on key issues facing those who are dying and those caring for them in the NHS. These were:

  (i) Guidelines for Managing Cancer Pain in Adults

  (ii) Changing Gear—Guidelines for Managing the Last Days of Life in Adults

  (iii) Palliative Care in the Hospital Setting.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review inspection and registration standards for nursing homes; and if he will make a statement. [58181]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to reforming current regulatory arrangements for social services, including nursing homes, to create independent arrangements that are tough, transparent and accountable. As part of this process we are aiming to develop national required standards to ensure greater consistency in the work of the different regulation authorities. Details of our reforms will be included in the Social Services White Paper to be published shortly.

  Cervical Screening
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, columns 975–76, for what reasons health authorities in England are unable to report average time taken for patients to receive results of cervical smear tests: and how methods of data collection on waiting times for cervical smear tests in English health authorities differ from those in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland. [57869]

  Mr. Hutton
  None of the four health departments routinely collect information about the length of time women wait for the results of their cervical smear tests. However, information on the length of time laboratories take to read smear tests was collected centrally in England until March 1997.

  As the Welsh Office have only five health authorities, and Northern Ireland Office only four health boards, both Departments were able to collect information about waiting times for smear results on an ad hoc basis. The Scottish Office were also able to contact each of their 11 health boards, but provided information only on reporting times. As there are over 100 health authorities in England the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information about waiting times for results will be included as part of the current review of data collection on the cervical screening programme.

  Joint Procedures (NHS and Personal Social Services)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations took place with users and carers and their representative organisations when drawing up the Joint Procedures Guidance for the NHS and Personal Social Services. [57785]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 November 1998)No formal consultation was undertaken with any organisations before the publication of "Modernising Health and Social Services: National Priorities Guidance 1999–2000–2001–02".

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue further guidance to the Medicines Control Agency about the classification of products containing blends of herbal, vitamin and mineral
  179
  supplements; and if it is his policy that dietary supplements should be available on general retail sale provided that they are safe. [58731]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines Control Agency acts on behalf of the Licensing Authority in accordance with Medicines Act 1968. The Agency classifies products on a case by case basis in accordance with European Community and United Kingdom law, legal precedent and published guidance, and there are no plans to change this. Whether a product is subject to food or medicine legislation is a matter of law not policy. Products which are not medicinal products and fall within the definition of food must comply with the law relating to food. Amongst other things, this effectively requires that products are safe.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a product containing a blend of herbal, vitamin and mineral supplements may require a medicine's product licence in cases where different elements of that blend could each be sold separately without such a licence. [58536]

  Ms Jowell
  A product containing a blend of herbs, vitamins and minerals whose different elements could be sold separately under food law is not considered a medicinal product by the Medicines Control Agency, unless it is presented for treating or preventing disease or it may be administered with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in humans. However, where a herbal product—whether or not it includes non-herbal substances—is classified as a medicinal product it will be subject to medicines legislation. Herbal remedies, accordingly, require a marketing authorisation (product licence) unless they are exempt from licensing under the terms of Section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968. Section 132 of the Act makes it clear that the exemption for herbal remedies does not extend to products which contain active non-herbal substances.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used by the Medicines Control Agency in classifying a blend of herbal, vitamin and mineral supplements as a medicine; whether the criteria include the availability of the product on general retail sale in other states in the European Union; and if it is the practice of the Agency to provide manufacturers of such blends with a statement of the reasons for so classifying a product. [58537]

  Ms Jowell
  In assessing whether a product is a medicine, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has regard to the definition of a medicinal product found in Pharmaceutical Directive 65/65/EEC. It also has regard to legal precedent, and its guidance, (including assessment criteria), which it has published in its leaflet Medicines Act Leaflet 8: "A guide to what is a medicinal product". On a case by case basis, the MCA decides whether a product is presented for treating or preventing disease, or may be administered with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in humans. If either or both, the product is a medicine. The MCA does regard a product's status in other member states as a relevant factor when coming to a decision on its classification in the United Kingdom.

  When notifying a manufacturer that it has classified a product as a medicinal product, the MCA explains the grounds for its decision.

  Dementia
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the future levels of demand for respite provision for those caring for people with dementia; and what policies he has in place to meet that demand. [58571]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Royal Commission on Long-term Care of the Elderly has been asked, in its terms of reference, to have regard to the number of people likely to require various kinds of long-term care in the future. The National Carers Strategy will draw together existing work within Government that impacts on carers, assess whether any of their key needs have been overlooked and set out an integrated strategy for future action by Government.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of research funded by his Department into ME and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome has been carried out by psychologists and psychiatrists. [58742]

  Ms Jowell
  Management of much of the research supported by the National Health Service research and development levy is devolved and details are not collected routinely by the Department. Information which is available centrally shows that the NHS R&D Programme has been funding a research project entitled "Should GPs manage chronic fatigue syndrome? A controlled trial", which has now reported. The lead researcher for this project was a General Practitioner. Further work is about to be commissioned through competitive tender on the topic of "Management Strategies for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome".

  The Medical Research Council funded one study in relation to myalgic encephalomyelitis which has recently been completed. The work was undertaken at the University of Manchester and the project was entitled "The role of noradrenaline in the neuropsychological pathogenesis of the chronic fatigue syndrome". This project was led by a psychiatrist.

  Health Authorities (Revenue Allocations)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the 1999–2000 revenue allocations for health authorities. [59480]

  Mr. Dobson
  The 1999–2000 unified revenue allocations for health authorities are given in the table. Unified allocations cover spending on hospital and community health services, general medical services (cash limited) and prescribing.

  1999–2000 Health authority total allocations

  £000

  Percentage cash increase

  Avon

  582,510

  6.69

  Barking and Havering

  256,500

  6.60

  Barnet

  209,057

  6.58

  Barnsley

  156,588

  7.85

  Bedfordshire

  312,909

  7.47

  Berkshire

  431,001

  7.38

  Bexley and Greenwich

  289,039

  5.45

  Birmingham

  681,946

  6.50

  Bradford

  312,469

  7.25

  181

  1999–2000 Health authority total allocations

  £000

  Percentage cash increase

  Brent and Harrow

  310,879

  5.79

  Bromley

  183,609

  6.49

  Buckinghamshire

  368,084

  7.15

  Bury and Rochdale

  249,286

  7.09

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  369,439

  6.67

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  233,706

  6.70

  Camden and Islington

  320,971

  7.04

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  317,079

  5.80

  County Durham

  411,001

  7.09

  Coventry

  200,882

  7.28

  Croydon

  202,682

  6.72

  Doncaster

  198,465

  7.04

  Dorset

  446,631

  5.49

  Dudley

  183,018

  6.66

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  475,900

  6.67

  East and North Hertfordshire

  290,037

  6.59

  East Kent

  395,915

  6.36

  East Lancashire

  349,892

  6.57

  East London and the City

  491,634

  8.12

  East Norfolk

  380,037

  6.41

  East Riding

  360,233

  6.92

  East Surrey

  244,052

  5.49

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  505,366

  6.35

  Enfield and Haringey

  323,495

  6.72

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  255,537

  6.95

  Gloucestershire

  334,591

  5.47

  Herefordshire

  98,713

  6.45

  Hillingdon

  154,353

  6.46

  Isle of Wight

  92,390

  5.96

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  286,339

  8.71

  Kingston and Richmond

  208,380

  5.51

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  573,116

  7.11

  Leeds

  469,356

  6.80

  Leicestershire

  517,887

  7.15

  Lincolnshire

  394,990

  6.42

  Liverpool

  350,296

  6.87

  Manchester

  349,914

  6.00

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  422,995

  6.35

  Morecambe Bay

  205,730

  5.46

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  333,829

  6.92

  North and East Devon

  300,720

  5.50

  North and Mid Hampshire

  291,934

  6.39

  North Cheshire

  201,585

  5.49

  North Cumbria

  198,917

  6.78

  North Derbyshire

  228,364

  6.47

  North Essex

  503,561

  6.57

  North Nottinghamshire

  236,475

  6.71

  North Staffordshire

  304,458

  7.32

  North West Anglia

  250,526

  6.86

  North West Lancashire

  321,635

  6.51

  North Yorkshire

  434,879

  6.51

  Northamptonshire

  326,245

  6.40

  Northumberland

  196,638

  6.81

  Nottingham

  391,712

  7.40

  Oxfordshire

  327,812

  7.39

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  330,353

  6.65

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  296,944

  5.46

  Rotherham

  159,696

  7.27

  Salford and Trafford

  310,166

  6.72

  Sandwell

  205,838

  7.35

  Sefton

  192,610

  6.73

  Sheffield

  367,283

  6.88

  Shropshire

  247,650

  6.51

  Solihull

  122,698

  6.82

  Somerset

  290,097

  6.40

  South and West Devon

  383,565

  5.63

  South Cheshire

  405,696

  6.42

  South Derbyshire

  340,745

  6.90

  South Essex

  417,802

  7.24

  South Humber

  199,138

  5.47

  South Lancashire

  185,797

  5.49

  South Staffordshire

  322,868

  6.41

  182

  1999–2000 Health authority total allocations

  £000

  Percentage cash increase

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  327,774

  6.58

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  237,210

  6.88

  Stockport

  176,374

  6.68

  Suffolk

  397,601

  5.49

  Sunderland

  201,223

  6.97

  Tees

  370,553

  7.02

  Wakefield

  211,891

  6.81

  Walsall

  163,794

  7.37

  Warwickshire

  293,422

  5.49

  West Hertfordshire

  317,538

  6.38

  West Kent

  562,935

  6.41

  West Pennine

  297,286

  6.80

  West Surrey

  371,000

  5.48

  West Sussex

  467,090

  6.59

  Wigan and Bolton

  373,322

  7.18

  Wiltshire

  345,684

  6.37

  Wirral

  226,913

  6.70

  Wolverhampton

  160,766

  7.15

  Worcestershire

  303,405

  6.37

  England

  31,192,915

  6.60

  Pay Review Bodies
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the terms of reference of the doctors' and dentists' and the nurses' review bodies. [59481]

  Mr. Milburn
  Earlier this year, I set out proposed terms of reference for the Doctors and Dentists Review Body (DDRB) and the Nurses, Midwives and Professions Allied to Medicine Review Body (NPRB). The Government have listened very carefully to the points made in consultation. As a result, we have been able to finalise the terms of reference. These are set out as follows.

  Doctors and Dentists Review Body: Terms of Reference
  The Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' remuneration is independent. Its role is to make recommendations to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales on the remuneration of doctors and dentists taking any part in the NHS.
  In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body is to have regard to the following considerations:
  the need to recruit, retain and motivate doctors and dentists;
  the Health Departments' output targets for the delivery of services, as set out by the Government;
  the funds available to the Health Departments as set out in the Government's Departmental Expenditure Limits;
  the Government's inflation target.
  The Review Body may also be asked to consider other specific issues.
  The Review Body is also required to Jake careful account of the economic and other evidence submitted by the Government, staff and professional representatives and others.
  Reports and recommendations should be submitted jointly to the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland. the Secretary of State for Wales and the Prime Minister.

  183
  Nurses, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professionals Allied to Medicine Review Bodies: Terms of Reference
  The Review Body on Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (NPRB) remuneration is independent. Its role is to make recommendations to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales on the remuneration of

  (i) Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors employed in the NHS;

  (ii) Physiotherapists, Radiographers, Remedial Gymnasts, Occupational Therapists, Orthoptists, Chiropodists, Dietitians and related grades employed in the NHS.

  In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body is to have regard to the following considerations:
  the need to recruit, retain and motivate nurses, midwives, health visitors and staff in the Professions Allied to Medicine;
  the Health Departments' output targets for the delivery of services, as set out by the Government;
  the funds available to the Health Departments as set out in the Government's Departmental Expenditure Limits;
  the Government's inflation target.
  The Review Body may also be asked to consider other specific issues.
  The Review Body is also required to take careful account of the economic and other evidence submitted by the Government, staff and professional representatives and others.
  Reports and recommendations should be submitted jointly to the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Prime Minister.

  Pharmacists' Bills
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what sum is currently owed on bills submitted by pharmacists to the Government; [58757]

  (2) what the average length of time taken is for the Government to pay bills submitted by pharmacists. [58758]

  Mr. Milburn
  Pharmacies do not submit bills to the National Health Service for payment. Instead they submit prescription forms to the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA) for pricing and payment in accordance with established procedures. Prescriptions may be dispensed at any time during a particular calender month. At the end of the month, prescriptions are batched and sent to the PPA for interpretation and the calculation of the payment due. Some 80 per cent. of the estimated sum due is paid at the end of the month in which the prescriptions are received, with an adjusted balance, paid at the end of the following month. Each month on average over £380 million is paid to pharmacies.

  Car Park Charges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further guidance he has issued to health authorities and trusts concerning the levying of charges for car parking for staff and visitors. [59245]

  Mr. Milburn
  A guide to the implementation of car parking charges was issued in January 1996. Copies are available in the Library. No further guidance is planned.

  Children's Services Grant
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for payment of the Children's Services Grant after 2001–02. [59226]
  184
  Mr. Hutton
  We will review the future of the Children's Services Grant in 2000, as part of the overall review of the Government's spending plans.

  Surgical Instruments (Sterilisation)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) instruction or (b) guidelines his Department has (i) issued and (ii) intends to issue to require hospitals to amend the sterilisation procedure for surgical instruments in respect of (a) the temperature and (b) the duration of the autoclave cycle. [59155]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department issued guidance on hospital sterilization in "Health Technical Memorandum 2010" and in "Guidance on Decontamination". Copies are available in the Library.

  In addition, updated and extended advice was issued in April 1998 by The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens and The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on handling surgical instruments used on patients known to have, or suspected of having, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). Having taken into account the available scientific evidence on both CJD and non variant CJD, this revised guidance recommends disposal of all instruments used on patients with clinical symptoms of any type of CJD. This advice also recommends temperatures and autoclave cycle durations appropriate for use in decontamination processes in certain other situations.

  The advice is kept under constant review.

  School Nurses and Health Visitors
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Minister of State's recent letter to North Thames and South Thames health authorities regarding school nurses and health visitors. [58737]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department recently conducted a national survey in line with its agenda in relation to school nurses and health visitors which showed no uniform planned reduction in community nursing staff.

  As a result of this survey my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health wrote on 19 October to the regional chairmen of those regions proposing reductions (which included North and South Thames) asking that they discuss with the relevant health authorities the reasons for, and the nature of, the reductions. Regional chairmen in North and South Thames in conjunction with the regional directors of nursing have contacted the relevant health authority chief executives to discuss the issues raised by my right hon. Friend's letter.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of typical waiting times between GP referrals and NHS consultant appointments. [57370]

  Mr. Milburn
  Data on waiting times for outpatient appointments in England are collected and published quarterly. Figures for the quarter ended 30 June 1998 showed that 96 per cent. of patients attending first out-patient appointments had waited under 26 weeks since
  185
  general practitioner written referral, 82 per cent. had waited under 13 weeks and 38 per cent. had waited under 4 weeks.

  Maternity Unit (Maldon)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reach a decision on the appeal by Mid Essex Community Health Council against the proposed closure of the maternity unit at St. Peter's Hospital, Maldon. [59271]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will announce our decision when we have given full and proper consideration to the proposals.

  Hospital Unit Closures
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals by community health councils against proposals to close hospital units are currently awaiting determination by him. [59273]
  186
  Mr. Milburn
  There are eight contested proposals currently with Ministers.

  Women's Issues
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a report on the progress made on issues affecting women since May 1997. [59446]

  Ms Jowell
  We have published our report, "Delivering for women: Progress so far". This charts what has been achieved in the first 18 months of this Government to improve the lives of women. Copies of this report have been placed in the Library of the House, together with two research documents, "Researching Women's Attitudes" and "Tackling Violence Against Women", and it summarises reported action already taken by local authorities to protect women from violence. In addition the right hon. the Baroness Jay has, together with her right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, issued new guidelines on Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment to relevant officials throughout government. Copies of this have also been placed in the library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend the 44th Session of the North Atlantic Assembly in Edinburgh on Friday 13th November when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

Historic Vehicles
2.37 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I wish to declare an interest.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what will be the consequences of the proposals contained in the final draft of the European Council directive on End of Life Vehicles (COM (97) 358) for the collection, storage, repair, use and conservation of historic vehicles.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, historic vehicles will only be affected by this directive when they become the "waste" as defined under existing legislation; in other words, when the owners have decided to discard them. In any case, the directive does not affect dismantling by private individuals.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that it will bring considerable comfort and reassurance to some 300,000 owners of historic vehicles in this country? Will he instruct his officials dealing with the draft directive in Brussels to exercise due diligence to make sure that nothing is subsequently added that will affect the collecting and storing of historic cars? Perhaps, in due course, a leaflet can be issued by the DTI to explain the directive and its implications.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his first response to my Answer. My answer to his subsequent questions in both cases is, yes, we have no interest in a directive which would damage the historic car business or avocation.
622
We are concerned that directives of this kind should be well understood. Of course, it is only a draft directive at present so we are some way from a final version.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, why do we need a directive of this kind? Surely the matter is covered under the subsidiarity clauses of the Maastricht Treaty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, how such a directive is implemented is a matter for member states. There are, however, substantial environmental issues concerned with the directive. At the moment, 75 per cent. of the content of discarded cars is recovered as metal. But 25 per cent. goes to landfill, including all kinds of hazardous materials—oil and so on—which create environmental damage. That is a proper concern of the European Community. The directive is concerned to reduce the amount of landfill and also of hazardous materials which are not properly treated.

Disability Living Allowance
2.39 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the number of people entitled to disability living allowance who have yet to apply for the allowance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, provisional estimates from the first findings of the disability follow up to the 1996–97 family resources survey, published in March 1998, are available in the Library. They suggest that the number of people entitled to disability living allowance who have yet to apply for the allowance is around 1 million for the mobility component and 1.4 million for the care component. There is considerable overlap between the two figures as most recipients receive both. These estimates are necessarily very tentative.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply and for bringing new help to disabled children and young people.
Is it correct—"whisper who dares!"—that underclaiming will this year exceed £6 billion? Is my noble friend aware that disabled people talk increasingly now of the "stigma" attached to claiming benefits Parliament intended for them, due not least to baseless allegations of widespread fraud when the benefits integrity project started in 1996?
What more can now be done to remove that stigma and increase take-up? For example, are we doing enough to inform carers and to simplify the application process?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is right that the amount potentially or theoretically

623
unclaimed could well exceed £6 billion. At the moment, about half those who claim are not entitled to DLA. We estimate that half those who may be entitled to DLA do not claim it. My noble friend is right. The reason is that the DLA is a complex benefit. It is not compensation for disability but, as your Lordships know, it is extra help to meet some of the costs of care needs.
One explanation for the low take-up may be that disabled people find it difficult to gauge whether they qualify for DLA, whether they are entitled to claim it. It is also true that the forms, the system of claiming and self-assessment may be difficult to handle. It may also be that carers are so hard-pressed that they do not always know the full range of benefits available. We are working closely with the Disability Benefits Forum and discussing the issues now.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the Minister aware that among those people who are entitled to and are claiming DLA are some who are concerned that it may be taxed? In the light of what she has just said, does she accept that in principle it is designed to meet the extra cost incurred by disabled people and therefore it is quite inappropriate that it should be taxed?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Prime Minister has repeated that there are no proposals to tax DLA. Equally, the noble Lord will be aware from his previous incarnation that taxation is a matter for the Chancellor.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it would help if adjudication officers received greater awareness training as regards disability problems so that more expertise could be brought to bear in the delivery of services? Does the Minister agree that in many cases people cannot find their way through the maze of problems and that even if they are familiar with the paperwork they are unaware of the reality of the situation with which they are dealing?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is correct. Our officials receive disability awareness training. One of the leading organisations in this field, the Disability Income Group, has been helping us with that training over the past couple of years. We also have a benefits inquiry line, a form completion line and so on. But the basic point behind the noble Lord's question is correct. The forms and the benefit are complex and people require further help in both claiming the benefit and filling in forms to get it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that even those people who have gone through this process and have received a notice to say that they have the benefit for life read reports in the press that "life" no longer means "life"? Can the Minister clarify exactly what "granted for life" means?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when the benefit is given for life it is given for that period while
624
a person's medical circumstances remain unchanged. It is for life while one's condition remains unchanged. Clearly, if one gets better or worse one's benefit level may need to be changed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as disabled people fall into so many different categories, such as physical disability, mental disability, learning disabilities and so on, is it not simpler to have different forms? I am sure the noble Baroness agrees that the forms are extremely complicated.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept that the forms are complicated even though they have been revised and made simpler over the past year or two. They are complicated because to acquire DLA people basically have to keep a diary. They are self-assessment forms. We are trying to have one form that covers all. The noble Baroness may well have a point. This is a matter that we have discussed with the Disability Benefits Forum. That body has helped us to produce the latest set of forms following discussion over the past year. But I shall put this point to the forum.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is this not the other side of the coin of the benefits integrity project which the Government pursued so enthusiastically to check on whether the benefits of severely disabled people were justified? Does my noble friend agree that the Government should pursue this just as enthusiastically and energetically to ensure that the take-up is as comprehensive as possible? Given the power of the Government's publicity machine, does my noble friend also agree that this problem can be solved overnight with the political will?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish that my noble friend were right. If it could be solved overnight we would be doing it now. But if there are problems about people's knowledge of eligibility, assessment, the forms or understanding of what the benefit is about it is not simply an advertising campaign that is required. That was precisely why yesterday, for example, the Disability Benefits Forum met my honourable friend in the other place to discuss how to ensure better take-up of a benefit to which people are entitled and which we all want them to have.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government consider moving staff from work such as the benefits integrity project to the activities that have been mentioned today: the take-up of benefits and the complexities of the paperwork?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will be aware that the Government propose to bring to an end the benefits integrity project. We are discussing its replacement with the disability groups. Having said that, with every benefit one must ensure that people get that to which they are entitled. Sometimes they may be overclaiming or underclaiming. One must have those checks particularly with disabled people who get better and worse. The problem with the

625
BIP—there have been some huge problems—is that it was imposed without consultation on disabled people, who found it extremely threatening. We have to ensure that we make routine the act of checking to ensure that people get the benefit to which they are entitled—it may be more or less than they receive at the moment—in a way that they believe to be fair, decent and reasonable.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when the applicant has correctly filled in the form he or she goes into an office where the money is paid in response? Does she agree that very often the queues are enough to put off the applicant who does not have time to queue in order to receive his or her entitlement?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as far as I am aware most disabled people fill in the forms at home and post them back. If there is a problem in the delivery of those forms to people in the first place I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would supply me with further details. Normally, the form is requested over the telephone and is sent to the applicant by post. In my experience it is fairly unusual that people are expected to queue in an office.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the chronic problem of under take-up of benefits has bedevilled the welfare system since its inception? Perhaps the Crick proposals for education in schools may engender more confidence in the taking up of benefits.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that may well be right. My noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Ashley have identified two major problems. The problem is not confined to disability living allowance. We know that there are major problems of take-up on income support for pensioners. The House has been rightly concerned about that. We know that only about 75 per cent. of those entitled to family credit take up the benefit to which they are entitled.
The problems for disability are compounded over and beyond the usual problems either of a means test or complexity because the DLA is not a direct compensation. It is based on fair needs. Two people with the same disability may be able to manage their disability very differently; and as a result they have very different entitlements to benefit. Getting people to appreciate that and to understand the benefits to which they may be entitled is complex. Whether that can be done through citizenship in schools I do not know; but that the Government must take action, I entirely agree.

The Royal Mail: Postcodes
2.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that the Royal Mail, when forwarding letters to country addresses, is omitting the names of the village and county from the address.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand from the Post Office that a postal address,
626
designated by Royal Mail, consisting of a post town and a postcode, does not necessarily give a precise geographical or administratively accurate description of where a particular building is located. It is a sorting and routeing instruction to postal staff to enable mail to reach its destination from any part of the country by the quickest and most economical route, with the minimum of address information. Customers who wish to include a village and/or a county name are welcome to do so.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if I am asked where I live I say, for example, "I live in the village of Mottistone in the county of the Isle of Wight". We give the basic address to those who write to us. Is it right that we have to put other information on our letters which is sometimes confusing? In the early days delivery was by the Post Office; it is now by Royal Mail. For example, "Newport", which it insists on putting on letters addressed to me, is also a town in South Wales. For 60 years people in sorting offices have been sending letters addressed to my part of the country to South Wales in the first instance. The same may happen as regards other areas.
Would it not be more sensible if the Post Office relied entirely on its excellent postcode? All it needs is the address that we understand as our address plus the postcode. Nothing else is needed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that if anyone writes to the noble Lord as "Lord Mottistone, Isle of Wight" the letter will reach him immediately, whatever else is put on the envelope.
However, the noble Lord asks an interesting question to which I sought the answer because it seemed to me that the postcode should match a post town. In other words, the digits in the first block should be the same as a post town. I am told that although (and perhaps because) 80 per cent. of mail is scanned at some stage during its transmission, it is difficult to read many people's handwriting and there would be many mistakes if a post town were not included as well as a postcode. I am sorry about that as well.
Lord Ewing of Kirkwood: My Lords, as one of only two postmen in your Lordships' House, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the main problem is that the optical reading machine in the mechanised letter sorting offices simply cannot read "Lord Mottistone of Newport in the Isle of Wight"? The machine can read only the postcode. That is all that is needed. The remainder of the address is only for the benefit of those sending or receiving the letter. All that the optical reading machines can read are the postcodes. Whether or not one puts "Lord Mottistone" on the envelope, the optical reading machine will turn a blind eye to it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ewing and my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead are not the only two postmen in the House. We heard yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who told us that he has a Post Office pension.

627
My noble friend is right in the sense that it is the postcode above all which is optically scanned. He is right to say, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that it does not always work well. That is why, unfortunately, a post town is also necessary.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although some firms receive a perfectly accurate name and address the postcode indicates the name and address of another person of the same surname in the locality? Are any steps likely to be taken to make the operation more efficient?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have some of the most precise postcodes in the world. They go into greater detail and have smaller blocks than almost anywhere else except the United States, which has now added a four digit code to its five digit code. The chance of there being two people with the same surname in the same postcode is relatively low. I doubt whether that causes a great many problems.

EU/WEU Integration: Government Policy
2.55 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support a closer relationship between the Western European Union and the European Union, leading in time to the incorporation of the Western European Union into the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government support the objective of the Amsterdam Treaty for closer institutional relations between the EU and the WEU as one way to help develop a more coherent and effective common European foreign and security policy. Amsterdam makes clear that there can be no EU/WEU integration unless and until all member states agree by unanimity in the European Council.
The Prime Minister has made clear that he wants European foreign policy to be more effective and, if necessary, to have the military tools to back that policy. The Government are not focusing on institutional changes though these may come.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear statement of a shift in government policy since the Amsterdam Treaty was negotiated. I should love to know, as I am sure would all noble Lords, how much further the initiative is intended to go. Officials have spoken of opening up the debate. Others have talked about the potential fourth pillar of the European Union into which the WEU would be merged. Others have again spoken of dismembering the WEU
628
between NATO and the European Union. Do the Government yet have anything more coherent than the idea simply of reopening the debate?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Prime Minister made it clear that NATO would remain the foundation of collective security in Europe. The Prime Minister launched the debate about the sort of foreign policy that the EU should have at Poertschach. As Kosovo has shown, Europe needs to strengthen its political voice. As part of that Europe requires credible military forces and the political will to use them.
We are prepared to think afresh and we have an open mind. But it is important to remind the noble Lord of the crucial role here of NATO. The Prime Minister has stressed that the control of armed forces remains a matter for national governments and that there is no place for a European standing army. I hope therefore that that has cleared some of the points that the noble Lord raises and cleared his mind a little more on the issues.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it was the OSCE which together with NATO brokered a peace deal with President Milosevic in NATO, and that the WEU was nowhere to be seen while that peace process was under way? That in itself reflects badly on the WEU. Does my noble friend therefore agree that, whatever the future may hold for the WEU, the status quo cannot continue?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is the purport of what the Prime Minister indicated. I believe that all noble Lords would acknowledge the important role of the OSCE in the deal thus far negotiated with Mr. Milosevic. Kosovo highlighted some of the current strengths in the arrangements that we have because the EU was able to stand united behind the international communities' pressure on Belgrade; and the EU was able to exercise its economic muscle through further sanctions. However, I agree with my noble friend that it also put the spotlight on some of the weaknesses in current arrangements, in particular the problem of acting quickly and decisively enough to address an international crisis.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the context of Anglo-French relations, can the Minister tell us what is the attitude of France to the WEU?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, France is a member of the WEU. I am sure that the French will wish to engage in any discussions that the Prime Minister's initiative will take forward. We are at an early stage in that initiative, so I am not able to give the noble Lord any particular insight. However, if he would like, and if it would be helpful, I can send him a chart showing the current arrangements of the WEU and the various countries which are involved in their different ways.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as the Minister has twice mentioned Kosovo as an example of the need to

629
strengthen Europe's political voice, can she say what action has been taken since President Milosevic refused to allow the prosecutor of the ICTY, Miss Louise Arbour, to visit Kosovo? What action does she believe can be taken to deal with that gross breach of Security Council Resolution 1199?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I had hoped that we were discussing the WEU and EU and I do not have detailed information on the current position in Kosovo in relation to Miss Arbour. The noble Lord asked an important question. I recognise that it is an issue in which he has taken a great deal of interest, as have your Lordships in general. I will write to the noble Lord and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reassuring and constructive reply from the Dispatch Box, will she agree with two propositions? The first is that it is important that European countries should have the requisite military power to stand behind whatever political decisions they take. Secondly, in that context is it not true that NATO is the correct vehicle for delivering that power? Would it not be wrong to do anything which either duplicated or usurped the power of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. Not all European countries are members of the WEU and some are neutral. But of course I can agree with the noble Lord that it is enormously important that nothing in the Prime Minister's initiative is read as undermining or duplicating NATO's role, a point which was stated unequivocally by my right honourable friend in his speech at Poertschach.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, speaking as a Member of this House who spent 11 years in the WEU, I ask the Minister: does she believe that it might be well and good if Members understood that the WEU exists solely for European defence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. The role of the WEU is probably not as clearly understood as it might be. Of course, as the Question indicates, that role is now under scrutiny. Indeed, the subject of European defence policies was discussed by your Lordships in great detail when we debated the aspects of CFSP in the Amsterdam Treaty. I believe that the noble Baroness is right and that the relationship between the WEU and Europe on the one hand and the WEU and NATO on the other is one on which a little more clarity from time to time would be helpful.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the information she volunteered in answer to the question put to her by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is of great interest? Will she ensure a wide circulation of the document which may help considerably in clarifying the position?
630
In the meantime, will the Minister assure the House that any endeavour to convert the unanimity rule applying to such changes will not be side-stepped into moves by the Commission to turn the required vote into one of qualified majority?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as your Lordships were able to see when we discussed the Amsterdam Treaty, the common strategies developed under CFSP are subject to a unanimity vote. However, the common positions which flow from those strategies are subject to qualified majority voting unless they are not covered by a common strategy. I hope that point is clear. Your Lordships—I would not necessarily include my noble friend—were to some extent reassured by the provisions on unanimity and CFSP in the Amsterdam Treaty.
As regards the second point which my noble friend made, it is difficult to describe in words across the Floor of the House the structures of the WEU. A helpful chart which shows the WEU's membership, associate membership, associate partners, observers and so forth should be of some help to your Lordships in coming to grips with these issues.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and despite the Amsterdam Treaty, can the Minister confirm whether or not the proposals set out by the Government at Poertschach on the establishment of a closer EU defence formation included the extension of qualified majority voting? If not, can she tell the House whether the Government would support such an extension?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that the discussions have been anything like as detailed as the noble Baroness's question implies. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear that we are approaching the debate with a fresh mind. He also made clear that NATO must remain at the foundation of our collective security policy in Europe. The Prime Minister also set out some thoughts on the development of the European security and defence identity, which he said must continue to be fulfilled primarily by NATO. As regards the specific question of the extension of qualified majority voting, I do not believe the Prime Minister's speech covered that in detail. However, if I am wrong in so saying I shall write to the noble Baroness and let her have the full text of what the Prime Minister said.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.8 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Status of Northern Ireland]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, after ("if") insert (", after the entry into force of the agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in the Annex to the Belfast Agreement,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of a minority of amendments being proposed by Members of your Lordships' House other than Government Ministers. The Bill has been subjected to an avalanche of government amendments. During an earlier stage of our deliberations I complimented the Minister on his flexibility in moving so many amendments. However, his flexibility has reached the stage where the Bill is so bent that it can hardly stand up! According to my calculations yesterday, the Government have so far tabled 449 amendments, including 25 new clauses and one new schedule. Two more amendments were added to the Marshalled List overnight, bringing the total to more than 450. It is rather difficult to calculate the number because some of the amendments which were tabled were subsequently withdrawn. The latest example is that on Friday the Government withdrew some of the amendments which they had tabled on Thursday. That process is extremely inconvenient for the House. It may show the virtues of having a second Chamber in which to alter legislation to that extent but it is not a good way to legislate. It makes it exceptionally difficult for Members of your Lordships' House to follow what is being proposed in the Bill, let alone people outside who have an interest in it.
Having registered my protest in that respect, we must start to discuss the 176 or so government amendments which we have before us over the next two days, as well as the modest number of propositions which I hope to put before your Lordships in the course of our debates.
Amendment No. 1 attempts to bring into unison the constitutional changes which are to take place in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. It is extremely important to this whole process, following from the Belfast agreement, that the two countries and the two governments should proceed hand-in-hand together.
Great symbolism has been attached to that throughout the process and that was particularly so when we returned during the Recess for the emergency Bill, when both governments and both parliaments moved on the same day following the dreadful bombing at Omagh. There is great symbolism throughout many of the clauses and parts of the Belfast agreement but there is no greater symbolism within it than the changes to the two constitutions. I believe that they should move together and that is the intention of this amendment and Amendment No. 3, which is grouped with it.
I have been accused earlier in our debates of being pessimistic about the possibilities of the agreement. I am not. I am optimistic, as I have frequently done my best to emphasise. But that is not a reason for ignoring what may happen if the agreement does not operate as smoothly as we all hope.
If the agreement does operate smoothly, as we all hope, then it will be an historic milestone when the two constitutions are changed simultaneously. Under the validation and implementation provisions of the Belfast agreement, it is important that the two constitutional changes come in together. If by any sad chance the process flounders at some point, clearly we should not
632
wish to alter the United Kingdom constitution in the absence of an alteration to the Republic of Ireland constitution. Therefore, it is important also in that respect.
Whatever may be the future of the agreement—and we all hope that it will succeed and the present difficulties will be overcome, as so many difficulties have been overcome in the course of the process—it is important that the two constitutional changes which form the basis of the agreement should proceed together. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment and Amendment No. 3. I respectfully remind your Lordships that the two Governments assented to and signed the Good Friday agreement at the completion of some rather hasty drafting. Moreover, many members of the general public in Northern Ireland who endorsed the agreement in the referendum now regret their hasty action in voting for a referendum booklet which even the draftsmen themselves did not fully understand. By that, I do not mean the Minister and his team but I mean those who participated in the negotiations. Hence, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said, we have what one might call the mutilation of the Bill by the Government themselves. Many people received a clear impression that all the various structures and devices embodied in the Good Friday agreement would advance broadly in line and in step.
It is not only the citizens of Northern Ireland who are somewhat baffled and confused. There is now clear evidence that the good citizens of Great Britain are enraged by what they perceive to be an immediate and permanent amnesty. It is no good saying that the prisoners are released on licence. That is not generally understood. In fact, it is a non-event anyway. But the amnesty is perceived to be the case and the most recent example which has caused outrage on this island was the release of the Hyde Park murderers. After seven months, there have been no matching or reciprocal steps on the part of the terrorists, from whichever quarter they come, who planned those murders.
I have read rather amusing accounts of the IRA army council members visiting—that is the term they use—some 66 individual dissident Republicans. Those reports assert that the visitors threatened their hosts with very grave consequences of disobedience. But if the kindly visitors were really serious, why do they not provide the authorities, north and south, with the names and addresses of those to whom they presumably presented their visiting cards? They could disclose also the precise location of the deadly hardware which is in the co-ownership of the terrorists generally.
That may be straying rather wide of the appropriate constitutional point which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has just made. It would be extremely reassuring if there were to be constitutional reciprocity as suggested in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in his opening comments, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that many amendments had

633
been tabled to the Bill. He implied that that was something of which he was critical. I should say to the noble Lord and the House that this legislation has had to be prepared very quickly indeed. In a perfect world we should have had more time to go through the drafting of the legislation and avoid the large number of amendments that had to be brought into your Lordships' House after the debate before the Summer Recess in the other place.
Of course, I regret that so many amendments have been put before your Lordships. I ask your Lordships' understanding of the fact that it has been necessary to have a timetable which meant that we had to do that work very quickly. Many further discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland took place over the summer. That is the reason for many of the amendments. Others are technical or drafting amendments to improve the Bill. I repeat that I hope your Lordships will understand and be sympathetic to the need to get this Bill quickly onto the statute book because the peace process depends to a large extent on making rapid progress with those measures.
I turn now to deal with the introductory comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I do not agree with him that the parties to the Good Friday agreement did not understand it fully. In some respects, they understood it very well indeed. There may be some points of detail which, in the hurry to get the agreement signed, were not discussed as fully as they might have been. However, my understanding is that the parties are aware of what they agreed to on Good Friday and, by and large, they support it. I do not believe that there has been any movement away on the part of the people who originally supported the agreement, as the noble Lord suggested.
There have been significant achievements. I remind the noble Lord that with the exception of one small grouping all the terrorist groups are on a ceasefire. We have made considerable progress with the referendum, with an Assembly in place, with a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister in place. Intensive discussion is taking place about various of the institutions to be set up under the Good Friday agreement. Therefore, although there are still some difficulties ahead of us, I believe that progress has been most significant—indeed, progress that most people would not have believed could have been attained had we had this conversation perhaps eight or nine months ago.
I turn now to the substance of the amendments. We had some debate on the issues in Committee on amendments with a similar effect to those proposed now by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seeking to bring Clauses 1 and 2 into force only at the point at which the Irish constitutional amendments became law in that jurisdiction. I reassured the noble Lord that that was precisely the intention and that we should achieve it by the Secretary of State making a commencement order for those provisions to come into force on the same day that the Irish brought into force their constitutional amendments. Indeed, that would be the day on which the main institutions of the agreement would come into full effect. The Irish Government will be under an obligation in international law to bring those provisions into force.
634
The two sets of constitutional provisions can clearly only come into force simultaneously: they are complementary and represent the working through of the consent principles to which the agreement binds us. We are firmly committed to making every effort to reach the stage of devolution when these two sets of provisions will become live. But if we were by some mischance not to get there, the Irish constitutional amendments could not come into force. I reassure the House, once again, that we would not bring ours into force either. I have made clear what the position of the Secretary of State would be. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, was good enough to say in Committee that he did not wish to cast doubt on the word of the Secretary of State in this matter.
Therefore, as at Committee stage, I believe that the spirit and indeed the intention of the noble Lord's amendments are met. My objection to them—apart from the fact that they are necessary—is that they seek to make additions to texts which form part of the agreement. I suggest that those who say that they are committed to the agreement simply cannot do so. We do not want anyone else adding glosses to their obligations under the agreement, and we should not do so ourselves. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in response to the Minister's first points, I am certainly sympathetic to the need for this legislation, as I have made clear throughout our proceedings. For the most part, I am not complaining about the government amendments that are being made. However, I am complaining about the great difficulty for your Lordships, and other people outside the Chamber, which arises when such amendments are tabled so very late in the proceedings. It is not as if it is exactly a rare occurrence for this Government. I understand that about 350 government amendments were made to the Scotland Bill during its time in this House.
After all, this Bill left another place at the end of July and here we have amendments being tabled on the very night before our Report stage debates. Indeed, some of them were tabled and then withdrawn during the course of last week, in particular on Thursday and Friday. That is the difficulty. I understand that the practice may have been essential and that the Government may have been driven to it in this particular instance. However, it should not become normal practice. It is only right to draw the attention of the House, and indeed that of the Government, to the fact that that is not an acceptable practice. It makes good legislation very difficult to achieve.
I turn now to the substance of the amendments. I still believe that it would have been better to have put into the legislation the undertaking which the Minister has given on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Irish legislation provides that, the referendum having been successfully conducted in the Republic, their constitution will automatically change when the agreement comes into force. It would be better if our legislation were set up so that the changes in the constitution in the UK also came into force

635
automatically when the agreement came into force. I do not doubt the word of the Secretary of State; nor do I wish to be seen to do so. In view of the Minister's undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson: moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 1, line 15, after ("of") insert ("the Republic of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is needed for two reasons. It is needed, first, for consistency with Schedule 2, which was amended in Committee. Secondly, and much more importantly, the amendment is needed from the point of view of perception, which, as most people know, is and always has been all important in Northern Ireland. Knowledgeable and highly experienced noble Lords from every quarter of the House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, stressed the importance of perception in backing the same amendment when I moved it in Committee. Indeed, despite his nationalist background, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, backed it wholeheartedly.
The suspicion and resentment of the broad mass of the unionist population at the Republic's very long-standing reluctance to renounce its territorial claim on the north runs deep. This suspicion will be revived if it appears that the Republic is finally, and at long last, abandoning the offending phrases of Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution only to replace them with an implied titular claim to the entire island of Ireland.
It is one thing for Her Majesty's Government to accept the deletion of the word "Republic" in the Good Friday agreement as a good-will gesture. Indeed, there can be no objection to that. However, it is very different to accept such wording in an Act of Parliament. By definition, an Act of Parliament is the concern of the people of the United Kingdom and no-one else. When this point was put forward on an earlier occasion the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, seemed to suggest that we were, nevertheless, obliged to use the wording presently to be found in Clause 1 in consequence of a binding commitment made in the Good Friday agreement. However, if one reads the agreement from cover to cover, no such binding commitment can be discerned.
If we want the Good Friday agreement to work, and if we want it to stick, it is vital to reassure the majority in Northern Ireland that there are no more hidden agendas and that there is no covert understanding that the British Government will put up no resistance to any future attempts by the Republic to chip away, little by little, at the foundations of the Union. That is why the amendment is important. I beg to move.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the amendment and make two brief comments. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and many others that perception is all. In this case, it is absolutely vital that we should be seen to be dealing with the Republic of Ireland, which is its legal title. I suggest that we may in any case have legal problems later if we continue to use the word
636
"Ireland" only and we do not use the legally-constituted title of that country; namely, the Republic of Ireland. I can see no difficulty in that respect. They are naturally very proud of being a republic. I cannot see why it is necessary in any way to depart from the facts. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I also support the amendment. It seems to me that the Bill as written is incorrect. The correct nomenclature is as set out in the amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. We have been told that the phrase "the Government of Ireland" resulted from horse trading during the negotiations on Good Friday, especially the last stages. In those circumstances, I suppose it was inevitable that precision was not really one of the main considerations; indeed, haste was everything. The Irish delegation was probably asked by the American chairman, "What would you like to call yourselves?". In that rather chummy atmosphere, where people had been starved of sleep for quite a long time, it was perhaps quite natural that none of the Governments nor the 14-odd parties—some of them distinctly odd—was greatly bothered by what was going on.
But what happens when it comes to drafting what are strictly speaking legal documents; for example, an extradition application for an alleged drugs baron? Will the self-selected title "Ireland" run the risk of the extradition document being rejected on grounds of its being defective? Some of your Lordships will recall an occasion two or three years ago when a Dublin court rejected a British warrant which had a pinhole in the top left-hand corner and was technically defective. That was a good dodge in that the warrant was never granted. In the light of this lack of clarity and precision I suggest that we should support the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister's brief is headed "Resist". If I am correct in that assumption, will the noble Lord respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when he introduced this amendment because that is an important point? If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, slightly glossed over the point but it is clear. Paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 2 on page 53 refers specifically to,
"the surrender of fugitive offenders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland".
If you have one, you must have both. If the noble Lord sticks to his brief and resists the amendment—as I assume he will—he must be prepared on Third Reading to produce an amendment to amend paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 2.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment for all the reasons that have been stated so clearly. However, there is a further reason. As has already been mentioned, there is no such thing as the government of Ireland. To use an expression

637
which does not exist in a UK Bill which is to become an Act is surely rather foolish. I am surprised that the legal draftsmen have not corrected this themselves in the period between the end of June and now. In the first place they should consider the Acts of the Republic of Ireland. They will find that in 1949 an Act in the parliament of the Republic of Ireland clearly referred to the Republic of Ireland. That is the legal name in the Republic.
Further, the Ireland Act of 1949 dealt with the change from the name Eire to that of the Republic. Section 1(3) states,
"The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section is hereafter in this Act referred to, and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passage of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland".
There is, therefore, no other expression properly to describe that part of Ireland.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I, too, strongly support this amendment. It seems to me to be beyond any doubt that the term "Ireland" embraces all 32 counties of that island. Northern Ireland by its own name suggests that it is a part of Ireland. There is, therefore, no such thing—as the noble Lord said—as the government of Ireland; but one day, if there is a united Ireland, there will be.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it seems to me legally dubious as well as offensive in some respects for the words "the Government of Ireland" to appear in this context in this legislation. I do not wish to add to what has already been said in the debate except to say that as regards page 53 the insertion of the words "the Republic of Ireland" was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but was accepted by the Government in the course of the Committee stage. That is why the words "the Republic of Ireland" are used there. As the Government have accepted those words on page 53, there is at least some logic in following the same precedent in the case of the earlier clause.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 is identical to one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in Committee. I explained on that occasion that the language of Clause 1 formed part of the agreement. On that ground alone I urged that it should be adhered to. I also explained that the use of this term was part of an alignment of practice between ourselves and the Irish Government, the other side of which was a welcome change by them to the use of the term, "Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Other noble Lords drew attention to the fact that in the past international agreements between ourselves and the Irish Government had been prepared in two versions; one of them using the terminology favoured by the Irish, the other reflecting our own preferences. Now that we have agreement on the consent question, the Irish feel
638
able to use our preferred terminology for this state. We are using theirs for the Irish state. The international agreement annexed to the Good Friday agreement is the first instance of this. I suggest that that is welcome.
These usages are also reflected in the text of Clause 1, which appears in the Bill precisely as it was set out in the Good Friday agreement. If we depart from it the consequence is stark and simple. The whole agreement structure is blocked. It is a requirement for the entry into force of the international agreement—that is, article 4, paragraph (a)—that British legislation has been enacted to implement these provisions. Unless we wish to see the agreement blocked, that is what we must do. We want the Irish to implement the constitutional changes they have signed up to without any variation, and we should do the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said in Committee that he did not believe that what was agreed on Good Friday could have any bearing on an Act of Parliament. I fear that is not so. Unless the Bill reflects the agreement, the requirements for the entry into force of the international agreement that underpins the coming into effect of all the arrangements agreed between the parties are not met.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked me to reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. However, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has already done that when he referred to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I accepted, which substituted "Republic of Ireland" for "Ireland" in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. But that, I suggest, is an entirely different matter. It does not concern the text of the agreement and it does not concern the new understanding on practice in referring to our respective governments that we have reached with the Irish. The text of Clauses 1 and 2 was accepted by the participants in the talks. I do not believe that we should depart from that here. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us why in the same clause a reference is made to,
"Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom",
rather than the more common formulation of,
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland",
which is the expression used in the agreement? The expression,
"Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom",
seems to me to be at least a nod in the direction of the sensibilities of the south. That is interesting to say the least. I readily acknowledge that it occurs in the agreement, but it is nevertheless interesting.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand by the Interpretation Act that the "United Kingdom" means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the traditional expression that we use.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, why does he not take account of an

639
Act of the United Kingdom which requires that this part of Ireland shall be known as the Republic of Ireland in all future enactments or statutes?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my understanding is that we have now moved into a new era determined by the Good Friday agreement. As I said earlier, our Government and the Government in Dublin agreed on the terminology along with the other parties to the Good Friday agreement. All I am asking is that we stick by what has been agreed because if we believe in the Good Friday agreement I suggest that we do not have any other choice.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords in all quarters of the House for their powerful and convincing support. My noble friend Lord Molyneaux surmised that the Americans may have had something to do with the wording. I suspect he is right. There is nothing the Irish-American lobby are working at harder than brainwashing their fellow Americans into believing that the Republic rightly owns the whole island of Ireland and the British are in illegal occupation of the north.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that the wording as it stands is legally dubious and offensive. He is absolutely right. The Minister said that the wording forms part of the Good Friday agreement. There may have been some verbal understanding, but there is nothing in this document which requires an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament to use the phrase "Ireland" rather than the phrase "Republic of Ireland". I am not convinced by the Minister's reply.
There was considerable unease on the Conservative Benches in another place when the Bill was being considered there. Of course, the House of Commons was given practically no time to discuss it. The other place should be given a chance to look at it at greater leisure and therefore I intend to ask the opinion of the House.
3.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 146.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ailsa, M.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ampthill, L.

Burnham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Butterfield, L.

Balfour, E.

Butterworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cadman, L.

Berners, B.

Caithness, E.

Biffen, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blatch, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Borthwick, L.

Carnock, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Bridges, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Chesham, L.

640

Clark of Kempston, L.

Leigh, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cockfield, L.

Long, V.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L. [Teller.]

McConnell, L.

Cox, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Milverton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Davidson, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Denham, L.

Moran, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mottistone, L.

Downshire, M.

Munster, E.

Dundee, E.

Nickson, L.

Eames, L.

Norrie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Elles, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Palmer, L.

Exmouth, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fookes, B.

Quinton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rees, L.

Haddington, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Haig, E.

Romney, E.

Halsbury, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sandford, L.

Harlech, L.

Sandwich, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harrowby, E.

Southwell, Bp.

Holderness, L.

Stockton, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Inglewood, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ironside, L.

Swinton, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Teviot, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kenyon, L.

Vivian, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Waddington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Weatherill, L.

Knollys, V.

Westbury, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Layton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Addington, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Crawley, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

David, B.

Alli, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Amos, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Annan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Diamond, L.

Avebury, L.

Dixon, L.

Bach, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Barnett, L.

Dubs, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Borrie, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Brightman, L.

Ezra, L.

Brookman, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Falkland, V.

Burlison, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Geraint, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Gilbert, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Chorley, L.

Goudie, B.

Christopher, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

641

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Grenfell, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

Northbourne, L.

Hacking, L.

Northfield, L.

Hardie, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Paul, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peston, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Haskel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hayman, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Headfort, M.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Randall of St- Budeaux, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rea, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Richard, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hylton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Sawyer, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Islwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Serota, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Levy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Stallard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Ludford, B.

Taverne, L.

McCarthy, L.

Thomas of Gresgord, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thornton, B.

McNair, L.

Thurso, V.

Maddock, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tordoff, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Uddin, B.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Molloy, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.49 p.m.
Clause 2 [Previous enactments]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Transferred, excepted and reserved matters]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2)(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this appears to be a modest amendment but an important point lies behind it which we discussed briefly during the course of the Committee stage. This part of the Bill provides for the situation where powers, having been in one of the categories of either transferred or reserved, are moved to the other. Westminster and Whitehall then cease to have responsibility for certain matters and the Assembly and the Executive take on that responsibility or, conversely, the powers are returned to Westminster. When that happens an order will be laid which will have
642
to be approved not only by Parliament in Westminster but also by the Assembly with cross-community support in a resolution. That is fair enough and I agree with it in relation to the transfer of powers to Northern Ireland from Westminster. But my amendment seeks to say that a resolution of the Assembly shall not be required when powers are being transferred by the Secretary of State from Northern Ireland back to Westminster.
As I said in Committee, there may be occasions when the Assembly is unable to obtain cross-community support to give up one of its powers even though many in the Assembly and the Executive think it desirable that it should. In Committee we discussed briefly when powers might be taken back. The Minister gave the example of powers being transferred to Northern Ireland but, because of a change in the powers of the European Union in Brussels, the requirement for one negotiating stance by the United Kingdom Government might necessitate the taking back of the powers. I found that a slightly odd example because quite a large number of important powers are being transferred to the Executive in which the European Union plays a large part. Agriculture and fisheries are two obvious examples. I do not suppose for a moment that the Government intend to take back agriculture and fisheries because of Northern Ireland negotiations. However, if they should wish to do so, the chances of the Assembly agreeing with cross-community support to them being taken back seem to be as near nil as makes no difference. One can think of other less prominent examples of that process.
In future, it may be that law and order powers and so on are transferred to the Assembly and the Executive. If all goes smoothly it is desirable that that should in due course happen. I urge caution in doing so but, nevertheless, it should in due course happen. However, it may be that subsequent to that the situation deteriorates once again and the further use of troops is required. In that case it would be extremely difficult to get the Assembly to give up the powers through a cross-community vote. In those circumstances the Secretary of State, with the approval of both Houses of the Westminster Parliament, should be able to take back the powers regardless of the fact that there was not full cross-community support for that proposition within the Assembly itself. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I warmly support the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that they are modest amendments. I believe it is important that residual powers should remain at Westminster because we are entering uncharted waters. There is the question of serious division arising within the new structure. No one can foretell exactly what that would mean. It would be a great mistake to equate the structure there with that which is proposed for Scotland. There will be a party or perhaps two parties in power in Scotland. Then, at a general election, the balance of power may change, but there will be a degree of stability which will not be apparent or real in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is because everyone is in government and a general election for the Assembly will make no difference to the management of the affairs of

643
the Assembly and of Northern Ireland generally. At most it will mean a slight change in the electoral balance. A 0.5 per cent. change under the d'Hondt system might affect the distribution of a junior ministry.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, wisely said, the new structure, even with the best will in the world, could be subject to the effects of what Harold Macmillan called, "Events, dear boy, events". Those cannot be foreseen. Through long experience and expertise, the Parliament of the United Kingdom is always able to cope with such unexpected events, but it would be too much to expect a brand new and untried structure to be as efficient as that in its early stages. I think that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with the authority of both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom, should have that power.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 would mean that the agreement of the Assembly would not be required under the Bill for transferred matters to become reserved. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, explained in Committee that if the Assembly became deadlocked at some stage in the future, it might be desirable to, as he put it, take powers back, but impossible to achieve agreement on a cross-community basis for so doing. He used that argument again a few minutes ago. He suggested that, in that case, it would be impossible for powers to be exercised by Parliament.
We are not planning for failure in the Bill. We have not included the contingency arrangements that applied in earlier constitutional legislation by which the Secretary of State could step in in various ways. Once the Act comes fully into force, the direct rule powers will be dead. We have deleted provisions that appeared in the Bill as first drafted giving the Secretary of State a role in the decision to call an early election, or to prorogue the Assembly. So I do not think we should plan for failure here either.
If the working of the institutions goes radically wrong, of course, Parliament may have to step in. But it would do so by virtue of its general authority, preserved in the Bill, to legislate for the United Kingdom as a whole. I do not see that the noble Lord's amendment would add anything to its authority; it would simply impose restrictions on the ability of the Assembly to legislate in fields that had ceased to be transferred.
It is true that executive powers could be moved away from the devolved institutions to the UK authorities by a consequential order under Clause 80. But that would be a radical step, with an implication of permanence about it. In those circumstances, Parliament might in any event have to legislate to make other changes, so that the institutions could operate more effectively.
We are conferring a range of powers on the devolved institutions by virtue of the agreement. If we are to alter that feature of the agreement, whether by adding to or taking away from the powers, we should do it only by a similar measure of cross-community consensus as applied in the talks. That is what the Bill achieves, but the noble Lord's amendments would take away the
644
requirement. I do not think we should be acting faithfully to the agreement if we did that. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are constantly being accused of not acting in accordance with the agreement although we always do our best to do so. Personally, I do not see that the agreement in any way covers this particular point or lays down what should happen if powers are being taken away and brought back to Westminster. However, it is not a matter that I wish to pursue to a Division at this point. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 43, after ("6") insert (", (Entrenched enactments)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, 35 and 168. Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, which, as I have said, fall with Amendments Nos. 35 and 168, are simply drafting matters, moving the existing Schedule 4, which entrenches certain enactments so that they cannot be modified by the assembly, into a new clause after Clause 6. That is because Schedule 4, following earlier amendments, is now very short. It seems to us that the Bill is likely to be more intelligible if the provisions about entrenchment appear in Part II itself. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it seems rather fussy at this stage of the drafting of the Bill to be moving matters from a schedule to a clause and to very little advantage. I appreciate that it is probably a marginal improvement on the drafting, but it is an example of the kind of thing which is being done with this Bill. There are marginal improvements in the drafting being inserted at the last minute to the extent of crossing out a schedule and reinserting the matter in a clause. I do not disapprove of that happening, but it is part of the huge burden that is being put on this House and on other people in trying to follow what is happening in this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Legislative competence]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
Page 3, leave out line 25.
Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) it modifies an enactment in breach of section (Entrenched enactments)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause—

ENTRENCHED ENACTMENTS
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the following enactments shall not be modified by an Act of the Assembly or subordinate legislation made, confirmed or approved by a Minister or Northern Ireland department—

(a) the European Communities Act 1972;

(b) the Human Rights Act 1998; and

(c) sections 78 to 80, subsections (3) and (4) of section 89 and section 92.

(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent an Act of the Assembly or subordinate legislation modifying section 3(3) or (4) or 11(1) of the European Communities Act 1972.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Scrutiny by Ministers]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 10 modifies Clause 8 to take account of the possibility that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may introduce Bills as well as departmental Ministers, who are referred to in the Bill as "Northern Ireland Ministers"—the expression that appears at present in Clause 8. The possibility of the First and Deputy First Ministers presenting legislation is all the greater if an "office of the centre" under those two Ministers is established, as later amendments to Clause 19 would now permit.
Because we are now substituting the general term "Minister" in Clause 8, it becomes appropriate to move back to that clause the omnibus definition of Ministers, and this is the effect of Amendment No. 11. Your Lordships will recall that it was indicated in Committee that we need to do some tidying up. Indeed, I believe your Lordships invited us to do so, in the context of Ministers. That is what these amendments are designed to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I do not entirely approve of transferring the definition of "Minister" to this clause, but we shall discuss that in relation to another amendment when I propose that the definition of "Minister" should be inserted with the main body of definitions in the interpretation clause, Clause 92. With that reservation, I believe that the substance of what is happening as regards the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is entirely acceptable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) In this Act "Minister", unless the context otherwise requires, means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—

RECONSIDERATION BY ASSEMBLY
(".—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a reference has been made under section 10 in relation to a provision of a Bill;

(b) a reference for a preliminary ruling has been made by the Judicial Committee in connection with that reference; and

(c) neither of the references has been decided or otherwise disposed of.

(2) If the Assembly resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill—

(a) the Presiding Officer shall notify the Attorney General for Northern Ireland and the Attorney General of that fact; and

(b) the Attorney General for Northern Ireland shall request the withdrawal of the reference under section 10.

(3) In this section "reference for a preliminary ruling" means a reference of a question to the European Court of Justice under—

(a) Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

(b) Article 41 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community; or

(c) Article 150 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group also includes Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. These amendments relate to the new clause which it is proposed should be inserted after Clause 10. We are building on the Scotland Bill to an extent and, obviously, we have borrowed fairly freely from it. Your Lordships recently approved very similar amendments to these at the Report stage of the Scotland Bill.
Perhaps I may summarise them briefly. The new clause in Amendment No. 12 deals with the possibility that, when a Bill of the Assembly has been referred by the Attorney-General to the Judicial Committee for a decision as to whether it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly, the Judicial Committee may decide that it must refer a matter to the European Court of Justice. Since incompatibility with Community law is a ground on which an Act of the Assembly may be outside legislative competence, this is a live possibility. Such a reference may cause quite considerable delay and in such a case the Assembly may wish to reconsider the Bill, and seek to avoid the difficulty that has brought about the reference by the Judicial Committee to the European Court. I ought to stress that the new clause gives the Assembly the option of flexibility. There is no obligation to reconsider. If the Assembly decides that it wishes to do so, the Attorney-General is obliged to request the withdrawal of the reference to the Judicial Committee.
Amendment No. 14 requires the assembly to make provision in its standing orders for reconsideration of a Bill where a reference has been withdrawn at the Assembly's request under the new clause after Clause 10.
Amendment No. 15 amends Clause 12(3), so that where a reference to the Judicial Committee has been withdrawn at the Assembly's request under the new clause, which I have explained, the Secretary of State is not to submit the Assembly's Bill in its unamended form for Royal Assent. If an amended Bill comes forward, of

647
course, the Attorney-General may, if appropriate in his judgment, still refer it again to the Judicial Committee under Clause 10, if he believes questions of legislative competence still arise. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Stages of Bills]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 22, at end insert ("(a) or (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 13 makes a technical change to Clause 11. Clause 11(1) requires the Assembly to make standing orders for various stages of a Bill, including the final stage of a Bill—Third Reading as we know it in your Lordships' House—at which a Bill can be passed or rejected but not amended. Clause 11(2) permits standing orders, however, to modify provisions under Clause 11(1) in relation to different types of Bills. But under the scheme of Part II, the Secretary of State may, before "Third Reading", have given her consent under Clause 9 to a Bill, or the Attorney-General may have indicated under Clause 10 that he does not intend to make a reference to the Judicial Committee. That scheme would be subverted if modifications to standing orders under Clause 11(2) were able to provide for amendment of Bills at Third Reading, when such consent or notice may already have been given. The amendment is designed to ensure that that cannot occur, and that is its purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have never been very happy with the idea that a Bill proceeding through the Assembly—that is, a single chamber legislature in Northern Ireland—should merely have what we would call in our jargon a "Second Reading" debate on the principle; a Committee stage on the detail; no Report stage and then a "Third Reading"—I adopt the inverted commas used by the Minister—at which no amendments can be made. It seems to me that the experience of this Bill, with its huge number of amendments, at the second stage in the second House, demonstrates the need sometimes to modify enactments and Bills between First Reading and when they pass into law. Where there is a single chamber, as there will be in Northern Ireland, an awful lot will be expected of the draftsmen if there is no Report stage and there are no amendments at Third Reading.
There will also be the difficulty that the Executive will not be able to reply, as Ministers frequently reply both in your Lordships' House and in another place, that a good point has been made but that the drafting is not as the Government would wish and that they will table an amendment on Report or at Third Reading to take account of the point in a properly drafted way. That is a legitimate tactic—or rather, a legitimate course of action—which Ministers frequently take. It is to the benefit of all that they should do so. The point is taken but the proper legal form is used in the Bill. That would be ruled out if this amendment applied.
Preventing Standing Orders from permitting any form of amendment to an assembly Bill except in the one Committee stage would cause difficulties for the
648
Assembly. Ultimately, the Assembly will have to work out its own Standing Orders. But, here, in these clauses, we are preventing it having a second stage at which amendments can be moved. I may have misread the amendment, but that is as I understand it. I think the Minister is about to tell me that I have misread it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am simply responding, as helpfully, I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has asked his questions.
The real reason for the prohibition is to avoid the subversion of the scheme whereby the Secretary of State before "Third Reading" or the Attorney-General have given their consent or indication of non-reference.
In answer to the noble Lord's question, I am happy to confirm that the three required stages in the Assembly, which are set out in Clause 11, are the minimum. The Assembly can add other procedures, such as a Report stage, if it wants to deal with the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, identified. I would make two points on that problem. First, we tend to have rather more massive and substantial legislation in your Lordships' House and in another place than is likely to be contemplated for the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, I take the noble Lord's point that legislative review and reconsideration may sometimes be necessary. Therefore, I stress that it is entirely open to the Assembly to add, for instance, a Report stage. We are simply disentitling a changed view after the Secretary of State's consent or after the Attorney's indication that he does not intend to refer. I hope that that reply is helpful both to the noble Lord and to your Lordships generally.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as I read it, if amended, subsection (2) will include the presumption that there will be only a limited number of stages. However, I shall not argue with the Minister. If the Assembly has the power to add a Report stage, I think it would be well advised to do so for the reasons I have given.
I certainly do not agree with the Minister when he states that the Northern Ireland Assembly may not face such substantial legislation as we do. Some of the secondary legislation and statutory instruments which come before us from time to time in respect of Northern Ireland—that is exactly the sort of thing the Assembly will have to consider—comprise many pages and complicated clauses. They replicate all sorts of Bills which deal with the domestic life of the Province in the same way as our Bills deal with life this side of the water.
I believe that the Assembly would be wise to have an equivalent of Report stage. If the Minister says that it will be able to do so legally under this Bill and that it will not be restricted from doing so, I am happy to allow the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) a reference made in relation to a provision of the Bill under section 10 has been withdrawn following a request for withdrawal under section (Reconsideration by Assembly);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Submission by Secretary of State]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 14, after ("Assembly,") insert ("or
(b) a reference made in relation to a provision of the Bill under section 10 has been withdrawn following a request for withdrawal under section (Reconsideration by Assembly),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 27, leave out from ("contains") to end of line 28 and insert ("a provision which he considers—

(a) would be incompatible with any international obligations, with the interests of defence or national security or with the protection of public safety or public order; or

(b) would have an adverse effect on the operation of the single market in goods and services within the United Kingdom.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group comprises Amendments Nos. 16, 36, 37 and 38. At an earlier stage of this Bill, we indicated that we would table further amendments to safeguard national security. Amendment No. 16, together with Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38, give effect to that commitment.
The purpose of these amendments is twofold. First they would ensure that the interests of defence, national security and public safety are properly safeguarded under the new arrangements. They remain, of course, the responsibility of the Secretary of State. They are vital interests which have to be protected. Secondly, the amendments will protect the operation of the single market in goods and services across the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 16 provides that the Secretary of State may decline to submit an assembly Bill for Royal Assent if she considers it to be incompatible with any international obligation, the interests of defence or national security, the protection of public safety or public order, or with the operation of the UK single market.
Amendment No. 38 is closely related. It gives the Secretary of State power to revoke subordinate legislation for the same reasons. I remind your Lordships that the Scotland Bill contains similar provisions for ensuring that legislation meets international obligations and safeguards national security, although the provisions are not directly equivalent.
The principle of the single market in goods and services across the United Kingdom is important. Under EC law, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern
650
Ireland Ministers will be required to meet obligations under EC single market legislation in transferred areas, including not discriminating against goods and services from any other member state of the Union. Community legislation enforces a single market between EU member states, but not necessarily within each member state. These amendments are intended to fill that gap. It is only right that goods and services from England, Wales and Scotland should be treated no less favourably than those from other EU member states.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 deal with the Secretary of State's power to direct certain action to be taken by Ministers or departments or to direct that proposed action is not taken. As it stands, Clause 24 entitles the Secretary of State to do so only in order to comply with international obligations. As I have indicated, Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 protect the interests of defence, national security, public order and public safety.
These are important and necessary provisions. One hardly needs to underline that. The responsibility to safeguard defence, national security, public order and public safety extends throughout the United Kingdom. It will continue to do so after devolution. Those matters will remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State. These amendments, if accepted by your Lordships, will ensure that the Secretary of State has a means of continuing to discharge her responsibilities. We hope that no such situation would arise. However, we cannot leave open the possibility; the consequences are potentially too grave. That is the purpose of the amendments.
I stress that these provisions, by their nature, would be used by Her Majesty's Government only as a last resort. If there were questions of concern, every effort would be made to resolve them by consultation with the Northern Ireland Administration. I stress once more that if, and only if, that failed would the Secretary of State use her power of direction. I hope that that explanation satisfies your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State can, if necessary, strike down a measure in the interests of defence, national security and so on, as suggested in the amendment, both in relation to primary and secondary legislation. I accept that that would happen only rarely. It is not as simple as the Minister suggested. This is actually quite a sweeping power against the rub of devolution. The intention under later parts of the Bill, and particularly under Schedule 3, is to transfer responsibility for public order in due course to the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland. This provision, on the other hand, retains the ultimate power with the Secretary of State. Perhaps that is necessary, but the responsibility for public order is supposed to be transferred at some stage in the future.
The position is even more difficult when it comes to the question of the single market in goods and services within the United Kingdom. Later clauses of the Bill—if they are not amended though amendments are suggested—propose to transfer to Northern Ireland responsibility for the regulation of building societies, banking, intellectual property, patents, copyright and so

651
forth. There will not be a single market if there is a different patent law, different banking regulations and regulations of that kind in Northern Ireland. Yet if these powers are used by the Secretary of State to strike it down there is no point in giving the powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the first place.
So the single market part of it does not sit at all easily with the proposal to transfer those responsibilities—very considerable responsibilities—in due course to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. Of course, it is not intended that they should be transferred immediately on the passage of the Bill; they are in the reserved category for the time being. But the point of the reserved category is that they should be readily transferred to Northern Ireland when conditions permit. However, they will not be if, on the grounds of it having an adverse effect on the single market, the Secretary of State then overrules them all. I believe that we are getting into a bit of difficulty here.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think not. The noble Lord is quite right: this is a considerable power but it is intended to be a fail-safe mechanism only. The noble Lord is quite right also in relation to what may be future developments. But it is necessary to put those possible future developments in their legal context. It still remains the fact that, as a matter of European Community law, the Northern Ireland Assembly and authorities in the future will have to meet their obligations under the single market legislation in transferred areas. That means not discriminating against goods and services from any other member state of the Union. It is only if they fail to discharge their legal responsibilities that one would anticipate the Secretary of State having to intervene.
I stress that one would anticipate negotiation and discussions. But if at the end of the day it is necessary, then this reserved power—and the adjective is as important as the noun—is still something that the Secretary of State needs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [First Minister and deputy First Minister]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert ("; and
(b) subject to the provisions of this Part, shall hold office until the conclusion of the next election for First Minister and deputy First Minister.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, with your Lordships' permission it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 and 227. I notice that Amendment No. 229 appears both in this group of amendments and in a later group which commences with Amendment No. 30. I am grateful to the noble Lord who drew my attention to this before we began our debate this afternoon; I had not noticed it myself. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I confirm that Amendment No. 229 will be taken in the group which we shall consider later this afternoon; that is to say, in the group commencing with Amendment No. 30. I regret the error and hope that it has not caused any confusion.
This series of minor and technical amendments amounts to the last episode in what we might call the saga of d'Hondt. As those of your Lordships who listened to the Committee stage debates during the earlier passage of the Bill will know, the d'Hondt formula is one of great elegance and intricacy and I trust that these amendments will help to ensure that the provisions of this clause work fully in the way the agreement's authors intended.
Amendment No. 17 is a minor point clarifying that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will hold office until the conclusion of the next election for their posts.
Amendment No. 21 addresses a fairly obscure point—the circumstances in which the d'Hondt formula needs to be rerun. At present, one of those circumstances is when a motion of exclusion against a political party under Clause 28(2) expires, but only if the original motion had led to a vacancy in one or more ministerial offices.
The whole point of the one-year period of exclusion is that political parties should be able to reclaim ministerial posts to which they are entitled when the exclusion is over. But there may be circumstances in which the current wording of the Bill is too narrow. The original motion might not have led to vacancies if the motion had been passed before d'Hondt had been run in the first place, for example. The revised drafting addresses that problem.
Amendment No. 22 is purely a drafting point. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 make it clear that if a political party's registered nominating officer (or party leader in the case of a non-registered party) wish to delegate their functions under Clause 16, this may only be to a member of the Assembly. This addresses some points made to the Government during the consultation exercise on the Bill.
Amendment No. 227 makes it clear that for a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister determination on the number of ministerial posts to carry forward after devolution, it must both have been made and approved by the Assembly in the shadow phase. This brings the transitional provision more into line with the provision of Clause 15 itself. I commend all these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Amendment No. 23, which we are discussing with this group, brings into the Bill a reference to the Registration of Political Parties Bill 1998, which is also passing through Parliament at this time. I am afraid that, with this large number of amendments being considered, I have not had time fully to follow the point and it may already have been dealt with elsewhere. However, the intention is apparently that the Northern Ireland parties, like those in the rest of the United Kingdom, should be registered by the Registrar of Companies for England and Wales in Cardiff. That seems to me to be an extremely odd

653
thing to have in respect of the Northern Ireland parties. Is that really the intention of the Government or have I misunderstood it?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the answer is yes, and the same applies in Scotland and indeed in England.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is there any particular reason why the Registrar of Companies, who has very specific responsibilities with respect to limited companies in England and Wales but is not given the duty of making value judgments about names and things of that sort in relation to companies, is nevertheless going to have to decide on whether the name for a political party in Northern Ireland is acceptable?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure that there is a problem on that. Companies House was moved to Cardiff. It happens to be the geography of where the move was made, and there is no further significance in that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am in no way objecting to Companies House being in Cardiff; I would not dream of doing so with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, being present! But it seems to me that an official in England and Wales charged with the duty of dealing with companies is perhaps going to have to make some difficult decisions about whether or not the choice of a name for a Northern Ireland party is acceptable and can be registered. That is placing a heavy duty on an official, whether he is in Cardiff, in London or anywhere else in England and Wales. I am not sure whether, as in the Companies Act, the Secretary of State should be responsible for making decisions about a name.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure whether Report stage is the point at which to hold this discussion. Northern Ireland parties are subject to the same arrangements on legislation as all other United Kingdom parties. Representations are taken and the matter can be discussed with the Speaker's Committee. That is what is happening in relation to all political parties in the legislation referred to—which is, after all, not the legislation under discussion this afternoon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Ministerial offices]:
4.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 18, after ("Ministers;") insert—
("( ) the number of junior Ministerial offices to be held by junior Northern Ireland Ministers;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally. With it, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29.
These amendments introduce exactly the same provisions for the appointment of junior Ministers as are already in place for Ministers. Our proposal is the same as in Clause 16, except that it refers to junior Ministers
654
rather than Ministers; and whereas Ministers are to be allocated the top 10 places, junior Ministers would be allocated the 11th to 20th place.
These issues arose on the first day in Committee (col. 1277 of Hansard) when the Minister made clear that the invention of junior ministries was to be allocated by a determination agreed by the First and Deputy First Minister. We believe that that could fly in the face of the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. The agreement makes no reference to junior Ministries, only to ministries which it explicitly demands are to be allocated in proportion to party strengths, not at the whim or direction of the First and Deputy First Minister. We on these Benches have rigorously defended the agreement and it is regrettable that the Government should seek to diverge from it.
We suggest that the exact method of d'Hondt seems the most appropriate for the allocation of junior ministries. When party strengths are ordered according to the d'Hondt principle, the top 10 places are to be rewarded with ministries; the next 10 (the 11th to 20th) places are to be given to junior ministries. That seems the most obvious interpretation of the Good Friday agreement in this matter. It is of no particular benefit to larger or smaller parties, merely to parties in proportion to their strength, which is what people voted for in the referendum in May. Nevertheless, we should not object if the junior ministries were allocated in exactly the same way as ministries given to the top 10 places, so that each party that won a ministry also won a junior ministry.
The Government's plan for junior ministries to be allocated in accordance with a formula agreed by the First and Deputy First Minister is a recipe for a stitch-up and would undermine the new structures. Any matter put forward by the First and Deputy First Minister that is not proportional to party strengths will either be voted down by the Assembly, undermining the authority of the First and Deputy First Minister, or the Assembly will be voting against the letter and spirit of the agreement. Any party that is disadvantaged by such a deviation from the agreement is sure to highlight that fact.
In considering this amendment, will the Minister state whether be believes that not appointing junior Ministers in this way would fly in the face of this spirit of the agreement? I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am aware of and grateful for the fact that the Liberal Democrats have consistently supported the agreement. That support is much appreciated and I hasten to acknowledge it. However, in answer to the last question put to me by the noble Lord, I am afraid that there is no reference to junior Ministers in the agreement. His question related to the spirit of the agreement, and the agreement contains no reference to junior Ministers. However, there was a request from the political parties during the discussions that took place with them in the course of the summer that there should be a facility on the face of the Bill to enable junior Ministers to be appointed.
The noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 seek to put junior ministerial posts on a similar footing to Northern Ireland Ministers. Amendment No. 18 would

655
require any determination or order under Clause 15 to set out the number of junior Minister posts as well as the number of Northern Ireland Ministers. Amendment No. 29 would then apply an amended version of the d'Hondt formula to the appointment of junior Ministers. The d'Hondt formula, as amended in the noble Lord's amendment, would take into account both the number of ministerial and junior ministerial posts that a party already had in calculating the d'Hondt formula. The effect would be to make it more likely that smaller parties could obtain junior ministerial posts at least, even if they had not been strong enough to obtain posts on the executive committee.
No doubt the noble Lord feels that the Government have not been overly sympathetic to the points that he and his colleagues in another place have made on this subject. We recognise the importance of inclusivity in the new Assembly, as well as the concept of strict proportionality. Perhaps more important than both, however, is the point that I made at the outset; namely, the need to stick to the letter of the agreement as much as possible and, where that is not possible, to be guided by the views expressed to us during the consultation process that has taken place over the past few months.
Noble Lords will know that there is no specific reference to junior Ministers in the Belfast Agreement. There has been general agreement that junior Ministers might have a useful role to play. However, there does not yet seem to be a consensus as to what functions they should exercise or how they should be appointed.
Given the lack of an explicit reference to the agreement and consensus among the parties, the Government thought it right to include Clause 17 in the Bill as an enabling clause. It will then be for the parties to agree among themselves as to what kind of role junior Ministers might play. What is clear, however, is that junior Ministers will not have a major independent role. Indeed, government Amendment No. 31 makes it clear that statutory functions may not be conferred on junior Ministers—statutory functions being matters that should rest simply with the senior Ministers referred to in the agreement.
As for the formula proposed, I wish to emphasise that the Government fully understand the noble Lord's desire for the new structures to be both proportional and inclusive in nature. But nothing in Clause 17 as it stands would prevent that. Indeed, the clause leaves it open for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in making a determination and the Assembly approving it to decide to use the d'Hondt formula or indeed any other appropriate formula in appointing junior Ministers if it wishes. But it is left to the First and Deputy First Minister to make such a determination and to choose the method by which they would be appointed.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the effect of the clause that we have included in the Bill will be to enable the d'Hondt formula to be used if that is the wish in Belfast. In the light of my remarks, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is shocking, is it not, that the Government should depart from the strict
656
letter of the agreement when we have been told off for even hinting at doing so on other occasions. The noble Lord is not prepared to go so far away from the letter of the agreement as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale proposed. Nevertheless, the inclusion of junior Ministers is a departure from the letter of the agreement. I do not disagree with it; however, in view of the strictures that have been pressed upon us at different times for doing so, it is worthy of note. Coming so soon after the noble Lord, Lord Williams, explained that Amendment No. 16 was a failsafe—when I had been told off a few moments earlier for being pessimistic in requiring a different failsafe—perhaps it is only a question of which amendment is accepted and whether it has the approval of the Front Bench opposite.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may advise noble Lords. The Minister has replied. Because the noble Lord, Lord Cope, had not intervened previously I was seeking to be flexible. However, I think that it is not possible to extend flexibility any further. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will complete his contribution quickly and then the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, ought to speak.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise if I have in any way stepped outside the conventions of the House. I merely wished to draw attention to the nature of the Minister's reply in this case. Not having spoken before, I thought that my intervention was in order. If it was not, I apologise to the House.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I suggest that the Minister is not departing from the letter of the agreement. I said specifically that there was a "spirit of the agreement" with which I was concerned. I take the points made by the Minister. I hoped that he would be more sympathetic towards the amendment because this could be an extremely divisive subject. I was not trying to give an advantage to smaller parties, although I must declare an interest in that I am a member of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. However, I take the points the noble Lord made and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 8, line 24, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 27 and insert ("number of Ministerial offices under subsection (1)(a) is the same as the number of functions under subsection (1)(b).").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to simplify the extremely contorted wording of Clause 15(3). It means exactly the same but to my mind the amendment states it more clearly and is, I hope, as legally fireproof.
Amendment No. 20 is slightly different. I appreciate that to pass both amendments would not be possible, but should Amendment No. 19 not appeal, then Amendment No. 20 might be acceptable. The argument for that

657
amendment is different. The subsection states that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may make a determination about the number of ministerial offices to be held. It continues:
"at the date a the determination",
there should be the same number of Ministers for the departments existing at the date of the determination. It seems to me that the determination may change the number of departments. They will not necessarily get it right first time and may need to make a change in the number of departments later. It has happened both within the Northern Ireland Office and within the Government of the United Kingdom many times that departments have been amalgamated and split again. No doubt it will happen in the course of time with the Northern Ireland departments.
The way in which I suggest it should be changed will enable a determination to take account of the change that is being made in the number of Northern Ireland departments at the time the determination is made rather than having to keep to the number that there happens to be when the determination comes about. These are small drafting points, but nevertheless I modestly put them forward for the Government's consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the amendments, which I believe are intended to clarify some of the language of the clause. I do not think I am being disloyal to our draftsman if I admit that the language is difficult in places. The noble Lord himself made that point. But the concepts we are dealing with are not easy and I am afraid that I do not believe that the amendments will have the desired effect suggested by the noble Lord.
Amendment No. 19 seeks to make it clearer that the meaning of Clause 15(3) is that each department must be headed by a Minister, and that each Minister gets only one department.
As I said during Committee stage, this is what Clause 15(3) already achieves. Before devolution, there will be an agreed number of departments. Those in charge will exercise particular functions. This subsection provides that each of those departments is headed by a Minister, and each department is headed by the holder of a different ministerial office, that is, no Minister will be in charge of more than one department.
The drafting of the noble Lord's amendment, on the other hand, does not quite work. The noble Lord seeks to link the number of ministerial offices to the number of functions described in Clause 15(1)(b). But any given Minister might need to exercise a number of different functions, even within a single department. The important thing is that Ministers are not in charge of more than one department, not that they should be responsible for only one function.
Amendment No. 20 is presumably also intended to clarify a drafting point. I assume that the noble Lord feels the reference to departments
"existing at the date of the determination"
658
is redundant, and that this subsection merely needs to mention the number of departments set out in the determination.
The reference to departments
"existing at the date of the determination"
is there for a reason, however. The reference makes it clear that any legislative changes needed to create or suppress Northern Ireland departments must already be in place before d'Hondt is run. The reason for this is that it would be confusing if a determination under Clause 15 were made mentioning a Northern Ireland department and allocating it under d'Hondt, if the legislation necessary for creating this department was not in place and remained subject to the decision of the Assembly. It is not hard to imagine how a Minister would react if he had been appointed to a ministerial post under d'Hondt while the department he was supposed to head did not yet exist, and the functions he was supposed to exercise were still in the hands of another Minister.
The clause as it stands requires the Assembly first to complete the necessary groundwork, and then to approve the division of responsibilities between Ministers in the form of a determination. I believe that this is a common-sense provision and that it meets the aims the Minister sought to achieve with his amendment. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment he put forward.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I ask for confirmation that at some stage in the future the number of departments and therefore the allocation of functions to them can be changed, even if only by an elaborate process and the re-running of the d'Hondt formula, should that happen. Can the Minister give me that assurance? He is doing so by nodding, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 19.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Clause 16 [Northern Ireland Ministers]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 25:
Page 8, line 38, leave out ("such a resolution") and insert ("a resolution under section 28(2)").
Page 9, line 35, leave out ("his") and insert ("that officer's").
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("registered political party") and insert ("party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998").
Page 10, line 12, leave out ("an officer") and insert ("a member of the Assembly").
Page 10, line 15, leave out ("an officer") and insert ("a member of the Assembly").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17 [Junior Ministers]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 10, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("determine") in line 18 and insert ("The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may at any time").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 228. Amendment No. 26 is a technical and drafting point. It makes it clear that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can make a determination under this clause at any time, and regardless of whether the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were elected under Clause 14(1), that is, at the start of the Assembly's term or under Clause 14(8), that is, in mid-term.
Amendment No. 27 provides that any junior Minister appointed under this clause should be a member of the Assembly. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for raising this point at Committee stage. Amendment No. 28 removes the need for a determination under this clause to attract cross-community support.
There has been some criticism that the Bill's provisions make gridlock too easy to achieve. We do not agree with such criticisms, but we are conscious of the need to ensure Assembly procedures are not made unnecessarily complicated.
Deleting this provision would go some way towards simplifying procedures in this area. We do not believe it would result in any reduction in the level of protection enjoyed by minorities. After all, a determination under this clause needs first to be agreed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly. If members of the Assembly are not content, they will always have the option of triggering a cross-community vote through a petition of concern.
Amendment No. 228 is a transitional provision enabling determinations and appointments of junior Ministers made and approved by the Assembly before the appointed day to carry forward after devolution. I commend these amendments to the House.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, noble Lords see me in an unexpected position. The lot seems to have fallen to me to continue on behalf of our Benches. I wish to raise a point which refers to what my noble friend said in proposing our amendments. I am concerned that the amendments proposed by the Government seem to enable the two major parties and one other to have a rather unfair distribution of junior ministry positions in the assembly. I wonder whether the noble Lord could respond to that concern.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. I believe that the noble Baroness raises an issue that is not linked directly to the amendment now before the House. She is perhaps speaking to a different amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I desired to reserve my right to speak at the end. Given that these are government amendments I was afraid that if other noble Lords
660
wanted to speak I would not be behaving in accordance with the Report stage procedures. That was the reason for my hesitation. The Government intend to leave this matter to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. They believe that to be fairly straightforward. We want to make the process as smooth as possible and do not believe that we are doing anything that is untoward. The provision for junior Ministers was not in the agreement but came about as a result of discussion with the parties. We are simply enabling the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make determinations as regards junior Ministers. We leave it to them and to the Assembly to take that matter further. I do not believe that I am able to help the noble Baroness further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 10, line 19, leave out from ("of") to ("in") in line 20 and insert ("members of the Assembly specified in the determination shall be appointed as junior Ministers").
Page 10, line 34, leave out ("passed with cross-community support").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Northern Ireland departments]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 11, line 9, at end insert—
("(3) If an Act of the Assembly which establishes a new Northern Ireland department provides for it to be in the charge of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly—

(a) the department shall not be regarded as a Northern Ireland department for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) of section 15; and

(b) the office held by those Ministers as the head of the department shall not be regarded as a Ministerial office for the purposes of subsection (4) of that section or section 16.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 31, 33, 34, 229 and 230. This group of amendments deals with the location of prerogative and statutory power after devolution. Amendment No. 30 reflects the interest shown by some of the parties during the consultation process in creating a department of the centre under the joint control of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Such a department has obvious parallels in Whitehall. There was also a similar department in existence during previous periods of devolution in Northern Ireland. Its functions would be entirely for the Northern Ireland parties in the Assembly to determine but could include both policy co-ordination and possibly statutory functions as well. There is no explicit provision for such a department in the Belfast agreement. Therefore we have provided for such a department to be created by Act of the Assembly. Equally, however, if the parties agree on its creation during the shadow phase the transitional provision in Amendment No. 229 will enable it to continue in existence after devolution too. Amendment No. 30 also ensures that if such a department is created it will not count towards the Bill's maximum of 10 ministerial offices; nor will it count towards d'Hondt.
Amendment No. 31 deals with Clause 20 which sets out how statutory functions will be dealt with after devolution. These functions form the bulk of the power at any administration's disposal. Clause 17 enables junior Ministers to be appointed in a determination approved by the Assembly. This amendment makes it clear that statutory functions may not be conferred on junior Ministers. The agreement is clear that statutory functions belong as before with the Northern Ireland departments acting under the direction and control of their Ministers. Junior Ministers will be able to assist Northern Ireland Ministers in the exercise of their functions but will not be able to exercise them independently.
Amendment No. 33 is a minor drafting point to reflect the fact that the definition of "Minister" has now been moved by Amendment No. 6 into Clause 8.
Amendment No. 34 recasts Clause 21 which deals with prerogative and other executive powers. Despite the sometimes grand language of this clause it deals with far less significant functions than those covered by its predecessor, Clause 20. The vast majority of functions to be exercised by Northern Ireland Ministers will be those conferred on them or their departments by statute.
Amendment No. 230 ensures that existing prerogative orders remain in force after the appointed day. As this amendment makes clear, the most significant prerogative power exercisable under this clause is the management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. As for the grandly named "other executive functions", these simply mean the powers which the Government can exercise in the same way as a normal citizen, for example the power to enter into contracts. Other than clarifying the position with respect to the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the main significance of this amendment is the ability of Northern Ireland Ministers to exercise prerogative powers directly without being authorised explicitly by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. This is important for administrative reasons. Even relatively mundane departmental tasks such as publishing leaflets depends to a degree on using prerogative powers, and clearly it would be absurdly cumbersome to require explicit approval for this.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 provides for the establishment of a department under the direct charge of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. On the basis of the Minister's description it appeared to be the equivalent of a Prime Minister's department for Whitehall which has sometimes been discussed but has never been adopted in that form. But the First Minister and Deputy First Minister might regard it as appropriate, for example, to place themselves in charge of the Department of Finance and Personnel or some other department, particularly if law and order were subsequently transferred to the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland authorities. One wonders whether that would be possible under this amendment should that decision be made. I do not want to push it in that direction but I believe that such flexibility should remain.
662
As to Amendment No. 33, I express conditional gratitude to the Minister for adding his name to my Amendment No. 33. It is conditional because it is all about moving the definition of "Minister" out of Clause 20. We both agree that it should be moved out of that clause. However, the Minister wants to insert it earlier in the Bill, whereas I suggest in Amendment No. 125 that it would be better if it appeared in Clause 92 which contains other definitions. I believe that it is for the convenience of those who read Acts of Parliaments that as far as possible definitions should be included in a single interpretation clause so that they can be readily referred to instead of having to refer backwards and forwards in the Bill. Sometimes a definition refers to a single clause, in which case it is appropriate to leave it in that clause. However, the phrase that is here defined is used throughout the Bill on many occasions. I believe that the definition would be better placed in Clause 92. As to Amendment No. 34 dealing with the prerogative, I agree with the arguments that the Minister put forward.
5 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we have some concerns on this matter. Can the Minister reassure us that the effect of the clauses is not to boost the relative importance of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and therefore to depart from the principles set out in the agreement that ministries be allocated in proportion to the party's strength?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, on the last point the answer is yes. It is not intended to achieve any such untoward result and to give a party particular advantage.
In answer to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, the amendments would not give the power for the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister to take on, for example, the Department of Finance. However, under Clause 15(7) the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may be put in charge of another department such as the Department of Finance and Personnel. The power is in another part of the Bill. The noble Lord shakes his head.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Clause 15 has only five subsections.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. Clause 16(7) gives the power for the First Minister or Deputy First Minister to be put in charge of another department if that were the wish. It does not make it mandatory.
On the point made by the noble Lord regarding where the definition of a Minister should go in the Bill, it would be helpful if I can speak to that on a later amendment rather than at this point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Statutory functions]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 11, line 12, leave out ("or Northern Ireland department") and insert ("(but not a junior Minister) or a Northern Ireland department").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 11, line 12, leave out ("by name").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 20(1) states that:
"An Act of the Assembly or other enactment may confer functions on a Minister or Northern Ireland department by name".
I wonder why the words "by name" are there. What on earth do they mean?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I confess that I only spotted the amendment 20 minutes ago, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right to move it. First, as the noble Lord indicated, the wording of Clause 20(1) is ambiguous. It is not immediately clear whether the name refers to the Minister or the function. Assuming it is the latter, would it not be clearer simply to insert the word "specific" before the word "function"?
Secondly, one wonders how necessary subsection (1) is even if the drafting were to be tidied up. Does a similar provision appear in the Scotland Bill; and, if not, why not?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for this amendment, which I believe is also designed to clear up some points about the drafting of this clause. I suspect the noble Lord's concerns centre on the idea of legislation conferring functions on a department or even more oddly a Minister "by name". This is not something which is generally done with UK legislation.
I should make it clear here that when the clause talks about conferring functions on Ministers by name, it does not mean conferring them on Ministers personally. That would clearly be absurd.
The reason Northern Ireland legislation differs from that in the United Kingdom is that Northern Ireland does not have the concept of the Secretary of State at large. Most Westminster legislation confers functions on the Secretary of State. Theoretically, any Secretary of State could exercise the functions of another and ministerial responsibilities are allocated administratively.
In Northern Ireland, however, functions will need to be conferred on specific departments in most cases, and much more rarely on Ministers. While I appreciate the wording might look odd at first sight, I believe that it is appropriate, and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, there is no difference between us in what we seek to achieve. The provision could be more happily worded by stating "on a specific Minister". I had thought of inserting "on a Minister by title", but in your Lordships' House one's title is one's name. Although that might get round the problem in one sense, it might be misunderstood at least within these four walls.
664
I leave the Minister to consider the amendment further between now and Third Reading, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Prerogative and executive functions]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 11, line 21, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) As respects transferred matters, the prerogative and other executive powers of Her Majesty in relation to Northern Ireland shall, subject to subsection (3), be exercisable on Her Majesty's behalf by any Minister or Northern Ireland department.
(3) As respects the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland, the prerogative and other executive powers of Her Majesty in relation to Northern Ireland shall be exercisable on Her Majesty's behalf by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly.
(4) The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly may by prerogative order under subsection (3) direct that such of the powers mentioned in that subsection as are specified in the order shall be exercisable on Her Majesty's behalf by a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department so specified.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Community law, Convention rights etc.]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 11, leave out line 38 and insert ("section (Entrenched enactments).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Internal obligations]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 12, line 9, after ("obligations,") insert ("with the interests of defence or national security or with the protection of public safety or public order,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 13, after ("obligations,") insert ("of safeguarding the interests of defence or national security or of protecting public safety or public order,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 20, leave out ("would be incompatible with any international obligations,") and insert—

("(a) would be incompatible with any international obligations, with the interests of defence or national security or with the protection of public safety or public order; or

(b) would have an adverse effect on the operation of the single market in goods and services within the United Kingdom,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Agency arrangements between UK and NI departments]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 13, line 3, leave out ("Arrangements") and insert ("Concordats").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have moved briskly to the question of agreements between the Northern Ireland departments and departments of the

665
United Kingdom Government. Clause 26 provides that they shall be called arrangements. In other legislation before us they are called concordats. Indeed, at Committee stage the Minister referred to them as concordats. It seems a better name in that it is a little more specific. It will have an agreed meaning of a specific arrangement of this kind. That is desirable.
It is desirable that these arrangements should be, relatively speaking, formal so that everyone understands where the responsibilities lie when arrangements are made. Those of us who have served in another place, and many noble Lords who have served in local government, for example, know of the confusion that exists in many people's minds about which part of the great machine within central or local government is responsible for specific responsibilities. People are frequently confused as to which it is. The greater the clarity, the better. It is not only a question of where the buck stops but also of people being able to refer their queries to the right place, to take up their grievances in the right place, and so on. The arrangements, as they are described in the Bill, should be on a formal basis when the function of one department is to be carried out by someone else.
For the same reason—it is the point of Amendment No. 40—such agreements, such concordats, should be legally binding. Although the ultimate responsibility will still rest with the higher authority making the concordat, nevertheless the higher authority has a right to expect that if the lower authority (the one receiving the concordat) does not do its job some legal sanction will apply to that lower authority. Otherwise the higher authority will have to breathe down the lower authority's neck all the time to ensure that the right actions are carried out in full.
I therefore believe that it would be desirable that the concordats should be known as such. However, the more important point is that they should be legally binding while still leaving the ultimate responsibility where it is placed by the appropriate statute. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the amendments relate to Clause 26 which deals with agency arrangements. Those arrangements would allow for Northern Ireland departments to carry out functions on behalf of other United Kingdom departments or public bodies and vice versa. They are concerned purely with operational matters. These are not the same as the concordats which will be drawn up and agreed between the Northern Ireland Executive and United Kingdom government departments. Concordats are not intended to be legally binding contracts or treaties. They will be non-statutory agreements to promote effective communications and joint working between the two Administrations. As your Lordships will appreciate, there is a significant difference between agency arrangements under Clause 26 and the concordats, which will be agreed in due course. I therefore cannot agree to these amendments and would ask the noble Lord not to press them.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister's answer affects my opinion on whether the arrangements
666
should be called concordats, but not my opinion as to whether they should be legally binding. I hope that the agency arrangements under Clause 26 will be legally binding on the departments which enter into them, otherwise there will be difficulty about who is responsible when things do not go entirely according to plan. We all know that in government departments things do not always go according to plan and it is sometimes difficult to pin down the blame. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Statutory committees]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 14, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Standing orders shall provide that a chairman or deputy chairman shall cease to hold office if—

(a) he resigns by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer;

(b) he ceases to be a member of the Assembly; or

(c) he is dismissed by the nominating officer who nominated him (or that officer's successor) and the Presiding Officer is notified of his dismissal.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 is a technical amendment which brings the treatment of committee chairmen into line with other officeholders in the Bill. The clauses dealing with the appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, Northern Ireland Ministers and the Presiding Officer set out the circumstances in which they will cease to hold office. This amendment does the same and mirrors the provisions for Northern Ireland Ministers in Clause 16(9).
Amendment No. 231 enables committees of the Assembly established and committee chairs appointed during the shadow phase to carry forward after devolution. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Constituencies and numbers of members]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 16, line 43, after ("29") insert ("or 30").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Clause 31 provides for any Order in Council changing a parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland to have effect from the next election of the Assembly. This could be either a normal election under Clause 29 or an extraordinary election under Clause 30, which was inserted as a new clause in Committee. This amendment adds a reference to elections under Clause 30.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Commission]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 20, line 5, leave out ("statutory functions conferred on the Commission;") and insert ("functions conferred on the Commission by virtue of any enactment;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, too, is a technical amendment. It ensures that the functions of the Assembly Commission includes those conferred on it by the Northern Ireland Act when enacted, as well as any conferred on it by Act or resolution of the Assembly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 20, line 20, after ("Assembly") insert ("(other than proceedings on the Crown side of the Queen's Bench Division)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the principal function of the Assembly commission is to provide or ensure that the Assembly is provided with the property, staff and services required for its purposes. Thus, proceedings by or against the commission would relate to matters such as employment law. The amendments make it clear that they would exclude matters of public law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 40 [Petitions of concern]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 21, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Standing orders shall provide that the matter to which a petition under this section relates may be referred, in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 13 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement, to the committee established under section 11(3)(a).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords this relatively minor change to the Bill's provisions of petitions of concern reflects points made by the parties during the consultation exercise and is designed to bring the clause more clearly into line with the provisions of the agreement.
As the Bill stands, a petition of concern leads automatically to a vote on the issue which then requires cross-community support to succeed. During consultation with the parties, it was made clear to us that the petition ought to be linked to the special committee procedure set out in paragraph 11 of strand 1. Paragraph 13 of strand 1 sets out the procedure linking a petition of concern to the special procedure in paragraph 11. This agreement provides for the special committee to be able to examine and report on whether a measure or proposal for legislation is in conformity with the equality requirements, including the ECHR Bill of Rights. The amendment requires the Assembly, through its standing orders, to set out procedures by which petitions of concern may be referred to such a committee for scrutiny. It therefore brings the Bill more fully into line with the agreement and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Powers to call for witnesses and documents]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 23, line 2, leave out (", including this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. It changes the definition of "statutory functions" to,
"functions conferred by virtue of any enactment",
removing the reference to "this Act".
Removing the reference to "this Act" was felt to be necessary since having references to it in some places and not in others could cast doubt on whether references to enactments elsewhere in the Bill included references to this Act, which they should. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I rise only to draw attention to the fact that this is a wonderful example of the draftsman's second thoughts. The whole Bill gives the impression that it was drafted by a relatively junior draftsman in a hurry. The senior draftsman having looked at it, all these amendments are being included to the great confusion of everyone else.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is necessary to comment on that remark. The Government have listened carefully to comments made during the various stages of the Bill. We have sought to improve the drafting of the Bill wherever possible. We had at our disposal the time of several senior draftsmen and it is not right for the noble Lord to cast aspersions on them. The fact is that they were asked to work very quickly. The timetable was difficult; normally, the drafting of such a Bill would have required many more months in order to resolve the details before introducing it into another place. The noble Lord knows exactly why we had to move quickly. I will defend the draftsman against his accusations, which I know were meant in good part.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 4,9 insert the following new clause—

REVIEW OF OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THIS PART
(" . Within two years of the coming into force of this Part, the Secretary of State shall report to each House of Parliament his conclusions following a review of the efficiency and fairness of the following and any related matters—

(a) the arrangements for the election of the Assembly;

(b) the procedures of the Assembly; and

(c) the effects of the existence of the Assembly on the House of Commons.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we move to a point of considerable substance. First, perhaps I may say that I did not mean to cast aspersions on the draftsmen employed on the Bill. I recognise, as I did in my remarks, that they were under great time pressure. That has obviously been the case in recent weeks and days.
I rise to move Amendment No. 47, which inserts a new clause. It suggests that the Secretary of State shall report to each House of Parliament his conclusion following the review of the efficiency and fairness of various matters which are set out.
Three matters are set out. The first is the arrangement for the elections to the Assembly. The second is the procedures of the Assembly. The agreement provides for a review of those two matters after what it describes as a specified period, although as far as I can see, the period is never specified. I seek to put into the Bill a provision for such a review as the agreement suggests and I specify a period of two years, which seems to me to be a reasonable period, after which the arrangements for the elections and procedures for the Assembly can be judged, when we see how it is all working. I was discussing earlier the difficulties of not having a Report stage in the Assembly. That is one of the procedures which may be required to be considered at that point.
I have added a third matter which will require review and that is:
"(c) the effects of the existence of the Assembly on the House of Commons".
My opinion, which I gave in Committee at greater length and I do not propose to go over it all again, is that the so-called English dimension—the West Lothian question—will not go away. It was answered before when Stormont existed by a reduction of, roughly speaking, one-third in the Members of the Westminster Parliament from Northern Ireland and by a self-imposed limitation by the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament in relation to those matters on which they spoke and took part in the debates in another place. That is obviously one way of answering the West Lothian question.
But it has become more important now than it was at the time of the existence of Stormont because there are three assemblies now being set up for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That question will not go away. I speak as an Englishman and I believe that it will become more important as the years go on and as English voters see what is the position and how their Members of Parliament are disadvantaged and in some cases no doubt overruled by the Members of Parliament in other parts of the United Kingdom while their Members have no comparable power over the operations of the other assemblies.
It is important that we should provide for a review of that situation in two years. At this point, nobody has an answer to the West Lothian question but an answer will have to be found and two years seems to me to be a reasonable time within which the matter should be reviewed and considered, along with the other two matters which the agreement proposes should be considered and reviewed. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for this amendment which deals with the question of reviews of the Bill and the Belfast agreement's operation.
I think no one can be in any doubt that the procedures in this Bill are novel. Reviewing them to see how they work in practice is clearly sensible, and indeed is already provided for in the agreement, but it is for the Assembly to decide when a review is appropriate.
The noble Lord proposes a review within two years carried out by the Secretary of State and reported to the House. According to his amendment, the review is to
670
focus on the Assembly's electoral system, the Assembly's procedures and the effects of the existence of the Assembly on the House of Commons.
I am certainly sympathetic to the idea of keeping under review progress being made under the agreement, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State is really the right person to carry out those reviews, particularly in some of the clearly devolved areas the noble Lord identifies.
On the noble Lord's third point, it is surely a matter for the other place to consider the impact of devolution, and indeed I note that a consultation exercise on just this subject is now under way. I shall return to that point in a moment.
As for the other two points in the draft new clause, these seem to be in the first instance matters for the Northern Ireland political parties and the Assembly to decide, not for the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will know that the Belfast agreement already includes provisions for review. Those are not mentioned in the Bill simply because we do not believe that provision is necessary.
The agreement largely calls for the new institutions to review their own progress and address any problems which may have arisen. On the strand 1 issues which the noble Lord identifies, for example paragraph 36 of strand 1 already includes some provisions. The paragraph states:
"After a specified period there will be a review of these arrangements, including the details of electoral arrangements and of the Assembly's procedures, with a view to agreeing any adjustments necessary in the interests of efficiency and fairness".
Similarly, paragraph 8 of the validation, implementation and review section of the agreement also calls for a wide-ranging review, indeed one rather more wide-ranging than proposed in the noble Lord's amendment.
The agreement says that,
"the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation".
In this area, as in every other, the Government are committed to the agreement's provisions. We believe this is the most appropriate form of review, and I would accordingly urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps I may refer further to the issue of representation at Westminster by Members of Parliament from the devolved areas. Noble Lords will be aware that the Scotland Bill includes provision for reviewing the number of Scottish MPs in Westminster in the light of devolution. But we are clear that similar provisions are not necessary for Northern Ireland for the very good reason that Northern Ireland is not over-represented in Westminster at present. The average Northern Ireland constituency is about the average size of constituencies in most other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Scottish example is not appropriate to paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 47 because that merely corrects the

671
current over-representation of Scotland rather than to allow for consideration of the English dimension of the West Lothian question. Therefore, I do not believe that the Scotland Bill deals with the point at all. It merely corrects the change in the representation which will follow from it. No doubt we shall have to return to that matter many times in the coming years.
In regard to paragraphs (a) and (b), the Minister was correctly advised that paragraph 36 of the agreement was what I had in mind when drafting the amendment and the words follow it as closely as I could manage. I had not thought that that was the same review referred to elsewhere in the agreement.
As to who should carry out the review, the Minister suggested in the earlier part of his remarks that paragraphs (a) and (b) should be reviewed by the Assembly rather than the Secretary of State. But the responsibility for the law on the election of the Assembly and the outline of the procedures are laid down in Westminster legislation and, indeed, the procedures are laid down in this Bill itself. Therefore, even if the Assembly considers those matters, it will have to refer them to the Secretary of State, which is why I suggest that he should review them in the first place.
However, the Minister has made clear that the major four-year review with both Governments and the different parties involved in it will cover those matters at paragraphs (a) and (b) and I shall not seek to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 26, line 12, after ("Ministers") insert ("and junior Ministers (including where appropriate alternative nominations)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 48 makes explicit an obligation which was previously implied; namely, the responsibility of the First and Deputy First Minister where appropriate to make alternative nominations of Ministers to attend the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. The circumstances in which such nominations would be appropriate are likely to be when one of the original nominations is, for whatever reason, unable to attend or participate fully in one of the meetings.
Thus, if a Minister is unable to attend, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may make an alternative nomination from among the other Ministers. To enable the delegation to enter into any agreements or arrangements within the area of responsibility of the absent Minister, subsection (4) of this clause allows a Minister to authorise another Minister to act on his or her behalf.
However, it should be emphasised that the only way in which any Minister can participate in meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council is by means of a nomination from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Amendment No. 48 gives effect to the requirement in paragraph 2 of
672
strand 2 that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should be able to make alternative arrangements if a Minister is unable to participate normally. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 26, line 14, after ("such") insert ("cross-community").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 51 and 72, ensures that participation by representatives of the Northern Ireland Administration in the various bodies to be set up under strands 2 and 3 of the agreement shall be such as to ensure cross-community involvement.
Noble Lords will have often heard it said that the agreement is a package which must be accepted and implemented as a package. So, when dealing with strands 2 and 3, it remains important to take account of provisions elsewhere in the agreement.
A case in point is paragraph 30 of strand 1 of the agreement which requires that arrangements to represent the Assembly in its dealings with other institutions should be such as to ensure cross-community involvement. These amendments incorporate that requirement in an explicit reference on the face of the Bill. This cross-community involvement will be an important safeguard in ensuring that the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland are taken into account when conducting business in the various institutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has put down Amendment No. 53 which seeks to incorporate a specific reference to paragraph 30 of strand 1. However, in view of the amendments that I have just outlined, I believe that the objective has been achieved and that his amendment is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I tabled Amendment No. 53 with two purposes in mind. One of them is the purpose which has subsequently been taken up by the Minister's amendments, Amendments Nos. 49 and so on; namely, to ensure that the nominations made of people to represent the Assembly in other bodies, especially at summit level, should be on a cross-community basis. I believe that that part has already been covered by the Minister's amendments which make that clear on the face of the Bill.
However, there is another purpose to Amendment No. 53. It is intended to ensure that the cross-community status of the representation is, so to speak, backed up or—if it is not too strong a word—"guaranteed" by the fact that more than one Minister will actually represent the Assembly when attending these other institutions. That will obviously provide the opportunity for Ministers of different parties, in the cross-community basis that Northern Ireland has and will have, to go together. There are two things to recommend that approach. The first is that the suspicions which sometimes arise in Northern Ireland as to what someone of a different persuasion may have said during the course of a meeting can be dispelled as a result of

673
someone in the opposite party being there at the same time. That is one way to help disperse such suspicions which frequently arise in the Northern Ireland context.
Moreover, when the two Ministers of different persuasions go to represent the Assembly and they are both saying the same thing and backing up each other, they will be in an even more powerful position as regards the others with whom they are dealing. Therefore, it would strengthen the Assembly's representation to have two Ministers of opposite parties—or sometimes a Minister and a junior Minister—taking part in negotiations. In the special circumstances which obtain in Northern Ireland, it seems to me that that would be one way to ensure the cross-community representation which both the Minister and I are seeking to nail down in different ways in this block of amendments.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there is just one point made by the noble Lord to which I feel there is a particular need to reply. By having cross-community representation we will, by definition, have two Ministers attending bodies such as the North-South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council. Moreover, because it will be cross-community representation, it means that they will be Ministers of different political persuasions. Therefore, I believe that we are really achieving the precise aims that the noble Lord seeks to achieve with his amendment. There is nothing between us in terms of what we are seeking to do. I believe that the government amendments do precisely what the noble Lord wishes to see done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 26, line 14, leave out ("appears to them to be") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 50, 52 and 74 represent an important clarification of the nature of the attendance and participation by Northern Ireland Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It is already clear that the only way in which Ministers may participate in meetings of the councils is by means of a nomination from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The amendments make it absolutely clear that the resulting ministerial representation at each institution is to be that which is required by the Belfast agreement. For example, strand 2 states that,
"Northern Ireland [is] to be represented by the First Minister, deputy First Minister and any relevant Ministers".
Amendment No. 50 makes clear that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister shall make such nominations as to ensure that this representation is achieved.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 74 ensure a similar outcome in relation to the British-Irish Council and British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference respectively. I have no doubt that noble Lords will appreciate the importance of confidence in the context of the implementation of the Belfast agreement. Confidence is required in respect of these new institutions as much as
674
every other aspect of the agreement. It is vital for everyone to have confidence that the operation of the institutions, including the representation of the Northern Ireland Administration at their meetings, is clearly in accordance with the agreement. These amendments will help to underpin such confidence.
Before leaving the amendment, I should like to clarify a further point in relation to the British-Irish Council and the ability of members to participate in it. This Bill relates only to the participation of representatives of the Northern Ireland Administration in the council. We are clear that, under the Government of Wales Act and the Scotland Bill, the Welsh and Scottish administrations will be able to participate fully in the British-Irish Council as set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the first part of strand 3 as regards discussion, consultation and co-operation on matters of mutual interest. They will also be able to enter into bilateral or multilateral arrangements, including with the Republic of Ireland, to enable consultation, co-operation and joint decision taking on matters of mutual interest as set out in paragraph 10 of that section. If further provisions are requested, perhaps to facilitate joint implementation mechanisms, the Government will look favourably at any request and ensure that the desired co-operation is achieved. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it seems to me that the wording in the Bill with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly to make nominations to ensure such cross-community participation,
"as appears to them to be required",
leaves the decisions entirely to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If we take out the words,
"as appears to them to be",
and insert "is", it is not just a question of an arrangement appearing to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to be a satisfactory cross-community arrangement. It has to be legal; that is to say, decisions made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are open to judicial review or something of that kind. Therefore I prefer the wording,
"as appears to them to be".
I trust the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make the decisions and I do not want them to get involved in arguments as to whether, legally, they have properly represented the cross-community currents in making those decisions. I am not altogether happy about the wording being tightened up in the way that is suggested.
The Minister also referred to the British-Irish Council and the involvement of Scotland and Wales. He should make clear that, as under the agreement, that includes representatives of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, including, as I pointed out at an earlier stage, the hereditary Seigneur of Sark. That is a welcome

675
recognition by the Government of the hereditary principle in adding an hereditary representative to the British-Irish Council.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in not wishing to delete the words,
"as appears to them".
I agree with the reasons he stated. Further, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are cross-community people. Therefore if a matter appears to them to be cross-community, that must surely be the correct interpretation.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we, too, have some sympathy with the arguments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The amendments beg the question of where responsibility will lie for ensuring that the agreement is being fairly interpreted. For example, is there any role for the Secretary of State if he or she believes that the agreement has not been correctly interpreted? Is there any role for the Assembly in expressing a view if it also believes that the agreement has not been correctly interpreted? It seems to us that rather than making life easier, this series of amendments could lead to confusion which would have the opposite effect to that which the Government appear to seek.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall discuss the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about Sark. I understand that Sark would not be represented in its own right at the British-Irish Council but would be represented by the Government of Guernsey. I am afraid that the point that the noble Lord sought to make about the hereditary principle has not succeeded. I wish to clarify that point.
It is important that representation of Northern Ireland Ministers is exactly that specified in the agreement, as the noble Lord has said. That is the purpose of the amendment. It seeks to reflect the agreement as closely as possible. Whereas I appreciate that the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have spoken have some other concerns, the Government's position is clearly that we want to do exactly what is specified in the agreement. I believe that the amendments do just that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 26, line 16, after ("such") insert ("cross-community").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 26, line 16, leave out ("appears to them to be") and insert ("is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 26, line 18, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments, together with Amendment No. 34 considered earlier, provide that junior Ministers may participate in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council when nominated to do so by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. This would be an entirely appropriate function for junior Ministers to be able to discharge were they to be appointed under the provisions of this Bill.
Amendment No. 60 makes clear that junior Ministers who have been so nominated may be authorised to enter into agreements or arrangements on behalf of a Minister who is unable to take part. Consequential to this, Amendment No. 65 provides that the Assembly may legislate in respect of agreements or arrangements entered into by junior Ministers who have been so authorised.
Amendment No. 73 provides that junior Ministers are eligible to attend meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, again if required to do so by the First and Deputy First Minister. As a consequence of this amendment, Amendment No. 75 deletes the now redundant definition of "attendance" in subsection (3). This responds to a point made by noble Lords during our previous consideration of the Bill.
Amendment No. 135 takes out a reference to "person" in Schedule 2 and again makes clear that only Ministers and junior Ministers may take part in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on supporting Amendment No. 75 in this group which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and has now been supported by the Minister. To enable the House to understand what is happening, I should explain that it is proposed to delete the wonderful subsection that now states:
"In this section 'attendance' by Ministers and junior Ministers means attendance by one or more Ministers".
That is a good piece of jargon to take out of the Bill.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in case anyone should imagine that there is some form of collusion between the Minister and myself, I think it is possibly a question of great minds thinking alike. Naturally I must support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 26, line 21, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the operation of section 22,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 55 is a purely drafting amendment which moves existing provision from subsection (8) to subsection (3). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 26, line 21, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 26, line 22, leave out ("or the Executive Committee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there would appear to be a degree of commonality between Amendments Nos. 57 and 59. I shall say a few words about the former. The amendment proposes the deletion of the words "Executive Committee" from Clause 50(3). That would mean the Minister could act only in the North-South Ministerial Council in accordance with the decisions of the Assembly. That would appear to be in line with British standards of democracy. The measure is also designed to tighten up the lines of accountability and to ensure that the North-South Ministerial Council is under democratic (ministerial) control. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the thinking behind Amendment No. 57. However, it would appear to me that the deletion of "Executive Committee" from Clause 50(3) is inconsistent with the agreement. The Ministerial Pledge of Office clearly requires all Ministers to,
"act in accordance with all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly".
The first sentence of paragraph 6 of strand 2 requires Ministers to be in a position to take decisions in the North-South Ministerial Council through,
"the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction".
That, by definition, includes the Executive Committee.
It must therefore be a requirement of the agreement that Ministers operating in the Council shall act in accordance with decisions of both the Executive Committee and the Assembly and I must resist the amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 26, line 24, leave out ("Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the consideration of Clause 50 in Committee, a number of noble Lords suggested that subsection (4) should be amended to ensure that the First and Deputy First Minister were able to authorise other Ministers to enter into agreements or arrangements on their behalf. At that stage, I agreed to consider the point further.
Noble Lords will therefore be pleased that, after consideration, I am able to respond to their concern. The purpose of subsection (4) is to enable business in the councils to be conducted when a Minister is unable to attend. It is of course possible that, for whatever reason, the First and Deputy First Minister might be unable to attend a particular meeting and it is important that they too should be able to authorise a colleague to conduct business on their behalf. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
Page 26, line 24, leave out ("another Minister") and insert ("a Minister or junior Minister").
Page 26, line 35, after ("Minister") insert (''or junior Minister").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 26, line 35, leave out ("by reason of a nomination under this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unfortunately the grouping seems to guarantee that we come back to this topic on at least three occasions. The amendment is designed to authorise the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to substitute for another Minister who is unable or unwilling to attend a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council. The clause, if amended as I intend, would result in a situation where a Northern Ireland Minister who has been nominated under subsection (1)(a) or (b) may in writing authorise another Minister, the First Minister or Deputy First Minister, to enter into agreement or arrangements in respect of matters for which he is responsible.
The curious thing is that it would allow another Minister, other than the First Minister or Deputy First Minister to act as a substitute for the Minister of a department who was either unable or unwilling to attend a meeting. Let me give an analogy to the Palace of Westminster. Let us suppose that the Foreign Secretary refuses to attend a European Summit meeting. He reports his refusal to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister delegates the Minister of Health to go to Brussels to represent Her Majesty's Government. When the Health Minister returns, what does he then do? Does he report to the Prime Minister? He cannot very well report to the Foreign Secretary if he has refused to attend. The alternative would be that the Minister who had been parachuted into Brussels—namely the Health Minister—would go to the Foreign Office, ask to see the Permanent Secretary, lay on his desk a document and say, "These are the matters to which I have agreed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I require you to implement them." That may be a facetious argument, but things are inclined to be a little facetious as far as the working of the Northern Ireland Assembly is concerned, at least to my rather jaundiced, long-range eye.
I apologise that the drafting of the amendments has put the Minister into the position of having to deal with roughly the same subject on three occasions. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. However, I believe that this amendment is an unnecessary complication of the procedure by which a Minister may authorise a colleague to enter into agreements on his or her behalf. It would mean that a Minister who, for whatever reason, was unable to attend the council would have to be nominated to attend, and presumably decline to do so, before being able to authorise someone else to conduct business. That is not necessary and I must in those circumstances resist the amendment.

679
The process envisaged in the Bill is straightforward. If a Minister is unable to attend, the First and Deputy First Minister may make an alternative nomination from among the other Ministers and junior Ministers. To enable the delegation to enter into any agreements or arrangements within the area of responsibility of the absent Minister, a Minister may authorise another Minister or junior Minister to act on his or her behalf.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, for the third time running I did not expect any concessions from the Minister as he has committed himself on at least two other occasions this afternoon. In the light of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 26, line 42, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("( ) The Northern Ireland contributions towards the expenses of the Councils shall be defrayed as expenses of the Department of Finance and Personnel.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 63 is to ensure that there is a statutory authority for the Northern Ireland contributions towards the costs of the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council to be met. In relation to the North-South Ministerial Council, this gives explicit effect to paragraph 15 of strand 2, which states that funding of the Council is to be provided by the two administrations—that is, Belfast and Dublin—on the basis that it constitutes a necessary public function. Paragraph 8 of strand 3 similarly states that the members of the BIC will provide such financial support as it may require.
What are the expenses referred to in the amendment? In the case of the North-South Ministerial Council, there will be costs associated with the holding of meetings and with the operation of the standing joint secretariat, which is to be staffed by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Irish Civil Service. In the case of the British-Irish Council, there will also be costs associated with meetings, particularly when they are held in Northern Ireland.
These are important institutions. They will reflect a new set of relationships within the island of Ireland and between these islands. It is important that there is clear authority to provide the necessary funding to support them. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as far as the expenses of the councils are concerned, I obviously entirely agree that we should implement the agreement and that a proportion of the expenses should fall on Northern Ireland. I was interested that it was expressed as the "Department of Finance and Personnel". It seems quite likely that it will become two departments in due course. At the moment relatively few Ministers conduct the affairs of Northern Ireland and the Department of Finance and Personnel has been one department for quite a long time. Personnel is quite a different matter from finance in many respects. As far as the Whitehall
680
government are concerned, we have quite frequently had a Minister for the Civil Service separate from the Ministers at the Treasury. Obviously, the Chief Secretary is the rough equivalent of the Minister in charge of the Department of Finance. Presumably, if the Department of Finance and Personnel were to be split into two at some time, this clause would not become invalid but some succession arrangements would be made.
Another quite separate point arises out of this amendment. The amendment not only inserts the words referred to on the Marshalled List about the defraying of expenses but deletes the fact that subsection (3) does not affect the operation of Clause 22 in relation to the powers of Ministers. Clause 22 is all about Community law and convention rights and matters of that kind, which we have discussed and perhaps become embroiled in at different times. But all of a sudden, in the middle of an amendment apparently providing simply for the defraying of expenses, the operation of Clause 22 seems to be affected by the words being deleted. We need to know from the Minister why those words are being deleted as well as why the new words, referring to a quite different subject—finance—are being inserted into the Bill by Amendment No. 63. I should like the Minister, if inspiration has struck him, to help the House in that respect as well.
6 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with one or two of the specific questions that have been put to me. The effect of subsection (8) was moved to subsection (3) by Amendment No. 55, with which we have already dealt. As regards the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to the Department of Finance and Personnel, if, under a rearrangement of departments, the Department of Finance and Personnel is split up or its functions moved elsewhere, this function will move. As the noble Lord anticipated in what he said, consequential changes can be made when functions are moved between departments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 27, line 3, leave out ("paragraph 5") and insert ("paragraphs 5 and 6").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that, throughout the consideration of these clauses, one of the most significant areas has been the authority and accountability of Northern Ireland Ministers taking part in the North-South Ministerial Council. As a Minister myself, I understand the importance of being clear about one's authority to take decisions and one's accountability to the legislature.
Amendment No. 64 will put beyond all doubt that Ministers have authority to participate in the North-South Ministerial Council only to the extent that such participation is in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2 of the agreement. Paragraph 5 sets out the various levels at which Ministers will participate in the council; paragraph 6 outlines the authority for such participation.
I think it would be helpful if I reminded noble Lords of the exact wording of paragraph 6. It states:
"Each side to be in a position to take decisions in the Council within the defined authority of those attending, through the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction. Each side to remain accountable to the Assembly and Oireachtas respectively, whose approval, through the arrangements in place on either side, would be required for decisions beyond the defined authority of those attending".
Throughout the Bill we have sought to implement the provisions of the agreement; no more and no less. Noble Lords have heard me say that on countless occasions. That is true in this area as much as any other. Through this amendment, we are making clear that participation in the North-South Ministerial Council is to be exactly that which was agreed by the parties on Good Friday and that Ministers must act in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Agreements etc. by persons participating in Councils]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 27, line 7, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, appear jointly on this amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord will do the honours.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 27, line 13, leave out ("authority") and insert ("body").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to have the first go at this amendment. Amendment No. 67 changes the reference in Clause 51(2)(a) from "authority" to "body". Although this may seem a minor point, it was one on which a number of noble Lords commented during Committee and to which, on reflection, I am willing to respond. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, tabled an equivalent amendment and will, I trust, be pleased that we have proposed such a change.
The paragraph, as revised, will allow provision to be made to transfer functions from a Minister or Northern Ireland department to any designated "body". This language is, I believe, more in line with the language of the agreement which speaks of implementation bodies operating under the North-South Ministerial Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, tabled a further amendment, Amendment No. 68, proposing an equivalent change to Clause 51(2)(b). I reflected carefully on this point and indeed consulted with parliamentary counsel. I concluded that "authority" is the correct term in this paragraph for persons exercising
682
any functions which are to be transferred to a Minister or Northern Ireland department. I must therefore resist that amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the Minister has put the case for our amendment very well. Therefore, I shall not move the other amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 27, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. Amendment No. 68 raises a well worn subject but I think there is probably no harm in our addressing our minds to it. It aims to achieve greater accountability not just in financial terms but, far more importantly, in constitutional terms. In the area covered by the amendment there appears to be a rather boxed-in atmosphere. If trust and confidence are to be established and generated in the Assembly, openness accounts for a great deal. Bearing in mind the degree of co-operation that has been established thus far today, I hope that the Minister will be able to give a favourable reply. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 address an issue which goes to the heart of these clauses. In fact, it is an issue which was at the heart of the negotiations on strand 2—the authority and accountability of Ministers participating in the North-South Ministerial Council.
I have already moved an amendment to Clause 50 which puts beyond any doubt that participation in the council shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2. The effect of this amendment is that Ministers have authority to participate in the North-South Ministerial Council only to the extent that such participation is in accordance with these paragraphs.
Paragraph 6 in particular makes clear, first, that Ministers must be able to operate within their defined authority and, secondly, that Assembly approval must be given for any decisions which go beyond that authority. This amendment seeks to go further still by requiring Assembly approval for all agreements or arrangements. This clearly goes beyond the terms set out in paragraph 6.
I believe that these clauses, as amended, implement the agreement accurately. I believe also that they set out a number of safeguards which help to meet noble Lords' concerns. Perhaps I may quickly outline those safeguards. As a result of amendments already discussed, Northern Ireland participation in the North-South Ministerial Council must be on a cross-community basis; all decisions of the council must, by virtue of paragraph 2 of strand 2, be taken by agreement between the two sides; any agreement or arrangement which requires additional finance or fresh legislative provision must subsequently secure the

683
support of the Assembly if it is to be given effect; any new implementation body must be approved by the Assembly; and, finally, Ministers must act in accordance with all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly.
Taken together, these provisions ensure that no decision in the council can be taken without cross-community involvement and that any significant, substantive decision will require Assembly approval.
As I have said, this is a very important issue. But I firmly believe that the Bill fully reflects the agreement and will ensure that the North-South Ministerial Council is properly accountable to the Assembly.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the explanation has been helpful. It goes as far as one can expect the Minister to go. As the noble Lord knows, the amendment is designed to ensure that all agreements and arrangements entered into will be approved ultimately by the Assembly because without that provision the Assembly members could become very disillusioned. But in the light of the Minister's reasonably sympathetic approach, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Clause 52 [British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 27, line 34, after ("such") insert ("cross-community").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 27, line 34, after ("attendance") insert ("by Ministers and junior Ministers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. There is not much point in moving this amendment if the Minister is going to agree to Amendment No. 75: the former will be immediately knocked out.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I believe that the amendment is appropriate because we cannot act on the assumption that the House will necessarily agree to a subsequent amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 27, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have much pleasure in moving this amendment. It provides another demonstration of our co-operation in that when the Assembly is in operation, if there is need for an experienced tea-boy, I hope that the noble Lord will not overlook my claims. I do not believe that it is necessary to say much more about this amendment and the
684
proposal to delete this particular subsection. In one way or another we have already covered all the ground. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Implementation bodies]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 27, line 38, leave out ("body") and insert ("international organisation created by treaty").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move on to Clause 53, which deals with implementation bodies. These are the joint bodies to be created north and south of the Border to carry out various executive responsibilities. In Committee we had a discussion as to what was to be the legal nature of those bodies. There is a difficulty about it. If they were to have a legal persona in either the north or south under the Companies Act, for example, or some such provision, that would be unsatisfactory. They would not be truly joint bodies.
As I understood the Minister's reply at that time, the intention is that the implementation bodies shall be international organisations created by treaty, which will give them the necessary international legal persona carrying across the whole of Ireland. It will enable them to make contracts which any legally constituted body can do. They will then be able to carry out their business of implementing the responsibilities laid on them by the two jurisdictions, north and south.
The question of such bodies being international organisations had not been made clear before, and was creating some difficulty. It seemed to me, therefore, that it would be better to state on the face of the Bill that these are not just any old bodies, which is what the Bill says at the moment. The Secretary of State may make an order about an international organisation created by treaty. In that way we make it clear to people exactly what the status of the implementation bodies is going to be legally and, for that matter, internationally. They are a very significant part of the agreement. They will be difficult to set up and operate in the first instance. We all wish them well and I hope that they will be effective in operating across the whole of Ireland. They will have difficulties. It is necessary to be very clear that they have a strong legal basis from which to operate as well as the political support which they will obviously need from both parts of Ireland. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the legal framework of north-south implementation bodies was the subject of considerable discussion during our earlier consideration of these clauses. I think it would be helpful if I again set out the sequence of events by which these implementation bodies will come into being.
Under the terms of the agreement, representatives of the Northern Ireland transitional Administration and the Irish Government are to identify and agree at least six areas where co-operation will take place through agreed implementation bodies on a cross-border or all-island level. These initial implementation bodies will then be established by international treaties concluded between the British and Irish Governments.

685
In order to operate effectively, each implementation body will then need to be given any requisite capacities and functions in domestic legislation in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is the purpose of the Secretary of State's power to make orders under Clause 53. This clause deals only with the initial group of implementation bodies. As I have said, these bodies are to be established by treaties between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government. I hope that this has provided the noble Lord with the reassurance he seeks about the legal status of the initial implementation bodies.
Before leaving this amendment, I should like to take the opportunity to clarify the definition of an "implementation body", on which noble Lords had some earlier discussion. It is the Government's clear view that implementation bodies will operate on a cross-border or all-island level. It is also our understanding that paragraph 11 of strand 2, which is used to define the bodies, applies to all implementation bodies, both initial and further. I trust that that clarifies the understanding of noble Lords. Therefore, I am unable to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in a moment we shall come to some of the additional points which the Minister has just raised, including those in Amendment No. 80 as regards what happens to subsequent implementation bodies and the legal status that they will have. This clause is intended to refer solely to the initial implementation bodies. They are the first tranche of what will become a much greater number in due course. As far as they are concerned, it is clear that they will be international organisations created by treaty. They are not just implementation bodies but bodies of rather special character.
I am sorry that the Minister does not think it wise to insert the words of the amendment into the Bill. I believe that they would make the situation much clearer to everyone concerned and would strengthen the Bill rather than weaken it or make it vague. However, the Minister is not yet convinced so I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 27, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("and") and insert ("agreed under paragraph 9(ii) of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, two matters occur to me as regards this amendment. The curious phrase,
"The Secretary of State … considers",
appears in the Bill. Does that imply that the Secretary of State alone will consider or will he seek the views of the members of the Assembly and, if possible and time permits, the Parliament of the United Kingdom as well, given that the other half of the agreement—the Irish Government or whatever name it wishes to call itself by when we have finished with this Bill—will take it for granted that consultation at all levels will take place?
My point concerns the words that my amendment proposes to insert into the clause, which are,
"agreed under paragraph 9(ii) of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement".
I am not complaining that the Minister, right from day one, has insisted that we must not "do violence" to the text of the Belfast agreement. As paragraph 9 is set out clearly in the agreement, I believe that that form of words would vastly improve the clause; as I think do my colleagues who are serving in the Assembly, but not yet in the Executive. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, as I stated when dealing with the previous amendment, the first stage in the establishment of the North-South implementation bodies is for the areas for co-operation to be identified and agreed by representatives of the Northern Ireland transitional Administration and the Irish Government. Once that has happened, the bodies will be established by international agreements between the British and Irish Governments.
Only then will domestic legislation be made to give any requisite capacities and powers to these bodies. I can give a categorical assurance to the House that the Secretary of State's power to make orders under Clause 53 will be exercised only in respect of the agreed implementation bodies. The implementation bodies will be those clearly identified and agreed by representatives of the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government. It stands to reason that the Secretary of State will have those views before her when considering whether to make an order about a body.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, that appears to be a reasonably satisfactory reply. The noble Lord has made it clear that views, other than those of a small circle, will be taken into account. Although there may be occasions when there will be wider consultations—certainly with Members of the Executive, if not the Assembly—perhaps we can return to that in the future. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 27, line 39, after ("body;") insert—
("( ) which has equivalent powers and duties throughout both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it seems to me that it is important to reassure people in both jurisdictions that the implementation bodies are genuine cross-Border bodies. They are seen by some in Northern Ireland as ways in which the south, the Republic, can interfere in matters in Northern Ireland. We know of the tremendous suspicion that there has been over a long period about the operation of the Maryfield secretariat. That demonstrates the way in which such fears can grow and be extremely important in the context of Northern Ireland. Therefore, to the extent that we can, it seems right to ensure on the face of the Bill that the bodies have exactly the same powers in both jurisdictions.
I moved a similar amendment in Committee, which I explained at greater length and in more detail. I was criticised then for the precision of that amendment because in the two jurisdictions the powers may be expressed differently due to the different legislative backgrounds. I have, therefore, modified the wording in the hope of making it more acceptable to your Lordships, and particularly to the Minister, to read "equivalent powers and duties" both sides of the Border rather than "identical" or "the same". It is an important point of principle that they should have the same powers. That would be entirely in accordance with the agreement. That is what is intended, so I do not think that any damage would be caused to the agreement by the amendment. On the contrary, I believe that it would strengthen the Bill and reinforce the potential bodies.
Amendment No. 79, which is grouped with Amendment No. 78, seeks to delete Clause 53(1)(b), which states that the orders that the Secretary of State may make in this context shall be limited to the initial implementation bodies. A very large point underlies this apparently small amendment. The amendment is similar to Amendment No. 80 in which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, achieves a similar effect with neater wording. However, his amendment does not have quite the same meaning.
It is intended that under the agreement six implementation bodies will be set up initially. Work is proceeding on agreeing the areas and on what will happen in the Assembly and with the authorities in the south. Under Clause 53 as it stands, the Secretary of State can make an order about such a body only if it is one of the initial bodies. I look forward to the day when there may be more implementation bodies—seven, eight or even more. It may be thought right to establish such bodies to carry out different functions on both sides of the Border. It seems to me that they, too, should be on the same all-island basis. Therefore, they will need to be international organisations, created by treaty.
I take it that the Assembly and the Executive will not have treaty-making powers, so the Secretary of State or the Government of the United Kingdom will have to make the treaty to set up subsequent implementation bodies. They will need to make the necessary provisions to give them the powers under the equivalent of Clause 53. Why not do that by means of Amendment No. 79? That removes the time limit which would otherwise mean that the Secretary of State can make an order only if the implementation body is one of the initial six and cannot do so in relation to a subsequent body. I beg to move.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, the amendment is particularly relevant and important. I understand that yesterday the Assembly started to discuss the cross-Border bodies. After only a few hours of discussion, it realised the difficulties involved because the organisations that it was considering are different on either side of the Border. It is important that they are brought together. I think that "equivalent" is exactly the appropriate word. It is important that the implementation powers on both sides of the Border are
688
similar and equivalent to deal with the undoubtedly difficult question of how different organisations can be brought together to co-operate.
I now ask the Minister about the nature of the powers. Will the implementation bodies be empowered to instruct the various ministries and departments on each side of the Border, or will they have powers to give orders directly? If there is to be cross-Border training of nurses, for example, will such a body give orders directly to the nurses' organisation or through, say, the Department of Health? This is a question which is in some doubt at the moment and it would be very helpful if the Minister could provide an answer.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should just like to express the view that it is absolutely essential that Northern Ireland and the Republic co-operate very intensively on such matters as tourism, transport, education and training, which has just been mentioned, and attracting inward investment. These matters have long been important, but they are even more important today with the European single market and the globalisation of trade. I am well aware that the planning and the start-up of these implementation bodies have given rise to apprehension in Northern Ireland. That is natural, but the sooner the bodies can start work and produce results, particularly economic results which will be to the benefit of all, the better it will be.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this is surely one of the most important amendments that we shall be discussing this afternoon. If I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, made out the case for it extremely well. It is vital that there be reciprocity and that the people of Northern Ireland will see that there is going to be reciprocity. We talked about the importance of perceptions earlier this afternoon when we were discussing Amendment No. 2. This is yet another sphere in which perceptions are all-important.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendment No. 78 returns to an issue which was discussed during our earlier consideration of these clauses, namely, whether implementation bodies should have equivalent powers on both sides of the border. The Government's clear understanding is that the implementation bodies will be mutual and reciprocal and will have equivalent powers to implement policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council in both Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.
However, the key point about the powers of the implementation bodies is that they will be agreed by representatives from Northern Ireland and the Irish Government. Legislation from each jurisdiction will be used to confer on the bodies those powers which have been agreed: nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, provided that the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government agree to confer equivalent powers on the body both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic, that is what will happen.

689
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked a number of questions. I would say this to him. Implementation bodies are not about one government interfering with another country. They are about co-operation to mutual benefit in both jurisdictions. The noble Lord also asked what would happen about further implementation bodies, given that the particular point at issue is what is going to happen immediately. If further implementation bodies are agreed by the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government, it will be for the Assembly to give them the necessary powers in legislation. Under the Bill, the Assembly has the competence to make the necessary orders.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, asked how these matters would be dealt with in practice. The position is clear. Policy will lie with Ministers, but implementing decisions will be for the implementation bodies themselves. They will act within policies which have been defined politically by the Northern Ireland Minister and by the Minister from Dublin.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I would say that yes, reciprocity, to which I have already referred, is the key. Indeed, it is quite likely that some of the initiative for the work done by the implementation bodies will come from Belfast. Indeed it is right and proper that that should sometimes be the case. In other cases the initiative may come from Dublin.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may enquire how the implementation bodies are going to work. Are they going to work directly with the organisations on the ground or through the departments concerned with these bodies? This is an important matter which I know has begun to concern members of the Assembly.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think it depends very much on the detail of the issue that the implementation body will be dealing with. Let me take an example which has been much quoted and which is in the annexe to the Good Friday areement. One of the possibilities for implementation was tourism: that is, promotion, market research and product development. It seems to me that that tourism body would be responsible for implementing the promotion of tourism to all parts of Ireland. It would have been given that authority and that power by the Minister in Belfast as well as by his or her opposite number in Dublin. Implementation bodies will work directly on the ground. They will be responsible for the work involved in carrying out the implementation. That is what they are there for: they are there to do the work, the policies having been decided by the Ministers and by the Assembly.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, so far as concerns Amendment No. 79, I understand that the Assembly can give any future bodies that may be set up after the initial six bodies powers to carry out whatever responsibilities are allocated to them as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. The point I was making was that, as I understand it, the Assembly will not be in a position to participate in the creation of any further bodies,
690
because in order to create a legal persona capable of making contracts and capable of carrying out its instructions as a tourist body or whatever it may be, they need a legal framework. The Assembly cannot confer a legal framework on an international body because it will not have treaty making powers. Therefore only the United Kingdom Government will be able to enter into the necessary treaty to set up a future implementation body, even though, after it has been created, the Assembly may be able, under a different clause, to transfer to that body the necessary powers and so on from the central Northern Ireland Government.
So far as Amendment No. 78 is concerned, I am encouraged by the support I have received from the Cross-Benches and from the Unionist Benches over the question of equivalent powers and duties. This is an extremely important point and one on which the Minister gave assurances. The only question is whether we should write it into the Bill or whether the assurances are sufficient. It is in the nature of the trust which we are trying to engender in this process that we should accept the assurances of the Secretary of State rather than writing this into the Bill, though personally I would have much preferred it to appear on the face of the Bill. In that event I do not think it would have done any damage to the agreement itself. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 27, line 40, leave out ("before") and insert ("after").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has said, this is rather a crisp little amendment, but it is difficult to understand why there should be such a rush to establish these bodies before the appointed day. It is true that the following subsection provides some very curious terminology. The Bill says:
"An order under this section may make any such provision… (after the appointed day)…".
"May" does not seem to fit with the rather precise wording, "after the appointed day".
I return to the question: why is it necessary to rush the proceedings? My noble friend Lord Cooke illustrated the difficulties that are already being encountered by the reconnaissance operation by various elements in the Assembly. I understand that the going has been extremely heavy. Surely it would make sense to go easy on this matter. I do not suggest that we delay the Bill's passage, but surely it would be preferable to have a clear idea as to what exactly is wanted and, more importantly, what the legal base would be. Perhaps the Minister could write to us outlining his thoughts on the matter. I think that he, too, probably feels that some further study needs to be carried out before we know exactly where we are.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, made the point that the Assembly will not have treaty-making powers; that must be done at Westminster. Will it be a difficult operation—Her Majesty's Government requesting that both Houses of Parliament, acting under treaty-making

691
powers, form, for example, a Franco-British fisheries board; and how popular would that body be? That may be a rather outlandish suggestion, but there are issues in regard to co-operation in Northern Ireland that will be equally difficult and sensitive. I suggest that we need to take our time. We should not rush in before the appointed day and go down the road too far immediately after the appointed day without having a clear idea as to how matters will work out.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendment No. 80 would enable the Secretary of State to make orders about any implementation body established on the appointed day or afterwards.
Clause 53(1)(b) has been included specifically to restrict the Secretary of State's power to make orders to the initial batch of agreed implementation bodies; that is, those bodies established on or before the appointed day. If and when further implementation bodies are agreed, they will be given the necessary capacities and functions by means of Assembly legislation, which is the appropriate vehicle for doing so.
Under strand 2 of the agreement, the two governments are committed to ensuring that the initial implementation bodies are ready to function at the same time as powers are devolved to the Assembly. It is our intention that these bodies will also be formally established on the appointed day. However, we have left open the possibility of establishing them a short time in advance of the appointed day in order that they will be ready to function from day one.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I hope that we, and particularly those with a special interest in Northern Ireland, can give further thought to this matter. In the light of our experience of international affairs, perhaps we can give thought and guidance to those who will be saddled with the responsibility of bringing these bodies into being. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Civic Forum]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 28, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) The expenses of the Forum shall be defrayed as expenses of the Department of Finance and Personnel.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 relate to Clause 54, which is about the civic forum.
Amendment No. 81 is a technical provision to ensure that the forum's expenses can be funded, in the first instance by the Department of Finance and Personnel, though this is a responsibility that might well be suitable for transfer to a department of the centre, which we have considered earlier.
Amendment No. 82 makes clear that it is the responsibility of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to establish the forum. This clarifies a point that many people, including some noble Lords, found obscure in the original drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we received a little more information in Committee regarding the civic forum. But in this amendment the Minister is providing for the cost of the forum to be met by the Department of Finance and Personnel. That is entirely appropriate. However, will the Minister tell the House how much he thinks the cost will be?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not in a position to do so at this stage. The structure of the forum and the way in which it will operate are responsibilities that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are considering. Until they have reached their conclusions, it is impossible for me even to guess how much it might cost.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 28, line 21, at end insert ("by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84:
Page 28, line 32, after ("to") insert ("section 57 and to").
Page 28, line 35, after ("by") insert ("an Act of the Assembly or other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are technical and drafting amendments. They are needed to ensure the continued financing of public services if the Assembly cannot agree funding. They are straightforward and do not present any difficulty. It is very important that we get the provisions relating to the Consolidated Fund absolutely right and that we deal with them comprehensively.
Because there is a great deal of Northern Ireland legislation relating to finance, and because it goes back a long way, we have had some difficulty identifying all the relevant strands. It may be that we shall need to bring forward further amendments at Third Reading. The same applies to audit provisions, about which I shall speak further. I hope that noble Lords will understand the difficulties and be sympathetic to the amendments. I should not normally have wished to introduce new amendments at Third Reading. However, I hope that noble Lords will understand that this is an exceptional matter. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are given yet more amendments to deal with. We have already left the Scotland Bill behind, with only 300 or so amendments. On this Bill we have arrived at over 450, and there are more to come. I wonder whether the figure will reach 500. We shall have to wait and see.

693
These amendments are required to deal with the position should the Assembly not agree to any financial plans. We had some discussion on the matter in Committee. As I recall, I was rather told off for what was described as my pessimism. I was told that it was not a good idea to think that the Assembly might not agree about everything all the time. However, I am glad that we now have another fail-safe mechanism, to use an earlier expression of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I do not believe that it does imply pessimism. We are properly providing for what should happen in that event.
It is sometimes extremely difficult for bodies to agree on financial provisions. Finance, as we know, is at the heart of politics. This may be one of the most difficult matters that a body such as the Assembly, with much cross-community involvement, has to try to settle. Northern Ireland politicians have not had responsibility for money for quite a long time. They have been let off that particular hook by the fact that other people have conducted the government of Northern Ireland through direct rule. It is one of the shocks to the Northern Ireland system that are to come when Northern Ireland politicians take up financial responsibility once again. It is therefore wise, not pessimistic, to include these provisions in the Bill. I support the amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 85
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause—

FINANCIAL CONTROL, ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
(".—(1) In so far as such provision has not been made, Northern Ireland legislation shall make provision—

(a) for proper accounts to be prepared by the Northern Ireland departments, and by other persons to whom sums are paid directly out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, of their expenditure and receipts;

(b) for the Department of Finance and Personnel to prepare an account of payments into and out of the Fund;

(c) for the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland to exercise, or ensure the exercise by other persons of, the functions mentioned in subsection (2);

(d) for access by persons exercising those functions to such documents as they may reasonably require;

(e) for members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service designated for the purpose to be answerable to the Assembly in respect of the expenditure and receipts of each of the Northern Ireland departments; and

(f) for the publication of accounts prepared in pursuance of paragraphs (a) and (b), and of reports on such accounts, and for the laying of such accounts and reports before the Assembly.

(2) The functions referred to in subsection (1)(c) are—

(a) issuing credits for the payment of sums out of the Fund;

(b) examining accounts prepared in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) and (b) (which includes determining whether sums paid out of the Fund have been paid out and applied in accordance with section 55), and certifying and reporting on them;

(c) carrying out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Northern Ireland departments have used their resources in discharging their functions; and

694

(d) carrying out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which other persons determined under Northern Ireland legislation to whom sums are paid directly out of the Fund have used those sums in discharging their functions.

(3) Standing orders shall make provision for establishing a committee of members of the Assembly to consider accounts, and reports on accounts, laid before the Assembly in pursuance of this section or any other enactment.
(4) Subsection (2)(b) does not apply to accounts prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment reproduces, with modifications, the provisions contained in Clause 66 of the Scotland Bill which lay down the essentials of audit control. It is the core provision of the amendments which we are making to the existing audit controls.
We are not following the Scotland Bill in every respect. The Scots are starting with a blank sheet of paper. Northern Ireland, in contrast, has audit legislation going back as far as 1921. It has a Comptroller and Auditor General and its own Northern Ireland Audit Office. The system has worked very successfully.
When the Bill was being discussed in another place, however, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee raised a number of concerns about the controls. He pointed to the size of the subvention to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund (it is around 34 per cent.) and the possibility of paramilitary fraud. He argued that the UK taxpayer deserved stronger oversight of Assembly spending through parliamentary scrutiny.
We reject the notion of parliamentary scrutiny of Assembly spending because it runs counter to the principle of devolution. Parliament will vote money to the Assembly, after debate, and it will then be for the Assembly, answerable to the Northern Ireland electorate—a very important point—to decide how to spend that money. There should be no further control from Westminster.
But we do echo some of the PAC chairman's concerns. Chief among them is the possibility that the Assembly might at some future date dispense with some or all of its audit controls. Audit legislation is transferred and we cannot simply change its status. The Assembly must be free to modify it.
The solution we have adopted is to leave the Assembly free to change its audit controls provided that it keeps the basic standards which are set out in this clause and which, as I have said, closely follow the model adopted for Scotland. We do not seek to lay down the way it does so and we are not requiring it to change any of its existing legislation immediately. But it will not be able to legislate to reduce or undermine the existing controls and at some point it will have to introduce some additional features which are set out in this clause.
The basic standards of control will consist of: the independent Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, who already exists and whose independence will be enhanced by other provisions in this Bill, notably Clause 62(2); the requirement for the preparation of proper accounts of expenditure and

695
receipts by direct recipients of money from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, chiefly the Northern Ireland departments; the requirement for the Department of Finance and Personnel to prepare an account of payments into and out of the fund; the requirement for Northern Ireland departments to have accounting officers; the requirement for the accounts of recipients of direct funding from the Consolidated Fund to be audited with full access to necessary documents; and, finally, the requirements for accounts and auditor's reports to be published and laid before the Assembly.
Those controls—which I will again stress have existed in Northern Ireland for many years and have operated effectively; there has been remarkably little proven fraud—should provide this House and, I hope, Members in another place, with the reassurance that the money given to the Assembly will be properly spent and properly accounted for.
In addition to those controls, the Assembly will be required to set up the equivalent of a public accounts committee under standing orders. It will be the duty of this committee to consider accounts and reports of accounts laid before it by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The existence of the committee will enhance the accountability of the Comptroller and Auditor General and I hope that the new committee will follow the Westminster model in a rigorous scrutiny of public expenditure. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I was put into an accounting and audit office at an early age. Although I got out of it after a few years and am now an extremely rusty accountant and auditor, that was my original training. I therefore have the greatest sympathy for the efforts of the Government to insert proper control and audit procedures into the Bill.
It is important that the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General should continue to function on the basis on which he has functioned over the past few years. Given the differences with the new Assembly and the new set up. I hope he will function to the high standards to which he has functioned over the past few years and in an equivalent manner to the way in which the Comptroller and Auditor General functions in the United Kingdom and, as it will be, in England and Wales for most matters.
It is, of course, a big constitutional change for this Parliament and particularly another place to give up responsibility for an enormous block of expenditure and hand it over to a different assembly. In doing so I think another place, which has played a historical role in it, needs the reassurance of a proper audit arrangement and a proper set up within which the Comptroller and Auditor General can function.
I am slightly nervous about leaving the Assembly free to alter the audit controls, although I realise that the provisions are limited, as the Minister stated. But this is a most important part of the Bill. Given the difficulties which may arise and to which I referred earlier in organising finance in Northern Ireland, compounded by the problems there have been in the Province as a result
696
of rackets and so on, it is important that the audit function is carried out rigorously and the proper arrangements set up for it to report to the Assembly in the manner which the new clause suggests. I therefore support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Audit]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 31, line 3, after ("Minister") insert ("or Northern Ireland department").
The noble Lord said: This amendment frees the Comptroller and Auditor General from the direction and control of the Northern Ireland departments as well as those of the Assembly and Ministers. This is a necessary part of his independence. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, quite right too.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 31, line 8, after ("of") insert ("an Act of the Assembly or other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 31, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) The Assembly shall not have power under Article 4(1) of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to pass at any time a resolution which reduces the salary payable to a person holding the office of Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland at that time.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment represents an additional means of safeguarding the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland from unwarranted interference by the Assembly.
Clause 62(2) was amended in Committee to provide explicitly that the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland should not be subject to the direction or control of the Assembly except as regards the preparation of accounts. That establishes the principle. All this amendment does is to buttress it. The Assembly pays the Comptroller and Auditor General directly and sets the level of his salary annually. We tried to move away from the annual salary setting but for technical reasons were unable to do so. But the Comptroller and Auditor General's salary is subject to a statutory upper limit, which provides a degree of protection from the Assembly's using it to manipulate him. The amendment acts on the opposite end of the spectrum, to prevent the Assembly from undermining the Comptroller and Auditor General's independence by threatening a reduction in salary.
It is not a major provision, but I hope it will be a successful one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 89:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—

EXPENSES OF NORTHERN IRELAND AUDIT OFFICE
(" .—(1) Standing orders shall make provision for establishing a committee of members of the Assembly to exercise, in place of the Department of Finance and Personnel, the functions conferred on that Department by Article 6(2) of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (expenses of Northern Ireland Audit Office).
(2) No more than one member of the committee established under subsection (3) of section (Financial control, accounts and audit) may be a member of the committee established under this section.
(3) The committee established under this section shall, in discharging its functions, have regard to the advice of the committee established under that subsection and of the Department of Finance and Personnel.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 221. Amendment No. 89 provides for the establishment under standing orders of a new Assembly committee which will have the duty of examining the estimate of expenses which is prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland each year, agreeing any necessary modifications with him and laying the estimate before the Assembly.
This is a function currently exercised by the Department of Finance and Personnel. It would not be appropriate for it to continue doing so once the Assembly has been established. In Westminster the Public Accounts Commission examines the estimates of the National Audit Office under Section 4 of the National Audit Act 1983 and this amendment creates a parallel committee to the commission. Our new committee will be quite separate from the PAC equivalent committee and will be allowed to have only one member drawn from the PAC. This is to ensure that while the new PAC equivalent committee can bring its expertise to assist the new committee it cannot dominate it or replace it. The PAC equivalent committee will have some influence over the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and it is not appropriate for it to have any involvement in the consideration of its expenses if the NIAO is to maintain its independence.
Subsection (1) of the new clause will give the new committee exactly the same duties as the Department of Finance and Personnel exercises at present. Subsection (2) stipulates that not more than one member of the PAC equivalent committee will be able to serve on this new committee for the reasons I have already given. Subsection (3) will require the new committee to take advice for the PAC equivalent committee and the DFP. This is modelled upon the 1983 Act.
This is a small piece of the audit jigsaw and our aim in introducing it is to ensure the absolute integrity and independence of the audit process. Amendment No. 221 is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in rising to my feet I may appear to contradict myself in regard to haste. But it may be worth thinking about the voluntary establishment of this committee in shadow form with a slightly wider remit to educate the members of the Assembly on the realities of financial life. Listening to
698
the exhortations from all manner of do-gooder bodies throughout Northern Ireland and some of the promises made by members of the Assembly—looking at it from afar, the same appears to be happening in Scotland—they will be inclined to commit themselves in advance to expenditure that they cannot possibly hope to meet. Therefore, I believe that a word of caution would be profitable for all concerned at this early stage. If it could be established in shadow form and go outside the strict remit contained in this clause, and it felt so inclined to give advice, it would be helpful to those of their colleagues who appear to be more enthusiastic about splashing around public money.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, seeks to achieve, but we have probably already achieved it as regards new Assembly members. A transition programme has been established for some time. That ensures that Assembly members have a chance to learn about the functions of all the Northern Ireland departments so that they get a feel for the work in which they will be engaged when they cease to be in shadow form. I am not sure how far we have got with that transition programme, but I am confident that the need for Assembly members fully to understand the financial basis of the work of the Northern Ireland departments and their responsibilities in relation to that is part of the programme and that the noble Lord's amendment is already being achieved without the need for statutory support.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 65 [The Commission's functions]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 31, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) The Executive Committee shall refer in draft to the Commission all Bills which it intends to introduce in the Assembly.
( ) The Commission may advise the Executive Committee whether a proposed Bill is compatible with human rights.
( ) The Executive Committee shall take any such advice into account when considering the proposed Bill.
( ) The Commission may make public its advice.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 90 it may be to your Lordships' convenience to debate also Amendment No. 91 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I suspect that he and I tabled our respective amendments more or less contemporaneously. Clearly, they are alternatives. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support in relation to my amendment.
Clause 11 requires that a Bill shall be referred to the commission as soon as practicable after it has been introduced into the Assembly. In Clause 65 it is provided that the commission may advise the Assembly whether a Bill is compatible with human rights, either when that Bill is referred to it by the Assembly or when it thinks right to tender unsolicited advice. But there is no obligation on anyone to tell the commission about a draft Bill before it has been introduced into the Assembly.
The difference is of vital importance as anyone who has been a member of an advisory body will recognise. After a Bill has been introduced it is known publicly what it contains. The Executive will be largely committed—as we all are—to what has been put down on paper. The commission will be involved in a public dialogue. While the Bill is in draft the dialogue can be confidential. There will be no need to strike attitudes. No damage has been done to anyone's image or reputation. Therefore, there is an important difference between the two stages.
In Committee noble Lords debated a proposal that all draft Bills should be referred to the commission and that the Assembly should take into account its advice. In replying my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said that it would be wrong to impose on the Assembly a requirement to take the advice into account, particularly since that was not in the agreement. I suspect that we are shadow boxing as to that. It is highly improbable that the Assembly should not even take into account any advice from the commission. But I have taken to heart the words of my noble friend, as I always do. This amendment simply requires that the executive committee shall submit draft Bills to the commission before presenting them to the Assembly. It would not impose a requirement on the Assembly to take account of the advice or any action on the Assembly at all. It therefore does not seek to include something that is not in the agreement. I ask rhetorically: is that not a handsome compromise and also commonsense? I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I believe that the Government should take pride in the fact that by this Bill they are establishing a human rights commission in Northern Ireland. It will be the first such body in the United Kingdom. I very much hope that, albeit in difficult circumstances, it will provide a test bed for the concept. I trust that the Government have already decided to create an effective body that is respected by all concerned; otherwise they will be seen to be setting up a weak body that lacks the necessary tools, to be followed after two years with a review. By then the concept of a human rights commission may be so discredited that the second stage with enlarged powers and better tools will be difficult to establish. I should like the people of Northern Ireland to have the kind of commission that they want and deserve. After all, they have waited 30 or more years for it.
I turn to the wording of Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. As the noble and learned Lord said, they are alternatives. The reference to "Bills in draft" appeared in the Belfast agreement. There is slight doubt as to the precise meaning of "in draft". My Amendment No. 91 seeks to overcome that by spelling out that it refers to Bills,
"before they are introduced in the Assembly".
That takes into account the point that has already been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
700
I ask the Government whether Clause 65(4)(b) allows the commission to make its first comment before a Bill is introduced, as I would like it to be able to do.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, there has been a prolonged and, perhaps to some, welcome period of silence from these Benches. However, I rise to support the two amendments. We should be happy with either amendment.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said, there is a risk that if scrutiny is not carried out by the Human Rights Commission until the Bill is published, the political positions of the parties will have been frozen and it will be more difficult to achieve the necessary amendments. I add to that the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly, unlike the Parliament of the United Kingdom, will be a single chamber institution. No revising chamber will have the opportunity to put right human rights problems which may arise during debate in the lower House. It is doubtful whether the commission could easily intervene at short notice if a problem arose during the passage of a Bill through the Assembly. It is therefore particularly important to get the matter right first time.
It is also true that human rights defects in a Bill are not always clear at first sight. The matter is one for study by specialists. I suspect that the Assembly will not have access among its staff to the same quality of specialist legal advice as the Government of the United Kingdom. It is extremely important that all Bills, whether or not it is apparent on the face of the Bill that human rights issues may be involved, should be submitted to the Human Rights Commission; and the Assembly should not be left to decide in due course whether a Bill should or should not be submitted to that commission.
It is an important amendment. I am happy to support both noble Lords who moved Amendments Nos. 90 and 91.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support both amendments but prefer Amendment No. 91. It is important that the human rights issue is discussed during drafting and is not left until the measure is on the Floor of the Assembly, when many other arguments may come to the fore and human rights may yet again take second place.
By discussing the matter beforehand, the correct human rights provisions may be fed into the measure at that stage. It should not be left until later.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, the House will recall that in Committee I moved a series of amendments to reflect the concerns of Disability Action in Northern Ireland. Its views were put to me by Monica Wilson, the chief executive, and I intervene briefly now to give your Lordships her reaction to the Government's response to my amendments. Her letter states:
"I write to reiterate my continuing concerns regarding the equality provisions of the Northern Ireland Bill and in particular the limitations of the human rights section".

701
She goes on to say that the Bill currently makes no provision for the Human Rights Commission to initiate investigations without a named victim. This is especially serious for disabled people, many of whom are particularly vulnerable and who are more susceptible to abuse than most other people in society. For example, the Human Rights Commission as currently proposed could not institute a general investigation into day care or residential care, a point which is of major concern to disabled people for whom Disability Action speaks, as many would not be in a position to indicate that they are subject to abusive behaviour.
I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to the renewed concern expressed to me by a widely and deservedly respected organisation in Northern Ireland.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there is a great deal to be said for Bills being scrutinised thoroughly and carefully, and by qualified people, before they are presented to a parliament. Quite frankly, if this Bill had been subject to scrutiny before it was presented in another place, we might have spent much less time on it. However, we do not know from Clause 38, which sets up the commission, whether the commission will involve people who will have the expertise to scrutinise legislation. There would have to be some lawyers. There would have to be several experienced parliamentarians. My support for the amendment would depend upon the extent to which we could be assured that members of the commission would be so qualified.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment. I consulted my noble friend Lord McConnell—he has a legal background, as noble Lords know, and has held responsible positions in the Stormont Government in various legal departments—on whether there was any procedure in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We stand to be corrected, but we came to the conclusion that there probably is not as yet. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will remember that in my early days in this House he and I crossed swords in a chivalrous way on the issue of whether we should have a United Kingdom commission. That was supported by our friends on the Liberal Benches. Admittedly, they wanted to think about it. However, in the light of what has been said by various noble Lords today, I hope that we are moving in that direction. It would be of great benefit to many organisations. It would raise the prestige of the Parliament of the United Kingdom if there were in effect a sieve. Bills in draft could be submitted to a human rights commission covering the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he may wish to bear in mind that the only scheme whereby the United Kingdom Parliament may have a Bill scrutinised in advance is by referring the matter to one of the Law Commissions. They then often draft a Bill which is in its terms pretty good.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. I am sure he will bear
702
in mind that we are in the age of Cool Britannia. Therefore we have to move into the next millennium, equipped, I hope, with the Human Rights Commission covering the entire United Kingdom.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it has been an interesting short debate on a subject that we discussed earlier in Committee. I address two points. First, what does "in draft" mean? Clearly in the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity part of the agreement, draft legislation referred to the human rights commission by the new Assembly is referred to. Those words refer to Bills rather than Bills in the course of preparation within a government department or, in this case, the Northern Ireland Executive.
Noble Lords may well think that if a Bill requires 450 amendments, as has the Northern Ireland Bill, it has been presented in draft in the first instance. However, it is necessary to be clear what we are talking about. Clearly, both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, are thinking about Bills in the course of preparation within the department. As both noble Lords said, it is clear that consideration of a draft is easier at that stage. The idea that, given that it is a cross-community Executive and that it is Northern Ireland, there will be no striking of attitudes is going a little far. Nevertheless, it is more likely that a change can be achieved quietly before the Bill is presented to the Assembly for consideration.
The question which remains is whether the legislation should compel the Northern Ireland Executive to refer all Bills at the draft stage. Where Bills are being prepared slowly over a period of time and there is time to undertake all the necessary consultation, that is highly desirable. The agreement does not mention that as such and the Bill provides that the Executive can look to the commission for advice presumably on a draft Bill at any stage of its preparation—or for that matter in respect of a White Paper or whatever. The question is whether to compel it to do so in the case of every single Bill. I am more hesitant about that because, as we know from our parliamentary experience, some Bills will need to be brought forward urgently and it will be difficult to carry out such procedures properly.
That may even place the Human Rights Commission in a false position. A draft Bill may be thrown at it in the late stage of preparation allowing only a day or two for examination. The need for the Bill may be pressing; we have heard that often enough in this House and elsewhere. If the Human Rights Commission is obliged to consider a Bill in a couple of days and then appears to have given its imprimatur, the commission may be placed in a false position. Therefore, with regard to an absolute duty laid down in statute I am more cautious than the proponents of the amendments about writing the provision into the Bill in this form.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Clause 11(4) already requires the Assembly to send a copy of each Bill as soon as reasonably practicable after introduction to the Human Rights Commission. We certainly intend that the Assembly should refer Bills to the commission

703
at an earlier stage. Should the sponsors of legislation desire it, there is no reason why they should not involve the commission at an earlier stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right in saying that the reference at paragraph 5 on page 17 of the agreement refers to considering draft legislation referred to by the new Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a similar question about the meaning of draft legislation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I agree that draft legislation refers to Bills.
According to the agreement, the Assembly must refer the draft legislation. Until the legislation has been introduced, the Assembly does not have any knowledge of Bills. We believe that the existing provision fairly and accurately reflects the agreement.
There is no reason why at an earlier stage the views of the commission should not be taken. I can give an example of our intention, which has already been announced, about the freedom of information Bill. We have already undertaken in the early part of next year to send the proposals to the relevant committee in another place. If on occasions that is thought appropriate, it is a matter of good working practice, and I do not believe that we ought to prescribe it in statute. I repeat that the agreement is talking about the Assembly being the referring body, not the executive committee.
Clause 65(4) already provides that:
"The Commission shall advise the Assembly whether a Bill is compatible with human rights".
That is already an obligation. In response to the specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, it seems to me that under Clause 65(4)(b) the commission has a very wide discretion indeed. It provides that:
"The Commission shall advise the Assembly whether a Bill is compatible with human rights … on such other occasions as the Commission thinks appropriate".
It seems to me that it would be an organic growth depending on how matters develop within the commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked whether there are likely to be lawyers on the commission. To the gratification of all lawyers present and to the deep gloom of those who are not lawyers, the answer is probably yes. Obviously, the Secretary of State will be looking for people with relevant expertise.
If the executive committee on every occasion had to take the advice of the commission, that could lead to delays, particularly if the commission were rather slow in coming up with its advice. We would of course expect the Assembly to take into account the commission's advice. I believe that it is counter-productive to have an over-strict requirement in statute.
Amendment No. 90 also allows the commission to make public its advice. We believe that is already covered in Clause 65(9), which makes it quite plain that the commission may decide to publish its advice.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, if he would not mind my observing it, has gone a good deal further than the ambit of this amendment. I understand
704
him to require the rights of those who are disabled to be taken into account. The amendments are not to deal with that matter; they deal with the stage at which the commission's view should be taken.
We believe that we have got the balance about right. There is an obligation on the Assembly, which reflects the agreement, that it does not stop any earlier advice being taken in the kind of way that advice is sometimes taken from the Law Commission in this country, but we do not believe that it ought to be prescriptive.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, surely he must bear in mind that Clause 11(4) and Clause 65 refer to human rights only. However, as I understand the intention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, they wish to ensure that the commission scrutinises legislation in the broad not only from the human rights point of view but from the point of view of whether it is well drafted and whether a great deal of time would be taken up in proving the drafting if it went to the Assembly. Surely, the issue is broader than the human rights one, is it not?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is how I had understood the matter. Clause 11(4) requires standing orders to be made requiring the Presiding Officer to send a copy of each Bill to the Human Rights Commission. However, Clause 65 refers only to the adequacy and effectiveness in Northern Ireland of practice relating to the protection of human rights.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may assist my noble friend. It grieves me to reject so generous an offer from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but we are talking about a human rights commission. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, we are drawing on its expertise. I would not have it in mind that it should advise on matters such as draftmanship and the time taken by the process; only on matters of human rights.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. That is what I had understood and that is the way I made my response.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As so frequently happens when one initiates a debate, it takes on a life of its own. One is given all kinds of ideas which were not in one's head at the outset.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that on these matters it is good to have expert advice which may not otherwise be available either to the Executive or to the Assembly, and that it is better to have it as early as possible in the process.
My noble friend Lord Williams, in what was something of a disappointing reply, said that one should not impose an obligation on the Executive to take this advice in relation to every Bill. My experience is that one thinks that one does not require advice in precisely

705
those instances where one most requires it. I should have thought it would be much better to say that every Bill should be submitted to the commission.
I take the two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope; first, that there is a difficulty about the words "in draft". I should not go to the stake for the words "in draft". It is important that the advice should be taken at an early stage in the process and before people have gone public.
The other point which the noble Lord made is as regards the volume of work which may be generated for the commission. I was one of those in Committee who said that we must not impose too heavy a volume of work on the commission. I certainly believe that it should be in control of its own timetable. For that reason, I should not impose any obligation on the commission to respond in the case of every Bill. It is a matter for the commission to decide what are its priorities. But I see no difficultly in the commission making public the fact that in a particular case it had not had an opportunity to consider the matter. Otherwise, I see that there may be a danger that people would say that the commission had considered the Bill so it must be all right. It should be able to make that public.
That leaves the question of what we do next. I shall leave the decision to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. In a moment, I propose to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my amendment, leaving the matter in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I leave this debate with a feeling that a great opportunity is being missed. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that this Parliament might benefit just as much from a service of this kind. It seems to me that it is a great pity that the Assembly in Northern Ireland does not have that service. For the moment, I shall not beg leave to withdraw my amendment but wait to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, says.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry, I believe that the correct procedure is for my noble and learned friend Lord Archer to seek leave to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, can then deal with his amendment. As usual, I defer to the logic of my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 32, line 2, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The Executive Committee shall refer all proposed Bills to the Commission in draft before they are introduced in the Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move the amendment formally in the hope of tempting the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to say something more encouraging than he has been able to do so far. Secondly, I ask him to take on board the very great strength of opinion which was expressed on all sides of
706
the House in favour of the two amendments. Perhaps other noble Lords may wish to take this opportunity to intervene in the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have already taken on board the sense of what the noble Lord said because I indicated that where we think it appropriate, as with the Freedom of Information Bill, we propose to send a pre-draft Bill to the appropriate committee in another place. It seems to me that if one selects appropriate Bills, one is taking on board the spirit of what the noble Lord said. I believe that I have dealt with the other matters when I responded earlier.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to consider further what the Minister said. I reserve my right possibly to return to this issue on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 32, line 8, at end insert (",and
(b) bring proceedings involving law or practice relating to the protection of human rights.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 96. Amendment No. 94 is in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell and Amendment No. 93 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
Amendment No. 92 makes clear on the face of the Bill the ability of the Human Rights Commission to bring proceedings involving law or practice relating to the protection of human rights. Amendment No. 96 is intended to make it clear that that does not override the need for a victim under the Human Rights Act.
The usual way we see the commission being involved is by offering assistance to individuals under Clause 66. The agreement envisages the commission, in appropriate cases, bringing court proceedings. They might include judicial review on the ground that a particular policy or practice was in breach of human rights other than ECHR rights or that legislation was unlawful because it was discriminatory. There will be nothing to stop it initiating proceedings under Clause 72. Those are examples.
Clause 65(11)(b) defines human rights in a very wide fashion. I should expect most proceedings to be brought in support of specific individuals but the commission will be able to bring its own legal proceedings in appropriate cases. We believe that that fairly and fully reflects the agreement.
The only restriction on the ability to initiate proceedings in its own name is in Clause 67. That is in common with the policy adopted in the Human Rights Act 1997. Clause 67 restricts the bringing of proceedings in respect of convention rights to a victim, as defined in the convention itself.
The proposed amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell is similar to government Amendment No. 92. It, too, would make clear on the face of the Bill the existing ability of the

707
Human Rights Commission to bring proceedings for judicial review, but because there is no equivalent of the corresponding government Amendment No. 96, to which I spoke a moment ago, it would allow victimless cases to be brought by the commission. That is not our intention, bearing in mind that having a victim, including an actual or potential victim, is the policy that has been adopted and enshrined in the Human Rights Act.
Amendment No. 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is similar to government Amendment No. 92 and Amendment No. 94. There is no equivalent in Amendment No. 93 to corresponding government Amendment No. 96. I hope that I have explained the Government's position clearly.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he may be able to assist some of us. What is the extent of the restriction in Clause 67? Does it apply to claims which are brought simply under the convention so that other claims dealing with other aspects of human rights may be brought by the commission?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes, it is exactly the same as the structure in the Human Rights Act. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment No. 92 is an amendment which I warmly welcome subject only to the comment that it is rather surprising that it contains a reference to paragraph (b) when the Bill will not, on the face of it, contain a paragraph (a). That may be a drafting amendment which will have to be introduced on Third Reading.
Subject to that highly technical point, I welcome the extent to which the Government have moved on this issue. From these Benches, I continue to regret that the Government have continued in this case, as in the Human Rights Act, to impose the victim requirement but that is a long argument which has been raised rather exhaustively in previous debates on other Bills and I shall not seek at this stage of this Bill to raise it again.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I very much hope that the pair of government amendments are more comprehensive than my Amendment No. 93. If I can have reassurance on that point, I shall be very happy not to move Amendment No. 93.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, once again, I am sure that we all welcome my noble friend's response to some of the anxieties which we expressed in Committee. What troubled some of us was the extent of the restriction in Clause 67 which restricts to the victim the right to bring proceedings for breaches of the convention. If that were held to apply too widely, it might frustrate the judicial protection of human rights in Northern Ireland for two reasons. First, a victim may be reluctant to bring proceedings because he may be under peer-group pressure or be subject to intimidation. Secondly, it might do so for the reason indicated in the
708
earlier debate by my noble friend Lord Morris. Unfortunately, he has had to leave us early and wishes me to express his apologies to the House. My noble friend's point was that the infringement might be directed not at an individual but at a whole group of people; for example, the disabled.
Amendment No. 92 relieves many of our anxieties because it makes it clear that the restriction in Clause 67 is not as wide as some of us feared. In those circumstances, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 94.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morris indicated to me earlier the reason why he mentioned that specific point. He has domestic difficulties, which we all regret, and he obviously intended no discourtesy.
The only point to which I believe I ought to respond is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Amendment No. 92 is a shade wider than Amendment No. 93, although, as I indicated, our corresponding restriction is in line with the policy that your Lordships adopted under the Human Rights Act.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

INVESTIGATIONS, ETC
(".—(1) The Commission may conduct such investigations as it considers appropriate to determine whether a breach of—

(a) the Human Rights Act 1998, or

(b) section 72 or 73 of this Act,

has occurred or may occur.
(2) Where the Commission proposes to conduct an investigation under this section, it shall publicise the fact and shall afford an opportunity to those with sufficient interest to comment on the desirability of conducting such an investigation.
(3) The Commission may require any person who in its opinion is able to furnish information or produce documents necessary to the investigation to furnish any such information or produce any such documents.
(4) For the purposes of an investigation the Commission shall have the same powers as the Court in respect of—

(a) the attendance and examination of witnesses, and

(b) the production of documents.

(5) If any person without lawful excuse obstructs the Commission or any officer of the Commission in the performance of its or his functions under this section, or is guilty of any act or omission in relation to any investigation under this section which, if that investigation were a proceeding in the Court, would constitute contempt of court, the Commission may certify the offence to the Court.
(6) Where an offence is certified under subsection (5), the Court may inquire into the matter and deal with the person referred to in that subsection in any manner in which the Court could deal with him if he had committed the like offence in relation to the Court.
(7) If, after conducting an investigation under this section, it appears to the Commission appropriate, it may lay a special report before each House of Parliament and the Assembly.
(8) In this section "Court" means the High Court in Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 133 has also been grouped with this amendment. I referred earlier to the human rights commission not having sufficient tools to do its job, especially during the first two years. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 95. However, there is a change in the text in subsection (3) where the word "necessary" is substituted for "relevant", which was used in the Committee stage amendment. I am advised that that narrows a little the scope of the new amendment.
I should also like to point out to the House that the investigations which my amendment would allow are strictly limited to breaches under the Human Rights Act and under Clauses 72 and 73, which deal with discrimination and illegal oaths. My feeling is that Clause 65(8) is fine as far as it goes, but its weakness lies in its not having the machinery for enforcement to deal with people who may be totally unco-operative when it comes to an investigation of their behaviour. That is why I have provided for the furnishing of information, the production of documents and indeed for the compelling of the attendance of witnesses.
I turn now to Amendment No. 133. I tabled that amendment because it was pointed out to me during the last stage of the Bill that there was no cross-party or cross-community agreement as to the making of investigations with compulsory powers. That is why I have provided that the Assembly must agree, with cross-community support, a resolution praying for the commencement of the clause introduced by Amendment No. 95.
The Government may say that human rights is a reserved matter and, therefore, it would be out of order for the Assembly even to consider it and investigations relating to it. My reply is that it would be right to give the Assembly a means of enlarging the present scope of human rights legislation and human rights investigations. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it seems to me that the human rights commission will not be able to do its job without carrying out investigations. However, that is not to say that it necessarily needs all the powers suggested by Amendment No. 95. The attendance and examination of witnesses, the production of documents and so forth, lead to the commission behaving almost like a court. Obviously, if it subsequently finds that there has been some breach of human rights legislation or, for that matter, of some other provision, it will then go to court with the result of its investigations and try to prove it. It is almost a form of double jeopardy in the sense that the commission sits like a court with compulsory powers for documents to be presented to it and for witnesses to appear before it. That is the reason behind my hesitation on the matter. As I said, the commission will need to investigate matters; otherwise, it will never get anywhere. Of course, that is largely what it is for; namely, to investigate complaints.
It is a matter of interest that, as far as I can see, the agreement provides that the new unified equality commission which will be set up under the Bill will
710
specifically investigate complaints of default, but there is no such provision as regards human rights. If we were to write in an investigatory clause as suggested by the amendment, we would perhaps be stepping outside the wording of the agreement, although not outside the spirit of it because it is absolutely no use such a commission existing if it cannot look into certain matters. As I say, I am cautious at the rather judicial process set out in the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment and, indeed, for the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. In Committee we welcomed the introduction of what is now subsection (8) of Clause 65. That was an important addition given the fact that investigations can usefully and effectively complement court adjudications. However, additional powers will be necessary to enable the commission to investigate effectively any alleged human rights abuses. I believe that those powers certainly include the power to obtain documents and hear witnesses. Indeed, in that respect I disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said.
I believe that such powers are necessary. Indeed, according to the current Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (which is really the precursor body to the proposed human rights commission) the human rights commission will be deficient if it does not possess those powers. The existing equality commissions have those powers and they are indeed part of the minimum standards for national human rights institutions laid down by the United Nations in the Paris principles of 1993. Therefore, I believe that the amendment introduced by the Government in Committee did not go far enough. Although I do not necessarily agree with the whole of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I strongly support it in spirit. I hope that the Government will be able to take some degree of action upon it.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 95. The case for it has been fully deployed by noble Lords who have already spoken, and indeed was deployed at the Committee stage. It will not be of benefit if I repeat it now. I add only that as between the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Goodhart, in relation to the extent of the powers, I find myself more persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, rightly observed, Amendment No. 95 is designed to give coercive powers to the Human Rights Commission. I do not think that we are entirely in disagreement on the approach, although our solutions differ. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that his Amendment No. 133 would trigger the power only after cross-community approval.
I shall not repeat all the arguments that we addressed in Committee, but I explained—I think accurately—that we could not reach sufficient consensus among the parties to give the commission this power, which was not mentioned in the agreement. I said that we had not closed our minds on this issue. That is why we

711
introduced amendments which are now on the face of the Bill which I believe are extremely important and ought to go a good deal of the way to satisfy the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Goodhart, and my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. I refer in particular to Clause 65(1) and (2). We have introduced amendments which will require the commission to review its powers and functions within two years.
In the delicate situation which faces us I think it is a prudent approach to let the commission develop its work, carry out its inquiries and investigations, and if it comes to the conclusion that its powers and functions are not up to the work it is required to do, it would be able—a certain amount of experience having been acquired and a certain amount of time having passed—to make a full report on what it needed to carry out its functions. I believe that the best way forward is to see how well the commission operates under the powers that the Bill will give it and then reconsider the questions which are raised by these amendments when the powers are reviewed within two years—that is not a long period of time—when the commission will form a view on its powers and functions.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for the strong support that I have received on Amendment No. 95. Between now and Third Reading will the Minister consider whether he could introduce a government amendment that would go a little way, or some way, to strengthening Clause 65(8) on the powers of investigation? I hope that he can say something helpful on that. However, given the time of day I have no wish to divide the House. Unless the noble Lord wishes to speak again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Restrictions on application of rights]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 33, line 9, leave out ("or 22(1)(a)") and insert (", 22(1)(a) or 65(5)(b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Statutory duty on public authorities]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 34, line 38, leave out from ("authority") to ("have") in line 39 and insert ("shall in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 97 makes clear that the statutory obligation is not confined to Northern Ireland public authorities, but can also include UK departments, such as the Northern Ireland Office and UK-wide public authorities which carry out functions relating to Northern Ireland. The terminology in the amendment is also closer to that in Clause 72.
Amendment No. 99 defines "public authority" for the purposes of this clause. In response to comments received in the other place, an attempt has been made to align this definition more closely with that in Clause 72. However, complete harmonisation has been impossible. Essentially, there are four groups of public authorities to which this clause will apply. The first is UK departments and UK-wide public bodies, which are covered by the
712
reference to Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. These also have to be designated for purposes of this clause by order of the Secretary of State. There will be many UK-wide public authorities which will have no particular relationship with Northern Ireland, or will carry out only limited functions there. Due consideration will need to be given to which other United Kingdom departments should be designated.
The second group of public authorities are those listed in Schedule 2 to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. These are Northern Ireland public bodies, including district councils.
The third group are those bodies listed in Schedule 2 to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and these are essentially the Northern Ireland government departments. Finally, the Secretary of State may designate other public authorities for purposes of this clause.
The references to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers would be removed by this amendment. The implementation of the statutory obligation is through equality schemes and these clearly need to be prepared by institutions, rather than by individuals. Northern Ireland Ministers will, of course, be politically responsible for their departments which will all prepare equality schemes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 35, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall preclude a public authority from taking any measure designed and reasonably necessary to protect or advance individuals or groups disadvantaged by reason of sex, disability, age, marital status, colour or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or political opinion.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I sense that a long exposition of this amendment will not be welcome to your Lordships at this stage in our proceedings. In Committee we debated an amendment which I ventured to move to ensure that the Bill should not prove to be self-defeating. It would be self-defeating if it had the effect of prohibiting affirmative action to bring about the very equality which it is designed to protect. Sometimes it is necessary to treat some people differently from others in order to redress a balance. It would be proper to provide seats for disabled people even if they are not provided for other people.
My noble friend Lord Dubs replied that the amendment was not necessary. He said that the public authority is required only to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity, and provided it did have due regard to that need it could embark on affirmative action. History does not encourage me to rest content with my noble friend's argument. Those who drafted the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms did not feel content to leave a vacuum on that point. Some of us remember the battles of the 1980s when there were those who argued to the contrary of what my noble friend now seeks to assure us. It is not clear why the matter should not be placed beyond doubt by express words in the Bill. That is the purpose of this amendment.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who is unavoidably absent, pointed out a defect in the amendment which I previously sought to move. He pointed out that there must be some limit on affirmative action, otherwise it will swallow the requirement of promoting equal treatment. He pointed out that the Canadian charter adopted the criterion of proportionality. I have included that limitation in this amendment. I hope now that my noble friend will feel able to think again. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has already mentioned the fact that at the Committee stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill strongly supported an amendment to permit affirmative action where reasonably necessary. I simply add that we on these Benches are firmly in favour of the amendment which has just been moved.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one tabled at Committee stage by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell and my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. I appreciate that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said it was similar but not identical.
The amendment has become known as the "affirmative action exemption". It is based on the concern that Clause 71 might call into question the ability of public bodies to take affirmative action to correct disadvantage in appropriate cases. We would be concerned if there was such an incompatibility between affirmative action and the new statutory obligation on public authorities. Affirmative action, in appropriate circumstances, is an important method of combating inequalities. It is our firm intention that it should remain available and, after careful consideration, we do not believe that Clause 71 calls this into question.
Nothing in Clause 71 renders unlawful what would be lawful affirmative action under the existing fair employment, equal opportunities and race relations law. Moreover, the fundamental duty imposed by Clause 71 is for public authorities to,
"have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity".
The justification for affirmative actions is that they are necessary to correct existing disadvantage or imbalance in equality of opportunity. They must therefore be directed at promoting equality of opportunity. Clause 71 as it stands is not only consistent with affirmative action but means that public authorities are bound to have regard to the need for affirmative action when considering their duty under the clause.
The Government are confident that Clause 71 in no way hinders affirmative actions when properly directed at promoting equality of opportunity. In some cases it will have the effect of requiring public authorities to have due regard to the possibility of undertaking affirmative actions, where they are not already doing so, if these would enable them to fulfil their duty.
An exemption for affirmative actions is therefore unnecessary and runs the risk of calling into question the broad nature of the equality of opportunity
714
obligation which the Government intend to enact. I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel somewhat persuaded by what I have said.
8 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. If I sought to divide the House now I would be a candidate for the most unpopular character in history. My noble friend and I have both made a prediction. Time will tell whether my anxieties are justified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 35, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert—

("(a) any department, corporation or body listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments, corporations and bodies subject to investigation) and designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State;

(b) any body (other than the Equality Commission) listed in Schedule 2 to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (bodies subject to investigation);

(c) any department or other authority listed in Schedule 2 to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (departments and other authorities subject to investigation;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Discrimination by public authorities]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 100:
Page 35, line 24, after ("Ireland") insert (", including functions relating to the provision of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to move Amendment No. 100, but I intend to move Amendment No. 102, with which it is grouped. I am not sure whether it would be procedurally correct to talk to that amendment now or after Amendment No. 101.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 35, line 26, after ("belief") insert (", sex, race, disability, age, marital status, dependants, sexual orientation").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it is rare indeed that one listens to my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn without acquiring a clear grasp of his argument and the reasons for his conclusion. At Committee stage I underwent that unique experience. We all agreed that in Clause 71, which deals with the duties of public authorities in promoting equality of opportunity, there is a requirement to promote equality of opportunity in respect of all the potential bases of discrimination, which are set out in Clause 71(1)(a). Yet when we come to Clause 72, which deals with discrimination by public authorities and incitement to discrimination, the protection is confined to religious belief and political opinion.
I listened to my noble friend in Committee—and carefully read and re-read what he said—but I still have not grasped the reasons for the difference. I cannot believe that it is something to do with what is not explicitly spelled out in the agreement. Surely it was clear among all parties to the agreement that all these bases of distinction were intended to be discouraged. I promise my noble friend that if he seeks again to explain the reasons for the distinction I will try very hard to follow him. I would much prefer that he accepts the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, Clause 72 is designed broadly to re-enact Section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which creates a ban on discrimination by public authorities on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. Amendment No. 101 would widen the scope of the clause so that it made unlawful discrimination by public authorities on the grounds of gender, race, disability, age, marital status, dependants and sexual orientation.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell referred to my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, assuming that he would be dealing with this amendment. I hope I can be nearly as persuasive as my noble friend, who is on the Front Bench with me.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer makes a strong case for extending the ban on discrimination to cover these additional grounds. There is, however, one "but". Such a far-reaching proposal is not envisaged in the Belfast agreement and so this is not the proper place to consider it. This legislation is intended to give effect to the Belfast agreement, not to enable a comprehensive review of discrimination and equality provisions. It is not intended to do that. That is the only argument that I shall use tonight against my noble and learned friend's amendment. If we were embarking upon a wide-ranging review of discrimination measures, I would listen very sympathetically to what my noble and learned friend has said. But that is not the case. It is not appropriate to do that on the back of a Bill dealing with the Belfast agreement. I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend is very patient with me. It was in the 1973 Act—I follow that—but human rights is not a static subject. We have moved a long way since 1973. If that were the only basis of my noble friend's reasoning I would not be impressed.
He tells me that it is not in the agreement. It is certainly not spelt out specifically in the agreement, but I thought that was because everyone thought that that went without saying. I am not sure that I can carry the debate much further this evening. The Government's reasoning is clear to me now—it is the agreement, the whole agreement and nothing but the agreement. If something escaped inclusion in the agreement perhaps we should not be dealing with it at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 35, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person discriminates against another person on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion if—

(a) on either of those grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or

(b) he applies to that other a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same religious belief or political opinion as that other but—

(i) which is such that the proportion of persons of the same religious belief or of the same political opinion as that other who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that religious belief or, as the case requires, not of that political opinion who can comply with it, and

(ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the religious belief or political opinion of the person to whom it is applied, and

(iii) which is to the detriment of the other because he cannot comply with it.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 72(1) of this Bill makes it unlawful for a public authority carrying out functions in Northern Ireland to discriminate against a person or class of person on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. It does not, however, define discrimination so that it clearly involves indirect discrimination. It is well known that all anti-discrimination legislation, in order to be fully effective, needs to prohibit both direct and indirect discrimination. The purpose of this amendment is to write into Clause 72 a definition of discrimination which includes indirect discrimination.
Indirect discrimination can, in many cases, be at least as effective a method of discriminating as direct discrimination. The definition used here is not novel in any way. It is a definition of indirect discrimination which is used in the Fair Employment Act. As this definition is already included elsewhere in legislation for Northern Ireland, I ask the Minister why it is that indirect discrimination cannot be expressly incorporated into Clause 72 as it has been in other legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I rise simply to say that I wholly support what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has just said, as I did at Committee stage. Nothing would be gained if I were to repeat his arguments.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendment No. 102 would increase the scope of Clause 72 so that it covered indirect as well as direct discrimination. In the Bill we are seeking to implement the Belfast agreement as closely as possible, as well as re-enacting those parts of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which are not covered by the agreement. Clause 72 largely re-enacts the provisions of Section 19 of the 1973 Act.
I recognise and understand the strong arguments for an extension of the ban on discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion so that it also covers indirect discrimination. But, as I explained when we considered this point in Committee and, indeed, on

717
the previous amendment a moment or two ago, the Government argue that this Bill is not the place for such a far-reaching change in the law which is not envisaged in the agreement. I do not want to take up the time of the House by repeating the arguments of a moment ago. I would therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the proposed amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I very much regret what the Minister has just said. I think this is an unsatisfactory situation. Obviously this is not an occasion on which it would be appropriate to ask for the opinion of the House, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said in respect of the previous amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 36, line 16, leave out ("(other than a Northern Ireland department)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 go together. They are technical amendments which improve the definition of "public authority" in the clause because Northern Ireland departments fall within the second order listed but the intention of the provision remains the same. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 36, line 19, leave out ("department or other authority") and insert ("authority (other than a Northern Ireland department)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Unlawful oaths etc.]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 36, line 31, leave out ("that") and insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. Amendment No. 105 is purely a matter of drafting to ensure consistency within Clause 73(1). It is a very small matter to trouble your Lordships with but any inconsistency in drafting in referring to similar things could lead to an assumption in the future that a different meaning was intended by it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 106:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—

LEGISLATIVE POWER TO REMEDY ULTRA VIRES ACTS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of—

(a) any provision of an Act of the Assembly which is not, or may not be, within the legislative competence of the Assembly; or

(b) any purported exercise by a Minister or Northern Ireland department of his or its functions which is not, or may not be, a valid exercise of those functions.

(2) An order under this section may—

(a) make provision having retrospective effect;

(b) make consequential or supplementary provision, including provision amending or repealing any Northern Ireland legislation, or any instrument made under such legislation;

(c) make transitional or saving provision.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 caused a good deal of discussion in Committee. I withdrew the amendment at that time but promised to reflect on and consider what had been said and whether a fuller explanation might not be justified. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in his place. I pay tribute to his keen interest in this matter. I have had extensive discussions with him which I believe gave him the reassurance that he sought. I hope that I can convince your Lordships similarly.
The first matter I ought to make plain is that this new clause is exactly analogous to Clause 107—formerly Clause 94—of the Scotland Bill, which has now been approved in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. It is true—this was part of the misunderstanding on the earlier occasion—that the Scottish clause has no equivalent of our subsection (2) but the effects are all achieved in relation to Clause 107 of the Scotland Bill by provisions elsewhere in that Bill—Clauses 113 and 114.
I acknowledged that this is a substantial power. It might be that there would be a judicial finding, some years after the legislation had been passed by the Assembly, that the legislation was ultra vires. In those circumstances, legislation might be the only appropriate way—indeed, the only way—to sort out the consequences following a decision of the judicial committee under the devolution issues mechanisms.
The powers in the clause arise, of course, not simply where an Act is outside legislative competence but where it may be so. One might have a decision of a court in another case unrelated to the particular legislation in point which raised a serious question as to whether the legislation was valid. One has to acknowledge that the power is broadly cast and I need to give some assurances as to how one deals with that.
The first proposition is that the exercise of the power is subject to oversight by the courts. The Secretary of State would be open to judicial review proceedings. No special provision for that is required in the Bill. The normal judicial review principles would apply. If, therefore, the Secretary of State sought to exercise her powers in any improper way, she would be subject to judicial review.
I have been asked whether under this clause the Secretary of State could in theory substitute her view for that of the courts relating to the validity of an Assembly Act or the exercise of devolved functions. If she did, she would be subject to the most serious scrutiny in the courts. She would also face similar questions in your Lordships' House. It is critically important to bear in mind that the exercise of this power—I refer to Clause 90(2)—requires prior affirmative resolution in this House and in another place. Therefore, that is a further safeguard commensurate with the significance of the power.
It is quite possible that a judicial decision might be arrived at some years after the event impugning and therefore effectively impeaching the validity of an Assembly Act on the basis that it was ultra vires. Many people would have acted perfectly legitimately and innocently on a mistaken view of the law. Speedy legislation is often required to remedy those consequences. I stress that it can be done only by prior affirmative resolution in your Lordships' House.
Apart from that, it is right that I refer to what was said in the debate on the Scotland Bill. First, I repeat again the opportunity for judicial review proceedings. But, secondly, it is important that I should point out what my noble friend Lord Sewel said in the context of Scotland. He said—and I repeat it in the context of Northern Ireland:
"Where there has been no court decision, it would be the Government's intention to use these powers only with the consent of the devolved Ministers".
I willingly repeat that assurance in the Northern Ireland context.
When we discussed this matter in Committee I was not in a position to give those reassurances or those undertakings. I think it was right that I undertook to your Lordships to go away and think about this matter. Indeed, it did trouble me. However, although the provision is in the same form, I hope that I have been able to give a much fuller and more satisfactory answer than I gave on a previous occasion. Certainly, the answer I gave on a previous occasion failed to satisfy me; and that is a reasonable test for going away and thinking about something. But now I am abundantly satisfied with the explanation I have offered. I pay tribute to the keen beavers among your Lordships who, even though it was late at night, pursued this point. It was right for it to be pursued; and it was right for us to go away and think about it and come back with a proper explanation.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I accept the implied compliment from the Minister. I was one of those who raised the point and therefore, I suppose, I count as a keen beaver. However, I think the noble Lord's compliment was mainly intended for my noble friend Lord Renton, who spotted the point in the first place and drew our attention to it. As the Minister said, he has discussed the new clause with my noble friend and I since then. I understand that my noble friend is satisfied that there are reasons for introducing the clause and that the previous reservations about it which he raised in Committee have to a great degree been satisfied and answered.
I was not entirely convinced by the noble Lord's point about judicial review. The new clause states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence or.
"Necessary or expedient" are matters to be judged by the Secretary of State. He or she would have to be extremely unreasonable in exercising his or her judgment as to whether it was "necessary or expedient".
720
It would be quite difficult to get the courts to say that he or she was not reasonable in those circumstances, unless of course the Secretary of State had been completely unreasonable, which is unlikely.
I have looked at some of the debates on the Scotland Bill on this point. The question was raised of what the definition of ultra vires is in this respect—whether it should be read in the more general sense of ultra vires in administrative law, which apparently is very wide, or whether it is much narrower than that. It would be helpful to have advice on that point. We should also make it clear that this point is not only concerned with legislation passed by the Assembly but also with acts of a Minister, the Executive in Northern Ireland or one of the departments there which may be thought to be ultra vires as well. It catches administrative actions as well as laws which subsequently are thought to be ultra vires.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Powers of courts or tribunals to vary retrospective decisions]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 38, line 10, leave out from second ("to") to end of line 14 and insert—

(a) the Attorney General for Northern Ireland; and

(b) where the decision mentioned in subsection (1) relates to a devolution issue (within the meaning of Schedule 11), the appropriate authority,

unless the person to whom the notice would be given is a party to the proceedings.
(5) A person to whom notice is given under subsection (4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, within this group are Amendments Nos. 107 and 108. They modify Clause 76 in the context of a court or tribunal having concluded that a provision of an Act of the Assembly is not within the legislative competence or that subordinate legislation is ultra vires. The court has certain powers which your Lordships know well.
A decision under this section will clearly involve the wider public interest and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland who is, and who will remain, the same individual as the Attorney General for England and Wales, is entitled to be present and make representations.
Having thought about this, we came to the conclusion that the devolved authorities might also have a legitimate point of view on these questions. Where such a situation arises and the devolved authorities are not already represented, we simply give the First and Deputy First Ministers a right to be notified of the proceedings and to take part in them. That seems to us to be an amendment of practical utility and improvement. Rights of audience are also given to the relevant law officers if the proceedings should arise in England, Wales or Scotland, but we envisage that that will be a rarity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 38, line 19, at end insert—
("(7) In this section "the appropriate authority" means—

(a) in relation to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly;

(b) in relation to proceedings in England and Wales, the Attorney General;

(c) in relation to proceedings in Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General for Scotland.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 109:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause—

INTERPRETATION OF ACTS OF THE ASSEMBLY ETC
(".—(1) This section applies where—

(a) any provision of an Act of the Assembly, or of a Bill for such an Act, could be read either—

(i) in such a way as to be within the legislative competence of the Assembly; or

(ii) in such a way as to be outside that competence; or

(b) any provision of subordinate legislation made, confirmed or approved, or purporting to be made, confirmed or approved, by a Northern Ireland authority could be read either—

(i) in such a way as not to be invalid by reason of section 22 or, as the case may be, section 72; or

(ii) in such a way as to be invalid by reason of that section.

(2) The provision shall be read in the way which makes it within that competence or, as the case may be, does not make it invalid by reason of that section, and shall have effect accordingly.
(3) In this section "Northern Ireland authority" means a Minister, a Northern Ireland department or a public authority (within the meaning of section 72) carrying out functions in relation to Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical clause about the way in which the court should interpret Acts of the Assembly, subordinate legislation and indeed measures of a wide range of public authorities, including Ministers of the Crown. The point of the amendment is quite simple. If there are alternative readings of the provisions of the legislation concerned, the reading which would lead to a conclusion of validity is to be preferred. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I accept the reasons for this amendment. It seems to correspond broadly with Clause 101 of the Scotland Bill. But there is quite a difference in subsection (2). The clause before us proposed for the Northern Ireland Bill says,
"The provision shall be read in the way which makes it within that competence or, as the case may be, does not make it invalid by reason of that section, and shall have effect accordingly".
But the Scottish provision states that,
"Such a provision is to be read as narrowly as is required for it to be within competence, if such a reading is possible, and is to have effect accordingly".
722
I find it difficult to be sure what the legal effects of those different wordings are. It does not seem to me to be wise. A little explanation is required as to why a different formulation has been proposed in the two Bills on an otherwise identical point.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure why the Scottish version was rather less elegant that the one that my noble friend Lord Dubs and I propose here. For the purposes of Northern Ireland it seems that this is the right way to put it. I shall reflect about the arcane nature of the Scotland Bill. Perhaps it was exhaustion that led people not to notice the attractive alternative drafting. I shall write to the noble Lord and put a copy of my reply in the Library.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 [Provision with respect to certain matters relating to Northern Ireland]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 39, line 9, leave out ("the Parliament of the United Kingdom") and insert ("Parliament").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a pure drafting amendment to omit redundant words so that the clause simply refers to an Act of Parliament. That expression is unambiguous in the context. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Provision for purposes consequential on Act etc.]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 40, line 38, at end insert ("or 6").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 112 to 116. They expand and clarify Clause 80. The purpose of this clause is to enable the law to be amended in order to give effect to the Bill and orders made under Clauses 4 and 6. The chief end to which this power will be put is the transfer of functions between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland public bodies.
Amendment No. 112 revises subsections (2) and (3) so that functions can be transferred from United Kingdom authorities to Northern Ireland authorities and vice versa. Functions may need to be transferred in this way for three main reasons. The first is to ensure that functions falling within the excepted or reserved field under the terms of Schedules 2 and 3 to this Bill can be dealt with by United Kingdom and not Northern Ireland authorities. Secondly, it is to ensure that functions can be transferred between United Kingdom and Northern Ireland authorities following the reservation or transfer of a matter under a Clause 4 order. The third reason is to ensure that functions can be transferred between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland authorities following the making of an order under Clause 6 specifying certain functions as being exercisable in or as regards Northern Ireland. Your Lordships may recall that that has a particular application to fisheries.
Amendment No. 114 provides for a particular contingency. It enables further Orders in Council to be made to make functions which have been transferred to Northern Ireland authorities exercisable again by UK authorities alone or concurrently with the Northern

723
Ireland authorities. We have in mind again the special case of the fishing industry where licences are issued in respect of boats which are of course mobile and which have, until now, been licensed to fish in UK waters. In future, there will be Northern Ireland waters and Scottish waters and licences will be issued by devolved authorities with more limited remits. For practical reasons it will be necessary to retain the possibility of a concurrent UK authority and this amendment will allow that.
Amendments Nos. 111, 113 and 114 are minor amendments. Amendment No. 115 redefines the meaning of a Northern Ireland authority and a United Kingdom authority in line with the wording in Clause 26. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 116:
Page 40, line 39, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) Orders under subsection (1) may make provision for transferring to a United Kingdom authority, with effect from any date specified in the Order—

(a) any functions which immediately before that date are exercisable by a Northern Ireland authority and appear to Her Majesty to be concerned with a matter which is an excepted or reserved matter (whether by virtue of an Order under section 4 or otherwise);

(b) any functions which immediately before that date are exercisable by a Northern Ireland authority and appear to her Majesty not to be exercisable in or as regards Northern Ireland by virtue of an Order under section 6.

(3) Orders under subsection (1) may make provision for transferring to a Northern Ireland authority, with effect from any date specified in the Order—

(a) any functions which immediately before that date are exercisable by a United Kingdom authority and appear to her Majesty to be concerned with a matter which is a transferred matter (whether by virtue of an Order under section 4 or otherwise);

(b) any functions which immediately before that date are exercisable by a United Kingdom authority and appear to her Majesty to be exercisable in or as regards Northern Ireland by virtue of an Order under section 6.").

Page 41, line 9, leave out ("Provision may be made,") and insert ("An Order under subsection (1) may make provision,").
Page 41, line 11, at end insert ("or 6").
Page 41, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Where such provision as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) has been made by Order in Council under subsection (1), Her Majesty may, if it appears to Her necessary or expedient to do so, by Order in Council—

(a) provide that the functions transferred to the Northern Ireland authority shall be exercisable by a United Kingdom authority, either alone or concurrently with the Northern Ireland authority; and

(b) make such provision as is mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (c).").

Page 41, leave out lines 20 to 30 and insert (""Northern Ireland authority" means—

(a) a Minister or a Northern Ireland department;

(b) the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland; or

(c) any other public body or holder of public office in Northern Ireland.

(7) In this section "United Kingdom authority" means—

(a) the Privy Council;

(b) any Minister of the Crown;

(c) the Defence Council;

(d) the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;

(e) the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

(f) the Comptroller and Auditor General; or

(g) any other public body or holder of public office in the United Kingdom.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 83 [Industrial Injuries Advisory Council]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 45, line 26, leave out ("date") and insert ("passing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [The Tribunal]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 47, line 2, after ("appeal") insert ("; and
(b) where the Secretary of State is not party to any such proceedings, the Secretary of State,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this group we find Amendments Nos. 118, 120, 234 and 236. Amendment No. 118 is to ensure that the Secretary of State's interests in the tribunal's proceedings are fully represented. The Secretary of State will be a party to the proceedings where the original act complained of was undertaken by her. There may be occasions when the Secretary of State is not the respondent and therefore this amendment ensures that the Secretary of State can be legally represented where she is not a party. Amendment No. 120 also ensures that where she is not a party, the Secretary of State will have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law arising from the tribunal's determination. She has a legitimate interest as a certifier of the original act and also her responsibility and accountability for national security. I believe that these matters were the subject of general approval in principle when we discussed them more generally at Committee stage.
Amendments Nos. 234 and 236 are simply technical amendments relating to the transitional provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 47, leave out line 33.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the tribunal, about which my noble friend Lord Williams has just been speaking, appeared at a late stage in our Committee proceedings. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that, welcome as his proposal was, it would not have been practicable for us to submit it to scrutiny at that point. Accordingly, I scrutinised it after the Committee stage. I am grateful for the advice of Professor Christopher McCrudden.
The tribunal is to deal with a situation where someone complains of discrimination under Clause 22 or Clause 72 and the Secretary of State certifies that it was justified by the requirements of national security or the need to protect public safety or public order.
Clearly, there may be good reasons why the justification cannot be examined publicly. The special procedures of the tribunal are intended to address that problem. That may well mean the absence of some of the rules which protect the citizen in normal proceedings. The Lord Chancellor is empowered to make rules provided, for example, that the matter should proceed in the absence of the complainant and that he shall not know the particulars of the case against him. I accept all that, Heaven forgive me. I even understand that the legal representative whom the complainant has chosen may have to be excluded if he does not have the necessary security clearance.
The second-best provision appears to lie in the power of the Attorney-General to appoint someone from the Northern Ireland Bar to act as his representative. What puzzles me is the provision that that representative "shall not be responsible" to the party whose interest he represents. I should be grateful if my noble friend could explain what is entailed by that. Does that mean that he is not to be bound by the instructions of the complainant? I understand that if his instructions were, for example, to demand that classified information be made public, he would not be bound by that. But may he decline to discuss the case with the complainant? May he make a concession of fact contrary to the instructions of the complainant? What is to be the relationship between the lawyer and the client? I hope that my noble friend will satisfy me, but, if not, I hope that at least he will enlighten me. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, when I first read the amendment I, too, was concerned about its meaning. I think that a person who is trying to represent the interests of a party, which he is required to do under subsection (7), is in a difficult position if he is not responsible to the party concerned even though he is representing his interests. However, at the same time I believe it is necessary to make careful arrangements in Northern Ireland for the protection of security and information.
We all know of the terrible things that have happened to individuals in Northern Ireland as a result of the situation and the terrorist organisations which operate there. Protection such as is provided by this clause is essential including, I believe, the provision for the Attorney-General to appoint a different person. The noble and learned Lord asked some interesting questions about the precise meaning of the clause.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, those are perfectly legitimate and essential questions. Perhaps I may step back one pace. As some of your Lordships know, the background to this arises from the case of Chahal in the European Court of Human Rights. Chahal was excluded from this country on the ground of national security. At that stage he had no opportunity of
726
being represented in an independent tribunal. I hope I paraphrase the case fairly. Chahal found us to be derelict in that respect.
The first Bill I introduced in your Lordships' House was to set up a special immigration appeal tribunal. At that time we had a good deal of careful discussion about how properly to represent two interests which may conflict. The first was the interest of the appellant in having his case put as effectively as possible by professional representation. The second issue identified—here I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley—was the legitimate public state interest in protecting confidential information which may be restricted; alluding also to some aspects of restricted material—it is a notorious commonplace—which may put people in serious danger, even in danger of death. Therefore, we wanted to strike a balance. We would have been unhappy for someone who was an appellant not to be represented. Equally, we could not contemplate the normal relationship of lawyer-client because that would be impossible. I think that we have gone as far as we possibly can to meet legitimate complaints.
The scheme in Clause 85(8) is that,
"A person appointed under subsection (7)—

(a) shall be a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland;

(b) shall not be responsible to the party whose interests he represents".

That follows the theme of subsection (7), which states:
"The Attorney General for Northern Ireland may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party to proceedings before the Tribunal in any proceedings from which he and any legal representative of his are excluded".
One starts off with a situation which is quite unusual. Apart from persons under a disability, the normal human right is, of course, to a legal representative of one's reasonable choice. That cannot obtain here. What one has here is not a legal representative of reasonable choice but someone appointed by the Attorney General to protect the interests of a particular appellant in the context of restricted material. Therefore, the relationship starts completely differently from the relationship with which my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and I were familiar when we were both practising members of the Bar.
If restricted material is discussed, the designated legal representative will be in receipt of it. He will not be able to take instructions from his client about it. He will not be able to inform the appellant of the content of that material. He will not be able to take instructions about what to dispute. I accept that those are significant restrictions on the relationship which one normally has between client and lawyer. The alternative was to have no representation at all. We did not want to go down that route and we set our face against it. Therefore, in the nature of things, we had to look for a compromise. I think that this is a legitimate and fair compromise.
I take the point of the former Solicitor-General. Perhaps I may refer to him in that way because I know of his keen interest in Bar ethics when he was a leading member of the Bar. However, he does not become not responsible. The underlying theme is that the advocate

727
still remains responsible to his profession and code of professional ethics. He has to be a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland. If counsel came to the conclusion that he could not properly discharge his functions within the parameters set, he would have the opportunity of ceasing to act.
I have spent a little time on this matter, despite the fact that it is late, because we regard it as of fundamental importance. We were deeply unhappy with the prospect that someone should not have competent legal representation. We had to bear in mind the issue concerning restricted material, truly a matter which might compromise national security. I think that we have achieved a commendable compromise.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams for the care with which he replied to my questions. I have never disputed the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, or of my noble friend that in this situation one must have regard to the needs of national security. I hope that I made that clear when I introduced the subject.
What puzzles me is the meaning of the words "not responsible to the complainant". Does that mean, for example, that the complainant cannot complain about anything which his representative does? If that is so, I wonder how far we comply with the ruling in Chahal? Is the complainant really represented at all or is the word "represented" used only in its Pickwickian sense?
One could pursue this matter at some length. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of doing so tonight. However, I am not sure that the last word has been said on the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Appeals from the Tribunal]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 47, line 38, after first ("appeal") insert ("; or
(b) where the Secretary of State was not a party to the appeal, the Secretary of State,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Assembly property]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 48, line 4, leave out from ("(2),") to ("(property") in line 5 and insert ("property in relation to which section 31(4) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 had effect").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Clause 75 of the Bill, as approved in Committee, defines the Stormont estate and related property by reference to Section 31(4) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
That section is to be repealed, with other provisions of the 1973 Act, by this Bill in Clause 94(2) and Schedule 16. This amendment, with its reference in the past tense to the property to which Section 31(4) of the Act had effect, is a drafting amendment to acknowledge the fact that that section will be repealed when Clause 87 comes into force. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Clause 89 [Savings for existing laws]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 49, line 12, leave out ("the Parliament of the United Kingdom,") and insert ("Parliament,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 122 I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 123 to 132 inclusive, including Amendment No. 125 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 157.
The government amendments to these clauses concern technical and drafting points. Amendment No. 122 in Clause 89 is purely a matter of drafting: the deleted words are unnecessary. Amendment No. 123 in Clause 90 is consequential on amendments to Clause 71 (which concerns the statutory equality duty) and subjects to the affirmative resolution procedure orders under the new power of designation inserted there. Amendments Nos. 124, 126 and 127 insert several new entries in the interpretation clause of the Bill, Clause 92.
I think we are at one on the substance with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who seeks in Amendment No. 125 to set out the definition of "Minister" in Clause 80. Our Amendment No. 126 achieves the same effect by reference back to Clause 8. In doing so it follows the drafting style of the rest of the Bill, as the noble Lord's amendment does not, so I hope he will be ready to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment No. 128, which also relates to Clause 92, provides a definition of the expression "deals with", which comes up at a number of points in the Bill, especially in connection with legislation. The new provision is intended to assist those who have to make decisions about whether a provision is within legislative competence.
It, first of all, recognises that a provision may deal with a number of matters: it is not a question under this Bill, as it is in some constitutional systems, of isolating a single predominant concern of a provision—what is sometimes called its "pith and substance".
Secondly, the amendment makes clear that a provision deals with each of the matters that it affects, so long as it affects them more than incidentally. That means that provisions may frequently, in the terms of the Bill, deal with a number of matters.
The amendment marks no change in policy: it reflects what we have always intended the Bill to achieve, and is indeed implicit in its drafting. But different constitutional systems assess these questions in different ways, and in particular the Scotland Bill takes a different approach from the one we intend, so it seems to us important to make more explicit what we mean here.
I move on to Amendment No. 129, also in Clause 92, which needs to be considered with Amendment No. 157 in Schedule 3, by which the subject matter of the National Minimum Wage Act would be made a reserved matter. The Clause 92 amendment is necessary to ensure that the Northern Ireland Assembly may, notwithstanding the reservation, still legislate freely on employment matters as a whole in Northern Ireland.
The underlying principle of the national minimum wage is that the same rate will apply throughout the United Kingdom. The National Minimum Wage Act reflected a UK-wide policy from the start. It ensures the workers across the UK qualify for the same rates and have the same degree of protection and that employers are subject to the same obligations and penalties in every part of the United Kingdom.
In framing the reservation in this Bill of the National Minimum Wage Act, we have been mindful that employment law is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland. We have sought to ensure that the Assembly would be able to make changes to those enforcement provisions which lock into existing Northern Ireland legislation without undermining the integrity of the National Minimum Wage Act's universal approach.
The way in which we have done this is to propose in these amendments provisions which would allow the Assembly to legislate in those related areas of employment law provided that any such legislation applies consistently to the national minimum wage and all other employment law.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 130 to 132 in Clauses 93 and 94. These are purely a matter of drafting for consistency with other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, among this group of amendments, as the Minister said, is Amendment No. 125 which I put down on the Marshalled List in an attempt to move the definition of "Minister" into Clause 92, where all the other definitions are. The Minister claimed that his proposition was in keeping with the drafting style of the Bill, but I am not sure that I entirely accept that, because there are a whole lot of definitions in this clause, and this is another one which applies to large parts of the Bill. However, I shall not press it at this stage of the game.
Amendments Nos. 129 and 157 both refer to the national minimum wage. If I may, I shall reserve my remarks on Amendment No. 157 because that is the amendment which lays down that the national minimum wage legislation is to be treated as a reserved matter. I am content with Amendment No. 129. Both amendments were put down overnight and we have not yet had time to consider Amendment No. 157 properly; so if I may, I shall reserve my position on that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 49, line 19, leave out ("71(3)(e)") and insert ("71(3)(a) or (e)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Interpretation]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 50, line 18, at end insert—
(""financial year", unless the context otherwise requires, means a year ending with 31st March;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 124 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 126 to 129:
Page 50, line 27, leave out ("20(3)") and insert (" 8(3)").
Page 50, line 27, at end insert—
(""Minister of the Crown" includes the Treasury;").
Page 51, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this Act, a provision of any enactment or Bill deals with the matter, or each of the matters, which it affects otherwise than incidentally.").
Page 51, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this Act, a provision of any Act or Bill which modifies a provision of—

(a) the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977;

(b) the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; or

(c) the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996,

which is amended or applied by or under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 shall not be treated as dealing with a matter falling within the subject-matter of that Act if the modification affects the national minimum wage and other employment matters in the same way.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 93 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 132:
Page 51, line 38, leave out ("to this Act").
Page 51, line 42, leave out ("to this Act").
Page 52, line 1, leave out ("to this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Female Circumcision
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Unstarred Question will now be subject to a one-and-a-half hour time limit. This change does not affect the maximum time available to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, or to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but it increases the maximum time available for other speakers from three minutes to six minutes. However, noble Lords who have prepared shorter speeches will earn undying gratitude if they resist any temptation to lengthen their speeches.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they have taken, following the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, in relation to education, prevention and prosecution under the Act.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I was prompted to revisit the issue of female genital mutilation after listening to Waris Dirie, a United Nations special ambassador on the subject, at a meeting of the All Party Group for Population, Development and Reproductive Health that was held earlier this year.
A model born in Somalia, Waris described how she was circumcised at the age of five and promised in marriage to a man aged 60; how she fled her village at the age of 14 to avoid the wedding and sought refuge with relatives in Britain. She said of her campaign to outlaw all female genital mutilation, and I quote:
"I have seen them suffer and die from FGM. I was strong enough to survive and I want to make a difference. I can talk because I have experienced the pain".
The realities of FGM are grim. Reading about it makes you shudder; watching videos of the practice makes you sense the horror; but we have to try to think of the horror for the poor girl, not only at the time of her mutilation but for the rest of her life. Sex will bring only pain, and childbirth will be unbelievingly agonising and dangerous.
In 1985 the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act was passed, due to the persistence of those noble Lords who continued to raise the issue, and I am pleased that many of them are actually entering the debate tonight. It is now time to examine the progress of that legislation to determine what measures have been taken in education and guidance to eliminate female circumcision, whether reported cases have been followed up and whether prosecutions have taken place. In fact, has the 1985 Act had any effect at all?
It would appear that in spite of the possible five-year prison sentence, the practice continues, being performed illegally in Britain on babies and young girls, being performed not necessarily by medically qualified practitioners, and often without an anaesthetic and using unsterile instruments.
The BMA estimates that over 3,000 young girls are circumcised in Britain each year. FORWARD, the leading campaign organisation in this field, estimates that up to 15,000 girls are at risk. But because of the great secrecy and wall of silence surrounding the practice, it is difficult for cases to be brought to court.
In 1993, a Harley Street medical practitioner was brought before the General Medical Council, which correctly took the view that, if practised for social, religious or other ritual reasons, FGM was an unethical practice. The doctor was struck off, but no prosecution followed. Just a year ago, two cases were reported in the media of a doctor in Manchester who for £50 would agree to perform this mutilation of young girls and of a steel worker in Sheffield with no medical training whose charges ranged from £40 per child in Sheffield, £45 in Liverpool and £70 in London. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will indicate whether any action is likely to follow.
FGM is defined as,
"a traditional procedure which entails partial or total removal of the external female genitalia and/or injury to the female genital organs for non-therapeutic reasons".
732
That definition covers three types of operation which vary in the degree of mutilation. However, the health consequences of the practice, while varying according to the procedure used, can be, and usually are, serious. They range from damage to the external reproductive system; uterus, vaginal and pelvic infections; cysts; infertility; and complications in pregnancy and childbirth.
Of equal consequence are the psychological scars. The practice can leave a lasting mark on the life and mind of the girl who has undergone such a trauma. Such psychological complications may be submerged deep in the child's subconscious and can become the cause of behavioural disturbances. Psychological support is essential for those girls living in this country who realise how much damage FGM has done to them—girls who are holding onto their secret, feeling guilty and isolated, and who in the longer term may grow up suffering feelings of incompleteness, anxiety, depression, chronic irritability and frigidity.
So what are identified as the justifications for carrying on this barbaric practice, euphemistically known as "Cutting the Rose"? It is believed to ensure virginity until marriage, to maintain family honour and to ensure a sense of belonging to the group, and to be a way of controlling women's sexuality and keeping them subordinate to men. Women are made to believe that it will increase their husband's enjoyment of the sexual act, although it might cause the woman great pain.
But why? It is uncertain when FGM was first practised. However, there is no doubt that its roots are complex and numerous. It certainly preceded the founding of both Christianity and Islam. The Koran and the Bible do not require it. It crosses religious, ethnic and cultural lines. But customs, rituals, myths and taboos have perpetuated the practice, even though it has maimed and killed untold numbers of women and girls.
It was only in the late 1970s that the silence was broken.
International organisations and conferences have repeatedly made statements on the dangers of FGM and their support to eradicate the practice. A number of human rights treaties have condemned it, as did the decisions of the Cairo and Beijing UN conferences.
All societies and cultures have norms of behaviour and traditional practices which it is difficult to break. But culture is not static, it can be adapted and reformed. It is possible to give up harmful practices without giving up meaningful aspects of one's culture.
I give two examples. Last December, Egypt's highest court, the Council of State, ended a controversy that started in 1959, when it ruled that the ritual of FGM was not an Islamic religious practice authorised by the Koran and banned its use. This ruling has given great encouragement to anti-mutilation campaigners throughout Africa.
Creating a cultural alternative to female circumcision is the aim behind my second example—an example that could so easily be followed in this country. A recent project in Kenya has succeeded in doing away with the harmful elements while maintaining its cultural origins. The first "alternative graduation" ceremony was held in

733
August last year. Thirty girls and their mothers danced and sang songs, songs with a "circumcision through education" theme. Holding this non-physical ceremony was possible only because of a changed attitude among men, for in Kenya, it is the fathers who make the decision on whether or not their daughters should be circumcised, and this work among men is continuing.
But meanwhile, refugees to this country continue the practice. Many of the women involved suffer acute isolation from mainstream societies and services caused by gender, language and cultural barriers. Any intervention must therefore be culturally appropriate, tactful and sensitive and in no way make the women feel ashamed or guilty of their culture.
There is a need to provide advocacy materials: where to go for support in the community, how to access those services available through the NHS, social services and education authorities—information which should be available through both men's and women's community groups. Equally, there must be greater awareness by health professionals, social workers, community workers and teachers. There needs to be multi-agency working, with an extension of training for professionals on FGM prevention and rehabilitation.
Supported by the Department of Health, FORWARD and many other community and health groups have over the past decade raised awareness and helped to place the elimination of FGM on the agendas of government, local authorities and community agencies. As a result of this work, we in the UK now have one of the best models for building the elimination of FGM into the mainstream activities of women's health and child protection. But much more needs to be done. With discretion and sensitivity, families have to be influenced, for FGM will be eradicated only when parents wish to provide their daughters with the freedom, status and physical safety they deserve.
FGM is universally unacceptable because it is an infringement of the physical and psycho-sexual integrity of women and girls and is a form of violence against them. It is a human rights abuse, and those found guilty of it must be condemned.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask whether she is aware of an initiative by the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku, who is to place this matter before a meeting of Commonwealth Health Ministers next February, as he indicated at a meeting last week. Will she encourage the Government to support that move?
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I shall certainly do so. I did not know about that initiative and I am delighted to hear about it. Any move and any measure that we can take in order to eliminate this practice is absolutely essential.
8.57 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, as the House has heard from my noble friend Lady Gould, female circumcision should probably be called female
734
genital mutilation. It may be helpful for me to describe these dreadful procedures. They consist of three related but distinct practices: clitoridectomy or clitoral excision: female circumcision; and infibulation or Pharaonic circumcision. The first, as the term suggests, is the removal of the clitoris; the second usually involves clitoridectomy and excision of the labia minora; whereas the third involves removal of the labia majora and the mons veneris and often the clitoris as well, and subsequent suturing of the remnants of the labia majora. In other words, as far as Pharaonic circumcision goes, it means the entire removal of all a woman's external genitalia, followed by stitching up the tissues over the wound. These operations are currently carried out in many African countries—the rate in Somalia is 98 per cent. of the female population—and are to a great extent irreversible, with effects that last a lifetime.
As noble Lords have heard, FGM is not confined to Moslems, but is also practised by Catholics, Protestants, Copts, animists and non-believers. The belief that it was demanded by Islam has no foundation in fact. Justifications include the preservation of virginity; chastity; hygiene and cleanliness; honour; and custom and tradition. Men in Somalia and other parts of Africa will not marry women who have not undergone female genital mutilation. However, among immigrants more and more men are becoming opposed to the practice, though they still consider that this is women's business and not for them to interfere with.
The World Health Organisation has consistently advised that FGM should not be practised by any health professional in any setting. Its position rests on basic ethics of healthcare where unnecessary body mutilation cannot be condoned by health providers.
The Act of 1985 does not make provisions to prohibit children being taken out of the country, but under Section 47(1) of the Children Act 1989, local authorities have a duty to investigate and protect children who are at risk of FGM and, if need be, apply to the court to take prohibitive steps in order to prevent parents removing a child from the UK so that mutilation can be carried out abroad. Parents' desire for mutilation to be practised on their daughters is so great that if they cannot have the operation performed by doctors in the healthcare system, families have been known to pool resources in order to bring traditional "circumcisers" from home countries to perform such procedures clandestinely.
A friend of mine who is a GP told me yesterday that he often sees examples of FGM in his north London surgery among immigrants from Somalia and the Sudan. Recently he saw a young woman who was pregnant and so grossly mutilated and scarred that it was impossible for her to give birth normally and a Caesarean was inevitable in her case. In the United Kingdom it is important for GPs to be aware of the problem and know which ethnic groups are at risk. Women, quite naturally, do not care to talk freely about it. "Are you closed?" is a turn of phrase well understood by the Somali community. Doctors should be alert when told of menstruation and urination problems in girl children. It would be a good idea, for example, if an understanding of FGM were to be incorporated in basic nursing training. Teachers may be told by a child in their classes

735
that she is going on a "special holiday" to the home country, or even on a holiday she admits she is not looking forward to because she knows the reason why she is being taken. This may mean that she is going back to her parents' original community where FGM will be carried out on her.
All newly arrived communities who practise FGM should be informed of child protection mechanisms and legislation against the practice, given education on the rights of children and how risks and abuses can be reported to responsible authorities. The Government's Women's Unit aims at refocusing energies to make a difference in the lives of ordinary women rather than high achievers. This is an area which should particularly come under that unit's scrutiny. The defence that the practice of FGM is cultural and traditional cannot be used in the face of such a huge spread of human suffering.
9.2 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, this is such a shattering subject that it is very hard to speak of it at all. But I think we should all be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for raising it in the House tonight. It is something with which we should concern ourselves.
I wish to reinforce the point she made that female genital mutilation is an offence against human rights, and particularly against the rights of women. It is totally unacceptable, as well as illegal, that in this country 3,000 girls should be brutally assaulted in such a way as to ensure that their experience of sexual activity and childbirth is adversely affected for the whole of their lives. After all, paedophilia—another kind of assault—rightly arouses enormous concern. How much more concern should we feel on the subject of female genital mutilation, the pain of which never leaves the adult who is subjected to it as a child.
It is the press which has brought home the dangers of paedophilia to the general population by lifting the taboo which used to exist on public discussion of such subjects. It is the secrecy which surrounds female genital mutilation which is the chief protection of those who continue to practise it. So I hope that a way can be found to involve the press in publicising the matter, but without causing an unsuitable arousal of racial passion.
The continued practice of this offence against human rights in our country is in vivid contrast to the concerns recently expressed by British doctors that children, even young children, should be fully informed of and, if possible, should consent to those necessary therapies which cure but which have dangerous or disagreeable side effects.
It could be argued that we should avoid criticism of female genital mutilation which occurs outside our country. But I cannot accept that attitude, even at the risk of sounding like a so-called cultural imperialist. The annual toll of 2 million cases worldwide simply must not be tolerated. This dreadful practice is indeed a sophisticated form of torture, practised against girls so as to subjugate them as women. Torture is a crime recognised and proscribed at international level.
736
Indeed, colleagues in the International Network of Liberal Women want to see FGM or the fear of it recognised as a reason for granting asylum. This is not an entirely new approach, but it would reinforce the efforts of those who campaign to eradicate this practice from within those communities which promote or tolerate it. I hope that the Government will give it a sympathetic hearing. However, I recognise that today's debate is about our responsibilities within our own country.
I thoroughly support the motives of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, in raising the matter and I look forward to a reply which takes us forward towards eradicating this terrible practice.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for raising this very important question of education, prevention and prosecution under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble and distinguished Baronesses who have spoken before me. Noble Lords have already been told that, according to a report in the Observer last year, the British Medical Association estimated that 3,000 to 4,000 young girls are circumcised in Britain every year.
FORWARD, the Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development, estimates that up to 15,000 girls are at risk of mutilation in Britain. The World Health Organisation and UNICEF have reported that today the number of girls and women who have been subjected to female genital mutilation is estimated at over 130 million worldwide and a further 2 million girls who are annually at risk of this practice.
Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia and the Sudan account for 75 per cent. of all cases. In Djibouti and Somalia 98 per cent. of girls are mutilated.
FGM (female genital mutilation) was introduced to these parts of Africa from ancient Egypt. Circumcision was practised during the reign of Amen-en-heb in the 15th century BC. The ancient Egyptians attached religious significance to circumcision since it was considered a hygienic necessity. The Pharaonic circumcisions are practised by all religions in these countries. However, it is sometimes wrongly associated with Islam. It has already been said that Moslem scholars have made it very clear that the practice of mutilation is strictly forbidden in Islam. I quote from the Koran. Allah the Almighty,
"commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil, and allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and forbids them from what is bad".
This practice is demanded in male-dominated cultures to preserve female chastity and marriageability and supposedly to heighten male pleasure. This is also un-Islamic because it deprives the female of the same pleasures. More importantly, female circumcision has harmful physical and psychological effects. It causes prolonged bleeding, infections, painful sexual relations throughout life, infertility and death, and yet there is not a single benefit that results from this odious crime.

737
Since female circumcision is neither a requirement nor obligatory it is dangerous and criminal and must stop. Women and community groups need to be made aware of and educated about the facts of this dreadful crime and practice. Rogue nurses or GPs who charge £50 a time to carry out this backstreet practice must face prosecution under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985.
9.10 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken. In 1985 I was pleased to take the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill through your Lordships' House which had been introduced in another place by the honourable Member for Broxbourne, Mrs. Marion Roe. Everyone interested in the matter worked very hard in 1985 to obtain a satisfactory Act of Parliament to ban and make illegal female genital mutilation in Britain. It constitutes all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or injury to the female genital organs, whether for cultural or any other non-therapeutic reasons.
I have often wondered what progress has been made since 1985 to eradicate this vile practice. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for giving noble Lords the opportunity to debate this matter tonight. The noble Baroness champions women's rights. I am horrified to think that our work on legislation to ban this degrading and dangerous practice has been flouted. The practice goes on in Britain and no one appears to have been punished. Why not? Very often it is the press that opens people's eyes and hearts.
Many of us like old traditions, such as the Lord Chancellor wearing breeches. It does not hurt anyone if he wears breeches or trousers. But for young girls and women in the short term female genital mutilation causes severe pain and shock, infections, urine retention and injury to adjacent tissues; and, in the long term it causes extensive damage to the external reproductive system, uterine, vaginal and pelvic infections, cysts and neuromas, increased risk of vesicovaginal fistulas, complications in pregnancy and childbirth, psychological damage, sexual dysfunction and difficulties in menstruation. Many young girls and babies die as a result of haemorrhaging. Sometimes the most barbaric instruments are used such as razor blades or broken glass.
I hope that the Government will be generous in supporting FORWARD (the Foundation for Women's Health, Research and Development) which helps to educate and make people aware of this practice. It is important to spread the word among many groups. I am pleased that clinics at the Central Middlesex and Northwick Park Hospitals, which have translation services in Somali and Arabic, help these people. Much more needs to be done and I hope that this debate will help in some way.
People use ignorance as an excuse to evade the law. The wicked grannies must be sorted out and confronted and the demand eliminated. Surely, the right of the child to a healthy and happy life is paramount.
738
France seems to have been more successful than Britain in penalising the guilty. Should we not have better links internationally and extend the legislation to make it illegal to take British born children out of the country for mutilating procedures? The World Health Organisation should make this a priority, as should all governments.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, 13 years ago I spoke on several occasions in support of the noble Baroness's Bill. At that stage, my role, as a doctor, was to describe in stark detail the process and effects of the practice. However, tonight the situation has been described so well by my noble friend Lady Gould and other noble Baronesses that I need not repeat it. My noble friend Lady Gould expressed the case so well that I shall compare her to the soprano in this rather macabre opera. She has performed the aria; we are merely the chorus, and perhaps not nearly as good singers.
Few of us who were involved in the passage of the Act in 1985 would have predicted that this harmful and cruel practice would greatly escalate in the United Kingdom rather than diminishing or being abolished, as we hoped would be the result of the law. The main reason for that escalation, as others have said, is the great increase in immigrants from countries where the custom is still deeply ingrained. Those from the Horn of Africa, especially Somalia, make up the majority.
This apparent failure of legislation to have much effect should not surprise anyone who has looked at past efforts to ban a widely prevalent practice which is thought to be socially undesirable. The so-called war against drugs is a prime example of where legislation has not worked, as was the disastrous attempt to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in the United States in the 1920s. In both cases the result was to increase the activity that was prohibited. The law on its own has proved to be a blunt and ineffective instrument. So although I support the periodic use of the Act to prosecute persons carrying out FGM—it is about time the measure was used—real progress will come only through education, and through that a change in the knowledge and attitudes of the communities where it is a problem. And that applies in Britain as well as those countries where the custom is prevalent.
To start the process of re-education we must assist and encourage those members of the ethnic group concerned who are fully aware of the problem and wish to become involved in the campaign to end it. The organisation FORWARD has been pioneering such schemes using trained members of the communities concerned. In that work I am aware that some support is received from the Department of Health. It would be helpful if the Minister could give details of the programmes supported by the Department of Health. How much is spent on them? Is it planned to expand those programmes? From the figures of FORWARD I suggest that that is very necessary judging from the escalation of the number of cases about which we hear.
We have already heard about one unwelcome practice which may to some extent be an inadvertent effect of the Act: that families take their children out of the country,

739
ostensibly on holiday, and while in those other countries subject them to genital mutilation. I ask, as have other noble Baronesses, whether my noble friend thinks that the practice could be discouraged—for example, by suggesting to parents who are taking children to certain countries that they might be liable to prosecution if it is subsequently demonstrated that genital mutilation has taken place. It is problematic and difficult because that may prevent families from taking their children to hospital or to doctors for necessary treatment. It is a delicate subject, but I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments.
One of the difficulties which is hindering work to end the practice is the deep lack of awareness in the population of this country that it occurs. That is even the case among health workers, including doctors and nurses. There is a great need, in particular in areas with significant immigrant communities, to spread greater knowledge of the extent and harmful effects of FGM. FORWARD suggests in particular that not only health workers but also social workers, teachers and even school children should be made fully aware of the problem.
Although to a large extent FGM is practised by women on women, it is a feature of male dominated patriarchal societies where women are regarded as possessions. It is more common in societies where most women are illiterate. The surest way to bring the barbaric practice to an end is, first, to press for universal education and the end of female illiteracy; and, secondly, to press for the spread of information to both men and women—the men who have powerful positions in such societies—to end the disgraceful practice which still persists at the end of the 20th century.
9.21 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for asking this Unstarred Question tonight. It is an important but very sad occurrence in the lives of many females, usually young children. The noble Baroness named three ways in which guidance can be given to help those who are likely to suffer female circumcision. She mentioned education and prevention, which I shall mention again later, and prosecution under the Act for those who perform the operation.
When my husband and I were living in Tanzania, an African nurse talked to me about the subject. Not only was she the mother of two small daughters, but as a nurse she was educated to a high standard. She was terrified that while she was working one day her mother, who looked after the children for her, would take them to be circumcised against her wishes. Having suffered badly herself in giving birth, she had no wish to put her children not only through the pain of childbirth but the trauma and pain of circumcision. She was not the only female person to talk to me on this subject. They and their female children who are the next generation growing up do not want this practice to continue.
Before taking part in previous debates in your Lordships' House, I spoke with African women who were living in this country. They did not want the
740
practice to continue either. As regards prevention, it is very difficult for the younger people to protest. The grandmothers are usually the people who organise the ceremonies and selective people carry out the operations. The important aspect of prevention could be educating mothers and children in special classes to tell them the medical consequences during childbirth and the dangers from the operation itself. Perhaps the medical staff and others working with them could be female. I suggest that because most of them would not wish to talk to men on the subject. Of course, if essential, they would speak to their male doctor who, if they were living in a rural area, would probably be the only available person if they were in urgent need of help. All the same, their custom is to speak only with one of their own sex, so they will probably respond better to a woman. However, I am pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that men's attitudes are changing. That was also confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed.
I ask the Minister whether the European Union is taking any action on the subject. If not, could it not be asked to examine the situation? It is a problem in Europe as well as in this country. Of course, it is a problem also in other parts of the world. Is the Minister aware that in France, for example, cases have been brought before the courts and sentences passed? Also in France, it sadly took the death of two little girls in 1982 to bring the issue before the public and so oblige the authorities to take a stand against that practice.
I have spoken on all the debates on this subject in your Lordships' House and feel sad that nothing has really happened to try to stop it. I understand that there have been no prosecutions so far. Will the Minister say what has taken place in the World Health Organisation on this subject? I understand that it has condemned the practice, but is that as far as it goes? Could it not take some sort of initiative in sponsoring help groups in different countries? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
9.26 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Gould for introducing this debate. I feel humbled by it and I can add nothing to the contributions made by your Lordships. I shall restrict my contribution to the role of the voluntary organisations.
I speak with no personal experience except the knowledge of the time in 1981–82 when Britain's first voluntary organisation was set up to help women who were coming to the attention of the health services at the time of childbirth. I take this opportunity to pay my personal tribute to the pioneering work of the London Black Women's Health Action Project whose dedication began the process in earnest which led to the legislation coming into effect.
It did a great deal of work in the area of advocacy, empowerment and education, which are some of the organisation's key objectives. The organisation was the very first hope of a helping hand for women involved in that extremely traumatic process.

741
The empowering and enabling role of voluntary organisations is acknowledged in the arena of women, disability and race. It will come as no surprise that the huge burden of educating and empowering women to say "no" remains largely in the hands of voluntary organisations such as the London Black Women's Health Action Project and others. I salute the excellent work of those grass-roots organisations without which many more women would be added to the statistics which we have heard.
It is inexcusable that the legislation was enacted without the provision of adequate financial resourcing of the voluntary organisations, and others, to undertake the most important task of education. However, I hope that today we shall hear from the Minister how we propose to rectify some of the past mistakes, especially in relation to voluntary organisations and funding. Perhaps he will tell the House how many projects have been funded; what is proposed in terms of taking on board the 3,000 or so young women with whom we need to work; and how we are working with the child protection legislation to protect children.
There is an enormous amount of work to do in the area of gathering statistics to inform us about how many children we have managed to protect. In the true spirit of joined-up action, I urge the Government, to ensure it enables the voluntary organisations to take the lead role in education and empowerment of women from within. For this is the only way that change in attitudes and practices will prevail. Only then will women feel able to decide to say "no" to that violation of their human rights and bodies.
9.28 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I begin with an apology from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The noble Baroness and I both supported the original Act in 1985 and she has asked me to apologise for the fact that she cannot be here this evening because she is still working on the implementation of that legislation. We were most enthusiastic; indeed, we both worked at the United Nations to ensure that this was not a party problem. Because there is so little time tonight, I shall ask noble Lords to concentrate not on all that we are thinking about and upon which we all agree but on how we are going to do something about it.
I have with me an advertisement for a clinic entitled, "Medical Treatments Without the Worries", which appeared in the Evening Standard after we had passed the legislation. It advertises surgery for women and men, and states that it is "registered with the local health authority". I wrote to the newspaper expressing the view that this was not how we ought to advertise such services. I received a very nice reply from a man at the Evening Standard who said that he did not know about the legislation and that he would try to ensure that such an advertisement was not put in the newspaper again.
742
I then wrote to the director of the Department of Environmental Services for the City of Westminster. He, too, said that he did not know about it. He wrote that,
"the premises are not licensed under the London Local Authorities Act 1991".
He then went on:
"The premises do, however, appear to be carrying out 'special treatments'",
and perhaps they should not have been.
I want to be practical tonight. We have all the theory and all the understanding necessary. We must try to establish among the press an understanding of the legislation. We must also impress upon local authorities that they are not carrying out the provisions of the legislation. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench how many such accusations have been made since we introduced the legislation. I believe that he will be surprised to find that he can tell us nothing in that respect.
We have an increasing number—and so we should have—of young girls in this country. We send out messages to teachers and to schools. Indeed, this week we set up a campaign to encourage young girls to have higher aspirations, and so on, but there is not a word in that about this subject. Indeed, many girls might be suffering from what we are discussing tonight. I must say that neither party has done anything realistic to bring into the publications of statistics the maternal deaths as a result of what is happening to smaller children. We have not done enough. We have not implemented the legislation that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I brought through your Lordships' House a few years ago.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for initiating tonight's debate. If I do not thank each speaker for his or her excellent contributions tonight, that is simply because I am biding by the edict issued by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. This is a subject which rightly causes revulsion in your Lordships' House because, as everyone has pointed out, it concerns the mutilation of a woman's body. It goes against the instinct of almost all men and women who subscribe to civilised values. It is right that we have the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. Let us remind ourselves what it is all about. The Act makes it an offence to carry out this practice. It also makes it an offence for anyone to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of these procedures by any other person on her own body.
The question now is how effective this legislation has been. It is right that we should demand an answer. My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood rightly spoke in the context of human rights. I wish to expand on that and talk about the rights of the child. When it comes to human rights there can be no compromise on practices that are harmful. I do not know of any religion which prescribes mutilation. That has been confirmed today. The practice which is prevalent in some countries inflicts mutilation on girls as young as four years old. UNICEF describes it as one of the worst violations of

743
the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We rightly condemn such practices because they are unacceptable on scientific, moral or religious grounds.
We must always be vigilant to ensure that those who have chosen to be part of our multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society are aware of the law that is designed to protect victims. We should ensure that we use the full force of the law against perpetrators who perform such deeds in a misguided belief that they protect virginity, ensure marriageability and contain sexuality. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, referred to that matter.
All those who work with children, either in a voluntary or statutory capacity, are interested in achieving lasting benefits for children within the communities in which they live. We all want to make a reality of children's rights. It cannot be disputed that female genital mutilation causes unnecessary suffering to girls. It is a harmful practice and we are right to condemn it.
I said that I would speak in the context of the rights of the child. Every child has a right to a childhood. I refer to Article 2 of the convention, the right to equality irrespective of sex. Article 19.1 concerns freedom from all forms of mental and physical violence or maltreatment. Article 24.1 refers to the highest standards of health. Article 24.3 refers to taking effective and appropriate measures to abolish traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. Article 37(a) refers to freedom from torture, cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment.
A number of questions need to be asked as to what progress has been made to eradicate this practice in the UK. Obviously I do not expect all the questions to be answered today. I hope that the noble Lord will study Hansard tomorrow and will reply in writing to some of the questions that cannot be answered today because of time constraints. However, I shall put the questions to him. How many criminal prosecutions have been carried out against the perpetrators of such practices? What guidelines have been issued to their members by health professional bodies on this subject? What programme of public education is undertaken for refugees who arrive here from certain countries where such practices are prevalent? Do we publish information in other languages so that refugees and others are aware of the law in the United Kingdom? Do we make use of consistent messages and all available channels to communicate information to the public?
What training and guidance are available to health professionals on the elimination of this practice? Is appropriate counselling provided for the rehabilitation and treatment of women and girls who suffer problems related to their mutilation? We must never forget the isolation suffered by some of these people within their own communities. What financial and other support is available for women's groups and advocacy groups? That matter was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. Such groups are important as they act as catalysts in starting open discussion where it is taboo to
744
discuss such matters. Finally, do we target information at traditional healers and birth attendants who practise mutilations in the name of certain cultures?
Legislation alone is not enough. It can be effective when a system of child monitoring and protection is in operation, when there is widespread education of communities and motivation of public opinion against the practice; and when women and communities are involved in efforts to abolish this practice. We should not compromise for anything less.
9.40 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for bringing this subject to our attention this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said, the problem is that you can outlaw the practice but that may not work. For instance, in the Sudan it was banned in 1946 but it is still very widely practised. To be precise, 89 per cent. of women and girls in North Sudan have undergone this procedure. It is carried out by women for deeply felt beliefs which we need to understand.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has mentioned, great credit goes to the London Black Women's Health Group for helping to eradicate this practice. But we need to remember that that group lobbied against the 1985 Act on the basis that they preferred to use education and support as tools to eliminate the practice. They feared that the Act would push FGM underground and would discourage victims from seeking medical advice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, has pointed out, the history of FGM goes back to ancient Egypt. It may sound very curious, but it was thought that the external genitalia possessed a bi-sexual quality. Therefore both sexes had to be circumcised in order that their individual sexuality could develop. As has already been mentioned, some regarded it as essential for personal hygiene—which is rather strange because it frequently leads to all kinds of infections.
The basis for this practice is very much more complicated. In countries where FGM is prevalent, the great objective is for a girl to marry to maintain her class or status in life, and preferably to improve her status. She can only achieve this if she is a virgin. Her status, of course, involves the whole of the family. If she fails in this regard then she drags the whole family down, socially and financially.
Quite apart from the question of virginity, there are very serious consequences for girls who do not have FGM. It is the value of the bride price paid to the woman's family that dictates the need for FGM. I quote J. Smith from an international survey published in Amsterdam in 1995. He said:
"The more major the operation on the girl, the greater the dowry that is paid for her, in other words, her market value rises".
A daughter without this procedure denies her family this precious resource. It means that she will be shunned from normal community life. I quote from Eliah in an article published in Populi in March 1996. She will be
"not allowed to enter the granary, milk the cows or even collect cow dung; at the well they must wait until all the other women have drawn water".

745
Without FGM, the possibility of marriage and a dowry are grossly diminished, putting a great financial strain on her family.
To illustrate how entrenched this custom is, I should like to tell the House of a British doctor who was totally opposed to FGM who used to live in the Sudan with his Sudanese wife and two daughters. When he was abroad at a medical conference his two daughters were subjected to this procedure because of enormous female peer pressure. Understandably, he was devastated when he found out what had happened.
Opposed as we are to this practice, the vehemence of its denunciation has been resented by many women who have had FGM. We could not blame them for drawing our attention to the fact that the incidence of sexual abuse of children in this country is very much greater than the incidence of FGM. Western countries describing FGM as barbaric, uncivilised and painful is not helpful. That kind of soundbite creates hostility to those who are trying to eliminate it. We need more subtle and sympathetic techniques which emphasise the very serious health risks.
For instance, in those countries where FGM is widespread, local people put on short plays in villages illustrating the health dangers of FGM, how completely unnecessary it is and how children have a right to say no. I have seen some of these plays performed by the inmates of prisons in Uganda in an attempt to warn people of the dangers of HIV infection. The plays were professional, moving and, I believe, effective. In villages in Senegal the United Nations Children's Fund is financing this kind of activity. As a result, in Senegal 29 communities have declared an end to FGM. In the city of Bamako in West Africa a major success has been achieved in persuading 25 circumcisers to stop their work. In a public ceremony, the leader of the group put her stubby, blackened knife into a basket held by the wife of the country's leader. Perhaps their success was in part due to the fact that the local organisations found the circumcisers alternative work in small businesses and encouraged them to join local groups in spreading the message.
I shall be very interested to hear from Her Majesty's Government what they are doing to encourage the elimination of this practice throughout the European Union and, in particular, whether they are thinking of trying to prevent children being taken abroad for this procedure.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gould for initiating the debate on female genital mutilation. I know that there are sensitivities in using that term rather than female circumcision. But in preferring FGM, I am taking my cue from the World Health Organisation in sending out a clear message that the practice is a violation of human rights. I should also like to acknowledge the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in taking the Female Circumcision Bill through the House in 1985 and also the contribution of my noble friend Lady Jeger.
746
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, FGM is not an issue that is often or easily discussed, and yet if we are to make a real impact to eradicate this brutal practice—I do not shy from that description despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord McColl—it is something that more and more people should be aware of. My noble friends Lady Gould and Lady Rendell clearly and graphically underlined the horrors of the practice and the pain felt by so many girls and women.
FGM affects a significant proportion of the world's population and is practised by many different religions, including Christians, Moslems, Jews and non-believers. It is by no means a single religious issue and should not be portrayed as such. I found the remarks of my noble friend Lord Ahmed particularly valuable here. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act makes it an offence to carry out female genital mutilation in any of its various forms. It also makes it an offence for anyone to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of these procedures by any other person.
Further legal protection is provided by the Children Act 1989. Under the Act a prohibited steps order can be made by a local authority to prevent parents carrying out an act without the consent of the court. This covers taking a child out of the country for mutilation to be carried out abroad. That was an issue, particularly highlighted by my noble friend Lady Rendell and my noble friend Lord Rea. The Government recently took the opportunity to change the law on conspiracy in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. It is now an offence for a person to conspire to commit an offence outside the UK provided the act constitutes an offence both under the law in the UK and under the law in the country in which the act is to be committed. Where the Attorney-General consents to the institution of proceedings, that enables courts in the UK to deal with conspiracies in this country to commit offences against children abroad, including conspiracies to take children abroad to carry out FGM on them.
In 1991 the Department of Health issued further guidance entitled Working Together Under the Children Act 1989. This set out information on the Children Act relevant to FGM and was issued to local authorities, health authorities, the police, the probation service, educational establishments, doctors and a range of voluntary organisations. This document is currently being updated and will be re-issued in the spring.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked about international action as did the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. The UK has further committed itself to the eventual eradication of this practice through ratifying the objectives laid down in a number of UN resolutions, including the UN Global Plan for Action and Beijing Declaration, 1995, as well as the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Indeed, the UK has recently co-sponsored a resolution on traditional or customary practices affecting the health of women and girls which reaffirms our commitment to this issue.

747
In having legislation in place which makes FGM illegal, the UK is ahead of many other countries. However, despite these measures it is known that FGM is still being carried out in various communities in this country.
Criticism was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, my noble friend Lord Rea and my noble friend Lady Jeger in that to date there have been no prosecutions under the Act. There are a number of complex reasons for that. Not least is the fact that female genital mutilation is deeply steeped in the culture and tradition of those communities which perform it, as a number of noble Lords have said. That makes it immensely difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to enforce a conviction. Complaints of that nature are very rarely made to the police. Even where a complaint is made the same factors can make the investigation, and attempts to gather evidence, enormously difficult. The investigation of complaints should of course be undertaken in a way that is sensitive to the culture and traditions of those communities which practise FGM. I believe that my noble friend Lady Gould had much of importance to say about that.
That is not to say that the Act is unenforceable, neither is there any evidence to suggest that the police or prosecutors do not take this offence seriously or are reluctant to prosecute. However, it is for the police to decide whether there are sufficient grounds for criminal charges to be brought against the individual and to warrant a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service. That service is alive, as we all are, to the sensitive issues inherent in this category of case, not least because children may be involved. The fact that there have been no prosecutions is not because the CPS or the police are not enforcing it; nor is it because of a lack of clarity in the existing law. It is because of the difficulties in obtaining evidence to support prosecutions.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he explain what steps we are taking to implement the Act about which we are talking?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I have explained, there is no lack of determination that the law, as it applies to this country, should be enacted. I am trying to describe the practical difficulties which the police face in enforcing this Act.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I accept the practical difficulties in bringing criminal prosecutions in this sort of case. Nevertheless, all of us are aware that children are taken away from their parents on grave suspicion of reduction of their human rights on far less evidence and for far less dreadful activities than this. Can the Minister tell us why children are not removed from their families and put in care when there is a suspicion that these activities have been undertaken?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I said earlier, this issue also falls under the provisions of the Children Act 1989. I have already said that under that
748
Act a prohibited steps order can be made by a local authority to prevent parents carrying out an act without the consent of the court. However, just as in the case of action taken by the police, I believe that there are real difficulties in obtaining evidence to warrant that action.
I refer to two cases raised by my noble friend Lady Gould. In 1993 a GP was struck off the medical register for gross misconduct relating to FGM. The doctor was not prosecuted in that case because he did not perform an operation. He was contacted by an undercover journalist and agreed to perform an illegal operation. His agreement to perform the operation was regarded by the GMC as gross misconduct. However, as he did not perform it, his actions were not considered to be illegal.
I am also aware of the programme broadcast by Channel 4 last year on this subject. I understand that the South Yorkshire Police received a complaint against a man implicated in carrying out mutilations in that area. However, he had left the area before the police could interview him and he has not been traced since.
In terms of the support given by the Government to organisations engaged in important work in this area—a point about which my noble friend Lord Rea asked—I want to make it clear that the Department of Health is committed to continuing with and supporting these important groups. The department has developed close links with the Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development (FORWARD) which is the leading voluntary organisation in the UK that deals with FGM. I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work undertaken by that organisation.
Under section 64 of the general scheme of grants, FORWARD is currently receiving a core grant of £30,000 over three years to help to meet general running costs. In addition, it is receiving a project grant worth £22,500 for a three-year period to fund the production of a health education pack. This funding overall is secure until the year 2000. Further bids are now being considered.
In addition, a Department of Health official is currently on secondment to FORWARD for a minimum of two years to work as a national liaison officer. This will include local authority liaison with the objective of identifying the key elements of a "best practice" model to co-ordinate local authority health, education, social services and child protection activities.
Further funding has also been secured through the department for a health promotion officer, who will take up post shortly. This person's role will be to liaise with ethnic communities to produce health and education literature in a range of relevant languages; and to produce a training pack for health and education professionals.
Over the past few years, the Department of Health has provided funds totalling nearly £280,000 for projects developed by FORWARD in this country. Similarly, the Department for International Development has committed over £250,000 for two projects with which FORWARD is involved in Nigeria and The Gambia.

749
The issue of guidance by professional bodies was raised by a number of noble Lords. The Government welcome the production of guidance for practitioners by their professional bodies to help them to deal sensitively and effectively with FGM. I am pleased to say that my honourable friend Tessa Jowell will be launching the Royal College of Midwives' position paper on FGM on 18th November and I hope that all midwives will take the opportunity to increase their knowledge and understanding of this important issue, and use it to inform their practice.
I might also add that the department has also released funds to help to establish the north-west London African-Somalian Well Women Project being run at the Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust. The clinic aims to meet the particular cultural and medical needs of the local community in a humane and sensitive way. Raising understanding and awareness of the physical and psychological impact of FGM is considered to be vitally important. It is very much hoped that the unit will become a centre of excellence from which other practitioners and service providers can learn.
I have not been able to answer all the points that have been raised, but in conclusion may I say that this has been a very valuable debate which has brought to public attention the distressing effects of the brutal practice of
750
FGM. My noble friend Lady Jeger asked: what is to be done? I do want to assure your Lordships that despite the lack of prosecutions under the Act the commitment of the Government to eradicating FGM should not be in doubt. As my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, said, legislation by itself is not the answer. We therefore need to look to other means of influencing behaviour in our efforts to stamp out FGM in this country.
We are quite clear that relevant agencies need to remain alert to the communities in their population that might be carrying out such procedures and to protect those children they deem to be at risk. Support should be available to those who need it and the process of educating those communities which continue to practise FGM must and will continue. I very much hope that this debate will help to open the eyes of many people to these appalling practices and that by opening up the issues we shall have a much greater opportunity of combating this barbaric practice.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.

  GCSE Data for Schools in England
  GCSE Data for Schools in England
  GCE A-Level Data
  GCE A-Level Data
  Student Loans Helpline
  Student Loans Helpline
  Head of Defence Export Services
  Head of Defence Export Services
  NHS Director of Counter Fraud Services
  NHS Director of Counter Fraud Services
  "Delivering for women: Progress so far"
  "Delivering for women: Progress so far"
  Real Earnings Growth: Average Annual Rate
  Real Earnings Growth: Average Annual Rate
  VAT Top Rate in Member States
  VAT Top Rate in Member States
  VAT Grouping and Universities
  VAT Grouping and Universities