Sitting of 11 November 1998

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

European Union (Defence Policy)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
9.33 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt: At the end of this debate, for the first time, at your request and indeed instruction, Madam Speaker, the House will observe the two-minute silence while the House is sitting. It is appropriate that we are debating defence in the context of Europe. It is also appropriate that we should mark the 80th anniversary of the armistice, which followed a 100-day campaign of victory by the greatest land force ever assembled by this country.
Contrary to popular myth, that was a highly professional, well-led and supported military force which comprehensively defeated an aggressive, expansionist and militaristic enemy. That army was a citizen's army. It, and the professional army from which it grew, had paid a fearful price to achieve a world war-winning level of competence. We should be proud of their achievement.
We will also remember the price that was paid by hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and by millions of our fellow European citizens in the wars that have scarred this continent this century. That is why I believe that defence remains the most important responsibility of any Government, and it reminds us of the importance of today's debate.
I put in for this debate because something is happening with defence policy in the European Union and the House has not been told. Now is the chance. We look forward to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence in the anticipation that it will be followed by a two-minute silence not only of remembrance, but, I hope, of stunned astonishment that we have learnt something from him about the Government's European policy.
On 1 July, the Financial Times reported:
"Tony Blair has recognised that his ambition of carving a powerful role for the UK within the European Union could take 10 years and has commissioned a sweeping review of the UK's approach to the EU.
Officials said it was crucial for the UK to demonstrate it favoured closer integration in a number of areas, such as foreign and defence policies."
On 2 October, we seemed to have arrived at the conclusion of that exercise, when the extremely well-informed Robert Peston of the Financial Times reported:
"The government is putting the finishing touches to a blueprint on Europe, which it hopes will pave the way for Britain to play a leading role alongside France and Germany.
284
The blueprint includes a controversial recommendation that the European Union should assume a defence capability—a move which would signal the biggest shift in policy since Labour took office.
Mr. Blair … is expected to make a decision ahead of this month's EU summit where member states will discuss the future of the Union.
To this end, the Foreign Office, with guarded support from the Ministry of Defence, is recommending that the Western European Union, the EU's embryonic defence arm, should be scrapped."
Those reports did not pass unnoticed. They were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) in the strategic defence review debate, but they were not referred to specifically by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence in his reply on each day of those debates, so imagine our surprise on reading The Times headline of 21 October:
"Britain to back defence role for Europe."
One might have been forgiven for thinking that the article could have been reporting our debate, but no. Philip Webster reported:
"Britain is prepared for the first time to give the European Union a defence arm that would allow members' troops to co-operate in mounting military operations, the Prime Minister signalled last night.
Tony Blair made plain that he was ready to drop Britain's longstanding objections to the EU having a defence capability".
As the House was debating defence at 4.30 on Tuesday 20 October, the Prime Minister was talking to journalists from six leading European newspapers, including The Times, Le Monde and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Just in case anyone tries to suggest that Philip Webster was exaggerating what the Prime Minister was saying, let me point out that, following that interview, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that
"the Blair Government has decided to give its European partners a pleasant surprise for once. The informal meeting of "Heads of Government in P6rtschach at the weekend will provide the setting."
It said that the Prime Minister
"announced for the first time that London would abandon Britain's long-standing opposition to a firmer structure to Common Foreign and Security Policy."
That means that London will no longer oppose the appointment of a Mr. CFSP. That is not exactly news, as the previous Conservative Government, in their 1996 White Paper, said that they were ready to look at the idea of appointing a single figure to represent the policy of the Union to the outside world. I assume that the Labour Government have picked up Conservative policy in this area, as they have done in many other areas. When they followed Conservative policy on the economy, they did rather well; having abandoned it, they are in trouble.
Perhaps the Government should re-examine their policy on the Territorial Army and follow Conservative policy. We very much regret the rumours about an announcement in the House next Monday on the Territorial Army, some three weeks before the Army is ready for that. It is

285
disgraceful that the announcement is being dragged forward to get it out of the way before Prorogation, much to the danger of the TA.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On what does the hon. Gentleman base his speculation about an announcement next Monday?
Mr. Blunt: I was informed by someone in the BBC—presumably a most reliable source.
Mr. Robert Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence answered two parliamentary questions on the matter yesterday—as reported in Hansard this morning—and confirmed that there will be a statement on the Territorial Army next week.
Mr. Blunt: It is much to be regretted that the Army is having to drag forward any announcement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Why is the hon. Gentleman complaining about the matter being brought early to the House? In view of all the ill-informed speculation, I would expect him to want the House to be informed. Why is he complaining about the House being given early information? I fail to follow his logic.
Mr. Blunt: It is very simple—a most ungainly exercise is taking place inside the Territorial Army, as different parts of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association and different regions are engaging in what my local TAVRA representative referred to as "horse trading" over which units would be placed where, which would survive and which TA centres would be sold. The speed with which this is happening means that the TA will be left inadequately staffed. We regret the fact that the Government are taking no notice of the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Defence that they should think again because their policy is misconceived. However, this is a diversion from European Union defence policy, to which I shall now return.
The previous Conservative Government had accepted a Mr. CFSP—a Mr. PESC in France. As the German for "common foreign and security policy" is "gemeinsame aussen and sicherheitspolitik", the Germans are happy to have a Herr GASP—or perhaps a Fraulein GASP.
Although the news about a Mr. CFSP was not news, the conclusion drawn by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung from the Prime Minister remarks was. It said:
"In the medium term, London is therefore now also questioning the role of the Western European Union … to which 10 or the 15 EU Member States belong. For as soon as the European Union adopts its own 'security policy identity', which the British government no longer intends to oppose, the WEU would become superfluous. Its political role would fall"—
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the debates on 24 and 25 October, but I want to quote back to him what was said by my right
286
hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. At a meeting at which I was present, my right hon. Friend said:
"Nato must remain the cornerstone of European defence but Britain would consider reinforcing the Western European Union"—
the very point—
Mr. Key: Carry on with the quote.
Mr. Cunliffe: I am going to do that. My right hon. Friend continued:
"creating a more distinct European dimension within NATO or even merging the WEU and the EU."
Perhaps the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) would respond to that. A week after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the remarks quoted by the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was quite clear on what the exercise was all about.
Mr. Blunt: I look forward to hearing from the Under-Secretary of State exactly what the Government are up to. The House should have the benefit of a clarification of the Government's policy. That is what this debate is about and I look forward to the Under-Secretary's response to it.
I was quoting the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. It stated:
"The WEU would become superfluous. Its political role would fall to the EU and its military role to NATO. Blair's ideas are supported by the Foreign Officeand Defence Ministry, although the latter has certain reservations."
We look forward to hearing what those are. It continued:
"In the long term, this would mean the establishment of something akin to a European Foreign and Defence Ministry."
Le Monde directly asked the Prime Minister:
"Do you support the idea of abolishing the WEU and transferring its military resources to NATO?"
He replied:
"There are all kinds of ideas and many admit that the WEU is less than the ideal instrument which we need. I believe that we must think in a more imaginative way than we are doing."
That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the WEU. What conclusion are people supposed to draw about the future of the WEU from those remarks?
The Prime Minister is considering a very substantial change which, in the light of the Amsterdam treaty, would stand the whole of the Government's approach on its head. I wonder whether other Ministers knew of it. There are rumours of Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence papers for and against the ideas suggested—yet, when Defence Ministers were debating defence in this House, particular points were put to them, but they were unable to say whether those ideas were being considered.
Mr. Spellar: I am aware that the best way to keep a secret in this country is to make a speech on the Floor of the House. I refer the hon. Gentleman to column 1176 of Hansard on 20 October, where I dealt precisely with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples).
Mr. Blunt: I read those remarks carefully because I had assumed that the Under-Secretary would deal with the

287
matter. However, they do not bear any resemblance to what the Prime Minister was saying on the same day to journalists from The Times and other European newspapers.
Mr. Spellar: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what incompatibility he perceives between my comments at column 1176 and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said?
Mr. Blunt: Yes. The Prime Minister spoke about the potential abolition of the Western European Union, but there was no suggestion of that in the Under-Secretary's remarks in the House. He spoke about the importance of NATO in European defence, and we all agree with that. However, the institutional framework in which NATO will operate and the relationship with the European Union are central to the issue. The problem is that the Prime Minister is dealing with a big idea, but he has no idea of the detail. Indeed, I shall shortly put some detailed points to the Under-Secretary. When we debated defence, what did the Under-Secretary know about the proposals for the WEU? What does he know about them now?
The Prime Minister's Cabinet colleagues were caught unsighted. The Minister for the Cabinet Office initially denied, in this House, that the Prime Minister had even briefed Philip Webster. He then retreated behind the solecism that it was not a briefing, but an interview on the record—a distinction lost on the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which described the meeting with the Prime Minister as "a pre-summit briefing".
The Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister was simply saying that he wanted some imaginative thinking on how to enhance the European contribution to NATO. If that is what the French thought the Prime Minister was up to, he would have got extremely short shrift at the summit in Austria. What is certainly the case is that Members of this House did not know what the Prime Minister was doing. I raised the issue in our debate on the Army, but did not have the benefit of a response from the Under-Secretary. I raised it through an early-day motion, to which I have had no reply. The Under-Secretary' s colleagues, the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised the matter on the Floor of the House, and asked for a statement and an explanation.
The Times also quoted the Prime Minister as saying:
"All I am saying is that we need to allow fresh thinking and it is important for Britain to be part of that thinking … and not for us simply to stand there and say 'we are not part of this'."
May I suggest something revolutionary? What about Parliament being exposed to this fresh thinking? Although we look forward to the Under-Secretary's reply, we probably need the Prime Minister here to answer the debate. The Prime Minister may think that his colleagues do not need to be aware of his proposals, but the House should be made aware of them.
In the Prime Minister's absence, it is a pity that—I say this with due respect to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence—the Minister for the Armed Forces will not be replying to this debate, as his experience as the Minister with responsibility for Europe and the man who signed the Amsterdam treaty would equip him admirably to provide that reply. Then again, as a fellow Oxford-educated public schoolboy socialist, the Under-Secretary
288
may have the advantage of having a clearer insight into the Prime Minister's thought processes. In the absence of a communiqué from the summit in Austria, where ideas and proposals were floated by our Prime Minister, and in the absence of any statement to the House, we seek guidance.
My approach to the Minister is made in a spirit of genuine inquiry. What is going on? We can hardly be blamed for being suspicious. Are the proposals merely an exercise in image building—an attempt to curry favour with our partners? Are they, as I fear, concession of a substantial position and the British interest, with no substantive proposals, strategy or endgame in mind? They seem horribly reminiscent of other of the Government's constitutional proposals—which sound good, but are out of control and are damaging once battle is joined over the detail, when Ministers belatedly discover that the initiative has passed to those who do not share the United Kingdom's agenda.
I hope that the Minister will answer some specific questions. Are the Amsterdam arrangements for the relationship between NATO, the WEU and the EU to be reviewed? If so, why? The arrangements have hardly begun. Why cannot the arrangements be given a chance to bed down and to work?
Perhaps the Minister can tell us when the Amsterdam treaty came into force or will come into force. I have been unable to ascertain the date. The treaty states that it will come into force
"on the first day of the second month following that in which the instrument of ratification is deposited by the last signatory State to fulfil that formality."
The Minister will know, or certainly should know, that that date is important, as the protocol to article J.7 of the treaty states:
"The European Union shall draw up, together with the Western European Union, arrangements for enhanced cooperation between them within a year from the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam."
Has that happened yet? Are the Government's proposals part of that process? If so, surely scrapping the Western European Union is hardly consistent with the treaty of Amsterdam.
When does the Minister believe that the next intergovernmental conference will be held to negotiate the new treaty which will do away with the Western European Union and rewrite the treaty of Amsterdam? Will he tell us what he believes to be the future of the WEU?
In the proposals, how are the aspirations of the neutral countries that are already inside the EU to be accommodated? Are the Government prepared to concede that the structure should be in the second, or CFSP, pillar of the European Union? If the WEU is no longer to exist, does it matter whether it is in the second or fourth pillar? What are the issues at stake?
Has any thought been given to enlargement? If the EU comes with an explicit security guarantee, will not that cause problems for the Baltic states? Would not an implicit security guarantee far more effectively enhance their security, without the risk of provoking Russia, which will be in God knows what condition in 10 years?
If we are to have a single money and a single economy—something to which the Government are, in principle, committed—why do we not move towards a common defence policy, and not least down the road of

289
defence specialisation, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats? Although such a policy would be the end of our ability to act independently, it would force us to face up to the fact that, if economic and monetary union is not to fall apart, democratically accountable institutions have to be created at the European level to deal with issues of wealth redistribution, fiscal policy, macro economic policy and monetary policy. Why should such institutions not be created to deal with defence as well? It is the logical end of the path that the Prime Minister is taking us down.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend is making an extremely good case on why we should be given a better explanation. From his own experience in both the forces and the Ministry of Defence as a special adviser, can he think of any occasion in the recent past on which a common defence policy, if one had been created, would have affected our capabilities? Does he think that we as a country would have been able to act as well and effectively as we did in the Gulf, for example, if we had had a common defence policy, as is now being described?
Mr. Blunt: The short answer is no; neither in the Gulf war nor in the Falkland Islands would we have been able to act as effectively. If we had had a common defence and common defence forces in the absence of common democratic structures at the European level to direct those forces, those events certainly would not have happened. If we had had European-level direction—which we shall assume was democratically accountable, within the United States of Europe, about which some Labour Members are probably enthusiastic—would it have been prepared to support the United States in the Gulf? Would it have been prepared to support the United Kingdom's interests in the Falklands Islands? I think that those questions would have been answered in the negative.
Mr. Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when the Falklands war broke out and there was some havering in Washington, on the first morning after war started, the first national leader to telephone Mrs. Thatcher to offer her complete and unconditional support was President Mitterrand. He immediately provided to the Ministry of Defence details of how the Exocet missiles were organised and operated. The great complaint was that British arms exporters were running to their clients in Arab countries saying, "You can't trust the French; they'll give away the details of their Exocets. Buy British, not French."
Mr. Blunt: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman's comments are perfectly correct; the French did us an enormous favour in allowing the fleet to exercise against Super Etendards equipped with Exocets on their way down to Ascension island. However, had the Spanish and Italian Governments been part of a European set-up, how keen would they have been to support the policy of retaking the Falkland Islands from the Argentines? It begs the question of what capability the United Kingdom would have had to act in recovering our possessions.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time, especially as we are dealing
290
with a slight distraction from his main theme. Leaving aside the Falklands—although we could discuss the mechanics who were assisting in servicing the Super Etendards that were flying against the British fleet during the Falklands war—does he recall Mitterrand's actions, up to the 59th minute of the 11th hour, in undermining western diplomacy against Iraq in the Gulf, and also the assistance that the Belgian Government gave us? Mitterand sent a delegation to Iraq about one day before war broke out, contrary to the policy of the other western Governments, and the Belgians failed to supply us with ammunition, because they thought that doing so might upset their Iraqi contracts.
Mr. Blunt: The interventions are extremely interesting, because they demonstrate that different European states have different national interests. I think that the question of whether they can be brought together at some European level would have to be answered in the negative.
We need to know the Government's endgame. If we believe that British independence of action is worth preserving and that our country's alliance with the United States should be central to our foreign and defence policy, we should have some answers to the questions that I have asked the Minister. This is a constitutional adventure too important to be left to the Prime Minister's sound-good politics. His colleagues who have a better eye for detail and the potential pitfalls ahead need to get a grip on the policy. I look forward to hearing that the Ministry of Defence, at least, knows where the policy is headed.
9.58 am
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I shall concentrate on the new emerging Europe, which introduces a further dimension and perspective that calls for review, although I still accept the common defence policy.
Let me declare my interest as deputy leader of the British delegations to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I have spent the past 10 months producing a rapporteur's report on our intelligence section rapid response control and command system, which will be presented to the WEU in Paris in the first week in December. I was, therefore, somewhat alarmed by the statement in October which attempted to define the British review policy.
I hope that the new emerging Europe will play a positive part in establishing peace, stability and security throughout Europe and the world. The current and previous British Governments genuinely supported that aim. I remember the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), clearly and distinctly spelling out his support for the WEU at a conference at Church house about six months before the general election.
In my view, Europe must be a community of free member states. I reject the concept of a European super-state. The European Union must be based on a sharing of national interest and not on the surrender of national identity. That is particularly important in relation to defence.
I see no case for merging the common foreign and security policy into the bureaucratic machinery of Brussels. The establishment of a European army would limit our freedom and flexibility in respect of engagement in any war or military crisis—for example, in Kosovo or

291
anywhere in the Balkans, which are somewhat volatile at present. However, the nations of Europe need each other. We are interdependent and carry the weight of great trading blocs, so it is imperative that we present a common front to the world. Our foreign and security policy must first be a defining expression of national identity. We must then proceed to unite Europe in a common defence policy while continuing to maintain and safeguard our independent national interest.
In my view, the best way in which to achieve that aim is to strengthen the WEU and give it a more positive role working with the United States, which always has been and, for at least the next 20 years, will continue to be, the cornerstone of our European defence. I see no reason to change something that has worked incredibly well.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will respect the views of all right hon. and hon. Members on defence issues. I believe that we should take an open view on how we should safeguard our future and that of our European colleagues. I make no apologies for having voted—first at the Council of Europe and then at the WEU—in favour of welcoming former eastern bloc and Soviet Union nations.
When I met Vice-President Gore some 18 months ago, we discussed the European dimension. We should bear in mind the fact that America has 300,000 troops in Europe, and that maintaining them there represents an economic problem. It is clear that Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and other emerging nations will have to take a positive role in any European defence system, so it is necessary to review our commitments in Europe. In my view, the WEU should take an important role. It has the experience and expertise, and is modernising its approach, as is clear from my rapporteur's report.
We have always supported the NATO alliance, for which we should be extremely grateful in terms of our security in Europe over the past 40 years. Mainly thanks to NATO, we have seen the total elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Certain former Soviet nations are still haunted by their relations with NATO in the past and, even though they are now co-opted members on certain consultative committees, they remain wary of the United States.
We should be firmly committed to the enlargement of Europe to the east and accept the necessity to embrace and support the new democracies of eastern Europe. We would be foolish not to do so. History will judge us harshly if we leave the door shut in their faces or allow their countries to slide back into totalitarianism. That applies equally to economic and military matters.
NATO and its participating Governments must confront and resolve three issues. The first is the future of the transatlantic relationship. Certain groups in America favour a gradual withdrawal of troops as soon as Europe can take care of itself. Secondly, we must review NATO's wider security function, including its possible use of out-of-area missions. Thirdly we must consider the future of "Partnership for Peace" and the recent NATO enlargement.
We must also redefine the transatlantic relationship so that any British Government, of whatever political disposition, will know which direction to take.
We must also consider NATO's wider security role. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who has a great interest in defence matters, spoke about
292
the role of our defence forces. I have just visited one of our frigates in the Gulf, HMS Cumberland, where I was informed of the importance of having available aircraft which do not have to fly 3,000 miles to a military emergency. Mobility is crucial to the question whether we merge certain parts of the Air Force and the Navy in response to the demand for flexibility.
In conclusion, although certain fundamental changes have not been made, and I have read from A to Z the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in October, it is clear that there is a flexible approach—
Mr. Blunt: Which of the Prime Minister's speeches has the hon. Gentleman read from A to Z—
Mr. Cunliffe: The one that my right hon. Friend made at the summit at Portschach in October—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) is being intervened on. He must wait until the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has finished speaking before responding to him.
Mr. Blunt: If the hon. Gentleman is giving us an account of what happened at the summit in Austria, which so far has failed to be communicated to the world, we look forward to hearing what it is and what authority it carries.
Mr. Cunliffe: Well, what was said was based on the Amsterdam treaty. The Prime Minister outlined the agreement to modernise and strengthen the system of defence control. Most of the quotations that I have are about a better military capability. There are references to
"more modern, flexible, sustainable and deployable forces"
and
"drawing on the lessons of the success of NATO."
We all agree on that.
Mr. Key: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has seen the full text of what the Prime Minister said? One of the difficulties is that No. 10, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence have said that there is no verbatim text of the speech. We have all had to rely on press reports. Has the hon. Gentleman obtained a verbatim report?
Mr. Cunliffe: I do not have a verbatim report. I have quotations from Reuters. 1 assume that Ministers have seen them, in view of what they said the week after, which I quoted earlier. Ministers have made it clear that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy. I have already talked about tidying up and modernising. There has to be a flexible response with a review. The breakup of the Warsaw pact has meant that there is now a positive military input from some eastern European countries. We did not have that before.
This is an important debate. I have known the Minister for many years and he deserves his current position. I am sure that he will try to inform the House to the best of his ability of present and future policy, as far as is permissible for security reasons.
10.11 am
Mr. Mike Hancock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on choosing this subject and having the debate on such an appropriate day for considering defence co-operation in Europe.
I returned yesterday afternoon from a meeting of the Western European Union in Paris, where we were discussing the future of the organisation. The impression given by members from other European countries was very depressing, arising from what the Prime Minister had said. Questions were asked about Britain's future co-operation in the WEU. As I drove back across northern France, past the Somme and Picardy, I thought about the trauma of the experiences 80 years ago and what has been achieved since. Sadly, we have had to fight another world war and, in most of the years since the end of the first world war, British troops have been engaged in active service somewhere in the world. Only one year has passed since then without British troops dying somewhere in the world defending people's rights and freedom.
The great war showed the need for European nations to co-operate. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) rightly said—I imagine that most hon. Members and our European partners agree—that, when Britain signed the Amsterdam agreement, we were signing up for a strengthening of the WEU's position in the family of European organisations. Our continued support for the WEU was clearly stated by signing the treaty. There are six organisations covering Europe and our north Atlantic allies, ranging in size from the European Union, with 15 members, to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, with 56 members. The WEU was singled out among those six for special consideration. The Prime Minister was wrong to cast doubt on the future of the WEU.
The Secretary of State for Defence will be with us in Paris at the start of December. I hope that, in the hour or so that he will have to present several topics to the Assembly, he will state the Government's position on the WEU clearly. Anything short of that will give credence to the suggestion that Britain is looking for an alternative based on the EU. I do not regard that as a practical solution. It is fraught with difficulties, it would lead to endless, unnecessary argument and it would destroy a lot of the good will of the countries from the former Soviet bloc that have become associated with the WEU and see it as a focal point for making partnership work. "Partnership for Peace" and many other organisations do not have a cat in hell's chance of long-term success unless the WEU is strengthened.
We have to look around at experience of what organisations can deliver. Colleagues at the WEU considered an interesting report over the past couple of days called "New Prospects for Transatlantic Co-operation in Security and Defence", produced by Mr. Blaauw, vice-chairman of the political committee. He is a much-decorated service man who is now an experienced leading politician in the Netherlands. His report points to some of the issues that are sometimes forgotten, including the difficulty of gaining co-operation for the United States to free up some of NATO's assets for use by the WEU.
We ought to ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence to talk to our American allies about greater co-operation with the WEU. Sadly, the Americans
294
are reluctant to do that. It is a pity that they are not more visionary in exploring the opportunities offered by the WEU. Albania, for example, has been ripped apart by strife. NATO and the United Nations could not have gone in, but the WEU did. The policing of Albania by the dark blue berets of the WEU is a significant contribution to bringing some sense to the turmoil there.
The WEU has a real role to play. If European co-operation is to mean more than just co-operation on procurement projects—if it means seeking true partnerships for peace and trying to work out a European dimension for sorting out problems—three things are necessary. First, this House must be paramount in deciding what is in the best defence interests of this country. That should always be discussed here first, not speculated on even by the Prime Minister at conferences elsewhere until he has clearly put his thoughts to the House. Such far-reaching issues, which would have repercussions way outside the United Kingdom, should be dealt with here first.
Secondly, we must make sure that everybody signs up for an organisation that can deliver. The WEU is trying to adapt itself to the new future for Europe. It is trying to accommodate the rights of individual states and make partnership work.
Thirdly, and most importantly for Europe, there must be credibility in Europe for the organisation. The WEU has such credibility. Britain's 36 representatives from all parties and both Houses of Parliament–18 full members and 18 substitutes—have a clear influence in its policy making. As a member of that organisation, I have felt undermined by recent speculation.
Sadly, there has been no attempt to clarify the matter, and this debate is the first opportunity that we have had for that. I hope that the Minister will respond in a robust and up-front manner, and experience suggests that he will defend his position robustly. However, the House will be interested in the factual information that we need.
If we do not get that information today, I am afraid that those hon. Members who are predicting doom and gloom within the WEU—and who are possibly undermining other institutions in Europe—will, sadly, get backing from an unusual source, the British Government. The Government should instead be giving positive backing. They should say that there is a role for the organisation, that Europe does matter, that we want to play a part in it and that we want our role to be within the WEU.
10.20 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on introducing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who took part in the debate. It is important that we discuss defence often. I see no problem with what the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or anyone else says if it means that we have an open discussion. It is healthy to keep all options open, but we should always come here to debate whatever takes place in Europe.
Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—to return his compliment. However, we have had to drag the Government here, and Labour Members have been asking for Government statements. Surely he dissociates himself

295
from the fact that the Government have not been prepared to come to the House to make a statement. It has been left to me to drag the Minister here.
Mr. Hoyle: I do not think that the way forward is to score cheap political points, and I shall not enter into that. We want an open debate, and I have confidence that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us clarification.
Members on both sides of the Chamber are never frightened of discussing defence. We have always displayed good, honest views, and that will never change. I am reassured by the statement that NATO must remain the cornerstone of the EU's defence, but that Britain will consider reinforcing the Western European Union, and will try to create a more distinct EU dimension within NATO. We need to be told whether we are to have an EU force, or whether the WEU will continue. I welcome this debate, which gives us the opportunity to discuss whether the changes are essential and whether they will work.
The burden on our forces must be remembered. We have mounted operations in the Falklands and the Gulf, and there are problems within the former Yugoslavia. Time bombs ticks way and explode here, there and everywhere. We may even see problems in the Baltic states—we do not know. British forces, rightly, are at the forefront, and are a shining example of our commitment to peacekeeping in Europe and the world.
I believe that the other European nations have a part to play. They must not just sit back, passing judgment on what is right and wrong. They must not pay lip service when problems erupt in the former Yugoslavia because, as we have seen, we cannot rely on the Americans, who do not wish to have troops on the ground. Our troops will have to be there, and that is a problem. Our troops' lives are being risked—not American troops, although the Americans will pass judgment. If we can bring in other European states and ensure that they play a major role—and that their troops are placed in the hot spots of Europe—I will welcome that. It is crucial that the Minister discusses whether we are to have an EU force or the continuation or expansion of the WEU.
We can have that discussion because we have democracy, and Parliament must retain the ability to discuss that issue. The countries we are sending forces to assist do not have those rights or the ability to enjoy that freedom. We must not lose sight of that.
We all look to Europe for future defence procurement mergers, and companies must merge to compete with the Americans. British Aerospace has said that it needs to ensure its future, and we must produce weapons with a European dimension. We all welcome that, and that is the way forward. Otherwise, we will always be reliant on the Americans.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the critical role that American research and development plays in our programmes? Is he aware that members of the Defence Select Committee, on a recent visit to Washington, were told again and again that the exchange of technology—which is principally beneficial to this country—would not be available if our defence industry became subsumed in a wider European defence industry?
Mr. Hoyle: Of course I welcome our work with the Americans, which will continue. However,
296
the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the future large aircraft will come not via the Americans, but via the Europeans. We all beat the drum about the success of the European airbus, and we want to say that the future large aircraft—built in Europe for the world—will have a dual role. European manufacturers have a part to play, but I do not lose sight of our great allies the Americans, and NATO will be the cornerstone of America and the UK.
We need our own defence independence to allow us to fight in the Falklands—if conflict re-emerges—in the Gulf or in Africa, if we decide to try to keep the peace there. I do not want to rely on someone in Europe telling us where we can go. That fear has comes across today, but it is not necessary. I want to reassure everybody that we will have the independence to go wherever we are needed.
Gibraltar is an issue of tactical importance to the UK. We mounted the Falklands and the Gulf operations from there, and we must not allow Spain to come in the back way and take it away from us. We must work together within Europe, and play a leading part in Europe. There is a danger—which has become clear this morning—that the sceptics are allowing their view to cover everything.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that, given problems such as Gibraltar and Spain's designs on it, there is a danger that the development of a common European foreign and security policy might prevent us from looking after British and Gibraltarian interests?
Mr. Hoyle: No, definitely not. I must rule that out completely. I would not want to follow the example of the previous Government, under whom the people of Hong Kong were given back to China when there was no need. We must not allow that ever to happen again. [Interruption.] Hong Kong island was not part of the deal, and we could have held on to it for ever. The previous Government failed to negotiate on behalf of the people of Hong Kong because of their desire to get in bed with the communist Government. After Tiananmen square, the previous Government should have learnt something. They failed to do so. I always say that, if people have no desire to become part of another country, we must not allow that to happen. That is why I stand by the view of the people of Gibraltar, unlike the previous Government who did not stand by the people of Hong Kong, so Conservative Members should not lecture me on that matter. We must remember, and learn from, the previous Government's mistakes.
It is important that we are always willing to discuss, and look at, both sides of the argument and that we arrive at the right decision. Scaremongering is easy, but we should not allow it. There should be open discussion, then we will make the right decision. We can ensure that we look after Europe and that it looks after us. We are a part of it and we must not lose sight of that.
Crucially, we must always remember that British troops will be stretched unless there is some sort of European force—either a WEU or an EU force. British troops are always the first on the ground and they do an excellent job when serving overseas. No one can take that away from them. However, other European nations should tackle some of the problems in Europe instead of leaving it to good old Britain. They have a part to play. Hopefully, as a result of this discussion, or through the

297
Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence having discussions, we will find a way forward. If we can ensure that we get the right deal for the United Kingdom and our defence forces, I will not have a problem with it, as long as that independence remains. I believe that it will.
10.30 am
Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on his success in obtaining this important debate. I hope that he gets the answers that he sought from the Minister. I also congratulate all those hon. Members who have spoken. As is usual in defence debates, all those who have spoken care and know about the subject.
The House should not have to rely on the Opposition to haul reluctant Ministers to the Dispatch Box. We will haul them here at every opportunity, but how much better it would be if they were less secretive. If the Government were more open, they would not have leaks and the paranoia of the Ministry of Defence over the strategic defence review and the Territorial Army. That gallant soldier, General Sir Michael Walker, Commander-in-Chief, Land Command, would not have to issue letters saying that idle chatter on social occasions about the cuts would imperil military careers, or talk of press revelations eroding trust between military chiefs and "our political masters", and order his troops to avoid
"deliberate contact with the press or politicians".
As the Member of Parliament for Salisbury, I would have a pretty boring time at social events, in my surgeries and elsewhere, if that happened and I regret that it has been necessary for him to say it.
Three weeks ago, the House debated the Government's strategic defence review. At the very moment that the Minister for the Armed Forces was speaking, the Prime Minister was briefing the European press on the future of European defence policy. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister had forgotten to tell the Secretary of State for Defence or, if he had, the latter had forgotten to tell his Ministers who were speaking in the House. That was incompetent. The Prime Minister was incompetent, as was the Secretary of State for Defence. It was a muddle.
The Prime Minister went off to Portschach in Austria to tell the leaders of Europe that they were in a muddle over defence. Last week in Vienna, the Secretary of State for Defence tried to sort it all out. He said in his speech there that it was "a one-off informal conference"—it was so informal that he told the press that it was "a defining moment" for defence policy. The Secretary of State was asked about merging the European Union and Western European Union. He said:
"We do not rule it out, but it raises a number of difficulties"—
I'll say it does. He confirmed that other options include:
"merging some elements of the WEU with the EU and associating other elements more closely with NATO, or perhaps creating a more distinct European dimension within NATO."
298
Just for good measure, he added that one could also envisage
"reinforcing and reinvigorating the WEU".
So, the Prime Minister forgot to talk to the Ministry of Defence, but both he and the Secretary of State for Defence forgot to talk to the Foreign Office. That was also incompetent.
Yesterday, in another place, Government policy on EU-WEU integration was debated. The Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Baroness Symons, said, in column 627 of the Official Report:
"The Government are not focusing on institutional changes though these may come."
By column 629, she had warmed up a little and she said:
"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."
And so say all of us. By column 630, she was firing on all cylinders and she said:
"the common strategies developed under CFSP are subject to 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."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 627–630.]
Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly because I spent the most invigorating morning with the noble Baroness Symons yesterday in Rotherham and sent her back to the other place all fired up. Is not the hon. Gentleman making an immense meal out of this? I am privy to no papers, but I read in the Financial Times that the proposal was outlined in a paper by Mr. Robert Cooper of the Foreign Office, one of our cerebral gentlemen there. I read all about it before Portschach. So, far from it being sprung on the Austrians, it was widely reported in the press. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes out a subscription to the Financial Times. He will learn much to his advantage.
Mr. Key: First, may I say how surprised, but delighted, I am that the hon. Gentleman has visited Rotherham. I congratulate him. I do not need to take out a subscription to the Financial Times because I can read it in the Library of the House, along with The Sun.
Chancellor Klima of Austria has more definite ideas. He said at Pőrtschach, that a "new dynamic" has developed on the issue in the European Union and that he had observed the emergence of a "commitment" as regards a common foreign and security policy. He said that the Prime Minister's intervention on the subject, which included the "variant" of the "possible integration" of WEU into the EU, reflects a "movement" by London that cannot but be welcomed. Several summit participants commented that the European countries should have a common position on the subject by the time of the NATO summit in Washington in April 1999. However, Mr. Klima made a point of stating that the Vienna European Council should not be expected to indicate the time of a possible merger of WEU into the EU. That is a relief, but it is imposing a pretty tight timetable on the Government for that debate.

299
In Vienna last week, the French Defence Minister, Alain Richard, was clear too, saying:
"No-one contests the importance of the transatlantic link for our security, but neither does anyone doubt that a Europe with a single currency cannot go long without a real defence and security dimension".
He considered that it would be "very useful" for discussions between WEU and NATO on the
"use of cores of CJTF headquarters in a European command chain".
All that evidence shows me that many people in Europe seem to be clear, but that this House is not, even if any member of the Government is.
What of our Italian allies? The Italian Defence Minister, Carlo Scognamiglio said that European military capabilities
"are not so limited or fragile as widely believed".
He said in Vienna that the Europeans can field more soldiers, ships or combat aircraft than the United States. However, he admitted that
"this numerical reality does not spell the operational truth".
According to Mr. Scognamiglio, one of the most striking aspects that emerged from those discussions was the fact that there was a
"gross lack of mutual knowledge among those forces".
He suggested the organisation of joint exercises and the development of exchanges between officers to remedy those shortcomings.
That is fine, but I thought that the Ministry of Defence was clear about the reorganisation of European defence industries—or has it been saying one thing in Brussels and another in the House? On 28 October, the Government published their response to the joint report of the Defence and Trade and Industry Committees on aspects of defence procurement and industrial policy. Recommendations q and I read:
"The Government does not support the creation of a 'Fortress Europe' … and it has consistently opposed any move towards a system of European preference which it believes is incompatible with the longer term competitiveness of European industry."
What of the views of the biggest country in Europe, Germany? Following the recent elections, an unlikely coalition emerged between the Social Democrats—always suspicious about defence—and the Green party—always opposed to defence, to large industries in general and to defence industries in particular.
In Baden-Baden, Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping said that he wanted to strengthen Europe's role in NATO. He said:
"I would like us to finally overcome our weakness in Europe and formulate a common foreign and security policy".
On Thursday, he said on Sildwestrudfunk radio that there must finally be a strong European pillar in NATO, which was not at all the case at the moment—"at least," he added,
"it is not as strong as it should be".
He said that he wanted to tackle that great challenge, but that nothing would happen until the new defence structure commission—Germany's version of the strategic defence review —had reported.
Unlike the British Government, who said that they would complete their review in six months, the German Government have said that the commission will take two years. The French and the Italians expect something to
300
happen by early next year, but Germany is saying, "Hang on a minute. We aren't going to do anything for at least two years and then we'll let the world know what we think."
Of the Greens' demands to cut the size of the Bundeswehr, Mr. Scharping said that it made no sense to deal with abstract figures now and that conclusions for the future of the Bundeswehr could be drawn only after careful assessment of the situation. The coalition expressly agreed to take any budget and business decisions on the Bundeswehr only when the results of the defence structure commission were available.
The realities are different. In the Gulf war, Britain and France joined the US-led military coalition whereas other EU members refused to commit troops. EU members were unable to agree a common approach to diplomatic efforts to end the conflict. In the former Yugoslavia, they took different views on the recognition of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The way forward in resolving the conflict in Bosnia—the when and how of using military force—was in disarray. Peace was established only when the US took the diplomatic and military lead.
In serious crises, the divergent position of EU members will undermine efforts to establish a common approach. The diversity of EU members and the distinctiveness of their national foreign policy traditions often make agreement difficult. The EU lacks the political institutions and instruments that are necessary for an effective common foreign and security policy. It has no collective foreign ministry to provide intelligence, analysis and political advice and it lacks mechanisms to ensure that member states implement common positions once they have been agreed. Mechanisms for collective action via the WEU are only now being developed, although, as I said in last week's Army debate, I welcome them.
The Government must deal with the muddle and confusion in their policy. I recognise that this country has new opportunities, but there is a fixed timetable in which to achieve NATO's new strategic vision. NATO has delivered peace and stability for Europe, whereas the role of the WEU has begun to emerge only since the Petersberg declaration.
The Conservative party does not oppose progress, which is vital; we oppose the Government's confusion. Strong defence is the Government's first duty to the country and their first duty to the House is to tell us of their new policy ambitions—they must not forget that they are accountable to the House. Ministers should not trot around Europe from hotel to hotel, spa to spa and conference to conference, speculating on the future of our defence. Infrequently, they issue communiqués, but mostly we have to rely on foreign press reports and selective press briefings in Whitehall.
In a few minutes, the House will be remembering that, 80 years ago today, the armistice that brought to an end the first world war was signed. Most of us lost relatives in those terrible battles. The loss of life was on a scale unimaginable today, when such carnage would be unacceptable. That is why, if we love peace, the people of these islands will always have to prepare for war.
There are always some who say that the sacrifices of the first and second world wars were futile. They were not futile. It is because our youngest, fittest, brightest and best risked their lives that our Parliament is today debating the future of the common defence of

301
the peaceful, stable and expanding democracies that have grown from the ashes of the countries that twice this century tore themselves to pieces. In the abiding hope of peace and prosperity for Europe in the next century, we will remember them.
10.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing what he rightly described as a timely debate on the European Union and defence policy. He strayed from that important subject by, among other things, disparaging Oxford. I do not know whether he has discussed that with the Leader of the Opposition or with some of his other colleagues; perhaps we are seeing a new fault line in the Conservative party.
I was astonished that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned the leaking of Government papers, especially after the results of the inquiry into the leaking of the White Paper on the strategic defence review. I should have thought that a period of silence on the subject would be appropriate.
As hon. Members know, the Amsterdam treaty will come into force when the final instrument of ratification is deposited. We expect that to be soon, although it will depend on the agenda of other national Parliaments. The treaty provides important new instruments to strengthen the common foreign and security policy. It also clarifies and sets limits on the defence aspects of CFSP and the role of the Western European Union in providing the European Union with access to an operational capability.
The Government have launched a wide-ranging debate in the European Union on the future of Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister opened the debate on defence and security issues at the informal European Union summit in Austria at the end of October and, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence reinforced that by leading the discussion at an informal conference of EU Defence Ministers in Vienna last week. Moreover, I dealt with the subject in the House on 20 October.
Hon. Members mentioned the problems that arose during previous crises. It is because of those problems that our aim is to enable the European Union to have a more united and influential voice, which may be articulated with greater speed and coherence through the common foreign and security policy. That voice must be backed up, when the need arises, with effective and prompt military action. The European Union must be able both to decide and to act quickly and effectively to achieve common goals. We believe that that will require some fresh thinking on the future direction of European defence.
Mr. MacShane: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be most welcome if the British Army and, indeed, the European armies, sent their engineering corps and regiments—our Sappers
—to help rebuild central America? 1 know that I speak for the Territorial Army engineers in Rotherham, who would be delighted to help to rebuild bridges and roads and to bring some peace and hope to that devastated region. Britain could lead an
302
armada for peace involving our European partners' armies and professional military engineers. Much equipment—including JCBs and bulldozers—is currently mothballed, so let us send it to central America, to show that our Sappers and engineers from other European armies can provide concrete help.
Mr. Spellar: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the enormous efforts of our troops in that appalling emergency. Further discussions are taking place on the most cost-effective and operationally effective ways in which to help in the full-scale reconstruction of the countries in that area, but I am sure that his comments will be considered.
Mr. Blunt: The Minister said that the European Union must have the capacity to act. However, under the Amsterdam treaty, the EU will ask the WEU to act for it. Is he presaging a change in Government policy, whereby such capabilities will be given to the EU?
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait, as the later part of my speech will make clear the direction in which we are moving.
The changes are a development of our on-going policy, and accusations about a lack of co-ordination are, frankly, ludicrous. Britain has always sought to build strong foundations for European security. Under the post-war Labour Government, we were a founder member of both the Atlantic Alliance and the Western European Union. Since then, Governments of both parties have contributed to the successful growth and adaptation of those organisations throughout their history, as they have evolved to respond to changing circumstances, just as they must today.
We have played a key role in developing the European security and defence identity within NATO, an initiative launched at NATO's Brussels summit in 1994 under the previous Administration and strengthened in 1996 at Berlin. The first meeting of NATO Defence Ministers at the level of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels, 10 days after Berlin, attended by the then Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, warmly welcomed the Berlin agreement and agreed to oversee the implementation of its defence and military aspects. I was slightly confused about whether the hon. Member for Reigate supported those decisions by the previous Administration.
We have also been a key player in developing the Western European Union's ability to enable Europeans to act together militarily: an idea that dates back to 1984, when the WEU was reactivated as the vehicle for developing a common European defence identity.
We are rightly proud of a defence capability that is respected and admired throughout the world, and will be all the more so following the implementation of the strategic defence review. We should also be proud of our readiness to intervene to help those in need and to stamp out violence and repression: to act as a force for good. It is right and proper that we bring our experience to the table and ensure that the debate takes a realistic and pragmatic course, reflecting our own interests, and that European rhetoric is turned into hard-nosed reality.
Contrary to the unfounded assertions of the hon. Member for Reigate, we are not talking about removing defence from the control of national Governments and

303
national Parliaments. Of course, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, member states must retain control of the use of their armed forces and the circumstances in which they are placed in danger.
We do not believe that it would be right for the European Commission or the European Parliament to have any direct role in those decisions; nor must there be any question of undermining NATO or attempting to duplicate it. NATO will rightly remain the foundation of our collective defence, as set out in article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty. That was explicitly recognised for the first time in a European Union context in the Amsterdam treaty.
Our aim is to strengthen Europe's position in the world. Europe's 370 million citizens expect and deserve nothing less. We want to ensure that Europe can speak with authority and act with decisiveness. For that to be a reality, European foreign policy needs to be coherent, responsive and credible.
There is no simple way of achieving that. Partly, it is a question of ensuring that we have sufficient common political will; perhaps even more importantly, it requires the establishment of an effective defence capability to underpin that will; and partly we need to get right the institutional arrangements that link the two.
Mr. Brazier: Does it not show what an exercise in fantasy building the European military dream is for the Minister to speak of underpinning defence capability when it is so clear that countries throughout Europe, with the honourable exception of France, are in the process of slashing their military budgets? Projects are being cancelled in Germany at this very moment.
Mr. Spellar: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should disparage, for example, the very effective joint amphibious capability that we have with the Dutch. That is an excellent example, and we want to develop that relationship. I am sure that he would agree that that is the right way to assert a proper European presence within NATO, which, as he would also surely agree, is the cornerstone of our defence policy.
The positive responses of our European partners to the speeches by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence bear testimony to the timeliness and importance of our approach.
We cannot conjure up shared political will by waving a wand. We need only look at recent experience to see how difficult it is to agree policies that respect and accommodate the diverse interests of all our European partners, whose international postures range from strict neutrality to active interventionism. Having reached agreement, it is equally, if not more, difficult to respond rapidly to changing circumstances.
To take our place in the world we will need to move beyond that, towards a foreign policy that is both forward looking and proactive and has the ability to respond to fast-moving situations. That will provide a response to the criticisms of past practice that have rightly been made in the Chamber.
Mr. Blunt: The Minister has still to address the Government's policy on the Western European Union. Nothing that he has said is inconsistent with a proposal to
304
abolish the WEU. The Amsterdam treaty, which was signed by the Minister for the Armed Forces in his previous capacity, is not even in force yet, and the Ministry of Defence has yet to deny that a proposal to overturn the whole basis of the way in which our defence is treated is actively being considered.
Mr. Spellar: We do not intend to be frightened by the various ghosts that the hon. Gentleman is conjuring up. It will be easier to get through this speech if I am allowed to follow on logically rather than being constantly interrupted.
We will need to exploit the instruments that were created at Amsterdam. The appointment of a high representative for the common foreign and security policy, with real standing and authority, will be a step in the right direction, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for that. We will have significantly advanced our ability to decide and to react, but that will not be enough: we also need to enhance our ability to act.
If Europe is to have a stronger voice in the world, European armed forces will need to be capable of supporting our position. We need to put muscle behind Europe's foreign policy for those few hard cases when the normal instruments of foreign policy—trade, economic and political relations and diplomacy—are not enough.
Hon. Members will be aware of Kofi Annan's statement on his return from Iraq. He said:
"You can do a lot with diplomacy but, of course, you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up with firmness and force."
That is frequently quoted, but it is a perfect encapsulation of what we should be striving to achieve for Europe, especially in those situations in which our North American allies are not directly engaged. We need to be confident that, when we call for action, we have the right means at our disposal to act. Having the right means will contribute, bottom up, to the process of building the confidence and the shared political will that European foreign policy needs.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Spellar: We need a defence capability that is fit for today's world. We must recognise that future crises may arise anywhere and at any time. We need armed forces that are deployable and sustainable, powerful and flexible, mobile, survivable and highly capable. Those were the fundamental tenets of the strategic defence review, reflecting the approach that we have taken to modernising our armed forces better to suit their tasks of today and tomorrow.
Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister still not give way? Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Spellar: Effective military capability and collective political will are clearly the key requirements. The institutional arrangements have been the focus of much speculation and coverage.
Mr. Blunt: Surely the Minister must give way now.
Mr. Spellar: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to get to the point that he wants me to cover, he had better stop shouting.

305
The key is to be confident that, when we call for action, we have not only the right means at our disposal but the right mechanisms to act promptly. Mechanisms already exist to turn the common political will of the European Union into military action. The member states have agreed that the Western European Union should support the EU in framing the defence aspects of the common foreign and security policy and that the EU can avail itself of the WEU for operational purposes, relating to the Petersberg tasks, covering humanitarian and rescue operations.
At the Berlin summit in 1996, NATO declared its readiness to provide assets and capabilities to the WEU for European-led operations.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Spellar: The procedures are cumbersome and we want to consider with our partners and allies whether it might be possible to streamline them to match our aspirations. In other words, once we make a decision, can we be sure that it will lead quickly and effectively to action? That may have institutional implications, but that is not where we are starting from. Our options include breathing new life into the WEU, which is important, but that option has pros and cons.
As we prepare to observe a two-minute silence to remember those who fell or were injured and those who lost loved ones in two world wars and other conflicts during this century, it is right that we recognise the enormous contribution that Europe's security institutions, especially NATO, have made to keeping the peace in Europe over the past 50 years. They remain relevant because they have evolved to reflect changing circumstances. We owe it to succeeding generations to ensure that we continue to work to preserve and to strengthen them. Today, we remember an older generation who secured peace in Europe. Tomorrow, we will continue to work to ensure peace for the next generation.
11 am
Madam Speaker: Order. Let us stand for the two-minute silence.
11.2 am
Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Eastern Region
11.2 am
Mrs. Christine Butler: I am pleased to bring the important subject of the economic development of the east of England region to the notice of the House. Recent legislation will provide for nine English regions, including the east of England, and 1 shall focus on the six counties that will form the east of England region.
I was surprised, and somewhat perturbed, by recent inquiries from the media and others that suggested that they did not know the boundaries of the region. They did not know how many counties it contained and they were not well advised about the new regional development agencies or the regional chambers that will be established and become effective from next year. They also did not know the overall remit of the regional agencies, stakeholders and chambers. Therefore, I propose to outline that remit and inform the House and the wider public about it.
The east of England region comprises Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, including the unitary authorities of Luton, Southend and Thurrock. The importance of regional development should be obvious to everyone, because the regions will be able to do what Whitehall alone cannot. I remember the days of Harold Wilson and the Invest in Britain Bureau, which did a marvellous job. Since then, we have had Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, which proved very successful. It is time now for regional devolution to the English regions and for the promotion, especially, of the east of England region.
The board of the regional development agency is now being drawn up and the chairman is Vincent Watts. I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him every success in his endeavours. I hope that he is listening to the debate. The chambers are also being formed and they will be the accountable base in the region. I look forward to the time, perhaps in the next Parliament, when we have regional government with a directly elected chamber.
The new policies have some detractors, but I hope that today's debate will reassure them that the policies are right. The need for a strategic investment and overview, with counties and stakeholders working together for the greater benefit of the entire region, is something no one can deny. The new RDA has the support of the voluntary sector, the Confederation of British Industry, local government, the training and enterprise councils and a range of other stakeholders. They are happy with the new development and wish to see it go even further, as do I.
The regional boards will bring private sector leadership that will help to drive the regional economy forward. The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 describes the functions of the regional development agencies. They are:
"to further the economic development and the regeneration of its area … to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness … to promote employment … to enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment in its area … and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its area to do so."
That last point should be underlined.
The region of the east of England comes 42nd out of 77 regions in Europe for gross domestic product. Until 1995, it was sixth in the UK—those are the latest statistics

307
that I have found—but I have been told that the situation has improved since then and the region may now lie third. The region is diverse. To the north, it has food processing and huge agricultural interests. Research and development activity is above average, and includes a pharmaceuticals base. It has a defence industry, including firms such as GEC Marconi, which has been a significant influence. Research and development takes place at Ford's huge plant at Dunton near Basildon. A wonderful skills and technology transfer is about to happen, and I welcome the recent developments in that respect in some of our more notable university towns. More needs to be done.
The Cambridge area is one of the region's drivers for science and technology. 1 hesitate to step on the toes of another hon. Member. so I will not to go into too much detail, but I want to describe some of the things that are happening and that need to happen. We face real challenges in respect of our evident weaknesses.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Butler: Briefly, but I encourage my hon. Friend to make her speech later. If she—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Lady must take her seat when the occupant of the Chair stands. Hon. Members who are speaking should give way or decline interventions immediately not have a mini-debate on the subject.
Mrs. Campbell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mrs. Christine Butler.
Mrs. Butler: I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Campbell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not wish to interrupt the flow of her remarkable speech. The growth of high-technology industry in Cambridge and south Cambridgeshire can be an important driver for the region, but it is important to get the infrastructure needed to allow the diffusion of high-tech industry. I hope that we agree that some parts of our region badly need development but are prevented from getting it because high-tech industry is concentrated into a small, congested area around Cambridge.
Mrs. Butler: My hon. Friend is right. Our region is diverse and has disparities within it. Some areas are performing well, some not so well. In general, the better-performing areas are central and the less-well-performing areas are the peripheral and coastal areas and those nearer London. They have problems. In some cases, transportation links are weak. We need increased investment in public transport to supply the rural hinterland around Norwich and Cambridge, and towards the coast, as well as seeking regeneration in the south.
In south Essex, our old infrastructure needs to be tackled. It would help if the east Thames gateway were extended as far as Southend, matching the extension that is developing well in Kent on the other side of the river. We are not foolish enough to believe that that would bring
308
enormous grant aid, but it would align us with the rest of the corridor. We would be able to bid into the regeneration and seek improvement in south Essex.
The east of England has a diverse economy with no single predominant industry but it has one of the largest concentrations of new and growing businesses. Within that there are significant geographical concentrations in successful industries such as food processing in the north of the region, pharmaceuticals in the south, and biotechnology in the Cambridge area. However, it must be recognised that the region has areas of economic inactivity and low productivity. Some urban, coastal and rural communities have suffered from adverse market changes and deprivation, with low earnings and household income depressing local spending.
The Government offices for the regions have been tasked by the Government to produce a strategy. I have the "East of England Competitiveness Strategy 1998–2008", and I was pleased to see it. Hard work has gone into it and I congratulate the Government office that produced it on its stalwart efforts in getting it in before time. It is a good programme. The background information notes that gross domestic product per capita in the east of England is 92 per cent. of the European average, placing it 42nd of the 77 European regions.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. Does she agree that the document to which she referred is not yet the strategy of the regional development agency, which is not due till next October? Can she venture a project that is to be undertaken by the RDA that would add value to existing activities in the eastern region?
Mrs. Butler: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is saying it to trip me up. I was hoping for a constructive debate. We are present at the imminent birth of something. I am trying to describe the work and research that has gone into what needs to be done and the methods for doing it. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to shake his head and smile. I note that his party is not enamoured of the strategic approach that can be gained through regions. I think that he is wrong.
Mr. Kerry Pollard: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been increased inward investment in the region as a direct result of the establishment of the RDA?
Mrs. Butler: My hon. Friend is right, but effective implementation, with the boards and chambers up and running, has not yet happened. It is being readied, but already the interest and the work that has been going on have encouraged investment. Improvements have been made already. I do not have the information with me for the enlightenment of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), but I have read of areas where inward investment has occurred because of that approach.
The aim of the strategy is that, in 10 years, the east of England should be one of the 30 most prosperous regions in Europe. Considerable benchmarking has been going on. The objectives are outlined as follows:
"Improving the Performance of Existing Businesses
Attracting and Creating more Businesses

309
Developing a World Class Workforce
Developing a More Effective Communications Infrastructure
Helping Business to Meet Regulatory Requirements
Economic Development to be Environmentally and Socially Sustainable."
For the next steps for each objective, the competitiveness strategy identifies the key actions that the east of England needs to take. On
"Improving the Performance of Existing Businesses",
it identifies:
"Promoting Benchmarking
Encouraging Innovation
Preparing for EMU
Developing Expertise in Business Support
Improving Management Training."
It is not a moment too soon. There is a productivity deficit not only in the east of England, but in the entire United Kingdom. By saying that I do not mean to take a shot at the work force—an interpretation that Opposition Members have previously tried to promote, which is dishonourable of them—but to urge improvement of management skills and procedures, and an increase in investment.
To attract and create more businesses, we need to increase inward investment. We need to strengthen support for start-ups, identify sectors for support and arrange local clusters surrounding a dominant industry, whose core needs can be met through a mutual approach to the product of the main business. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) looks puzzled: I am willing to give way if he wants to ask a question.
We need to develop a world-class work force by defining skills needs. That problem requires attention. I have attended several regional forums in which businesses say that, although they have job vacancies, the work force lack the fully developed skills needed to meet the demands of the local labour market.
Mr. Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for inviting me to intervene. She has raised the importance of encouraging business start-ups. As a fellow Essex Member of Parliament, will she tell the House what she thinks has been the significance of the AMT—the regional centre for the advancement of manufacturing and technology—in Essex?
Mrs. Butler: I was a member of Essex county council when the decisions on that and the Konver programmes were being considered. In truth, to judge the benefit of the AMT is not an easy task.
Mr. Burns: Why not?
Mrs. Butler: I shall continue with my speech, because other hon. Members want to make a contribution.
We have skills deficits in certain areas and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do what he can to help address those problems. I suggest that what is needed is closer co-operation between further and higher education, as people in certain parts of the region lack ready access to higher education. I congratulate some local institutions that are franchising with further education and thereby
310
enabling students to undertake higher education courses locally. Anglia polytechnic university, which is an example of a good regional university that is vocationally oriented, offers a model which others might do well to emulate.
It would be wrong to talk about what business can do without addressing what others can do. Two planning conferences—Serplan, the south-east regional planning conference, and SCEALA, the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities—meet and their remit is wider than the eastern region. I hope that, in future, there will be one planning conference that covers the eastern region as a whole, as that would be helpful.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the marvellous work he has done so far. It is his stated opinion that, within the current proposals and policies and the legislation that is soon to be enacted, there is a promise of evolution. I am pleased about that, but I should like that evolution to develop as fast as possible. Much will depend on the performance of the RDAs and the regional chambers.
I want the funding regime for the RDA to be more generous. I acknowledge the money coming from English Partnerships and the Rural Development Commission and the valuable work of the Government office for the eastern region, but I also want the training and enterprise council budget eventually to go to the RDA, and the TEC and other bodies to have to put in value-added bids. That would be a good way to ensure that the dynamism behind the economic regeneration and future development of the area rests with the RDA; thus, the RDA will be seen as important and powerful, which will attract the right players to it.
I should not like to finish without mentioning transport. If we are not careful, we will bid for too many roads, which would not fit in with the integrated transport White Paper. Instead, we need to reduce the need to travel. Our efforts might take the form of a regional planning guidance note 13, which would try to drive planning towards having transportation corridors, with areas of employment and housing more closely integrated, thereby obviating the need to travel long distances to work. That trend is stronger in our region than anywhere else. Such policy must be developed for the long term because planning takes time and the implementation of plans takes even longer, but we have to start some time and now is as good a time as any.
Given the eastern region's wonderful geographical position within the United Kingdom and Europe, concomitant with proposals for economic development and regeneration in the eastern region must be planning policies that promote sustainability. Those policies must guide the new boards in their promotion of the region for inward investment and relocation of businesses.
Business can help when there is no requirement for workers to be based at a specific site: for example, call centres do not need to be near an airport—they can be located anywhere. Improvements in communication technology will mean that many more businesses are free to relocate. What is needed is the right sort of support for businesses, so that those things can happen and happen more speedily.
I hope that my introduction and broad-brush description of our region—its best points and its inherent weaknesses—will generate further discussion. I shall

311
enjoy listening to other hon. Members making their contribution this morning. Now that we are about to establish a real identity for the east of England, I hope that stakeholders outside the Chamber will add their voice to the general debate, which I am sure will encourage partnership working in the years to come.
11.29 am
Mr. Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing this important debate for the eastern region, which, as she said, comprises the six counties of Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. They have a combined population of 5 million and the region is therefore bigger than many countries. I do not, however, advocate independence from the United Kingdom. I seek fairness from the Government and the European Union.
The eastern region is the fastest growing in Britain. Not for nothing is it known in government speak as GOER—the Government office for the eastern region. We are all goers in the eastern counties. Between 1981 and 1991, the region's population grew by 6.1 per cent., and an even faster increase of 6.4 per cent. is forecast by 2000, compared with 3.2 per cent. for the country.
With an area of 7,380 square miles or 19,117 square kilometres, the eastern region represents almost 8 per cent. of UK land area. The population is just under 10 per cent. of the UK total. The region, as has been pointed out, is diverse and stretches from the Wash to the Thames, skirting the suburban fringe of Greater London and embracing the finest agricultural land in Britain. Industrial and commercial centres are located throughout the six counties. New and historic towns and cities are surrounded in most instances by extensive rural areas, which give the eastern region its distinctive urban-rural mix.
The coastline is one of the longest in the country, with major seaports and other maritime interests to be found along it. London's developing third airport is at Stansted. The region has six universities—including the University of Essex, which is Britain's most international university—and one of Britain's largest garrison towns. It has a wide range of industrial and manufacturing industries, one of which, I am pleased to say, has been voted Britain's exporter of the year—Woods Air Movement in my constituency.
Although the region is generally prosperous, there are pockets of serious economic and social deprivation, particularly in areas affected by the decline of traditional industries such as agriculture, fishing and defence, as well as the decline of seaside resorts. Its population, gross domestic product and number of businesses represent around 10 per cent. of UK totals, which makes it easy to relate to national statistics.
Unemployment in September was 3.3 per cent. compared with a UK average of 4.6 per cent. That will be of little comfort to my constituents who were told yesterday that the long-established printing firm of Spottiswoode Ballantyne is to shut with the loss of 140 jobs, along with around 90 jobs being lost at the sister company of Cowells in Ipswich. Also, yesterday, 30 workers at Albany Laundry in Colchester heard that they were to be made redundant, news which follows confirmation of the loss of 60 jobs at the hospital laundry in the town.
312
While the regional unemployment average is below the national figure, the picture is not even. In Clacton, Harwich, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, for example, unemployment is more than double the regional average.
The eastern region needs to draw on its strengths to overcome its weaknesses. I shall leave it to others to concentrate on the problems of agriculture, which remains a dominant feature of the region's prosperity.
The need to improve the transport infrastructure is particularly important. I hope that the Government will push forward with all speed the development of the Eurorail connection at Stratford in east London. The road link between Ipswich and Norwich needs to be upgraded. The Minister's assurance today on those matters would be appreciated.
It is vital that we spread new development more evenly. Some areas are experiencing pressures of growth while others witness decline and deprivation. That balance must take account of the need to retain the best of the region's distinctive qualities: our attractive natural and built environment. We have a diverse economy, and we must maintain that. We have an adaptable work force with good industrial relations.
The eastern region, however, is 42nd out of the 77 regions in the European Union Economic League. We have the potential to make it one of the most prosperous in Europe, as set out in the "East of England Competitiveness Strategy 1998–2008", the launch of which I attended in the summer.
Today's debate provides an opportunity for the 56 Members of Parliament for the eastern region to highlight all that is good in our part of the UK. We look to the Government to treat us fairly and ask for nothing less than an eastern promise.
11.35 am
Mr. Patrick Hall: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing this debate, which the Commons Library informs me is the first debate on economic development in the east of England for at least 20 years. That is, perhaps, an interesting comment on the previous Parliament.
I stress the importance of recognising the east of England as a region and ensuring that the region recognises itself. That is not an easy task because, when one leaves the traditional counties of East Anglia and reaches the south-western and western parts of the region, one finds that people do not have a strong regional identity. In Bedford and Kempston, for example, the connections to the west—to Milton Keynes and Northampton—are at least as strong as those to Cambridge in the east. None of those connections is as strong as those to the south—to London.
If we were to adopt a laissez-faire attitude, London would become the regional capital of everywhere that looks to it for one function or another. That region would be huge, disparate and over-dominated by London. It would be difficult for any activity to take place in most parts of the region because people would live there and travel to and from London. There would be suburban deserts with over-congested transport links into and out of the metropolitan centre. That would be the result of bad planning or, more likely, an abdication of planning, leading to economic under-performance and a denial of opportunity for hundreds of thousands of people whose quality of life would be impaired.

313
In some ways, that is exactly what has happened in past decades. We need, and there is a consensus for, economically dynamic communities across the country, not only in big cities but in towns and villages that have a lot to offer in their own right. We need communities that offer a balance of jobs and social, leisure and educational opportunities. We need communities that enjoy civic pride and care about their area. One of the necessary ingredients for achieving that are strong regions, which offer valuable qualities different from those in London or any other big city.
Today, we have the opportunity to drive forward that process because we have a Government who understand the importance of regional development and who will soon speed up that process through the introduction of regional development agencies.
A strong eastern region will not weaken the special role of London or devalue contacts with any other town or region. It will strengthen those contacts and the country as a whole. We have to make the eastern region work. Much needs to be said about that, but there is not much time for me to elaborate, and I hope that other hon. Members will contribute.
I shall touch on two strategic issues, transport and relative deprivation. The existing transport network illustrates my point. Bedfordshire, for example, is one of the fastest-growing areas of the country in residential development and population growth, yet that has not been matched over the years by investment in the economy, in jobs and in the transport infrastructure. Unbalanced planning has resulted in some of the most heavily congested roads in the east of England, particularly the Al and M1, which are, of course, north-south links.
I am convinced that there are great opportunities along an east-west axis. The eastern region will not prosper unless east-west links are considerably improved. One of the best ways of boosting the eastern region, including my constituency, Bedford, and Kempston, would be to deliver an east-west rail link.
A consortium of local authorities and Railtrack has been working on that project for some years. It is an imaginative proposal for a new rail route running from Ipswich to Cambridge, and then through Bedford, Milton Keynes, Oxford and Swindon, connecting finally to Bristol, with all the important junctions north to south with which that line would connect. It is a fantastic idea.
I understand that a revised business case is being prepared and will be submitted to the Government later this autumn. I hope that it will be sympathetically received, and that Ministers are in no doubt about my support for the concept and for the preferred route through Bedford. In the context of an integrated transport policy and the need to promote environmental sustainability, I hope that an east-west rail link will become attractive for freight as well as for passenger movements.
The second topic that I shall mention briefly, deprivation, is essentially a matter of perception and recognition. The absence of a clear voice for the eastern counties over many years may have assisted in the development of a view in Whitehall and Government circles that there are few problems in the east of England. The impression has been one of general affluence.
314
There are indeed comfortable villages, towns and suburbs, but there are also pockets of deprivation in both town and country, which are not always recognised by Government statistics.
The index of local deprivation, for example, focuses on whole council areas. Bedford borough ranks 218 out of 354 local authority areas in England in the 1998 index of local deprivation, yet three wards in Bedford rank in the top 10 per cent. of the most deprived wards in England. If one adds deprivation in other wards in Bedford and Kempston, about 30,000 people out of 92,000 in the constituency live in such areas—quite a large pocket. That is not the picture usually associated with Bedford and Kempston or with the eastern region.
I do not wish to detract from efforts to tackle deprivation, social exclusion, unemployment and under-performance in any other part of the country. The Government exist for the many, not just for the few. Therefore, every community deserves recognition, and the needs of every community must be measured more accurately. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise that there are pressing needs in Bedford and Kempston and in the east of England. I am sure that, in the months and years ahead, he will hear more, not less, from me and my hon. Friends about the needs of the east of England.
11.44 am
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I, too, am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) secured the debate, and that she spent so much time outlining the region in general, as that allows me to concentrate on my part of it.
For someone born in East Anglia and who represents an East Anglian constituency, it has not been easy to come to terms with the boundaries of the eastern region. Many people in my constituency find it hard to comprehend what Lowestoft has in common with Watford, so it is not surprising that the eastern region has yet to develop its identity fully. Like other Members of Parliament and like business and community leaders in my constituency, I believe that we must make the best of what we have—hence, my support for the debate, to help to establish the identity of the eastern region in the House and further afield.
I strongly support a regional dimension to politics and government. That is important for the devolution of over-centralised power in this country, and in order to answer the West Lothian question and to position ourselves effectively in Europe, something that our region has not done in the past but is now beginning to do. There is strong support from business in my constituency for the new regional development agency, and we have high hopes of its tackling the problems in our part of the region.
As has been said, the outstanding features of the eastern region's economy are its diversity and disparities. It is generally seen as a prosperous region, but there are unemployment black spots. Lowestoft in my constituency, and the neighbouring town of Great Yarmouth, have suffered and continue to suffer, perhaps more than any other towns. We have long had the highest unemployment figures in the region. They move up and down, but they are always at least twice the regional average and three times the rate in the areas with the best figures. Unemployment is accompanied by low pay, deprivation, poor health and higher crime.

315
People in my constituency ask, "Why us? Why must we suffer?" They are loyal and hard working, there are good industrial relations and low labour costs, plenty of cheap industrial land is available, and the area is a nice place to live. Lowestoft officially has the best beach in England and we have the Broads national park—a pleasant environment.
However, for the past 15 years, people in my area have suffered unacceptable employment levels and a depressed economy. It is important to analyse the reasons for that decline. We have lost our traditional industries and therefore thousands of jobs. In Lowestoft, we have lost two shipyards and two food canning factories. Many hon. Members will remember the old Co-op brand name Waveney, which gave its name to my constituency. It exists no longer. The Eastern Coach Works was once the largest employer, but that has gone too, as has a shoe factory. Hon. Members will be familiar with the decline in fishing. Once, one could walk right across Lowestoft harbour on the boats lined up next to one another. Now we have just 10 trawlers and 30 smaller inshore vessels. Our inner harbour area contains acres of dereliction, with factories empty or razed to the ground.
We have benefited to some extent from the cushion provided by the offshore oil and gas industry, but jobs there are being reduced. We have had the cost reduction initiative for the new era—CRINE—and unfortunately 140 jobs were lost at Shell's Lowestoft base two weeks ago.
Our part of the region has not succeeded in attracting new industries on a significant scale. Why? I am pleased that other hon. Members have drawn attention to the poor transport links. East Anglia is usually not seen as a peninsula because of its rounded shape, but if one drew a map showing travelling time rather than travelling distance, the peninsula would be greatly extended, possibly right across the North sea.
People in my area were disappointed by the roads review. We feel that we are condemned to continue with roads no better than winding country lanes, clogged up with tractors and with trucks passing through villages— which neither the truck drivers want to do, nor the villagers want to suffer. Our regional newspaper, the Eastern Daily Press, refers to life in the "slow lane". Our branch line railways are no better: it can take longer to travel by rail than by road. That affects business competitiveness in our area. I hope that the forthcoming competitiveness White Paper will recognise the degree to which transport costs and travelling time affect competition.
Transport accounts for a significant proportion of business costs. It is an instrument and an engine of economic development—not just an environmental inconvenience. Ironically, Lowestoft exists because it is a port—in fact, it is the country's most easterly port and has enormous potential as it points straight at Europe. There is container business at the port, which also handles grain imports and exports. Although a port integrates sea and land transport, it cannot operate successfully unless the land transport is adequate. We look forward to improvements in our road and rail transport. East-west links are important, but with only one such link, along the A14 corridor, the northern and eastern parts of the region would be further marginalised.
316
In order to attract new business, we must offer companies some incentive to relocate to our part of the region. Lowestoft does not have assisted area status and, without it, it is difficult for the council to summon the resources to provide a reason for companies to relocate there. As a former council leader, I dealt with companies that were seriously interested in relocating to the area. However, because we could offer them no real incentive to do so, they often went somewhere else.
It is a travesty of justice that, under the previous Government, Lowestoft did not receive assisted area status—although it was granted to Great Yarmouth. The previous Government realised their mistake and cobbled together some European structural funds, to the extent that Lowestoft was redefined as a rural area and received objective 5b funding. In terms of regional strategy, anyone can see that Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth must be considered together. The answer is to give them both assisted area status and European structural funds, so that the areas that have suffered for so long can be regenerated properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) would have said the same thing today had he not been attending to other duties in his constituency.
We need a sub-regional strategy for the north and the east of our region, which suffer the most economic deprivation. There is a deeply held feeling that the previous Government severely neglected our area. When one lives on the coast—out on a limb—one is always anxious lest one be forgotten. This Government must not make the same mistake as the previous Government. The regional development agency must recognise our area as a priority and support us with financial measures. If the Government ensure that outcome, they will retain the confidence of people in my local area.
11.50 am
Miss Melanie Johnson: I draw hon. Members' attention to my registered interest with Roche, a pharmaceutical company in my constituency. It gives me great pleasure to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on her success in securing it. Regional development agencies herald the advent of a new era in this country and propose a new identity for the eastern region. They are extremely welcome.
I hope that hon. Members from all political parties will fight with equal vigour and enthusiasm on behalf of the eastern region and its new identity. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) nods his head. I congratulate him on his 100 per cent. support for the region. I also congratulate my hon. Friends on their enthusiastic support for the debate. However, I am disappointed to see only two Conservative Members in the Chamber—although almost twice as many Conservative Members as Labour Members represent the region. I am sorry that the Opposition have not made a positive contribution to the debate, and I hope that hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber will make such a contribution in future.
The eastern region comprises examples of the United Kingdom's strengths and many of its weaknesses. I believe that problems, and many answers, can be found in the region.
Mr. Burns rose
Miss Johnson: I will not give way as there is not sufficient time.

317
Hertfordshire, where my constituency is located, is an area of skills and relative affluence. It is important to stress the word "relative", because I shall touch on some points raised by other hon. Members this morning—particularly the two previous contributions. Unemployment in Hertfordshire is at its lowest since 1991, and owner-occupation in Hertfordshire is well above the national and regional averages. One factor contributing to that result is the strength of the pharmaceutical base in the region.
More than 2,000 companies undertake pharmaceutical research and development, and a slightly greater number are involved in manufacturing and production. An estimated £900 million was spent on research and development in 1997, and 1996 figures for the region place the value of industry exports at more than £1.6 billion. Interestingly, the region's pharmaceutical industry contributes to the economy by generating an extra gross domestic product of £2 billion a year.
The pharmaceutical industry and other industries are attracted to the area—there are four very active pharmaceutical companies in my constituency—by our highly skilled work force. Some 80 per cent. of the population in Hertfordshire are classified in social groups 1, 2 or 3. Hon. Members can see that industry is drawing on a highly skilled base, which I know that the Government want to see replicated elsewhere in the region and the country. We must increase the skills base and thus boost the economic returns of industry.
However, those statistics and other indices often conceal inequalities. My hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) spoke eloquently about the way in which those indices disguise the poverty in their constituencies. The situation in my constituency is no different. One in 10 of Hertfordshire's electoral wards has been assessed, on the basis of wide-ranging factors, as being more deprived than the United Kingdom national average. There are 19 deprived wards in Hertfordshire, and areas of concern include unemployment and poor housing conditions. We must take those factors into account when compiling a picture of the region's needs and we must combat those pockets of deprivation while building on the region's economic strengths.
We must recognise, too, the region's diversity—although, sad to say, the region has lost much of that. The once large British Aerospace presence in my constituency is now a vacant site. That traditional industry employed thousands of people in my constituency but it was decimated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and its 896-acre site is now scheduled for development. That site could be used for housing, to create employment or for university use. We must encourage those sorts of interests in the region on a large scale.
The Minister will not be surprised if I turn to another theme common to those sketched by earlier contributors to the debate. Development of the site—I hope that it will commence within a year or so—is dependent upon improved east-west communications. The site cannot be developed without substantial support for local public transport and better east-west communications. The county council in Hertfordshire, and my colleagues there and in neighbouring counties, are keen to see the central
318
Herts passenger transport scheme receive active support from the Government. That scheme is vital if we are to ensure that major sites such as this are developed and the local and national economies strengthened as a result. We need the link through Watford, St. Albans and through Welwyn Hatfield on towards the east to ensure that massive developments on hundreds of acres, involving housing and nearly 50 hectares for employment, can get under way.
We need to be sure that we have a new deal that will take account of the ambiguities and diversity of the eastern region. My hon. Friend the Minister has heard the good news and the bad this morning. He has heard about the areas where we are strong and the things that we need to tackle. We welcome the Government's approach. Their collaborative approach recognises that all the counties in the region and Hertfordshire can be a model for other areas to emulate, given the way they work together, and the way in which these issues can be dealt with. However, it needs to be recognised that affluence is still to be found alongside pockets of poverty.
I hope that transport will be recognised as one of the key factors. We have the tools to do much of the job ourselves, but we need a transport infrastructure and an integrated transport system that will ensure that progress is made.
It is good to know that Opposition Members who have not contributed to the debate have remained silent to allow Labour Members to speak for longer. I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) particularly and his Opposition Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for their generosity in that regard. However, I hope that the Opposition will be better represented in fighting the case for an exciting region that has a whole lot going for it. My colleagues and I think that it has a bright and promising future, with the Government's full support.
12.1 pm
Dr. George Turner: The contributions of my hon. Friends have emphasised the diversity of need within the region. In looking to economic development, we need to recognise that a priority is to protect what we have as well as considering the new that we need to develop.
It would be remiss in a debate on the region, which includes some of the best agricultural land in the country, not to make some reference to the needs of farming. The House has spent some time on the issue in recent weeks and I do not need to rehearse the many difficulties that the farming community faces. In the part of Norfolk that I represent, which was at the heart of the agriculture revolution, the main farming interests remain arable. Therefore, we have not suffered to the same extent as the livestock and dairy industries. However, there is no area of farming in recent times that has completely escaped difficulty.
I have been reminded regularly by the farming community—most recently at a meeting with Tom Pexton, the deputy president of the National Farmers Union, Nick Velsboer, the local chairman, and others—of the wide range of problems that it faces. I am confident, following the debate on farming last week, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is aware of the difficulties and is arguing the case

319
in the Cabinet for a set of measures to tackle the immediate issues. Yes, we need urgent action; but I tell the Government that that action needs to be part of a coherent package. It is important that we use extra money to modernise and adapt farming to the needs of the next millennium rather than to postpone problems. We need to address Agenda 2000 and tackle the greater world trade problems that I believe will face farming. I was extremely pleased, at the meeting with the NFU, to hear that local farmers, while in anguish about their problems, recognise that the Government's role is to help them address the future of agriculture.
Agriculture is three and a half times more important in my constituency than the national average. The devastation of the work available in agriculture since the second world war means that it now represents only about 5 per cent. of the economy in my constituency. Those who would see Norfolk as a place for the landed gentry and for tourism may not recognise that 95 per cent. of those who live in the county are dependent on work in industry, commerce and the service industries. That is much the same as elsewhere. When taking averages over large swathes of countryside it is easy not to appreciate that some of the wards in my constituency face needs and problems as great as those anywhere in the land. I hope that the Government, through the regional mechanism, will ensure that pockets of deprivation which seem small when averaged out but which locally are extremely important to those who have to face them, are tackled.
Our needs for industry have in recent times shared much in common with the needs of the rest of the country. I regret to say that, only this morning, the financial press is reporting that the important local company Porvair, which is at the forefront of the manufacture of microporous materials and which exports 80 per cent. of what it produces out of King's Lynn, is facing a 14 per cent. reduction in the work force because of the problems that it has experienced in world markets-owing to the high value of the pound and high interest rates. However, the picture is not all gloom and John Morgan, the chairman of Porvair, believes that the company can adjust, improve productivity, face new challenges and move forward. The same applies to most of the industry in my constituency.
The specific problems that we face in the region have already been mentioned. I challenge any Minister or shadow Minister to take the A47—a recognised trans-European road from Peterborough, through Thorney to Wisbech on the way to King's Lynn—and to feel that it does not need improvement. I accept that, nationally, the balance may have been badly struck between the need to meet traffic demand and the need to have measures to reduce traffic. However, no one can come to northern East Anglia without recognising the need not only for more than one east-west link along the A14 but for dramatic improvements and a dramatic change to Governments' attitudes of the past 20 years.
Last week, during the debate on agriculture, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) referred to the Government's being inactive while Rome burned. The question that the Opposition need to address in terms of agriculture and the countryside is: who lit the fires that are burning? Our inheritance of problems in the region reflects decades of neglect of infrastructure. It is extremely difficult to entice investment to one's region to
320
provide jobs for the future and to protect the jobs that are already there unless the Government recognise the needs of those who have never been served by decent roads.
The need for improved roads must be firmly grasped, while the Government must recognise the need in the urban environment to encourage less use of the motor car. I hope that the Government will recognise also—I was among the first to welcome the investment in rural transport provision in the Budget—that we shall never be in a position in rural areas to reduce people's need for the car to get to work and get about generally. That is why we have a high percentage of car ownership in my constituency; it is not because people are wealthy, but because there is no alternative. When we count the number of buses by the week, the exhortation to get on the bus by driving up petrol prices, with no counterbalancing action from the Government, is just not fair to my constituents.
I am sure that the regional development agency and regional government will be important ways forward because, by co-operating within our regions, we can achieve more than by bickering about what goes where. I hope that we will come to sensible compromises on where offices will be located and on priorities to ensure that we do not neglect the minority simply because of the constant need to address the needs of the majority in the region.
12.10 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing this debate, which is extremely important for all of us who have constituencies in the eastern region. How refreshing it is to have had an intelligent debate divorced of the normal party political bickering that, all too often, blights discussions in this Chamber.
I begin by concentrating my remarks primarily on my county of Essex, which, in many ways, is the gateway not only to East Anglia, but to the eastern region. In the southern part of the eastern region, we are fortunate to have a work force that, as one hon. Member has mentioned, is good, well skilled in many sectors and has excellent industrial relations; so it is an area that is attractive for employment and employees, even if we do not enjoy the status in relation to assistance and regional aid that other parts of the country have.
We have a good communications network. That is not exclusive to the whole region, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great constraints on development in the eastern region is the mess that his Government left behind by eroding public transport, which makes it impossible to get from one side of the region to the other?
Mr. Burns: When I allowed that intervention, I feared that we were going to get something that was slightly out of sync with the rest of the debate—and my fears were fully justified. I do not share that poisoned and poisonous view.
In the southern part of the region, we are fortunate in that we have a good transport communications network: the M25, the M11, the A12 and the improvements that, I hope, the Minister's Department will approve shortly to

321
the A130. We have an improving rail network. About 7,000 of my constituents commute every day to London to work. Improvements in signalling, points and rolling stock over the past decade have greatly enhanced rail transport from mid-Essex.
That does not mean to say, as many hon. Members have pointed out, that no further improvements have to be made. Improvements must be made on the Al2 from the M25 to the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe. It is an important feeder road to those ports and beyond. As the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, the roads in Norfolk, although improving in certain areas, leave much scope for improvement.
As a number of hon. Members have said, we need improvements in the infrastructure of the railways. There has been talk of an east-west route from Ipswich through Welwyn Hatfield, Bedford, for which a bid was placed, Milton Keynes and towards Bristol. Given our closer economic and business development ties with Europe and the enhancement of the ports on the eastern seaboard, we need—this is overdue—improvements in that transportation to enhance the general economic well-being and attractiveness of the region, so that we can attract more businesses to it.
We have excellent academic facilities in the region. My own university, the Anglia Polytechnic university, is first rate. The university of Essex, the university of East Anglia in Norwich and, of course, the university of Cambridge in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) are vital in developing links.
Miss Melanie Johnson: The university of Hertfordshire.
Mr. Burns: We have another bid—the university of Hertfordshire. Those universities are important centres of excellence for working and developing links—in both training and product research and development—with local industries. More work must be done to build on the successes.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I have only five minutes. I do not want to eat into the Minister's time.
There is a problem in my county, not exclusively in my constituency, because it also affects the constituency of the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) and, I suspect, the Colchester area as well. Essex towns such as Chelmsford, Colchester and Basildon have a manufacturing base that one does not naturally associate with the leafy green suburbs of the home counties; the size of that manufacturing base has perhaps been unusual.
We are proud of that tradition, but many of those manufacturing companies are defence-related industries. In the past eight years in particular, with the ending of the cold war, the worldwide recession of the early 1990s and a greatly increased competitive world market, pressures have been exerted on companies to compete in those markets and to win contracts. We have paid a high price for the peace dividend, with significant redundancies being made in those defence-related industries.
322
Those companies have had the foresight to diversify, to protect and, in many ways, to expand their core base, but we have had to pay a price. We have been fortunate. I pay tribute here to Essex county council, under the control of all three main political parties over the past eight years, to the previous Government through the Department of Trade and Industry, and to this Government for the way in which they worked with the European Union to designate Essex an area that qualified for Konver funding, in relation to both Konver 1 and 2. That led to developments such as the advanced manufacturing centre in Chelmsford.
The centre has done critical and crucial work to help defence-related industry employees who have been made redundant to reskill and to retrain, and to give them the opportunity to use their skills and expertise to help to build small businesses. That is an important way forward, which puts back some of the goodness that has been taken away with the redundancies in the local economy; it starts off the small businesses of today that, I hope, will be the medium businesses of tomorrow and the larger employers of the future.
That is the way in which I would like further development to enhance the local manufacturing base. We do not want a constant erosion of that base to the point where a local community's employment base has been shifted significantly from a mix of services and manufacturing to services alone.
Not only in Essex, but throughout the region, we have to ensure that we promote ourselves as an area that is vibrant—that has much to offer both in its living environment and cultural events—so that people want to relocate there. More often than not, for financial reasons, companies will locate in areas where there are substantial Government grants through regional aid.
The east of England is a success story; it has a vibrant community. We must build on the work of many local authorities and other organisations and sell the region to ensure that we get our fair share of inward investment. We do not want to lose any more industries. Over the past 20 years, many have moved to other parts of the country because of financial benefits and local tax breaks.
I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Castle Point for regional development agencies, although we will have to await the establishment of our RDA next year to see whether it produces any concrete achievements. I disagree with her views on regional government —it would be another layer of pure bureaucracy, which would stifle rather than enhance the enterprise and initiative of business and commerce. I suspect that she and I will never agree on that matter.
I again thank the hon. Lady for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I shall now sit down so that the Minister has a reasonable time to respond to the debate.
12.20 pm
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing the debate. I am delighted that she has chosen this subject. The contributions from the Labour Benches have been very thoughtful and have done credit to the region. I do not want to introduce a sour note to the debate, but Labour has 22 Members representing the

323
region and the Opposition 33 Members, yet not one Conservative Member has participated in the debate—other than the Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). They do not take the future of their region as seriously as do Labour Members—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), 100 per cent. of the Liberal Democrat representation in the region. Before the general election, Labour had four seats in the region; it now has 22. No doubt we will have even more after the next general election.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point rightly pointed out, the east of England is seen as a relatively prosperous region making a significant contribution to the United Kingdom economy. However, there is great concern that the region is not performing to its full potential—a point made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. If we take gross domestic product per head as a measure of performance, the region lies only 42nd out of 77 European regions. That is a legacy that the previous Government left us and we are determined to put it right.
In fact, if the London effect is stripped out, the region is below average in prosperity relative to the UK. On a workplace basis, GDP figures put the region after London, the south-east, Scotland, the south-west and the east midlands and only just ahead of the north-west. On a residence basis, which allows for the income brought into the region by commuters to London, the region is above the UK average with an index score of 109, behind only London and the south-east. However, on both measures, the relative score of the region has been on a downward trend over the past five years.
The region is highly varied. It incorporates the northern fringe of Greater London, medium industrial and commercial centres, and ports and seaside resorts, which have been described in the debate. It has no major conurbations, but a variety of new and historic towns and cities and extensive rural areas. It has areas of prosperity and growth, but also areas of real deprivation. It combines traditional manufacturing and agricultural industries with leading-edge technology and knowledge-based industry. Expenditure on research and development is 3.5 per cent. of GDP—the highest of any UK region.
However, the region is vulnerable and, as has been described in the debate, unfortunately there have been some job losses recently. That said, over the past 18 months there have been major new investments and real growth in the region, especially in retail, computing and financial services. Overall, employment is still increasing and the unemployment rate continues to decrease, remaining below the national average in every county in the region.
As has been said many times, the east of England is a relatively new region. It brings together East Anglia with the home counties of Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire. The region is, of course, still building its identity. I am greatly encouraged by the activity of partnership groups in the region, which have worked together in recent months to ensure that the East of England regional development agency—to be known as the EEDA—gets off to the best possible start. Local groups are working together to develop and implement regional strategies in key areas such as competitiveness and skills. All that activity has made a
324
real contribution to partnership working in the region across a very wide range of interests, and through that to strengthening the region's identity.
I know from my visits to the region that there is a real enthusiasm in the east of England for the principle of a development agency and for a stake in its activity. That has been shown by the fact that we have received more than 400 high-calibre applications for the 12 seats on the board and almost 100 applications for the post of chief executive. The agency will be able to build on that commitment and activity to develop a fully integrated approach to regional development, both at a strategic level and at the coal face—although for this region it is the high-tech face—where local delivery organisations play such a key role.
A key task of the agency will be to produce a regional strategy to meet its responsibilities, including economic development and regeneration, employment and development skills, and sustainable development. That is in contrast to what was said by the Opposition spokesman, who adequately laid the problems of the region before the House, but not the way to resolve them. We are doing that—
Mr. Lansley: How will the development agency's strategy document interact with the agreement on PPG6 covering Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, as that is to be concluded before the RDA sets out its strategy?
Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, when I get to the relevant part of my speech I will deal with the plan, which is important.
The EEDA will need to take an integrated approach to producing its strategies and have regard to the needs of the east of England—urban and rural, sub-regional and local. We strongly believe that an integrated and inclusive approach is the best way to improve regional economic performance and to break down what I believe are artificial barriers between the rural and urban areas.
Our aim in the draft guidance on regional strategies has been to provide a steer to RDAs in producing their strategies, without being over-prescriptive and unnecessarily tying their hands. The strategies should not simply restate national policies, but will need to be relevant to the region and address its specific problems and the underlying structural weaknesses in terms of wealth creation.
Land use and transport issues are especially important in the east of England, where a combination of rapid population growth and economic development on the one hand, and rural decline and defence closures on the other, have created conflicting demands and pressures on the infrastructure. Again, that was adequately described in the debate.
I am very pleased that the first of the new public examinations of regional planning guidance will be in the east of England, when the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities hearing takes place in February. That will be followed in May by the south-east regional planning committee hearing. Those hearings will provide an opportunity for everyone—including hon. Members—to have their say before final decisions are taken. PPG6 will be taken into consideration in the plan as it develops for the eastern region. We are trying to bring together the economic strategic overview for the

325
eastern region with spacial planning and transport planning. We will then have a strategic overview of what is necessary in the eastern region.
The regional planning conferences are also beginning the vital new task of preparing integrated transport strategies, which will link on the one hand with the four-month modal studies that we have announced in the east of England, and on the other with the new integrated local transport plans. After that round is over, we shall begin the process of realigning the regional planning structure to match the new regions. Local authorities in the eastern region are already co-operating across the boundaries of SCEALA and SERPLAN, and RDAs will become another partner working in close co-operation with local government on planning and transport issues as it develops economic strategy. Such partnerships are where the impact on transport in the east-west corridor can be argued out, and they will inform Government policy. It is a bottom-up approach, working in partnership.
I have not been able in this debate to go into too much detail about RDAs. Nevertheless, when they begin functioning next April, they will make a significant difference in regions' ability to plan for the future. The eastern RDA will not only manage change but will develop the eastern region's assets, to ensure that it achieves the status that it wants as one of the best and most productive regions in the European Union. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point for initiating the debate, which has been very useful.

Residential Care Homes
12.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am most grateful for this timely opportunity to raise an issue of considerable importance to my constituents. That importance was emphasised only a fortnight ago, when I received a letter from the Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon local medical committee, which wished to raise with me precisely the same issues that I shall raise in this debate. I should like first to take this opportunity-my first opportunity-to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. He has onerous and important responsibilities—especially so given the forthcoming social services White Paper. I wish him well in meeting those responsibilities.
I shall do three things in this debate: first, highlight the impact of underprovision of residential care homes in South Cambridgeshire; secondly, demonstrate that, despite the benefit of measures being pursued by the health authority and Cambridgeshire county council social services, an increase in core funding for social services is necessary to prevent deterioration in the position; and, thirdly, draw specific attention to the circumstances arising from the proposed closure of the Red Cross-owned Meadowcroft residential care home in my constituency.
Let me first explain the nature of the problem. In August, and at intermediate times during the summer, Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency and other local hospitals have been closed to non-emergency admissions. Such summer closures have been unprecedented in recent times. The nature of the problem underlying the closures is demonstrated by the fact that 160 patients
–160 beds is almost equivalent to five hospital wards—in the local national health service system have been assessed as no longer requiring hospital care but remain in hospital beds.
About 83 of those hospital patients are awaiting placement in nursing or residential care homes. Additionally, Cambridgeshire county council has told me that 117 people are receiving care packages in the community who should be placed in residential or nursing home places. The council is unable to place those people. I know from personal conversations with some of those involved that some of those waiting in hospital are waiting not only for residential care places but for home adaptations that would allow them to return home.
Why has the problem continued? Additional money has been provided to deal with winter pressures, and I am sure that the Minister will give us further details on proposals for dealing with the coming winter. In the past three years, my health authority has provided Cambridgeshire social services department with £2.3 million to deal with explicit winter pressures. For the winter ahead, the health authority has provided £1.2 million to the social services department, and, because of announcements and allocations made in recent days, even more may be allocated.
The character of the funding provided in winter pressures money does not meet all the problems and, in some respects, may even exacerbate them. Places were purchased after winter pressures money was provided by the health authority to social services last winter, for example, creating a recurrent revenue implication that has to be borne by Cambridgeshire county council social services. This year, the cost is estimated at £400,000,

327
which will have to come out of the money available to social services, thereby reducing its ability to do other things.
At the same time as winter pressures money was being provided through the health authority, Cambridgeshire county council's social services standard spending assessment was cut by £1 million, not in real terms but in cash. The Government are therefore effectively giving with one hand while taking away with the other.
Meanwhile, pressures are increasing. The number of placements to homes is rising and the population of those over 85 is increasing in Cambridgeshire faster than in neighbouring counties. Although it is a happy fact that residents in homes are living longer, that is creating additional funding pressures. Additionally, more residents are exhausting their savings to below the £16,000 limit, to the point at which they effectively become a first charge on social services departments. That has happened in 32 cases so far this year.
Cambridgeshire social services is doing what it can. It is supporting the elderly at home; trying to prevent admissions; being flexible in its review of care packages; and attempting to turn some of the available respite care beds into intermediate and convalescent beds, thereby allowing hospital discharge. The county council is consulting on a proposal to privatise remaining local authority provision of residential home places, as that would enable it to purchase about four residential home places for each three places that it currently provides in its own homes.
There is, however, an underlying problem of underprovision to the social services department. Provision to neighbouring counties may demonstrate the point. In 1996–97—the last year for which I have comparable figures for counties in the eastern region—in total on residential care, home support and nursing care, Cambridgeshire was spending £467 for each 75-year-old or older resident in the population. The figure was £840 for Hertfordshire, £908 for Norfolk, £925 for Suffolk and £1,075 for Bedfordshire.
The Minister and those of us who know Cambridgeshire well will know that Cambridgeshire social services has a particular requirement to focus its activities on children's services and to support its child protection activity. The county council is taking that responsibility extremely seriously, and that is partly influencing its distribution of funds within social services. However, that is only part of the story.
The principal determinant of the county council's ability to spend on services to the elderly remains provision of finance as dictated by the standard spending assessment. The Minister will realise that Cambridgeshire county council is capped at an extraordinarily low spend level, and that it therefore lacks the discretion to go further in increasing its overall resources.
I ask the Minister to do three things. The first is to enhance Cambridgeshire's standard spending assessment in the forthcoming round, to the point at which the county council's social services department is able to meet the responsibilities that it incurs. The second—on the process of winter pressures money being provided to assist in ending delay in discharging patients from acute hospital beds—is to end ad hoc funding and to make funding reflect the continuing revenue costs of such placements. The third is to end the process whereby the Government
328
are effectively paying for social services activity with health money—whereby health care funds are being diverted into social care. Such a diversion of funds has adverse effects on a health authority's ability to use the resources with which it is provided for health rather than social services.
I hope that I have demonstrated that there is an underlying problem of a lack of residential home care places in South Cambridgeshire. I shall refer in particular to Meadowcroft home in Trumpington, which is not a local authority home, but is owned by the Red Cross. It formerly had some 20 places, but, in March 1997, the Red Cross decided that it should close—at a time when South Cambridgeshire can scarcely afford to lose residential care places.
The Red Cross has presented three arguments as to why it is necessary to close Meadowcroft. The first was that it was non-viable. It is clear that it was once perfectly viable, but the decisions to run the home down, not to take additional placements to reduce the number of residents and to discontinue a contract with the Lifespan community trust for two respite care beds have made it no longer viable. Secondly, it was argued that the home needed considerable investment to bring it up to registration standards. As a royal charter body, the Red Cross is not required to bring its homes up to registration standards. It would be desirable to do so if it were planned for the home to provide long-term care for new residents, but the existing residents see absolutely no reason for their living standards to be changed. Thirdly, it was argued that the remaining residents could and should be moved as it would be in their interests. However, it is perfectly apparent that they do not need full-time nursing care. Meadowcroft is a residential care home, not a nursing home, and is perfectly capable of supporting its residents.
After a period of rundown, Meadowcroft has only four remaining residents, all over 90-years-old. Two of them were among the first lady medical practitioners in Cambridge, who were part of a three-handed practice before the war. Dr. Margaret Reed is 98 years old and Dr. Joan Cooper is 106 years old. Last week, Dr. Cooper told me that she qualified as a medical practitioner in 1920. They are distinguished constituents of mine and they have provided a considerable service to the local community and to the Red Cross in the past.
I understand—not least because I have spoken to those who took the decision—that the decision to close the home was made with good intentions and that the Red Cross seeks to focus its activities on short-term emergency care. However, I continue to contend that bureaucracies and committees are capable of making decisions that individuals would not make. If one asked the individuals involved whether they thought it right that, after 15 years residence at Meadowcroft, Dr. Cooper, who is 106 years old—although she is by no means frail for her age—should be moved as a consequence of a desire to close the home, no doubt they would reply no, but I fear that bureaucracies will continue to say yes. The time has come for that to stop.
I feel quite strongly about Meadowcroft: very frail or elderly people have been moved from places where they were happy and which they regarded as their home and, as the Minister knows, that can have adverse effects. Even if, viewed objectively—and not least by bureaucracies—a move is to better or more appropriate circumstances, it can be in the interests of the individuals concerned to

329
remain in familiar surroundings where they are happy and content. Anyone visiting the Meadowcroft home in Trumpington will know that the residents are perfectly happy there and that they are well settled and looked after and capable of being sustained there if the Red Cross cares to sustain them.
I call on the Red Cross to fulfil the expectations of the residents; the intention of the original trust deed established by Lady Ida Darwin in 1946, under which a substantial bequest was made; and subsequent benefactions. I do not believe for a moment that any charitable donor to the Red Cross would begrudge its meeting its obligations in that way, especially as the home has made considerable contributions to Red Cross finances in the past.
I thank the House and the Minister for listening to these related issues. I hope that the Minister will recognise and respond to the problems experienced by south Cambridgeshire and my constituents relating to the provision of social services and the placements into residential home care beds. I hope that the Red Cross will listen to the debate and change its mind about its proposal to close the Meadowcroft home early next year and to require my constituents to move to alternative accommodation.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing a debate on this important subject, and thank him for his generous words of welcome at the beginning of his speech.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues around residential care. In doing so, he has emphasised the links with the national health service. He is right to do so. In Cambridge, as elsewhere, the NHS is an integral part of community care. He also raised the issue of the closure of the Meadowcroft home in Trumpington, to which I shall refer later.
It may help if I begin by talking about the aim of community care, which is to provide the support that frail or vulnerable people need to live in their own homes or homely settings, retaining the independence, dignity and quality of life that come from being a part of the community. Social services, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, have a central role here, but as one of several partners, along with housing authorities and the NHS. Each partner needs to understand the others and to draw effectively on their contribution to overall care provision.
Social services have the lead in community care planning. In Cambridgeshire, as elsewhere, that is about planning and commissioning a balanced range of services—including residential care—to enable authorities locally to meet the assessed care needs of individual service users.
People's needs do not recognise organisational boundaries. That was one of the themes of the hon. Gentleman's speech. In the case of older people particularly, they are often complex. They also change both in the short term and over a longer period. Following a period in hospital, people may need additional support, perhaps from the community health
330
service, if they are to return to their homes; or they may need a residential care place if discharge is not to be delayed or unnecessary readmission caused. We need to consider residential care provision within the broad context of community care services, mapping out the key links with the NHS, housing and other agencies.
In planning residential care, in Cambridgeshire as elsewhere, what is important is joined-up thinking in the wider community care and health context. Residential and nursing home care provision is closely linked with hospital discharge arrangements, rehabilitation services, domiciliary support and current work on prevention.
The interdependence of health and social care make it essential that the provider agencies collaborate effectively in service planning and commissioning, assessment and delivery, and not least, funding. Section 28A of the National Health Service Act 1977 has long been a key funding mechanism enabling health authorities to support social services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to give the impression that the new Government are approaching the issue any differently from their predecessor. That mechanism includes supporting residential and nursing home placements through "dowries" and similar payments in respect of people transferring out of long-stay hospitals, and supporting innovative cross-agency service.
We are providing a positive agenda of change. Joined-up thinking and partnership between health and local government run through our agenda. We have an ambitious programme of review and reform including the royal commission on long-term care, the forthcoming social services White Paper and our charter on long-term care. Other examples include the better services for vulnerable people initiative and "Partnership in Action: New Opportunities for Joint Working Between Health and Social Services", the recent discussion document trailed in last year's "The New NHS" White Paper. It might be helpful to say a little about that context before returning specifically to residential care, to social services funding and to arrangements in South Cambridgeshire.
Collaboration between local authorities and the NHS is considered in detail in the recent discussion paper "Partnership in Action", which sets out plans for a new statutory duty of partnership. Much of the paper is about collaborative funding mechanisms, such as proposals for the new NHS Bill to provide for health and social services to pool budgets, delegate functions and resources to each other in lead commissioning arrangements or develop integrated provision of services. It also envisages a significant widening of health authority powers under section 28A of the 1977 Act, with funding going to local authorities in support of objectives set out in health improvement programmes.
Last December, following our manifesto commitment, we established a royal commission on the funding of long-term care for elderly people. The commission is looking at demographics and future levels of need, different models of provision and how it should be funded. The commission is due to report around the end of the year.
Last year, in an executive letter, "Better Services for Vulnerable People", we set out the medium-term agenda for people with continuing health and social care needs. The circular asked local and health authorities to take forward work in three areas: first, drawing up joint

331
investment plans; secondly, establishing a national framework for multi-disciplinary assessments of older people in acute and community health settings, carried out jointly with social services; and thirdly, developing a range of recuperation and rehabilitation services for older people.
Further guidance on the better services initiative was issued in August by the NHS executive and the Department's social care regions. Joint investment plans are a distillation of the health improvement plan and community care planning information. They bring together in a single document the joint information needed for health and social services to deliver on their respective responsibilities. The recent guidance requires health and local authorities to have JIPs in place by April 1999, as a minimum, for older people, including those with mental health problems.
Multi-disciplinary assessments by health and social services have always been a joint responsibility in community care. More effective multi-disciplinary assessment means better co-ordination of care services. In the community, it may avoid unnecessary hospital admission and allow older people to remain in their own homes for longer; within the hospital setting, good multi-disciplinary assessments may avoid an unnecessary admission subsequently to institutional care. Similarly, developing recuperation and rehabilitation services will enable people to return to the community sooner and to remain in their own homes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is common sense.
Those are also key themes in the forthcoming social services White Paper, giving the context within which services such as residential care must be seen and developed. We should be aiming to maximise independence rather than supporting dependency. We need a new emphasis on rehabilitation, recuperation and prevention services. Crucially, the White Paper programme is underpinned by the personal social services settlement—an additional £2.8 billion over three years secured in the comprehensive spending review.
Last winter, an additional £269 million was allocated for tackling winter pressures. While that money was non-recurrent, it was not just elastoplast for the winter. It provided an opportunity for longer-term improvements in services, relationships and systems. Among the priorities applied in allocating the funds were plans that would reduce delays in discharging patients and reduce the need for people to be admitted to hospital in the first place, for example by strengthening primary, community and social services.
Winter pressures were well managed by social services departments, health authorities, trusts and other agencies working in partnership. Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority received £1.4 million of the £15.174 million available to the Anglia and Oxford region. Nearly £1 million of that went to social services to enable the discharge of delayed patients at Addenbrooke's, Hinchingbrooke and Lifespan into nursing and residential homes.
Let us look ahead to the coming winter. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that we would find a further £250 million to help the national health service and social services to cope with 1998–99 winter pressures. The English share of that total is £209 million. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
332
for Health announced how the first £159 million would be allocated. That will build on the success of our measures last winter by again tackling discharge and unnecessary admissions and by strengthening community-based services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me and his fellow Cambridgeshire Members in welcoming the additional £14.67 million that the Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority will have at its disposal in the next year. That is a 4.1 per cent. real-terms increase. I am sure that the money will be used to address some of the concerns that he has raised.
Once again, health authorities will be encouraged to use section 28A to transfer resources for joint schemes to social service departments when appropriate. In some pressure spots, that will mean purchasing extra long-term placements in residential and nursing homes. We would also expect social services to be supported to invest in community-based rehabilitative and recuperative care.
Mr. Lansley: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Will he clarify that the £14.7 million to which he refers is an increase in the overall allocation to Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority? Is he yet able to say what winter pressures money is available for the year ahead and whether there will be continuing support to follow up that money?
Mr. Hutton: The £14.7 million includes the additional allocation for winter pressures in the forthcoming period. The money has been treated together.
Decisions on the level of local authority expenditure are taken each year, following detailed discussions with the local authority associations. In setting the level of expenditure for each of the main services, the Government take account of anticipated pressures on those services. Resources are distributed on the basis of standard spending assessments.
Spending priorities vary from area to area and no one is better placed to assess those priorities than the authorities locally. Some 90 per cent. of resources for social services are allocated to the local authority on an unhypothecated basis. Authorities are free to choose how best to allocate the money internally.
Cambridgeshire's standard spending assessment per head is below the national average, but the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the SSA reflects the relative need for social services in an area, which research has shown to be linked to the extent of social deprivation. Cambridgeshire is a less deprived area overall, so we might expect it to have less social need than the average authority. For example, in 1996, around 15 per cent. of people over 60 in Cambridgeshire were on income support, compared with more than 40 per cent. in Tower Hamlets and Hackney. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the change made last year in distributing the elderly residential SSA for Cambridgeshire, mentioning a figure of £1.4 million. That allocation was made after extensive independent work by the University of Kent on the characteristics of people requiring local authority assistance. There is no question of Cambridgeshire being unfairly treated in the allocation or victimised by the change in the method of distributing resources.
We intend to ensure that social service budgets are given the right priority among the many services receiving Government support. We recently announced that funding for social services would rise by more than 3 per cent. above inflation for each of the next three years.

333
The hon. Gentleman referred to the closure of the Meadowcroft home in Trumpington. I am sure that he appreciates that decisions about the commercial viability of individual homes are not matters for Ministers in the Department of Health. When residents have to move because of the closure of a home, I expect local authorities and health authorities to work together to ensure that the arrangements are appropriate and are handled sensitively. I understand how traumatic it can be for frail, elderly and vulnerable people, such as the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who have to move from residential care or a nursing home that has become their true home. We are not in a position to prevent the closure of an independent home if the home owner or the organisation running it considers it to be no longer viable. I repeat the message that we have sent to many organisations in this field—we expect local authorities and health authorities to work sensitively to manage the movement of those very frail and vulnerable people.
In conclusion, I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for giving the House an opportunity to discuss some very important issues. In the longer term, we are aware of the need to develop a fair and sustainable method of funding long-term residential care, and I look forward to future opportunities to debate those issues more fully in the House.

Planning Applications (Waverley)
12.59 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I am pleased to have this Adjournment debate on an issue that some would say is, in a sense, history—a planning application in my constituency, one or two aspects of which were unique. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is familiar with the case.
The planning application was for an opencast coal site where work was completed in 1982—a long time ago—and which was reclaimed in 1994 for commercial development. Some 65 out of 90 acres have been reclaimed. The planning application was to use the first 20 acres of the site. I should add that next to the site is the Orgreave opencast coal mine, where there is a massive scheme—one of the biggest in Europe—to clean up industrial dereliction. When that work is finished, some 800 acres of land will be available for use—all of it ex-industrial or brown-field site land.
The local authority, Rotherham borough council, is working up a master plan for the whole site which may include business and industrial use, leisure, housing, a shopping centre, schools and open space. In effect, we are looking at producing a new community on the site.
The application was made by an American company, AMC, which, in a letter to the Government's regional office in January 1997, said:
"AMC Europe is the subsidiary of AMC Entertainment Inc.. one of the largest cinema circuits in the USA, and we are considering a redeployment in the UK, where AMC pioneered the Multiplex complex in the mid eighties, thus initiating a spectacular growth of the cinema attendance (from 45 million tickets sold in 1985 to close to 130 million in 1996.) Our target within the next decade is to build approximately 10 4–6,000 seat–20–30 screen multiplexes integrated in full entertainment centres around the major metropolitan areas of the UK."
It is clear that the implications go far wider than the application for the site in my constituency.
The letter continued:
"Our objective in Waverley is, by using the synergy between the cinema and the other restaurant and leisure activities planned on site, to generate a sufficient critical mass to turn the site into a true leisure destination, thus attracting customers from a much larger catchment area than a traditional multiplex".
The plans that I saw proposed a catchment area from West Yorkshire to the middle of Nottinghamshire. The letter continued:
"The Waverley Park site is well adapted to the development of our concept, due to the large catchment area, the excellent access and relatively few competing leisure schemes."
The letter said that the company had built a similar project in Portugal in December 1996, and that there was a clear demand for multiplexes.
The leisure industry report for 1998 says that there are approximately 110 multiplexes in this country, which begs the question: how many more can the UK take before saturation point is reached? This is all relevant to the Secretary of State's decision on the project. Operators' opinions on how many more multiplexes the country could take differ, but the average seems to be between 80 and 100. The development plans of the UK's established multiplex operators clearly reflect the current strength. This is a big area for growth in the British economy.

335
AMC's application was submitted in 1996 and went on its journey through the Government regional office, which I visited in September 1996. I had been approached by the developers, and I was interested in the cultural change in activity in my constituency which, as hon. Members will know, has suffered from the rundown of its basic industries for more than a decade. To my knowledge, it was the only proposal for the site, and I was excited about it.
As ever with planning applications that are called in by the Government, the decision took a long time. I understand that, even after the general election, there were several meetings in the DTI about whether to call in the application for a public inquiry. Ministers asked for more information, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary asked for details in relation to planning policy guidance note 6—the alternative site test—and PPG13, concerning public transport.
That information was sent in by the planning authority in June this year, yet it took until September before the final decision to have a public inquiry was made by the Secretary of State—something that I did not want and had lobbied against. The decision was communicated to the developers by letter on 25 September. The time scale about which we are talking is from July 1996 until 25 September, when the decision was taken. That is a long time to ask someone who is preparing to invest millions of pounds into a project to wait.
The criteria laid down by the public inquiry were known by the Department. The Department had asked about PPG6 and PPG13 only a few months before, and had been given a comprehensive report about the tests by the planning authority. The Department also asked about accessibility by a choice of means of transport and the likely effects on travel patterns and car use; the likely impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres; whether there was a clearly defined need which could not be accommodated in or on the edge of existing centres, and particularly whether smaller-scale developments could be located in town centre or edge-of-centre sites; and whether there has been a proper sequential approach to site selection.
At the pre-inquiry meeting in March, my constituency office was represented by Sheena Woolley —who has worked for me for many years—and she took evidence, in shorthand, of what was said by the different parties who were called by the planning inspector. It became clear at that stage that the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive was not prepared to give evidence because
"they fell between two groups."
I assume that that meant that they fell between one of the principal objectors, Sheffield city council, and Rotherham borough council, the planning authority which wanted the scheme to go ahead. Both authorities sit on the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive.
I would like to mention someone else who was at that meeting and who had done a lot of work in relation to the project—Rotherham borough councillor, Reg Littleboy, who had collected a lot of signatures in a petition from the local community to support the application. Reg gave evidence at the inquiry.
I attended the public inquiry twice during the four days that it sat. I gave evidence on the fourth day, and what I witnessed—and what was reported in the local press—was hardly about the wider issues in relation to the site.
336
It was more like a report of a bad neighbour dispute; in my 15 years in the House, I have always tried to avoid such disputes as they are so difficult to solve. Unfortunately, that was how it panned out in the media and during some of the discussions. I am pleased to say that the neighbours are now having constructive discussions about co-existence with one another, and I welcome the co-operation between the two planning authorities.
The inspector's report was clear—he rejected the application. Two issues were involved. The first was public transport and, on that, he seemed to look no further than the end of his nose. The single planning application was for a 20-acre site, but the development would eventually cover 800 acres. Planning law is restrictive in that one cannot look at the wider picture when deciding on individual schemes. Perhaps we should look into that. The inspector's overall conclusion was that
"the proposed leisure park would be primarily reliant upon the private car",
and I accept that. That is the reality for out-of-town developments, and I do not hide from it. However, the inspector gave no weight to the benefits of the park-and-ride scheme that had been proposed for the site. It is a cart-and-horse situation: do we get transport by planning for it, or by demand? I believe that it is demand led, and I am sure that public transport on the site will be more than adequate when that site is fully developed.
I am well aware of what can happen with out-of-town developments. The Meadowhall retail complex is only three miles from the site. It was built in the 1980s without a public inquiry and with no objection from the planning authority, and it is still being developed. Meadowhall is an enormously popular place for people to visit and spend their money. The slogan in advertisements on regional television states that it has parking spaces for 12,000 cars. That is what sells it.
At present, the private car is the overwhelming choice of transport for the individual. We cannot use the planning process to force people on to public transport. One can lay down stipulations to improve access and a line has to be taken, but refusing planning permission is not the way to do it. We should consider other ways, and making the buses more affordable would be a good start. We must recognise that they now run for profit. Public transport is not what it was a decade ago. In my constituency, buses have stopped running to certain villages in rural areas because such services are not profitable. It is not the public service that it used to be. I do not know how the Government will square that, but it has to be done.
The South Yorkshire passenger transport executive should have given evidence on the public transport aspects. It decided not to do so and I believe that it was got at—by whom I am not sure. Its written representation to the public inquiry is recorded in paragraph 143 of the inspector's report, which states:
"The South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive… was opposed in principle to the out of centre location of the proposal, which was contrary to the transport policies in the South Yorkshire Joint Transport Package Bid and to Government planning guidelines."
That view contrasts with a letter that the PTE sent to interested parties dated 10 July 1997, which stated:
"I can confirm that the Transport Executive is now satisfied that your development proposals can be adequately served by public transport.

337
We note that in addition to the provision of public transport infrastructure, you have indicated your willingness to support late evening bus services and are prepared to enter into agreements for the allocation of certain parking spaces for park and ride use."
The passenger transport executive was not hiding its head in the sand and wanted to use the site to improve transport where it could.
After I gave evidence at the public inquiry and questioned why the SYPTE had not done so, I received a letter from the executive, dated 13 May 1998, which stated:
"I had some feedback from my officers who were present at the inquiry regarding your own comments and also those relating to the PTE's initial objection …I am quite happy to meet with you to discuss your concerns".
I was unhappy at the situation and did not take up the offer, but wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to tell him of my concern regarding the passenger transport executive's lack of action on the matter and the fact that it was not willing to give evidence about public transport. I received a reply from my right hon. Friend saying that, although he could appreciate my concern
"SYPTE chose not to give public evidence at the Public Inquiry. However, I have to say there is no compulsion on third parties to do so and that is not a matter in which I could intervene."
He suggested that I should pursue my concerns with the PTE.
This is not a matter for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary today, but it is scandalous that a publicly funded quango, which is what the SYPTE is, was not prepared to give evidence at a public inquiry. Taxpayers pay for that organisation to have opinions on public transport. It is atrocious that contradictory messages have resulted because it did not take the stand to give evidence at the inquiry. Although this debate is retrospective, I should point out that the organisation has done itself a disservice by not doing so.
The other issue in the report is the sequential test on site selection. In paragraph 191, the inspector states:
"In applying the sequential test, it was agreed that there is no single site in or on the edge of either Sheffield city centre or Rotherham town centre which could accommodate either the whole leisure park or the 24 screen cinema alone… However, to my mind the sequential test could always be thwarted if that was the correct basis for the assessment, by proposing development of such a large scale that it could rarely, if ever, be housed in or on the edge of a centre."
I must agree with the inspector there. Developers could easily exploit the situation, saying that they needed to use a green-field site–20 acres of countryside—because they could not find comparable acreage in a town or city centre.
The inspector goes on to say:
"To satisfy the sequential test, I consider it to be necessary to examine whether the individual elements of the proposal could be provided for on city centre or town centre or edge of centre sites. That should include consideration of whether smaller cinemas could be accommodated on such sites."
The following paragraph states:
"Applying the sequential test on that basis, a need for 24 further cinema screens could be accommodated in Sheffield city centre"—
pretty conclusive, I guess. The inspector continues:
"The Castlegate and Heart of the City redevelopment sites have the capability to provide that number of screens in 2 separate cinemas …Neither site is likely to be available to the applicants in this case, as other developers are involved."
338
The inspector states that the development should be in the city centre, but that the developers can forget it because they will not be able to build there.
Paragraph 197 of the report states:
"I have concluded that there is no clearly defined need for the development proposed which could not be accommodated in or on the edge of existing centres, provided that flexibility is applied to the form of the development, both in terms of the size of the cinema, and of the willingness to accept that the individual elements of the scheme could be built on separate sites."
That reads like a page from the five-year plan of some centrally controlled state.
We must recognise that leisure is the fastest growing industry in the United Kingdom. It is also the biggest. It is bigger than the whole of manufacturing industry and it creates more jobs than any other sector—one in five new jobs created in the next 10 years will be in leisure and hospitality.
If coalfield areas, such as the one that I represent, are to be regenerated, they will need a share of that jobs market. However, they will not get a share if the town and city test is the only criterion applied. Coal mining jobs were lost not in towns and city centres but in areas such as Rother Valley and the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), who are in the Chamber.
At the Labour party conference in Blackpool in October, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"You know the Tories ripped the heart out of the pit communities. We are determined to put the heart back into them, offering jobs and hope, instead of despair and the dole."
I never thought that I would say this, but my right hon. Friend's words rang hollow for me and my constituents, who, a few days before, had lost a £30 million inward investment package that would have created 570 jobs.
The more I consider this issue, the more concerned I am about the Government's approach to out-of-town development. That concern is shared by others. The Estates Gazette said in October that the Government had commissioned a consultant's report on the economic consequences of planning for the business sector and cited some negative comments about planning and PPG6. Mr. Huw Williams, the development policy manager for Sainsbury, said:
"people had broadly understood the agenda and understood what the sequential approach was about, but now we're beginning to see new considerations being brought into play…It's as if someone had gone back to PPG6 and highlighted new bits such as car parking and the exact relationship between edge-of-centre and town centre."
On 7 November, the paper carried an article headed "PPG6 upset in High Court". It stated that food store developers no longer had to prove need to obtain planning permission. It cited a partner at the firm Healey and Baker, who said that there had been a move over the past year or two to demand that developers demonstrated need. The article continued:
"This watershed decision will reassure developers that they don't have to. It should give the government cause to clarify its policy and iron out inconsistencies in the way PPG6 has been interpreted."
I recognise that some of those voices are laced with vested interest. Some people may say that I have a vested interest, too, but my interest is the good of my

339
constituency. My concern is that proposals to begin the regeneration of a coalfield area are blocked by unclear planning guidelines. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is reviewing planning matters, but how long is that process likely to take? I have been talking about one planning application for the site, but I hope that, now that that application has been blocked, there will be many more.
Will my hon. Friend also consider the difficult and perhaps unique problems of the coalfield areas and fully recognise the wider social and economic problems there, some of which can be addressed by the flexible and sensitive application of the planning guidelines? I know that, next month, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make an announcement on the coalfields task force, but it is important that any review should recognise the great difficulties that coalfield areas face.
I recognise and support the Government's commitment to the regeneration of our cities and towns. I know that, with the local planning authority, they are doing a good job in transforming Rotherham town centre. However, if we are serious about the plight of former coalfield areas, a careful balance must be struck, so that the problems caused by the rundown of coal mining can be tackled.
I realise that I have not left my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary much time in which to respond—he may be grateful for that, as he will not have to comment on everything that I have said—but I should be grateful for an assurance that reviews will recognise where the markets are, and not focus solely on the needs of towns and city centres.
1.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on his success in securing this debate. He has referred specifically to the refusal of planning permission for a large leisure development at the former opencast site in Rotherham district at Waverley near Sheffield. I know that he has taken a close interest in the matter and that he has been both assiduous and forceful in pressing the case for development, which he believed would bring substantial benefits to his constituents.
As my hon. Friend said, the case was decided, following an exhaustive public inquiry, by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The inquiry inspector, having carefully considered all the material considerations in the case, concluded that the proposed development was in fundamental conflict with Government policy as set out in PPG6 and PPG 13. My right hon. Friend concurred with the inspector's clear recommendation and refused consent accordingly.
All planning decisions are taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations—including national land use planning policies and policies on town centres, retail and leisure development and transport—suggest otherwise. The Government have a responsibility to defend town centres against large out-of-centre shopping and leisure developments that are likely to harm the vitality and viability of town centres. My hon. Friend will be aware that the recent Environment
340
Select Committee report on shopping centres recommended that Ministers took a tough approach on applications for large leisure developments, so that further damage to town centres could be avoided. In their response, the Government stated their commitment to ensuring that the approach in PPG6 to retail development is applied as firmly to leisure developments.
The criteria for assessing large out-of-centre leisure developments, such as that proposed for the Waverley site, include the likely harm to the strategy in the development plan, the impact on the vitality and viability of nearby town centres, accessibility by a choice of means of transport and overall travel patterns. There should also be a flexibly applied sequential approach to site selection, so that out-of-centre locations are considered only when the development cannot be accommodated in town centre or edge-of-centre locations.
All planning applications for major leisure developments must be considered against those criteria. Moreover, PPG6 states that town and district centres should be the preferred locations for developments that attract many trips and PPG13 states that, by planning land use and transport so that people can carry out their everyday activities with less need to travel, local planning authorities can reduce reliance on the car and contribute to reaching the environmental goals that are set out in the Government's sustainable development strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has forcefully expressed his disappointment about the Waverley decision. However, he would agree, I am sure, that it would be wrong to suggest that nothing is being done to support and regenerate the coalfield communities. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has given a high priority to action to assist those communities. The South Yorkshire coalfield areas have benefited from a wide range of regeneration activities, which have been undertaken with help, for example, from English Partnerships and the single regeneration budget.
My right hon. Friend was instrumental in setting up the coalfields task force in October 1997, with a remit to pioneer options for revitalising the former coalfield communities that were affected by pit closure programmes. The task force's report "Making the Difference", which was published in June 1998, contained recommendations for regenerating coalfields communities and was warmly received. My right hon. Friend gave the Government's initial response to the report in July. He said:
"The Coalfields Task Force's vision was to set up a framework which will empower communities to create their own new start. This Government is committed to do its part to make this vision a reality. I want to put a powerful framework in place to deliver a comprehensive programme of regeneration for our coalfields communities."
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will launch the Government's action plan for the coalfields, and a detailed response to the task force report, at a second coalfields conference on 1 December at Peterlee leisure centre in County Durham. I understand my hon. Friend's disappointment at the Waverley decision, but I hope that he will agree that the Government are taking many initiatives to respond to the needs of the coalfield communities.

341
The process of reviewing and modernising planning is under way, and revisions to various planning policy guidelines will be issued over a period. There is a strong focus on speeding up the planning process, and I agree that we need to ensure that there is not undue delay in considering applications.
I will relay to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport my hon. Friend's comments about the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive not giving evidence.

Road Haulage (Taxation)
1.30 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: I thank your office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the two Departments involved, for co-operating on the change of title for this debate so that a Treasury Minister could respond to it.
We have a strategic industry that is in real crisis: 95 per cent. of all freight is moved by road—in a rural area such as my constituency, the figure is as high as 97 per cent.—and there is no real alternative for the foreseeable future. The most optimistic estimates suggest that, even if the huge projected investment in rail freight for the next 10 years were to materialise, that would only double the rail share, from 5 to 11 per cent. Road would continue to expand and would probably hold steady at about 90 per cent. of freight transport.
Our whole economy depends on maintaining an efficient road haulage industry. No business —or family—does not use goods that were moved at some stage by road. There is not an hon. Member here today who is not wearing clothing or who has not eaten food in the Tea Room that was carried at some stage by a diesel-powered vehicle. The average Sainsbury store has 23,000 items, all carried by road.
There are 420,000 commercial vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes in the United Kingdom and they move more than 1.6 billion tonnes of goods, yet the future of the 65,000 road haulage businesses is in jeopardy. By 2002, the current crisis may have caused 26,000 job losses, and a loss to gross domestic product of £1.5 billion and to the Treasury of £1 billion; and the Government are entirely to blame. One of the few remaining areas of taxation over which each nation state in the European Union has retained 100 per cent. of its decision-making powers is the setting of fuel and vehicle excise duty.
The Government are using their power in a bizarre manner, actively putting a strategic industry at a massive disadvantage. The fuel duty escalator was introduced in 1993, in response to the Rio commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was originally set at the retail price index plus 3 per cent., but the Labour Government increased it to RPI plus 6 per cent. in 1997, adding a further gratuitous 1p per litre on diesel in the 1998 Budget.
The House of Commons Library calculates that Labour has added £9 billion of extra fuel duties during this Parliament. The escalator on diesel and petrol this year gave more to the Treasury than 1p on income tax would have done. By 2002, the policy will cost the haulage industry £5 billion a year.
Ninety-nine per cent. of lorries are diesel-fuelled, and fuel represents a minimum of 30 per cent. of the operating costs of running a lorry. According to the Library, 82 per cent. of the price of fuel in the United Kingdom is taxation. Each 38-tonne vehicle pays £22,000 a year in tax. There is a widening gap between the UK and our continental competitors. Excluding VAT, UK diesel costs about 56p a litre, of which duty is 44.99p; in France, it costs 35p a litre, of which duty is only 24.57p. The 21p a litre—or 95p a gallon—difference means that to fill a truck with two tanks, which takes 1,200 litres, costs £252 more in the UK than in France. The comparisons with Benelux and Germany are even worse.

343
My constituents are in desperate trouble. Dale Roberts, from Morda, wrote to me and said:
"The 5.5p per litre increase on diesel is slowly but surely strangling the industry as there is no way in which we can claim this increase back. Our customers are in much the same situation as ourselves with an appalling cashflow problem. Unless something is done, and soon, the haulage industry of this country will be in a decline from which it will find it very hard to crawl back."
Mr. Jagger, from Pentre, who handles timber—notably, he took the timber down to St. George's hall for the restoration of Windsor castle—wrote to me in July. He said:
"At this present and proposed taxation, it is going to become impossible to continue to operate to an acceptable standard. Unless the Government comes to its senses many good hauliers will go to the wall with many people losing their jobs."
There is even worse—possibly much worse—to come. Vehicle excise duty on a 38-tonne truck costs £3,210 in the UK; only £459 in France; and a mere £296 in Spain. A typical international haulier in the UK, running 50 trucks, was £150,000 worse off than his Spanish competitor before he even got out of bed on 1 January this year; yet the Chancellor has already said that he has plans to make new heavier lorries subject to even higher rates, to discourage their use.
Andrew Wishart, in Kirkcaldy, has 16 trucks and has told me that, if the four-by-two-axle VED goes up to the rumoured level of £7,000 to £9,000, he will move abroad. He transports car parts and telecommunications parts to eastern and southern Europe, so he drives through Belgium, and he is already taking steps to set up a base and an office in Belgium.
Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend is understating the case, as all this is happening in the context of an agricultural economy in decline. Many haulage firms are based in rural areas such as my constituency and his, and they are already facing other problems. The burden of extra duty comes on top of an agricultural and rural crisis.
Mr. Paterson: As always, my hon. Friend is spot on. I was about to cite the case of a haulier who transports lambs from Carlisle to Newtown and now has to pay an extra £60 for each load. That is an extra burden on the sheep industry, which is in real crisis, as my hon. Friend and I are well aware.
Eddie Stobart's name will be familiar to most hon. Members from his 800 very smart red and green lorries. He employs about 2,500 people. If he moved to France today, he would save £2.2 million on VED alone. If the proposed hike on heavier vehicles goes through, it will be even worse. Yesterday, he said to me on the telephone, "Unless the Government sees sense on fuel and VED, I will have actively to consider cheaper alternatives to running my business based in the UK."
That is a major worry for me, because distribution is a major business in North Shropshire. It is run by the entrepreneurs whom the Government lecture us that we should have: the people who have built up businesses from nothing. The Woodward family in Oswestry began importing sausages in the back of their car, and kept them
344
in their garage; in recent years, they have invested £15 million in a state-of-the-art distribution centre and they have 89 trucks.
Mr. Christopher Gill: May I instance another Shropshire business, owned by Mr. Owen of Lydbury North who tells me that, of a fuel bill last year of £28,500, £24,795—no less—was duty?
Mr. Paterson: As always, my hon. Friend has his feet on the ground and knows what is going on.
The increases cannot be passed on. Nigel Woodward told me that he
"cannot get any increase from his customers."
The Penton family, down the road from the Woodwards, have invested £12 million. According to Andrew Penton, they
"are seriously considering flagging out, and sthey have slowed their expansion plans here."
The only relief on VED is the £500 allowance offered by the Government to encourage vehicles to be fitted with particulate traps, enabling them to use low-sulphur diesel. That sounds a good idea, but the conversion kits alone cost £3,500; low-sulphur diesel is extremely hard to find; when one eventually finds it, it is more expensive than conventional diesel; and, unbelievably, it is 5 per cent. less efficient than ordinary diesel. Not surprisingly, I have yet to find a haulier who is tempted by the Government's kind offer.
For the time being, the Government are milking rewards from the policy, but the long-term consequences for Government revenue are serious. I talked last week to an international haulier based in Kettering who deals exclusively with Italy and Spain. He has not filled up one of his 20 trucks in the United Kingdom in the past 18 months. By 2002, more than £1 billion of tax revenue will be lost to the Exchequer from fuel being purchased abroad. Smuggling across the Irish border is rampant—it is estimated to cost between £ 100 million and £150 million. We do not know the exact figure, because the Government do not care. They are happy to lecture the workers of Rover on the need to be more efficient, but when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked about the extent of cross-border smuggling, the Economic Secretary replied, in a written answer:
"HM Customs and Excise have no estimates for the revenue lost to the Exchequer through these activities."—[Official Report, 22 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1201.]
One way in which the Government could raise revenue is through tolls. British trucks running through the Benelux countries and Germany pay £4.20 a day for a vignette and, as we know, autoroute tolls in France and Italy are even higher. A truck last week running from Calais to Mont Blanc paid £95 for the one-way trip. Vehicle excise duty is adjusted in those countries to allow for the tolls, but the House of Commons Library has told me that 600,000 foreign-registered goods vehicles left the UK for mainland Europe in 1997. The industry feels bitter that no charge is levied on such trucks, which can come here when they like. They can be any weight and put out any kind of pollution. The Government intend to penalise heavy trucks, but not if they come from Europe.
As a free trader, I welcomed the arrival of cabotage on 1 July, which enabled the free movement of goods within the European Union by any European Union haulier,

345
but that is no good if the game is rigged against the UK haulier. French trucks with a range of 1,200 to 1,300 miles can easily reach Shropshire and clock up 600 miles of profitable business before returning to Calais to fuel up and take advantage of cheaper VED under the more sensible regime of the French Government. My constituent, Martin Edge, said today:
"We welcome competition, but it must be fair. Our current position is disastrous."
A further, sinister implication arises from information I learned from a haulier in Lincoln last week, who already has six vehicles registered in France. He said:
"There is a significant difference in the quality of the annual MOT test. Here in the UK it is rigorous and it is right that it should be. By comparison French MOT test standards are lower across the board. The brake test is a complete joke."
A proud, successful industry has been brought to its knees because the Government believe that they have found a source of revenue that will not bite back. I have been in correspondence with the Financial Secretary since April. The replies have been as complacent and lacking in understanding and information as they have been late in arriving. My letter of 20 July, which enclosed a letter from Billy Griffiths, a major local employer, received a reply only on 24 September.
The Minister stated:
"I am sorry for the delay in replying. This is due to parliamentary recess."
In a parliamentary recess, Ministers do not have tiresome Back Benchers such as myself calling them to Parliament to answer Adjournment debates. If a business were run so incompetently, it would have gone bust long ago. My requests to bring a delegation to meet the Minister have been constantly refused, but the presence at Westminster today of hundreds of truckers— who have come from Bury St. Edmunds, Shropshire, the south-west of England and many other places—testifies that they must win on the issue to survive. They must also win on behalf of every business in the land, because they are all made less competitive by the policy. Transport represents up to 10 per cent. of the price of many manufactured goods and 12 to 13 per cent. of retail distribution costs.
The whole economy is being damaged, and I shall give one example. Ten years ago, a site in Market Drayton was a green field. Today, it is a state-of-the-art plant making yoghurt for Mullers from 100 million litres of milk. Every one of those litres is taken there by a diesel-powered truck and every yoghurt pot is taken away by a diesel truck. That magnificent — 60 million investment is a tribute to the policies that Conservative Governments introduced and to the work force of Market Drayton. It is a real success story and the Minister can enjoy the product in the Tea Room afterwards. However, I talked to the managing director this morning and he said:
"We are unable to pass on any of the increases in transport costs to our customers. Considering the huge investment, this is bitterly disappointing."
The intention of the policy is to improve air quality, but it will not do so. British hauliers will be forced to put off purchasing new, more efficient equipment and more work will be done by heavier, less-well-maintained and cared-for foreign trucks. The pollution will stay, but the polluter will not pay. New Labour claims to understand
346
business. If that were true, the Labour Benches would be full. New Labours talks about productivity and global competition, but it has the power to change this policy. It is stupid and is damaging a key strategic industry, not to mention the whole economy.
I would like the Minister to answer two simple questions. Will she let me bring a delegation from the industry to see her before the Budget? Will she agree today to freeze any further increases in VED and fuel duty?
1.45 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I understand the passion that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) brings to the debate, but I regret the fact that he did not mention the environmental considerations that stand behind the policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."' He paid almost no attention to those considerations and he paid no attention to the range of policies, which I am about to outline for him, that are designed to help the road haulage industry achieve our objective and theirs—to promote a British haulage industry that is sustainable, efficient and effective, and that also meets our environmental and social objectives.
Contrary to the implication in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, the industry has responded favourably to the approach to sustainable distribution that we set out in our White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport". For example, the industry has welcomed the fact that 40-tonne, five-axle lorries will be allowed for domestic use as well as for international movements, as we are obliged to do under European Union legislation. Those vehicles are no larger than existing 38-tonne vehicles. The industry has also endorsed our intention to improve enforcement in the industry through improvements in the efficiency of the enforcement agencies. We will ensure, for instance, that we get modern information technology systems into those agencies, which will allow much better co-ordination and sharing of data.
We have also heard from the industry an endorsement of our intention to impound illegally operated vehicles used by cowboy operators. The industry has been constructive in helping us to formulate those proposals, which will help to ensure that hauliers in the UK operate in a competitive regime, which is fair and honest. In the White Paper, we also stated that we will improve the service offered by trunk roads, by improving network control and traffic management. By maintaining and managing the existing road network better, we will reduce delays and improve the efficiency of the industry. All of us have wasted precious time sitting on crowded roads and seen necessary distribution vehicles also stuck in those queues. We will also introduce legislation to allow local authorities to charge road users to help to reduce congestion. That will benefit the haulage industry, because reduced congestion will lead to improved delivery time, efficiency and profitability.
We have also stated our intention to support the industry in promoting best practice, through quality partnerships and the Road Haulage Association's "Well Driven" scheme, which I and, I am sure, many other hon. Members have noticed increasingly on our roads. We intend to promote an industry that will support the country's economic growth and, at the same time, meet environmental objectives.

347
We are committed to achieving the United Kingdom's share of the European Union target agreed at Kyoto to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 8 per cent. by 2008–12. All motorists need to make a contribution to achieving that target. It is estimated that the road fuel duty escalator, if continued at its current level from 1996 until 2002, will save between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon annually by 2010.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire expressed with great force his concern, and that of his constituents and many in the industry, about diesel price increases and changes to vehicle excise duty. Of course we know that increased fuel duties and VED impact on the costs facing the road transport industry and hauliers, but we believe that the cost of using lorries must fully reflect the cost that they impose, including environmental costs. I am surprised that Conservative Members, who are free traders and free marketers who should understand the need to incorporate environmental costs into accurate pricing, do not apply it to this industry.
Mr. John Townend: Will the Minister deal with the problem at the core of the debate? How do the Government intend to tackle the problem of the level playing field? How are we going to stop British hauliers moving to France or Belgium? What do all the things that she says that she has done for the industry amount to in cash terms, compared with the extra burden so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)?
Ms Hewitt: Happily, I was just coming to that point.
We are conscious of the impact of higher fuel taxation and VED on competitiveness and profitability, but it needs to be put into a wider context. The United Kingdom has lower corporation taxes, lower employment taxes and lower social costs than other European Union countries, especially with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent Budget measures to assist small businesses. The overall tax burden is lower in the United Kingdom than in our major EU competitors and lower than the averages for the EU and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) may not want to listen to the Minister but I do, so I must be able to hear her.
Ms Hewitt: Not only is the overall burden of taxation lower on British businesses— including the road haulage industry—than on European businesses, but, looking at business as a whole, transport is a relatively small part of total business costs.
Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hewitt: No. I have already given way and would like to make some progress. Tax measures that we have recently introduced, or will introduce, to help road hauliers include the freezing of the standard VED rates for lorries. That means that lorry drivers are paying less VED in real terms than they were in 1990, and that partly offsets the impact of higher fuel duty and should help to maintain the competitive position of our road hauliers. A reduction of up to £500 in VED for low-emission
348
lorries and buses will be introduced at the end of this year. There is also the freeze in duty on road fuel gases and the widened differential that we will maintain and, I hope, increase, in favour of ultra-low-sulphur diesel.
There were broader measures in the Budget that will benefit business and road hauliers: the 1 per cent. cut in the main rate of corporation tax; the 1 per cent. cut in the small companies rate of corporation tax, which next April will be down to 20 per cent; the introduction of quarterly payments for large companies, replacing advance corporation tax; the extension of enhanced temporary first year capital allowances; and the introduction of the taper to reduce the capital gains tax on assets held for longer periods, which is equivalent to a higher tax rate of 10 per cent. after 10 years on business assets.
Mr. Paterson: The Minister is getting on to the second page of the letters that I had from the Financial Secretary. We have been through all this; it is irrelevant to the items that I raised. She mentioned the environment, but why have not other European countries imposed a fuel escalator if it is such a good idea? They signed up to Kyoto. She talks about the contribution of the industry to the environment, but £30 billion is taken from road users while only £2 billion is spent on roads.
Ms Hewitt: The point of environmental taxation is to internalise the external costs imposed, in this case by road users, in the prices that they are charged, not necessarily to return the product of that revenue directly to them. Several EU member states, including the new German Government, are considering carefully proposals for carbon tax and energy tax. There are proposals at European level for an energy tax, which we will consider carefully.
Hon. Members raised the matter of competition from abroad. Despite what has been said, there is little evidence of foreign hauliers undercutting domestic hauliers for business in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Paterson: The Gallery is laughing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Gallery twice, which is outwith the rules of the House. He should not do it.
Ms Hewitt: The fact is that less than 0.04 per cent. UK road miles are done by foreign hauliers. The long-term outlook for the industry in this country suggests that lorry traffic is expected to grow by more than 60 per cent. in the next 20 years, an enormous growth in that sector of the economy. That makes it imperative that the Government ensure, by effective use of taxation, that the lorries on the road are the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly available.
Under EU legislation—I think that the hon. Member for North Shropshire welcomed this—hauliers are free to set up business anywhere in the European Union. That is a commercial decision for the businesses involved. Let me remind him that many other factors are involved besides the prospect of cheaper vehicle licence or fuel tax:

349
the setting up costs; the burden of obtaining an operator's licence; higher drivers' wages; considerably higher social costs; higher corporation tax rates—and so on. Setting up a business on the continent has all those obvious costs. When all taxation is taken into account, the burden on business in the United Kingdom is lower than in other European Union states. Any British haulier who decided to set up in France or Belgium might find that road fuel taxes went down, but would certainly find that his social costs and wages bill went up. It is not surprising, when one considers the overall burden on business, that there have also been reports in the trade press of French hauliers registering their businesses in the United Kingdom to take advantage of lower business costs and the opportunities to grow their businesses.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire suggested that environmental taxes are simply an excuse for revenue raising. That is not the case. We are developing environmental taxes in line with the statement of intent on environmental taxation and with a vital principle both of market economics and of environmental concerns: prices should reflect true costs so that the polluter pays. Fuel duty increases are important to encourage further improvements in fuel efficiency and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Our spending is directed towards the people's priorities of education and health, from which everyone benefits, but also to increased spending on rural transport, which, as I hope that he agrees, will be of particular benefit to rural communities.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire raised specific questions about ultra-low-sulphur diesel. The early signs are that supermarkets will be able to sell ordinary and ultra-low-sulphur diesel at the same price, so UK refiners should be able to compete. In any case, we envisage altering the duty differential further in favour of ULSD. We believe that increased duty differential will further encourage the manufacture and use of the fuel. We need to look many years ahead, because ULSD offers substantial benefits to the quality of urban areas by reducing the amount of nitrogen oxide, black smoke and particulates produced during combustion. I know from my constituents how much concern there is not only about global warming, but about local air quality, because local pollution is one of the causes of the disturbing increase in asthma among children. I hope that all hon. Members would wish to take account of that.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire referred with concern to his correspondence with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 17 November.

  ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the promoters of the Alliance & Leicester plc (Group Reorganisation) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
  Ordered,
  That the Petition against the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  Ordered,
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Bangladesh
    Mr. David Borrow: What assistance her Department has provided to the people of Bangladesh to cope with the damage caused by the recent floods. [57800]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are providing £ 22 million to assist with relief and rehabilitation to help Bangladesh recover from the floods. One million pounds was given very quickly to non-governmental organisations to help them to provide food, water, medicine and shelter for the most needy. Eleven million pounds is being used to provide food grains through the World Food Programme to help fill the gap in food supply over the coming months that will result from heavy losses of the monsoon rice crop. The remaining £10 million is being allocated to agricultural rehabilitation and restoration of livelihoods and infrastructure.
    Mr. Borrow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend's announcement will be welcomed by the people of Bangladesh. On 29 November, I shall attend a fundraising event organised by the Bangladeshi community at the Koh-i-noor restaurant in Hutton in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the efforts of the Bangladeshi community in this country to raise funds to assist Bangladesh? That deserves real praise. Given that the difficulties in Bangladesh have arisen from natural disasters, which are always difficult to anticipate, and in view of the recent natural disasters that have struck central America, are there lessons for other parts of the world to be learnt from the way in which the Bangladeshi Government have handled their country's problems?
    Clare Short: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the people of the Bangladeshi community in Britain for their fundraising efforts throughout the country. As to the second part of his question, let me say that the way in which Bangladesh has coped with the floods is a model for the world of disaster-preparedness and self-reliance. Not only the Government, but the people of Bangladesh, have coped stunningly well. The contrast between Bangladesh and central America in loss of life resulting from comparable natural disasters shows the advantages of being prepared for disaster, and central America needs to get its systems in place. More than 60 per cent. of Bangladesh was devastated by the floods, and food crops and homes were lost. Bangladesh needs continuing help in order to reconstruct and go forward, so all the money raised by local groups in Britain will be extremely valuable.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: In view of the Government's welcome response to debt relief for Nicaragua and Honduras, does the Secretary of State intend to set a precedent for the faster relief of debt for
    352
    all poor countries that have suffered natural disasters, which category must include Bangladesh since the floods there? Is she not concerned that the media hype about debt relief in central America might make people forget that the help that is most needed is money now for food, medicines and shelter?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because that was my very point. In the immediate face of a disaster, when people are pulled out of the mud and their lives are saved, the great risks are cholera and hunger, and debt relief cannot cope with those. Debt relief is important for reconstruction, but the immediate task is to provide food and stop the spread of cholera. I have just read a UN report and I am pleased to say that we are making progress on that.
    In the case of Bangladesh, the hon. Lady's point is well made. If the groups that campaign on debt pretend that debt relief is all that is needed to deal with catastrophes, Bangladesh will get nothing, which is inequitable. We must give appropriate support to poor countries that need it.
    The third part of the hon. Lady's question was about whether we are trying to get flexibility for all highly indebted post-catastrophe countries. The answer is yes. I have spoken to Jim Wolfensohn and read the report of initial thinking in the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, and much effort is being made to try to achieve that flexibility.
    Ms Oona King: I, too, am incredibly concerned about Bangladesh. Does my right hon. Friend's previous answer mean that it will be possible for Bangladesh to become eligible under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative so that the long-term effects of the devastation wrought by the floods can be resolved?
    Clare Short: No. Bangladesh cannot qualify for HIPC because, fortunately, it is not a heavily indebted poor country. That is one burden that it does not have. It is not a good thing to be a heavily indebted poor country because it is difficult to get inward investment or borrowing for sensible projects. Bangladesh is a very poor country and has great need of support and help, and we are committed to continuing that. The World bank can provide fast-disbursing loans for emergencies, which we must ensure are well spent. Such work is going on.

    Conflict Prevention
    Mr. Steve McCabe: What steps her Department is taking to support conflict prevention and post—conflict reconstruction. [57801]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We aim to prevent conflict through long-term development programmes that bring benefits to all. We are also pursuing targeted strategies of conflict reduction such as improving the international machinery for dispute resolution and conflict prevention, combating small arms proliferation and other measures to limit the means of waging war.
    In post-conflict countries—such as Rwanda, Liberia and, increasingly, we hope, other countries in Africa—we seek to promote sustainable peace through development

    353
    and demobilisation of troops, which includes their giving up their guns and getting a chance to work, and, where appropriate, security sector reform. We are also pressing the International Monetary Fund and the World bank more rapidly to bring post-conflict countries into the heavily indebted poor countries initiative.
    Mr. McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in post-conflict reconstruction, we should not offer aid or assistance to military regimes, wherever they may be, unless they give a clear commitment to democracy, economic reform and reform of their security services?
    Clare Short: An interesting World bank report on that subject was published today. In general, the Government's policy is to set up our major programmes with Governments who are committed to poverty reduction. Progress in development is made when we back Governments who have their own reform programmes. People who are badly governed and living under dictatorial regimes are often some of the most oppressed and poorest in the world, and we do not turn our back on them. We can provide help by using non-governmental organisations and trying to build up civil society so that people can demand reform.
    Long-term development requires a Government committed to development. Military regimes that oppress are not so committed. We are increasingly trying to help with demobilisation and security sector reform so that armies are responsible to the civil power and there are fewer chances of coups and destabilisation.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Has a World bank trust fund been established to give quickly disbursing grant funds to post-conflict countries and countries that have experienced a terrible natural disaster, such as Nicaragua and Honduras? Will the money be used to service outstanding international debt and will the £10 million that has been announced for Nicaragua and Honduras come from the Treasury reserve or the Department for International Development reserve?
    Clare Short: We do not need a World bank trust fund for quickly disbursing disaster relief. The World bank has reorganised its resources in the region and made $200 million available in very quick disbursing loans to deal with the emergency. It does not need a trust fund; that can be done within the bank's existing organisation.
    The purpose of the trust fund is to deal with debt. We would prefer all the creditors to agree to suspend repayments, but it is extremely unusual to obtain such agreement from the international financial institutions. Most of the debt is to the Inter-American Development bank. Failing such an agreement, the trust fund will help to pay off the costs of the debt while the countries concerned get reorganised. We have proffered money for that and Norway has agreed to join us. The World bank is examining that and other methods to ensure immediate relief on the payments.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Among the areas in need of post-conflict reconstruction are the areas controlled by the Palestine National Authority and the areas likely to be transferred to it under the Wye agreement. I know that the Under-Secretary has recently visited the region. Is the Department actively
    354
    considering further action to help to construct a functioning economy and civil society in the Palestinian areas?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just come back from a visit to the west bank and Gaza. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares our view that the slow pace in the peace process is disappointing, and that the growth of poverty and economic decline for the Palestinian people, when they are not allowed out to work in Israel, is extremely worrying. We are doing all that we can to strengthen the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and to help the Palestine National Authority to put in place systems that improve governance. We hope that matters will improve.
    I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that the extra money came from the Treasury; otherwise; poor people would be paying off the debt of other people.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the steps that the Department is taking to help in post-conflict situations. Has the Department any role in giving guidance to individuals who seek to play their own part in that, and who may often be misled? Money that is given to help people in a crisis may not reach its intended destination. I have in mind an issue that arose recently in connection with Iran Aid.
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one of the terrible features of crises, internationally or at home, is that there are often people who raise money and then misuse it—they appeal to the generosity of others and spend the money improperly. We do not have a formal system to deal with that, but the disaster emergency committee in Britain groups together charities that are making appeals. It has now agreed that only NGOs working in the relevant country will receive the fruits of that appeal. That means that money should be safe, and I suggest that people give money through those organisations.
    I cannot reply with authority to the hon. Gentleman's point about Iran Aid, as I am not familiar with the matter. If he will drop me a line, I shall look into it and get back to him.

    Trade Negotiations
    Ms Tess Kingham: What steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to assist the Governments of developing countries with their approaches to the World Trade Organisation in the run up to the next round of trade negotiations. [57802]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Government are working with a wide range of organisations, including the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the World bank and the Commonwealth secretariat, to help to build the capacity of developing countries to prepare for, and participate effectively in, future trade negotiations. It is important for the next trade round that there is agreement and that the developing countries have the capacity to represent their interests. We are helping in the analysis of key trade policy issues and in building policy and negotiating capacity in developing countries.
    Ms Kingham: I am encouraged by that reply. Various NGOs, such as War on Want, and several

    355
    parliamentarians from the developing world have pointed out to me that there is no level playing field in the WTO negotiations. Large players such as the United States and the United Kingdom have ample resources—financial, personnel and research—whereas developing countries often do not. Because they cannot negotiate at the same level, they are disadvantaged.
    Our leading player in the WTO negotiations is the Department of Trade and Industry. Have discussions taken place with the DTI or, if not, will my right hon. Friend consider them, to see whether we can build up the capacity of developing nations during the next round of talks?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. One of the enhanced capacities of my Department—since we became a separate Department—is trade, investment agreement and agricultural reform expertise. My hon. Friend will know that, although there is not a level playing field in the World Trade Organisation, the situation is a lot better than it used to be. It is now a rules-based organisation and the majority of its members are developing countries. If those countries have the capacity to analyse their interests and represent them, they can be a powerful force. That is why we are conducting the training to which I referred in my answer to my hon. Friend's main question.
    We are also exploring with others the possibility of establishing a legal centre attached to the World Trade Organisation which would assist very poor countries in exerting their rights under that organisation. The EC is considering an alternative proposal. We have strong relationships with the Department of Trade and Industry, and are taking forward those matters in order to ensure that developing countries secure their rights in the international trading system.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the Secretary of State tell the House what she intends to do to try to help countries that have been affected by the hurricane, such as Honduras, to get their trade back into sensible order? I have written to the Minister about organisations that are working on the ground in Honduras, such as Casa Alianza, which could provide assistance to street children and others. Instead of workers and resources being rushed in, those organisations could receive money and help to rebuild that country following the terrible hurricane.
    Clare Short: Honduras is a heavily indebted, poor country, but it had such a good trade performance that it did not qualify for HIPC funding. Sadly, it will now qualify for that assistance because of the deterioration in its economy. There are three phases of assistance. First, we must try to get people out of the mud and stop disease and hunger. Secondly, over a few months, we will start to provide temporary shelter. When things calm down, a mission will go from my Department to central America to offer assistance. Thirdly, there will be long-term reconstruction.
    Before we came into the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman gave me some documents about the street children project
    356
    with which he has been involved. I know that he does much work in that area. I shall consider what we know and what we can do to provide assistance.

    Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What plans she has to support the work of the Liverpool school of tropical medicine in relation to international development. [57804]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We encourage academic institutions to support the effort to eliminate global poverty by contributing to the achievement of international development goals and targets. The Liverpool school of tropical medicine, along with other United Kingdom and world-wide bodies, is a much valued partner in those efforts.
    Mrs. Ellman: The Liverpool school of tropical medicine, which is a source of great pride to Liverpool, celebrates its centenary at the end of the week. Can the Minister assure me that he will continue to explore ways of ensuring that the school is able to use its great expertise to fight disease and poverty and to contribute to the development of societies throughout the world?
    Mr. Foulkes: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Liverpool school of tropical medicine on its centenary. Not only is it well known in Liverpool and the United Kingdom but it has a worldwide reputation as a result of its work on elephantiasis, river blindness, HIV-AIDS and, particularly, malaria. A most distinguished former lecturer of the Liverpool school of tropical medicine, Dr. David Nabarro, the head of the Department's health and population division. Sadly, he is to leave us. However, I am pleased to say that he is going to the World Health Organisation to head up the campaign to combat malaria. He will promote the name of the Liverpool school of tropical medicine far and wide.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What plans she has to visit Zimbabwe to discuss aid projects in that country. [57805]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The Secretary of State made a brief visit to Zimbabwe in January, but we have no immediate further plans to visit.
    Mr. Pike: I assure my hon. Friend that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is welcome to visit Zimbabwe again to spend several days examining the problems facing that country. She will know that the Porta Farm project just outside Harare has shown what can be achieved with a small amount of money. Zimbabwe is trying to respond to its problems in a positive manner, and I hope that the Minister or the Secretary of State will find it possible to visit that country at an early date.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who led a very successful Commonwealth Parliamentary Association mission to Zimbabwe earlier this year.

    357
    He visited the Porta Farm project where £5,000 from the DFID small grants scheme has done much good work. We have many projects in water and sanitation, local government services, health and land reform in Zimbabwe. If the Secretary of State is not able to visit Zimbabwe again, I would be very happy to go.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When the Minister finds time in his busy diary to visit Zimbabwe again, no doubt he will be checking on the millions of pounds worth of aid that we provide to that country. What assurances can the hon. Gentleman give the House that he is not in the business of underwriting a deeply undemocratic and corrupt Government who are currently engaged in increasingly aggressive military operations in the Congo to prop up the Kabila regime, and who threaten now to engulf Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda in a continentwide conflict? Further, will the Minister tell the House whether he thinks that such assurances are irrelevant or essential?
    Mr. Foulkes: We are working hard for peace in the Congo. We have made that clear in our Department as well as through the Foreign Office. We are reassessing our programme. I can tell the hon. Lady that we have made it absolutely clear that we are willing to support land reform as long as it is transparent, properly managed and cost effective, that there is a poverty focus and that it includes all stakeholders. We are concerned about the extent and impact of Zimbabwe's involvement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We have made it clear that we can establish long-term partnerships only with countries that are committed to the elimination of poverty and which develop appropriate economic, social and environmental policies. This includes partner countries not diverting limited resources into excessive military expenditure.

    Know-how Fund
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: How many projects are being supported by the know-how fund; and if she will make a statement. [57806]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The know-how fund is supporting 573 projects.
    The aim of the fund is to support the former communist countries in their transition to pluralist democracies and well-regulated market economies in a way that benefits all levels of society, particularly the poorest.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. The Minister will know that Slovenia and Estonia are two states that are currently aspiring to European Union membership. Both states have great problems. Slovenia has economic problems and Estonia has very serious environmental problems. Is it not therefore unfortunate that there is to be a reduction in the total amount of know-how fund expenditure in the Baltic states?
    Mr. Foulkes: As well as know-how fund expenditure, we contribute a huge amount towards EU expenditure in those pre-accession countries through the Poland and Hungary aid for reconstruction of the economy programme, so there is a great deal of British money
    358
    going in that relates to accession. Through our bilateral programme, we do not support accession per se but we support projects, including environmental ones, which help those states graduate towards accession. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we take account of that. If he has any particular suggestions that he would like us to consider, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Many know-how fund projects will depend on volunteers. Is the Minister aware that Voluntary Service Overseas is now, for the first time in nearly 30 years, recruiting school leavers for some of its projects? On behalf of all gap-year organisations, for which I know the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of respect, will his Department consider funding such organisations and recognise at last that school leavers on longer-term projects, with the right structure and training, can aid the countries that they visit as well as aiding their own development?
    Mr. Foulkes: More years ago than I care to remember, I used to run the Scottish Union of Students overseas volunteer programme, which was very successful. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has moved round the country from East Lothian to South Edinburgh and who now resides in Devizes, knows very well what I did. I say honestly that I was not aware that the VSO had moved back to taking school leavers. We have been supporting substantially its programme for volunteers, with each volunteer costing about £12,500. We have been giving significant support. If the VSO is supporting school leavers, we would certainly consider any request that it made for additional support.

    Kosovo
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: What assistance has been given by (a) her Department and (b) the European Union to the people made homeless in Kosovo in recent months. [57807]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is taking the lead in co-ordinating humanitarian assistance in Kosovo. We have provided £3 million in emergency assistance since March and the EC some £6.5 million. Those and other contributions should meet immediate needs; at the moment, the UNHCR does have enough money. We are in close touch with it and with other agencies and will shortly send a mission from my Department to review the position and to assess future needs.
    Dr. Godman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's contribution, but I hope that the recalcitrance of certain elements of the Kosovo Liberation Army will not deter the European Union from providing the substantial funds that are needed for a major house-building programme. Should not the KLA be urged to play the long game in relation to its aspirations for independence to help with the rebuilding of the infrastructure?
    Clare Short: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. First, I assure him that the resources will be provided, so that people can rebuild their houses and go home; of course, the monitors are necessary to give them the

    359
    security to feel safe when they go home. Secondly, we all understand the proper sense of grievance that people in Kosovo have, but fighting to establish an independent state will not help them. It is much better to proceed with the support of the international community and democratically.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State will probably be aware—because her officials helpfully provided briefing for me—that I spent five days last week in Kosovo I saw at first hand the terrible plight of some of the 200,000 displaced people and some of their 20,000 destroyed homes. She will already know that many of them are living in unspeakable conditions and winter is arriving. Does she agree that the aid agencies are doing an excellent job in trying to meet the immediate short-term problems of food, shelter and medicine, but that their life would be made a lot easier if some of the payments from ECHO—the European Community Humanitarian Office—could be speeded up? Many of them talked of a logjam in the system.
    Will the right hon. Lady confirm that her Department is committed to the region in the longer term and, in particular, will she set out her thoughts on support for health care and education in the longer term? Does she agree that this is, after all, a country in Europe and, as is so often the case, it is when the shooting stops that the problems begin?
    Clare Short: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the needs are great. I think that we are pretty well organised—non-governmental organisations led by the UNHCR are working. We are a bit worried that too many organisations are going in. It is better if we have more organisations specialising. I agree with him that we must get people home and get proper housing constructed for them, so that they can survive the winter.
    On ECHO, it is true that the disbursement of all EC funds is disappointingly slow. There is a need for great increases in efficiency in the whole development sector and we are working hard to try to achieve that.
    In terms of long-term support, we hope that, if we can achieve peace and respect for human rights in Kosovo, as in the whole of the Balkans, the normal investment that would come from the World bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and so on could quickly reconstruct these economies. They are basically educated people with plenty of resources. It is all the war and conflict that is causing so much damage.

    Natural Disasters
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What assistance her Department has given in 1998 to countries suffering from natural disasters. [57808]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): During 1998, the Department for International Development has responded to an unprecedented number of natural disasters, including floods in east Africa, China, Bangladesh, India, a tidal wave in Papua New Guinea and hurricanes in central America and the Caribbean; when we are through the
    360
    present crisis, we have to look at whether environmental causes were behind the phenomenon. In addition, my Department has continuing commitments to natural disasters from previous years such as that in Montserrat. The assistance provided to date in 1998 totals £47,220,940.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Secretary of State think that the amount of money that she has at her disposal for international disasters is sufficient to meet the needs of those particular countries? Does she agree that what is important is not only the amount of financial assistance that is given to the countries, but the speed with which the money gets through? It strikes me that the assistance that has been given to Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala is not only too little, but has come very late to help them to minimise the casualties that they now face.
    Clare Short: First, on the question whether the Department has sufficient resources for disasters, the answer is yes. We programme a certain amount of money for disasters of all sorts, including those arising from war, but, by definition, they are unpredictable. The Department has the capacity to reprogramme and find more resources if there is a high and disproportionate number of natural disasters. We have sufficient funding, so that is no problem.
    I agree that speed is essential. My conflict and emergency department is famous throughout the world for being one of the speediest. It is no good simply appearing on television and pledging money—we have to produce food and help on the ground quickly. We were lucky that HMS Sheffield was in the area so that we could help. We managed to get food and medical supplies to the area very quickly. The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says, but we are responding. There has not been a terrible delay and things are getting better in central America.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Earlier today, together with you, Madam Speaker, right hon. and hon. Members and millions of people across the country, I observed a two-minute silence to commemorate the sacrifices made by so many on behalf of us all. Later today, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Chope: Is it not heartening that so many people participated in the two-minute silence this morning? As we are remembering those who gave their lives so that we could have our freedom, will the Prime Minister tell us why, in March this year, his Government decided to reject a grant application by St. Dunstan's, the charity which

    361
    looks after service men blinded in the service of their country, apparently on the ground of insufficient priority? Will he today announce that he will reverse that decision?
    The Prime Minister: No; we have actually done a great deal for such organisations.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is heartening that so many people observed the two-minute silence, which should be an event that unites the whole of this House and the country.
    Miss Melanie Johnson: In view of the grave news today about the withdrawal of United Nations arms inspectors from Iraq—a further sign, if one were needed, of Saddam Hussein's willingness to flout international law—will my right hon. Friend tell us what steps the Government will be taking to deal with the rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: Saddam Hussein is in breach of not only the UN resolutions but the agreement that he made with Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General. His disagreement is with the whole world community. It is not a technical breach of the agreement—it is a substantial breach because it is clear from the evidence that, if unchecked, he will try to develop weapons of mass destruction. The evidence uncovered recently by French and Swiss officials of the attempt to decontaminate warheads is further proof of that. He may think that the international community lacks the will to act, but, if so, he is seriously and profoundly wrong. We will act if he does not immediately come back into compliance with the UN resolutions and abide by the agreement that he made.
    Mr. William Hague: The Opposition support the Prime Minister's remarks.
    In the European elections next year, should not people be able to vote for the candidate of their choice, rather than for a party list that leaves them no such choice—and that, with the highly unusual exception of the Northern Ireland peace negotiations, has never been used in our country?
    The Prime Minister: No, because the system we are proposing is far simpler. The election will cover all regions and there could be up to 50 names on a ballot paper and no individual constituencies, so I believe that our system is the best for those elections.
    Mr. Hague: Is not the reason that the Prime Minister wants that system the fact that closed lists give power to party stooges? Is he aware that local people in the midlands complained that one of the Labour candidates imposed on them knew nothing of their area? The Birmingham Post reported Labour bosses as saying that he did know something about the area because he had
    "acted in the Rocky Horror Show at Birmingham Rep earlier this year… and directed Kiss of the Spider Woman at the New Vic in Newcastle-Under-Lyme."
    Is not the truth that the Prime Minister wants a system that eliminates any kind of independent thinking? Is he not undermining the democratic traditions of this country for his own party purposes?
    The Prime Minister: No. That is absolute nonsense. The difference is simply that, on the list that the right
    362
    hon. Gentleman is proposing, people would be prevented from voting for the party alone. When we are electing people on the basis of regions, with very large numbers of people, the system that we are proposing is a far better and more simple one, which has been used extensively elsewhere. As he admitted in his initial question, the system was pioneered in Northern Ireland by the previous Government. As the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said:
    "I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome."
    So, thank you for the suggestion.
    Mr. Hague: If the Prime Minister reads on a sentence in the statement of my right hon. Friend he will see that he said:
    "I have to say that there is no precedent that I know for the circumstances and complexities that exist in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498–501.]
    That is how he justified the system. Why does the Prime Minister not give the full quote?
    The Prime Minister is now trying to prevent one of his Welsh Members of Parliament from leading the Labour party in Wales, trying to prevent one of his Scottish Members of Parliament from even standing for the Scottish Parliament and trying to prevent one of his London Members of Parliament from being a candidate for mayor of London. So, to make vetoing people easier in future, the Prime Minister wants a system for the European Parliament that gives power to party officials and not to the voter. Is that not putting party before country?
    The Prime Minister: No, it is not. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out in yesterday's debate, under the system that the right hon. Gentleman is recommending, perversely, someone could get elected with fewer votes than other people on the list. The system that we are proposing is therefore a far better one. It is also used widely elsewhere. As for all the right hon. Gentleman's other pre-prepared words on the Labour party, I very gently tell him that, when I want his suggestions on party management, I will drop him a note.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister congratulate Chorley and South Ribble, and Preston hospital trusts on the way in which they have brought together clinical services to ensure that patients come first, and the way in which the two trusts will continue to operate for the benefit of those constituencies?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I will congratulate them. I will also point out, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to, that the extra £21 billion that will go next year into the health service—today we have had official confirmation that the Conservatives are opposed to that investment—will provide a better service for my hon. Friend's constituents and allow those two trusts to go from strength to strength.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister seen the recent report showing that up to 27 million pensioners in Britain could be in severe financial hardship in retirement because of the underfunding of pensions? Is there not only one sensible way of solving the problem in

    363
    a practical manner—by introducing compulsory second-tier or stakeholder pensions? Next week, that will be proposed by the former Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Will the Prime Minister and the Government support him?
    The Prime Minister: We said that we will publish our paper on pensions reform in due course. I shall not comment on those findings until they are published. Of course we understand that pensions need full-scale reform, which is exactly why we are examining the issue. However, we have to ensure that reform is right for all categories of pensioner.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister says that the Government are undecided, but would not "confused" be a better adjective? Last week, the Financial Times was briefed to say that the Government would drop compulsory pensions. Yesterday, The Scotsman was told that they would back compulsory pensions. Which is right? If he cannot give us a date on which he will be able to tell us that, will he please at least tell us when the result will be published?
    The Prime Minister: As I have already said, as we will publish our proposals, I should not tell the right hon. Gentleman what they are now. However, we can discuss the proposals as soon as they are published. I should tell him that, since the Government came to power, we have not only cut VAT on fuel to help pensioners but given them a special winter bonus. We have also introduced for the first time a guaranteed minimum income for pensioners. All those measures are worth while for pensioners, but I agree that we have to reform the system fundamentally. We are taking on an issue that was ducked by the previous Government for 18 years.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent action of President Clinton, who fired one of his political allies into space? Does that course of action commend itself to my right hon. Friend and would he be willing to discuss it with the Liberals when they next meet?
    The Prime Minister: As I was just saying to the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, there are extensive consultations on that and I will get back to him in due course.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Prime Minister recall that, back in July, I asked him how he would meet the three-year spending plans that had just been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he recall that he answered me by saying, "Unemployment bad, new deal good. It is simple. Geddit?" On the day that the Bank of England has said that the Chancellor's growth forecasts are hopelessly unrealistic, on the day that unemployment has again gone up and on the day that VAT receipts to the Treasury are going down, does the Prime Minister not think that his reaction back in July was just a tad optimistic and complacent?
    The Prime Minister: First, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman reminded me of my answer to him in July as the question and the answer had slipped my mind
    364
    temporarily. As he will know from today's figures, over the past three months employment has risen by 124,000. Since the election, 400,000 new jobs have been created, with 237,000 new vacancies in the past few months. There are 160,000 young people on the new deal, with 30,000 already in jobs. I can tell him today, and I hope that he will congratulate us on it, that youth unemployment—young people unemployed for more than six months—is now at its lowest level since the mid-1970s. That is a record of which any Government would be proud, but I take it from what the hon. Gentleman said about spending that he, too, is opposed to our spending plans for next year. I believe that that spending is right. It is the correct investment for the country, it is right for economic management, and I hope that one of these days the hon. Gentleman and those on the Opposition Front Bench will come round to seeing that.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Prime Minister has been misinformed. Is it not a matter of record that the French and Swiss tests to which he referred proved negative? It is true that the first American test proved positive, but the second American test proved negative and that result was suppressed. Can he give the name of any Arab country—just one will do —which now supports military action against Iraq in the next month?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has just come back from Iraq and I understand his strong feelings on it, but the French and the Swiss found clear evidence that warheads had been decontaminated from weapons of mass destruction. On the evidence that we have compiled on Saddam Hussein, going back over a period of years, it is clear that he has attempted to develop weapons of mass destruction. After all, that is why he wants the inspectors out —so that we do not know about the weapons of mass destruction that he is developing. He is the only leader that I know of anywhere in the world who has used weapons of mass destruction–5,000 people, mainly women and children, died as a result of his use of such weapons.
    Saddam Hussein made an agreement at the conclusion of the Gulf war and then made a further agreement with the UN Secretary-General. All we are saying is that he should abide by that agreement. That is not an unreasonable position. The quarrel that he has is with the whole of the international community and if we allow him to get away with a substantial breach of the agreement and to develop weapons of mass destruction, we will pay a very heavy price in the future.
    Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make an official visit to Newhaven.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Baker: I am sorry to hear that, given the serious situation facing Newhaven, with the possible demise of the ferry after 173 years of running between Newhaven and Dieppe. Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the most famous people alleged to have used the ferry is Lord Lucan, when he was fleeing the country? What steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the ferry does not disappear as Lord Lucan did?
    The Prime Minister: I did not catch the end of that question, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman was not

    365
    asking me to search for Lord Lucan. The hon. Gentleman met the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) this week. He has been campaigning hard on the issue, as have some Labour Members. We recognise the importance of Newhaven as a port, but we have limited powers to influence commercial decisions by P and O Stena on operational and investment matters. However, we have put in place measures under the capital challenge scheme, under the single regeneration budget and in respect of European Interreg funding that have put millions of pounds into Newhaven. We know that the situation is serious, but there are limits to how far we can intervene in a commercial decision. I know that the hon. Gentleman will carry on fighting the case for his constituents. We shall do what we can within the constraints of government, but we cannot interfere with the decision that the company has made.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Why is the Prime Minister afraid of giving the electorate the opportunity of voting for an individual candidate in the European elections?
    The Prime Minister: I should like to add to what I have already said on that to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The choice is between the system that the hon. Lady is proposing—which would prevent people from voting for a party alone, even though the majority of people will not know the merits of the individual members—and our system, which is simpler and better. It is used extensively abroad. People have the choice to vote for the political party that they want. I believe that that is a far better way to go.
    Mr. David Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 1.5 million people in the United Kingdom suffer from diabetes, which is the main cause of blindness in those under 65? The national health service spends more than £2 billion per year on treating the effects of diabetes. Will my right hon. Friend look into the case for having a targeted, selective screening programme for diabetes so that we can deal more efficiently in future with a disease that kills, maims and blinds?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done campaigning on the issue in the House and outside. Decisions on the introduction of a national screening programme will be made in the light of the report from the national screening committee, due early next year. We shall continue to work with the British Diabetic Association and others to improve care. The Department of Health has commissioned guidelines for clinicians about the most effective treatment of diabetes. The extra investment that we are putting into the national health service next year will improve services for all, including those with diabetes.
    Mr. William Hague: The Bank of England inflation report, published today, says that the working time directive will add to inflation. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Bank?
    The Prime Minister: Actually, the Bank of England says that, although there may be some marginal effect as
    366
    a result of the working time directive, we are going to meet the central projections for inflation and its growth forecasts are in line with those that we have put forward, to which the right hon. Gentleman has objected.
    Mr. Hague: So, the Prime Minister agrees that the working time directive will increase inflation. Everyone knows that it will add to inflation and therefore to interest rates. Everyone knows that it will also add to unemployment. With the jobless total up by 7,000 today, is it not the worst possible time to add extra regulation and bureaucracy to the burdens that businesses now have to bear?
    The Prime Minister: No. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the working time directive was introduced by the European Union under the previous Government and would have had to be implemented by any Government—no matter who was in power. He may disagree, but I believe that the fact that employees, for the first time, will get four weeks minimum holiday entitlement is a good thing, not a bad thing.
    The Bank says:
    "it is not sufficient to warrant changing the central projection for … inflation two years ahead."
    The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that it also said:
    "Measures such as the New Deal and the Working Families Tax Credit are designed to increase the supply of labour, and could lower the natural rate of unemployment."
    Mr. Hague: It also says that the directive will cause an upward skew in inflation. If the best argument that the Prime Minister has for the working time directive is to pretend that the Conservative party was in favour of it, he is pretty short of arguments on the subject. Are not today's unemployment figures yet another sign of a downturn made in Downing street? Businesses are facing a flood of new regulations and bureaucracy. When will Ministers understand that red tape strangles businesses and jobs?
    The Prime Minister: It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman that his response is to abandon the minimum wage and to get rid of minimum holiday entitlement, as he wants to do. Apparently, he also opposes the family-friendly policy of unpaid parental leave, and he wants to cancel the new deal and the working families tax credit.
    It is important to get the situation in balance. Since the election, 400,000 more jobs have been created, and more than 237,000 new vacancies. Long-term and youth unemployment are down, and unemployment is down since the election. The question is, given the difficulties for jobs and industry over the next year, what is the right policy? We say that new fiscal and monetary rules and Bank of England independence are right. The right hon. Gentleman is opposed to those. We say investment in skills and education is right, including the biggest boost to education ever. He has set himself opposed to that and described it as a "spending spree" in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. I assume that means that he is against it. Is he against it?
    The third element is the new deal and the working families tax credit. The right hon. Gentleman has now said that he is against those. Let me remind him that the

    367
    working families tax credit will make 1.5 million families £17 a week better off on average. Just so his Back Benchers understand it—everyone knows what a bold leader he is—they will all go into the next election saying that those 1.5 million people who are, on average, £17 better off will lose that money. Well, roll on that day.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: On a day when we rightly pay tribute to the generation who lived through the first world war and the many who died in it, will the Prime Minister resist the temptation to be distracted by the Liberal Democrats and address a different starting point? Surely if there is an act of remembrance that the country owes to the generation of today's pensioners, it is to do the one thing that the Tories in government steadfastly refused to do—to restore the value of the state pension and its link with earnings.
    The Prime Minister: We have given our reasons, on many occasions, why we cannot commit ourselves to that. The reason is that the cost would be substantial, and the money would not be spread among those pensioners who need it most. We have made it clear that the crucial thing is to get help, first of all, to the poorest pensioners. That is the reason for the –50 winter bonus for those on income support and the minimum pension guarantee. I believe that the substantial extra investment of –2.5 billion over the next three years—opposed by the Tories, so we will take no lessons from them—which will get money to those who need it most, is the right thing to do. I think that most pensioners will understand that.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: The chief constable of my area claims that, in 1999–2000, he will suffer a budget cut of £6 million, which is the equivalent of 300 officers in Devon and Cornwall. The Government claim that funding is adequate. Who is telling the truth about the budget for the Devon and Cornwall police for that year?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been helpfully reminding me, we are putting £1.24 billion extra into the police and the budget allocations have not yet been decided. If I have any news for the hon. Gentleman, I will write to him.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall the court decision at the beginning of this year, which stated that thousands of miners, ex-miners and their widows would receive settlements under the legislation on chronic bronchitis and emphysema? After all this time, those benefits have not yet been paid. Way back in the 1970s, under a previous Labour Government, we had a scheme to deal with pneumoconiosis and, later, asbestosis. We managed to find a way out of the problem by ensuring a sliding scale of payments, initiated through the Government.
    We are having trouble getting the matter resolved. It is true that some lawyers are causing a little antagonism, but in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend can knock a few heads together and as we are meeting the Minister for
    368
    Energy and Industry in a few minutes' time to try to resolve the matter, will he ensure that he gives us a chuck-on?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend could teach everyone one a thing or two about lobbying. I understand that we are trying to make early payments up front and I will look into the situation. I cannot commit myself to what he suggests, but we will do our best and I am sure that he will put all those points to the Minister when he meets him shortly.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Prime Minister will probably be aware that, next year, Cornwall and parts of Devon will see the first total eclipse in this country since 1926. Bearing in mind that the 1926 eclipse caused the largest mass movement of people by train in history and the fact that it is predicted that millions of people will try to visit a peninsula that suffers from infrastructure difficulties, the police, ambulance and fire services are expecting to have to pay out millions of pounds in extra costs. That will hit local services. So far, the Home Office has said that the problem is purely local. Surely the eclipse is a genuinely national event that needs national support. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his colleagues to look into the financial costs that are about to fall on us?
    The Prime Minister: I thought for a moment that we were going to get a Liberal Democrat on his feet without asking for more money, but we were disappointed. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that a large number of people will go to the area to see the total eclipse of the sun. I am sure that that will impose additional costs and burdens, but there is a formula for dealing with such matters. [Interruption.] Yes, there is and it will be applied in the hon. Gentleman's case as it would be in everyone else's. No matter how much the Liberal Democrats may want me to do so, I will not write blank cheques at the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Clive Efford: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that exists about the World Trade Organisation's interpretation of article 20, which allows countries to prevent products that harm human, animal or plant life from being imported? Is he aware that a European Union ban on the sale of meat products derived from animals on which hormones have been used to accelerate growth was overturned by the WTO because it violated world trade agreements?
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that such rulings prevent organisations such as the EU from protecting people on environmental and health grounds? At the World Trade Organisation negotiations next year, will he argue for greater priority to be given to those issues?
    The Prime Minister: As I said at the 50th anniversary of the world trading system in Geneva in May, in general terms we believe in, and support, trade liberalisation, but it is important that we do not do so at any cost and that we consider the environmental impact of any proposals. The case that my hon. Friend raises is already before the WTO and was the subject of an Adjournment debate last week.
    We have already made it clear that we support the European Commission's proposal for a high-level meeting on trade and the environment to thrash out those issues.

    369
    However, there is more than one response to the problem that he mentions and to the WTO ruling, and we must proceed very carefully before we give a definitive view.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Was not the Prime Minister's reply to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on the working time directive gratuitously superficial? Is it not the case that the increase in unemployment in this country has two causes—the extra burden of regulation and taxation, which amounts to some £39 billion, and the impost that we pay to the European Union, which is a net contribution of £2 billion? Moreover, the European Union's financial perspective is that its expenditure should grow by 19 per cent. The British worker is being hammered at home and milked abroad.
    The Prime Minister: I saw that the hon. Gentleman received warm support for his question from Conservative Members, but I certainly did not mean to be gratuitous in my response to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I do not believe that the working time directive—which will give people the right, for the first time, to four weeks holiday entitlement—is an unnecessary burden on business. It is extraordinary, but entirely typical, that the Conservative party should believe that the way forward is to cancel any basic minimum standards that people have in the workplace.
    On the money that we pay to the European Union, the hon. Gentleman has a perfectly honourable position—he opposes the European Union. That is not the
    370
    Government's view. We believe that we gain enormously by being members of the European Union. We gain in trade—
    Mr. John Hayes: You are Europe's poodle.
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether that was the Conservative party's third view. We gain enormously in trade, jobs and industry from our membership of the European Union. The best thing for us to do in the difficult time ahead—
    Mr. Hayes: You're just Europe's poodle.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) standing there shouting, something that has gone on throughout Question Time. I caution him that, if it happens next week, he will be sent out during questions. The same applies to all hon. Members. If hon. Members want to participate, they must take their seats.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can go and join Mr. Portillo.
    The way in which to deal with jobs and business over the next year is as I have described. The choice is simple: what is the best way in which to steer a course of stability in the year ahead? We repeat that the best way is to make the investments that we have made, to tackle the problems of social exclusion as we are doing and to hold firm to Bank of England independence. I believe that that position is supported by the vast majority of people in this country, who do not want a return either to underfunded public services or to the boom and bust of the Conservatives.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will no doubt have seen the story in The Times today. I seek your guidance on whether it is in order for me to indulge in idle chatter on social occasions in the House with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is a member of the Territorial Army.
Madam Speaker: I have not seen any comment in The Times. I, for one in the House, do not comment on newspaper reports, and that is a very wise stand to take.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) raises a matter that is of concern to a number of hon. Members, of whom I am one. According to fully verified reports, a circular has been issued to members of the Territorial Army saying that they must not, on pain of court martial, speak to Members of Parliament or to others about the changes to the TA that the Government are proposing. I am about to participate in Exercise Red Javelin, and I want to know whether I can speak to the paras.
Mr. Desmond Swayne rose—
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman who is rising should say nothing. I understand that I have already received a letter from him on this matter, which concerns privilege, and I must deal with it on that basis.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would welcome your guidance. On 21 October, I made a speech, at column 1199, relating to the steel industry in my constituency. I have with me a petition from Co-Steel Sheerness plc, which misrepresents my position, and I seek your guidance, with particular reference to "Erskine May", which says:
"On 22 April 1699 the Commons resolved, 'That the publishing the names of Members of this House and reflecting upon them, and misrepresenting their proceedings in Parliament, is a breach of the privilege of this House, and destructive of the freedom of Parliament'."
Will you advise me on whether it is a matter of privilege?
Madam Speaker: Let me give some guidance to the hon. Gentleman, who is relatively new to the House. It may well be a matter of privilege and, if he will write to me, I will consider it on that basis.

Registration of Nannies
3.35 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend local authority registers under the Children Act 1989 to cover nannies who look after children on domestic premises.
I want to raise an issue of profound importance to many—indeed, perhaps most — hon. Members: child care. The hours in which the House operates mean that, like many hon. Members, I am constrained in the amount of time that I can spend with my children and I am dependent on good-quality and reliable child care. Every working parent has a right to reliable child care, and that is why I feel that it is imperative that existing legislation be extended to cover not only child minders but nannies and au pairs who look after children in the child's home.
The nanny profession is growing rapidly as the number of families with both parents working increases. A recent estimate puts the number of nannies at 100,000, and a survey has concluded that 60 per cent. of women who have an A-level or higher qualification choose to employ a nanny when they return to work after maternity leave. Nannies are no longer the preserve of an elite few in Britain but are a widespread phenomenon. Indeed, they are central to the whole issue of child care.
I welcome the Government's development of a national child care strategy and pay tribute to the role played by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security. I especially welcome the consultation exercise launched earlier this year, which is due to report at the end of the year.
In the past two weeks, the Government have made some excellent announcements on the family, women and children, furthering the social policy agenda, but I believe that the idea of a child care strategy, and indeed of a policy framework that encourages women to return to work, is incomplete unless provision is made for the universal registration and regulation of all child carers, including nannies.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), who raised this topic in an Adjournment debate and whose early-day motion gained 176 signatures from hon. Members of all parties. I acknowledge the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I want to single out the efforts of organisations such as Playpen, the Pre-school Learning Alliance and the Institute of Childcare and Social Education, all of which have campaigned for a register and made numerous representations in the consultation exercise.
The principal reason for a register is that there is no system for checking the suitability and history of nannies and au pairs. We do not, unfortunately, live in a world where characters like Mary Poppins can appear, as if by magic, with qualities perfectly attuned to the demands of the children under their care.
All the checks must be done by parents themselves, and even then there is no way of checking police records on potential carers. There are no mechanisms for nannies to be regularly inspected at work, to ensure that they are carrying out their duties properly. The onus is completely

373
on the parent and, although that is good for parental choice, parents receive no support in making their choice; nor is there any safeguard against a mistake or oversight by a parent.
The lack of regulation also has implications for the tax credit system. Because nannies are not registered, their employers cannot claim child care tax credit, as do mothers who use other forms of child care. Again, a valuable part of the Government's social policy is undermined by the lack of registration.
It is not just parents and children who stand to gain from registration. The current system provides no safeguards to protect nannies from exploitation or mistreatment by their employers. A properly regulated system would ameliorate the situation.
The necessity for greater regulation has been made clear to all by the recent high-profile cases of harm coming to children while under the care of an unqualified carer. Louise Woodward had no qualifications to be a child carer. Whatever the dispute over the verdict in her case—and her constituency Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), still proclaims her innocence, as she does—the result was that a baby died while in her care and she was convicted. The Australian au pair, Louise Sullivan, is awaiting trial for murder of a baby who died while in her care. If they wished to, both Louise Woodward and Louise Sullivan could start work immediately as nannies in this country. Astonishing as that may sound, there is nothing to stop them doing so.
However, the problem is not confined to high-profile cases. Those of us who need nannies in our homes know the problems. My wife and I have advertised for nannies, interviewed them and taken up references. As with other jobs, the written references—what employers are prepared to put in writing—are completely different from what they are prepared to say verbally. The difference in the case of nannies is that employees are given responsibility for that which is most precious to parents.
Voluntary or private registers, although of benefit in providing some security, cannot be seen as the whole solution. The cost to parents of using such registers, and to nannies of entering themselves, can be preclusive. More importantly, there is no mechanism for such registers to be supervised by the Government or social services or to stop agencies simply operating as a profiteering database containing the names and addresses of nannies. Any sense of security gained from such registers may be false.
The minefield of private and voluntary registers is demonstrated by the experience of the Worldwide Nanny Register. It set up a nanny register with various back-up and support services for nannies and parents on a not-for-profit basis. However, it was forced to cease its operations because there was no compulsion on nannies to join and the register could not survive. The answer must be a properly supervised and publicly run register.
374
The aim of everyone in the campaign is for a national register, managed and supervised by the Government. However, the creation of a national register may take some years and much finance to set up. In the meantime, a simple legislative measure is all that is needed to create registers at local level.
Part X of the Children's Act 1989 requires local authorities to keep registers of child minders and those who provide day care for children, which are open to consultation by the public, and empowers local authorities to make regular inspections of child carers at work. To get on to a register, a child minder must have two personal references, a medical reference, two social work inquiry checks and a police check. However, the Act specifically states that those employed by parents as nannies do not count as child minders and are not covered by the Act. My Bill would strike out the legislative exemption for nannies and extend the Act to cover them.
Last week, I joined other hon. Members and members of the Playpen Campaign in a meeting Baroness Jay, the new Minister for Women. She assured us that she sees quality child care as an issue of crucial importance. I feel confident that the question of regulation will be looked into when the consultation exercise comes to an end. As we were meeting my noble Friend, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was making a statement in the House outlining the Government's plans for a national register of people considered unsuitable to work with children. That is another positive step forward and a register for nannies would surely be only one small stage further.
Thank you again, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to raise this important issue. I conclude by quoting Tricia Pritchard, chair of the Playpen Campaign, who says:
"There needs to be greater regulation of nanny agencies, including police checks and a requirement for a minimum standard of relevant qualifications, to make sure that parents can have peace of mind about their children's safety."
We all know how important it is to avoid bureaucratic over-regulation, but there is a crucial balance to be struck between regulation and safety. It is clear that, if security for parents and children and, indeed, nannies and au pairs, is to be guaranteed, the only possible course of action is to set up a national register.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. David Taylor, Mr. Martin Salter, Jackie Ballard, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Ms Ruth Kelly, Caroline Flint, Ms Julie Morgan, Jenny Jones, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. David Kidney, Mrs. Anne Campbell.

Registration of Nannies
  REGISTRATION OF NANNIES
  Mr. Keith Vaz accordingly presented a Bill to extend local authority registers under the Children Act 1989 to cover nannies who look after children on domestic premises: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 12 November, and to be printed [Bill 258].

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)
Ordered,
That the Order [13th January]relating to the Scotland Bill (programme) be supplemented as follows—
Lords Amendments
1.Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second allotted day.
—(1) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: Nos. 215to220, 1 to 87, 125 to 129,237 to 278, 88 to 124, 130 to 214, 221 to 236 and to 302.
(2) The two allotted days shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below.
(3) Each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the expiry of the period (calculated from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill) specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Lords Amendments

Allotted period

First day

Nos. 215 to 220 and 1

1 hour 30 minutes

Nos. 2 to 22

2 hours

Nos. 23 to 52

3 hours 30 minutes

Nos. 53 to 87

4 hours

Nos. 125 to 129

5 hours 30 minutes

Nos. 237 to 278

6 hours 30 minutes

Second day

Nos. 88 to 124, 130 to 214, 221 to 236 and 279 to 302

3 hours 30 minutes

3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any further amendment to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith with respect to the Lords Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in those Amendments.
(8) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(9) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
(10) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
(11) proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Supplemental
4.A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons Shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
5.Stadings Order No. 15(l)(Exempted business)shall apply to proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments—

(a) on the first allotted day, for any part of six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock, and

(b) on the second allotted day, for any part of the period of three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock.

Proceedings on the Motion, if not previously after their commencement (order of 13th January).—[Mr. Allen.]

Orders of the Day

  Scotland Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Lords amendments considered.

  Scotland Bill
    Schedule 1

      CONSTITUENCIES, REGIONS AND REGIONAL MEMBERS
      Lords amendment: No. 215, in page 57, line 5, after ("constituencies") insert ("of the Scottish Parliament")
      3.45 pm
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 216 to 220.
      Mr. Dewar: Today, we continue a long saga that has become part of our lives over the past year or so. I offer hon. Members the consolation that we approach the end, as we are now dealing with Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill. Today and next Monday, the House will be asked to consider the formidable number of amendments made to the Bill during its passage through the Lords. The Government have taken, as is traditional and proper, particularly with such complex legislation, the opportunity to strengthen and improve the Bill against its drafting when it left the House last May. I hope to persuade hon. Members that many of the changes made in their lordships' House are both desirable and to be welcomed. I am sure that the Opposition Front-Bench teams will join me in the task, looking squarely, but, I hope, briefly in most cases, at the merits of each proposal as it comes along.
      It is therefore perhaps a little ironic that I have to start by asking the House to disagree with the Lords on a group of amendments that relate to a matter of some importance: the size of the Scottish Parliament, and whether it should remain, irrespective of what may happen in other parts of Scotland's parliamentary representation, at 129 Members. Let me say immediately that I believe that there is a genuine desire among most hon. Members—and among Members in the Lords—who have debated the matter to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can operate effectively and on a basis that will inspire and command public confidence. To some Conservative Members, its size is the most important or determining factor of its ability to do that. I do not agree, and want to advance some arguments to support my point of view. We believe that quality is important and that the working methods of the Parliament are an important part of the process. In addition, the involvement of the wider community beyond Parliament is an element in the general process and in the preparations made to allow the Parliament to operate effectively.
      I pay tribute to the consultative steering group, to the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution and to the representatives of other parties who have joined him on the steering group. Great progress has been made: one or two ideas have been picked up and knocked about in the public press in a way that I regret, but that is the price
      378
      one pays for innovating and producing ideas that are novel and depart somewhat from the precedents accepted here. We have always made it clear that we would take the best from this place, but that, if Scottish conditions made it necessary to think anew, we would not hesitate to do so.
      There are points of principle involved in the Bill and in the amendments to it. One point of principle that those of us on the Government Benches think is of some significance and importance is that there is genuine virtue in a linkage between Westminster and Scottish parliamentary constituencies; and we see merit in coterminous boundaries. The White Paper "Scotland's Parliament", which is familiar to all hon. Members who have the staying power still to participate in these debates, spelt out clearly the importance that the Government attach to maintaining common boundaries for the constituencies at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament.
      Such an approach will strengthen the integrity of the United Kingdom. In addition, there are benefits from the point of view of constituents, because common boundaries will make representation easier to access. All of us know from our own experience the surprising amount of confusion that often prevails in the minds of our constituents about how the various branches and levels of government interact and interrelate. I am often more clearly recognised by my constituents as a surrogate local councillor than as a Member of Parliament. I realised early in my career that, when people approach me with problems, delivering a mini penny lecture on the fact that housing allocation is not my responsibility as a Member of Parliament, or that I am not responsible for some other aspect of local government work, does not go down well.
      Mr. Donald Gorrie: In the light of what he has said, will the Secretary of State make sure that local government ward boundaries are coterminous with the proposed parliamentary boundaries? Currently, they are not.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman raises a very different issue—local government reform. He is asking me to intervene and interfere with the work of the local government boundary commission in a way that I should be loth to do. If I did attempt to do as he asks, I suspect that I should quickly run foul of my legislative duties. I know that the hon. Gentleman enjoys pursuing that argument with the dogged persistence that is his trademark, and it may be that I shall have to sit and listen to a great deal on that subject at some point in the months ahead; however, today is not that day. I merely imported local government into my argument to illustrate that lack of clarity about function is common, as is lack of clarity about boundaries.
      Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. James Wallace: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Dewar: I shall give way in a minute, first to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, and then to the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), for the Liberal Democrats.

      379
      If there are coterminous boundaries, that will encourage Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament to work together. In addition, it will mean that we have a rational structure, which is in the interests of all. Now, I give way, with pleasure, to the hon. Member for Woodspring.
      Dr. Fox: May I take the Secretary of State back to point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie)? I accept that it would be quite improper to interfere with the local government boundary commission. However, if the right hon. Gentleman's argument is not a practical point but, as he said, a point of principle, would he not have to agree that coterminosity in respect of local government is as desirable as coterminosity in respect of Westminster constituencies?
      Mr. Dewar: No, the hon. Gentleman has, perhaps understandably, got my points out of order. I started with a point of principle, which was the integrity of the United Kingdom and the advantage of coterminous boundaries in that context. I should have though that that was one of the few points in our long argument on which the hon. Gentleman might have been inclined to agree with me. I then moved on to an important practical point about clarity in the system and the ability of Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of Parliament to work together. There were two points, conjoined in the text of my speech but clearly distinct in their ordering and how they were being made.
      Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Minister of State? On 12 May, the Minister of State said:
      "People are less concerned with maps and boundaries than they are with the quality of political contribution and of services. Yes, there is an issue, but we would do well to keep it in perspective."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 224.]
      Is not the Secretary of State getting the matter a little out of perspective and adding to confusion in his announcements?
      Mr. Dewar: No, I am arguing practical points about confusion, clarity and working arrangements which are relevant to the debate. If boundaries are being made an enormous sticking point and the issue is being blown out of proportion, I could—but I shall not—charge Liberal Democrat Members with doing so. We must consider the matter in proper proportion and in context, and it is worth pausing on it because it is important that we try to get it right, but it is not a breaking point in the passage of the Bill, as other hon. Members seem to think.
      Sir Robert Smith: Why not?
      Mr. Dewar: Because I do not believe in arranging matters to create barriers where no barriers need exist.
      Sir Robert Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dewar: Very well, but I should have let the hon. Gentleman intervene on a more substantial point later.
      Sir Robert Smith: The substantial point is that the Secretary of State was saying that the matter should not
      380
      be a great sticking point, but it is within his power to avoid its becoming a sticking point by accepting the Lords amendment, the contents of which his party signed up to when it signed the constitutional convention agreement.
      Mr. Dewar: I shall come to that argument, and I do not dismiss it lightly. To give the hon. Gentleman a hint and to rehearse a point, the matter was not a sticking point for the Liberal Democrats when they gamely and effectively campaigned for a yes vote for a White Paper that encompassed the Government's position, including the point that we are making in asking for the rejection of the Lords amendments. I shall return to that point in a moment.
      The practical point is that MPs and MSPs will be better placed to co-ordinate their constituency work and make sure that local interests are properly represented at Holyrood and Westminster. We want contacts between MSPs and MPs to be straightforward and their constituents to be in tune with, and aware of, the organisation and the way in which the system works. Our position would help that process.
      By contrast—this is a simple point that I shall not elaborate—if we were to accept the Lords amendments, a Westminster MP would in future find that he had probably more than one MSP with whom to work and, if the boundaries were out of alignment, there would be a patchwork of overlapping boundaries, which would leave room for confusion.
      Dr. Fox: It would be difficult for MSPs to have other Members roaming around their constituencies, but how does that differ from the proposals to have top-up MPs floating around the Westminster constituencies which were made in the report that Lord Jenkins published last week?
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is looking at me in a knowing way as though he has produced a knock-out punch. I know that that is a rare feeling for him, so I am sorry to have to spoil it for him. I am making two very different points. One is about overlapping boundaries for those who have a territorial responsibility. In this case, that means Westminster MPs and MSPs elected in the constituency section by first past the post. When the hon. Gentleman brings the Jenkins proposals into the debate, he is referring to a system that includes list members, which is very different. We are discussing the territorials, if I can use that somewhat dismissive term as a shorthand to explain the point.
      Let me say to those on the Liberal Benches that the parliamentary boundary commission is already required to take account of local government boundaries. It may not have done so as completely as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) would like, but the commission is required to take account of local council boundaries as part of the statutory rules. That will be the position at the next review. I hope that we will therefore minimise the overlapping, even with local government boundaries, to which he pointed.
      4 pm
      The Government are committed to clause 81 and to undertaking a review of the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster. It is generally accepted that

      381
      we cannot justify the above-average representation that Scotland enjoys in the House of Commons. It is anticipated, and I accept, that such a review will lead to a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament, and correspondingly a reduction in the number of constituencies in Scotland. In the White Paper, we made it clear that the size of the Scottish Parliament would change to take account of changes at Westminster so as to maintain common boundaries.
      I should reassure the House that the Government have thought long and hard about the implications for the Parliament of a reduction in its size. We do not believe that such a reduction will make the Parliament less able to carry out its key roles of scrutinising effectively the Scottish Administration's work and enacting legislation.
      We are not, on any realistic assessment, contemplating cutting the membership of the Parliament in half, or by a third, or even by a quarter. The reduction would amount to no more than 20 per cent. of the total numbers of seats, on most projections. Even after the review, the Scottish Parliament will still have significantly more than 100 Members.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Secretary of State agree that that is a dangerous path on which to embark? In the future, should the Government implement the findings of the Jenkins report, which foresees a 20 per cent. fall in the number of directly elected Members of Parliament. the Scottish Parliament would end up with only 48 directly elected MSPs.
      Mr. Dewar: I know the hon. Gentleman. He is one of my favourite former bank managers. I am always amazed to think that he was once in charge of a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland, where I bank, which makes that a matter of anxious interest to me.
      I do not have a crystal ball. The House will remember that Lord Jenkins made it clear that any changes that might emerge from his proposals, which are representative proposals to be tested in a referendum, could not be implemented for at least eight years. Although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in those matters, his contention is, to say the least, hypothetical.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: The parliamentary boundary changes could not be implemented until the election after next, either. The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. Is he saying that the reduction in constituency size—the reduction proposed by the Jenkins commission for Westminster—will automatically follow through for the Scottish Parliament? Will he answer the question whether that could mean a reduction in the number of directly elected constituency members to 50 or so if the Jenkins recommendations were implemented?
      Mr. Dewar: That is some way—and a referendum—away. There is plenty of time to consider those matters. We must start with a reasonably stable basis. We suggested—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) laughs, but we are speaking about practical politics. Let us assume for a moment that
      382
      we reduce, as we will, the number of Scottish constituencies, so that Scotland is treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of the boundary commission criteria, and let us assume that there is a variation. There is no reason for thinking that that would result in a Scottish Parliament that was unable to carry out its duties properly and consistently.
      If the hon. Gentleman likes to think about it, let me point out that we have 72 Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster. That increase above the United Kingdom average is justified because Scottish Members have a large number of responsibilities deriving from the distinct and different Scottish legislation, which justifies that buttressed number. I think that we are all familiar with that argument. All that additional work will go to the Scottish Parliament. On that basis, it seems right that we should have—to use a term from another area—a "level playing field" between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of the boundary commission's considerations at the next boundary review.
      My point is that, even on that basis, we shall have 129 Members of Parliament in Scotland. That will be a permanent feature, irrespective of what happens at other levels of government, if the other place has its way. Those 129 Members of Parliament will do the additional work—that which is over and above the normal work of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons—but will have none of the other responsibilities that lie with Members of the House of Commons in areas such as the economy, foreign affairs, level playing field legislation, company legislation, financial services regulation and so on.
      Those 129 Members of Parliament will have a very much narrower remit than do the present 72 Scottish Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. If the current representation in the House of Commons is satisfactory, I do not see why it should suddenly be anathema to have in the Scottish Parliament—which will have a very much narrower remit—almost 50 per cent. more Members. Why should that figure be written into legislation and never altered? That seems to me to be a highly illogical view, and I recommend that argument to the House.
      I understand entirely the point made by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland—I have discussed the matter with him on more than one occasion —takes the view that an agreement was reached in the constitutional convention and should be honoured. That is an understandable point of view. The hon. and learned Gentleman also knows—I rehearsed this argument a minute or two ago—that, subsequent to that agreement, a White Paper was published. If he looks at paragraph 8.7 of the White Paper—I am sure that he is very familiar with it; I hardly need to quote it—he will see that it clearly states:
      "The integrity of the UK will be strengthened by common UK and Scottish Parliament boundaries."
      The rest of the paragraph argues that case. I think that the word "may", which is used in the last sentence, has misled some people. However, according to any reasonable

      383
      interpretation of the text, it will be seen that the point about coterminous boundaries is well made and well founded. The last sentence states:
      "Any changes in Westminster constituencies will result in changes to Scottish Parliamentary constituencies; and may also lead to consequential adjustments to the size of the Scottish Parliament so as to maintain the present balance between constituency and additional Member seats."
      The "may" refers to a possible variation in the corrective mechanism: the regional or top-up seats—however the House wishes to describe them.
      The White Paper makes the clear point that coterminous boundaries are part of the scheme. While I do not necessarily wish to put it in terms of choice, if I were asked to choose, I would feel that the White Paper—which is of a later date, for which we all campaigned and which has been endorsed by the votes of the people—is the benchmark against which to measure those facts.
      I do not wish to overdo those arguments, but I believe that there are no absolutes in such matters. None of us has an absolute view about the right size of a Parliament. We have no such idea about the House of Commons. This place comprises 659 Members, and many people think that there should be fewer Members. I do not suppose for a moment that there is unanimity on that point or on how much smaller Parliament should be.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman will remind me—if he does not, I shall remind myself —that he thought at one time that the absolute right size of the Scottish Parliament was 144 Members. A special commission, chaired by Joyce McMillan, was established at the constitutional convention to examine this and related issues. It suggested that the Scottish Parliament should comprise 112 Members: 73 first past the post, plus 39 in the top-up. A compromise emerged at that point of 129 Members, and that is the starting point for the new Parliament. As I say, on top of that we have adopted the point that was made in the White Paper, which means that 129 is not just the starting point but is conditional upon the important point made in the White Paper about coterminous boundaries.
      Mr. Salmond: I think that the Secretary of State is misinterpreting the Lords amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the Scottish Parliament its own boundary commission and set its size on its own priorities, not to set, fixed in time, 129 as an absolute number. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any example anywhere in the world of a Parliament that judges its complexion and the numbers that should be in it on the basis of another Parliament's representations?
      Mr. Dewar: I know that we have a fundamental disagreement because the hon. Gentleman naturally does not believe that a devolution settlement is a stable settlement or one that in itself is worth while. I understand that. I say naturally because, as a political point of view, he will always criticise and push for more, and ultimately wants to drive on to an entirely different political settlement. I do not think that he will carry Scotland on that, but I appreciate that that viewpoint is his.
      My viewpoint is that we are looking for a new and strong voice for Scotland within the United Kingdom. We are handing over an unprecedented number of domestic areas of policy to a directly elected Scottish Parliament,
      384
      where the writ of that Parliament will run unchallenged. We have retained—I think on a logical division—certain areas, which remain on a United Kingdom basis. The constitution and the boundary commission are preserved and fall into this category. That is the difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself. I accept that. I hold to the view that what we propose is sensible. That is how the White Paper was drafted and that is, in my view, how the Bill should go on to the statute book.
      I do not think that this is something on which I shall be able to persuade the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that, on this point, he will not be able to persuade me. We shall have to push on, on that basis, and agree to disagree, which is becoming something of a habit of a lifetime between us.
      Mr. John Bercow: How does the Secretary of State believe that reducing the size of the Scottish Parliament in the way that he suggests will help that Parliament to act as a bulwark against those in the Scottish Nationalist party who would like to exploit the difficulties of devolution as a justification for moves towards independence?
      Mr. Dewar: I said earlier and I say again that those are matters of judgment. My judgment is that there is genuine virtue—I think that it is a matter of principle—in having coterminous boundaries. It may be, although I would be surprised, that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that. Will we satisfy the people of Scotland if we make a success of the Parliament that they endorsed with their vote? We shall have to produce the right positive policies. We shall have to attack the problems of unemployment, raise education standards and build on the excellence of the health service in Scotland. I think that we shall have to argue, as I believe that we can successfully argue, that a continuing connection with the United Kingdom, with our main market in economic terms, with an area with which we have many traditional ties, where we have intermarried and intermingled, where we have had challenges, disappointments and triumphs over 300 years, makes sense. However, that is an argument for the future. No doubt, it will be maintained over quite a lengthy period.
      The hon. Gentleman may think that the argument will turn on the issue of the number of Members, but I think that he is mistaken. I believe that there is no necessary correlation between the size of the Parliament and its efficiency. It could be argued, certainly on the extreme, that if there were a larger and larger number of Members, efficiency would be more and more sacrificed. That is a matter for debate. We start from the point of view of principle
      —
      Mr. Bercow: I concede the logic
      Mr. Dewar: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's views are and 1 do not think that I want to know. Let us say that there is considerable concern in the House about the size of the House. A local government example is that, in most parts of the country—certainly the part of it that I know well—there are many who would argue, although no doubt others would disagree, that we should reduce the number of councillors. Consider, for example, what is being done in the new form of London government, so those things are all matters on which hon. Members

      385
      would argue, but I certainly protest against the argument that the more we have, the more efficient we are and the more beautiful the organisation. I do not for a moment imagine, although the hon. Gentleman may not be interested in beauty, that he would disagree with that proposition.
      I shall hurry on because I am being unfair to the House and many hon. Members will want to speak.
      4.15 pm
      The amendments create, or try to create, a role for the parliamentary boundary commission for Scotland to undertake a separate review of the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland. As the House will know, the boundary commission is required to produce a report by June 2005. It is far from clear why hon. Members feel it necessary for such a report to be available so soon. It would mean that the boundary commission would be forced to conduct a separate review of the Scottish parliamentary constituencies at the same time as it was finalising its review of the Scottish seats at Westminster. That would be an onerous burden to impose on the commission and not one that would be necessary.
      If, however, we leave that to one side, one difficulty with the detailed amendments is that they propose that the report of the parliamentary boundary commission should be submitted to the Scottish Executive for subsequent approval by the Scottish Parliament. That is a reasonable proposition if hon. Members take the view that this should be not a reserved, but a devolved matter. I do not take that view. It follows from that that the attempt to reverse that decision by means of this group of amendments is not one that I am prepared to support.
      Schedule 5 makes it clear that elections to the Scottish Parliament, being a fundamental part of the constitution in the United Kingdom, are reserved. To be consistent with that approach, any review of the Scottish parliamentary constituencies should be a matter for the Secretary of State and for this Parliament. To split in the way that is suggested is not necessary or desirable.
      The amendments' approach is not acceptable to the Government and is not compatible with the provisions in the White Paper. Therefore, we believe that the House should disagree with the Lords in their amendment. However, I stress that the amendments pay insufficient attention to the importance of maintaining common constituency links between Westminster and Holyrood. Again, the Government believe—I just state it briefly—that the maintenance of those links is important.
      I have made it clear that we are prepared, obviously, and have thought long and hard about those matters. It is clear that, for a variety of reasons, it will be some time before there is a change. No doubt, there will be possibilities to revisit the arguments if we are convinced by experience that 129 MSPs are essential and that any reduction in numbers would be a democratic disaster. If hon. Members examine that proposition, they will see that it is unlikely to be tenable. I believe that experience will not teach us that lesson. If it does, because those changes—or any changes consequent on Westminster changes—will not come in for some years, that fact will no doubt become apparent and can be taken into account.
      386
      We shall have the opportunity to see how the Scottish Parliament works in practice before any changes are made to it.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Before my right hon. Friend leaves this point, I should like to make a point about paragraph 8.7. Although it clearly states:
      "Responsibility for Scottish Parliamentary electoral arrangements… will be reserved matters",
      it goes on to say that it will be a matter for the UK Parliament
      "subject to consultation with the Scottish Parliament."
      Will he confirm that there is no change in that position?
      Mr. Dewar: It would be odd of me, if, having rested heavily on paragraph 8.7 of the White Paper, I then announced a retreat from what it says. Of course there will be consultation. The point that is made by the amendments and by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is that there should be not consultation, but a transfer of power. In the context of the whole shape of the devolution package, that would not be sensible, wise or compatible with what we have been doing over the long periods of consultation and debate.
      I say again that, over the next few years, we shall have experience of the Scottish Parliament in operation and can then assess how dependent it is on having 129 MSPs for its success. I suspect that that will not be a determining factor. What I believe will be the success of the Parliament will depend on its ability to deliver, to respond to Scottish public opinion and to involve Scottish public opinion in its affairs.
      Dr. Fox: It does not seem long since we last debated the Bill. The difference is that now we have quite a different Bill before us. One point on which I agree with the Secretary of State is that many of the changes are desirable and should be welcomed.
      I pay tribute to what are affectionately called the MacKay twins—Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Mackay of Drumadoon—who did a great deal of work in the other place. They were able to reach agreement with Ministers on many aspects, all of which improve the Bill that left this House. However, there is a point to be made: the Government introduced 180 groups of amendments to their flagship Bill in a House that they claim does not have proper democratic legitimacy and needs to be changed.
      Mr. Swayne: Did not many of the Government amendments in the other place bear a striking resemblance to amendments originally suggested by the twins to whom my hon. Friend referred?
      Dr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I do not want to be ungracious at the outset of our debate. I am happy when the Government find humility and recognise when they are wrong. We will always welcome that. Indeed, I hope that they will do so again today. There has been a tight time scale for Opposition parties, with major amendments to Third Reading being tabled by the Government on Monday night, thereby giving us little time to assess their full impact. We said a long time ago that the time management of the Bill left something to be desired.

      387
      The Secretary of State said on Second Reading, and it is worth reminding the House—[Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to see and listen at the same time. His original approach was that the Bill would be framed against the background of a worst case scenario, in particular in a way that would not provide the nationalists and separatists with a wedge to drive between Edinburgh and Westminster. We have also taken that approach through the passage of the Bill; it has been a consistent theme. However, what the Secretary of State is defending today will have precisely the opposite effect to his stated intent. The first thing that will be required to make the Scottish Parliament work properly is stability, but what is guaranteed by what he is defending is instability.
      We already know what changes will come about as a result of other parts of the Bill. We know that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament will be reduced from 72 to about 58, if we have the same size electorates that we have for the remainder of the United Kingdom. That is a generally accepted point in the debate. That will reduce the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament by 14 for directly elected seats and eight for top-up. It is not a good basis on which to start a Parliament—knowing that, very soon afterwards, possibly within its first term and certainly within its second, there will be a major redistribution. With the best will in the world, there will be division among Members. We know that from our experience in the House when there is a boundary review. People naturally want to defend their constituencies and continue to look after the interests of their constituents. It is not a proper basis for stability.
      I do not accept the Secretary of State's argument—really just an assertion—that the matter should be left to his judgment and that we should accept that. I remember that, on Second Reading, we were told that only by accepting the Secretary of State's judgment could we stop a resurgence of Scottish nationalism. Since then, the Scottish National party, much to my deep upset, has been doing rather well; it is the Labour party which has been doing badly in Scotland.
      The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): What about the Conservative party?
      Dr. Fox: I can tell the hon. Gentleman about my party's success. In local government by-elections in Scotland, the Labour party has dropped the most votes, while the other three parties have gained, especially since the devolution referendum.
      Mr. Dewar: By what percentage?
      Dr. Fox: What matters most to the Secretary of State is by how much our vote has risen, rather than the fact that his party's vote has dropped. That says a great deal about a party that was pinning all its hopes on delivering the right hon. Gentleman's devolution package.
      Far more important, the Secretary of State said that only by producing this particular package could we defend the Union. However, it seems now that the Union is more imperilled than at any time in our recent history. The Secretary of State's judgment therefore means nothing to Opposition Members.
      388
      I do not want to go into the breach of faith perceived by the Liberal Democrats, as it was not something to which the Conservative party was a party. However, if the Secretary of State was willing to amend some parts of the Bill—which was based on the White Paper—in the other place, why is he unwilling to amend other parts of it? Why should some parts be sacrosanct while others are not? A logical case has not been made to support that position, but then neither has a logical case been made to support any of the Secretary of State's other comments in this debate.
      The most important point is that, if the Scottish Parliament is to fund arrangements through the Scottish block, surely it makes sense for the Scottish Parliament itself to decide on its priorities. It seems perfectly logical for the Scottish Parliament to want to reduce the number of those sitting in the Parliament so that it can spend more on something else. Conversely, if the Scottish Parliament decides that it wants to spend more money on the Scottish Parliament, why should it not have a chance to do so? It seems very strange to be unwilling to devolve any authority on the matter.
      It would seem to make perfect sense for the Conservative party—and other parties, too—to campaign on reducing the costs of the Scottish Parliament, and therefore on being able to spend more of the Scottish block on other priorities. That is a matter of legitimate political debate in Scotland, and it would be stifled by the Secretary of State's proposals.
      Today, we are witnessing another misjudgment by the Government, who are simply defending the stubbornness of the Secretary of State, or perhaps of those in Downing street. Regardless, the downside of such stubbornness will be unnecessary division and instability in the Scottish Parliament at a time when it most needs stability. That cannot be to the advantage of the United Kingdom, this Parliament or the Scottish Parliament, and it can act only in favour of those who want a wedge to be driven between Edinburgh and this place. It can help only the separatists. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will reconsider.
      Mr. Wallace: It is not surprising that I disagree with the Secretary of State in disagreeing with the Lords amendments. The amendments are similar to those that I moved in the House in Committee and on Report, and were moved by my noble Friends in another place, where they were passed.
      It should be remembered that, both in Committee and on Report, when I moved those similar amendments, the mood music from the Treasury Bench was relatively sweet. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution said that the Government were listening and would consider the arguments being made. On Report, he said that I had
      "made a strong and very reasoned case to retain the size of the Scottish Parliament at 129 members",
      and confirmed that
      "the Government would reflect carefully on the issues that he raised."
      There was perhaps an expectation in another place that things might be changed. Therefore, there was profound disappointment when, in another place, albeit with not

      389
      much conviction, Lord Sewel sought to defend the position. I wondered whether there was perhaps some confusion about what the Minister had said. He said:
      "We are still considering the matter, and we hope to reach a conclusion by the time that the Bill goes to another place."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 223-34.]
      But Ministers dug in their heels.
      The suspicion—on which press speculation has dwelt—is that the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution and the Scottish Office were very much persuaded by the arguments made in this place to retain the size of the Parliament at 129, but that No. 10 Downing street —the Prime Minister himself—has been the blocking factor.
      The Scottish Constitutional Convention negotiations—which the Secretary of State mentioned—that reached the compromise figure of 129 were quite fraught. When the 129 figure was reached, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie)—who was not then an hon. Member—sent me a fax which almost burnt my fax machine, as he thought that we should have stood out for 145. I say that to underline that it was not an easy negotiation. It was not simply an agreement between two parties, but reflected a broad base of Scottish civic opinion. The agreement stated:
      "the system the Convention has devised is the outcome of long and detailed discussions, and is underpinned by fundamental principles including proportionality and the opportunity for equal representation. It should not be easily challenged or changed without careful and democratic scrutiny."
      Regrettably, the Government are departing from that today.
      The Secretary of State argued the case on the basis of the White Paper, although, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, on other matters the Government are clearly prepared to move away from it. In fact, we shall be debating a significant change in the manner in which judges can be dismissed—a change with which we agree.
      4.30 pm
      In other cases, the Secretary of State has moved away from the convention agreement. For example, we are to have a system of reserved powers rather than detailed devolved powers. We welcome that as it was something of which we tried to persuade the Labour party in the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
      I do not remember many speeches by the Secretary of State during the referendum campaign in which he referred to paragraph 8.7 of the White Paper. Nevertheless, he rests his case on that and it seems to be one of his best points. However, in earlier debates, the Government suggested that they might be prepared to negotiate, so they cannot pin too much of their argument to the White Paper.
      We wish to retain larger numbers of MSPs because all parties agree—the Secretary of State rightly paid tribute to the work of the consultative steering group, a constructive working group of which I am pleased to be a member—that the Scottish Parliament should work very much on a committee basis and that committees will have an important role to play. Those committees must have sufficient numbers to make them worth while.
      390
      The figure of 129 is important, as it delivers a degree of proportionality that allows for a fair representation of all sections of Scottish political opinion in the Scottish Parliament. I know that the Secretary of State—I have had this discussion with him many times —believes that inserting the ratio of 73 to 56 in the Bill will mean that, when the Parliament is downsized, it will maintain the same degree of proportionality. However, I believe that, if there are fewer additional Members to correct, the level of correction must be lower; therefore, it will not be as proportional. I do not doubt the Secretary of State's good faith—he is just arithmetically wrong.
      The Prime Minister's argument is based on the White Paper which talks about the need for coterminous boundaries. The Secretary of State suggested that not having coterminous boundaries might lead to confusion. That argument continued to be peddled on Report, and the Minister addressed it when he said:
      "I do not think that the electorate are as confused as some hon. Members think. Because hon. Members are concerned about boundaries, we assume that the electors are also concerned. However, electors in my constituency are a very sharp, bright bunch-which they demonstrate at every election, by voting in a very superior way."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 224.]
      I am sure that, even with non-coterminous boundaries, they would be equally sharp. The Minister put the argument into some perspective on Report.
      Are the Government and the Secretary of State trying to persuade the House that the integrity of the Union depends on whether the boundary for Edinburgh, South runs up Warrender Park road or Marchmont road? If the Union is in such a perilous state that one road may make a difference, heaven help us. I think that the opposite is the case. If, in eight years' time, it is seen to be at the hand of Westminster that the number of MSPs is being cut, that could give rise to tensions between Westminster and Holyrood and undermine the Union. On that particular argument, the Government have got it wrong.
      The agenda in relation to the size of the Parliament may be that the Prime Minister wants a reduced Parliament. We are always brought back to the obstinacy of a Prime Minister who legislates for devolution and talks about devolution, but does not seem to understand it, so today the Secretary of State has to come here and be his master's voice. This matter is important for the future of the Scottish Parliament. If the Labour party makes any agreement in the Scottish Parliament, will it have to be countersigned by Downing street in order to be delivered or will we be able to trust the Government, as we thought that we could when they agreed the constitutional convention?
      Contrast that with my party, which already has devolution in its federal structure. I have made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that, regardless of agreements to extend the remit of Cabinet Committees or anything else that may happen at Westminster, the Scottish Liberal Democrats are sovereign on matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. He accepts that.
      Dr. Fox: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that de-linkage does not necessarily mean that the numbers will be set in stone? The Scottish Parliament could change the numbers if it felt that that was appropriate. That is surely the best mechanism for

      391
      defusing any potential tension between Edinburgh and here, which is what I thought that we were doing in removing what we called the wedge.
      Mr. Wallace: In an effort to get some agreement, we have been willing to say that 129 was not sacrosanct, but, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not been willing to show any sign of compromise. Last Saturday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil made a proposal, which I suggested to the Prime Minister, that when the boundary commission reviews Westminster boundaries, the electoral commission recommended by the Jenkins commission and the Neill committee—or a Scottish sub-committee of it—should examine the workings of the Scottish Parliament and consider how many Members were needed for its committee structure to work effectively, taking into account the relative proportionality on which the first elections would be fought and the geography of Scotland so that we did not have vast constituencies. The point about what might happen under the Jenkins proposals, which would leave only 48 first-past-the-post or alternative vote seats, is relevant. The commission should recommend the smallest number of Members that could deliver an effective Parliament, having regard to all those points.
      That compromise proposal shows that we have the issue in perspective and are not tied to the figure of 129. The proposal still lies on the table. If the other place insists on its amendment—I shall urge my noble Friends to do so—and the Government have to come up with a compromise, the suggestion will still be there.
      Lord Sewel said in another place that, some years down the line, perhaps the Scottish Parliament could say to Westminster that it needed greater numbers. I am sure that Westminster would think seriously about that, but if the measure were set in statute, primary legislation would be needed. All of us, from those who have been here as long as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to those as recently arrived as the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander), have heard the Government say at some point that their timetable does not allow time for a particular measure. If this provision were taken out of the Bill, Westminster would at some stage be obliged to address the issue and legislate on it without any preconditions. Our proposal was put forward in the spirit of trying to find a compromise. It remains on the table.
      That is why I say that we have the issue in perspective. Surely the Secretary of State did not expect us not to support a yes campaign in the referendum because we disagreed with one paragraph of the White Paper. On Second Reading, the Government said that they were willing to listen constructively to amendments and amend the Bill accordingly. It is disappointing that they have not accepted our arguments. The House may have to debate the issue again before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
      Mr. John McAllion: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State began the debate by warning everyone that the end was nigh. 1 hope that that apocalyptic warning will not apply to me, too, because I cannot join my right hon. Friend tonight in voting down the Lords amendment.
      I agree with my right hon. Friend that the size of the Parliament is not necessarily the most important issue at stake. Voters tend to favour fewer politicians rather than
      392
      more if they are given the choice. However, the manner in which we arrive at the size of the Parliament is fundamental. My right hon. Friend did not address the fundamental point — which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—that the figure of 129 was not plucked out of the air. It was agreed inside the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
      Not only the figure but any future change to the figure was agreed inside the Scottish Constitutional Convention. As members of the convention, the Labour party agreed that any future reduction in the size of the Scottish Parliament would be carried out by a separate boundary commission for Scotland and on the advice of the Scottish Parliament. That was in the agreement. We gave our word that, were we ever to form the Government of the United Kingdom, we would implement that agreement. We are certainly not doing that here and now by opposing the amendment.
      There was more than just cross-party agreement. The only political parties that were inside the convention were us, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the Communists—or the Democratic Left, or whatever they called themselves at that time—but many other people took part. The trade unions—an essential part of our party—were separately represented, to give their agreement to any future change. The Churches and women's organisations were involved, as were representatives of the ethnic minorities. What we now call Scottish civil society was inside the Scottish Constitutional Convention. We agreed with them all about changing the size of the Scottish Parliament in the future. We should not break our word to Scottish civil society, or to the other political parties inside the convention, as lightly as we appear to be doing tonight.
      My right hon. Friend referred to paragraph 87 of the White Paper. I must say, in all honesty, that I was not aware of paragraph 87. I suspect that a lot of people in Scotland were not aware of it. Perhaps I would not have welcomed the White Paper as warmly as I did when it was announced in the House had I known that that paragraph existed. It is a relatively obscure paragraph in the White Paper, and my right hon. Friend was at least honest enough to say that it does not actually say in the White Paper that the size of the Parliament will be changed —it says that it "may" be changed. Of course, that is a favourite parliamentary word for putting things off and not confronting them at the time.
      My right hon. Friend reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that any future reduction in the size of the Scottish Parliament would be subject to consultation with the Scottish Parliament. What happens if the Scottish Parliament says no? What happens if the Scottish Parliament says, "We do not want the size of the Parliament reduced—we want to retain 129 Members"? If Westminster consults and the Scottish Parliament says no, what does Westminster do then? Will it send the tanks up to surround Holyrood to demand that 20 Members get out, or else? We are getting ourselves into a ridiculous situation.
      I, too, campaigned for a yes, yes vote in the referendum. My right hon. Friend may well remember that, along with a certain Mr. Phil Gallie—late of this House—I acted as the warm-up act for a big Scottish Television programme involving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the leaders of the Liberal

      393
      Democrats and the Scottish National party taking on the Tories, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the vice-chairman of Rangers. It was a tremendous debate with hundreds of members of the public present. Nobody referred to any possibility that the size of the Parliament might be reduced in future.
      I never came across a single incident during the campaign in which that issue was shown the light of day. No one was aware during the referendum campaign that there was the potential for the Scottish Parliament to be reduced in size by Act of the Westminster Parliament. We must be honest and state that that is the case, and not try to hide behind the referendum result as if it were an endorsement of the Westminster Parliament being able to reduce the size of the Scottish Parliament. It certainly was not, and I know that my right hon. Friend would not pretend that that issue had anything to do with the result of 11 September.
      Dr. Lynda Clark: I may be hallucinating, but my recollection is that it was headline news in some of the Scottish papers that such a reduction might be a consequence of the White Paper. Perhaps my hon. Friend did not read the papers at that time.
      Mr. McAllion: I certainly do not read the same papers as my hon. and learned Friend does, and I did not see that reference. I am making a basic point which none of my right hon. or hon. Friends could deny: the Scottish people who voted yes, yes on 11 September did not do so on the basis that they wanted to see the size of the Scottish Parliament reduced by the Westminster Parliament. Anyone who argues that they did is not arguing in the real world.
      I believe that the Westminster Parliament should not be imposing change on Scotland by giving effect to the doctrine of Westminster sovereignty or supremacy. Devolution in the form proposed inside the Scottish Constitutional Convention is opposed to the doctrine of Westminster sovereignty. My hon. Friends and I signed the foundation document for that convention, the Claim of Right for Scotland, which asserted the sovereignty of the Scottish people, setting that against the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which this Parliament favours. We all signed up to it and stood by it. Having said that we think that the Scottish people are sovereign, we should not allow the Westminster Parliament to use its sovereignty to impose a change in the Scottish Parliament without any reference to the Scottish people or their Parliament.
      What will be the response of my hon. Friends if the Scottish Parliament says no? What will be the response of the United Kingdom Cabinet if Scotland says that it does not want its Parliament to be reduced in size? Will we overrule Scotland's objections or will we seek to impose Westminster's will on Scotland?
      4.45 pm
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that constitutional matters are a reserved area and therefore outwith the remit of the Scottish Parliament. The logic of that position is to say that that Parliament, like local government in Scotland, is a creature of statute —that it is
      394
      what Westminster says it is and is not what Westminster says it is not. Again, I do not remember any Labour politician arguing that in Scotland in the past 10 years. They are arguing it here tonight, but they have not done so before and it is not an argument by which we should stand.
      My hon. Friends understand that Westminster sovereignty does not in any case apply in the real world. Suppose that the Scottish Parliament decided to hold a referendum on independence and found the money within its budget. Even though that is a reserved matter, so it would not constitutionally be allowed to do so, how would anyone stop it? It cannot be stopped, so in reality it will be in sovereign control of its own affairs. The sooner we recognise that and stop trying to impose Westminster's will on the Scottish Parliament, the better we will get on with that Parliament.
      Dr. Clark: I have been following my hon. Friend's tortuous logic, and it occurs to me that he would presumably say that the Scottish Parliament could take on defence or foreign affairs on its own say-so. Would that be correct according to his logic?
      Mr. McAllion: I think that it is the position of the Labour party. If the Scottish people ever elected a sufficient majority of Scottish National party members to a Scottish Parliament, the SNP would hold a referendum and, if the people then said yes to independence, Westminster could do nothing about it. That is a reality and everyone accepts it, even the Conservatives. It may be tortuous logic to my hon. and learned Friend, but it certainly is not to the people of Scotland.
      We are also told that it is important that we match the constituencies of Westminster Members of Parliament with those of Members of the Scottish Parliament. Why? The European constituencies do not match and nor do the local government constituencies—there are regular changes in their sizes. Also, the list MSPs have nothing to do with the Westminster constituencies, so why is it only the directly elected Members of the Scottish Parliament who have to be linked to those constituencies? The elections will be held in different years and will involve different individuals. The candidates who stand in the two elections will be different, so I do not understand why the constituencies cannot be different. That does not present any problems for me.
      We are also told that the linkage between the size of the Scottish Parliament and the size of Scottish seats at Westminster will strengthen the Union because of the common boundaries. I think that it will have the opposite effect. It gives the impression that the Westminster Parliament is interfering in Scottish affairs—that it will bully Scotland into changes that it does not want. That will give succour to those people who want to present Westminster as constantly interfering with Scotland and who want the Westminster Parliament out of Scottish affairs altogether.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that the minds of the voters are confused. They will not be confused if Westminster forces a change in the Scottish Parliament that it does not want: the message will be clear, and it will be the wrong message—for the Labour party in particular.
      Finally, we are talking not merely about a 20 per cent. reduction as a result of the changes that the Government are trying to force through tonight, but about a further

      395
      20 per cent. reduction that will take place thereafter because of the Jenkins proposals, which will also affect Scotland. The size of the Scottish Parliament will be constantly changing, and that is bound to lead to tensions between Members of the Scottish Parliament. I cannot think of any politician who would voluntarily fall on his sword because the number of seats was being reduced. There will be bitter fights not only between sitting Members of the Scottish Parliament who want to hold on to their seats, but between those wanting to be on the list or to be higher on the list. There will be constant crises and revolutions in the parties.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will not that bitterness start on the first day of the Parliament? My hon. Friend knows well my attitude to the whole scheme, but it is unfair on individuals that they will have to start with this recipe for bitterness.
      Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one knows exactly how the number of constituencies will be reduced, but we can expect Glasgow and Edinburgh to lose seats. All the Members of the Scottish Parliament who are elected to represent constituencies in those cities will know that they will have to fight one another to hold on to their seats.
      I know that some people will be retiring—such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is to lead the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament—but other candidates will be young. They will have a lifetime in politics ahead of them and will not want to lose their seats within four or eight years of being elected to the Scottish Parliament.
      Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend's point, which he makes with passion, is perhaps at the root of the argument. As a Member representing an Edinburgh seat, I believe that one cannot expect a job for life in Westminster or in the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Wallace: A Rifkind gain.
      Dr. Clark: Perhaps at some other time.
      It is important that democratic change is possible. We cannot set up the Parliament with the argument that it will be terribly sad if—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. and learned Lady will remember on whom she is intervening.
      Dr. Clark: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I got carried away.
      Mr. McAllion: My hon. and learned Friend is reasonably new to parliamentary politics. Of course none of us can expect to have a seat for life, but most of us will try to have a seat for life. If she looks around her, she will see an awful lot of hon. Members who have been here a long time and intend to stay for a long time—they will fight to the death to retain their right to be the Member of Parliament for whatever constituency they come from.
      We know from experience that the panel system, which may have sounded like a good idea on paper, has led to bitter recriminations not only within the Labour party—
      396
      although perhaps particularly the Labour party—but within other parties. There is ill feeling and bitterness, dividing party member from party member. The Government's proposals are a recipe for future bitterness in all the political parties.
      I object to the fact that the measure is being imposed through Westminster sovereignty. If 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament say no, what will happen to the Government's proposals? Will Westminster assert its right, because the constitution is a reserved matter, to force the change down the Scottish Parliament's throat? I certainly would not support that, and I doubt whether many people in Scotland would do so.
      Dr. Fox: It has been obvious in the debate that both those who welcome devolution with open arms and those who are sceptical about it think that the Government's proposals are bad. Will the hon. Gentleman speculate on why his party leadership is clinging to the proposals so desperately?
      Mr. McAllion: I would rather speculate on why the hon. Gentleman, who is very sceptical about devolution, thinks that the proposals are bad. He defeats his own argument.
      I am talking about a matter of principle. Some people believe in principle that the Scottish Parliament should be subservient to Westminster; they believe that authority, supremacy and sovereignty rightly rest in Westminster. Those people are entitled to believe that, but I am not one of them. I passionately believe that the idea behind devolution is that sovereignty should be shared between the different democratic institutions in the United Kingdom.
      That sharing of sovereignty means that the Scottish Parliament and the boundary commission should decide on future changes in constituency sizes. Indeed, I am not convinced that they will not reduce the size of constituencies anyway, and I would love the number of Westminster Members of Parliament to be drastically reduced. As hon. Members know well, ordinary Back Benchers get to speak only once or twice a year, or perhaps every three months—unless the debate is about an issue such as Scottish devolution, on which no one else wants to speak. There are too many Members of Parliament. The House of Commons could easily do its work with about 200 or 300 Members, although that is another argument, and I am well behind with my hon. Friends already.
      I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends: if they persist with this course of action, they will only bring this Parliament into conflict with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people. That is in no one's interest, least of all the Labour party's. We should not be trying to push through a measure that will have that effect.
      Mr. Salmond: In his usual engaging way, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that the public would probably agree with him in preferring a Parliament with fewer Members. I suspect that the popularity or otherwise of such a move would depend on which ones we got rid of.
      Those on both sides of the argument have asserted that the case to which they are opposed would jeopardise the essential integrity of the United Kingdom. I feel as though

      397
      I have to act as an umpire and decide which is the true Unionist case. If I am to act in that capacity, I will have to blow for no side. Neither argument will determine the fate of the United Kingdom, which I believe is already determined.
      Neither argument will save the United Kingdom, so let us consider them both on their merits. The Secretary of State said that he did not think that the integrity of the United Kingdom would turn on numbers in the Scottish Parliament, so why is there such fierce resistance to what is, remarkably for the House of Lords, a reasonable amendment? I have been a Member of Parliament for more than 10 years, and I certainly would not have to take my shoes off to count the number of reasonable amendments that I have seen from the House of Lords. Perhaps this commonsense amendment should be considered according to commonsense criteria.
      It was suggested that the Parliament's efficiency might be improved if the number of Members were reduced, but proportionality would certainly be jeopardised. When the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) argued that proportionality would be compromised by reducing the number of Members, I saw some Labour mathematicians shaking their heads, but it is true that, the lower the number, the more difficult it is to use a top-up to bring about a proportionate parliament. Even the figure of 129 does not guarantee a proportionate Parliament, although it guarantees one that is more proportionate than under first past the post.
      The Minister's expression seems to offer an endorsement of what I am saying. The lower the number, the more difficult it is to get proportionality. If proportionality is a key argument behind the figure of 129, it should be a key argument not for a static position but for having no fewer than 129 Members.
      The Secretary of State told us that he thought that coterminosity—I think—was crucial, and that it was a point of principle, connecting the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments; but that is not in the Bill. There are separate Members for Orkney and for Shetland in the Bill, but there is only one hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland in the House of Commons: more than enough, some of his colleagues might say. There is no coterminosity now.
      It has already been mentioned that European and local government boundaries have often not been perfectly aligned with parliamentary boundaries, so the idea that people in Scotland will be fashing themselves about trying to work it all out and will be hopelessly confused if the Westminster and Scottish Parliament boundaries are not exactly parallel is absolutely farcical. People are entirely able to find their MSPs, their MEPs and their list MSPs in the new structure, without that being adduced as a serious argument in defence of an indefensible position.
      I do not for a second believe that deciding whether to allow a separate boundary commission to determine the optimum number of Members for the Scottish Parliament would make the essential difference between an independent and an a devolved Parliament, but it is one criterion by which to judge the difference between a devolved Parliament and what is in effect a super-council. There are few, if any, examples of a legislative body—
      398
      which is the definition of a Parliament—anywhere in the world allowing another legislative body to set the number of members that that Parliament should have.
      The idea that one can judge the appropriate number of MSPs in Edinburgh on the basis of the possible reduction in the number of Members of the Westminster Parliament to reflect the population balance of the United Kingdom, and the possible further reduction if the Jenkins commission has its way, is absolutely farcical. There is no argument for allowing other people, on other criteria and with other motivations, to set the appropriate number of Members for the Scottish Parliament.
      5 pm
      The debate is about not the integrity of the United Kingdom, but about a commonsense amendment that should be accepted. However, running through the debate is what the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—in a robust interview on Radio Scotland this morning —described as the control-freak tendency. Substantial suggestions have been made, partly sourced from the attitude of the Minister of State to the amendments at earlier stages, that the hon. Gentleman does not support the Government's position. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland has suggested that even the Scottish Office does not support the Government's position.
      The control-freak tendency is affecting a number of issues at the moment. The Government appear to say, "Have a Welsh Assembly, as long as we can decide who might lead it. Have a mayor for London, as long as we can exclude one of the more popular contenders. Have devolution for BBC Scotland, as long as it is not allowed to have a Scottish six o'clock news. Have a Scottish Parliament, but Westminster will still retain the absolute right to determine the number of its members." The background to the debate is that the Government have suddenly realised that the consequences of the policies they have been pursuing are not as they intended. They are trying to draw back under centralised control some of the ability of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the London mayor and the BBC to respond to the implications of the Government's proposals. That is not a commonsense approach and it is much later than the Government think for the implications of their policies. They are defending the indefensible in rejecting a commonsense amendment from the Lords and it will not secure the fate of the United Kingdom. In fact, it will accelerate the strong suspicion in Scotland that centralised control from the Labour party should be rejected next May.
      Mr. Dalyell: I understand that 129 separate offices are to be built for the Members of the Scottish Parliament. That takes us to 2001. If my calculations are right, the next elections will be in 2003, so some offices will receive only two years' use. Will not that be a matter for ribaldry and what will be the effect on the construction of the building?
      Mr. Robert Syms: I shall make only a brief contribution. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's arguments about coterminous boundaries, but they would have more force if we had 72 Members of this House and 72 Members elected on the first-past-the-post boundaries

      399
      for the Scottish Parliament, without a list. Accountability would be muddied by the list Members in a ward, especially if it had several Members from different political parties. That would cause tremendous confusion. The argument for coterminous boundaries for Westminster and the Scottish Parliament is marginal, given that the waters have already been muddied by the list system.
      Boundaries have diverged in several instances. At the moment, Members of the European Parliament are elected for constituencies that include six or seven Westminster constituencies, but because the cycle of elections for the European Parliament and Westminster does not match, parliamentary boundary reviews have meant that Members of the European Parliament have represented constituencies with slightly different borders to the constituencies of those elected to this House. The world has not collapsed because that has happened. We have heard many examples of local government boundaries that are not coterminous and of councillors with wards that span more than one parliamentary constituency. The slightly bizarre proposals for London suggest that boroughs should be linked. In August, the Local Government Commission suggested splitting the City of London from Westminster, so that the City of London joined Tower Hamlets and Barking, and Westminster joined with western boroughs. There is substantial inconsistency in the Government's position. I would have more sympathy with the argument that the integrity and coterminosity of parliamentary boundaries are important if it were applied consistently across the Government's constitutional programme.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made the significant point that, with any constitutional change, it is important to have stability and some sort of settlement. To start with a proposal involving a drop from 129 Members is a recipe for instability. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that it will feed resentment that the institution has been designed for a certain number, right or wrong, but that the number will start to be reduced soon after it is set up. That resentment will be used by those who wish to break up the United Kingdom to fan the flames of disunity. If we are going to get it right, why not get it right from the beginning? Why set off with 129 and then reduce the number?
      I do not wish to fan the flames of division in the United Kingdom, but my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring made a good point. We have to test the proposals against the worst case, not the best. This proposal will cause argument, disunity and difficulty, and I therefore support my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Michael Clapham—I am sorry, Mr. Michael Connarty.
      Mr. Michael Connarty: I take that as a compliment Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I think very highly of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and the work that he has done for the miners. I should have thought that, since you and I spent some time together on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trip a while ago, you might recognise me.
      Oddly, I found myself agreeing with the tenor of the remarks of the leader of the Scottish National party—that the Union and the future of devolution will not be affected
      400
      by anything that we do on this matter. When compared with what devolution is really about the question of how many Members there should be is a case of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
      I was worried that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) got so passionate. Is this really about numbers or only about the number of Liberal Democrats who might get in if there are 129 Members or more? Because of his past contributions, I had thought that it was usually quality rather than quantity that counted with the Liberal Democrats. This seemed to be a quantity argument.
      I respect the principles of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I recognise nationalist principles when I hear them, and his was one of the best nationalist speeches that I have heard in this House. I do not think much of the quality of the ones that come from the official Scottish National party.
      Mr. Wallace: In some respects, my argument was about numbers—not only the number of Liberal Democrats but of Labour, Conservative and Scottish National party Members. It is about the principle of proportionality. On the referendum campaign, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that selling the case for proportionality was one of the key things that allowed every part of Scotland to deliver a yes vote to the principle of devolution. Diluting that proportionality, more than anything that could be said about the White Paper, could undermine the good faith of those of us who fought for the yes campaign.
      Mr. Connarty: I will deal with proportionality later because 1 do not think that the Bill is a closed door on that. The words of the Secretary of State—tomorrow's Hansard will confirm it—show that it is not a closed door. There is a mechanism for looking at the number of Scottish Members of this House and the number in the Scottish Parliament.
      The important thing is that the people of Scotland do not want to focus on what the Parliament will be. The worry of people outside is that they regard us as debating what we see as our fiefdom, our little Chamber, our sets of offices and our fancy potato or upturned boat or whatever it is that Members will meet in. People are beginning to worry that we have forgotten why we set out on this trail so many years ago. It was to do something for the Scottish people, not for the politicians of Scotland.
      Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the people of Scotland being worried. Does he consider that 23,000 people in Falkirk, West might be extremely worried that their democratic will has been totally ignored by the small committee of new Labour that has decided to ignore the fact that, for 24 years, they have elected the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) to be their Member of Parliament? Those 23,000 people are now being told that the hon. Gentleman is not fit to be a Member of Parliament. Of course, I am not suggesting that he is not.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the hon. Lady trying to give me the kiss of death?
      Mr. Connarty: I was about to say something similar. Until this evening, the star of my hon. Friend the Member

      401
      for Falkirk, West was buoyant, but I think it has just been shot out of the sky by that intervention. I am sure that the matter to which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) refers will be resolved in the fulness of time and we shall discover whether the people of Falkirk, West want to choose their current Member of the UK Parliament or some other person. I leave it to them and I respect the electorate's wishes. I just hope that the people who turned out to vote for me—who number slightly more than 23,000—will turn out and vote for whichever Labour candidate is picked to stand for the Falkirk, East seat in the Scottish Parliament.
      Principle is important, but people should know that we are now looking at what we are going to do for them and what is the overall logic. The logic of partnership that comes out of having coterminous, or as near coterminous as possible, constituencies is extremely important. I know that there are exceptions, but it was disingenuous of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to use two constituencies in the islands to show that that exception means that there is no logic on the mainland in having coterminous constituencies.
      I look forward to working with a Member of the Scottish Parliament for a coterminous constituency. We have all tried to build links with local government bodies and it is normal for groups of Members of Parliament from various areas to meet frequently in this place —the Glasgow group of Members of Parliament, for example. With my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, I have worked with Falkirk council. Coterminosity of focus is important and it is something that the ordinary public will regard as being logical.
      Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Connarty: I shall in a moment. The ordinary public would like to think that the service that we deliver to them, the way in which we deliver it and the way in which hon. Members have coterminous responsibilities is all done for their sake, but I believe that the people of Scotland will see the argument in which we are engaged as one between politicians who are trying to look after themselves.
      I hope that the principle of proportionality, which was mentioned earlier, will be addressed in the numbers that come out of this Parliament and that that will be done in such a way as not to damage fundamentally that proportionality. As a supporter of the Labour campaign for electoral reform, I think that that is a good move forward, but we must not disregard the public's desire to be represented in a way that makes logical sense to them.
      The public are not confused, but they are unhappy. They already manage to find their way to the right door or doors to get their problems solved, but it would be better if we did not make their path more complicated just because we have other agendas, whether getting more members of our party into the Scottish Parliament, or having a larger number of MSPs just for the sake of it. A dialogue is possible, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Connarty: No, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asked to intervene first.
      402
      I would argue that, if we can simplify the process of engagement with the public and the role we carry out, that will be welcome. Coterminous constituencies are part of that logic.
      Mr. Swayne: Although I accept that coterminosity is important, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it should be a matter for consideration by the Members of the Scottish Parliament? They should be included in the decision on such an important matter, but, at the moment, a fait accompli is being imposed on them, before they have even taken their seats.
      Mr. Connarty: We published the White Paper and we all got behind it; we got the people to support our proposals at the general election and in the referendum; and now we are carrying out what was proposed. In a sense, everything was set by that White Paper. I do not think that we should allow the Scottish National party, the Conservative party, or those who worry that the principle of sovereignty is more important than the delivery of service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East seems to be arguing, to try to use the differences to their own advantage.
      I believe that we have reached a point where the Scottish Parliament will talk to the UK Parliament and the response to the UK boundary review will take into account its impact on the Scottish Parliament. If things do not happen like that, we will have missed a chance for co-operation, and it is co-operation that will make devolution work, whereas conflict will deliver what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan wants—independence for Scotland.
      Mr. Salmond: Barring the party list, each elector will have one MSP and one Westminster Member of Parliament. The only possible confusion would be between the Members themselves. The hon. Gentleman has relationships with a Member of the European Parliament, who has relationships with another—let me rephrase that: he has an association with an MEP who has an association with seven other Members of Parliament. Does that MEP have any difficulty in having an association with eight different Westminster Members of Parliament whose constituencies fall within his constituency's boundary?
      Mr. Connarty: In reality, at any time and in any part of the country, most people have great difficulty in grasping what a Member of the European Parliament does and for whom he does it. The hon. Gentleman's argument is a weak one.
      Dr. Fox: Surely the point is that the Lords amendments do not prevent coterminosity; they give the Scottish Parliament the freedom to make up its own mind on the matter. It is the de-linkage that is the important point, because it allows the Scottish Parliament or the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament to do whatever they think is best. What is wrong with that?
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Connarty: It is funny, but when the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) stands up and defends any part of devolution, the words "crocodile tears" spring to mind. I wonder why that is.

      403
      We have only a short time, so I should like to move on. I am concerned—I believe that the people of Scotland are too—about how the new Parliament will interact with all the other parts of civic society that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East. We are concerned not about the number of Members in the Parliament, but about what it will do, which will not depend on the numbers. Apart from the safeguards necessary for proportionality and dealing with democratic deficit, the Parliament's size is not important, unless it can be shown that the Parliament cannot function properly unless the numbers are changed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would listen to arguments on that point—
      It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That this House disagree, with the Lords in the said amendment:
      The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 173.

      Division No. 375]

      [5.16 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clwyd, Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, Kevin

      Connarty, Michael

      Battle, John

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cooper, Yvette

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Corbett, Robin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Benton, Joe

      Cox, Tom

      Berry, Roger

      Cranston, Ross

      Best, Harold

      Crausby, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cummings, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Borrow, David

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Darvill, Keith

      Browne, Desmond

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davidson, Ian

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burgon, Colin

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Caborn, Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Denham, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dowd, Jim

      Cann, Jamie

      Drew, David

      Caplin, Ivor

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Casale, Roger

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Caton, Martin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Chaytor, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Clapham, Michael

      Efford, Clive

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      404

      Ennis, Jeff

      Laxton, Bob

      Etherington, Bill

      Lepper, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Flint, Caroline

      Linton, Martin

      Flynn, Paul

      Livingstone, Ken

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lock, David

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Love, Andrew

      Fyfe, Maria

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Galbraith, Sam

      McCabe, Steve

      Galloway, George

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gapes, Mike

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McDonnell, John

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McIsaac, Shona

      Godsiff, Roger

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Goggins, Paul

      McLeish, Henry

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marek, Dr John

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Grogan, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gunnell, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hanson, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Healey, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Milburn, Alan

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hill, Keith

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hoey, Kate

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Home Robertson, John

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hurst, Alan

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Hutton, John

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Illsley, Eric

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pike, Peter L

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Plaskitt, James

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Pollard, Kerry

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      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

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Rapson, Syd

      Kemp, Fraser

      Raynsford, Nick

      Khabra, Piara S

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kidney, David

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rooker, Jeff

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      405

      Rowlands, Ted

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Roy, Frank

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Ruane, Chris

      (Dewsbury)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Salter, Martin

      Timms, Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Tipping, Paddy

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Touhig, Don

      Sawford, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Vaz, Keith

      Singh, Marsha

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Watts, David

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Jacqui (Radditch)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Snape, peter

      Wills, Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Winnick, David

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wise, Audrey

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wood, Mike

      Stevenson, George

      Woolas, Phil

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stott, Roger

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stringer, Graham

      Jane Kennedy and

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mr. David Clelland.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Allan, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Amess, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Colvin, Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cotter, Brian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Cran, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Baker, Norman

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Baldry, Tony

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Beggs, Roy

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Bercow, John

      Duncan, Alan

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Blunt, Crispin

      Evans, Nigel

      Body, Sir Richard

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Boswell, Tim

      Faber, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brady, Graham

      Flight, Howard

      Brake, Tom

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brazier, Julian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Breed, Colin

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Garnier, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gibb, Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gill, Christopher

      Burnett, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burns, Simon

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Burstow, Paul

      Gorrie, Donald

      Butterfill, John

      Green, Damian

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Greenway, John

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Capman, Sir Sydney

      Hammond, Philip

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chidgey, David

      Hayes, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Heald, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      406

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Horam, John

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Ruffley, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Salmond, Alex

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

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

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Key, Robert

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Spring, Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Steen, Anthony

      Lansley, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Leigh, Edward

      Stunell, Andrew

      Letwin, Oliver

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Syms, Robert

      Lidington, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Townend, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tredinnick, David

      Madel, Sir David

      Trend, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tyler, Paul

      Maples, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Wallace, James

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Wardle, Charles

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Webb, Steve

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Wells, Bowen

      Moore, Michael

      Welsh, Andrew

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Norman, Archie

      Whittingdale, John

      Oaten, Mark

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Öpik, Lembit

      Wilkinson, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Page, Richard

      Willis, Phil

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Pickles, Eric

      Woodward, Shaun

      Prior, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Randall, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Rendel, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robathan, Andrew

      Mr. Stephen Day and

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 216 to 220 disagreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

    Clause 18

      PRESIDING OFFICER
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 9, line 28, at end insert—
      ("(7) The validity of any act of the Presiding Officer or a deputy is not affected by any defect in his election.")
      5.30 pm
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 22, 49 to 52, 119 to 122, 130 and 221 to 234.
      Mr. McLeish: This group of amendments focuses on issues concerned with the internal workings of the Parliament. I commend them all to the House.

      407
      The amendments are partly concerned with the relationship between the Parliament and the courts. We have adjusted the boundary between them to make it clear that the Parliament and those in it should be able to go about their legitimate day-to-day business without the courts being used as a means of interfering with their activities. I shall say more about that in a moment. We have also recast somewhat the provisions in the Bill dealing with the regulation of Members' conduct, to give the Parliament greater flexibility.
      A further set of amendments clarifies various matters associated with the Scottish parliamentary corporate body—the SPCB. Other amendments in the group recast the provisions relating to witnesses, mainly to reflect changes in the description of legislative competence—a theme to which we shall return in a later group. Another set of amendments makes additional provision in respect of the position of political parties in the Parliament.
      I draw to the attention of the House the amendments made as the result of our further consideration of the boundary between the Parliament and the courts. Amendments Nos. 2, 49, 50, 51 and 231 were welcomed on all sides in another place.
      At the heart of this package is the new clause inserted by amendment No. 49, which will restrict the remedies which may be granted against the Parliament. We judge that it would be wise to ensure that no court may make an order for suspension, interdict, reduction or specific performance, or another like order. That provides a broad protection against attempts to manipulate the business of the Parliament via the courts.
      We do not think that we can put the Parliament completely above the courts. For that reason, we have left open to the courts the option of making a declarator. It will, of course, be for the Parliament itself to decide how it should react to any declarator. The Parliament would not be liable for contempt of court if it merely decided to take no action to give effect to a declarator. Rather, it will essentially be a political decision for the Parliament to decide how to react in such cases. We believe that the Parliament will wish to be seen to uphold the law and in most cases would expect it to comply with any court judgment, in particular any that directly affected the civil rights of individuals—for example, a judgment concerning the legitimacy of the withdrawal of rights and privileges of an MSP.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I heard what the Minister said about the amendments being welcomed in another place, but can he tell us how the relationship between Members of the Scottish Parliaments and the courts, as defined by amendment No. 49, differs from the position in this place? Are there major differences?
      Mr. McLeish: That is a fair question. Unlike Westminster, the Scottish Parliament will not enjoy the wide but ill-defined privileges accorded by article 9 of the Bill of Rights and through that, Parliament's historic position. We do not believe that we can justify conferring such wide-ranging protection on the Scottish Parliament. However—this is the nub of the matter—the Bill as originally drafted provided only limited privileges for the Parliament, principally in respect of defamation and contempt of court, leaving it exposed to possible attempts to interfere with its day-to-day business via the courts and
      408
      to question the validity of its proceedings in certain circumstances. We are taking forward the issues that were raised in the Lords, as a result of which there will be significant differences between Holyrood and Westminster.
      The provisions strike the right balance for a body that must be both free to go about the business of law-making while not being above the law. We have also taken the opportunity in the new clause to prevent actions being pursued by the back door, against individuals associated with the Parliament.
      We have tabled amendments Nos. 2 and 231 to ensure that the validity of acts of the Presiding Officer or the SPCB cannot be questioned because of some defect in their appointment and, in particular, any defect in any parliamentary proceedings that must be followed before the relevant appointment.
      Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 clarify the scope of protection provided to the Parliament in relation to contempt of court, by clarifying that, in order to enjoy the protection conferred by the Bill, reports of proceedings must be fair, accurate and made in good faith.
      Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 and 232 deal with Members' conduct. The Government want to ensure that the Parliament puts in place a framework to regulate its Members' interests. Paragraph 9.8 of the White Paper indeed made it clear that there would be "minimum requirements" in respect of, among other things, rules about Members' pecuniary interests.
      Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 ensure that the Parliament is under a duty to make provision for the regulation of its Members' interests. The Parliament will have to make provision for a register of interests that is published and publicly available, and for its Members to register their financial interests and to declare such interests before taking part in any proceedings of the Parliament relating to that matter.
      The Parliament will also be required to make provision prohibiting paid advocacy. Previously, the Parliament was to be required to make provision for that in its standing orders. We looked carefully at that provision and considered that it could restrict what the Parliament could do. For example, the Parliament may want to make provision for a code of conduct for MSPs, which could go beyond what MSPs did in the proceedings of the Parliament. That would be outwith the scope of Standing Orders. The amendments give the Parliament the flexibility to address such situations.
      Moreover, Members of another place expressed concern that provisions relating to criminal offences would be defined in Standing Orders, rather than in legislation. We felt that that was a fair point and the amendments address that concern. They provide that the Parliament must make provision by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament—ASP. That is not to say that Standing Orders cannot be used at all in the context of provisions about Members' interests. It is anticipated that the core provisions would be in an ASP or subordinate legislation under it, but there is no reason why certain procedural matters, for example, could not be left to Standing Orders.
      The provisions are intended to ensure that all MSPs work in a properly regulated framework that ensures propriety in the conduct of the Parliament's business.
      Mr. Evans: We welcome the provisions of amendment Nos. 5 to 14 in clause 22. It is right that the Bill should

      409
      contain provision for a register of Members' interests, to ensure that the Scottish Parliament gets as fair a wind as possible. Is the register to be enforced in a similar way to that at Westminster, or will separate provision be made?
      Mr. McLeish: We shall use similar enforcement procedures to those at Westminster, but build further on them. A new Parliament provides an excellent opportunity to go much further with a code of conduct and its enforcement than exists at Westminster. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman of our intention. The consultative steering group, which I chair and in which there is all-party involvement, is examining the details necessary to flesh that out. A report will be sent to the Secretary of State in December.
      The key issue tonight is to ensure that that important provision is written into the Bill, so that we have the strength of the Bill behind us initially, and the Parliament is able to legislate in the future. Standing Orders and the work of my committee will ensure that the code of conduct is first class and subject to the strictest enforcement procedures.
      Amendment No. 232 makes it clear that the power of the Parliament to withdraw the rights and privileges of an MSP is not restricted to those cases where an MSP is also being excluded. There may be cases where the Parliament takes the view that the limited withdrawal of rights or privileges may be a sensible sanction to deal with certain sorts of misconduct, but that exclusion would be excessive. The amendment also makes it clear that this is an area with which Standing Orders can properly deal.
      Amendments No. 15 to 22 deal with witnesses. I should explain that the ground on which clauses 23 and 24, which also deal with witnesses, were originally built has moved considerably since the clause was first drafted—for example, because of the amendments concerning the legislative competence of the Parliament that were made in another place.
      In redrafting the clause to take account of those changes, we have tried to state, in ordinary language, what the Parliament may require someone to give evidence about, while preserving the general position as to the Parliament's powers in the clause as it originally stood.
      The key alteration is that we propose to replace references to "devolved matters" and
      "other matters in relation to which functions are exercisable by Scottish Ministers"
      by a reference to giving evidence or producing documents
      "concerning any subject for which any member of the Scottish Executive has general responsibility."
      We think that it makes sense to use, so far as possible, language that can be given its ordinary meaning, rather than tying the provision to the complexities of "matters", "relating to" and so on.
      In the House, payment to political parties is recognised as the Short money provision. Amendments Nos. 130, 233 and 234 deal with matters concerning political parties. Amendment No. 130 confers a power on Her Majesty by Order in Council to make provision for the SPCB—the corporate body—to make payments to any Opposition political party represented by MSPs in the Scottish Parliament in order to assist those MSPs in performing
      410
      their parliamentary duties. That money is an expense of the SPCB and would come out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund.
      It is intended that that should enable provision to be made for payments to Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament equivalent to the so-called Short money that is provided to Opposition parties in this Parliament. That accords with the recommendation of Lord Neill's committee on the funding of political parties. It is envisaged that such money paid will be applied by the parties to obtain research and support facilities for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and women, assistance in the Opposition Whips office and other staff for the leaders of the Opposition parties. The amendment provides a way of providing some funding for Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament until—this is an important point—such time as the Neill recommendations are considered fully by the Government and put on the statute book.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a factual point, have all those requirements been made clear to Mr. Miralles the architect? In particular, what will he be told about the change in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament? These are not frivolous matters and should be addressed now.
      Mr. McLeish: All the considerations that are being discussed in the House and in the consultative steering group are recognised by the designers of the Parliament building, so they will be taken fully into account. As to my hon. Friend's remarks about "potential empty offices", the Parliament building will suit its purpose and provide the best deal for the taxpayers. If there are changes in the future, I have no doubt that the accommodation will be utilised properly. I correct my hon. Friend's reference to a "separate office": I think that the impression was created of a separate building for each MSP. That will certainly not be the case. The temporary Parliament on The Mound will be very tight, but there will be ample space for MSPs in the Miralles building. However, the space will not be over-generous.
      Mr. Evans: We recognise that there is a need for Short money—especially now that we are in opposition. It is a recognition of the money and support that is made available to Governments. An equivalent amount of money is necessary for the Opposition to ensure the proper working of democracy. Amendment No. 130 is extremely vague. The Minister said that it will provide equivalent Short money. Does he mean that the existing Westminster formula will be replicated in the Scottish Parliament or does he envisage other provisions governing the allocation of Short money?
      Mr. McLeish: I shall respond to the implication of that question: the allocation to the Scottish Parliament will certainly be no more generous, as a proportion of expenditure, than the allocation to Westminster. However, the real answer is that the matter is still being discussed. We have attempted to replicate what occurs at present. It is important to remember that it is assistance for the Opposition. It is possible that Conservative Members will participate in the Scottish Parliament, something that will add a new dimension to Scottish politics.

      411
      Amendment No. 233 responds to a point raised during debates in another place and provides that Standing Orders will be required to make provision that the Presiding Officer and deputies do not represent the same political party. When the Presiding Officer represents a political party, at least one of his deputies will have to represent another party or be an independent. We think that it is reasonable to provide that small safeguard against domination of those key offices by a single party. The Government of Wales Act 1998 already includes a similar provision. Amendment No. 234 is a technical amendment that ensures that references to political parties in the Scotland Bill are consistent.
      I think that these are good amendments, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Gorrie: I seek some clarification from the Minister regarding amendment No. 130. The money is clearly intended to help the Opposition parties but, according to subsection (3), it could also help parties that are
      "members of the Scottish Executive or junior Scottish Ministers".
      I assume that the amendment is meant to address the possibility of coalition government. I seek some clarification on that point as an Administration might involve one, two, three or even four parties—if there were some sort of rainbow coalition. Parties co-operating in that sort of Government would still need the apparatus of Whips, research staff and so on in order to clarify their position. Does amendment No. 130 take account of that situation? Have I understood subsection (3) correctly?
      Mr. McLeish: That interpretation is largely correct. In the context of the Scottish Parliament—which will introduce proportionality for the first time—there may be coalition government. Therefore, we would not have a Government and a defined Opposition as we do in this place. We are considering the question of Short money and its being reasonably well and effectively dispersed. We must also consider the new nature of the Scottish Parliament under the new political structure. Therefore, the amendment provides some flexibility in relation to that point.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 22 agreed to.

    Clause 27

      ACTS OF THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
      Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 14, line 20, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 22 and insert
      ("an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not affected by any invalidity in the proceedings of the Parliament leading to its enactment.")
      5.45 pm
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 33, Lords amendment No. 34, amendment (a) in lieu, and Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 48, 63, 135, 159, 235, 236 and 292.
      Mr. McLeish: This group of amendments consists, for the most part, of Government amendments to the clauses
      412
      concerned with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and related matters. However, we will ask the House to disagree with amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34, and have tabled an amendment in lieu of amendment No. 34 deleting clauses 31(1) and 31(2). With permission, I shall deal with those matters first.
      Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 relate to the Presiding Officer veto. The amendment in lieu of amendment No. 34 addresses what will happen if the Presiding Officer decides that a Bill is not within the legislative competence of Parliament. Members of the other place were concerned that the Bill, as originally drafted, would mean that it was possible for the Presiding Officer to come into conflict with Parliament by allowing him to be overruled by it if he decided that a Bill was outwith the competence of Parliament. We appreciate the arguments as to why Parliament should not be brought into conflict with its Presiding Officer and so undermine his or her authority. We accept that those arguments have some force, although we believe that the concerns were overstated in the other place.
      However, the amendment made in another place by the Opposition would put the Presiding Officer in a very difficult position. It would mean that the Presiding Officer would have an unchallengeable power to decide on questions of legislative competence. We think that that is an uncomfortable and undesirable position for him or her to be in, and we think that it would be an anomaly to leave the provision in the Bill. It would prevent Parliament from being able to consider a Bill that contained a provision that was outwith the legislative competence of Parliament, even if that provision could be readily deleted or amended during the Bill's passage. Such inflexibility is inappropriate.
      We think that it is important that Parliament has the benefit of the Presiding Officer's views as to the competence of a Bill. We have provided that the Presiding Officer should make a statement as to the vires of a Bill. Parliament will no doubt want to pay particular heed to its Presiding Officer's views, and we think that our measure avoids the direct tension that we agree an explicit power to overrule the Presiding Officer might create. It sets up a structure that is far less confrontational and that allows room for Parliament to be advised about competence as it considers any Bill. We think that it gives the right result over all and allows disputes to be resolved in their proper place.
      The Bill provides a mechanism that allows for the resolution of disputes over the vires of the Bill. If the Presiding Officer were left with the power of veto in this area, it would mean that the courts, and ultimately the Judicial Committee, could not have any role in reaching a view on questions of vires raised by any proposed Bill.
      Dr. Fox: Will the Minister clarify at the outset of the debate the role of the Presiding Officer in deciding whether a Bill goes ahead for Royal Assent?
      Mr. McLeish: If I may be allowed to continue, I hope that I can address that issue in the scheme of things.
      We think that it is preferable in some instances to allow a Bill to be introduced so that Parliament may consider the issue that it raises. It may itself decide that something is ultra vires and reject the Bill at an early stage or it may amend the offending provisions. If there is still concern

      413
      at the end of the process, the Law Officers can refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is much better that those issues can be considered by the Parliament and, if necessary, by the Judicial Committee than simply providing that the Bill cannot be introduced if the Presiding Officer thinks that it is outwith Parliament's competence.
      I anticipate that Opposition Members may draw parallels with procedures in this place. However, none of them really holds. What we propose is not the same as asking Madam Speaker to decide that a Bill is a Finance Bill and so should not be considered in another place, for example.
      As I have explained, we are considering specifically devolution issues. Provision is made in the Bill to ensure that the courts have an opportunity to determine issues of legislative competence. That will ensure that the boundaries of the Parliament's competence are properly mapped and that a consistent body of law emerges. If we do not remove the veto that is now in the Bill, we risk the interpretation of one office holder dictating the limits of the settlement in areas where the law may be uncertain and subtle. That does not strengthen the position of the Presiding Officer. Instead, it pitches the Presiding Officer into the heart of the political situation at any one time, with no means of escape.
      I take up the point made by the Opposition constitutional affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). It may be useful to recap the scheme of legislative competence within the Parliament. First, the Minister makes a statement on his view that the Bill introduced by the Scottish Executive is within the legislative competence of the Parliament. That will be straightforward enough, based on advice. The Presiding Officer then makes a statement on the vires of the Bill. Parliament can decide to proceed in the knowledge of the Presiding Officer's views.
      The Bill can be corrected or amended during passage through the Parliament if part of it is decided to be ultra vires. If it remains ultra vires, the Law Officers can refer it to the Judicial Committee for a ruling. The Bill cannot be submitted for Royal Assent if it is ultra vires in the view of the JCPC. The Government's proposals allow the Parliament the flexibility to deal with those matters in a mature, responsible but highly structured way. It is important that there are checks and balances. I think that that takes away the problem for the Presiding Officer and fits the Presiding Officer's role neatly into the structure of the Parliament's activities.
      Other amendments in the group relate to schedule 4 and clause 28. They are designed to clarify the way in which the Bill defines the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. They also amend the powers of intervention of the Secretary of State so that they are available when legislation of the Scottish Parliament makes modifications to the law as it applies to reserved matters which have an adverse effect on the operation of law.
      Given the time scale involved for right hon. and hon. Members, I propose that we make those complex changes, remembering that we are taking out the amendment from the other place and substituting in lieu positive amendments to resolve the Presiding Officer's position. Obviously, I hope that that is acceptable to the House.
      Dr. Fox: This is an extremely important debate in our proceedings. When we saw the Government amendment on Third Reading, we realised that it is not exactly the debate that we thought we would have.
      I go back, as I did when we considered the first set of amendments, to what the Secretary of State said at the outset. The right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading that we would consider events against the worst possible scenario, not the best. He said that we would examine the potential for division and try to ensure that that was removed so that the devolutionary settlement could not be used to drive a wedge between the people of Scotland and the rest of the people of the United Kingdom. That has remained our position.
      I worry that the Government have done the opposite of what they originally intended. Originally, the Bill provided for a double-lock mechanism which would prevent the Scottish Parliament from passing legislation that was outwith its competence. In the original Bill, as the Minister correctly said, the Presiding Officer could deem a Bill to be outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament and prevent it from proceeding in the Parliament. Although Parliament could vote to overrule that decision, the Presiding Officer could refuse to present the Bill for Royal Assent. That part of the lock at least seems to remain intact.
      In the other place, the Bill was amended to remove the right of the Parliament to overrule the Presiding Officer. We agreed with that provision on the grounds that it weakened the authority of the Presiding Officer and provided a platform for those who sought to use the Parliament to advance the cause of separation by proposing legislation that would clearly be outwith the Parliament's competence.
      I take the Minister's point about protecting the Presiding Officer's position. It is a fair point, but it has to be weighed against the possibility of the Parliament's being used to carry forward a legislative process that it knows it cannot take to Royal Assent. I ask the Minister to consider carefully the potential danger that that would introduce. What is open to those who want to take forward legislation that they know is outwith the Parliament's competence and use that Parliament as something quite different from what the Minister intends, which is a legislative body?
      What if we have an Administration in Scotland that wants to have a Bill for a referendum on Scottish separation or a Bill to ban nuclear weapons and power stations from Scotland? That would be possible under what the Minister proposes, because such Bills could be taken through the Parliament. Although they might not receive Royal Assent because of the second part of the lock, they could take up a great deal of time. That would provide a useful platform for those who wanted to propagate such views. That is not what the Government set out to provide on Second Reading or during subsequent stages. Indeed, it is not what they argued in the other place. However, an entirely different animal is emerging, and it is strange that we get it so late in our proceedings.
      With all due respect to the Minister, I must say that, in trying to protect the position of the Presiding Officer, he has moved far too far in the other direction and is creating a dangerous situation which I do not believe that the Government wanted to see. It could not be further from

      415
      the position that was outlined in the original draft of the Bill. I expect that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will support the Government's change more than he supported the provisions in the original Bill, which worries me a great deal.
      Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel or understand that the formulation put forward by the Lords, and supported by him this evening, would make the Presiding Officer's post essentially a political one? The Parliament's very first debate would effectively capture the Presiding Officer's post. It would become a sort of presidential role vis-a-vis the Parliament. Under the hon. Gentleman's formulation, those arguments would be put through the person of the Presiding Officer. The hon. Gentleman must understand that political arguments will take place. There is no legislative way in which to remove political arguments from a Parliament. It would be beneficial if political arguments were pursued on the basis of argument, and not through the person of the Presiding Officer.
      Dr. Fox: There were the two mechanisms in the original draft of the Bill. There was the right of the Parliament to override what the Presiding Officer was doing. We find now that we are faced with something completely different. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that the hon. Gentleman advances, but it is up to those in the Scottish Parliament to choose the Presiding Officer. It is essentially and unavoidably a political decision, and obviously that would be taken into account.
      We have now lost the double lock. The Minister shakes his head; if he can answer my question, I shall be glad to hear what he has to say. I believe that we could be providing a platform for a series of Bills that could never become law because they would be beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. None the less, they could be taking up parliamentary time. Is the Minister able to confirm that that is not so? If he can confirm that, that would be a major consolation to Opposition Members. However, I doubt that he will be able to do that.
      Mr. McLeish: A sensible perspective must be applied to the debate. We are talking essentially about the role of the Presiding Officer and trying to clarify his or her role in the Parliament, which is a very important one. I think that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) raises the spectre, if we pursue part of the discussion, of a very political Presiding Officer. That is the last thing that anyone wants. That is not the function of a Presiding Officer. Certainly, the Presiding Officer will still have a role, as advocated by those on the Opposition Front Bench, in considering the question of vires. I can reassure the House that it is not the Government's intention in any way to dilute the strength of the legislative competence process within the Parliament. Indeed, if hon. Members look at the steps that I have already outlined—involving the Minister, the Presiding Officer, the Law Officers, the Judicial Committee, the Royal Assent and the Secretary of State being able to intervene if the matter that is dealt with impinges on reserved matters at Westminster —this is a serious process.
      416
      I am sorry that this is such a long response, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the 129 MSPs will be less responsible than we are, and less responsible than councillors operating in every council chamber throughout the United Kingdom? This is a serious business. Not only do we have a serious issue, but it is backed up by a substantial, intense process. However, tonight, we are clarifying the role of the Presiding Officer.
      6 pm
      Dr. Fox: I hope that the Minister will take it in the way that it is meant when I say that I do not doubt for a moment his sincerity, but that is an example of the most breathtaking naivety that we have seen since the beginning of the Bill's passage. If we are working against the worst case scenario, what if there is a majority in the Scottish Parliament composed of nationalists, separatists and their allies, and what if they want to use the Scottish Parliament, as has always been the fear in this House, for their legitimate ends, as they see it—to drive a wedge between the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom? The Government are now providing them with an easier mechanism than they had before. This is the vehicle that they would like to have.
      That will make it easier for Bills to be introduced—potentially by a nationalist working majority—that, under the previous formulation of the Bill, would not have been within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore could not have been introduced.
      The amendments are a watering down of the safeguards that we believed we had been given by the Government during the earlier stages of the Bill. They have made the worst case scenario far more likely. They have been bending backwards to satisfy nationalist opinion. It is being done under the guise of protecting the Presiding Officer's position. Perhaps it is even done genuinely in the belief that the Government are protecting the Presiding Officer's rights, but the effect is to provide a vehicle for those who want to use the Scottish Parliament as a platform for division.
      Mr. McLeish: With the greatest courtesy, because I always try to pick my words carefully, let me say that that was arrant nonsense. Let us be careful about mixing political issues, in reference to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, and the technical legislative competence issue with which we are dealing this evening.
      The point is simply this. We have a strengthened position because we are clarifying the role of the Presiding Officer. In the previous—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Much as I like to give leeway to a Minister when he replies, the rules of the House still apply. Perhaps the Minister can take the opportunity to wind up on the amendment.
      Dr. Fox: I am not at all convinced by the argument and, as this goes on, I am becoming more and more disturbed by the fact that the Government have failed to grasp the danger that is presented to them. I hope that this

      417
      provision will be looked at again in another place, because a major flaw in the Government's plans is coming through.
      Mr. McLeish: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Fox: I give way, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. McLeish: In the other place, this concern was not raised in the specific way that is being discussed this evening. The amendments are about the role of the Presiding Officer. Let me repeat the position very briefly. It was indeed strengthened because we have a series of steps, checks and balances.
      Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that MSPs will sit day in, day out to discuss legislation that is not within their competence? I cannot accept that as a notion, but, of course, a set of steps is included in the Bill that will ensure that that simply does not happen. The hon. Gentleman should be reassured by that. I caution him against using words such as "dangerous" and "naive", because this has been a well-worked-out process and, at the fag end of the discussions in Parliament, we hear those statements being made.
      Dr. Fox: It is such a well-worked-out process that we had 180-odd groups of amendments in the other place to put right the defects in the Bill. I accept that the Minister's intentions are entirely honourable, but I think that the Government have got this wrong. I simply do not believe that a nationalist majority in a Scottish Parliament would not use everything possible to try to drive a wedge between themselves and this Parliament in Westminster. If they believed that they could take through a series of Bills that they knew would not have legislative competence and could not possibly go for Royal Assent, but advanced their commitment and their campaign for separatism, they would do it.
      It amazes me that any Labour politician could still be willing to take a risk on what the nationalists might be willing to do were they to get a strong foothold in a Scottish Parliament. This is a recipe for division. It removes the safeguards that we had. Why do the Government not believe that it would be better to prevent such ultra vires legislation from being aired in the first place, instead of having it messily blocked at the end of its legislative passage? What we had during the earlier stage of the Bill was a lock; what we now have is guidance.
      That may be to the benefit of the Presiding Officer standing. I do not have a particularly strong position on that one way or another, but I know that it increases the danger of a Scottish Parliament dwelling on legislation that elements of the Scottish Parliament may wish to put forward for political ends, but they know could not receive Royal Assent because it is outwith legislative competence. That is made easier by this process, not harder.
      Mr. McLeish: Again, with the greatest courtesy, I am trying to rescue the hon. Gentleman from the political ferment that he is trying to generate around him.
      418
      The original provisions would have allowed the Parliament to decide to overthrow the Presiding Officer and continue to debate a Bill that was outwith its legislative competence, so he cannot make this great stramash and create a situation that never existed.
      What we are talking about—I return to it again—is clarifying the role of the Presiding Officer, and then the whole system of checks and balances is still in place. It makes it simpler. It makes it clearer, but the central issue is this: the hon. Gentleman must not confuse political concerns about any political party with a Bill procedure that is designed to achieve the objective of having ultra vires issues dealt with at every step of the process.
      Dr. Fox: The role of the Presiding Officer fundamentally changes through this alteration in the Bill because, previously, there was the ability at the beginning of the legislative process to say, "The Bill is outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament and cannot go further"—at least that was the position after the Bill was amended in the other place. What the Government now propose is that the process can be stopped only at the Royal Assent stage. That brings a whole new political complexion.
      Mr. McLeish: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Fox: I will give way in a minute.
      The Minister tries to draw a line between the politics of the Parliament and the procedure of the Parliament. I think that he is in grave danger of not understanding the danger that is left open here. I hope that he will think again. I will leave it to him to sum up. This major change has come very late on in the passage of the Bill. It seems to be a minor change, but it could fundamentally alter the way in which legislation is taken through the Scottish Parliament.
      I caution the Government. They are making a grave error. They need to think about this matter again before someone takes advantage of a situation that they did not really intend and leaves us with the most dreadful consequences, which all of us fear just may be possible.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is confusing two different things. He seems to believe that we can formulate a series of Standing Orders or procedural mechanisms to block political will. Not even his great heroine, Lady Thatcher, believed that. I may be doing her a slight injustice in trying to paraphrase her autobiography "The Downing Street Years", but it ran something like this: "Scotland is an ancient nation. If the Scots were ever to determine on independence, no English politician, certainly not me, would gainsay the process." The quotation may not be exactly right, but it is certainly proximate.
      What the hon. Member for Woodspring seems to be saying is that, if people in Scotland determined on independence—or put a nationalist majority in the Scottish Parliament—his procedural mechanism, the blocking mechanism through the persona of the Presiding Officer, would be the ace card to defend the Union. If he actually believes that and if, first, he wants to hold out against the democratic mandate of the Scottish people and, secondly, he believes that the way to frustrate that is

      419
      by a procedural blocking mechanism, he has a great deal to learn about political reality and real politics. He also has something to learn about democracy.
      I may not ever say this again, but I prefer Lady Thatcher's view on those matters and on the democratic mandate to the view now espoused by Conservative Front Benchers. I thought that, under new Conservatism and the listening to the people exercise, the days of telling Scotland what it could and could not do were meant to be over. I thought that, under new Conservatism, elements of democracy were being introduced to the party's internal procedures and, by extension, it would recognise the will and democratic view of the people. In the last 10 to 15 minutes, that whole principle has been turned on its head. We are now back to the days of "nanny knows best"—going even further than the great nanny herself, Lady Thatcher, in her autobiography.
      I caution the hon. Member for Woodspring. First, he should accept democratic procedures and the democratic will of the people. Secondly, he should not believe that it is possible to devise a procedural mechanism to frustrate open and democratic political debate.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: Without subscribing to the apocalyptic view of a challenge by the Scottish Parliament that goes directly against the sovereignty of this Parliament, I have some concern about the way in which the Bill, as it is now intended to stand, will operate. As the Minister rightly said, let us forget about challenges where the Scottish Parliament decides to be bloody minded and pass legislation that it knows perfectly well it does not have the necessary vires to implement. Ultimately, that would take us to the situation in Ireland in 1918, where groups of Members of Parliament detached themselves and claimed that they had sovereignty. It is an apocalyptic view and not something that I hope will happen.
      Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend accept that, earlier this evening, that point of view was put by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)?
      Mr. Grieve: An apocalypse may happen. I take the view that, if we get to that pass—we debated this matter at great length during other stages of the Bill—it will emerge whatever the procedural mechanisms are. To that extent, I do not think that there is much that we can do to prevent it.
      My main concern is about ensuring smooth government. That implies—the Minister accepted it—that there will be areas where the precise borderline of the competence of the Scottish Parliament may be in doubt, even if there is good will on all sides. In those circumstances, prudence dictates that there should be some mechanism by which legislation, before it is introduced in the Scottish Parliament, can be subject to scrutiny.
      I take the Minister's point about not placing on the Presiding Officer a burden that might politicise his position, to the prejudice of his standing and reputation for impartiality within the Parliament. That problem could be cured if there were some mechanism for reference to the courts at an earlier stage. For example, if the Presiding Officer were concerned that a piece of legislation
      420
      appeared to be ultra vires, he should be able to obtain the court's opinion. We do not have that mechanism. There is a danger that people will be encouraged to believe that the Scottish Parliament has a competence to implement legislation, and then subsequently be disappointed because it does not. It is not a question of making political points about independence or what is within the scope of the Scottish Parliament; it is a matter of day-to-day realities.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is making a speech that is much more sensible than the one made from the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps there should be a reshuffle. Was not the Conservative party's previous position that devolution made independence inevitable? "Inevitable" was the word used. Therefore, does that not make the Opposition's anxiety even more difficult to understand? Or is it something else from the previous Parliament that the Conservative party wants us to forget?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was not in the previous Parliament. He also knows from my speeches in earlier debates that, although I want to preserve the Union and have serious reservations about whether devolution will work, I want to try to make it work. I am a Unionist, so any suggestion that I make is in the spirit of trying to make the system work.
      I hope that, even at this 11th hour and 59th minute, the Minister will consider my suggestion. Ultimately, the judiciary will have the final say on the legislative competence of both this House and the Scottish Parliament; so, unless there is a mechanism by which prior reference on a matter of serious doubt can be made before legislation is introduced, people are likely to be disappointed. Also, time is likely to be expended and prove fruitless.
      Mr. Gorrie: There are three positions on this issue. There are the first thoughts of the Government as included in the original Bill: that the Speaker of the Scottish Parliament could say that a Bill was not for discussion, but the Parliament could then vote to overrule that. The second position is that taken by the House of Lords: that the Speaker could make such a ruling and the Parliament could not overrule him. The third is the Government's second thought: scrub the whole issue. That is an intelligent second thought.
      Earlier, in the debate on a previous amendment, I was greatly encouraged when, almost for the first time in a debate on Scotland, we had some intelligent Conservative speeches and interventions. I am afraid that, since then, the Opposition Front Bench has reverted to the old gramophone record. It is not realistic to expect a Parliament not to debate something that it wants to debate.
      Mr. John Hayes: Throughout time and across the globe, democratic bodies have had limits on their competence and, therefore, limits on the matters that they may rightly consider. It is a nonsense to confuse procedure and politics, as the hon. Gentleman must know from his experience in local government. There are limits to debate based on competence. That is not an unreasonable practice in a sound democracy.
      Mr. Gorrie: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. My experience of democratic bodies is that they debate

      421
      all sorts of things. A council can debate whether nuclear weapons are a bad thing, or that Iraq is a bad place. It knows that it has no power over those matters, but it can debate them.
      Dr. Lynda Clark: The hon. Gentleman may be confusing debate and legislation. There is obviously a big difference between debate that does not lead to legislation and debate that does. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consider that.
      Mr. Gorrie: The hon. and learned Lady anticipates my argument. I am not totally stupid, although I say it myself.
      We will not stop a body debating. The Conservative argument is that it is wicked for a putative Scottish Parliament with a putative majority for independence to discuss a Bill about independence. My point is that it can discuss a motion saying that it would be very nice if Scotland were independent. Everyone agrees that that would be intra vires. If it were a Bill, it could be ultra vires. We cannot stop the Scottish Parliament discussing whatever it wants to debate.
      The Government's second thought is sensible because to set the Parliament against the Speaker would be a bad thing. One of the important aspects of the Westminster Parliament is that, if Madam Speaker tells me to sit down, I do so and there is no messing about. If I had just previously in the Scottish Parliament voted to overrule a Speaker's ruling, that would diminish the power of the Speaker and might cause trouble in Parliament.
      Dr. Fox: Self-evidently, a Parliament can debate anything that it wants to debate. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) was correct to say that there is a difference between a subject that the Parliament might debate and subjects on which it might legislate. We are talking now about the Parliament's legislative competence. What would be the point of the Parliament embarking on the process of legislating on a subject in which it knows that it has no competence, and to create legislation that it knows, ultimately, cannot receive Royal Assent?
      Mr. Gorrie: The hon. Gentleman answers his own question. If the Parliament has any brains, it will not go down that path. It is ridiculous to contend that the Union will somehow be destroyed if the Scottish Parliament considers a Bill that is ultimately said to be out of its powers, whereas, as everyone agrees, it is within the Parliament's powers and causes no problem for it to debate and pass motions on the very same issues. It is ridiculous to make such a distinction.
      If the Parliament wants to discuss an issue, it will discuss it. If the Parliament knows very well that a Bill will never be passed because it is ultra vires, it would only bring itself into public disrepute by continuing to try to pass it. Even if I were elected to the Parliament and were stupid, there would be 128 other people with more brains than me, who would not do such daft things.
      Dr. Fox: That is the precise worry. If I were a separatist, I would want to pursue a legislative path that would bring the Parliament into conflict with
      422
      Westminster, thereby creating as much of a public fuss as possible. That is the exact recipe that nationalists seek, and it is exactly what the Government are proposing. There is a huge difference between debate and legislation, which is why we are trying, in schedule 5, to limit the Parliament's legislative competence. The Government's proposals make it more likely that the provisions could be abused by those who want only greater division.
      Mr. Gorrie: The hon. Gentleman has lived for some time in the Conservative party and therefore sees life as one huge conspiracy, but I do not see things in that way. The Parliament will be responsive to public opinion. It is ridiculous to suggest that Members of the Scottish Parliament would deliberately waste lots of people's time voting on matters on which they cannot legitimately vote. They will be allowed to debate and air issues, get their headlines in newspapers and their soundbites on television because of motions and other absolutely legal means.
      Mrs. Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, procedurally, there is a big difference between a debate or a motion designed to air views on a subject and introducing a Bill—which is what Conservative Members have been talking about? The Parliament's procedure on introducing Bills is the matter that could drive a wedge between the Bill's provisions and the will of the future Scottish Parliament
      Mr. Gorrie: I do not accept any of that. Politicians want their soundbites, their appearances on television and their headlines in newspapers, and they will get them regardless of whether they are debating a motion or a Bill. If Members of the Scottish Parliament introduce ultra vires Bills that everyone knows will not be allowed to reach fruition, they will only subject themselves and their party to ridicule, which they will not want to do. The entire basis of Conservative Members' argument is therefore absurd, and shows their party's total divorce from reality.
      Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gorrie: No; I have gone on long enough, as have all the objections.
      Mr. Swayne: Having had some optimism over the summer months, I am now filled with the forebodings that filled me in our previous debate on the Bill. The entire matter seems now to have the potential for going off the rails. Despite the common ground that was established in the previous debate on both sides of the House—with the possible exception of those on the Treasury Bench, and one or two other Labour Members—the gulf between us seems to have re-opened. I shall take the risk of being accused of playing the same old gramophone record by saying that it all boils down to an issue that, time and again, we hammered out in the Bill's Committee stage: the issue of good will, and the Bill's reliance on it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that we are debating a Lords amendment. He should confine his remarks to that amendment and not speak about the Bill in its entirety.
      Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) has drawn attention to the need for

      423
      good sense. Conservative Members are not persuaded that good will will be enough. We want to maintain the Lords amendments as they are—as they would ensure that the procedures will act to prevent such problems from arising, rather than having to rely on good will.
      Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving way. On the matter of precedents of ultra vires in local and other authorities, does he agree that, contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), most democratic institutions are limited in what they can pass into legislation—for want of a better term? As the hon. Gentleman said, one may have a debate on any matter. However, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) said, legislating is a very different matter. The problem with the Government's proposals is that they create the potential for debate not on broad matters of academic importance but on legislation. That is the key to the matter.
      Mr. Swayne: I agree with my hon. Friend—although I should correct him on his nomenclature in referring to me. His comments seemed to be absolutely elementary.
      Mr. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The nomenclature that I used was "hon. and gallant Friend". I believe that my hon. Friend is a serving member of the forces. Was I incorrect in that?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The title used to be reserved for use in addressing those holding gallantry awards. I do not know whether the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) holds a gallantry award.
      Mr. Swayne: Although I wish that I did hold a gallantry award, the sad fact is that I do not, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and believe that there was much sense in what he said. Unfortunately, we are not considering a Bill or an amendment establishing the type of structure that he favoured. We are offered the Bill with either the Lords or the Government amendments, and I tell the House that I prefer the Lords amendments.
      Let us just consider the possibilities. Let us suppose that daft or stupid—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West suggested—Members of the Scottish Parliament, whatever their motivations, introduced Bills in the Parliament to ban nuclear weapons on Scottish soil, for example, or to provide more generous social security provision in Scotland. Both measures might be very popular, and proceeding on them in the Parliament might offer great scope for making political capital. However, doing so would be ultra vires.
      I think that it would be much better to have that inevitable political argument and battle at the outset. Everyone agrees that we cannot keep politics out of the matter and that the Parliament will discuss what it will discuss regardless of the rules. Nevertheless, it is better to have the battle at the outset, as the Lords amendment would provide, than to let the matter run its course and to have the battle at the end. Although a battle at the outset would politicise the position of the Presiding Officer, it would be better to let his office take the strain and be politicised. The effect of letting him take the heat of
      424
      taking the decision will be to give the impression that the Scottish Parliament has limited itself in consideration of the topic. To do it the other way round, and to let a measure proceed through the Parliament until it is finally ruled ultra vires, would give the very different impression that Westminster had thwarted the will of Holyrood, rather than that Holyrood had limited itself according to the law. That is a key difference and it is preserved by the Lords amendments. We should agree with the Lords in that.
      6.30 pm
      Dr. Fox: To put it in a nutshell, does my hon. Friend agree that it makes nonsense of schedule 5 and the division between reserved and devolved powers for the Parliament to follow a legislative process that cannot be completed because it is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament? Does that not make a mockery of what we have been doing over the past months?
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is exactly right. It would be a monumental waste of the Parliament's time to go down that route. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West was quite right to say that it is an outrageous proposal that would bring the Parliament into disrepute. However, if the Parliament were debating populist measures, I am not sure whether public opinion would move in exactly that way. I agree entirely that the waste or exploitation of the Parliament's time in that way should be ruled out by the procedures at the outset, in accordance with the terms of the legislation of vires and ultra vires that we have spent days and weeks discussing.
      Mr. Syms: We all know that, when private Members' Bills are introduced in the House, public expectations go up. We receive lots of letters as if the measure were about to become law, although as legislators we know that it will not. Is there not a great risk that, if the Scottish Parliament introduces legislation in areas where it does not have competence, that will have the same effect of building up a great deal of public support for something that cannot possibly be achieved?
      Mr. Swayne: There is certainly that danger. The build-up of public support, far from bringing the Scottish Parliament into disrepute as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West suggests, will have the effect of bringing this Parliament into disrepute. That is why it is so important to put procedures in place so that the vires is ruled at the start of the procedure and not at the end of it. That is particularly important.
      Labour Members have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the Scottish Parliament will discuss what it will discuss. That is true in debate, but it must not be allowed to pertain to legislation being put through the Scottish Parliament. If it did, it would make utter nonsense of the schedules that we have considered and all our debates on what should be devolved and what should not.
      Mrs. Laing: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) who has most eloquently expressed the crux of the argument. If the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment is carried, it will make nonsense of all the hours that we have spent discussing schedule 5 of the Bill and the Bill itself. It will have been a complete waste of

      425
      time discussing which matters should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and which should be retained by Westminster.
      The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) argued very strongly—I will allow him to correct me if I am wrong—that the Scottish Parliament should have the power to vary the matters over which it has competence. If it is up to the Parliament to decide which Bills are introduced, if it is up to the politicians to decide on the popular matter for discussion of the day, and if it is up to the MSPs at the time to decide whether that matter can be discussed or legislated on, he is effectively saying that schedule 5 is incompetent, that it might as well not exist and that we might as well not have spent many days discussing it.
      Mr. Gorrie: May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the rest of clause 31 which it is not proposed to remove? It sets out all the blocks affecting any legislation going through the Scottish Parliament. Her remarks amount to hyperbole that bears no relation whatever to the facts.
      Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman is correct in referring me to clause 31, but I disagree with his interpretation. Under clause 31 all that would happen is that, after a Bill had completed all its stages in the Scottish Parliament, a decision could then be taken that the Parliament did not have competence over that subject and therefore could not pass the Bill. That is precisely what will make a nonsense of the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Lady is so concerned that she has wasted her time on schedule 5, why did she and her party not object to the clause that says that, notwithstanding everything else, the Westminster Parliament can always overrule the Scottish Parliament whether or not it has legislative competence? Why did she not concern herself with that clause?
      Mrs. Laing: Would it surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I consider that the most important clause in the Bill? It is vital that that clause be observed because the Scottish Parliament will derive its power from Westminster, just as it derives its power from the Bill which will be passed by this Parliament.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady is saying that, notwithstanding her previous argument about the importance of schedule 5 and working out where she thinks the Scottish Parliament should have legislative competence, she would reserve her right to interfere with the Parliament even in matters where it had legislative competence. Is that her position?
      Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman is making my argument for me extremely well. The crux of the argument is that the matter that we are discussing will serve only to drive a wedge between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. I appreciate—so must the Minister—that the hon. Gentleman wants to do exactly that. It is the hon. Gentleman's political agenda because he wants a separate Scotland. If the legislation that we are discussing results in the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish
      426
      Parliament coming head to head in an irresolvable argument about the competencies of the two Parliaments, it will be more likely that the people of Scotland will become disenchanted with devolution.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady has put her finger on the fact that I support an independent Scotland. However, she is having difficulty in understanding that I do not deceive myself into believing that a procedural mechanism one way or the other will be the subject on which independence is either successful or unsuccessful. It is about politics, not procedure. Does the hon. Lady give me that?
      Mrs. Laing: No indeed, I do not. I see exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying about procedure. Of course it is not the procedure but the way in which it is used. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) spoke about MSPs being stupid. I think that was the word he used—[Interruption.] I do not wish to misquote the hon. Gentleman but he is not correcting me. He was suggesting that some people may not understand procedure.
      If I may pay a compliment to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—I have already become unpopular by paying a compliment to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), and I like to keep these things balanced—he is an extremely competent political operator and he knows exactly how he will be able to use the very procedure that we are now discussing. Of course democracy is not protected by mere rules. It depends on how people use the rules. The hon. Gentleman knows how to use the rules to his political advantage and I do not want him to gain that political advantage.
      Mr. Hayes: Is not the compliment that my hon. Friend has paid to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) tempered by the fact that his problem with the ultimate sovereignty of this Parliament is that he had hoped that the Scottish Parliament would be a federal Parliament—and probably still hopes that? It will be a devolved Parliament, and in a unitary constitution—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Please sit down when I am standing. We are going wide of the amendment and the intervention is also far too long.
      Mrs. Laing: I appreciate the basic point that my hon. Friend was making. The important fact about the Scottish Parliament is that it will derive its power from this Parliament and the Bill that is being passed through this Parliament.
      Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have already had a fine example this evening of action that the Scottish Parliament may take that would be out of its competence—the issue of the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament? The Scottish Parliament might introduce a Bill to ensure that there were more MSPs than had been allowed by the Bill, with representation equal to Westminster's. Under the Government's proposal, the Scottish Parliament would be able to debate the issue and only at the end of the process, after the vote had been taken, would the process be stopped. That is a great danger to the proper working of the Scottish Parliament.
      Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend is right. It would also be a great waste of time for the Scottish Parliament. I am

      427
      concerned about how Scottish taxpayers must feel when they hear about what the Scottish Parliament will do, how many members there will be and how the number will be changed —starting with 129 but then going down to just over 100 because we do not really need 129. Scottish taxpayers must be worried about what the Scottish Parliament will do and what the many highly paid civil servants will do.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us not worry about what the Parliament is going to do. We have specific amendments before us.
      Mrs. Laing: I shall adhere strictly to the amendments. If we agree with the Government this evening, we might as well not have had schedule 5. All the rules that have been laid down at great length by the House and our parliamentary process will have been for nothing. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and his colleagues will be only too happy to continue to drive the wedge that he has spoken of this evening between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. That will doubtless be the effect if the hon. Gentleman has his way. I shall not embarrass him by repeating my compliment that he is a clever political operator.
      Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend is making a persuasive case. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) talked about procedural mechanisms. Are not constitutional arguments all about procedural mechanisms?
      Mrs. Laing: I agree that procedural mechanisms are an important part of the political process. If we do not have well laid out procedural mechanisms—this is what the amendment is about—it will not be clear what is intra vires and what is ultra vires. That is one of the most important rules of constitutional law. If we do not have clear rules, there will be constant squabbles about what the Parliament can do. Only lawyers will benefit from that situation, because they will earn large fees for deciding the arguments. I declare an interest because I am a lawyer and I have no objection to lawyers earning large fees, but taxpayers should be protected from that.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful case. I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of pride. I recognise that my hon. Friend cannot penetrate the mindset of Ministers, but does she think that the Government can have any credible reason for wanting to create a situation that would allow the Scottish National party to whip up anti-English hysteria?
      Mrs. Laing rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) have nothing to do with the amendments, so the hon. Lady should not respond. I remind her that there is such a thing 1as repetition—I shall not go as far as to say tedious repetition. She has made her case on the amendments. To keep repeating her arguments would not be fair to the House.
      Mrs. Laing: I conclude from your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have made my point and I am happy to rest my case.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. McLeish: I apologise for the long interventions early on. This has developed into a nearly interesting filibuster. I had hoped from previous debates that the Conservative Opposition were recovering and rehabilitating themselves in the aftermath of defeat in May 1997, but they have gone back to their bad old ways and their tired old arguments tonight. I had high hopes for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) after her Front-Bench appearance in Committee. The Conservatives cannot distinguish between hysteria surrounding the political interpretation of what is happening in Scotland and the cool, measured view required to look at the legislative process and the issue of competency.
      The role of the Presiding Officer—the Speaker of the Scottish Parliament—is at issue. The suggestion of the other place would give the Presiding Officer unchallengeable power to decide on questions of competence. That would escalate his involvement, giving him a role described by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) as essentially political. That is not the role of Madam Speaker and her deputies in this House and it should not be the role of the Presiding Officer and the deputies in the Holyrood Parliament. We have tabled considered amendments that would remove the potential for conflict in Holyrood. The Presiding Officer would be allowed to state a case about vires, but the case would be part of a structured set of checks and balances on legislative competence.
      I hope that the Conservatives will take cognisance of what is happening in Scotland. There is no prospect of the scenario that they have come up with being part of the Holyrood scene.
      Mr. Dalyell: Could we be clear whether there has been recruitment of Clerks for the Presiding Officer? I gather that Mr. David Millar has been recruited. What is the position of the expert help that any Presiding Officer would need? That ought to be in place before the elections.
      Mr. McLeish: The work of the expert panel on procedure is part of the consultative steering group. A lot of detailed work has been done on the points that have been made. An initial appointment has been made. I take my hon. Friend's point seriously. We want to ensure that all the relevant advice will be available after 6 May next year, when the Parliament starts. I assure my hon. Friend that that will be in place; it is a major part of our current considerations.
      I want the Conservative party cooly to examine what is proposed for Holyrood. First, the Bill is about reserved competencies for Westminster and devolved competencies, so already a decision has been made on what we should be making laws on in Scotland and what should be kept in this place. Secondly, within the consultative steering group—which contains a Conservative representative—we have agreed to have pre-legislative scrutiny, which does not exist in Westminster.
      I challenge the Opposition to consider a situation where all that is incompetent because it is ultra vires. Let us return to the real world—just for a small amount of time, because concentration can be difficult. Let us imagine that we have the devolved responsibilities, which we take

      429
      seriously, and pre-legislative scrutiny before a Bill even arrives in Holyrood. We will then have a situation where a Minister with responsibility for education or for local government comes before the House and says that the proposed legislation is within the competence of the Parliament. The Presiding Officer will then make a statement at Holyrood on the vires of the Bill. At every step, is it conceivable that the Parliament—subject to the scrutiny of the press and the public—can be breaking laws day in, day out in terms of legislative competence? That is an absurd proposition from the Conservatives.
      After the Presiding Officer's statement, the Parliament can decide to proceed in the knowledge of the Presiding Officer's views. However, the Bill could then be amended and the offending part that was not within vires could be taken out. If it remains ultra vires, the Law Officers can refer it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Bill cannot go for Royal Assent if it is ultra vires in the view of the JCPC. There can be no more structured set of procedures in any Parliament in the world. It is sensible because it will he a serious Parliament with enormous law-making potential, and it will be responsible for £15 billion.
      The Opposition must confront reality and start to trust the people. Are we suggesting that the Members of the Scottish Parliament elected by the Scottish people on 6 May next cannot be trusted to make laws that are within the competence of the Parliament? That is the absurdity of the Opposition's approach tonight. They are going back to their old ways and, frankly, it does their perception in Scotland no good at all.
      Dr. Fox: The Minister says that we are proposing an absurd set of conditions. It is, truly, an absurd set of conditions if we are dealing with rational politicians who want to make the Parliament work. However, if we are dealing with a Parliament in which the majority of politicians do not want it to work because they have an alternative political agenda which is quite different from that of the mainstream Unionist parties represented in this House, that is a problem.
      In the first draft of the Bill, we had a double-lock—a lock right at the outset where there was, through the Presiding Officer, the ability to stop a Bill. However, that does not exist now—either through the Presiding Officer or anyone else. Why have the Government taken that out of the equation?
      Mr. McLeish: To coin a phrase, "Game, set and match". The hon. Gentleman has shown the Opposition's fear of what the newly elected group of 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament will do in the new Parliament. I have painstakingly gone through the procedures to provide the checks. The Opposition are simply not listening because they do not want to listen. They have put forward a set of absurdities.
      Mr. Stephen Day: The Minister said that the Opposition did not believe that the Scottish Parliament—or the individual Members, once elected—would be competent to carry out its duties on behalf of the people of Scotland. I do not believe that that is in any way the case. Surely the question is whether the Government were competent in their proposals for the powers of the
      430
      Parliament, because when the matter was put before the Scottish people, no details as to what the powers and the definition of the Parliament would be were given. In other words, any question of lack of competence rests on the shoulders of the Government of whom the Minister is a part.
      Mr. McLeish: We have had 185 hours of debate in this Chamber and the other place on the Bill. Before that, a number of us became familiar with the White Paper, which was well discussed in Scotland and set out the powers and competencies of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish people signed up for that in a referendum with two ballots. The hon. Gentleman's proposition is not tenable—he is attempting to find a gold nugget in a complex area.
      Tonight, we have set out genuinely and honestly what is happening with the Bill. There is a thorough set of procedures which the Opposition cannot distort and undermine by confusing politics with practicalities. I do not believe that their case stands up and I believe that what we have is robust and will be taken seriously by Scots in the Parliament. I believe that we will have good law making in Holyrood.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 31 agreed to.

    Clause 31

      SCRUTINY OF BILLS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
      Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 15, line 38, leave out ("subject to subsection (2)").
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. McLeish.]
      The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 119.

      Division No. 376]

      [6.56 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Borrow, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ainger, Nick

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Brake, Tom

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Allan, Richard

      Breed, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      (Dunfermline E)

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Browne, Desmond

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Baker, Norman

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Barnes, Harry

      Burden, Richard

      Barron, Kevin

      Burgon, Colin

      Battle, John

      Burnett, John

      Beard, Nigel

      Burstow, Paul

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Caborn, Richard

      Benton, Joe

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Berry, Roger

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Best, Harold

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Blackman, Liz

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Canavan, Dennis

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cann, Jamie

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Caplin, Ivor

      431

      Casale, Roger

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Caton, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Cawsey, Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chidgey, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clapham, Michael

      Gorrie, Donald

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clelland, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harvey, Nick

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Heppell, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corbett, Robin

      Hill, Keith

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cotter, Brian

      Hoey, Kate

      Cox, Tom

      Home Robertson, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Hood, Jimmy

      Crausby, David

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cummings, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Darvill, Keith

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hutton, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dawson, Hilton

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Denham, John

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Efford, Clive

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Keetch, Paul

      Etherington, Bill

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Kemp, Fraser

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Kidney, David

      Flint, Caroline

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Flynn, Paul

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Galbraith, Sam

      Laxton, Bob

      Galloway, George

      Lepper, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Leslie, Christopher

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Linton, Martin

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Livingstone, Ken

      432

      Livsey, Richard

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Love, Andrew

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McAllion, John

      Salmond, Alex

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sanders, Adrian

      McCabe, Steve

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney Ian (Makerfield)

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheerman, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McLeish, Henry

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Singh, Marsha

      McNamara, Kevin

      Skinner, Dennis

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      McWilliam, John

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

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

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Snape, Peter

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Milburn, Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miller, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moore, Michael

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stringer, Graham

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Oaten, Mark

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Öpik, Lembit

      Touhig, Don

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Trickett, Jon

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pearson, Ian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pendry, Tom

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Tyler, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wallace, James

      Pike, Peter L

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Plaskitt, James

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pound, Stephen

      Watts, David

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Webb, Steve

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Prosser, Gwyn

      White, Brian

      Purchase, Ken

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Radice, Giles

      Willis, Phil

      Rammell, Bill

      Wills, Michael

      Rapson, Syd

      Winnick, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wise, Audrey

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Wood, Mike

      Rendel, David

      Woolas, Phil

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Wray, James

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Roy, Frank

      Mr. David Hanson and

      Ruane, Chris

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      433

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Amess, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Lansley, Andrew

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Leigh, Edward

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Baldry, Tony

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Beggs, Roy

      Luff, Peter

      Bercow, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Blunt, Crispin

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Body, Sir Richard

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Madel, Sir David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Malins, Humfrey

      Brady, Graham

      Maples, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Moss Malcolm

      Burns, Simon

      Ottaway, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Page, Richard

      Cash, William

      Paice, James

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Paterson, Owen

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Pickles, Eric

      Chope, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Clappison, James

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      (Rushcliffe)

      Ruffey, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Colvin, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Cran, James

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Evans, Nigel

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Streeter, Gary

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Swayne, Desmond

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Syms, Robert

      Gale, Roger

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gibb, Nick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Gill, Christopher

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Townend, Jonh

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Trend, Michael

      Greenway, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Wardle, Charles

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Waterson, Nigle

      Hammond, Philip

      Wells, Bowen

      Hawkins, Nick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Hayes, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Wilkinson, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Willetts, David

      Horam, John

      Wilshire, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Hunter, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Key, Robert

      Tellers for the Noes

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Mr. Stephen Day and

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Mr. Tim Collins.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 33 and 34 disagreed to.
      Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 34 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 52 agreed to.

    Clause 41

      THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
      Lords amendment: No. 53, in page 19, line 5, at end insert—
      ("(3) A person who holds a Ministerial office may not be appointed a member of the Scottish Executive; and if a member of the Scottish Executive is appointed to a Ministerial office he shall cease to hold office as a member of the Scottish Executive.
      (4) In subsection (3), references to a member of the Scottish Executive include a junior Scottish Minister and "Ministerial office" has the same meaning as in section 2 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.")
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 62, 64 to 87, 123, 124, 31, 147 to 151, 170 to 173, 288, 293, 297, and 298 and a motion to disagree.
      Mr. McLeish: This large group of technical amendments deals with a wide range of matters, including prohibition of dual mandates, the resignation of the Lord Advocate, the validity of Acts of Scottish Ministers, consultation requirements under clause 51, the sharing of powers under clause 52, interaction with the Human Rights Act 1998, the transfer of property, agency arrangements, the definition of "the Crown" and official secrets. I urge the House to accept the amendments; we will, of course, oppose any attempt to disagree with amendment No. 298.
      I understand that Opposition Members are interested in amendment No. 53, which prevents members of the Scottish Executive—which, for the purposes of the clause, includes junior Scottish Ministers—from holding office in the UK Government. The amendment provides that a person holding ministerial office, as defined in section 2 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 may not be appointed as a member of the Scottish Executive and that, if a member of the Scottish Executive is appointed to ministerial office, he shall cease to hold office as a member of the Scottish Executive. It also makes it clear that the term "member of the Scottish Executive" in this context includes a junior Scottish Minister.
      I also understand that Opposition Members are concerned about amendment No. 298, which provides that members of the Scottish Executive and junior Scottish Ministers are Crown servants for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989. It is important that the House appreciates what that does and does not mean. The Official Secrets Act does not always get a good press, but it plays a useful role in enabling the exchange of information within Government, which is why we tabled the amendment.
      Amendment No. 298 will ensure that Scottish Ministers are put in exactly the same position as Ministers in the UK Government. It will also put them in the same position as their staff, who will of course be civil servants and, as such, Crown servants for the purposes of the 1989 Act without the need for any amendment. That is all that the proposal is about—it will mean that Scottish Ministers will be able to receive and, if necessary, disclose information covered by the 1989 Act while also being subject to the offences created by the Act.

      435
      The Government consider that the amendment is necessary so that Scottish Ministers can carry out their duties to the full. It will mean that there is no anomaly in the position of Ministers as against their civil servants in respect of access to information. We would rightly be criticised if we bequeathed that anomaly to our successors. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that and support the amendment.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Evans: As the Minister said, the amendments are wide ranging and largely technical, but my primary concern is amendment No. 53, which deals with the dual mandate. We have been asking for such a measure for some time and we believe that the amendment is straightforward and sensible. It recognises that, if devolution is to mean anything, there must be a clear break between those who hold office at Westminster and those who are part of the Executive in the Scottish Parliament. Devolution will mean nothing if the Scottish Executive regularly have to sing to the tune of the Westminster Cabinet.
      We know that the Government are still suffering from their control-freak tendencies in every other matter—we saw examples of it only this weekend—but at least they have recognised the stupidity of allowing a two-jobbing politician to have a face, let alone feet, in both camps. That politician's voice would be, by its very nature, the voice of the Westminster Government. A Minister who held positions at Westminster and in the Scottish Executive would necessarily be bound by collective Cabinet responsibility and by what Downing street said.
      Will the Minister say whether he believes that a politician can serve two masters? If someone cannot be a Minister both in Scotland and at Westminster, why do the Government believe that someone can be part of the Executive in Wales but also part of the United Kingdom Government? Indeed, someone can be both First Secretary in Wales and Secretary of State for Wales. If the measure in the amendment is right for Scotland, why is it not right for Wales? If a person can serve two masters in Wales, why have the Government tabled this amendment to the Scotland Bill? The people of Wales and of Scotland will be interested to hear the answer to that question.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I speak to the motion, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), to disagree with Lords amendment No. 298. The Minister has claimed that the Bill is carefully thought through and balanced and that it was constructed as a whole. It was always intended that the Government of Wales Act 1998 should impose on Assembly Members the Official Secrets Act 1989. The measure was wide ranging and subject to some discussion. The House agreed to an amendment of which I did not approve.
      As regards this Bill, however, amendment No. 298 was parachuted into the House of Lords. The measure did not appear in statements to the Scottish people and was not discussed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention or—as it was not originally in the Bill—by the House of Commons. Moreover, there was almost no discussion in the House of Lords of the propositions underlying such an important concept. Indeed, those who spoke welcomed or even acclaimed the measure. We all too often accept the conventional way of doing business.
      436
      For certain classes of information, the Official Secrets Act makes what we regard as matters of confidentiality the subject of a criminal offence in respect of Government servants and Ministers of the Crown. Other than the Minister's explanation today, no one has said why that is necessary. We are not suggesting that the security of the state— of our island Government or even of Scotland-is at issue, because that is a reserved matter for this House. No one has advanced any argument why it is necessary to impose the criminal law on Members of the Scottish Parliament, as a precondition of election.
      I want to test the proposition, because it seems strangely contradictory to the thrust of the Government's intentions on freedom of information, of which I am all in favour. We hear talk of the new politics of openness and the new dispensation in Scotland, yet the Official Secrets Act is being imposed without reasoned thought. Why is it necessary? Is it because a Minister may be too candid with the Parliament or because the Scottish people are not sufficiently grown up to participate in the debates that form public policy on non-reserved matters?
      To take a very sensitive issue, if someone were to come into possession of a piece of information about Dounreay that could touch deeply, or even lethally, the lives of UK citizens resident in Scotland, disclosure would be a criminal offence. How can we have a fully informed, proper public debate without the availability of, and access to, information?
      The Government agree with me, to the extent that they published one of the most extraordinary White Papers that the country has ever seen: "Your Right to Know". The Prime Minister, no less, wrote a foreword saying how important it was. The original draft of the Bill was in that spirit, inasmuch as it did not extend the use of the Official Secrets Act by what I will argue is the very wicked device of including it here rather than amending the primary legislation.
      Why was it necessary to introduce a provision that has at no stage of the process been drawn to the attention of the Scottish people, in the name of whom the Government claim authority for the legislation?
      We have not heard any reasoned arguments. The Minister has merely said that matters of confidentiality require a criminal offence, but that is not borne out when we consider the scope, authority and ability of the Scottish Parliament to make law on matters that do not touch on the security of the state. We may prevent proper consideration, with a full, mature adult population participating in public policy. How can we make informed judgments without a flow of information?
      I believe our system of government—our constitution and the ways of its workings—to be profoundly good, but one of its sins is that it has for most of this century been dependent on the most extraordinary tool of repression of freedom of discussion: our legacy of section 2 of the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920. That is what is at issue.
      The new politics that the Labour party espoused so bravely on day one seems to have withered on the vine, as we still have no freedom of information Bill, despite many promises. I thought that, in that open climate, Scotland would be relieved of something that inhibits informed public debate. It is often said that Governments do not mind freedom of expression, because by and large

      437
      our prejudices are simply not informed, but that they fear equality of information, because that allows people to argue on an equal basis about the right course of action.
      I believe that the measure is wholly inappropriate, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. Unfortunately, he could not be here today, but he asked me, as we are both true-born Scots, to express that view on his behalf.
      Mr. McLeish: I acknowledge the expertise and interest of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in these matters. My arguments are not so sophisticated. We want consistency, so that our access to the Official Secrets Act is consistent with that of Westminster Ministers. I believe that that is right. That is my core point, although I acknowledge that there is a wider argument about why others might construe that as stifling proper dialogue with the public and as preventing what I believe that the hon. Gentleman described as a mature debate in Government.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, we are a Government who believe in freedom of information, even if we have not got as far as he would like. I hope that the new Scottish Parliament will enter into that spirit and, more important, participate in the development of freedom of information.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: Both my hon. Friend the Minister and I have an interest in these matters, because we both hope to be elected to the Scottish Parliament. I am worried by the point that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made: he painted a scenario in which, if I were to table a question to my hon. Friend in the Scottish Parliament, he could be prosecuted for giving me an answer. That is a terrifying thought. It would be useful if my hon. Friend could clarify the point, because I am sure that that is not the intention.
      Mr. McLeish: In my judgment, the system works for the Westminster Parliament. We want to take that set of conditions and apply it at Holyrood. Because of a wider range of issues with which he is concerned, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills does not think that we should do that. I have argued simply from the premise of consistency.
      Scottish Ministers may become aware of matters covered by the Official Secrets Act. Making such Ministers Crown servants gives them the protection of section 7 of that Act, which can be invoked if the disclosure is made in accordance with their official duties. I believe that our proposal is simple and straightforward, providing consistency and good government and giving us the necessary basis for debate on some sensitive issues.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have great respect for the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and his expertise in these matters, but I think that he is being too alarmist. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that Back-Bench Committees in the Edinburgh Parliament will have the right of access to material when they cross-examine Ministers on policy and other matters?
      Mr. McLeish: In the spirit of my original explanation, that will be the case. We are talking about a Parliament
      438
      that will make real laws and scrutinise the Executive on real live issues. We should not create a pretence that the Scottish Parliament will be any less stringent or intense in scrutiny than we are at Westminster.
      We should keep matters in perspective. There is nothing terribly sinister in what we are attempting to do at Holyrood in comparison with what happens at Westminster. My speaking notes could fill volumes of Hansard, but I would rather provide the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills with a detailed written response in which I can set out the full background. I have tried to cover the substance of his point this evening.
      Dr. Fox: I am not sure whether the Minister intends to return to amendment No. 53. In case he does not, I should not let the moment pass. He has told us about the change that is being made, but why did the Government choose to include in the Bill the provision that a Minister of the Crown cannot serve in the Scottish Executive?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. McLeish: I was going to return to that point, but I wanted first briefly to respond to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
      The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has raised what might be called the Welsh factor, although this is a Scottish debate. There is no mystery in why we have acted as we have. We are dealing with the devolution of primary legislation to Scotland, and we simply cannot have Ministers who are both members of the Scottish Executive and Ministers of the Crown at Westminster. The Welsh Assembly will be responsible not for primary legislation, but for subordinate legislation, and that distinction is important. Once the Holyrood Parliament is set up, the Scottish Executive and Members of the Scottish Parliament will get on immediately with their business. In Wales, I expect there to be a considerable amount of liaison during the first few months of the Assembly. I do not want to stray on to Welsh business, but it may be that Ministers at Westminster may also populate the Welsh Assembly in some capacity.
      Mr. Dalyell: The Minister says that the Scottish Parliament must get on quickly with its business. If there are to be Committees, they must be serviced, and they must be serviced by skilled people. What arrangements have been made to provide skilled assistance? The skills required are somewhat rare, as the activity is a specialist one. Has the provision been thought through?
      Mr. McLeish: There has been an enormous amount of discussion about that point. We are setting up a Parliament and specialist Committees, which will, for the first time, combine legislative and scrutinising functions, and we know the level of expertise required. Work is being done with the consultative steering group, and we are recruiting staff. I shall write to my hon. Friend to detail what has been done to tackle his specific point.
      Mr. Evans: I have no doubt that the Scottish Parliament will want to get on with business, as will the Welsh Assembly. The amendment is right, and we wanted it all along. If devolution is to mean anything, it is inconceivable that a Minister in the Scottish Parliament could also be a Minister at Westminster. Collective responsibility means

      439
      that that could not work, as devolution would not function properly. Does the Minister, for the sake of consistency, accept the principle of amendment No. 53, which is that to have a two-jobbing Minister at Westminster and at either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly simply would not work?
      Mr. McLeish: The final stages of the Scotland Bill are no forum for discussion of the Welsh Assembly. We are responding to the situation in Scotland. The amendment is straightforward, and it is important. It would not be wise for me to comment on other Bills, or on an Assembly with which I have no involvement.
      Dr. Godman: My question is prompted by the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow Mr. Dalyell). Specialist advisers are important, and provision must be addressed. As one who will not sit in the Scottish Parliament, may I say that many new Members will have none of the experience of cross-examining Ministers that most Members at Westminster gain through the Select Committee system? I hope that some attention will be given to the guidance of new MSPs.
      Mr. McLeish: The new Parliament will contain a smattering of experience, but my hon. Friend has a point. We will embark on training relating to the nuts and bolts of Parliament and the whys and wherefores of Committee work. The consultative steering group has set up expert panels on technology, procedures and the media, and some of the most distinguished people in the country serve on those panels. We have not simply waited for the Parliament to be established. We have made a serious attempt to build up to the point at which Members who are elected can get quickly on to business and have the expertise at their disposal to do so properly and effectively.
      Mr. Shepherd: I want to clarify one point. To whom will a civil servant in Scotland owe his or her first duty of allegiance? Will it be to the Secretary of State, who sits in the Westminster Parliament?
      Mr. McLeish: The civil service is a unified service, but the first call on civil servants in Scotland will be from the First Minister.
      Mr. Shepherd indicated dissent.
      Mr. McLeish: If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's question, I apologise.
      Mr. Shepherd: With whom does a civil servant's first duty lie? The Minister says that the first duty in Scotland is to the Scottish Minister. However, Crown civil servants within a unified service clearly owe a duty to the Crown at present, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the United Kingdom Parliament. Who will be their master?
      Mr. McLeish: Clearly, the civil service will remain a unified service, but civil servants working in Scotland will work through the First Minister to the Crown. They will
      440
      swear allegiance in the same way as Ministers at Westminster. The process is not complex.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 87 agreed to.

    Clause 89

      APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES
      Lords amendment: No. 125, in page 42, line 37, leave out ("making such a nomination") and insert
      ("nominating persons for such appointment")
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 126 to 128, Lords amendment No. 129, amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu.
      Mr. Dewar: I ask the House to agree to Lords amendments Nos. 125 to 127, but to disagree to amendments Nos. 128 and 129, to which there are amendments in lieu.
      Amendment No. 125 has been much discussed at various times. It is odd that it has caused so much excitement. One would get the impression that we were in the habit of knocking down judges as if they were ninepins. In fact, I know of no attempt, at least in modern times, to remove a judge from office in Scotland. There have been occasional cases of resignation as a result of difficulties or special circumstances, but no attempt has been made to force out a judge. I do not expect that it will be a common occurrence in future, either. Indeed, so uncommon is the occurrence that, in drafting the Bill, the matter emerged as a gap in the law of Scotland. There is no provision for sacking a judge in Scotland; no one thought it necessary to have such a provision because no one had ever wanted to do such a thing. Perhaps that is a tremendous tribute to the quality of our judges; I say that in an even tone.
      There is a distinction between judges and their more fallible brethren on the shrieval bench because there is machinery for the removal of a sheriff. In my long memory, which is now very long, I can think of two occasions on which that machinery was implemented. On both occasions, for very different reasons, the gentleman concerned left the bench. For judges, the matter has not come up and it has never been felt that there was a great need to deal with the issue. If it has caused much trouble, it is a rod that we made for our own back by trying to fill the gap in the interests of completeness. I stress that, while I regard it as important that we get it right, I regard it as likely to remain—I hope that no one misunderstands me—a somewhat academic exercise.
      The Bill was amended in another place to provide for a tribunal composed exclusively of senior judges, with membership restricted to Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and holders of high judicial office who were either Members of another place or Privy Councillors. It was proposed that those persons should be given the task of reporting the case for removing a judge and so acting, to use a term of art, as gatekeeper to the whole process. That was suggested because it was felt that the proposition in the Bill was not entirely satisfactory. The Bill simply proposed that a judge

      441
      could be removed on a vote of the Scottish Parliament with a two-thirds majority, not of those voting but of the entire Parliament. That was meant to be an important safeguard, because it would be unlikely, particularly given the voting system that we have introduced, that one could succeed in removing a judge without putting together a coalition that covered several parties.
      Mr. Dalyell: Has the Secretary of State consulted the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk about safeguards? It would be of great importance if they have said that they are satisfied with the safeguards. What is their attitude?
      Mr. Dewar: Before the amendments were tabled, there was discussion with the Lord President, Lord Rodger, and I understand that he was satisfied with our proposals, as the Opposition appeared to be when we outlined our intentions on Third Reading in another place. We are well equipped with support in this instance.
      I found some of the arguments prayed in aid of the amendments moved in another place a little excitable. I say that with respect to a close personal friend of mine for whose intellectual capacity I have great respect. I refer to Lord McCluskey who, to put it in lay language, got the bit between the teeth to some effect. I was entertained to discover that the proposal for removal on a two thirds majority of the Parliament was
      "a constitutional monstrosity … the greatest threat to the independence of the Scottish judiciary since the eighteenth century",
      and a threat to democracy itself. I felt quite important because I did not realise that I was a constitutional Genghis Khan, dealing death and destruction all around. I was pleased to discover that Lord McCluskey rightly emphasised having everyone equal before the law and said magisterially—or, indeed, judicially, in manner at least—that that principle applies to
      "Donald Dewar, the Earl of Elgin, and the Governor of the Bank of Scotland."
      That was odd company in which to find myself.
      I mock Lord McCluskey gently because I have great respect for him and realise that he had a genuine concern. Some of the arguments pushed the boat out a little far. He said:
      "if the judges are not independent, if they can be sacked by the Government when the Government doesn't like the way they are deciding cases, the courts quickly degenerate into becoming tools of the executive, and democracy is dealt a fatal blow."
      I hope to reassure him that, whatever the nuances of the argument, and however the balance should fall, no one who has been engaged in it imagined that we would be dealing with a situation where the Government would sack someone because they did not like the way in which that person was deciding cases. Of course, that would be a very serious matter indeed. I do not think that that would have arisen, but he is entitled to say that we must deal with the worst case scenario and that if we are to fill this lacuna in the law, we should do it adequately and with care. I am happy to endorse that.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Government's amendment (c) states:
      "Provision shall be made for a tribunal".
      442
      It is not clear whether such provision will be made ad hoc in response to a particular issue arising in respect of a particular judge or whether it is general. Will such provision be made soon so that it is in existence to deal with circumstances as they may arise?
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Dewar: Our proposition is that we should broadly follow the procedure for removal of a sheriff. There should be a gatekeeper.
      Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the fault is mine for not putting my point sufficiently clearly. I do not understand whether the provision will be made only if a particular case arises or whether it will be made generally so that it is always available to deal with circumstances that may never arise.
      Mr. Dewar: That is an interesting point on which I shall no doubt get some advice. My view is that it will only arise when there is a need. I presume that the tribunal will not be a standing body. If it is, I might apply for the secretary's job, which I hope would carry suitable remuneration while being lightly worked. It would be the last sinecure, going back to Lord McCluskey's 18th century.
      Mr. Hogg: I am pleased to make provision for the Secretary of State's retirement and future employment but I think that we are dealing with rules for the composition of a tribunal rather than setting up a tribunal. I am seeking to discover, so far unsuccessfully, whether the tribunal and rules will be set up to deal with a particular case or whether, early in the lifetime of the Parliament, general provision will be made to deal with a case that may or may not arise.
      Mr. Dewar: May I say with beguiling honesty that I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point perfectly but did not know the answer to it. I have been rescued from that predicament and I understand that the intention is that a tribunal can be set up as cases arise. It is not necessary to set up a standing body because we anticipate that it would be used rarely, if at all. There is no need to have it in permanent limbo, waiting for a client who never comes.
      Mr. Grieve: In the amendment from the other place, the tribunal's form and structure are clear because they are defined. The Government's amendment is more nebulous and leaves much more room for interpretation. It is on that point that the Opposition seek clarification because the tribunal's composition is crucial.
      Mr. Dewar: On that point, I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As we are running towards the end of the Bill, I should say that I am delighted to see him yet again in his place. As an expatriate, he has stayed the pace remarkably well and given me much entertainment in recent months—and not many Conservatives do that.
      Dr. Fox: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dewar: No—let me answer the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), because he has raised a serious point. We intend to stipulate the qualifications of the

      443
      chairman, but we are not attempting to stipulate the entire membership of the panel—the individual members who may be called to their posts many years hence. Clearly, I assume that the panel will carry credibility, comprising people of expertise and standing—the sort of people who can offer genuine advice about a difficulty that has arisen in respect of judges of the Court of Session and the chairman of the Scottish Land Court, who has the same status as a judge. I do not think that we should try, in an ad hoc body, to stipulate a curriculum vitae that must be met, or a definition that has to be honoured. To allow a degree of flexibility makes sense.
      Mr. Grieve: I am much obliged to the Secretary of State for half answering my next question. He clearly accepted that the amendment made in another place had some substance; otherwise, presumably, the Government would not have embarked on something similar. Therefore, my next question is to seek clarification as to why he felt that the form of the tribunal as proposed in another place was unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Dewar: We anticipate that the panel will be judicially led in terms of its chairmanship, but not that it should be entirely or necessarily appointed from the ranks of the judiciary. When setting up a panel to deal with difficult circumstances pertaining to an individual judge, there is some merit in that approach. Judges do not come in crowds in Scotland: they tend to know each other and have long-standing connections and knowledge, which can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is important that there should be flexibility in the composition of the body that is called into being to look at a specific case. Nevertheless, we are anxious that the tribunal should be headed by a figure whose qualifications and knowledge are reassuring, and that is why we have stipulated the qualifications for the chair of the tribunal. These are difficult issues to balance, but I believe that ours is a sensible proposition.
      Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State will understand that the target audience and acute readers of the clause will look for answers to the questions in rather more detail than most of us would care to delve. Will he confirm that my understanding of what he said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? The Government amendment (c) states that Provision—that is, provision for the tribunal—
      "means provision by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament".
      Therefore, it is intended that primary legislation will give overall form to the tribunal, and that any subsequent action would be taken through secondary legislation. Is that a correct reading of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions?
      Mr. Dewar: I am not sure whether I followed that exactly, but no doubt others have done so and will advise me. We are trying to provide an impartial machinery to give advice to the Scottish Parliament should the unfortunate circumstances that we are debating crop up. I believe that we should all have an interest in that aim.
      The intention is that the Parliament can make general provision in respect of the dismissal of judges, including the arrangements for appointing the members of the tribunal and its rules and procedures. The Government
      444
      amendments give the Parliament the flexibility that would not be available if the Lords amendments remain. The Lords amendments are prescriptive, whereas we are trying to allow a degree of—I was about to say room for manoeuvre, but that sounds somewhat shady, so I shall not adopt that phrase. We are trying to broaden the base, bearing in mind the need for suitable candidates who will command the confidence of everyone, including someone who might be the subject of investigation or consideration by the tribunal.
      Dr. Godman: Is there a right of appeal in respect of a decision taken by the tribunal?
      Mr. Dewar: The decision is taken by the Scottish Parliament. The recommendation of the tribunal has to carry a majority vote in the Parliament, and I doubt that there is any formal appeal from that. However, the procedure is extremely special and would give all those involved in it pause for thought. I have only been involved in one similar case: I shall not go into details, but it involved a sheriff. At that time, I was shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, and the then Secretary of State invited me to come and see him in his room. The procedure was taken extremely seriously, even though, I regret to say, that there was no controversy about the matter. No one should imagine that such cases will be taken lightly, either by the Scottish Parliament or by anyone else.
      The Bill provides a minimum framework—we are not trying to cross all the t's and dot all the i's—but we have always assumed that the Parliament will be able to choose, if it so wishes, to add to the framework by enacting further legislation. That is the point to which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred. The removal of judges is not only a matter of private concern for the judges, but an issue of serious public interest. There is a legitimate debate to be had, into which Lord McCluskey entered with enthusiasm and, in so doing, threw up some interesting ideas. However, it is not always wise to leap to a conclusion either way during the final few days of a Bill's passage through Parliament.
      The key point is that clause 89 is entrenched. The Scottish Parliament will have to live with what it says and will have no scope to replace any of its provisions; it will be able only to expand on them. That is why the essential safeguards should appear in the Bill, but the fleshing out and the determination of the final mix of experience and standing on the tribunal is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. We think it right that the Scottish Parliament should have that element of discretion, so that it can develop the procedures that apply in Scotland for the removal of judges.
      The Government's alternative amendment to Lords amendments Nos. 128 and 129 therefore provides simply that provision shall be made—which, in this context, means provision by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament—for the First Minister to constitute a tribunal of at least three persons to investigate and report on the case for the removal of a judge. Three is a minimum number and not a prescriptive figure. The amendment ensures that the chairman will be a person eligible under clause 94 to be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The First Minister still requires the Parliament's approval before being able to recommend to

      445
      Her Majesty that a judge be removed; but he may not seek that approval unless the tribunal has reported that the person is unfit.
      We are giving the tribunal a key role, which is an important safeguard against the possibility of a Scottish Parliament taking a political dislike to a member of judiciary and attempting to act in the manner of Charles I during the 17th century. I believe that such circumstances are unlikely to occur, but I concede that I cannot exclude the possibility of their occurring in future years. That the chairman has to be eligible to be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council gives us a reasonably wide choice of distinguished legal figures, whose number currently includes several extremely distinguished Scottish judges.
      The tribunal's report must be laid before Parliament. Given the addition of a statutory tribunal to the process, we see no need also to require the two-thirds majority. Having included in the Bill the body that has to report and without whose say-so the matter cannot proceed, we saw no reason to overburden the machinery by demanding the high test of a two-thirds majority; therefore, the amendments in lieu remove that test. We have retained the provision that, where the person who may be removed is either the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk, the First Minister must also consult the Prime Minister. We have been properly tender of the feelings of the judiciary. Some might accuse us of having been over-tender, but it is better to make it clear that the fears that have been expressed are not real.
      I said in reply to an earlier remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the Lord President has been involved and, it would be fair to say, taken an active part in correspondence and discussion about the Bill's final formulation. He has helpfully put forward his opinions on this and other matters.
      The proposals to some extent reflect the existing provisions for sheriffs under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 and are therefore tried and tested.
      Mr. Dalyell: Do we take it that there is no dissent from what is proposed from any of the senior judges? I am prepared to believe that there is no dissent, but I should like it to be stated on the record.
      8 pm
      Mr. Dewar: I cannot pretend that I have discussed the matter with all the senior judges, but the Lord President has been consulted. The judges are collegiate; the Lord President is the leader and has a duty to reflect their opinion. I am not aware of any dissent on the matter. While strolling in a park in Edinburgh at the weekend, I had the advantage of having a discussion with Lord McCluskey. [Interruption.] I felt very safe in judicial company. I do not want to misunderstand his position, but I got the impression that he was at least mollified, and on that I rest my case.
      As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there is no reason to fear for the future independence of the judiciary. If there were a risk of political interference, building a tribunal, even on the lines that we are proposing or those agreed in another place, would not stop a tyrannical Administration who were determined to bulldoze their
      446
      way through judicial independence. They would probably not find it too difficult to bulldoze their way through the committee as well. I do not imagine that that will happen, and we have made proper provision to build in safeguards that I hope will be deemed adequate.
      I listened to some hon. Members saying that the proposals were the end, if not of the world, at least of judicial integrity. We should consider that south of the border, since the Supreme Court Act 1981—the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will be aware of this, being a man learned in the law—a judge can be removed on a simple majority, admittedly of both Houses of Parliament, with no committee, panel or judicial inquiry. I find that position a little puzzling, although I recognise that there are important differences that no doubt justify it.
      I accept that it is possible to argue that the House of Lords is such a bulwark of individual liberty and such a collection of people of integrity, expertise and skill that it was not necessary to have people to investigate the facts and reach an opinion that a recommendation could safely be made. However, judging by the fierce expression of the need for a safeguard and a proper inquiry into the individual case, I would have suspected that hon. Members would have wanted to amend the 1981 Act, but there does not seem to be a great enthusiasm for doing so. That is a matter for those who have a particular responsibility for the machinery south of the border.
      We have properly listened to the fears that have been expressed, but I hold to my belief that there is no danger of abuse. I accept that, if those fears are even voiced, there is a case for including safeguards and ensuring that we all go home, if not happy, at least satisfied.
      Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State rightly said that this issue has made many people excitable, and I suspect that I am at the Dispatch Box because it was thought that I was the most appropriate person to deal with the issue.
      It was heart warming to hear the Secretary of State speak so highly of the other place as a bulwark within Parliament. I look forward to his contributions in a similar vein in the next Session when we shall discuss in more detail the qualities of the other place. The Bill has led us to consider the importance of the second Chamber because of the way in which the legislation has been improved by the amendment tabled by Lord McCluskey and the fact that the Government have reconsidered the matter and tabled their own amendment.
      I have read Lord McCluskey's contributions in the early hours of 7 October in the other place and on Report on 2 November, when he was forced to call a Division. He had the support of two serving Law Lords, four retired Law Lords, one serving Court of Session judge—Lord Cooke of Thorndon, the retired chief justice of New Zealand and a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—and two former Lords Advocate. When someone of Lord McCluskey's stature is able to command the support of such individuals, it is only right that we take his amendment seriously.
      We are discussing the independence of the judiciary, which I am sure Members on all sides of the House hold in high regard, especially when we are considering the establishment of a new body. We need to get that absolutely right. The fact that it is dealt with in the Bill means that attempts are being made to ensure that the

      447
      integrity of the judiciary will be upheld. The fact that the Government have tabled an amendment reveals that they are coming some way towards accepting the fears expressed by Lord McCluskey and others.
      The removal of senior judges is a serious issue, and we must ensure that the practice continues to be rare and that it is fair and open and complies with our other obligations under the European convention on human rights and the Latimer house guidelines for the Commonwealth, which approve the Harare principles, about which Lord McCluskey so eloquently spoke in the other place. The Harare principles state:
      "In cases where a judge is at risk of removal, the judge must have the right to be fully informed of the charges, to be represented at a hearing, to make a full defence, and to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal. Grounds for removal of a judge should be limited to

      a) inability to perform judicial duties

      b) serious misconduct".

      Article 6 of the European convention on human rights states:
      "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is not in his place, was trying to establish with the Secretary of State that the tribunal would be impartial and independent. I hope that the Secretary of State will say a few more words about that.
      Although the Lord Advocate stated in another place that it would be beyond belief and inconceivable that judges would be removed at the whim of fancy, judges will increasingly be involved in matters of political controversy. I am sure that the Secretary of State has, as I have, read many newspaper articles about the wisdom of some of our judges in their deliberations and decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) spoke earlier about worst case scenarios, and when we are passing legislation we should ensure that it is as watertight as possible and that we prepare for all eventualities.
      I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland hopes to achieve great heights in the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that he would never stoop to such base, earthy instincts as populist rhetoric, and that he will observe the high standards that we associate with him in his present capacity. However, others—possibly others not too far from him—may hold that new position. We should put in place safeguards and guidelines that everyone will have to follow.
      We seek a fair and sound structure for the removal of judges, which separates political considerations from the initial assessment of unsuitability. That was the aim of the McCluskey amendment. An independent tribunal established by law would be the most appropriate way of achieving that. Lord McCluskey pointed out that, since 1877, it has not been possible to remove a sheriff without an independent inquiry by senior judges set in train by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk.
      The Faculty of Advocates stated that
      "the tenure of judges should remain such that they cannot be removed from office other than on the basis of fitness or misconduct, and that this should be expressly stated in the legislation … it is necessary to have some means of determining the fitness of judges that is independent of the political process".
      448
      That is what we are seeking this evening. The value of the work that has been done in another place is demonstrated by the fact that, until now, the Government have been opposed to writing that into the Bill and accepting the proposal for some form of tribunal to examine the unsuitability of judges before the matter goes to the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Dewar: Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman puts tremendous stress on the need for a judicial investigation rather than a general debate in Parliament. Is he happy with the present situation in England?
      Mr. Evans: If the matter had not appeared in the Bill, I expect that it would not have been raised because it would have been on an equal footing in Scotland and in England. Because it is written into the Bill, it is the subject of debate today and was taken up by Lord McCluskey.
      The Secretary of State mentioned that the two thirds vote of Parliament would no longer be required, and that a simple majority of the Scottish Parliament would be sufficient. I welcome that. Lord Mackay of Drumadoon in the other place outlined the problem that would arise because of that extra lock. Not only could the matter go before a tribunal, but a majority of two thirds of Parliament—not just two thirds of those voting—would be required. That would mean that, if the majority of MSPs, but not quite two thirds, voted against the judge, it would put him in an impossible position. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the simple majority has been introduced.
      I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, is the Government's reluctance to accept the full changes proposed by Lord McCluskey due to the fact that they wish the Scottish Parliament to lay down the procedure, building on the changes in the Bill? Does he see that as a process, rather than the destination?
      Secondly, the provision for the tribunal is left more open than in the McCluskey amendment. We are not certain of the full number of tribunal members. We know that there is a minimum of three and that the chairman will have the high regard of everybody, but we do not know about the other members. Would it be possible for members of the tribunal to be Members of the Scottish Parliament or even Members of Parliament at Westminster? If the intention is to separate the political and the independent aspects of the deliberations, some people might be concerned if MSPs and Members of Parliament could sit on the tribunal.
      Thirdly, will there be changes to the procedure for removing sheriffs and sheriffs principal, who will also be involved in devolution issues?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Wallace: I welcome the Government's stance following Lord McCluskey's amendments in another place. I share the Secretary of State's view that Lord McCluskey couched his arguments in pretty apocalyptic terms, but by over-egging the pudding, he at least got some pudding—bread and butter pudding.
      We debated these matters when the Bill was previously before the House. My recollection is that the purpose of the provisions was to give some structure to the ways in

      449
      which judges could be dismissed. I understand—no doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong-that, until that point, it was unclear how Court of Session judges or the chairman of the Scott—sh Land Court could be dismissed. The intention was to put a procedure in place. The two-thirds majority was meant to give security to the judiciary. Motives that never existed were attributed to the Government for that, but the opposite was the case.
      We now have a better procedure. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, shied away from the question whether the provisions for England were satisfactory. I suspect that they do not meet his international test of the convention on human rights or the Harare principles. The Government may have to revisit the matter to rectify the position in England.
      The amended Bill will provide suitable machinery if the issue ever arises. I assume from what has been said that the tribunal could include lay people. That is welcome. The House will recall that, during the passage of the Bill, we proposed the inclusion of lay people in the appointment of judges. It might be appropriate if lay people, as well as senior members of the judiciary, were involved in a tribunal to assess their unfitness.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that one of the points that Lord McCluskey made in another place is that, in order to judge those issues, it is important to know how the judiciary operates. He proposed in an amendment that the tribunal should consist of past or present members of the judiciary, who have such knowledge. Surely it would be wrong for those decisions to be made by lay people, who may not understand why a judge made a particular decision in a particular case.
      Mr. Wallace: Under the amendment, the chairman of the tribunal would have to be a person who had held high judicial office, so a crucial position in the tribunal will undoubtedly be filled by someone equipped with judicial knowledge and the judicial approach. It is almost inevitable that other members of the tribunal would be members of the judiciary.
      However, it is not unreasonable that there should be the possibility of a lay person being appointed. If, for example, the question at issue was the psychiatric condition of the judge concerned, it might well be thought that a leading psychiatric doctor—a person with the appropriate medical expertise—could make a valuable contribution to the tribunal. That is speculation, but I welcome the possibility that the tribunal could include a lay person.
      Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for letting me come back into the debate—that is generous of him. Suppose the issue that was causing concern about a judge was that he had made a decision about the vires of an Act of the Scottish Parliament, and suppose that was a highly controversial matter in Scotland. The chairman of the tribunal might take the view that the judge had made a perfectly sensible decision on the law, but the two lay people on the tribunal might be incensed by the issue, and might argue that, although
      450
      the decision was acceptable legally, they did not agree with it. That occasionally happens in an industrial tribunal, albeit on a slightly different issue.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please be brief?
      Mr. Heald: I will be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) comment on whether the provision may lead to dangers?
      Mr. Wallace: The tribunal will be constituted only at the request of the Lord President; so there is a judicial trigger. The circumstances in which a decision is made—
      Mr. Evans rose—
      Mr. Wallace: I must answer the question raised by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). If the trigger for constituting the tribunal is unhappiness about a judicial decision, that does not pass any test of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour; therefore, the question simply will not arise.
      Mr. Grieve: I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. He said that the Lord President would be the trigger, but, in fact, the tribunal may be constituted in such circumstances as the First Minister thinks fit. There is provision for the Lord President not to be involved in that decision.
      Mr. Wallace: I was about to turn to that issue as I assumed that, in such a situation, we might call the ability of the Lord President into question. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is what he had in mind? That is a hypothetical question, and I make no reference whatsoever to the incumbent, who is fit in many respects to hold that high office.
      I agree also with the removal of the two thirds majority. The provision was proposed as a safeguard and, with the creation of the tribunal, it is no longer necessary. I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who said that it would be intolerable if the tribunal recommended that a judge was unfit to hold office and that decision was subsequently overturned by Parliament. I think that we have struck a good balance. I sincerely hope that the mechanism will never need to be activated but, if it does, I think that we have struck the proper balance between protecting the judiciary and upholding its integrity.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: I join the Secretary of State in hoping that these cases will remain entirely hypothetical and that the measures will never have to be implemented in practice. I hope also that it will never be necessary—in the words of the Secretary of State—to "knock down judges like ninepins". However, the Bill must provide for even the most unusual circumstances. Therefore, we must ask how best to do that in the interests of justice and democracy, while allowing the new Parliament to take its own decisions in its own way.
      There is widespread agreement that some form of independent tribunal is necessary to investigate the behaviour of any senior judge who faces the threat of dismissal. My party believes that neither of the two

      451
      alternatives before us this evening fully fits the bill. The amendments introduced in the other place by the noble Lord McCluskey would create a tribunal of the great and the good, which could be accused of involving an old boys' network of peers, judges and Privy Councillors in the decision making. However, I think that the Government's amendments are equally at fault in ensuring a central role for a judicial member of the Privy Council as the tribunal chairperson.
      The Government have clearly sought to compromise with their amendment but, as with most off-stage deals, the result fails somewhat to make the grade. Why cannot the details of the proposed tribunal be left to the Scottish Parliament? Why must those restrictive provisions appear in the Bill? My party favours opening up the procedure for appointing judges through a judicial appointments commission. That would bring the fresh air of democratic scrutiny to the procedure. Such a body could also play a role in the investigation of misbehaviour or incompetence that is required before the removal of any senior judge.
      In contrast, the new Scottish Parliament will have its hands tied by both sets of amendments. It will be unable to create a tribunal that it believes will be the most effective and suitable body. We must instead have a body conjured up by the Government in the short time since their defeat in the House of Lords. The Secretary of State may like to detail his discussions and consultations with the legal profession on his proposal in order to allow the House to judge whether the tribunal is born out of hasty compromise or genuine consideration. With whom has the Secretary of State spoken and whom has he consulted in the short time that has elapsed?
      The Scottish National party certainly oppose the Lords amendments, but we remain to be convinced by the Government's alternative proposal before us tonight.
      Mrs. Fyfe: Listening to the debate, it occurs to me that the grounds for considering a person to be unfit for office certainly include inability, neglect of duty and misbehaviour. However, when a judge is occasionally criticised in the media, that usually has more to do with the social attitudes that he has adopted in conducting a case or deciding a sentence. "Inability" may be narrowly defined in the Bill or it may cover a wide area. If it simply means incompetence, that would not apply in the situation that I envisage.
      I am concerned that judges are often criticised very strongly—and sometimes correctly—because of the social attitudes that they display in their handling of court work, which places them in the last, rather than in this, century. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State offer his thoughts on that point?
      Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for explaining the way in which he has approached the amendments. The amendment before us has great merit. However, two aspects cause me slight concern. In this place, we tend to knock politicians excessively on their ability to be objective. Nevertheless, it seems to be undesirable that a member of the initial tribunal may also vote subsequently to ratify that tribunal's recommendation. To that extent, it seems inappropriate for a member of the tribunal also to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament that subsequently carries out the ratification process—not because such a person is a
      452
      parliamentarian, but because an independent tribunal that is acting as a gatekeeper should be seen to be composed of different people from those who subsequently vote to ratify its decision.
      That is the only extent to which I disagree with the way in which the Secretary of State has approached this matter. I am certainly reassured by the fact that, broadly speaking, he has suggested that the members of the judiciary north of the border are happy with the proposed arrangements. I do not wish to digress too much, but I believe that the Secretary of State makes a perfectly valid point when he says that the arrangements south of the border may have to be reviewed.
      I had always understood—although I stand to be corrected—that no mechanism exists for removing the judiciary north of the border before this legislation, because of an indirect consequence of the Act of Union 1707. Protecting the Scottish independent judicial system meant that the United Kingdom Parliament never saw fit to interfere with the process for fear it would be suggested that it was interfering with the wording of the Act of Union.
      It may be an interesting by-product—I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who made some kind remarks about me earlier—of this constitutional development that certain logjams in the way in which Scotland has been governed by virtue of the ring-fencing in the Act of Union will henceforth be more open to scrutiny. That is one matter where the Secretary of State may claim some credit.
      I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would consider my points about the undesirability of the person who serves on the tribunal also subsequently ratifying its recommendations. Save for that, the Secretary of State has satisfied me on the Government's approach.
      Mr. Syms: I feel somewhat more reassured than when I sat down earlier this evening. I agree with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). One of my main concerns is that the tribunal could include a Member of the Scottish Parliament who, at a later stage, could have a second bite of the cherry by influencing his or her colleagues to vote to remove a judge. Lord Mackay of Drumadoon asked whether we ought to preclude the appointments of MSPs or Members of Parliament whose motives might be called into question—even if we are all honourable Members. It is sometimes better to be seen explicitly not to be involved in such issues.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) made the important point that, sometimes, the problem is caused by the attitudes of judges, rather than their conduct. I think that that is partly why the issue has become so explosive, not only in the other place but during this debate. It is important to get the issue absolutely right.
      8.30 pm
      One or two other points were raised by Lord Mackay. The First Minister should be under an obligation to lay the report of a tribunal before the Scottish Parliament but only if he intends to proceed with the necessary motion to remove the judge. It would be preferable for the tribunal to be set up by an Act of the Scottish Parliament rather than by subordinate legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned that.

      453
      Another issue raised has been partly answered by the interventions of my hon. Friends earlier. It is said that the Government will not accept the proposed changes because they wish the Scottish Parliament to lay down the procedure for the tribunal so that they can refine it in the near future. I think that we had an answer, and the answer is probably yes.
      It has been said that it is unfortunate that the provisions do not apply to sheriffs and sheriffs principal because they, as well as judges, will be involved with devolution issues. However, I feel somewhat reassured by the debate and by the assurances given by the Secretary of State. The Lords, as always, have done us a favour by bringing these matters to our attention and enabling us to consider them again and perhaps come up with the right conclusions.
      Mr. Dewar: I have listened with interest to what has been said. This is one of those happy occasions when there are few discordant notes, although the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) has done his best. I think that he has been reading the somewhat remarkable press release issued today by one of his colleagues under the rather intriguing headline
      "Roseanna calls on Commons to reject McCluskey amendments".
      I presume that we shall be expecting a vote in only a few minutes. Those who are not aware of who "Roseanna" is will think that we are in the business, perhaps, of glasses, globes and tents and foreseeing the future. In fact, "Roseanna" turns out merely to be a Scottish National party member, the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), which is much less romantic.
      I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Angus. As always, he could not quite rise to the flood of excitable invective which he promises when he rises in his place. I shall put that right by quoting one passage from the "Roseanna" press release. It reads:
      "The amendments put forward by Lord McCluskey would plunge us into the unsustainable and anti-democratic position of allowing the old boys' network an effective veto on attempts to dismiss senior judges."
      I pay tribute to the nationalists, who are clearly prepared to go out on a limb on this matter. It is nice to know that the rhetoric of "unsustainable and anti-democratic" and so on is a banner still being carried bravely even in the fag end of the debate.
      I say to the hon. Member for Angus—perhaps I should take his point a little seriously—that there is a case for a judicial commission that is broad based in terms of the appointment of judges. It is not necessarily one that the House would want to support, but it is one for which there is a strong argument. However, that is rather a different matter and different remit from a body that is being asked to look into the particular circumstances that might lead to the dismissal of a judge. The two matters are not necessarily linked and I think that it would be unwise to link them. I hope that, on mature reflection, particularly as the hon. Gentleman appears to be the only nationalist in the Chamber, he will decide not to divide the House, otherwise he might find some difficulty in running between the Lobbies and his arithmetic might not quite stand the strain.
      I shall deal with one or two other points comparatively briefly. Self-evidently, we are trying, with the support of almost all the House, to put in place machinery that allows
      454
      proper discretion to rest with the Scottish Parliament in due course but provides for the essential safeguards that were felt necessary in another place, which I think enjoy a broad element of agreement.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) raised one or two specific points and some were picked up by his colleagues. I think that they felt that they had to do their duty. It is the oldest game and I played it for 20 years. One drops in on the debate, listens to what is said from one's Front Bench and then repeats it. It is a perfectly fair way of proceeding, particularly if someone is looking for a career.
      Mr. Wallace: It clearly worked.
      Mr. Dewar: It works.
      We were asked whether we need to adapt the current machinery for sheriffs. The answer is quite clearly not. The sheriff procedure is being imported into the procedure to deal with the dismissal of judges. As I said earlier, their position is rather different from that of judges. Unfortunately there have been cases where sheriffs have had to be removed. In at least one case, a great deal of litigation has surrounded the proceedings. A panel has to sit to examine the matter and be satisfied. The matter is then brought to the House, where a majority is required. Those are robust and in-place proceedings and we certainly would not see any need to abandon them, particularly as we are, in effect, almost extending them.
      Mr. Evans: I understand that there is precedent for the removal of a sheriff. I am aware of the time that it sometimes takes to do it. I think that, in one instance, it took a year. Can we be assured that, in the removal of judges, with the procedure that will be set in train, there will be a given time by which the exercise will be completed?
      Mr. Dewar: We cannot give that assurance. That is not in the Bill. I suppose that the Scottish Parliament might decide to put in some sort of time limit but I think that that would be unwise. At what point should a time limit start running? It could be a matter for perhaps endless debate. I think that it is the spirit of the House that, if those unfortunate circumstances arose, proper and careful inquiries should be made. Presumably, it would be agreed that they would not be hurried. If anyone were involved, including obviously and inevitably as chairman a senior judge, he or she would have in mind at once the need to make thorough and proper inquiry, and also the need to remove the shadow over the colleague who in practice would probably be suspended. In a sense, he would not be actively engaged in work as a judge. He would obviously be entitled to get a decision which clarified his position one way or the other. That is a matter for proper and careful process and not for arbitrary time limits.
      The matter was raised of the people who would serve upon the committee. I have made the point that I think that it is a matter for decision by the Scottish Parliament. We would certainly not want to rule out fairly broad representation if suitable people of standing and integrity had particular skills to offer in particular circumstances. I think that that is the sensible way in which to proceed. Obviously, the person who will chair must be eligible to be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy

      455
      Council, and to take part in the proceedings over any question of vires. That means that they are not going to be over 75, which seems a good rule on the whole. As I approach 75, I might take a different view, but, at the moment, I think that that is sound.
      The point was made, and I understand it, about whether we should be prohibiting Members of the Scottish Parliament from serving on the committee. The way that the question was actually put, I think, was whether parliamentarians could serve, or Members of Parliament. Self-evidently, Members of the United Kingdom Parliament could serve. Many of the people who are qualified to be chairman are likely to be life peers, or to have a seat in the House of Lords, and therefore be members of Parliament at UK level.
      The question arises whether we should specifically prohibit Members of the Scottish Parliament. I do not think that that is necessary. I cannot envisage circumstances in which someone who will vote in the final decisions would be likely to be chosen or put on such a tribunal, as that would be, or could be, open to criticism. That is very unlikely to happen, but we should not start to rule out unsuitables, because we would never end. Should we specifically rule out anyone who, for example, at any time had served in the same chambers as, had a business relationship with, or was related to, the person in question? Common sense rules those people out. The same matter would self-evidently apply in this case.
      The sort of people who will chair the tribunal will obviously be people of great weight. To quote a few of the likely candidates—if per chance this were brought into effect in the foreseeable future—Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Hope of Craighead are likely to look a little askance if, having been appointed chairman, they found someone manifestly unsuitable or open to criticism among the membership of their panel. There are plenty of ways in which that situation can be avoided.
      On the point that was raised in an intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) regarding the First Minister, whatever the trigger mechanism may or may not be, the important fact is that the First Minister may make a motion under clause 89(7)—that is, he may lay before Parliament a motion to remove a judge—only if he has received from a tribunal, constituted in pursuance of subsection 7(a), a written report concluding that the person in question
      "is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour"
      and giving reasons for that conclusion. Therefore, unless that report is available, unless it can be laid before Parliament, the whole procedure would come to a halt. That is a reasonable situation in which to leave the matter.
      I am satisfied that there is a proper balance here between protection for the judiciary—protection against errant politicking in an area where politicking is inappropriate—and, at the same time, a proper range of discretion to allow the Scottish Parliament to develop what seems to it to be the right machinery, working within the framework that has been laid down in law.
      I appreciated the point that was made by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland. He is, of course, absolutely right. Whatever the false start may have
      456
      been, whatever the way in which the argument snaked and was manipulated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, as it appeared in Committee, on Report in another place and so on, the whole foundation of this process was a recognition that there was a gap in the law of Scotland, and a wish to fill that gap properly and to remove some form of indecision.
      Mrs. Fyfe: We have been hearing at some length tonight about the protection of judges, but I should be grateful if, before my right hon. Friend sat down, he would answer my point about protecting the public from judges who are out of touch with the society that they serve.
      Mr. Dewar: That is a helpful question, in that it raises an important point. Obviously, judges have to use their discretion in a way that is responsible and befitting their office, but it would be wrong to get into the situation where, because one disagreed with an individual judgment or some statement from the bench that one felt was objectionable or did not properly recognise the social realities of a situation, we should consider using the processes in these clauses.
      If there were a feeling that a wrong approach had been taken, some guidance might be appropriate from the Lord President, for example. I am not privy to what happens among the senators of the college of justice, but, presumably, they do on occasions consult. However, it is important that we do not make the mistake of thinking that, because there has been a disagreement with one particular judgment, that necessarily gives grounds for wanting to remove a judge.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I am sorry to pursue the point again. I do not think that anyone—certainly not me—is suggesting that a judge should be sacked because of one judgment with which people disagree, but, if there were a consistent pattern of reactionary social attitudes, I would certainly argue that that was a case for sacking the judge.
      Dr. Fox: There—we get it right at the end.
      Mr. Dewar: I do not get it. I can think of some very interesting social arguments where my hon. Friend and I might approach a problem from a slightly different angle; that is conceivable. Indeed, I have known it to happen. I do not think that that necessarily brings it into the ambit of what would trigger the use of this particular machinery. Of course, I accept that my hon. Friend is right.
      If a judge, over a lengthy period, is so awry in his judicial attitudes as to become a threat to public confidence and justice, that might well be something that a panel would want to consider. However, it would want to approach it with a great deal of caution. There may be other ways to deal with the problem. It is a matter of balance, reason and a sense of responsibility. The machinery that we have put in place is likely to achieve that balance and restore public confidence, without in any way threatening the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 126 and 127 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 128 and 129 disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 128 and 129 agreed to.

    Schedule 5

      RESERVED MATTERS
      Lords amendment: No. 237, in page 64, line 16, at end insert
      (", or
      (c) any office in the Scottish Administration.")
      8.45 pm
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 238 to 278 and 296.
      Mr. McLeish: As the House is aware, schedule 5 lists the matters that are reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Those are the matters which the Government believe should be dealt with on a Great Britain or United Kingdom basis in order to preserve the integrity of the UK and to maintain a level playing field for business, workers and consumers.
      Any matter that is not listed in schedule 5 is not reserved, thus giving the Scottish Parliament legislative competence for those matters that can best be dealt with by it: health, education, local government, housing, law and the criminal justice system, the environment and agriculture, and forestry and fisheries. In practical terms, the Parliament will have very wide-ranging powers to make primary legislation in key areas which affect the lives of everyone in Scotland.
      During proceedings in another place, we took the opportunity to make a number of primarily technical and drafting changes to the schedule to clarify the competence of the Parliament. The amendments—which are all firmly in line with the overall approach spelt out in the White Paper in July 1997, concerning the following sections of schedule 5—fall into this category: No. 237 on the Crown; Nos. 248 and 249 on elections; No. 250 on cinema safety; Nos. 255, 257 and part of 275 on financial assistance to industry; No. 256 on oil and gas; Nos. 260 and 262 to 267 on social security and pensions; Nos. 261 and 268 on training and job search and support; and Nos. 269 to 272 on equal opportunities.
      We also promoted amendments Nos. 240 to 244 and 276 to 278 to improve the layout of the schedule and its interpretation provisions. In a number of cases, we have made adjustments to the boundary between reserved and devolved matters. Further reflection revealed practical problems with the existing approach, so amendments Nos. 238, 251, 253 and 254 reserved the interception of communications in relation to the prevention and detection of serious crime, although ministerial functions will be executively devolved.
      Amendments Nos. 246 and 247 update the reference to the Data Protection Act 1984 to the 1998 Act, which has the effect of slightly widening the scope of the data protection reservation. Amendment No. 258 devolves bus fuel duty rebate in line with the devolution of general bus policy.
      Lords amendment No. 296 transfers minor devolved functions from the registrar of companies in Scotland and the assistant registrar of friendly societies for Scotland to the Accountant in Bankruptcy.
      458
      It is a significant list of amendments, and I shall be happy to provide further details. I commend all the amendments to House and ask the House to accept them.
      Dr. Fox: I should like to ask the Minister for clarification of two very short points, the first of which is on Lords amendment No. 255. What will be the exact practical effect of passing Lords amendment No. 255? Secondly, on amendment No. 258, will he explain why—as the Government had reserved grants to operators of bus services to defray duty charged on fuel—the position has suddenly changed? What implications might that have for bus companies operating close to or across the border? I ask for clarification simply to deal with any anxiety felt by, or representations from, those groups because of the amendment.
      Mr. McLeish: On the first point, financial assistance to industry, Lords amendments Nos. 255 and 257 provide clarification of the extent to which certain ministerial powers relating to the giving of financial assistance to industry will transfer to Scottish Ministers.
      Lords amendment No. 255 provides that giving financial assistance under section 1 of the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972—so far as it relates to exploration for oil and gas— is a reserved matter; whereas Lords amendment No. 257 provides that credits and grants under sections 10 to 12 of the Industry Act 1972 are not a reserved matter. However, by virtue of clause 52, the powers under the Industry Act will be shared powers, and the UK Minister as well as Scottish Ministers will be able to exercise those powers in or as regards Scotland.
      Part of Lords amendment No. 275 clarifies that the Scottish Parliament can legislate on giving financial assistance to commercial activities for the purpose of promoting or sustaining economic development or employment. That will, among other things, enable the Parliament to make general provision that permits such assistance to industries, including those operating in reserved areas. However, the Parliament will not have competence to legislate for such assistance specifically in relation to a reserved commercial activity.
      On the hon. Gentleman's second point, bus fuel duty, Lords amendment No. 258 removes the reservation of bus fuel duty rebate, thus making it a devolved matter in line with other aspects of bus policy. The matter was originally reserved because it was viewed as a tax matter, but it has recently been reclassified as a matter of public expenditure with responsibility for it transferred to the Scottish Office. In those circumstances, we felt that it was appropriate to remove it from the list of reserved matters.
      I hope that that is an adequate explanation of the issues.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 238 to 278 agreed to.
      Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Hill.]
      To be further considered tomorrow.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, 1 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
    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 19th October, he approved.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
    Question agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Nine o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Government Property Lawyers
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 14 November 1997, Official Report, columns 683-84, concerning the Quinquennial Review of Government Property Lawyers, if he is able to report on the outcome of that review. [59646]

  The Attorney-General
  I am able to report that, following an evaluation of Government Property Lawyers and a further Prior Options Study, I have concluded that against the background of a declining work load the business of the GPL Agency has become non-viable and is likely to remain so and there is no longer a requirement to maintain a central conveyancing function in the public sector. Accordingly, the Government Property Lawyers Agency will close by 30 September 1999. 1 recognise that this announcement will come as a disappointment to the staff of the GPL. I should like, however, to pay tribute to their hard work and their commitment to the agency over the years.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Swanwick
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the steps taken to establish that no conflict of interest arose as a result of the Chairman of the DERA audit of Swanwick being also Chairman of EHI and Megitt. [58220]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Before his appointment in June as Chairman of the DERA Audit, Sir Donald Spiers told my Department about those companies with which he was then involved and which had a connection with Lockheed Martin, namely EHI and Meggitt.

  EHI is a trading company concerned with the provision of the EH101 helicopter. The MOD selected this helicopter for a Royal Navy role, and then separately selected Lockheed Martin to provide systems for it. Meggitt has a contract to supply military aircraft parts to a different part of the Lockheed Martin organisation from that which is working on the Swanwick centre.

  We have also examined Sir Donald's involvement with Siemens Plessey Electronic Systems (SPES). Sir Donald ceased to be a non-executive director of SPES some two months before undertaking the DERA audit, and was unaware of the links between SPES and Lockheed Martin since he was concerned only with the defence interests of SPES.
  188
  We are satisfied that these links do not give rise to a conflict of interest with Sir Donald's chairmanship of the DERA audit.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of single regeneration budget money was given to schemes in seaside towns in each of the previous four SRB rounds. [58783]

  Mr. Meale
  As SRB funding is allocated to comprehensive schemes which may cover whole local authority districts or even counties, rather than specific towns within these areas, precise figures for the funding given to schemes in seaside towns are difficult to produce. However, of the total resources allocated under Rounds 1–3 of the Single Regeneration Budget, 4 per cent. (or £126.5 million) was targeted on schemes in 35 local authority districts classified as 'resort, retirement and port areas' by the 1991 Office for National Statistics (ONS) classification of districts. In SRB Round 4 a further £9.2 million, or 2.9 per cent. of the total, was allocated to schemes in the 'resort, retirement and port' category of the 1991 ONS classification.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [58789]

  Mr. Meale
  Proposals for improving the protection afforded to Sites of Special Interest (SSSI) are currently under consideration. Also, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is reviewing the rationale behind the listing of threatened species on the Schedules associated with the Act. If appropriate, specific proposals for amending the Act will be put forward.

  Airport Security Alerts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many security alerts have occurred at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Stansted airports in each of the last three years. [58740]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of security alerts reported to the Department which involved the closure of all or part of the airport or pro-active response by the police, security staff or explosives officers is as follows:

  1996

  1997

  1998 (to end of October)

  Heathrow

  21

  23

  13

  Gatwick

  13

  16

  2

  Stansted

  3

  3

  2

  Railfreight Link
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will give Government grant towards the proposed piggyback railfreight project to link the West Coast Main Line with mainland Europe. [58966]
  189
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Full grade piggyback would need considerable investment in infrastructure improvements and significant Government grant support. Railtrack has been in discussion with DETR officials for many months about the scheme.

  Ministers are aware of recent press speculation that Railtrack is minded not to got through with the scheme and instead to propose an alternative freight upgrade to a smaller gauge but over more of the network. We have yet to receive a grant application from Railtrack. Any such application will be treated on its merits.

  Red Fox
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the density of the red fox per square kilometre in each region of Great Britain. [59040]

  Mr. Meale
  Information in this form is not available.

  The latest estimate (1994) for Great Britain of a total pre-breeding population was about 240,000. These comprised 195,000 in England, 23,000 in Scotland and 22,000 in Wales.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the recent Environment Agency proposed decision concerning the MOX plant at Sellafield. [58780]

  Mr. Meale
  The Agency's draft determination was received in my Department on 2 November. Requests have been made to Ministers to call in the application for their own determination. These requests are being considered carefully and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will announce their decision as soon as they are able to do so.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment the Government have made of the importance of the waters of the Atlantic Frontier as a habitat for whales and dolphins. [59020]

  Mr. Meale
  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has carried out surveys for cetaceans in this area since 1985. The data point to these waters as being important in a UK context for large whales.

  Welsh Highland Railway
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed Welsh Highland Railway Order. [59307]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The public local inquiry into the application by the Ffestiniog Railway for this Order close on 28 January. The inquiry Inspector's report is being considered by the Secretary of State. A decision will be made as soon as possible.

  Water Supply (Parasites)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals his Department has to protect the United Kingdom's water supply from being infected by parasites which are resistant to current water treatment process. [58714]

  Mr. Meale
  Water companies in England and Wales are under a duty to supply only drinking water that is wholesome. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland are answerable for similar provisions relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  My right hon. Friends the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Public Health announced on 3 November 1998 that the Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the Expert Group, chaired by Professor Ian Bouchier, on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies. These recommendations were drawn up following a thorough review of the measures necessary to protect drinking water supplies against contamination by the Cryptosporidium parasite and we expect water companies and other authorities to implement them. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment also confirmed his intention to make Regulations in England and Wales that will ensure that water companies take proper precautions against Cryptosporidium contamination.

  Emissions (Kyoto Summit)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to introduce measures to ensure that the emission levels agreed at the Kyoto summit are achieved. [58717]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 26 October the UK became one of the first developed countries to launch a consultation paper on policy options for meeting its Kyoto commitment. The paper lists the steps the Government have already taken to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases and sets out in detail further options. It demonstrates that the UK is well placed to meet both its legally binding Kyoto target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012 and the domestic goal of a 20 per cent. cut in CO2 emissions by 2010. Following the consultation exercise, we shall develop a new climate change programme in good time for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the different sources of drinking water used in the United Kingdom; and what proportion each source contributes to the annual water supply. [58841]

  Mr. Meale
  In England and Wales about one third of drinking water is taken from groundwater sources; one third from upland surface water sources, such as reservoirs, lakes, impoundments and streams; and one third from lowland river sources, direct, or via short term bankside storage or long term storage reservoirs. There are, however, considerable variations in these proportions
  191
  across the country. The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Railtrack about its moratorium on spending on its track and signalling renewal programme. [58843]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Railtrack has assured the Department that there is no such moratorium. Railtrack's Network Management Statement sets out the company's expenditure forecasts for track and signalling renewal—£340 million and £200 million respectively for 1998–99 (1997–98 prices)—and the Government expect Railtrack to meet these targets.

  Economic Instruments for Water Pollution
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses he received to his consultation document, "Economic Instruments for Water Pollution"; if he will list the respondents; and what arrangements exist for the responses to be viewed. [58967]

  Mr. Meale
  134 organisations responded to the consultation paper "Economic Instruments for Water Pollution". I have placed a list of these in the Library of the House. Responses were also received from 26 individuals. These responses, except those from organisations or individuals who asked for their comments not to be made public, are available to be viewed through the library of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Maritime Services (Charges)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to issue a consultation paper on a policy for charging for maritime services currently provided free by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [59092]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Within Government, we are currently undertaking a review of policy on charging for maritime services and infrastructure. If we decide to propose new initiatives we shall consult publicly before taking any final decisions.

  Shared Ownership
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has any plans to continue the Do-It-Yourself shared ownership scheme. [59553]

  Ms Armstrong
  I announced plans on 30 July 1998,Official Report, column 417, to replace Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership (DIYSO) and the Tenants Incentive Scheme (TIS) with Homebuy. The Housing Corporation has since been consulting on proposals for the new scheme.
  192
  I have received representations that some potential DIYSO purchasers will be unable to afford Homebuy in certain areas. To reflect these concerns I have decided that local authorities should continue to have the option to offer DIYSO through the Local Authority Social Housing Grant mechanism, initially for a further two years, after which I will review the position.

  I believe that there is a strong case for rationalising the home ownership schemes funded through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP). Local priorities are likely to result in a higher proportion of the ADP being allocated to rental schemes. With a smaller home ownership programme it makes sense to concentrate resources on a smaller range of schemes which will be simpler for tenants to understand and for landlords to administer.

  The Housing Corporation's conventional shared ownership scheme will continue to be available in its present form. This provides opportunities for low cost home ownership and encourages the development of housing schemes with a mix of tenures.

  We remain fully committed to promoting sustainable home ownership. I am confident that the schemes provided through the Housing Corporation will continue to make an effective contribution to this objective.

  Groundwater
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to protect groundwater. [59640]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today laid before the House new Regulations (the Groundwater Regulations 1998) which will provide additional protection for groundwater. The Regulations cover England, Wales and Scotland.

  The Regulations introduce controls over disposals to land which could pollute groundwater, prohibit discharges of List I substances to groundwater, and provide powers for the environment agencies to control activities which may pollute groundwater. Activities already controlled by a waste management licence are excluded from the scope of the Regulations since groundwater protection is, where appropriate, already taken into account in waste management assessments.

  Groundwater is an increasingly important good quality resource for drinking water as well as a vital element of the aquatic environment. By affording additional protection to groundwater, the Regulations should help to contain water undertakers' costs where it is necessary to clean up aquifers. There should also be longer term environmental gains through enhanced protection of water quality.

  The Regulations apply to all groundwater and their scope is potentially wide, but the sectors most likely to be affected are those where discharges or disposals to land which could affect groundwater have not been regulated as a matter of course, such as the spreading of used sheep dip.
  193
  The Regulations have been subject to wide public consultation as a result of which my officials and the environment agencies have sought to develop a simplified approach to implementation. The Environment Agency has also issued a consultation paper on a revised charging scheme. This provides for reduced charges for applications for authorisations relating to small and infrequent disposals to land, such as those arising from agriculture. A similar approach is likely in Scotland.

  The Department intends in due course to consult on draft guidance on implementation of the Regulations.

  Radioactive Waste
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the oral Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence of 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 540, if he will make a further statement on the timetable for the issue of a consultation paper on radioactive waste management. [59641]

  Mr. Meacher
  The House of Lord Select Committee on Science and Technology's inquiry into "The Management of Nuclear Waste in the UK" is currently taking evidence from interested parties. The inquiry is expected to be completed by the end of the year. The Government will respond to the Committee within two months of its report. The Government aim to issue a consultation paper on radioactive waste management about six months after that.

  Policy Appraisal
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the work commissioned to follow-up the Policy Appraisal and the Environment initiative. [59642]

  Mr. Meacher
  DETR commissioned a report, from consultants EFTEC under the leadership of Prof. David Pearce, which is published today under the title "Review of Technical Guidance on Environmental Appraisal". This important report surveys the range of environmental appraisal guidance methodologies available internationally and points the way to the right technique for appraising different types of decisions. The report concludes that considerable guidance is available, but identifies areas where more guidance would be useful to practitioners. DETR is therefore commissioning work in these areas to make good this gap.

  First, more technical guidance is needed in some areas. The Government will initiate projects with private sector contractors to provide guidance material on Undertaking Multicriteria Analysis and on Undertaking Contingent Valuation, which should be of potential use in both DETR and other Departments.

  Secondly, most existing guidance relates to projects, and somewhat different techniques are needed to help decision makers screen policies and programmes for potential environmental impacts. The Government agree with this finding, and may develop further the guidance that has already been made available to staff.
  194
  The report from professor David Pearce makes a highly constructive contribution to the pursuit of better environmental appraisal in decision making. Through its analysis of existing guidance, it will be of use not just to the UK Government, but to all who want to consider the environmental impacts of decision making. The Government accept the conclusions about the areas where further work would be useful—Green Ministers are discussing the best way to address these, notably in the area of policy appraisal.

  Copies of the report have been sent today to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee, and placed in the House Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Voluntary and Community Sector
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on relations between Government and the voluntary and community sector in England. [59608]

  Mr. Straw
  A Compact setting out a framework for relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector in England will be published on Thursday 12 November. Copies of the document will be placed in the Library. Separate Compacts have been developed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the further report referred to in his letter to hon. Members dated 30 July, on the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement on the Government's intention to appoint a Royal Commission on animal experiments. [59028]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I understand that the Animal Procedures Committee is currently working to finalise a further report on its review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  With regard to the Royal Commission, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 3 November 1998, Official Report, columns 473–74.

  Pre-Marital Counselling
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Society of Registration Officers on the provision of premarital counselling to those who marry in registry offices; and if he will make available extra resources to(a) train existing staff in pre-marital counselling skills and
  (b) recruit and train the extra staff required. [58764]

  Mr. Boateng
  My officials have met members of the Society of Registration Officers, together with other
  195
  registrars. They were interested in, and broadly supportive of, the Government's proposals concerning the role of registrars.

  The consultation document "Supporting Families" proposes that registrars might offer information to couples about marriage and the pre-marriage support services available. This might take the form of a marriage preparation pack produced by experts in the field. Counselling of couples by registration officers is not proposed.

  The consultation period of "Supporting Families" runs to 31 January 1999. The Society of Registration Officers has been invited to comment on the Government's proposals. The Government will decide on the allocation

  Total police force strength and total Asian officers, by rank, as at 31 March 1998

  Chief Constable

  Assistant Chief Constable

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Police force

  Total

  Asian

  Total

  Asian

  Total

  Asian

  Total

  Asian

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  —

  2

  —

  27

  —

  39

  —

  Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  15

  —

  14

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  —

  1

  —

  12

  —

  15

  —

  Cheshire

  1

  —

  3

  —

  21

  —

  31

  —

  City of London

  1

  —

  2

  —

  10

  —

  11

  —

  Cleveland

  1

  —

  2

  —

  25

  —

  6

  —

  Cumbria

  1

  —

  2

  —

  12

  —

  16

  —

  Derbyshire

  1

  —

  3

  —

  22

  —

  21

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  —

  3

  —

  29

  —

  48

  —

  Dorset

  1

  —

  2

  —

  16

  —

  21

  —

  Durham

  1

  —

  1

  —

  21

  —

  22

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  —

  2

  —

  16

  —

  13

  —

  Essex

  1

  —

  3

  —

  28

  —

  47

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  9

  —

  16

  —

  Greater Manchester

  1

  —

  6

  —

  80

  —

  87

  —

  Gwent

  1

  —

  2

  —

  12

  —

  16

  —

  Hampshire

  1

  —

  3

  —

  34

  —

  43

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  23

  —

  26

  —

  Humberside

  1

  —

  3

  —

  18

  —

  28

  —

  Kent

  1

  —

  4

  —

  28

  —

  47

  —

  Lancashire

  1

  —

  4

  1

  30

  —

  28

  —

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  3

  —

  18

  —

  21

  —

  Lincolnshire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  14

  —

  22

  —

  Merseyside

  1

  —

  4

  —

  51

  —

  53

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  8

  —

  28

  —

  211

  —

  342

  —

  Norfolk

  1

  —

  1

  —

  17

  —

  21

  —

  Northamptonshire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  13

  —

  11

  —

  Northumbria

  0

  —

  4

  —

  40

  —

  50

  —

  North Wales

  1

  —

  2

  —

  16

  —

  27

  —

  North Yorkshire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  12

  —

  19

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  —

  3

  —

  21

  —

  22

  1

  South Wales

  1

  —

  4

  —

  27

  —

  51

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  —

  4

  —

  38

  —

  45

  —

  Staffordshire

  1

  —

  3

  —

  25

  —

  31

  —

  Suffolk

  1

  —

  2

  —

  12

  —

  16

  —

  Surrey

  1

  —

  3

  —

  20

  —

  18

  —

  Sussex

  1

  —

  4

  —

  29

  —

  38

  —

  Thames Valley

  1

  —

  3

  —

  49

  —

  34

  —

  Warwickshire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  11

  —

  9

  —

  West Mercia

  1

  —

  3

  —

  16

  —

  31

  —

  West Midlands

  1

  —

  3

  —

  52

  —

  66

  —

  West Yorkshire

  1

  —

  5

  —

  40

  1

  73

  —

  Wiltshire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  14

  —

  16

  —

  Total strength

  49

  0

  143

  1

  1,234

  1

  1,610

  3

  196
  of resources once the consultation exercise is completed and decisions have been taken on what should be implemented.

  Police Forces (Ethnic Composition)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of police officers in each police force area broken down by grade and indicating for each grade how many are of Asian origin. [59073]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is set out in the table. Further information on ethnic minority staff in the police service can be obtained in Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Police Service Personnel" (Issue 17/98) issued on 3 September 1998, a copy of which is in the Library.
  197

  Total police force strength and total Asian officers, by rank, as at 31 March 1998

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  All ranks

  Police force

  Total

  Asian

  Total

  Asian

  Total

  Asian

  Total

  Asian

  Avon and Somerset

  150

  —

  449

  —

  2,308

  6

  2,976

  6

  Bedfordshire

  57

  1

  147

  1

  843

  14

  1,079

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  64

  —

  185

  —

  1,014

  6

  1,291

  6

  Cheshire

  92

  —

  293

  —

  1,601

  —

  2,042

  0

  City of London

  52

  —

  115

  —

  634

  —

  825

  0

  Cleveland

  77

  —

  226

  1

  1,146

  12

  1,483

  13

  Cumbria

  54

  —

  168

  —

  911

  2

  1,164

  2

  Derbyshire

  89

  1

  273

  5

  1,363

  15

  1,772

  21

  Devon and Cornwall

  138

  —

  420

  —

  2,323

  1

  2,962

  1

  Dorset

  66

  —

  201

  —

  1,003

  1

  1,310

  1

  Durham

  75

  —

  211

  —

  1,184

  4

  1,515

  4

  Dyfed-Powys

  48

  —

  173

  —

  749

  —

  1,002

  0

  Essex

  134

  —

  452

  2

  2,264

  6

  2,929

  9

  Gloucestershire

  53

  —

  162

  —

  861

  7

  1,104

  7

  Greater Manchester

  352

  1

  1,008

  12

  5,416

  47

  6,949

  60

  Gwent

  58

  —

  193

  —

  951

  —

  1,233

  0

  Hampshire

  162

  —

  510

  3

  2,737

  9

  3,490

  12

  Hertfordshire

  96

  —

  264

  —

  1,328

  5

  1,740

  5

  Humberside

  109

  —

  297

  —

  1,565

  6

  2,021

  6

  Kent

  162

  —

  461

  2

  2,548

  12

  3,251

  14

  Lancashire

  174

  —

  516

  2

  2,504

  19

  3,257

  22

  Leicestershire

  93

  —

  260

  9

  1,587

  36

  1,983

  45

  Lincolnshire

  65

  —

  182

  —

  905

  2

  1,191

  2

  Merseyside

  186

  1

  628

  —

  3,293

  26

  4,216

  27

  Metropolitan Police

  1,186

  5

  4,164

  14

  20,156

  147

  26,094

  166

  Norfolk

  67

  1

  207

  —

  1,115

  2

  1,430

  3

  Northamptonshire

  54

  1

  164

  1

  925

  6

  1,169

  8

  Northumbria

  185

  —

  529

  1

  2,961

  3

  3,769

  4

  North Wales

  69

  —

  226

  —

  1,055

  —

  1,396

  0

  North Yorkshire

  65

  1

  215

  —

  1,053

  3

  1,367

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  114

  1

  331

  2

  1,831

  18

  2,323

  22

  South Wales

  155

  1

  439

  1

  2,309

  6

  2,986

  9

  South Yorkshire

  156

  —

  479

  4

  2,459

  27

  3,182

  31

  Staffordshire

  121

  —

  329

  —

  1,782

  8

  2,292

  8

  Suffolk

  57

  —

  171

  —

  927

  6

  1,186

  6

  Surrey

  88

  —

  242

  —

  1,237

  9

  1,608

  9

  Sussex

  158

  —

  465

  2

  2,343

  2

  3,038

  4

  Thames Valley

  188

  1

  564

  5

  2,937

  22

  3,776

  28

  Warwickshire

  47

  1

  130

  3

  724

  15

  924

  19

  West Mercia

  115

  —

  290

  —

  1,554

  9

  2,010

  9

  West Midlands

  319

  2

  984

  10

  5,731

  111

  7,156

  123

  West Yorkshire

  245

  1

  722

  7

  4,069

  55

  5,155

  64

  Wiltshire

  60

  —

  175

  —

  888

  2

  1,156

  2

  Total strength

  6,052

  19

  18,616

  87

  97,094

  687

  124,798

  798

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of scurvy have been reported each year over the last five years in hostels for asylum seekers in the Greater London area. [58955]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not held centrally.

TREASURY

  Agriculture (Revenue)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of revenue for the Exchequer has been generated by the agriculture sector for each of the last 10 years(a) in cash terms, (b) in current prices and (c) as a percentage of total revenue. [57508]
  198
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]The information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  GDP Growth
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the GDP growth required in each of the next three financial years to satisfy the golden rule. [58837]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]The projections set out in the Pre-Budget published on 3 November 1998 show that the Government expect to meet both their fiscal rules over the economic cycle. Paragraph 2.56 of that report explains how these projects are robust to errors in short-term growth forecasts.

  Pensioners (Fuel Bills)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 681–88, if he will provide a breakdown of his estimate of the savings made by (a) single pensioners and (b) the poorest pensioners on their fuel bills. [58991]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]The table provides a breakdown of the real term savings on pensioners' fuel bills between price reductions and winter fuel payments. The fuel bills include VAT.

  Pensioners' real term savings on fuel bills: 1997–99

  Savings from VAT reduction, regulation and competition1

  Average winter fuel payment2

  Total

  Average pensioner household

  62

  46

  108

  Pensioner household on Income Support3

  50

  90

  140

  1 Assuming annual gas consumption of 18,000kwh, electricity consumption of 3,300kwh.

  2 Weighted average, 1995 prices.

  3 A lower gas consumption of 12,000kwh is assumed.

  Correspondence
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Financial Secretary will provide a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Taunton ref. DC/3867, dated 9 September. [59150]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have replied to the hon. Member.

  Euro Notes
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) for what reasons euro notes are printed by the Bank of England at Debden in Essex; [58017]

  (2) how many euro notes have been printed by the Bank of England at Debden in Essex; at what cost; of what denominations; for what purpose; and who will bear the cost; [58079]

  (3) if euro notes printed by the Bank of England at Debden, Essex display the Queen's head.[58287]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since the European Monetary Institute (EMI) was established in 1994, the Bank of England has been closely involved, along with other EU central banks, in the technical preparation of the euro banknotes. As part of this work, the Bank has agreed to participate in a trial of notes to be introduced in 2002 in countries joining the single currency on 1 January 1999 to ensure consistency of paper quality, colour etc., across different types of banknote printing machines. The designs are therefore in accordance with the European Central Bank's announcement on euro note designs of 11 September. The notes being printed are for analytical and comparative purposes and will not be issued in the UK.

  The trial will involve the Bank printing some 2 million of each of the 20 and 50 euro notes, and 5 million of the 5 euro note. The total cost of this exercise will be approximately £300,000 and will be paid out of the proceeds of the note issue.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the most recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Preparations for EMU. [59576]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Standing Committee on preparations for EMU met for the third time on 27 October. A copy of the minutes of the meeting has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Committee was informed of the success of the Government's national information campaign and received reports on public and private sector preparations.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of breast cancer have been diagnosed in women aged 65 years and over in the last year; and how many resulting fatalities there have been in women aged 65 years and over in each of the last five years. [59146]

  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 Ms Linda Perham, dated 11 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the cases of breast cancer in women over 65 years.
  Provisional figures show that there were 12,708 newly diagnosed cases of breast cancer in women aged 65 years and over in England and Wales in 1994 (the most recent year for which data are available); the numbers of deaths in 1993–1997 are given in the table below.

  Deaths, from breast cancer in England and Wales, 1993–1997

  Year

  Number

  1993

  8,172

  1994

  7,998

  1995

  7,829

  1996

  7,748

  1997

  7,579

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Appointments (Ethnic Origins)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to change the Government's policy on non-disclosure of information on the ethnic origin of individuals appointed to public bodies. [59575]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  In line with the Government's commitment to greater openness in public appointments, a new policy is being introduced with effect from 1 April 1999. This will require all departments to collect ethnic origin data for their public appointees, on the understanding that such information will be made publicly available on request, subject to the consent of the individuals concerned. The policy will apply to new appointments and re-appointments made from that date.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the percentage of the population of England and Wales eligible for green form advice and assistance(a) with no contribution and (b) with a contribution, in each of the last 10 years. [58322]

  Mr. Hoon
  We do not collect information on eligibility for non-contributory legal advice and assistance under the green form scheme. Contributory green form advice and assistance was abolished on 12 April 1993.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the percentage of the population of England and Wales eligible for(a) criminal legal aid and (b) civil legal aid (i) with no contribution and (ii) with a contribution, in each of the last 10 years. [58321]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no upper financial limit for criminal legal aid so the question of an eligible population does not arise.

  For civil legal aid, the percentage of households in England and Wales eligible in each year for 1992/93, being the earliest year for which figures are readily available, was as follows:

  Percentage

  Year

  Non contributory

  Contributory

  1992–93

  29

  24

  1993–94

  23

  25

  1994–95

  24

  26

  1995–96

  24

  26

  1996–97

  23

  25

  1997–98

  23

  25

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the percentage of people in receipt of(a) family credit and (b) housing benefit, entitled to civil legal aid (i) with no contribution and (ii) with a contribution, in each of the last 10 years. [58323]

  Mr. Hoon
  We do not collect the information requested.

PRIME MINISTER

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to reform the area cost adjustment. [57842]

  The Prime Minister
  We expect to announce our proposals for Standard Spending Assessments for 1999/2000 in due course.

  Electoral Reform (Referendum)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 868, when he expects to announce the date of the referendum on the voting system. [59292]
  202
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]The date has not been decided. It had always been envisaged that the referendum would take place before the next election. It should be held at the earliest moment it is sensible to do so, in the light of all the constitutional changes we anticipate and the recommendations of the Jenkins Commission. If it proves impossible to do so before the election for sound practical reasons, then it should be held at the earliest moment it is appropriate to do so.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 November. [58839]

  The Prime Minister
  Earlier today, together with Madam Speaker and right hon. and hon. Members and millions of people across the country, I observed a two-minute silence to commemorate the sacrifices made by so many on behalf of us all.

  Later today in addition to my duties in the House I will have meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others.

  Government Service Delivery
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the Government's policy to promote the concept of a single account which would handle most financial transactions between Government and the individual. [59145]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The concept of a single account is one of a number of ideas, which are being considered as possible ways of simplifying the delivery of Government services for the citizen.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  World Bank
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met the President of the World bank to discuss the impact of world financial affairs on international development; and if she will make a statement. [57809]

  Clare Short
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I met the President of the World Bank during the Annual Meetings in Washington in early October. During our discussions, and at the meetings themselves, we stressed the importance we attach to addressing the social implications of the current financial crisis. This is important because the poor had no part in causing the crisis and should not be left to bear the brunt but also because national consensus is needed to carry through some of the reforms needed to overcome the crisis. This is unlikely to be reached in highly divided societies. The communiqués of the Interim and Development Committees reflected our concerns, noting the need to mitigate the most harmful effects of the crisis on the poor.

  Child Labour
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been
  203
  made on measures to ensure that companies work to eliminate the use of child labour in countries where they operate or are supplied from. [57811]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We support the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) whose members—companies, development NGOs and trade unions—are developing best practices in implementing voluntary supplier codes. Among other things, these codes aim to eliminate child labour in supply chains. ETI is part of a consumer-led movement against child labour to which many companies have responded.

  We are also supporting ILO programmes for the elimination of child labour which are supported by the unions, Governments and employers representatives that make up the ILO governing body. In addition we are examining the scope for increasing the effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and will be pressing for the incorporation of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, of which the effective abolition of child labour is a crucial part.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current role of(a) NGOs and (b) the private sector in the delivery of aid using resources from the UK Government. [57812]

  Clare Short
  Where possible we work to strengthen local capacity in developing countries to manage and deliver improvements in health care, education, governance and economic management. Frequently NGOs and private sector consultants assist these efforts. We have established a Business Partnership Unit in DFID in order to work with the private sector to encourage and facilitate beneficial investment in developing countries. We are currently consulting NGOs and civil society world wide on how NGOs can best assist the implementation of the international poverty eradication strategy.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's debt-reduction programmes. [57813]

  Clare Short
  My Department supports debt reduction programmes where these help eradicate poverty and has obtained agreement at the annual meeting of the World Bank and IMF that the HIPC initiative will be reviewed to ensure that debt relief contributes to poverty elimination. My Department has written off £1.26 billion of debt since 1978. We are seeking to speed up the implementation of the HIPC initiative to ensure that all eligible countries are on track for debt relief by 2000. We are currently providing £100 million to help some HIPC countries meet their debt service payments in advance of receiving debt relief.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent steps the Government have taken to alleviate the adverse effects of the burden of debt repayments of the poorest countries of the world. [59005]
  204
  Clare Short
  Over the past eighteen months, the Department for International Development (DFID) has cancelled some £30 million of bilateral aid debts, and provided some £36 million to help the African Development Bank meet its share of the cost of implementing the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt Initiative. In addition, we are providing around £100 million to help a number of developing countries meet their debt service payments to the international financial institutions; we have committed $10 million to help meet Mozambique's residual financing gap under the HIPC Initiative; and we have contributed £400,000 to Debt Relief International, a London based organisation, which delivers technical assistance in debt management to poor countries. We are also funding research on the key issues of debt sustainability and internal debt.

  As well as providing direct financial support to help relieve poor countries of their debt burdens, we are taking action to ensure that the forthcoming comprehensive review of the HIPC Initiative looks at whether sufficient levels of debt relief are being provided to developing countries. We are pressing for the review to examine in more detail the relationship between debt relief and poverty reduction, to make certain that debt relief will help developing countries achieve the international development targets. And the Chancellor and I have just proposed a new initiative, calling on bilateral and multilateral creditors to find ways of providing debt relief to countries which have been struck by natural disasters, thereby freeing urgent resources to fund emergency relief and reconstruction.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on action her Department is taking to relieve the pressure of chronic debts for the poorest developing countries. [57823]

  Clare Short
  The Chancellor and I are working to seek international agreement to speed up the implementation of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative so that all eligible countries will be on track for debt relief by 2000. In addition over the last eighteen months, the Department for International Development (DFID) has cancelled some £30 million of bilateral aid debts, and provide some £36 million to help the African Development Bank meet its share of the cost of implementing the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt Initiative. We are also providing around £100 million to help a number of developing countries meet their debt service payments to the international financial institutions. We have committed $10 million to help meet Mozambique's residual financing gap under the HIPC Initiative; and we have contributed £400,000 to Debt Relief International to provided technical assistance in debt management to poor countries. We are also funding research on the key issues of debt sustainability and internal debt.

  We are also taking action to ensure that the forthcoming comprehensive review of the HIPC Initiative looks at whether sufficient levels of debt relief is being provided to developing countries. We are pressing for the review to examine in more detail the relationship between debt relief and poverty reduction, to make certain that debt relief will help developing countries achieve the international development targets.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to visit the island of St. Helena to discuss future aid provision. [57814]

  Mr. Foulkes
  There are no immediate plans for a Ministerial visit to St. Helena.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received in relation to the impact of the proposed multilateral agreement on investment on future development needs. [57815]

  Clare Short
  I have received a large number of letters from members of the public, Members of Parliament and non-governmental organisations about the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). My Department is in regular contact with non-governmental organisations taking an interest in the MAI. Officials from my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry met a group of experts from the academic community in September to discuss the development implications of the MAI.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the multilateral agreement on investment on future development needs. [57820]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 28 October 1998,Official Report, column 203.

  Bangladesh
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the situation in Bangladesh following the recent floods. [57816]

  Clare Short
  Monsoon flooding in Bangladesh this year was the most prolonged this century, lasting more than 10 weeks in some areas. Waters began to recede from central districts in mid-September, and broadly returned to normal by the end of the month, though waterlogging persists in some areas. The Government of Bangladesh, in partnership with the World Band and the Asian Development Bank in particular, have moved rapidly to begin repair of roads, bridges, railways and flood protection embankments. Major communications are fully restored, though very considerable work remains to be done on many rural roads and other infrastructure.

  Although many people are short of food, often for want of immediate employment, and there have been outbreaks of diarrhoea' disease, there is at present no famine or unusual epidemic of diseases as suggested by some media reports. However there has been an almost complete loss of seasonal crops in some areas, and many people have lost homes, assets and livelihoods. Millions of people require assistance to restart rural livelihoods, rebuild their homes, and earn a living. The Government of Bangladesh are distributing food to vulnerable people, and the gap in food supply is being managed through increased public and private sector imports. They are managing the food supply jointly with the World Food Programme, and providing small cash grants. The UK has contributed
  206
  £11 million to ensuring food availability over the coming months. NGOs are also helping with small grants and loans to restore homes and livelihoods.

  Much of the restoration of infrastructure will be done through cash of food for work schemes to give people an income. DFID is contributing a further £10 million in projects to rehabilitate agriculture, essential infrastructure, and to support NGO projects which help the poor rebuild their lives. In parallel with urgent work which has already started, donors, including the UK, are working in sector sub groups jointly with Government and some NGO partners, to establish the full extent of priority rehabilitation needs. The situation is expected to appear to return to normal in around five months, but continuing attention to the longer term, unseen impacts on the economy, financial institutions and peoples' assets will be needed for some time to come.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help she is giving the Government of Bangladesh to remove arsenic from subterranean water supplies. [57821]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) has been assisting efforts to understand the causes of arsenic in ground water in Bangladesh and developing plans to address the problem. Arsenic occurs naturally as a result of geochemical processes. It can be tackled only by avoiding contaminated sources or treating water at the surface. The World Bank is co-ordinating assistance, and has allocated $30 million to helping counteract arsenic contamination. DFID has provided £0.5 million to fund the technical research needed to implement this, working through the British Geological Survey with the Department of Public Health in Dhaka. We are also appraising a larger project which would pilot community schemes for the treatment of polluted water and the medical care of those affected by arsenicosis. The project would also study why the problem affects some individuals and not others. It is hoped that the pilot, if effective, may form a model for replication by others.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [57817]

  Clare Short
  We intend to put legislative proposals to Parliament as early as possible to pave the way for the creation of a public/private partnership with the Commonwealth Development Corporation which will benefit from both its association with Government and the participation of the private sector, and which will enable CDC to contribute more effectively to the sustainable development of poor countries.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the potential impact on poor farmers of terminator gene technology. [57818]

  Clare Short
  My Department is currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of the implications of all aspects of genetically modified organisms for poor farmers in developing countries.
  207
  This study will assess the impact of specific technologies, including terminator gene technology, and will be made publicly available.

  Fraud
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what priority her Department gives to countering fraud in its aid programmes. [57819]

  Clare Short
  My Department gives a high priority to preventing fraud. To ensure regularity, propriety and value for money in the expenditure of aid funds, Departmental staff and aid recipients are required to follow detailed procedures and to keep comprehensive financial records. Our control systems are under constant review by our internal auditors and are subject to examination by the National Audit Office.

  Full details of the Department for International Development's (DFID) procedures for authorising and accounting for expenditure are set out in the Department's Office Instructions, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Tanzania
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her recent visit to Tanzania to discuss development. [57822]

  Clare Short
  I had a very useful and constructive visit to Tanzania in late August. I was able to discuss a range of development issues affecting one of the poorest countries in the World and one of Britain's main development partners. In meetings with the President, ministers, politicians, officials and donor, private sector and civil society representatives I outlined Britain's policy for international development, which matches closely with Tanzania's own poverty eradication strategy. I urged progress on corruption and speedy reform of the health and education sectors to improve the quality of services. I was impressed by DFID-supported projects helping to improve family health and to improve people's livelihoods in poor rural areas. I also signed an agreement to provide £60 million budgetary support over the next two years. This includes up to £50 million in multilateral debt relief, which will be used to release Tanzania's revenues for expenditure on pro-poor areas of the budget.

  Romania
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has held in the last 12 months with the Government of Romania on the issue of the welfare and protection of children. [57824]

  Clare Short
  Discussions and collaboration have continued with the Romanian government through the European Children's Trust on a project to strengthen the capacity of local government to improve the welfare of vulnerable children and families.

  Our assistance has included:
  advice on the responsibilities and structures of local authorities to enable them to own and manage services to vulnerable children and families;
  208
  advice on systems and models within which integrated social work services can operate, and
  support for the establishment of Centres for Family Support and Child Protection in five countries.

  We are also supporting 2 small projects, both based in Arad, which will strengthen the capacity of the local government to help young people from orphanages.

  So far we have spent £360,000 on these projects.

  Aid Disbursement
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will take steps to increase the accountability of the way in which EU aid money is disbursed. [57825]

  Clare Short
  We consistently support measures to improve the financial management and control of the Community budget. In particular we support measures to strengthen the role of the European Court of Auditors which were agreed at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental conference last year. Improving financial management and strengthening the fight against fraud were priorities of the UK Presidency of the EU.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the proportion of the UK aid programme which is disbursed through multilateral organisations. [57827]

  Clare Short
  In 1997–98 nearly one half of the UK aid programme was disbursed through multilateral organisations.

  Jubilee 2000
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to the Jubilee 2000 project. [57826]

  Clare Short
  My Department gives no financial support to Jubilee 2000. But we share the objective of early cancellation of the unpayable debts of the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. I was pleased to have been able to address the Jubilee 2000 rally in Birmingham in May, attended by some 50,000 people from all over Britain lobbying for the cancellation of debt to the poorest countries. This helped to ensure that debt was on the agenda of the G8 Summit. We are clear that debt relief is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for consistent poverty reduction. Some very poor countries have managed to pay their debt but need assistance to support poverty reduction and some countries such as Uganda which have received debt relief need continuing development assistance if they are to meet the international poverty eradication targets.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the assistance needs of the people of Kosovo. [57828]

  Clare Short
  The most pressing need is to provide emergency assistance to the displaced, and in particular to those without adequate shelter, to enable them to survive the winter. My Department has allocated £3 million to UNHCR, ICRC and to UK NGOs, such as Oxfam and
  209
  Save the Children Fund, primarily to meet these winterisation needs through the provision of materials to repair homes and construct shelters, clothes and blankets, and stoves and fuel.

  UN Funds for Population Activities
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will seek to persuade(a) the United States Government to reinstate its funding for United Nations Funds for Population Activities for the coming year and (b) other EU Governments to increase their contributions to United Nations Funds for Population Activities. [57951]

  Clare Short
  The quinquennial review of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) is an opportunity for all Governments to review their support to population and reproductive health programmes, including the work of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). We are doing all that we can to ensure that resources to implement ICPD are forthcoming.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department has taken to encourage tropical nations to maintain the size and diversity of their rain forests. [58715]

  Clare Short
  My Department's aim is the elimination of poverty through the promotion of sustainable development, including conservation of the environment. Our approach towards the conservation of rain forests and the problem of deforestation is to support work with our country partners bilaterally and multilaterally to improve management of forest resources in ways that lead to a range of benefits to poor communities as well as helping to secure the global environmental benefits that forests offer. These activities positively encourage partner countries to protect and maintain the size and diversity of their forests.

  Our approach to forests, encompasses a wide range of interventions from policy and sector planning, institutional development, education and training, through to forest information systems, forest management, forest conservation and research. The current portfolio of projects represents a commitment of £128 million.

  In the past year, DFID has also supported a number of important new initiatives, for example:
  a grant of £3 million to the Guyana Sustainable Human Development Project, which will benefit forest-dependent communities encircling the Iwokrama Rain Forest.
  a grant of £2 million to the UNDP's Global Programme on Forests: Forest Management to Support Sustainable Livelihoods Project, which will promote public and private sector partnerships for sustainable forest management.
  a grant of £400,000 to the FRA 2000 project-FAO's global
  assessment of the status and condition of forest resources.

  DFID also played an active part in the development and implementation of the Action Programme on Forests which was approved by Foreign Ministers and endorsed by Heads of Government at the G8 Birmingham Summit. This commits G8 Members to a range of specific measures at domestic and international levels designed to
  210
  support sustainable forest management. DFID is also actively involved in the UN Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, whose remit is to promote and facilitate the implementation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) proposals for action, and reviewing, monitoring and reporting on progress in the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests. The UNDP Global Programme on Forests to which DFID has provided a substantial contribution will concentrate on the implementation of the IPF' s proposals for action. DFID also continues to support the work of the International Tropical Timber Organisation, which is dedicated to promoting the conservation, sustainable management and rational utilisation and trade of the world's tropical forest resources, through international co-operation.

  Details of my Department's forestry activities are set out in our publications: forests MATTER and our DFID Forestry Sector Projects, both of which are in the Library of the House and are available from DFID' s Environment Policy Department.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Interviews (Audio Recording)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the differences between the draft code of practice on audio recording of police interviews with terrorist suspects and those which apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom [58319]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no formal arrangement in Great Britain for the audio recording of police interviews with terrorist suspects. The recently published Draft Code of Practice under Section 53A of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 has been largely modelled on the equivalent Code of Practice made under the Police and Criminal Evidence legislation, with some differences. Following consideration of comments made during the current consultation exercise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may modify the Draft Code, and will then lay it in Parliament for approval by both Houses.

  Integrated Education
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been saved by the Government as a result of its decision not to fund the education of the children of Oakwood Integrated Primary School, Strangford Integrated College and Ulidia Integrated College, since they opened; and if she will make a statement. [58555]

  Mr. McFall
  The source information required to establish accurately the recurrent budget the above schools would have received if they had been grant-aided is not currently available to the Department of Education. Based on an average per capita allocation it is estimated that their budgets would have totalled about £1,270,000 had they been grant-aided since they opened.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans she has to support the Integrated Education Fund in achieving their stated target for children in Northern Ireland attending integrated schooling by 2008; and if she will make a statement; [58551]
  211
  (2) what plans she has to remove matters of opinion from the criteria applied in assessing a school in Northern Ireland for integrated status; and if she will make a statement; [58549]

  (3) when the Integrated Education Working Group will publish its report; and if she will make a statement; [58553]

  (4) when she will announce her decision on whether she will recognise Oakwood Integrated Primary School, Strangford Integrated College and Ulidia Integrated College; and if she will make a statement; [58557]

  (5) what objectives she has set for the Integrated Education Working Group; and if she will make a statement; [58552]

  (6) what plans the Government have to make a financial contribution to the running of Oakwood Integrated Primary School, Strangford Integrated College and Ulidia Integrated College; and if she will make a statement; [58556]

  (7) what is the Government's target for the percentage of children attending integrated schools in Northern Ireland by 2008; and if she will make a statement; [58550]

  (8) what criteria need to be met to enable a school to be formally recognised as an integrated school; and if she will make a statement. [58558]

  Mr. McFall
  Government do not set targets for the expansion of Integrated schools. Government policy is to encourage and facilitate integrated education and in responding to parental demand the DENI will continue to support robust proposals for both new and transforming integrated schools.

  The Integrated Education Working Group has been considering how all schools might contribute to the promotion of a culture of tolerance, concentrating initially on integrated schools and integration within schools. A Progress Report from the group has been received very recently and I will wish to take time to consider its findings and conclusions before arranging for its wider publication. However, I expect the report to provide the strategic context within which the Integrated Education Fund, which is represented on the Working Group, can take forward its 10-year Development Plan.

  Proposals for new integrated schools are considered against well-established criteria which include intake and enrolment viability, religious balance, availability of alternative integrated provision, impact on other schools, availability of a suitable, cost-effective site, affordability, and consideration of objections. There are no plans to change the existing criteria.

  Development proposals for Oakwood Integrated Primary School, Strangford Integrated College and Ulidia Integrated College are currently under consideration and it is hoped to announce decisions before Christmas. If the proposals are approved, the schools will be eligible for 100 per cent. recurrent funding with effect from September 1999 and, when longer term viability has been established, will also be eligible for capital grant towards accommodation needs.

  Marriages (Special Licence)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were married by special licence in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [59024]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested above in relation to total marriages by special licence is set out in the table.

  Marriages by special licence

  Year

  Number

  1993

  314

  1994

  311

  1995

  339

  1996

  363

  1997

  339

  Total marriages

  1,666

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures she proposes to improve the(a) accountability, (b) targeting of investment, (c) stricter adherence to investment criteria and (d) development of performance indicators for the Industrial Development Board's overseas offices. [59181]

  Mr. Ingram
  All these issues have been considered by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland in his report on inward investment which was presented to the House of Commons on 27 October. As the report may be the subject of consideration by the Committee of Public Accounts of this House, it would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt such consideration by commenting on these matters.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the Northern Ireland Audit Office report into the operation of the Industrial Development Board's inward investment programme from 1987 to 1997. [59179]

  Mr. Ingram
  As this Report has been presented to the House of Commons and may be the subject of detailed consideration by the Committee of Public Accounts of this House it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the Report at this point in time.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she will take to attract inward investment projects to the 11 designated areas of social need in Northern Ireland. [59180]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Industrial Development Board (IDB) for Northern Ireland continues to promote the excellent business opportunities for investment in Northern Ireland through initiatives such as the recent North American Roadshow. Higher levels of assistance are available to projects located in or adjacent to areas of social need, and the IDB seeks to achieve its targets of 75 per cent. of all first time projects to be located in or adjacent to these areas.

SCOTLAND

  Chefs
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had on the provision of chefs in the Scottish tourism industry with the Scottish Tourist Board; and what plans he has to bring forward initiatives to encourage more students to train as chefs. [57066]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 5 November 1998]There are already several initiatives in place to promote and develop career opportunities in the hospitality sector. These are being undertaken by Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their local enterprise companies. An assessment of the scope for further action, particularly in relation to the provision of chefs, will be informed by a meeting which Scottish Enterprise is expected to have shortly with the Scottish Chefs Association. While the Scottish Tourist Board and I have not so far discussed this matter, we may do so in the future if it appears appropriate.

  Teachers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new teacher posts have been created in each of the last five years in the secondary phase. [58292]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information is collected on the overall number of teachers employed in publicly funded schools. These data cannot be used to determine the number of new "posts" created in any year.

  City Status
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if the process by which the Government will draw up their advice to Her Majesty the Queen for the awarding of city status will be the same in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom; [58734]

  (2) what arrangements his Department proposes to make in order to select candidates to propose for city status to mark the millennium celebration and the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [58690]

  Mr. Dewar
  Awards of city status in any part of the UK will be made by Her Majesty The Queen acting under the Royal Prerogative, on the advice of the Government of the day. I shall make an announcement in due course that will explain the procedure to be followed by Scottish towns wishing to be considered for a grant of city status.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the education budget for each prison in Scotland. [59219]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Establishment

  Budget (1998–99)

  HMP Aberdeen

  41,500

  HMP Barlinnie

  198,700

  HMP Castle Huntly

  38,000

  HMPI Cornton Vale

  78,000

  HMYOI Dumfries

  73,500

  214

  £

  Establishment

  Budget (1998–99)

  HMP Dungavel

  63,974

  HMP Edinburgh

  176,148

  HMP Friarton

  30,600

  HMP and YOI Glenochil

  224,733

  HMP Greenock

  86,410

  HMP Inverness

  43,500

  HMRI Longriggend

  72,300

  HMP Low Moss

  57,500

  HMP Noranside

  47,192

  HMP Penninghame

  39,950

  HMP Perth

  152,100

  HMP Peterhead

  73,250

  HM Unit Peterhead

  10,400

  HMYOI Polmont

  148,259

  HMP Shotts

  181,368

  HM Unit Shotts

  25,500

  NIC Shotts

  21,000

  The figures cover teaching contract and materials costs. They do not include vocational training or physical education delivered by Scottish Prison Service employees or the cost of local educational initiatives delivered in partnership with external agencies.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the financial implications of the recent reorganisation of Scottish Enterprise. [58840]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Government's policy for public sector pay continues to underline our commitment to increasing the efficiency of the public sector with any pay and price increases being offset by efficiencies and other economies. Scottish Enterprise's (SE) administration budget is set with due regard to the minimum consistent with efficiency and effectiveness; however, it is for SE to determine its staffing structure and requirements within these parameters. SE's administration budget for 1998–99 is £61.290 million.

DEFENCE

  British Army (Complaints)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) criminal complaints and (b) informal non-criminal complaints were made against the British Army based in (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) Germany in each of the last four years. [56399]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: The information is as follows:

  Northern Ireland
  In Northern Ireland complaints against the Army are categorised as criminal or non-criminal; non-criminal complaints are categorised as formal or informal.
  In his annual report in 1994, the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland recommended that non-criminal complaints should be informally resolved at local level wherever possible.

  215
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary records show that during the last four years the following criminal complaints have been investigated, but were not necessarily substantiated.

  Criminal complaints

  Year

  Total

  1995

  8

  1996

  15

  1997

  58

  1998

  114

  1 Figures as at 30 June 1998

  The number of formal non-criminal complaints is given in the table.

  Formal non-criminal complaints

  Year

  Total

  1995

  21

  1996

  24

  1997

  70

  1998

  141

  1 Figures as at 30 June 1998

  The number of these formal non-criminal complaints that were substantiated is as follows:

  Substantiated formal non-criminal complaints

  Year

  Total

  1995

  2

  1996

  1

  1997

  3

  1998

  fault both sides 12

  substantiated 1

  1 New category introduced

  The number of informal non-criminal complaints in the past four years is given in the table.

  Informal non-criminal complaints

  Year

  Total

  1995

  41

  1996

  264

  1997

  590

  1998

  1344

  1 Figures are as at 30 June 1998

  Germany
  Records held by the Police Advisory Branch, Dusseldorf, show that during the last four years the following number of criminal complaints against the British Army in Germany have been investigated.

  Year

  Total

  1995

  1,424

  1996

  1,212

  1997

  1,166

  1998

  1,079

  1 As at 31 October 1998

  Records of informal non-criminal complaints against the British Army in Germany over the last four years are not held.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel were injured during the last 30 years during service in Northern Ireland. [58853]
  216
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The numbers of British Service personnel who were injured during the last 30 years, from any cause, during service in Northern Ireland are detailed in the table.

  Number of injured Personnel

  Army

  16,069

  RN

  2159

  RAF

  2137

  1 Figures are from August 1969–31 October 1998

  2Figures are from 1 January 1976–31 October 1998

  The figures relate primarily to injuries which were incurred whilst on duty; however, the manner in which data have historically been compiled means some injuries incurred whilst off duty may also be included.

  The figures exclude injuries resulting in death.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to public funds of claims by employees and the public for compensation in respect of(a) personal injury and (b) employment protection in the latest year for which figures are available. [59052]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Rural Development Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much matching funding has been made available by the Welsh Office in the current financial year for the taking up of European rural development grants in Wales; and what sum he has ear-marked for the next financial year for this purpose. [58663]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  £1 million has been made available for the current financial year. Funding for future years is being considered as part of the Internal Review.

  BSE
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the amount of Government money spent in Wales to date on measures relating to BSE; and if he will make a statement. [58821]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The total amount of Government money spent in Wales on measures relating to BSE during the period 1 April 1996 to 30 September 1998 is estimated at £137 million.

  Farmers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many deputations he has received from farmers' organisations in the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [58820]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Welsh Office Ministers have met with both the farming unions and farmers' deputations on several occasions during the last 6 months. These meetings are part of an ongoing, constructive
  217
  dialogue with the farmers leaders and the industry about developing long term strategies for Welsh agriculture so that it can meet the demands of the twenty first century.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the average age of farmers in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [58819]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The average age of principal farmers, growers or partners on Welsh farm holdings is estimated to be 55.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the relationship between the prices paid by the customers in supermarkets and the prices paid to beef, sheepmeat and dairy producers; and if he will make a statement. [58818]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The issue of prices and competition in the market is a matter for the competition authorities. The Office of Fair Trading is currently conducting an inquiry into the overall profitability of the major supermarkets in the grocery sector. The Welsh Office is continuing to keep abreast of available research on this issue.

  Drugs Awareness
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what drugs awareness programmes his Department is planning to introduce in 1999; and how much funding they will receive. [58888]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh Drug and Alcohol Unit (WDAU), which operates on contract to the Department, has developed a prevention campaign to focus public attention on drug and alcohol misuse, particularly among younger people.

  Phase three of this campaign will be launched in 1999 and will concentrate on new target groups, namely young people who are considered high risk and hard to reach; young people in the 16–18 age group; and children aged 9-14 in the primary and secondary school setting. Funding for this campaign will be subject to the Secretary of State's decisions on the allocation of the resources available to him in 1999–2000.

  Television and Film Production
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department has taken to promote television and film production in Wales. [58887]

  Mr. Hain
  Film is an important industry in Wales and the Department is working together with Sgrin—Media Agency for Wales and the Wales Film Commissions to further its development. Financial support is currently provided to Sgrin through the Arts Council of Wales, the Welsh Development Agency and the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. In addition, the Welsh Development Agency has contributed to the establishment of the British Film Office in Los Angeles set up to encourage inward investment into film production in the UK. Ministerial responsibility for television lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Tenancy Agreements
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to promote the new tenancy agreement launched recently by the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations. [58886]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The tenancy agreement recently launched by the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations is designed to be an example of an easy-to-read agreement which Registered Social Landlords may follow and adapt if they so wish.

  The Welsh Office will seek to ensure all Registered Social Landlords do indeed utilise tenancy agreements which are easy to read.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to simplify the administration of agricultural subsidy claims; and if he will make a statement. [59319]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  On 16 March 1998,Official Report, column 459, the then Secretary of State announced that the Department was inviting consultants to tender for a study to assess the options for securing improved and simplified administration of Common Agricultural Policy payments to farmers within Wales. A number of options were analysed by the consultants and their report was submitted to the Welsh Office on 24 July 1998.

  We are carefully considering the options and consulting with farming organisations, Welsh MPs, Welsh Office Trade Unions and staff, to seek their views, before reaching a final decision.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to assist farmers who are experiencing difficulties in accurately completing paperwork relating to the claiming of farming subsidies and financial assistance; and if he will make a statement.
  [59320]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Comprehensive Guidance is issued with every claim form. That guidance and the scheme claim forms are routinely passed to the industry for comment before issue, and efforts are made to annually update and improve scheme literature.

  Officials from the Welsh Office are on hand to offer guidance as appropriate.

  Millennium Stadium
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 31 July 1998,Official Report, column 363, if he will make a statement on progress on the Millennium Stadium at Cardiff Arms Park. [59332]

  Mr. Hain
  Progress on the Stadium itself is a matter for Millennium Stadium plc. Discussions associated with the Government's contribution to the funding of the River Walk project are at an advanced stage and I expect the documentation to be finalised shortly. A further announcement will be made in due course.

  Cardiff Airport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of Cardiff Airport. [59511]

  Mr. Hain
  Cardiff International Airport is owned by TBI plc, who have invested heavily in new and improved facilities to create one of the most modern regional airports in the United Kingdom. The Airport's future prospects appear excellent, but I will be considering this further as part of an air services study for Wales which is currently under way. This study will focus on the scope for new and enhanced services as well as the role of airports in economic development.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made as to the benefits likely to accrue to Wales from a strategic rail authority. [59513]

  Mr. Hain
  The Strategic Rail Authority will provide clear, coherent and accountable regulation of the network, ensuring that the railways are run in the interest of passengers and freight customers. The shadow SRA, which will be operational by next spring, will be an important first step in making sure that the railway companies deliver the service the public have a right to expect. There will be Welsh representation on both the shadow SRA and its statutory successor.

  Roads (Strategic Policy)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received concerning his strategic policy on roads. [59512]

  Mr. Hain
  The future strategy for and role of the trunk road network in Wales was set out in the report "Driving Wales Forward" published on 28 July. A number of representations have been received following publication of the report although it is not possible to give an exact number. In general terms, the report has been well received and welcomed as a positive contribution in the overall context of attempts to deliver an integrated approach to transport in Wales.

  Badgers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the badger population in Wales, and if he will make a statement. [59516]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  We have made no direct estimates of the badger population in Wales. A report to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1995) based on surveys carried out in 1988 for the Nature Conservancy Council suggested a pre-breeding badger population size of 35,000 in Wales. A report by the People's Trust for Endangered Species (1997) suggests that badger activity in Britain increased by 77 per cent. between 1988 and 1997. I understand those responsible for producing these figures are reviewing them, although no revisions have been published yet.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  London Theatres
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the contribution of London theatres to inward tourism into the United Kingdom. [57176]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government welcomed the publication earlier this year by the Society of London Theatre of The Wyndham Report on the economic impact of London's West End Theatre. It estimated that, of the total of £679 million spent by West End theatregoers in 1997, £226 million was spent by overseas visitors.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making in the evaluation of vertical agreements in the brewing industry. [59163]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]: The new Competition Act 1998 enables vertical agreements to be excluded by order from the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements. The Government expect to consult formally on a draft order shortly.

  The order will be of a general nature, applying to vertical agreements across the economy. There are no plans to make an exclusion order applying specifically to the brewing sector.

  The Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order 1989 and the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 will remain in force to regulate this market.

  Power Generators
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to monitor and publish performance on emissions from power generators on a basis of less than 12 months intervals. [59164]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]: Annual figures for emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, including those from power generation, are published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Figures relating to 1996 were published in a DETR News Release in July this year. At the same time, the Department of Trade and Industry published provisional estimates of carbon dioxide emissions for 1997 based on energy consumption data. It is proposed that these provisional estimates will continue to be published on an annual basis.

  Information on fuel use in power generation is published by the DTI on a regular basis in the monthly statistical bulletin Energy Trends. Data for fuels used in electricity generation by major power producers are published on a monthly basis and data for all generators are published on a quarterly basis.

  Post Office
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to ensure protection of the interests of postal users in connection with moves to greater commercialisation of the Post Office. [59267]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]: The interests of postal users are being fully considered in the context of the Government's Review of the Post Office. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Review has considered public sector options for giving the Post Office greater commercial freedom while continuing to provide a universal postal service under a uniform tariff structure with a nationwide network of post offices. We hope to announce our conclusions shortly.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make an announcement about his review of post office services, with particular reference to Crown post office closure; and if he will make a statement. [57745]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Work on the Government's Review of the Post Office (including the future of the Crown conversion programme) has proceeded well. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Review has considered public sector options for giving the Post Office greater commercial freedom while continuing to provide a universal postal service under a uniform tariff structure with a nationwide network of post offices. We hope to announce our conclusions shortly.

  Secure Electronic Commerce
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to facilitate electronic commerce with regard to changes in restrictions in the use of cryptography. [59225]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]: The Government are committed to making the UK the best environment in which business can trade electronically and thus we do not have any plans to restrict the use of cryptography, which is seen by many as a vital technology for confidence and trust. We do, however, have plans to introduce legislation, when parliamentary time permits, to set voluntary standards for those bodies providing electronic signatures and encryption services.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many responses he has received following the publication of the proposals for secure electronic commerce on 27 April 1998; and if he will list them. [59087]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]: Since the April Statement, which was intended to provide information rather than solicit responses, the Department has discussed its proposals on secure electronic commerce with a number of different organisations. We would expect more formal, and quantifiable, responses from industry when we launch a consultation paper on the planned legislation on electronic commerce.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for further consultations with industry on the proposals for secure electronic commerce announced on 27 April 1998. [59086]
  222
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]: The Government are committed to making the UK the best environment in which to trade electronically. We will bring forward legislation to help achieve this as soon as parliamentary time is available. The Government intend to develop the detail of the legislation in consultation with industry and other interested parties.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what tender process was undertaken for the review of British Nuclear Fuels prior to the appointment of KPMG accountants; and if he will list the firms which submitted tenders. [59089]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]: KPMG were chosen following a competitive tender process. Six firms were invited to participate in the tender. KPMG were selected after interview of the four firms which submitted tenders. It is not normally the Department's policy to disclose the names of firms participating in such competitive tendering exercises.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the terms of reference are for KPMG accountants' review of British Nuclear Fuels. [59090]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]: KPMG were engaged to carry out an initial review of the options for BNFL's future structure including, but not restricted to, some form of Public Private Partnership, having regard to the Government's objectives, which are as follows:
  Safety and environmental impact
  to ensure that the highest standards of safety are applied throughout BNFL's operations and that regulatory standards on environmental impact are fully complied with.
  Efficient management of liabilities
  to ensure that the nuclear liabilities created by past, present and future operations are discharged safely and as cost effectively as possible including the possibility of sharing risks and rewards in management of liabilities with the private sector.
  Efficient management of company and employee involvement
  to ensure effective incentives and disciplines are in place to deliver efficient management of the company, while ensuring employee commitment to the success of the company.
  Maximise the value of the business
  subject to the points above, to provide a framework in which BNFL can get the best out of its assets and maximise its value as an international business by making best use of its expertise and taking advantage of commercial opportunities as they arise.
  Full value for taxpayer
  to ensure that any deal involving a full or partial sale of assets provides full value for the taxpayer consistent with the degree of risk passed on to the private sector.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the cost of the review of British Nuclear Fuels being carried out by KPMG; and when the review will be completed. [59088]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]: My department is paying KPMG a fixed fee of £100,000 for this work. The review will be completed by the end of this month.

  Indonesia (Debt)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if Indonesia has resumed payments on its debt to the United Kingdom since it negotiated a rescheduling of this debt with the Export Credits Guarantee Department; [58432]

  (2) if the rescheduling agreement with Indonesia on its debt repayments to the United Kingdom contains provisions relating to future loan guarantees for military equipment; [58435]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the rescheduling of Indonesia's debt to the United Kingdom. [58433]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK, together with Indonesia's other major creditors, agreed on 23 September 1998 to reschedule Indonesia's sovereign and sovereign guaranteed public sector debt falling due for payment between 6 August 1998 to 31 March 2000. The rescheduling covers principal repayments only and Indonesia continues to meet its interest payment obligations on the original maturities. The rescheduled debt is to be paid over eleven years including a three year grace period. Moratorium interest at the appropriate market rate will accrue from the dates of the original maturities. The first and subsequent payment dates for this moratorium interest will be specified in the bilateral agreement.

  The bilateral debt agreement being negotiated between the UK and Indonesia covers debt in relation to both civil and military contracts signed prior to 1 July 1997 and the debt to be restructured over the period to 31 March 2000 amounts to some £240m.

  The bilateral debt agreement, as is usual, will make no reference to future ECGD cover. Bearing in mind that this is to be limited rescheduling involving principal payments only, ECGD remains on cover whilst monitoring developments very closely. New commitments will be considered on a case by case basis, taking account of prevailing circumstances at the time, but priority would be given to contracts likely to contribute to Indonesia's economic recovery.

  Coal
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each year from 1979 to 1997 what sums of compensation have been(a) paid to individual coal miners as a result of pit closures and (b) invested in regions of the United Kingdom to compensate for the closure of coal mines. [57329]

  Mr. Battle
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Department does not have information on total compensation paid to individual coal miners solely as a result of pit closures initiated by the previous Government. The table sets out the restructuring costs of British Coal Corporation since 1979. In addition, the Government made payments to individual mineworkers under the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme (RMPS) which was introduced in 1967. This Scheme closed to new entrants after March 1987, but payments continue until the last beneficiary reaches the age of 65 in 2002.
  224

  £ million

  Financial years

  British Coal Corporation exceptional restructuring costs1

  RMPS

  1979–80

  76

  15

  1980–81

  108

  15

  1981–82

  181

  48

  1982–83

  183

  80

  1983–84

  344

  190

  1984–85

  242

  200

  1985–86

  691

  563

  1986–87

  798

  610

  1987–88

  632

  295

  1988–89

  400

  168

  1989–90

  881

  126

  1990–91

  163

  93

  1991–92

  525

  61

  1992–93

  767

  43

  1993–94

  481

  33

  1994–95

  270

  29

  1995–96

  8

  23

  1996–97

  0

  20

  1997–98

  0

  12

  Total

  6,750

  2.624

  1 British Coal Corporation Annual Report and Accounts (various)

  (b) The Department does not collect information on amounts invested in regions of the United Kingdom solely as a result of pit closures. The Coalfield closures programme in 1992 was expected to cost the Government £1 billion in redundancy payments and measures to help communities affected, and in 1993 the previous Government committed £200 million in regeneration funding. However, this sum fell below what was needed. This Government set up the Coalfields Task Force to investigate how the Government can best help regenerate the Coalfields Communities and draw together support offered to them. We will shortly be reporting on the implementation of the Task Force's recommendations.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department towards establishing a compensation scheme for the condition known as vibration white finger. [59006]

  Mr. Battle
  I fully understand the frustration of miners with VWF who have been waiting for their compensation and I am keen to start assessing claims and making payments quickly. We need to ensure that full and fair compensation is paid, but both sides have to work within the legal framework.

  My priority has always been to agree arrangements with the claimants' solicitors to allow claims to be processed. We recently served our proposed handling arrangements on the plaintiffs' solicitors, revised in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment. We hope to agree arrangements with the claimants' solicitors as soon as possible. We are also proposing to the plaintiffs a single medical assessment process as a means of expediting the handling of the claims objectively. Following a meeting on 2 November, they have agreed to participate in a pilot of the medical process, this is due to commence on 1 December.

  In the meantime, further work is being done to minimise any further delay once a final agreement has been reached. For instance, sets of testing equipment have already been purchased and work is in hand to identify organisations able to deliver the single medical assessment.

HEALTH

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (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; [56804]

  (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. [56802]

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

  North Essex Health Authority
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many appeals were heard by his Department against proposals put forward by North Essex Health Authority between 1979 and 1997; [58425]

  (2) if he will list the occasions when facilities at Clacton and Harwich hospitals were retained following a successful appeal against North Essex Health Authority proposals between 1979 and 1997; [58427]

  (3) if he will list the facilities at Clacton and Harwich hospitals that were the subject of reviews carried out by North Essex Health Authority between 1979 and 1997; [58428]

  (4) if he will list the lengths of time taken by his Department to determine each appeal against proposals put forward by North Essex Health Authority between 1979 and 1997; [58426]

  (5) how many reviews were conducted by North Essex Health Authority between 1979 and 1997. [58424]

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

  Employment of Children Review Working Group
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the research sub-group of the Employment of Children Review working group has been set up; and what its terms of reference are; [59065]

  (2) how many times the Employment of Children Review working group has met to take evidence from interested organisations and individuals; and from whom evidence has been taken; [59068]

  (3) what is the current membership of the Employment of Children Review working group; [59069]

  (4) how many children who are employed have been consulted by the Employment of Children Review working group; and on how many occasions; [59066]

  (5) how many times the Employment of Children Review working group has met; and on what dates; [59067]

  (6) when the Employment of Children Review working group is expected to report; and if he will make a statement on its progress. [59064]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Employment of Children Review working group has met on three occasions, 9 February, 21 July and 17 September. Membership of the working group 226
  comprises officials from the Departments of Health, Trade and Industry, Education and Employment, the Cabinet Office, the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Social Services Executive, Northern Ireland. Membership also includes two representatives from the National Child Employment Network. Evidence has been taken from interested parties on two occasions. Those parties were, Save the Children, National Children's Home Action for Children, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Children's Rights Office, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the British Film Commissioner. The working group will report early next year. The Research sub group will be meeting shortly; its purpose is to review the existing research, and to make recommendations to the main group based on its findings, both on any proposed changes to existing legislation and on any further research deemed necessary. The views of working children have not yet been sought, but it is intended to do so.

  Prescribed Nicotine Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to make nicotine replacement therapy treatment available on prescription; [58960]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost of making nicotine replacement therapy available on prescription. [58959]

  Ms Jowell
  We will set out our comprehensive proposals to tackle smoking in the forthcoming tobacco White Paper.

  Asylum Seekers (Medical Accreditation)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to assist medically qualified asylum seekers to obtain training or take courses to gain recognised British medical qualifications; [58957]

  (2) what steps he is taking to facilitate the recognition of qualifications held by medically qualified asylum seekers. [58956]

  Mr. Hutton
  The recognition of medical qualifications is the statutory responsibility of the General Medical Council (GMC) in respect of primary qualifications, and the Specialist Training Authority and the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for specialist qualifications.

  No specific action is being taken to assist medically qualified asylum seekers to obtain training or to take courses to gain recognised British medical qualifications.

  Medically qualified asylum seekers who have been given permission to work in the United Kingdom by the immigration authorities and who meet the GMC's requirements for Registration are free to apply for advertised posts in the medical training grades on the same basis as other non-United Kingdom/European Economic Area doctors. Approaching 30 per cent. of all medical trainees in the National Health Service qualified outside the United Kingdom.

  Earlier this year the Department revised and reissued its guidance on the Immigration and Employment of Overseas Medical and Dental Students, Doctors and Dentists in the United Kingdom to make it clear that doctors who have sought asylum may be accepted into formal training programmes once permission to work in the UK has been granted by the immigration authorities.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is in a position to give details, by health authority, of the allocation of moneys arising from the Comprehensive Spending Review for the year 1999–2000. [58987]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on 10 November 1998,Official Report, columns 180–82.

  Health Visitor Services
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of reductions in health visitor services for the elderly on(a) bed blocking in hospitals and (b) hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement. [59047]

  Ms Jowell
  We have undertaken no such assessment.

  This month, on 3 November 1998, Official Report, column 688, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a further £250 million for the National Health Service (£209 million for England). This money provides further investment for the long-term as well as additional help for this coming winter.

  We are committed to improving the quality of life for older people and recently announced that the next national service framework will be for older people. Our better services for vulnerable people initiative requires health and local authorities to develop joint investment plans, recuperation and rehabilitation services for older people and improved procedures for multidisciplinary assessment of older people. Our review of hospital discharge guidance will include consideration of how we can resolve the difficulties around delayed discharge.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Croatia (Arms Embargo)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what embargoes on the export of defence equipment, with particular reference to anti-tank weapons, existed in the case of exports to Croatia in(a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c) 1991. [59049]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There was no embargo on the export of defence equipment to Croatia in 1989 and 1990. The European Union and its Member States decided on 5 July 1991 to impose an embargo on armaments and military equipment applicable to the whole of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). UNSCR 713 (1991) established a general and complete embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment to the SFRY with effect from 25 September 1991. The embargoes included anti-tank weapons for export to Croatia. The EU embargo remains in force in respect to Croatia.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cheques, and of what total value, have been returned by post and sub post offices as unclaimed by eligible pensioners for winter fuel payments. [57407]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Eric Pickles, dated 10 November 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question about how many cheques, and of what total value, have been returned by post and sub post offices as unclaimed by eligible pensioners for winter fuel payments.
  The making of Winter Fuel Payments to almost 10 million pensioners, in over seven million households, before the end of March 1998, was a challenging task for the Benefits Agency (BA). This was achieved whilst maintaining normal benefit business.
  During March this year, five million Winter Fuel Payment girocheques were sent to the Post Office for collection by those pensioners who receive a state retirement pension or widow's benefit and are paid by order book. Arrangements were made for the Post Office clerk to identify the relevant customers, as they called to collect their pension, hand them the envelope containing their girocheque, and a letter explaining the reason for the payment.
  Post Offices were instructed to return any uncollected girocheques to the nearest BA office on I May 1998. Approximately two percent of the total number of girocheques, with a value of either £10 or £20, were returned. The information on the total value of all payments returned is only available at disproportionate cost.
  It may be helpful if I explain the action that was taken on receipt of each undelivered payment. An investigation was undertaken to establish the reason why the payment had not been collected. Where it was confirmed that the pensioner was still alive a replacement payment was issued. Where the pensioner had recently died but nevertheless there was entitlement to a payment, the BA took action to pay the amount due to the next of kin or executor of the deceased's estate.
  About 98% of girocheques issued to the Post Office were collected. Of the remainder, around half were returned because there was no entitlement (for example, because the customer was abroad, in hospital for an extensive period, or had died). Many of the other girocheques were not collected because of short or medium term hospitalization or spells abroad, or customer's death during or after the qualifying week. In these cases, entitlement remained, and the girocheques have now been replaced except in a very small number of cases (for example, where further evidence is required).
  In making this year's Winter Fuel Payments, around the same number will be sent to the Post Office for delivery during January 1999. The Post Office have been asked to ensure all their staff are proactive in issuing the payments the first time the pensioner calls after the Post Office receive the pensioner's giro payment. The Winter Fuel Payment leaflet also advises pensioners whose payment has been sent to the Post Office to ask the clerk in the office they normally collect the payment from, if they have not been given their payment by the end of January 1999.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Recovery
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of repayments of benefit to the Compensation Recovery Unit involving asbestos-related diseases there were in the past five years; and what were the levels of those repayments. [58411]
  229
  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Compensation Recovery Unit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 10 November 1998 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Mr. Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking, how many cases of repayments of benefit to the Compensation Recovery Unit involving asbestos-related diseases there were in the past five years; and what were the levels of those repayments. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  The information requested is given on the table. The figures relate to asbestosis cases (the system is not designed to identify asbestos-related diseases).
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Number of repayments of benefit made to the Compensation Recovery Unit in the last five years involving asbestosis

  Financial year

  Number of cases

  Total amount repaid (£)

  1993–94

  157

  408,655.00

  1994–95

  138

  1,030,457.77

  1995–96

  173

  1,507,320.58

  1996–97

  240

  1,860,957.46

  1997–98

  255

  2,029,302.49

  Notes:

  Figures supplied by the Compensation Recovery Unit.

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the level of benefits repaid to the Compensation Recovery Unit as a result of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997; [58408]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the levels of repayment to the Compensation Recovery Unit in each of the past five years; [58412]

  Breakdown of levels of recoveries to the compensation recovery unit current and previous five years

  £ million

  Breakdown of recoveries by benefit type

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Invalidity Benefit

  35.2

  51.9

  60.1

  49.3

  36.3

  13.2

  Incapacity Benefit

  0

  0

  7.8

  27.8

  52.1

  34.5

  Unemployment Benefit

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  0.6

  0.5

  0.1

  Sickness Benefit

  3.4

  4.4

  5.1

  4.4

  3.5

  1.4

  Jobseeker's Allowance (C)

  0

  0

  0

  0.0002

  0.03

  0.02

  Income Support

  5.8

  8

  10.2

  13.1

  20

  14.5

  Attendance Allowance

  0.6

  0.9

  0.9

  0.9

  1.4

  1

  Statutory Sick Pay

  16.7

  17.3

  15.4

  10.7

  6.6

  2.3

  Jobseeker's Allowance (I)

  0

  0

  0

  0.0006

  0.1

  0.072

  Mobility Allowance

  1.1

  1

  0.9

  0.5

  0.4

  0.3

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  9.2

  12.6

  16.5

  19.1

  22.6

  12.3

  Constant Attendance Allowance

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.1

  Disability Living Allowance

  2.8

  6.6

  11

  13.9

  7.5

  0.07

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  5.5

  5.2

  4.3

  2.8

  2

  1.1

  Retirement Allowance

  0.005

  0.005

  0.0006

  0.001

  0.0009

  0.0007

  Family Credit

  0.0009

  0.0006

  0

  0.002

  0

  0

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  1

  1.5

  2

  1.8

  2.2

  1.5

  Old Cases Acts Benefits

  0

  0

  0

  0.01

  0.008

  0

  Disability Living Allowance (Care)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  5.4

  Disability Living Allowance (Mobility)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  7.6

  Disability Working Allowance

  0.02

  0.05

  0.08

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance

  0.03

  0.06

  0.06

  0.08

  0.05

  0.03

  Total

  81.9

  110.1

  135.1

  145.5

  170.9

  95.6

  Notes:

  Figures supplied by the Compensation Recovery Unit

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Figure for the current year are to September 1998 inc.
  230
  (3) what were total repayments to the Compensation Recovery Unit in the current year and each of the five previous years. [58409]

  Mr. Timms
  Reform of the Compensation Recovery scheme took place on 6 October 1997. The compensator is now liable for the repayment of benefits paid as a consequence of an accident, injury or disease. The reforms also mean that compensation for pain and suffering will not be recovered.

  The administration of the Compensation Recovery Unit took place on 6 October 1997. The compensator is now liable for the repayment of benefits paid as a consequence of an accident, injury or disease. The reforms also mean that compensation for pain and suffering will not be recovered.

  The administration of the Compensation Recovery Unit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 10 November 1998.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions. The questions ask about the level of benefits repaid to the Compensation Recovery Unit as a result of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, a breakdown of the levels of repayment in each of the past five years, and what were the total repayments in the current and the last five years. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I will reply.
  It is estimated that £159 million has been repaid to the Compensation Recovery Unit as a result of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997.
  A breakdown of the levels of repayment and the total repayments is given in the table.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants will be affected by his proposed claw-back of incapacity benefit from those with private insurance cover in the first five years after the reform is introduced. [58291]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not possible to identify the number of people with permanent health insurance payments arranged by their employer, who will have this income taken into account against Incapacity Benefit in the first five years after the change is introduced. However, the number is expected to be small. No existing Incapacity Benefit recipient will be affected.

  Disability Income Guarantee
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much extra he estimates will be spent on the disability income guarantee in the first two years of its operation relative to what would have been spent on the current equivalent disability benefits. [58509]

  Mr. Timms
  The estimated additional cost for 2001–02 will be in the region of £60 million. In the longer term we estimate that the cost will rise to £70 million per year.

  Widows' Benefits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claimants of widows' benefit are currently being awarded initial or emergency payments only as a result of the difficulties in implementation of the NIRS2 system. [59284]

  Mr. Timms
  All new claims to Widows' Benefit (WB) where there is potential entitlement to a weekly Widows' Pension (WP) or Widowed Mother's Allowance (WMA) should be receiving emergency payments as the NIRS contributions record is not available. There are about 4,000 new claims to WB each month. 28,000 claims have been received from April to October of which about 21,000 have entitlement to WP or WMA.Sources:
  Central Data Unit
  Annual WB claims 1996–97 = 47,435 of which 37,910 have WP/WMA.
  Annual WB claims 1997–98 = 45,291 of which 36,539 have WP/WMA.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if receipt of a compensation payment made on a monthly basis to a person not receiving an occupational pension prevents that individual from being granted jobseeker's allowance when all other application criteria are met; [58531]

  (2) if those in receipt of (a) a redundancy compensation payment and a continuing annual payment and (b) a continuing annual payment only, are eligible for job seekers allowance; [58532]

  (3) if those in receipt of a redundancy compensation payment and a continuing annual payment are eligible for unemployment benefit; [58533]
  232
  (4) if his Department classifies continuing annual payments as (a) a redundancy payment and (b) an occupational pension. [58534]

  Angela Eagle
  Jobseeker's Allowance replaced Unemployment Benefit and Income Support for the unemployed in October 1996 as the main benefit for this group. Jobseeker's Allowance has two elements: a contribution-based allowance for those who have paid sufficient National Insurance contributions and an income-based allowance for those who either do not qualify for, or whose needs are not met by, the contributory element.

  Prior to October 1996, for people aged over 55, Unemployment Benefit was reduced by 10p for each lop of occupational pension received in excess of £35 a week. Other periodic payments from ex-employers made on account of the termination of employment by way of redundancy were treated as income other than earnings and did not affect entitlement to Unemployment Benefit. Lump sum redundancy payments up to the statutory limit did not affect the amount of Unemployment Benefit payable. Any sum paid in excess of this limit removed entitlement to benefit for a period, the length of which depended upon the sum involved.

  Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance is reduced, for all people receiving occupational pension payments, on a penny for penny basis for any excess over £50 a week. Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance is reduced by an amount equal to the total pension payment received. Other periodic payments from ex-employers made on account of the termination of employment by way of redundancy do not affect entitlement to contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance. Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance is, however, reduced by an amount equal to the total payment received.

  Lump sum redundancy payments up to the statutory limit do not affect the amount of contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance payable as they are treated as capital. Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance is not affected by capital under £3,000 but entitlement is reduced by £1 for each £250, or part of £250, over that amount up to a limit of £8,000. Benefit is not payable if a person's capital is over that limit. Any sum paid in excess of the statutory limit will remove entitlement to both elements of Jobseeker's Allowance for a period, the length of which depends upon the sum involved.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students were recruited to PGCE courses in each subject area for each of the years 1992 to 1998. [56198]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table shows the number of students recruited to PGCE courses in each subject area for each of the years 1992 to 1997. Recruitment for 1998 is not yet available, but latest figures for acceptances are shown in the table. A package of new measures to boost teacher recruitment was announced on 27 October and details of this have been placed in the Library.
  233

  Recruitment1 to postgraduate initial teacher training (ITT) courses, 1992–93 to 1997–98

  England and Wales

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Primary

  6,255

  6,218

  5,640

  5,696

  5,454

  5.217

  Mathematics

  1,311

  1,429

  1,651

  1,575

  1,443

  1,233

  English2

  1,388

  1,505

  1,877

  1,932

  2,097

  2,171

  Science

  1,928

  2,228

  2,714

  2,686

  2,705

  2,590

  Modern Foreign Languages

  1,347

  1,573

  1,847

  1,837

  1,789

  1,858

  Technology3

  1,008

  1,163

  1,172

  1,034

  1,205

  1,251

  History

  616

  683

  957

  936

  1,006

  1,043

  Geography

  505

  590

  674

  726

  889

  888

  Physical Education

  326

  393

  538

  622

  666

  844

  Art

  629

  748

  805

  867

  960

  962

  Music

  390

  415

  464

  550

  489

  482

  Religious Education

  334

  350

  427

  487

  625

  636

  Other4

  456

  394

  316

  378

  390

  300

  Total secondary

  10,236

  11,468

  13,442

  13,629

  14,262

  14,258

  Live acceptances to postgraduate ITT courses 1998

  England and Wales

  1998–995

  Primary

  5,690

  Mathematics

  810

  English2

  2,040

  Science

  1,880

  Modern Foreign Languages

  1,560

  Technology3

  1,020

  History

  930

  Geography

  750

  Physical Education

  790

  Art

  930

  Music

  420

  Religious Education

  600

  Other4

  240

  Total secondary

  11,970

  1Includes School Centred ITT (SCITT).

  2 English includes Drama.

  3 Technology includes Design and Technology, Information Technology, Business Studies and Home Economics.

  4 Other includes Classics, Economics, other social sciences and other subjects.

  5 Live assceptances at 26 September 1998. Final recruitment figures are expected to be higher by about 5–10 per cent., though this will vary by subject.

  Sources

  Recruitment

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

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

  Wales: DFE Annual Recruitment Survey 1992–93–1993–94;

  Welsh Office 1994–95; HESES 1995–96–1997–98.

  Live acceptances

  Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR)

  Books and Equipment
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) for each local education authority and (b) for each Key Stage and for post-16 provision, expenditure per pupil on books and equipment for the most recent year for which figures are available and for each of the preceding two years. [59172]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information on expenditure per pupil on educational equipment. furniture and materials, which covers books and equipment, for each local education authority for the period 1994–95 to 1996–97, the latest year for which figures are available, is set out in a Table, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Separate information on expenditure per pupil on books and equipment for each Key Stage and for post-16 provision is not available.
  234
  The Government have substantially increased provision for local authority spending on education in 1998–99 to £19.4 billion. They have also pledged an extra £19 billion for education throughout the UK in the next three years and provided an extra £2,000 over and above increased RSG levels to purchase books during 1998 to every school with more than 100 pupils in England as part of the National Year of Reading. In addition £102 million will be provided jointly by the Government and local education authorities in 1998–99 for the National Grid for Learning and an additional £954 million for schools capital in 1998£99.

  Internet Publishing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [58771]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]: The Department is committed to open government and abides by the principles laid down under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  In any dealings with task forces and equivalent bodies we will impress on them our Department's commitment to openness and point out that proposed Freedom of Information legislation may identify and embrace these bodies.

  Some of the larger task forces currently publish information on the Internet and any future bodies will be encouraged to consider an Internet site.

  Home Economics
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to include home economics in mainstream education. [58962]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Home economics issues are already covered by the National Curriculum. Food and textiles are, for example, covered by National Curriculum design and technology. Further home economics elements are addressed by other National Curriculum subjects. Diet and nutrition are covered by National Curriculum science and budgeting by National Curriculum mathematics. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is currently reviewing the National Curriculum. Proposed changes
  235
  will be submitted to the Secretary of State in the spring of next year. There will follow a full consultation on agreed proposals.

  Schools (Drug Abuse)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the expenditure by his Department on programmes in schools highlighting the dangers of drug abuse in 1997–98. [58825]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department supported approximately £6 million of expenditure for drug education and prevention work, through the Grants For Education Support and Training (GEST) Programme in 1997£98, increased to £7 million in 1998–99 through the Standards Fund programme. This support was made available to Local Education Authorities, to assist schools in delivering effective drug education and managing drug-related incidents on schools' premises.

  In addition, the Department supported £1.5 million of expenditure for the training of youth and community workers, which included among its objectives the effective delivery of programmes of drug education and prevention.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of the Welfare to Work programme to date in the West Midlands. [57735]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: Government Statistical Service figures, covering the period from January 1998 to the end of August 1998, show that in the West Midlands 14,530 young people had started on New Deal and that 1,772 had started unsubsidised employment; 457 subsidised employment; 154 on the Environment Task Force; 136 on the voluntary sector option; and 489 on Full-Time Education and Training option.

  We have a comprehensive evaluation programme to measure the impact of New Deal nationally, regionally, and locally. I will publish further detailed findings of this programme as they become available.

  Disability Services
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce his proposals for the expenditure of the money allocated to specialist disability services. [58574]

  Ms Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 28 October 1998,Official Report column 340, a fund of an extra £30 million over 3 years to improve job opportunities for disabled people. The money will provide:
  1,500 additional supported employment places to test new ways of helping disabled people move into open employment and to boost the subsidy to employers;
  extra help with work costs through Access to Work for an additional 4,000 disabled people;
  an increase to the Job Introduction Scheme subsidy from £45 to £75 a week helping to support a further 3,000 opportunities over three years.

  In 1999 a range of organisations will be approached with the aim of developing initiatives which will test ways of
  236
  increasing the scope for progression from the Supported Employment Programme into open employment. The additional help under the Access to Work programme and the Job Introduction Scheme will be managed by the Employment Service as part of their normal support to employers and disabled people.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to set a target for the universal provision of early years education for three year olds whose parents want it. [59170]

  Ms Hodge
  The £390 million additional funding we have made available for England over the next three years will enable the participation rate of three years-olds in early education to approximately double to 66% by 2002. We will consider future targets in the light of this expansion.

  New Deal
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics he is collecting to monitor the progress of ex-offenders on the New Deal. [59174]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information is available specifically on ex-offenders only for those entering the New Deal early. I can report that 2,294 ex-offenders have entered New Deal early. Monitoring of ex-offenders relies on clients volunteering this information.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Members for Bath and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of 30 September 1998, on the education and training option under the New Deal. [59167]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I will be issuing a letter by the end of this week.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have found(a) subsidised and (b) unsubsidised employment under the New Deal for 18 to 25 year olds in the Tynemouth constituency to date. [59009]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government Statistical Service figures show, to the end of August 1998, that in the Employment Service Tyneside North Unit of Delivery, which covers the Tynemouth constituency, 62 18–24 year olds have found unsubsidised employment and 29 have started on the New Deal employment option.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the employers currently employing New Deal trainees under the subsidised employment option and (b) for each (i) how many New Deal trainees they are employing and (ii) what percentage their New Deal trainees are of their total workforce. [59173]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Across the country, around 29,300 companies have been signed up to New Deal. The current Employment Service systems do not allow us to monitor number of starts on the Employment Option by employer. We are currently looking at setting up an employer database that will allow us to monitor New Deal information by employer.
  237
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of subsidised unfilled vacancies for New Deal trainees. [59171]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Employment Service information systems cannot provide this information.

  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many disabled job seekers have(a) sought help under the New Deal, (b) found suitable programmes and (c) moved on to permanent employment or longer-term training. [59078]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Government Statistical Service figures of people with disabilities show that, to the end of August 1998,(a) 19,880 have entered New Deal, (b) 360 have entered the Voluntary Sector Option, and 280 have entered the Environment Task Force Option, (c) 1,090 have moved from Gateway to the Subsidised Employment Option and 2,100 have signed-off to start unsubsidised jobs and 940 participants have entered the Full-Time Education and Training Option.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have found employment through the New Deal to date(a) in total and (b) in each target group. [57143]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: Latest figures, combining GSS figures to August with provisional management information to September, show that, since New Deal for 18–24 year olds started, over 30,000 young people have found work. Of these, 21,460 have gone into unsubsidised jobs and 9,020 have entered subsidised employment.

  Figures for New Deal 25+ will be available in the Government Statistical Service's statistical First Release, which will be published in December.

  No figures are available yet for the success of the New Deal for Lone Parents since its National launch on 26 October. Information from the pilot areas combined with provision for new claimants up to 25 September show 5,439 lone parents have moved into jobs or increased their hours of work.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 18 to 24 year olds who left the New Deal for non-subsidised employment had returned to the New Deal programme by 30 September. [57871]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 29 October 1998, Official Report, column 230.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by outcome, for those delivery units for which the information is available, the numbers of young people who have left the New Deal to date. [59177]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures show that the total number of people leaving New Deal to the end of August is 32,080. Of these, 17,300 have entered unsubsidised employment, 3,470 have transferred to alternative benefits, 1,810 have gone to other known destinations. The destinations of the remaining 9,510 is unknown. Breakdowns for the 143 individual Units of Delivery can be found in the Library.
  238
  GSS statistics to the end of September will be published on 26 November.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the costs incurred centrally in supporting the early implementation of the New Deal for young people. [59168]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The central costs incurred by the Employment Service and DfEE to the 30 September 1998 in supporting the early stages of the introduction of New Deal amount to £45.6 million. This includes infrastructure costs, preparation and implementation costs and Marketing costs.

  Schools
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about the policy of naming and shaming schools; and if he will make a statement. [58542]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The names of schools which have been found by OFSTED to be failing their pupils, or to have serious weaknesses, are a matter of public record, as are those which have received good reports. All inspection reports are published and are available on the Internet.

  There is general agreement that failing schools must be identified and tackled urgently in the interests of their pupils. In May 1997 the Government found a number of schools which had been under special measures for up to three years and took action to ensure that these schools were turned round, closed or given a fresh start. All schools coming into special measures from September 1998 will have two years to improve, be closed or, in exceptional circumstances, given a fresh start. Local authorities with schools which have now been on special measures for over two years have been asked to submit plans for urgent action. The Secretary of State will not hesitate to use his new power to direct the closure of such schools if that is necessary to ensure pupils have the quality of education they deserve. When such action is taken, it will be made public.

  Study or Training Leave
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when he expects the right to time off for study or training to become available to 16 and 17 year olds; [57679]

  (2) when he expects the regulations surrounding the right to time off for study or training for 16 and 17 year olds to come into force. [57680]

  Mr. Mudie
  We are working towards an implementation date of September 1999 for Part III of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (Right to Time Off for Study or Training).

  Course Vacancies (UCAS)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many course vacancies existed in the institutions engaged in the UCAS scheme immediately following the UCAS clearing procedure in(a) Autumn 1998, (b) Autumn 1997, (c) Autumn 1996 and (d) Autumn 1995. [58979]
  239
  Mr. Mudie
  Although throughout clearing Universities and Colleges notify UCAS which courses have vacancies and these appear in the national press and elsewhere, they do not declare the number of vacancies. Figures for the number of vacancies are therefore not available centrally.

  Jobfinder's Grant
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to extend the jobfinder's grant to people who work fewer than 30 hours a week; [58878]

  (2) what plans he has to extend the jobfinder's grant to non-New Deal applicants. [58879]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Jobfinder's Grant has always been available to jobseekers unemployed 2 years or more since its introduction as a national programme in April 1995.

  Jobfinder's Grant is a one-off payment of a grant of £200 paid at the discretion of Employment Service Client Advisers who decide if the grant is required to help with the client's transition back to work.

  GCSE and GCE A level achievements in Staffordshire 1993 to 1997 (i) (a) GCSE achievements in maintained schools

  Grade achieved at GCSE

  A*

  A*

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  U

  X

  Total

  1993

  Biology

  —

  8

  21

  52

  47

  40

  23

  6

  2

  10

  209

  Chemistry

  —

  7

  26

  30

  33

  12

  2

  2

  0

  0

  112

  Physics

  —

  11

  22

  31

  30

  18

  5

  2

  0

  1

  120

  Single science

  —

  25

  61

  130

  257

  323

  358

  183

  84

  46

  1,467

  Double award science

  —

  781

  1,030

  1,799

  1,737

  1,499

  999

  414

  126

  78

  8,463

  Other science

  —

  9

  102

  175

  161

  148

  70

  17

  0

  23

  705

  1994

  Biology

  2

  17

  24

  37

  55

  22

  12

  4

  2

  3

  178

  Chemistry

  6

  11

  23

  31

  26

  10

  3

  0

  0

  3

  113

  Physics

  5

  17

  17

  22

  11

  20

  3

  0

  0

  1

  96

  Single science

  2

  18

  54

  90

  227

  197

  108

  54

  30

  75

  855

  Double award science

  224

  629

  1,469

  1,735

  2,265

  1,568

  835

  298

  95

  244

  9,362

  Other science

  0

  2

  9

  22

  27

  22

  10

  3

  4

  1

  100

  1995

  Biology

  2

  4

  15

  12

  15

  17

  7

  2

  3

  0

  77

  Chemistry

  0

  3

  11

  9

  7

  5

  2

  0

  1

  0

  38

  Physics

  0

  5

  11

  7

  6

  6

  1

  1

  0

  0

  37

  Single science

  1

  10

  59

  103

  191

  205

  135

  43

  26

  47

  820

  Double award science

  338

  657

  1,560

  2,089

  2,378

  1,796

  978

  275

  128

  275

  10,474

  Other science

  0

  1

  1

  16

  19

  14

  10

  4

  2

  3

  70

  1996

  Biology

  7

  25

  48

  44

  26

  23

  6

  0

  0

  0

  179

  Chemistry

  4

  27

  35

  54

  27

  13

  6

  0

  1

  0

  167

  Physics

  9

  23

  51

  38

  21

  13

  9

  0

  3

  0

  167

  Single science

  2

  26

  91

  133

  247

  216

  135

  59

  26

  52

  987

  Double award science

  300

  808

  1,667

  2,130

  2,192

  1,705

  1,039

  328

  165

  262

  10,596

  Other science

  0

  1

  7

  13

  32

  24

  23

  3

  8

  5

  116

  1997

  Biology

  15

  42

  61

  36

  10

  10

  4

  1

  4

  1

  184

  Chemistry

  18

  41

  53

  37

  8

  4

  6

  0

  1

  0

  168

  Physics

  16

  42

  54

  38

  10

  6

  3

  0

  0

  1

  170

  Single science

  2

  12

  75

  68

  158

  135

  83

  34

  16

  28

  611

  Double award science

  279

  570

  1,355

  1,750

  1,791

  1,314

  705

  187

  109

  185

  8,248

  Other science

  0

  1

  5

  9

  31

  27

  19

  4

  3

  1

  100

  240
  During 1998, eligibility was extended to all New Deal participants. Due to the range of opportunities available on New Deal 18–24 it was decided to make Jobfinder's Grant available at Employment Service District Manager discretion.

  I am currently considering whether to extend the Jobfinder's Grant to people who work fewer than 30 hours per week. Indeed all Employment Service programmes and services, including Jobfinder's Grant, are constantly being evaluated to look at ways of enhancing the provision to meet unemployed jobseekers' needs in the ever changing labour market.

  Science Exam Results
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the grades achieved at(a) GCSE and (b) A level in each science subject in (i) schools and (ii) further education colleges in Staffordshire in each of the last five years. [57945]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 4 November 1998]: The GCSE and GCE A level data requested for schools and colleges in Staffordshire are shown in the following tables.
  241

  (i) (b) GCE A level achievements in maintained schools

  Grade achieved at GCE A level

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  N

  U

  X

  Total

  1993

  Biology

  51

  63

  68

  77

  89

  70

  82

  0

  500

  Chemistry

  62

  68

  59

  75

  78

  50

  52

  1

  445

  Physics

  56

  43

  61

  67

  94

  72

  46

  0

  439

  Other science

  6

  16

  16

  37

  31

  23

  9

  0

  138

  1994

  Biology

  40

  61

  92

  92

  117

  93

  45

  1

  541

  Chemistry

  50

  63

  70

  81

  101

  52

  43

  2

  462

  Physics

  54

  55

  59

  88

  72

  50

  33

  3

  414

  Other science

  6

  12

  22

  46

  36

  24

  7

  0

  153

  1995

  Biology

  41

  74

  82

  89

  103

  81

  50

  3

  527

  Chemistry

  45

  66

  73

  83

  64

  64

  38

  1

  435

  Physics

  50

  46

  69

  76

  53

  43

  21

  0

  358

  Other science

  7

  21

  26

  50

  28

  13

  5

  2

  152

  1996

  Biology

  40

  99

  102

  111

  109

  64

  41

  4

  570

  Chemistry

  56

  67

  103

  64

  73

  61

  34

  0

  458

  Physics

  49

  60

  55

  58

  85

  57

  31

  0

  395

  Other science

  4

  20

  20

  31

  26

  9

  5

  0

  115

  1997

  Biology

  65

  102

  89

  88

  113

  68

  33

  5

  563

  Chemistry

  59

  80

  83

  60

  58

  38

  36

  1

  415

  Physics

  60

  67

  62

  58

  70

  32

  20

  2

  371

  Other science

  4

  19

  29

  36

  25

  16

  4

  0

  133

  GCSE and GCE A level achievements in Staffordshire 1993 to 1997 (ii) (a) GCSE achievements in FE sector colleges

  Grade achieved at GCSE

  A*

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  U

  X

  Total

  1993

  Biology

  —

  24

  45

  108

  97

  92

  59

  44

  18

  34

  521

  Chemistry

  —

  1

  16

  21

  18

  15

  8

  1

  0

  7

  87

  Physics

  —

  5

  7

  21

  17

  15

  7

  5

  7

  5

  89

  Single science

  —

  7

  12

  25

  16

  7

  3

  5

  1

  10

  86

  Double award science

  —

  5

  17

  13

  7

  3

  0

  1

  1

  4

  51

  Other science

  —

  23

  48

  55

  20

  19

  4

  3

  1

  13

  186

  1994

  Biology

  5

  18

  58

  114

  110

  97

  58

  36

  13

  67

  576

  Chemistry

  0

  4

  16

  18

  18

  16

  6

  1

  2

  10

  91

  Physics

  0

  6

  10

  22

  25

  15

  7

  6

  1

  14

  106

  Single science

  0

  1

  17

  24

  13

  14

  9

  0

  1

  12

  91

  Double award science

  0

  0

  10

  17

  9

  8

  0

  0

  1

  2

  47

  Other science

  3

  22

  54

  36

  15

  9

  7

  2

  1

  16

  165

  1995

  Biology

  2

  22

  41

  79

  74

  61

  3

  2

  35

  42

  361

  Chemistry

  0

  1

  5

  19

  17

  9

  3

  0

  2

  7

  63

  Physics

  1

  6

  8

  15

  9

  7

  3

  0

  0

  6

  55

  Single science

  0

  0

  9

  11

  10

  9

  1

  0

  0

  5

  45

  Double award science

  0

  2

  14

  17

  9

  9

  0

  0

  1

  1

  53

  Other science

  3

  15

  34

  31

  8

  10

  0

  2

  0

  16

  119

  1996

  Biology

  1

  14

  44

  85

  72

  49

  5

  0

  20

  41

  331

  Chemistry

  0

  1

  8

  20

  14

  16

  6

  0

  2

  9

  76

  Physics

  0

  1

  9

  18

  12

  3

  2

  0

  2

  8

  55

  Single science

  0

  0

  3

  12

  7

  4

  3

  0

  2

  3

  34

  Double award science

  0

  2

  6

  15

  7

  4

  2

  0

  0

  3

  39

  Other science

  4

  13

  32

  27

  10

  2

  1

  0

  9

  20

  118

  1997

  Biology

  1

  10

  34

  42

  52

  32

  2

  1

  8

  27

  209

  Chemistry

  0

  2

  1

  6

  5

  5

  0

  0

  1

  6

  26

  Physics

  0

  1

  4

  5

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  18

  Single science

  0

  2

  1

  4

  3

  3

  1

  0

  0

  2

  16

  Double award science

  0

  0

  7

  2

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  17

  Other science

  0

  2

  1

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  19

  242 243

  (ii) (b) GCE A level achievements in FE sector colleges

  Grade achieved at GCE A level

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  N

  U

  X

  Total

  1993

  Biology

  20

  37

  46

  42

  47

  37

  59

  16

  304

  Chemistry

  22

  30

  21

  22

  25

  22

  20

  3

  165

  Physics

  18

  23

  20

  17

  28

  25

  29

  4

  164

  Other science

  12

  35

  38

  52

  51

  29

  58

  19

  294

  1994

  Biology

  23

  22

  38

  70

  56

  46

  36

  12

  303

  Chemistry

  26

  22

  22

  28

  27

  19

  19

  3

  166

  Physics

  17

  19

  25

  18

  22

  18

  26

  2

  147

  Other science

  16

  34

  43

  50

  41

  29

  46

  22

  281

  1995

  Biology

  25

  24

  45

  72

  76

  45

  69

  21

  377

  Chemistry

  23

  19

  19

  33

  42

  30

  28

  5

  199

  Physics

  15

  15

  25

  22

  43

  17

  16

  3

  156

  Other science

  13

  34

  27

  67

  60

  31

  30

  17

  279

  1996

  Biology

  9

  39

  46

  63

  67

  41

  35

  14

  314

  Chemistry

  11

  23

  27

  20

  27

  25

  23

  7

  163

  Physics

  7

  10

  20

  15

  24

  21

  28

  4

  129

  Other science

  6

  12

  35

  36

  26

  28

  28

  7

  178

  1997

  Biology

  3

  11

  18

  27

  34

  21

  35

  13

  171

  Chemistry

  1

  8

  4

  7

  9

  10

  1

  3

  43

  Physics

  5

  3

  6

  10

  14

  0

  6

  10

  54

  Other science

  9

  17

  14

  24

  22

  13

  16

  7

  122

  Millennium Bug Busters
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many millennium bug busters are currently in post. [59220]

  Mr. Mudie
  As at 5 November, 253 people had completed training under the Bug Busters Programme. 430 had started training and a further 1,294 were booked to go on courses.

  Further Education (Business Links)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to restrict off site collaborative provision between colleges, universities and business. [56698]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is concerned to ensure high quality and value for money in collaborative arrangements between further education colleges and business. In furtherance of these objectives, the Further Education Funding Council has made changes in the arrangements for such provision with effect from 1 August. First, colleges are prohibited from transferring funding to employers as part of a collaborative arrangement to provide education and training to their employees, except for the hire of equipment or premises. In addition, the funding guidance for 1998–99 stresses the need for colleges to address identified growth in their local communities. Should colleges seek to operate 244
  outside their local area, they would be expected to liaise with colleges in the locality concerned, thereby eliminating unhelpful and wasteful competition.

  As regards higher education, we have no plans to restrict universities' collaborative arrangements with business.

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (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; [56743]

  (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. [56745]

  Mr. Mudie
  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.

  Young Offenders (Profiles)
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what data he has collated on the ability profiles of young offenders. [59077]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Prison Service collates information on literacy and numeracy standards among prisoners from basic skills

  245
  screening tests carried out near the beginning of sentences. The tests are not compulsory and not all prisoners are screened. The results of the basic skills assessments in 1997 for juveniles and young offenders are given in the table.

  There are no centrally collated statistics across the probation service in England and Wales concerning the ability profiles of young offenders.

  Juvenile/young prisoners basic skills assessment tests–1997

  Standard (%)1

  Test

  Number tested

  Below level 1

  At level 1

  Above level 1

  Literacy

  8,697

  30

  38.5

  31.5

  Numeracy

  8,633

  43.6

  38.8

  17.6

  1 Standard: Level 1 indicates basic functionality in literacy and/or numeracy, above level 1 is higher while below level 1 indicates a clear deficit in literacy and/or numeracy

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Objective 5A
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many claims for funding the UK has made under Objective 5A for modernisation in agriculture, in each of the last three financial years. [56485]

  Mr. Morley
  Aid for on-farm investments was implemented in the UK through the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme. Although the scheme closed to new applications in 1994, grant continues to be paid on planned investments. The UK has made a claim in each of the last three years to the European Commission for expenditure incurred in the previous calendar year as shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Amount claimed

  1995

  2.6

  1996

  2.0

  1997

  1.3

  Countryside Stewardship
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the maximum amount of money the UK is entitled to reclaim from EU funds under the Stewardship Scheme for 1998–99. [56487]

  Mr. Morley
  We expect to be able to reclaim a maximum of £5.8 million from the EU for Countryside Stewardship in 1998–99.

  Pigs
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to provide assistance for the pig rearing industry during the last three months; and if he will make a statement. [56923]
  246
  Mr. Morley
  In the last three months the Government have supported all measures proposed by the EU Commission to meet the present crisis. These include:re-introducing export refunds on fresh and frozen bone-in carcase meat and extending the payment of export refunds to boneless cuts;
  a further increase in the rates of export refunds on fresh and frozen carcase meat as from 15 October, this time by around 30 per cent.;
  following the UK pig industry, the introduction of an Aids to Private Storage Scheme as from 28 September.
  all Ministers have had regular meetings with pig industry representatives.

  In addition, my Ministerial colleague, Lord Donoughue, hosted a pigmeat seminar on 7 July which was aimed at caterers. This was the first part of a programme of events that seeks to improve communication and understanding between the domestic pigmeat industry and the catering and food service sector. The second stage of the campaign, a seminar for 16 November, when Lord Donoughue will again take part. The ultimate objective of this programme is to increase the usage of pigmeat products in the important catering sector, thereby improving market opportunities for UK pig producers.

  I and my Ministerial colleagues will use this and every other opportunity, including our regular meetings with the retail and processing sectors and Parliamentary debates, to make it known that the British pig industry produces a quality product to high welfare and other standards. It is of the utmost importance for this to be fully appreciated and taken into account by processors, retailers, caterers and the final consumer.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of piglet mortality rates in the United Kingdom, and of the economic value this represents. [57925]

  Mr. Rooker
  A MAFF founded survey of pig producers co-ordinated by the University of Exeter estimated the average rate of pre-weaned piglet mortality in England for 1996–97 at 12.4 per cent. This represented a cost to the producer of about £1.30 per finished pig.

  Calf Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the scheduled end of the calf slaughter scheme on the beef market. [57297]

  Mr. Rooker
  We expect that some of the calves which might have been slaughtered under the Calf Processing Aid Scheme will be slaughtered on farm, some will be slaughtered as young calves for pet food and some reared for beef. We do not anticipate any significant effect on the UK beef market. Closing the Scheme on 30 November, as we have announced, will not affect the beef market until the beginning of the year 2000 when the calves reared as beef start to come on the market.

  BSE
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the costs of the current BSE inquiry. [57085]

  Mr. Rooker
  The estimated direct cost of the BSE Inquiry is £10 million, excluding departmental costs and legal support for departmental witnesses.

  Meat and Dairy Prices
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish figures to show the typical relationship between prices paid by shoppers in supermarkets and prices paid to British producers for a range of meat and dairy products. [57293]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry does not hold or publish figures showing the relationship between prices paid by shoppers in supermarkets and prices paid to British producers for meat and diary products. Figures for the farm to retail price spread for beef, lamb, pork and bacon are published by the Meat and Livestock Commission in "UK Market Survey—Monthly Supplement", copies of which are in the House Library.

  Meat Inspection Standards
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of standards of meat inspection carried out in other EU countries. [57725]

  Mr. Rooker
  All fresh meat produced in the EU which is intended to be sold for human consumption must be produced in accordance with EU harmonised hygiene rules. Amongst other things these rules require full ante-mortem and post-mortem checks by official

  Rates of hill livestock compensatory allowance 1976–98

  £

  Severely Disadvantaged Area

  Disadvantaged Area

  Year

  Rate per cow

  (at 1998 prices)

  Higher rate ewe

  (at 1998 prices)

  Lower rate ewe

  (at 1998 prices)

  Rate per cow

  (at 1998 prices)

  Rate per ewe

  (at 1998 prices)

  1976

  29.00

  118.59

  3.60

  14.72

  2.85

  11.65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1977

  29.00

  102.37

  3.60

  12.71

  2.85

  10.06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1978

  29.00

  94.56

  3.60

  11.74

  2.85

  9.29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1979

  29.00

  83.37

  4.10

  11.79

  2.85

  8.19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  35.00

  85.30

  5.50

  13.40

  4.25

  10.36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  42.50

  92.58

  6.25

  13.61

  4.25

  9.26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  44.50

  89.26

  6.25

  12.54

  4.25

  8.52

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  44.50

  85.32

  6.25

  11.98

  4.25

  8.15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  44.50

  81.29

  6.25

  11.42

  4.25

  7.76

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  54.50

  93.85

  6.25

  10.76

  4.25

  7.32

  22.25

  38.32

  2.12

  3.65

  1986

  54.50

  90.75

  6.75

  11.24

  4.50

  7.49

  27.25

  45.37

  2.25

  3.75

  1987

  54.50

  87.14

  6.75

  10.79

  4.50

  7.20

  27.25

  43.57

  2.25

  3.60

  1988

  54.50

  83.06

  6.75

  10.29

  4.50

  6.86

  27.25

  41.53

  2.25

  3.43

  1989

  54.50

  77.06

  6.75

  9.54

  4.50

  6.36

  27.25

  38.53

  2.25

  3.18

  1990

  54.50

  70.39

  7.50

  9.69

  4.50

  5.81

  27.25

  35.19

  2.25

  2.91

  1991

  63.30

  77.23

  8.75

  10.68

  4.90

  5.98

  31.65

  38.62

  2.45

  2.99

  1992

  63.30

  74.45

  8.75

  10.29

  4.90

  5.76

  31.65

  37.23

  2.45

  2.88

  1993

  63.30

  73.31

  6.50

  7.53

  3.60

  4.17

  31.65

  36.65

  2.86

  3.31

  1994

  47.50

  53.68

  5.75

  6.50

  3.00

  3.39

  23.75

  26.84

  2.44

  2.76

  1995

  47.50

  51.91

  5.75

  6.28

  3.00

  3.28

  23.75

  25.95

  2.44

  2.67

  1996

  47.50

  50.67

  5.75

  6.13

  3.00

  3.20

  23.75

  25.33

  2.65

  2.83

  1997

  197.50

  100.84

  5.75

  5.95

  3.00

  3.10

  169.75

  72.14

  2.65

  2.74

  1998

  47.50

  47.50

  5.75

  5.75

  3.00

  3.00

  23.75

  23.75

  2.65

  2.65

  1 Rate increased as a result of BSE-related special aid

  248
  veterinarians. We do not have specific information on the standard of meat inspection in other EU countries. It is for the competent authority in each Member State to ensure that such rules are followed in practice and it is the European Commission's responsibility to ensure that individual Member States comply with their Community obligations. The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carries out regular programmes of inspection visits to all Member States. If necessary, the Commission will take infraction proceedings against those Member States whose arrangements are considered inadequate. Reports of FVO visits are published on the Commission's website on the Internet (hhtp://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/vi/reports). A list of the relevant reports will appear each month in MAFF's Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report and BSE Enforcement Bulletin.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the value of hill livestock compensatory allowances in current prices for each year since 1975 for(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [57500]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: The following tables give the information requested in respect of both HLCA payment rates and HLCA expenditure. The rates for the Severely Disadvantaged Area and Disadvantaged Area apply throughout the UK. Additional supplements are paid in the Severely Disadvantaged Area which falls within the Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) region of Scotland. Payments in the Disadvantaged Area and the HIE supplements commenced in 1985. Expenditure data for 1976–78 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  249

  HLCA expenditure 1979–98

  £ million

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Total UK

  Year

  Actual

  (at 1998 prices)

  Actual

  (at 1998 prices)

  Actual

  (at 1998 prices)

  Actual

  (at 1998 prices)

  Actual

  (at 1998 prices

  1979

  13.5

  38.8

  14.6

  42.0

  23.7

  68.1

  5.5

  15.8

  57.4

  165.0

  1980

  18.5

  45.1

  19.8

  48.3

  31.4

  76.5

  7.1

  17.3

  76.8

  187.2

  1981

  21.5

  46.8

  22.8

  49.7

  35.0

  76.2

  8.2

  17.9

  87.5

  190.6

  1982

  22.1

  44.3

  23.4

  46.9

  35.7

  71.6

  8.4

  16.8

  89.6

  179.7

  1983

  22.6

  43.3

  23.8

  45.6

  35.9

  68.8

  8.5

  16.3

  90.8

  174.1

  1984

  22.7

  41.5

  23.9

  43.7

  36.0

  65.8

  8.7

  15.9

  91.4

  167.0

  1985

  24.0

  41.3

  25.2

  43.4

  37.8

  65.1

  10.1

  17.4

  97.0

  167.0

  1986

  27.3

  45.5

  28.7

  47.8

  42.9

  71.4

  12.5

  20.8

  111.4

  185.5

  1987

  28.4

  45.4

  28.6

  45.7

  43.1

  68.9

  12.7

  20.3

  112.8

  180.4

  1988

  29.1

  44.4

  31.3

  47.7

  43.6

  66.5

  12.9

  19.7

  117.0

  178.3

  1989

  29.3

  41.4

  30.2

  42.7

  45.1

  63.8

  13.6

  19.2

  118.2

  167.1

  1990

  32.5

  42.0

  32.9

  42.5

  48.0

  62.0

  15.1

  19.5

  128.5

  166.0

  1999

  37.2

  45.4

  36.2

  44.2

  56.1

  68.4

  17.7

  21.6

  147.2

  179.6

  1992

  38.4

  45.2

  38.2

  44.9

  56.9

  66.9

  19.1

  22.5

  152.7

  179.6

  1993

  33.4

  38.7

  29.7

  34.4

  50.7

  58.7

  18.6

  21.5

  132.4

  153.3

  1994

  27.5

  31.1

  27.1

  30.6

  40.7

  46.0

  14.7

  16.6

  110.0

  124.3

  1995

  27.2

  29.7

  27.1

  29.6

  39.4

  43.1

  14.0

  15.3

  107.6

  117.6

  1996

  27.1

  28.9

  26.9

  28.7

  38.6

  41.2

  14.5

  15.5

  107.1

  114.2

  19971

  41.4

  42.8

  35.8

  37.0

  62.5

  64.6

  27.8

  28.8

  167.5

  173.2

  1998

  25.4

  25.4

  24.1

  24.1

  38.7

  38.7

  13.0

  13.0

  101.3

  101.3

  1 Includes approximately £60 million of BSE-related special aid

  Source:

  HLCA autumn review tables; totals may not add due to rounding; 1998 figures are provisional

  HLCA supplements in the Scottish Highlands and Islands Enterprise region 1985–98

  £

  Rate per cow by land classification

  Rate per ewe

  Year

  Grade A

  (at 1998 prices)

  Grade B

  (at 1998 prices)

  Grade C

  (at 1998 prices)

  Rate

  (at 1998 prices)

  1985

  2.50

  4.31

  9.50

  16.36

  13.00

  22.39

  0.55

  0.95

  1986

  3.05

  5.08

  7.98

  13.29

  7.98

  13.29

  0.58

  0.97

  1987

  3.05

  4.88

  9.69

  15.49

  9.69

  15.49

  0.58

  0.93

  1988

  3.05

  4.65

  11.59

  17.66

  12.72

  19.39

  0.58

  0.88

  1989

  3.05

  4.31

  11.59

  16.39

  14.68

  20.76

  0.58

  0.82

  1990

  3.05

  3.94

  11.59

  14.97

  15.86

  20.48

  0.64

  0.83

  1991

  3.05

  3.72

  11.59

  14.14

  14.03

  17.12

  0.64

  0.78

  1992

  3.05

  3.59

  11.59

  13.63

  15.86

  18.65

  0.64

  0.75

  1993

  3.05

  3.53

  11.59

  13.42

  15.86

  18.37

  0.64

  0.74

  1994

  3.05

  3.45

  11.59

  13.10

  15.86

  17.92

  0.64

  0.72

  1995

  3.05

  3.33

  11.59

  12.67

  15.86

  17.33

  0.64

  0.70

  1996

  3.05

  3.25

  11.59

  12.36

  15.86

  16.92

  0.64

  0.68

  1997

  16.26

  6.47

  123.79

  24.61

  132.55

  33.67

  0.64

  0.66

  1998

  3.05

  3.05

  11.59

  11.59

  15.86

  15.86

  0.64

  0.64

  1 Rate increased as a result of BSE-related special aid

  Quarantine Exemptions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many exemptions have been given from quarantine regulations for cats and dogs over the last year; and on what grounds. [58661]

  Mr. Rooker
  None. However, commercially traded cats and dogs imported into the UK from EU Member States are exempt from quarantine if they can comply with the requirements of Council Directive 92/65/EEC. This allows commercially traded cats and dogs to be imported into the UK without the need to enter quarantine providing they: have been born on and kept on the holding of origin since birth; have been vaccinated against rabies when at least 3 months old; have remained in the Member State of origin for at least 6 months following vaccination against rabies; have undergone a blood test following 250
  vaccination to ensure that the rabies vaccination has been effective; are permanently identified; and are accompanied by a health certificate signed by an official veterinarian of the Member State of Origin verifying compliance with the requirements of the Directive. Further checks on compliance are conducted following each animal's arrival in the UK. 95 dogs and 22 cats were imported into the UK in 1997 in accordance with these requirements.

  Slaughterhouses (Stunning)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to amend the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 to introduce a maximum stunning to sticking interval for(a) pigs, (b) sheep and (c) cattle; and if he will make a statement. [58168]
  251
  Mr. Morley
  The Government have no immediate plans to amend the Regulations in this way. However, we await the European Commission's proposals to amend Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. As Community rules apply in this area, we believe that changes, such as the introduction of maximum stunning to sticking intervals for head-only electrically stunned animals, are best addressed in the context of developing those rules. We continue to press the Commission to bring forward their proposals.

  Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the total value of subsidies, in current prices, paid to farmers in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years through(a) his Department and (b) the European Union. [57506]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: The total value of payments to farmers made through this Department in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  294

  1989–90

  305

  1990–91

  358

  1991–92

  393

  1992–93

  568

  1993–94

  1,307

  1994–95

  1,444

  1995–96

  1,729

  1996–97

  1,794

  1997–98

  1,547

  Most of these payments are in respect of EU-funded CAP and environmental measures.

  Information on payments made direct to farmers by the EU is not held centrally.

  Recreational Fishing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many licences his Department has issued for recreational fishing under Part 2 of the Merchant Fishing Act 1995; and if he will make a statement on the percentage of the British quota allowed for recreational fishing; [57948]

  (2) if he will exempt recreational boats from periodic MAFF species bans; [57949]

  (3) when he proposes to introduce a register for recreational fishing; and how many staff will be employed by his Department to administer these records. [57950]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]: European Union regulations on annual total allowable catches and quotas require that all landings be counted against a Member State's share of the total allowable catch for each quota stock. All vessels over 10 metres in overall length which fish for profit are required to submit landing declarations for quota stocks. The landings made by all other vessels, including fishing vessels of 10 metres and under in overall length, and for which separate quota allocations operate in the United Kingdom, are monitored by Fisheries Departments. Where allocations are exhausted steps are taken to prohibit further landings unless additional
  252
  quota allocation can be made available. However, this does not prevent recreational anglers from fishing provided they return their catch to the sea. Occasionally temporary closures may operate to ensure that sufficient allocation is held back for seasonal fisheries.

  Separate allocations are not made in respect of vessels exclusively engaged in recreational fishing. Nor are such vessels licensed by the Fisheries Departments under the provisions of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and we have no plans to do so. The registration of vessels under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 is a matter for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

  Hens (Welfare)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will encourage EU Agriculture ministers to support a ban on battery cages for egg-laying hens. [58293]

  Mr. Morley
  We have made clear our view that the EU should set an early date for the phasing out of the battery cage and will continue to press for this in the ongoing EU negotiations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the proposed EU directive on the welfare of egg-laying hens. [58295]

  Mr. Morley
  We have received a number of written representations and have met with industry representatives and welfare organisations to discuss the proposals.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the additional costs to UK consumers of an EU-wide ban on battery cages for egg-laying hens. [58296]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU Commission estimate that the significant changes they propose in the standards for caged hens will cost between 1.2 and 1.56 ecu (80p—£1.11p) per EU consumer per annum. No estimate has been made of the additional cost to consumers of a ban. In practice this would depend on a number of factors including the available supply of shell egg and retail contracts.

  Badgers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the badger population of England and Wales. [58592]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made no direct estimates of the badger population of England and Wales. A report to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1995) based on surveys carried out in 1988 for the Nature Conservancy Council suggested pre-breeding badger population sizes of 195,000 in England and 35,000 in Wales. A report by the People's Trust for Endangered Species (1997) suggest that badger activity in Britain increased by 77 per cent. between 1988 and 1997. I understand those responsible for producing these figures are reviewing them, although no revisions have been published yet.

  Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have taken early retirement in each of the last 10 years; and what estimate he has made for the figure in 1998–99. [57937]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Figures are not available. There has been no Government funded early retirement scheme for farmers in the UK in the last 10 years, nor will there be one in 1998–99.

  Exports (Russia)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the total values, in current prices, of UK agricultural exports to Russia for each year since 1992; and what estimate he has made of the figure for 1998 to 1999. [57931]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: The table shows the value at current prices (prices at the time of trade), as recorded by the Overseas Trade Statistics of total agricultural exports to Russia between 1992 and 1997:

  Year

  £ million

  1992

  97.347

  1993

  208.169

  1994

  148.029

  1995

  136.225

  1996

  119.118

  1997

  157.479

  Note:

  The January-August 1998 figure is £105.319 million. No estimate has been made for 1999.

  Flood Prevention
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will increase funding to the Environment Agency for flood prevention measures. [58677]

  Mr. Morley
  Funding of the Environment Agency's expenditure on flood defence is met mainly by levies on local authorities. The cost of the levies is reflected in local authorities' Standard Spending Assessments (part of the Revenue Support Grant settlement). Capital works are also eligible for MAFF grant. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, MAFF is making £23 million of additional funding available over the next three years for capital works. The distribution of this funding between operating authorities (of which the Environment Agency is one) will depend on the relative urgency and priority of their planned works.

  Sheep Quota
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many complaints his Department has received about allocation of sheep quota from the national reserve; what was the total amount of compensation(a) offered and (b) paid to complainants in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [58676]

  Mr. Rooker
  Extraction of information on complaints by farmers referring to sheep quota national reserve allocations could be achieved only at disproportionate 254
  cost. No compensation has been offered or paid as a result of complaints made direct to the Department about sheep quota national reserve allocations.

  Ragwort
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give further guidance to highway authorities and landowners on the containment of ragwort. [58538]

  Mr. Morley
  The Highways Agency seeks to control ragwort on the trunkroad network in accordance with a code of practice for routine maintenance.

  General advice on control of injurious weeds, including ragwort, is available from MAFF Regional Service Centres. I am actively considering ways in which this could be more effective.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vets are employed by the Meat Hygiene Service; and how many of these are foreign nationals. [58491]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 600.

  Food Standards Agency
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whom the Government have consulted on the funding of the Food Standards Agency. [58993]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]: The White Paper 'The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change' set out the Government's proposals for funding the Agency. This has been the subject of full public consultation and discussion with a wide range of organisations and individuals. The Government will consult further at the next stage on detailed proposals for recovering the new costs associated with the Agency from the food industry in a way that is administratively simple and fair to small businesses.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the written representations he has received from Labour hon. Members in each of the last three months about problems facing the United Kingdom agricultural industry asked him to take action to help the industry. [58985]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]: We have received a large number of written representations on the current difficulties of a range of sectors. Many of these representations have called for measures targeted at the current situation, a look at longer term issues and for a constructive dialogue both with our EU partners and within the UK.

  Genetically Modified Seeds
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that no genetically modified seed will be proposed for inclusion on the
  255
  national seed list unless and until a marketing consent for that seed has been granted under Part C of Directive 90/220. [59045]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]: Marketing of the main agricultural and horticultural species cannot take place until a variety has been added to the UK National List or the EU Common Catalogue. For genetically modified varieties, marketing is also dependent on the promulgation of a marketing consent under Directive 90/220/EEC. National Listing would not, therefore, on its own, be sufficient to permit the marketing of a genetically modified plant variety. It is currently MAFF policy not to propose the addition of genetically modified plant varieties to the National List unless and until the relevant consent has been promulgated under 90/220/EEC.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Minister for Energy in the Republic of Ireland concerning the commissioning of the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield; and what response he has made. [59212]

  Mr. Rooker
  A letter has recently been received from Joe Jacob, T. D., Minister of State, Department of Public Enterprise, Republic of Ireland, expressing concern about the Environment Agency's proposed decisions to Government on the Sellafield Discharge Authorisations and the operation of the Mixed Oxide plant at Sellafield. The letter has been passed on to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment for a joint reply on behalf of both Ministers.

  Potato Seed Testing
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the dates on which he or his predecessors have exercised the power under Regulation 11(3)(c)(ii) of the Seed (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended) to require the testing of potato seeds for disease, pest resistance, general 256
  characteristics and consumer quality; and if he will provide details of each such occasion and the reasons for it; [59043]

  (2) for what reasons he is proposing to abolish his power to require the testing of potato seeds for disease, pest resistance, general characteristics and consumer quality under Regulation 11(3)(c)(ii) of the Seed (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended). [59044]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]: The tests for disease and pest resistance, general characteristics and consumer quality required in regulation 11(3)(c)(ii) of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended), have been published annually in the September and/or October edition of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette since 1985.

  This requirement was introduced in 1985 for potatoes for the same reasons as the other requirements of regulation 11(3)—that is to encourage breeders to screen varieties before entering them in to the statutory system and to deter them from entering varieties which had little chance of addition to the National List, at a time when the trialling system was overloaded and heavily subsidised. Some limited use may have been made of such data to persuade applicants to withdraw applications with little chance of success.

  A fundamental review of the National List trials system was undertaken in 1992, in consultation with plant breeders. Following this, a streamlined system of trials for Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) was introduced. This addressed the problems arising from the volume of applications for addition to the National List. The staged reintroduction of fees for official VCU trials in 1994 and 1995 reinforced the measures already taken to streamline the system. The requirement to submit the results of tests required pursuant to regulation 11(3)(c)(ii) had no value once the pressure on the system was relieved. A requirement to provide information which serves no purpose and which is not used places an unnecessary and unjustifiable burden on applicants. I therefore propose to revoke regulation 11(3)(c)(ii) for the same reason as I propose to revoke the rest of regulation 11(3).

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Grey of Codnor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Iran: Visas
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing I state that I am chairman of the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will relax the visa regime for Iran to accommodate the business community; and, if so, when.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, all Iranian nationals, including those in the business community, are required to obtain a visa in order to travel to or through the United Kingdom or any other member state of the European Union. There are no plans to remove this requirement.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the business community is being severely hampered by the length of time taken to process individual inward visas, which on occasion can take up to three months to process? Does he agree that with that approach the recent rapprochement will never develop? Will the Minister consider bringing together his officials in the Home Office, who I suspect are the principal culprits, and their counterparts in the Foreign Office to determine how this process can be reduced to a maximum of two weeks?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the principal culprits are not the Home Office officials, who can never be subject to a legitimate accusation of that kind. There is regrettably a delay in respect of business visitors. We need more staff at our embassy in Tehran. That embassy is waiting for two relief members of staff. What are they waiting for? They are waiting to be issued with visas by the Iranian authorities.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, as chairman of the All-Party Iran Group, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can reassure the House that, while allowing a good flow of businessmen in both directions, entry clearance officers will nonetheless keep a very close eye on possible Iranian terrorists, such as those from the National Council for Resistance of Iran and other organisations, who are quite worrying people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can give that reassurance. One of the central purposes of a visa regime is to ensure that our proper national security interests are keenly attended to. I repeat that we take our duties very seriously in that regard.

Infectious Salmon Anaemia
2.34 p.m.
Lord Nickson Lord Nickson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to eradicate the outbreak of infectious salmon anaemia in Scottish fish farms.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, under European legislation confirmation of the presence of ISA disease requires appropriate eradication measures. These include the clearance of sites, slaughter of fish, disinfection of the farm and fallowing for at least six months prior to re-stocking. In addition, rigorous movement restrictions are being imposed on farms within areas of high risk and a major programme of inspections carried out. Testing of wild stocks for the presence of ISA is also under way.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, as I am always, for the care with which he attends to all matters to do with salmon. Regrettably, I was unable to be present during the short debate on 27th October, although I have read all of the Minister's remarks in the Official Report. He indicated then the degree of resource that was being devoted to inspection. Does the Minister agree that had the Government accepted one of the recommendations of the Scottish Strategy Task Force that there should be a more rigorous and independent regime of inspection this disease might have been prevented in the first place? Further, whatever the methods of eradication, can he assure the House that continuing resources for independent inspection will now be put in place for the foreseeable future to ensure that even more virulent diseases from Norway do not cross the North Sea?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, to reply to the second question, we now have 17 fish health inspectors deployed on the ground and a further 18 scientific staff involved in the diagnosis of the disease. We shall maintain that level of resource for as long as is necessary to get on top of this particular infection. As to the noble Lord's first question, I am genuinely unsure whether anything that we could have done by way of inspection would have prevented the disease from coming here. However, as soon as it was reported to the department my officials reacted quickly and effectively.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister agree that despite the fact that live fish brought to Scotland must be accompanied by a health certificate, transport in the tank of a well-boat imposes great stress on them which in turn allows hitherto undetected disease

753
to develop? Since this disease is endemic in Norway, should transport by well-boat to Scotland be abolished altogether?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, there is no movement of live fish from Norway to Scotland. As to well-boats, I have set up a government and industry technical working group and asked it to look at the whole issue as a matter of urgency. As soon as I receive its report I shall be prepared to consider legislation when the need is made out.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as the majority of these fish farms are, as I understand it, Norwegian and Norway is not a member of the European Union, can the Minister say whether their hygiene regulations are as strict as ours?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the hygiene regulations that apply to fish farms in Scotland do not vary according to the ownership of the fish farms. Whether they are Norwegian, Scottish or anybody else's fish farms they are subject to the same regulatory regime.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, while I accept that fish from a suspect site in which the disease is thought to be present, because of the way in which the salmon are behaving, but has not been confirmed cannot be moved other than to market, is there not a severe danger that salmon may escape and spread the infection to other sites or into the wild population? Further, can the noble Lord assure the House that we shall not go down the same road as the Norwegians and describe this disease as endemic and stop trying to eradicate it and therefore see it spread to all our fish farms to their detriment, with the possibility of spreading it to the wild stock to its detriment?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I suppose that it is theoretically possible that escapees from a disease site can act as a means of communicating the disease. I do not believe that there is any point in seeking to deny that. But we have not had a new confirmed outbreak since, I believe, 10th September and it has been possible to establish site-by-site contact with all the infected farms.
We are committed to the policy of eradication. I think that we still stand a good chance of being able to knock the virus on the head and to rid our waters of the disease. That is where we are putting the resource; and that is what is driving policy.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, if movement from suspect farms to market is allowed, is there any danger to people who eat fish from those farms?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, all the scientific advice I have received is that there is no danger to people. They are not eating the diseased fish. Companies are allowed to market fish from the same fish farm. The virus cannot
754
replicate itself at temperatures above 24 degrees centigrade. That means that it cannot replicate within the human body.

Asylum Applications
2.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to control the flow into the United Kingdom of applicants for asylum, of whom only a small percentage have to date been accepted after the processes of investigation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Government's recent White Paper sets out a comprehensive strategy for modernising immigration control and reforming the asylum process. The key themes are speeding up the system, strengthening enforcement and minimising the incentive to economic migrants. The Government are determined to create a system which protects the genuine refugee but deters abusive claimants.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minster for his reply, in particular the determination he expressed. Bearing in mind that the Government's White Paper in July stated that many claims are a tissue of lies, is The Times correct in stating that about 50,000 applicants await decisions and some 23,000 await appeals? Is the case of bigamy being investigated in which a woman apparently married seven immigrant gentlemen and was found out only by chance?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, she was obviously a serial criminal if the noble Lord's allegations are true; and of course I cannot possibly comment on simple allegations.
The key is to ensure that we have an efficient, fast system, that we avoid the pollution of the system by manipulative delay and that we return failed asylum seekers promptly. In 1997, 7,000 failed seekers were removed. That is an increase of 50 per cent. on the previous year. Our intention is to increase that figure from 7,000 to 12,000 by the year 2001–02.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the small proportion of admissions may reflect either some baseless applications or the draconian character of the present admissions regime?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no, I think not. In the past 12 months there were 33,080 decisions; 17 per cent. were grants of asylum; and 12 per cent. were given exceptional leave to remain. That means that after a system which includes an appeal and the possibility of judicial review, 71 per cent. of all decisions were refusals. That is a serious figure.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should not play the numbers game as regards persecution of people? When people fear for their lives

755
there should be ways and means in which those refugees are admitted to this country. Is it not right that during the Conservative administration over 28,000 Ugandan Asians were admitted to this country who now play politically, economically and socially a useful part?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is to the everlasting credit of the government of Sir Edward Heath that he adopted a liberal and humane attitude to those who were fleeing from terror in East Africa. One does not need to be dictated to by figures. However, the figures are extremely large. We have to set out a system which is under judicial control but is nevertheless speedy, fair and efficient.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, of this year's applicants, is it the case that the great majority came from eight countries which had been torn by war or internal violence? Does the noble Lord agree that the current Refugee Week should do a great deal to dispel the prejudice and bias which has been displayed from some quarters against all asylum seekers?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Refugee Week will do good work if it explains the true position. As I have said many times, part of the true position is that some people, for reasons we all well understand, want to come here to better their economic circumstances. We do not and cannot have an open door policy. We have to be absolutely fair and prompt in dealing with genuine asylum claims.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while it is immensely important to deal firmly with bogus asylum seekers, this country has a great and honourable tradition of trying to help those who are genuine asylum seekers? The Government have to find a fair balance in the circumstances. Will my noble friend consider the policy—it is applied, I think, too often—of removing people during the period of consideration to areas away from their communities and families? That causes them grave misery and distress.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we receive many representations which are soundly based and some of the large metropolitan authorities are not able to cope with the strain and burden. Our policy is to offer decent accommodation outside the great urban conurbations, bearing in mind that one does not wish to leave people isolated and it is preferable if they are with people of the same country of origin. We simply cannot use the great authorities as dumping grounds for people with whom they are not able to cope.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if 71 per cent. of those seeking asylum turn out to be bogus asylum seekers, and if the vast majority come from a limited number of countries, what are Her Majesty's Government doing to discourage those individuals from originally attempting to start the process? If they could be discouraged, the noble Lord might find it somewhat easier to get rid of the vast backlog of claims.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if I were in the noble Lord's position, I am not sure that I should
756
necessarily talk about an enormous backlog. The backlog goes back to 10,000 in 1993. However, one does not wish to be partisan on these occasions—the noble Lord behind me says, "Not very partisan"! We are instituting visa regimes where there are problems because of civil unrest. We have done that quite recently. We also have airline liaison officers who do enormously important work because they are able to assist colleague authorities abroad in preventing inadequately documented passengers boarding the airlines in the first place. In the past year, 1,800 were stopped in that way. That saved probably about £14 million in welfare costs. I entirely agree with the noble Lord's point. We must have a distinct armoury of weapons to deal with the problems.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the 29 per cent. who have been granted some form of asylum or leave of residence is a quite large percentage rather than the small percentage that has been implied? One of the problems of those seeking escape from an oppressive regime is that they have to secure false documentation in order to escape. Therefore there needs to be careful control of the airline liaison officer work and of the transport companies, with the increase of liability for carriers, in order that those people do not become judges of individuals who are in a perilous position.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate referred to the figures I gave earlier which reflect the point made by my noble friend Lord Janner. One has to have a decent, humane, scrupulous balance between treating people fairly who have a legitimate claim and dealing firmly, promptly and efficiently with those who do not. The figure of 71 per cent. is still an alarmingly high proportion.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a high proportion of the people who have arrived in recent months have come from Kosovo? Will he accept that when people have suffered so intensely it is not a good idea to put them in prison when they arrive? Will he do something about the 30-odd people from Kosovo who are at present locked up in Rochester Prison and consider a more liberal policy granting temporary admission to those refugees?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, one has floods of potential asylum-seekers from particular countries depending on the civil unrest. We do not want people to be imprisoned in the prison estate. I visited Rochester Prison and I know that enormous problems are caused for immigration detainees and also for those who are trying to run the prison in the mainstream.
As soon as Sir David Ramsbotham's report was published indicating that one ought to have a discrete detention estate, the Government accepted the proposal. As the noble Lord knows, I indicated in a Written Answer that we would give consideration to electronic tagging for refugees. That suggestion was met with

757
utterly erroneous charges that we were being inhumane. In fact, we were being humane in considering having people not in detention but in controlled liberty.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is arguably unfortunate to put too much emphasis on target figures for the numbers to be returned and that the priority, for public opinion within this country and for public information abroad, is to have a clear story of effective, judicious and convincing arrangements for dealing speedily with deciding whether an asylum-seeker is legitimate?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I absolutely agree and that is a very important theme of the White Paper. As my noble friend will know, we have undertaken to give written reasons for detention, which is extremely important. We want to have bail applications after seven days and 35 days respectively of initial detention. We want expansion of the immigration detention estate, as I indicated a moment ago. We want the procedure to be prompt both in terms of initial determination and appeals. However, if people fail in their appeals there is no alternative but to require them to leave.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, is it not appropriate in this week of all weeks to strike a positive note about the contribution of refugees? Not only is it Refugee Week, but we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On this day of all days—the 80th anniversary of the Armistice—should we not be remembering that war and conflict cause so much of the impetus for refugees to leave their homeland and that only a tiny minority of the 22 million refugees worldwide come to Europe. Constantly to talk of floods and invasions is somewhat inappropriate. Secondly—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, the Minister referred to the strains put on metropolitan authorities and appeared to believe that the dispersal of refugees was appropriate—
Noble Lords: Speech! Reading!
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, would the Minister agree that a more useful arrangement to support refugees would be to bring back some kind of national support, instead of leaving the matter to local authorities which puts them and their communities under strain?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, sometimes it might be quite a useful device to read the White Paper. I put that entirely neutrally. Many of the proposed reforms are included in the White Paper and were put out for consultation with a very clear indication that
758
many of the desired changes would require primary legislation. And before anyone asks me, I am not allowed to prejudge anything in the Queen's Speech.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that again I am grateful to him for being non-partisan and for making favourable reference to the decisions taken on East Africa in the early 1970s, because I was a member of that Cabinet which took the decisions? What actions are the Government taking to curb the activities of the unscrupulous advisers who encourage applicants to make bogus claims and appeals, as described in the White Paper which I, for one, have read from cover to cover?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in my experience the noble Lord always asks questions on the basis of informed research and I am happy to repeat that. He will know that proposals are being put forward to register those who advise immigrants, whether or not they are qualified. I can tell your Lordships that the Home Secretary is in correspondence with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about how one registers someone who wants to offer advice in this field, whether they are members of the Bar or the Law Society, or simply unqualified scoundrels.

Royal Opera House
2.55 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the refurbished Royal Opera House opens on time and with a full cast.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are wholly committed to a secure long-term future for opera and ballet of the highest quality in the redeveloped Royal Opera House. The building work at Covent Garden is now well advanced. We expect the house to reopen in late 1999, on time and on budget. Covent Garden will be one of the most advanced and exciting venues for lyric theatre anywhere and will provide the stage for world-class opera and ballet.
In September the Royal Opera House Board announced a radical strategy to put the house's affairs on a proper footing. The Government fully support this strategy. Constructive discussions have taken place between the management and trade unions towards flexible new working arrangements. Another key element of the strategy will be the continued support of the private and corporate donors, whose generosity and commitment to the house should be applauded. It is the partnership of public and private investment which will provide a fitting stage for the dedicated artists of the Royal Ballet and Royal Opera.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, I have to say that fine words butter no parsnips. Does he recall that Sir Colin Southgate, the new chairman of the Royal

759
Opera House, appointed by the Government, has said quite clearly that it will need another £15 million a year to cover current costs? Given that the Royal Opera has received only about 25 per cent. of its current costs from public subsidy, as compared with between 70 and 80 per cent. in France and Italy and 90 per cent. in Frankfurt, does not the Minister agree that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will have to dip into his department's budget to find that extra money if he wants to have a "new dawn" rather than a "twilight of the gods".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that previous government spending on the arts was at a standstill for many years and was just less than £15 million a year. The Royal Opera House is now asking for a total of £25 million for 2000–01, which is to include £5 million from the private sector. I know that the noble Lord's concern will be taken into account when the Arts Council announces its allocation for future years in December.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, there have been discussions between the Royal Opera House management and the appropriate trade unions. Is he also aware that in the case of the dancers and singers there is no agreement? Is he further aware that the reason is that the management's proposals are quite unacceptable? Your Lordships may agree that they are outrageous when I say that the dancers are being asked to sign a contract which will oblige them to accept up to a 12-hour day and that, since opera is planned to take place for only three months, the singers are being asked to accept nine months' unemployment.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, under those circumstances, is my noble friend not surprised that there is doubt about whether the agreement to which he looks forward can be reached? Will he suggest to the Royal Opera House management that it must be more generous at the lower level even if it has to economise at a higher level?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept my noble friend's description of the situation in the negotiations. Negotiations with the Musicians' Union are almost complete. There are some residual negotiations about broadcasting, and tripartite discussions with the BBC are being pursued. Negotiations with Equity, which represents the dancers and chorus, will result in a ballot of the chorus in the next few days. There is no intention that there will be any compulsory redundancies among the performing staff.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, does the Minister happen to know whether Mr. Bernard Haitink has been asked to rescind his resignation? If he has not, it is eminently regrettable since he is by far the Royal
760
Opera House's greatest asset and is of infinitely more value than the maladroit and muddled management, both past and present.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not give a government judgment on Bernard Haitink's musical qualities but I am happy to give my own opinion, which coincides with that of the noble Lord. The Secretary of State is meeting Mr. Haitink today and it is inconceivable that he will not ask him to rescind his resignation.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that pleas for resources for the Royal Opera House take place against a background of highly sceptical public opinion and that any further resources for the Royal Opera House should be measured against proper financial management? Indeed, if it wishes to win public esteem "The Threepenny Opera" may be the best opening production.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of the well-publicised antagonism to the Royal Opera House. But the background against which the allocation of funding for the Royal Opera House should be seen—and this is not in any way prejudging what the Arts Council will say—is that there has been an increase in the budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the next three years of £290 million, of which £124 million will go to the arts.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House why the Government are not putting forward proposals to change the taxation rules along the US model to encourage further serious private donations, which play such a crucial role in the finances of the Royal Opera House? As the Minister knows, the Royal Opera House, like the Palace of Westminster, was built by Barry in the 19th century and is state owned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already paid tribute to the substantial donations which have been given to the opera house by private and corporate donors. They have not been particularly influenced by any tax differentials. We continue to look for new donors, both in the form of sponsorship of productions and for the running costs and the redevelopment of the opera house itself.

Regional Development Agencies Bill
3.2 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 7 [Strategy]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert (", and
(c) have regard to regional planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State for its area.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I always feel at this point in the afternoon's proceedings that one needs to have a sentence or two which is not germane to the

761
argument in order that noble Lords need not strain to hear it. Amendment No. 1 deals with a matter which your Lordships have addressed previously. It proposes that in formulating its strategy the regional development agency shall have regard to regional planning guidance for its area. At the last stage of the Bill the Minister rightly pointed out that there was a slight flaw in the drafting in that the regional planning guidance referred to was not limited to that issue—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I ask noble Lords to show some consideration for the noble Baroness who is trying to speak in the Chamber.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful. At the last stage the Minister pointed out that the amendment which I moved did not limit the regional planning guidance to that issued by the Secretary of State. I have rectified that with this amendment.
The Minister was sympathetic to the point. He said that the relationship between regional bodies and their documents was "of the highest importance" and that regional development agencies would need to have regard to regional planning guidance. He accepted also—I could not have come up with so appropriate a term—that the draft guidance on RDAs strategies,
"may not be as felicitous as all that".—[Official Report, 4/11/98; col. 317.]
I return to the point and seek to extend the debate. I invite the Minister to give, if he can, a clearer statement, either now or through the Secretary of State in the final version of the guidance, on regional development agencies' contributions to the spatial and land-use planning objectives and regional planning guidance supporting objectives for economic development. That is perhaps a small extension of the relationship between the two strategies, the two planning documents.
It is imperative that regional development agencies contribute to rather than undermine government's wider spatial strategy—regeneration, the integration of transport and land-use planning, and so on. That is the strategy both of central and of local government. I suspect that the two cultures of land-use planning and economic development think in rather different terms. The introduction of regional development agencies will be an opportunity to set them on tracks to come together rather than further to diverge.
I move this amendment—and am prompted to do so—in the context of an announcement made in the Chancellor's pre-Budget Statement last week. He said that the Government,
"are also re-examining planning regulations and building control to identify barriers to productivity and job creation, and how the planning system in Britain can be speeded up to help us to emulate the success of high-tech clusters and corridors".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/98; col. 683.]
He mentioned America's Silicon Valley. I appreciate that our discussions about the planning context for RDAs are about far more than development control and that the comment made by the Chancellor may have been more about particular applications of development control than strategic planning. However, when I heard
762
that comment and read some observations about it, I thought that even the last government, in their deregulatory heyday, did not think about deregulating planning in the way that some commentators suggest may be a part of that thinking. We would all agree that efficiency in dealing with planning applications is extremely important, but so is getting the decisions right.
The main point remains the mutual effectiveness of regional planning guidance and the strategy of RDAs. It may also be worth finishing with the secondary point that regional planning guidance provides the scope for dealing with environmental and social matters. We have discussed those and their relationship with economic decisions throughout the passage of the Bill. I am still concerned, as I know are others, that the draft guidance does not refer to environmental decisions and indicators. I look forward to development of the guidance and any further comfort in that area the Minister can give today. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the noble Baroness has, as she said, raised this issue at previous stages of the Bill and we have discussed it at some length. I believe, as the noble Baroness does, that there is no difference of objective between us. I accept also that she has taken my point about drafting and that the amendment is now more felicitous. Nevertheless, we do not believe that it is necessary; indeed, in certain circumstances, we feel it may be counter-productive.
First, we do not believe it appropriate to state on the face of the Bill something to which an RDA, like any other organisation, must have regard; that is, regional planning guidance. The Secretary of State issues regional planning guidance following the submission of a draft to which the RDAs will have contributed and on which all regional interests will have been consulted. It is also the Secretary of State to whom the RDAs will be responsible. No doubt, when they are operating, they will be aware of the Secretary of State's role in that respect. The relationship therefore between regional guidance and the regional development agency is not hierarchical; the two must be compatible.
As I have said previously, the key issue is that these new regional instruments, including regional planning guidance, are developing organically. It would cut across that organic development if we were to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill. In their day-to-day work and when planning their own development, regional development agencies will have to have regard to the planning framework in the same way as everyone else. They will contribute to the drawing up of that framework. It would be self-defeating for the RDAs to disregard it and they will have no incentive to do so.
Because the RDAs will be important consultees, the relationship between that process and their own process will form a vital part of the public examination of the regional planning guidance. It is intended—this may help the noble Baroness—to make clear in the department's revised guidance to the regional planning

763
body (PPG.11) that the RDAs will be contributors to that process. The revised guidance should be issued later this year.
In the development of their strategies the RDAs will also have to have regard to the land use planning dimension of the RPGs; their contribution to that will be important. There is no contradiction here. The noble Baroness was perhaps raising unnecessary anxieties in relation to the Chancellor's Statement and the review of planning controls which the Minister for the Regions—Dick Caborn—is carrying out. It is not intended to deregulate and remove the planning process; it is intended to update and modernise it, bringing in wider considerations. In any case, it will not undermine the importance of the planning system and the land use planning arrangements that we have in our regions.
The fact that the RPG has greater legitimacy than the RDA's strategy, local authorities being so involved in it, may lie behind the noble Baroness's insistence on the point today. Clearly for the moment both the RPG process and the RDA process are subject to the Secretary of State. If and when we move to elected regional assemblies a different situation will arise. For the moment they are both responsible to the Secretary of State and that is where the accountability lies. That is why there must be compatibility between the two approaches.
The noble Baroness asked whether we would be developing appropriate indicators for RDAs that would include sustainable development and so forth. We shall certainly deal with that issue in the final guidance to assist RDAs in drawing up their strategies, taking into account consultation on the initial draft guidance.
The development of regional strategic frameworks by all the relevant bodies working together and in parallel is an important step towards the creation of a much more effective and, ultimately, a much more democratic regional planning process. There is no implication here that the RDAs would undermine the RPGs process. Indeed, the opposite will be the case. They will be complementing and feeding into it. As the noble Baroness said, the draft guidance to RDAs on their strategy could be improved to reflect that better. I am happy to confirm that point.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate that this developing process is best served by relationships being established in the regions between the various processes and various institutions rather than laying down a quasi-hierarchical structure, as would follow from the incorporation of this clause in the Bill. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendment. I give a commitment to the whole House that her objectives and mine will be met in this process.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those generous words. I agree that it is a question of ensuring that the guidance is right at this stage. My only comment is that, recognising that it is the same Secretary of State who will deal with both issues, I hope that he and his successors will see themselves as
764
wearing one hat rather than having a wardrobe of hats which are changed according to the matter under review. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert—
("(1A) In formulating a strategy in accordance with this section, a regional development agency shall carry out consultation with government departments, statutory bodies, organisations representative of business and such other bodies with an interest in its work as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I said on Report that I was unhappy with the Minister's reply to a similar amendment. Having studied Hansard, I am even more so. I therefore propose this amendment in the hope that the Government will be prepared to think again. I shall not repeat the detailed reasons I gave on Report for the amendment. In short, the Bill places a duty on RDAs to consult when preparing their strategies and Clause 8 states that they should, in particular, consult with local authorities. Amendment No. 2 would ensure that the RDAs also consult with other agencies and businesses, as spelt out in the amendment.
The Minister's reply on Report was helpful and certainly showed that she had understood my concern. If I may say so, the noble Baroness has done so on other matters before and I am grateful to her for that. On 4th November the Minister said that RDAs, having read and, it was hoped, understood the Government's guidelines, would probably do as my amendment demanded. She also accepted in col. 320 that my amendment,
"hit on the heart of the matter".
If so, why is it not on the face of the Bill?
I must accept that although my amendment is all-embracing, and I want it to be so—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester at Report stage—the noble Baroness spotted my specific anxiety when she said, at col. 321,
"We envisage it [the RDA] will include the Government Offices in the regions, which will be the normal liaison point between RDAs and government. Government Offices will have close contact with all government departments, including MAFF".
I believe the Minister spotted my concern at the time; that is, that agriculture and rural matters should be prominent in the RDAs' strategy. At col. 298 the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said,
"As agriculture is so important to the regional strategies … the Minister of Agriculture will be an important component of the decision making process".
Again, at col. 340 on the same day, he said,
"The agricultural interests will be represented here".
If so, why is it not on the face of the Bill? The only reason I can discern is from the remarks of the noble Baroness at col. 323 when she reminded us of the Pepper v. Hart case. I fear that I cannot accept her argument in this instance. Having specifically mentioned local authorities in Clause 8, lawyers may

765
well conclude that the organisations mentioned in my amendment, but which are not mentioned specifically in the Bill, may be excluded.
I can see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, scowling. I hope that he agrees with me, although I suspect that he will not. What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander. I expect the Minister will repeat all the assurances that she gave me and then say that my amendment is unnecessary. However, it is not. Over the past 18 months, as a farmer and rural dweller I have been given assurances and promises ad infinitum, but so far they have all turned out to be jam tomorrow. I am afraid that I find the Minister's assurances on this Bill fall into the same category. Indeed, my suspicions were confirmed when I looked at the list of those recently appointed as chairmen of RDAs.
Without reflecting upon their ability—which I certainly do not—none of them, in my opinion, has a true rural or agricultural background. I very much doubt whether many of them could tell the difference between a turnip or a swede, although I have to admit that occasionally nowadays I find difficulty in so doing. I have in mind in particular the one for the south-west region. My noble friend Lord Arran is not here today, but he pointed out that the south-west region was predominantly agricultural. I do not think that the chairman was an agriculturalist there.
I suggest that the Minister should take out her red pencil. If she does not have one, I can lend her mine. She should then cross out the word "Resist" which is printed on her brief and accept my amendment. I believe that it would seriously clarify and improve the Bill which, it is to be hoped, is still the main purpose of your Lordships' House, frustrating though it is. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I had no intention to speak on this amendment, but whenever I hear mention of Pepper v. Hart it drags me to my feet. I am not quite sure whether my noble friend who so clearly and eloquently put forward his case had a reserve in his mind about the possibility of that case being of use in getting the regional agencies to understand the Government's intention.
However, I feel bound to say that even if one were to accept the validity of the principles of Pepper v. Hart—which I have always found difficult to do—it would merely enable a Minister who is handling a Bill in either House of Parliament to be quoted by those who want to hang on to his words perhaps for years afterwards. It would be very dangerous indeed to regard reliance upon Pepper v. Hart as a substitute for accepting the views put forward by my noble friend.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, because it emphasises the need for RDAs to carry out consultation with other bodies where appropriate. While effective networks already exist within county areas—and these include local authorities and representatives of the private and voluntary sector—they do not yet exist in the same way across the regions.
766
For example, the partnerships which already exist in Nottinghamshire, from where I come, are well established but the same is not yet true of the East Midlands.
I believe that most of those bodies have a clear commitment to support the future work of the RDAs. Indeed, it is to their advantage to do so. But that commitment, which includes significant and considerable knowledge and expertise, will be lost unless the RDAs for their part are committed to carrying out appropriate consultation with such bodies. In that respect, I am thinking especially of the voluntary sector and faith communities with which I have a particular link. I remind your Lordships that their experience and involvement in such matters as development of community and concern for social regeneration are extensive. It is vital for us all that RDAs succeed in their work. That is why I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment, which simply requires proper and appropriate consultation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, the purpose of Amendment No. 2 to put on the face of the Bill a requirement for RDAs to consult with government departments and other interested bodies in the region when producing their strategies. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has put forward a powerful argument for this to be a statutory requirement. Like us, he recognises that this is a vital matter.
The Government fully agree with the noble Lord that it will be vital for RDAs to consult widely when producing their strategies. We are grateful that he has provided us with an opportunity to emphasise the importance that we place on full and proper consultation. Indeed, I remind noble Lords that the draft statutory guidance, on which we are currently consulting, specifically says that the RDAs,
"should consult widely with Government and other interests nationally and within the region".
The noble Lord referred to Clause 8. In fact, he is wrong. It does not require RDAs to consult with local authorities, as he suggested. It makes provision for the Secretary of State to designate a "regional chamber" for the RDA and for the Secretary of State to issue directions in relation to consultation if it is deemed necessary. We do not expect to have to issue such directions. We expect RDAs to consult widely in their regions about strategies and, where appropriate, in relation to their functions more generally.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell is correct to say that the process of development of the "effective networks", including voluntary groups and local authorities, has progressed at different rates in different regions. However, I am sure that very good progress is being made in all regions towards this coming together of such interests.
Our view is quite clearly expressed in the consultation document which has been circulated. It reflects both our view and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that it would be unacceptable for the RDA to produce its strategy without consulting regional interests. If the

767
strategy is to provide a framework for economic decision-taking in the region, it is essential that it commands the support of the region. In producing their strategies, RDAs will bring together the work and activity of a wide range of organisations, including, for example, business, industry, local authorities, TECs, Business Links, trades unions, rural and environmental interests, which are obviously central and of great importance, higher and further education and the voluntary sector; indeed, a wide range of interests needs to be taken into account. For the strategies to be successful they will need to command the support of the region so that they can become the basis for regional economic decision-taking. That will be possible only if they consult widely with local and regional interests. It would be inconceivable for the RDAs to develop strategies without regional partners being closely involved.
The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that it will also be essential for the RDAs to consult government about their strategies to ensure that they are consistent with national policies. Unless they do that, the Government will not feel able to endorse the strategies or use them as the basis of their decisions about regional matters. This does not mean that RDAs' strategies will simply restate national policy. They will need to reflect fully not only national policies but also be able to do so in a way which best suits the circumstance of the region.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that there is no difference in our desire to see the RDAs consult fully on their strategies. Perhaps the only difference between us is how we ensure that is achieved. The noble Lord seeks to put a requirement on the face of the Bill; the Government feel it is not necessary to do that to achieve his objective.
We think it is right that the Bill should give RDAs a framework of powers to allow them to make decisions which reflect the circumstances and needs of their regions. We purposely chose not to take a prescriptive approach. The RDAs will be accountable to Ministers and Parliament for their decisions and the Secretary of State has powers to give them guidance and directions both generally and in relation to their strategies, should that be necessary. He could therefore direct an RDA to make arrangements for appropriate consultation, but we have every confidence that it will not come to that.
The noble Lord tempts me into a discussion on the use of the words "turnip" and "swede". I was born in the east Midlands—to which the right reverend Prelate referred—and then moved to Lancashire and I realise that the names are not the same across the country. The vegetable may be known as a turnip in the south but it becomes known as a swede in the north. Further north in Cumbria it is known as a neep. In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will feel this has been a helpful and comprehensive reply and that he will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I noted with interest that my noble friend Lord Renton managed to put to bed the Pepper v. Hart aspect. The noble Baroness did not take that up. However, like my noble friend, I believe it would be much better to have the provision I seek on the face of the Bill than to resort to Pepper v. Hart because, believe it or not, not everyone reads Lords' Hansard. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his remarks, which were similar to those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. My amendment has much relevance to the institutions he mentioned.
The Minister said it would be inconceivable for the RDAs to develop strategies without regional partners being closely involved. I have to tell her that nothing is inconceivable. The October weather was inconceivable but it happened. Therefore I do not trust anyone, let alone myself, to act in the way the Minister thinks we should. It was a case of jam tomorrow but not jam today. We never seem to get jam today, although I have great hopes that the new agriculture Minister is close to giving us jam. Not everyone reads the guidance notes. As a matter of interest, on the previous occasion we discussed this matter the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester could not find the guidance notes. I know the RDAs should read the guidance notes, but that is not the same as having a provision on the face of the Bill.
As I understand Clause 8—I spent a fair amount of time trying to fathom it out—I may have been slightly economical with the truth in my remarks in so far as the RDAs do not have to consult with local authorities but the Secretary of State can make them do so. That is a case of splitting hairs as to whether the Secretary of State tells them to consult or they tell themselves to consult and set up a consultative body. I believe that is what Clause 8 achieves. The noble Baroness looks as confused as I was to start with, but I think I have the matter right this time, or near enough right. I am not happy with the situation. I would have much preferred to have the provision on the face of the Bill, but I shall leave it at that.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
3.35 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
This is an important Bill. It provides for regional development agencies to be established in each of England's nine regions. Once the Bill is passed we intend to set up eight regional development agencies this year and one, for London, in the year 2000. The Bill takes forward a key manifesto commitment to decentralise decision-taking to England's regions. The regional development agencies will provide for effective, properly co-ordinated regional economic development and regeneration, and they will play a major part in ensuring the future economic prospects of all the parts of English regions. The statutory purposes of the RDAs have been developed from experience of the existing agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But they also reflect the objective of this

769
Government to ensure that economic problems are considered in an integrated way, tackling business competitiveness and the need to increase productivity, but also the underlying problems of unemployment, skills shortages, social exclusion and physical decay.
As noble Lords will be aware, this is the first Bill I have taken through as a DETR Minister. I wish to record my thanks to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate from all sides of the House. It has been a useful experience for me and I hope it has been an informative experience for the House. I hope noble Lords do not think it remiss if I pick out one contributor in particular; namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, who played an especially important part in the scrutiny of this Bill. With her customary politeness, but nevertheless a focused determination, she made the case for the rural areas. The Bill now gives Ministers a clear remit in respect of the appointment of board members to ensure that the needs of a region's rural areas are taken into account. The Government listened on that occasion and agreed that that would be an improvement to the Bill. I think it was a good use of the House of Lords' procedures.
Anyone who follows the regional press or visits the regions will know that many people have high expectations of regional development agencies. There is much support for them even in regions in which traditionally there has been no strong regional identity or regional co-operation. Once the Bill is passed, it will of course be primarily up to the regions and the agencies themselves to deliver more effective and enhanced regional prosperity which will benefit all parts of all the English regions. This is a good Bill. I thank everyone who has participated.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Witty.)
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, there is one matter that I wish to mention at this stage. During the passage of the Bill I spoke about the good service rendered to rural communities by the rural community councils and their relationship with the Rural Development Commission, which is to be disbanded. It emerged that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, and I had the same wish to see this good work continue as before. That was good news. However, I still have anxieties as to whether that will happen. Until now the Rural Development Commission has had a clear remit to maintain the rural community council network. The Government have currently renewed this—through the new Countryside Agency—but only until the year 2000. However, the noble Baroness gave the House good assurances as regards the Government's intentions thereafter. But what is to happen after 2000? That still remains a pretty open question.
The main options for continuing this work are through either the regional development agencies or the new Countryside Agency or a mix of both. Reading the Bill, the prospectuses and the guidelines for these new agencies, it is clear that so far these agencies have not been designed to carry on this work of a long-term, comprehensive countryside role in the way the Rural Development Commission has done until now. Thus, as
770
matters rest at present, there is an area of public policy central to the Government's core mission which risks being lost by default. It is to be hoped that there is still time to get these matters right, but it may well not be easy. It is important that we should proceed, as far as possible, on the old lines we have known, to work very much on the principle of "If it ain't bust, don't fix it", and to stay as near as we can to where things were before.
As to the social work side of what has been done by the Rural Development Commission, I hope that the central monitoring unit of the commission will be retained on a national basis. Otherwise I fear very much it will disintegrate.
That is the unfinished business that I felt I must mention at this stage.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I rise briefly to give my thanks to both Ministers for listening at Committee stage when I put forward an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to consult those who represented rural interests when appointments were made to the RDA boards. The amendment I proposed at that stage had been tabled in another place by my honourable friend Tim Yeo and brushed aside. It is a recognition of the work of your Lordships who spoke on that occasion, and also a tribute to the work of both Ministers, that in this House the amendment was given a better, more thorough hearing. I am grateful to the ministerial team, not only for listening but for obtaining agreement in the DETR that the amendment should be brought forward and adopted on Report, with the more felicitous wording that the Government were able to achieve.
I understand from some Members of your Lordships' House that there is a view that there is unfinished business. I am sure that that will remain a view despite the welcome to some parts of the Bill. I am equally sure that your Lordships will have the opportunity in further debate to test how effective the provisions of the Bill have been once it comes into operation. I am sure that your Lordships will be holding the ministerial team to account for the operation of the Bill in the future. At this stage I wish to record my thanks to the ministerial team. I hope that, with your Lordships' help, I shall be able to persuade them to be so receptive in the future.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise briefly to congratulate the Minister. As he pointed out, this is the first Bill that he has taken through his department. I congratulate not only him and his colleagues but express my warm appreciation to the Government for their initiative in creating the opportunities that the Bill will present. As the Minister has said, it is not a new idea but is built upon experience in other regions.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Particularly the north.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, particularly the north, as my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington has pointed out.

771
It is a stimulus for organisations such as the co-operative movement. I am very proud of my association with that movement. The creation of the Bill has concentrated minds of a disparate nature in the co-operative movement and ensured that it speaks with one voice in putting forward its ideas of what it would like to see happening in each of the regions—not only in retailing, but banking, credit, housing, agriculture and a great many other spheres. Throughout the co-operative movement there has been a recognition that there should be a synthesising of its interests in order to maximise the strength of the voice that it can make heard at a regional level.
The Minister and his colleagues have made a very good start, even though there has been some criticism. There is a general acknowledgment that anything the Government can do to concentrate the minds of people in the regions on the benefits that can come from working together in partnership and by maximising the existing strengths, led by a Government-inspired team, is well worth pursuing.
I congratulate the Government on what they have done. The phrase "unfinished business" has been used more than once. I have always been prepared to let the Government have their way and to see what happens in the event. This House will have a continuing role in monitoring what happens in the regions. One of the strengths of this House is that there are people from all regions, with experience and contacts, who will take every opportunity to remind the Minister where the Government are going wrong. Once again my thanks to the Minister and the Government for this initiative.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when the Bill started its passage through this House I said that we broadly welcomed it. That is still the case. We hope that a regional approach to regeneration will prove to be effective. I, too, would like to thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for the time that they have given outside as well as inside the Chamber, in helping to forward discussion on the Bill. I also thank my own colleagues and, like others, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, who has been so constructive in edging us forward to a position where the Bill really does reflect rural concerns in a way that was not apparent on the face of the Bill when we first saw it, whatever the intentions.
I hope that the Government will take on board the constructive comments that I know will be coming their way on both sets of draft guidance. I have already commented that it might be more appropriate if the sustainability aspects were not dealt with in such a way that they could be interpreted as some sort of add-on. That goes back to an earlier, very important, discussion, which will continue as the agencies get up and running.
I look forward to the designation of the regional chambers. I wish I could look forward with any reasonable level of optimism to their funding being adequate to the task that they will have to undertake. I am well aware of the great disparity in the funding of the various chambers. This is an important Bill. We wish the agencies, the chairs who have been
772
designated—and one of them is listening to this debate—the members who are to be appointed and their staff the very best in what is an extremely important job.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, as we come to the last stage of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and, at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton for their courtesy throughout all its stages. I also thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon and other colleagues on my Front Bench who have assisted me throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly want to add my thanks to the Minister for the amendment about rural interests, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, for her persistence in ensuring that this was achieved.
I wish, however, that it had been possible to make more changes to this Bill. In the White Paper and at Second Reading the Bill was held out as a major decentralising measure. But nothing has been done to this Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House to alter the fact that, in my view, it is a centralising measure. It provides a vehicle for the exercise of power by the Secretary of State. His hand is upon the levers of power. He appoints, he gives his guidance, he gives his directions, he decides whether or not he will delegate to the Regional Development Agencies the powers that he has vested in him by Parliament.
There are a number of specifics which remain outstanding. The position of local government is still unsatisfactory. The Government have failed to put upon the face of the Bill the number of local government members to be appointed to each Regional Development Agency, although I understand from the assurance of the Minister that four members will be appointed.
I remind your Lordships that the Government have also refused to put on the face of the Bill the provision for local government members who lose their electoral mandate to resign. I concede that the Government have suggested—I am grateful to the Minister for what I am sure is a helpful and well intentioned suggestion—that if no active members of local government within the area were left on the RDA it might be possible to use the terms of the appointment letter to remedy the situation. I accept this Minister's assurances but I would have preferred for the future to have had some safeguards on the face of the Bill. I submit to your Lordships' House that local government has a special position. It is elected locally and it is capable of bringing an element of elected accountability to the regional development agencies.
My second outstanding concern is the Government's refusal to contemplate any alteration in the number of regions at some time in the future. The number is nine—I have got it right today—but it must remain nine irrespective of how matters turn out. This measure was designed, we are told, to give power to the regions. The Government have taken the regions as designated by the previous government for their regional offices, with one exception, determined that they shall be the regions for RDA purposes. There

773
has been no determination of the boundaries by the Boundary Commission and there is no provision for the Boundary Commission to review them. The only alteration that is possible, under Clause 25 of the Bill, is to the extent of a region and not to the total number. The Government have even rejected the possibility of such a review and an alteration in the numbers after five years.
Local interests are being forced into the constraints imposed by central government with no real chance of a separation if that proves to be the local wish. Although Ministers have denied that these proposals in any way pre-empt decisions on boundaries for regional assemblies if they come about, there can be no doubt whatever that, as a result of the pressures imposed by the regional development agencies within the areas, the Government are, whether it is intended or not, forging regions which do not currently exist, which do not currently have a significant coherence and which may not be best for the delivery of local services and policies. I have no doubt that everyone involved will do their best to make the regional development agencies work for their regions and, in so far as they are concerned with prosperity and employment, everyone will hope that they work and will wish them success. But we should not be under any illusion that they are local bodies. No one should be under any illusion that they will not impact on local government in the areas and on the policies and functions of local government. They will be quite different from the UDCs of the past.
We will have RDAs for the whole of England. The whole country will be covered by centrally appointed bodies answerable and accountable to the Secretary of State, a point made on an amendment earlier today by the Minister. I shall not repeat the core functions and the many policies and programmes in which regional development agencies will be involved. However, we do not know, beyond the possibility of TECs' funding, what else the Secretary of State may choose to delegate to the RDAs.
With funding from central government—what impact that will have on other bodies, despite assurances given, is difficult to tell—the regional development agencies are poised to be significant players in their area. In so far as they deliver prosperity and employment, we wish them success, but it is the ability of the Government to manipulate them that should not be under-estimated. We should not portray this in any way as a decentralising measure or an empowerment of the regions. It certainly should not be described as power to the regions and decentralisation.
For that reason, because so much is coming together in the hands of the Secretary of State, we shall follow the progress of the regional development agencies very closely indeed. If the RDAs are to be accountable through the Secretary of State to Parliament, it is in Parliament that questions about their functions will have to be asked and answered.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I note all of their remarks, including those that will be pursued in another
774
context. I refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton. I would make just one point to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. The Bill is a serious contribution to the decentralisation of power. It cannot be taken on its own. It is an initial stage. But, together with the cumulative process to which this Government are committed, we will truly be devolving power, both democratically and administratively, to the English regions, to the greater benefit of all our regions and all parts of our regions. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 95 [Short title and commencement]:
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Excepted matters]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 53, line 40, after ("legislative") insert ("and other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is designed to widen the scope of paragraph 3(b) of the schedule to include the exercise of powers other than and in addition to legislative powers. In the course of our debates on Report yesterday, there was a recurrent desire to ensure that rigidity does not occur at any stage subsequent to the passage of the Bill. The very fact that thus far the Government have found it necessary to introduce more than 450 of their own amendments to the Bill—I have heard that we can expect more amendments at Third Reading—points to the necessity for providing the Government with sufficient flexibility to cope with the emergence of unexpected flaws, as emerge they will, without recourse to further legislation. As this paragraph deals with a wide range of international relations, I trust that the Government will eagerly accept the degree of flexibility which my amendment offers. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, before I respond to the noble Lord's specific amendment, it may be helpful if I say a few words, as I did in Committee, about our general approach to Schedules 2 and 3 as they are fundamental to what we are seeking to achieve in the Bill. We have been concerned in these schedules, as elsewhere in the Bill, to give effect to the Belfast agreement. Paragraph 27 of the agreement provides that the Assembly will have authority to legislate in reserved areas with the approval of the Secretary of State and subject to parliamentary control. We did not therefore have the option of removing the reserved category or fundamentally changing its nature.

775
We have accordingly taken as our starting point the divisions between excepted and reserved matters set out in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
As your Lordships will recall, we have had to bring some of the descriptions in the schedules up to date for one reason or another. Putting matters in Schedule 2—the excepted field—is a big step, a once and for all move. Clause 4 of the Bill allows for movement between the reserved and the transferred fields by Order in Council. On the other hand, excepted matters cannot be moved out of that category other than by way of a Westminster Bill. The Assembly will not be able to legislate on any excepted matter except where it is ancillary to other provisions. This differs from the Scotland Bill where there is no such inflexibility. It therefore follows that we should only put matters in the excepted category where, in all the circumstances, it would be wrong for the Assembly to have any power at all to legislate on any aspect of them, even a peripheral one, and where we see no likelihood of the situation ever changing. We have therefore sought to retain flexibility by preferring the reserved category. The result is the list of matters in Schedule 3. That list includes a number of matters which the agreement envisages as being suitable for transfer such as criminal justice and policing. Some of these matters may be transferred sooner rather than later, but only when the time is right and there is a general agreement required by the Bill.
There are other matters in Schedule 3 which we do not envisage transferring. However, it may at times be useful for the Assembly to be able to legislate on some of these matters; in some cases on the core of the subject matter and in others only at the margins. Such legislation would only be possible with the consent of the Secretary of State and will be subject to parliamentary control under Clause 13.
Before moving on, I should also like to underline a point that I have made to your Lordships before about the differences between our approach and that of the Scotland Bill. The key to this lies in the fact that the Scots have started with a clean sheet whereas we are building on a legal foundation of arrangements for devolution in Northern Ireland going back many years which were affected in some degree by the agreement. There are some areas where our approaches converge and others where comparison may be deceptive. I hope that your Lordships find that introduction helpful because it underlies a great deal of the Government's approach to the amendments we shall be discussing.
I now turn to the specific details of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I am grateful to him for his explanation. The purpose of Schedule 2 paragraph 3(b) is to ensure that the Northern Ireland Assembly has the necessary legislative competence it needs in order to give effect to agreements or arrangements made in the North-South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council under Clause 51 or in relation to the activities of North-South implementation bodies. Without such provision the Assembly will be unable to pass the necessary legislation as it would fall into the category of international relations and be an excepted matter.
776
However, the Assembly does not require any other powers in order to give effect to these arrangements. The Bill, as drafted, ensures that the Assembly has all the powers it needs. Any other powers in respect of international relations remain excepted. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to pursue his amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I would have felt happier had the noble Lord emphasised rather more the two words in the amendment "and other". I believe it was Anthony Eden who once said that the important thing is to remember that foreign affairs are foreign. We do not make the decisions; namely, those of us at Westminster who have the good fortune, if that is the correct term, to serve in the Assembly. The fact is that decisions are made elsewhere and, with our ever-increasing involvement in the European Union, we shall find many decisions are taken over the head of Her Majesty's Government and even more in the form of the three devolved structures now in the making. I shall not predict what is going to happen to London itself beyond saying that it would be rather sad if it was to leave the United Kngdom!
By rejecting this amendment the Government may have cause to regret the lost opportunity to widen their ability to deal with situations arising from decisions taken, for example, by various strands of the European Union. The rejection of the amendment creates a certain danger in relying on the text of the present Bill. It will not be a perfect instrument even when it receives Royal Assent. I believe that it is a fear shared by many noble Lords. But considering that we shall continue to amend the Bill right up to the end of Third Reading on the Government's initiative, we have been wondering for some time whether there is ever going to be a finish to the Bill, which was the hope of us all when we started out. However, as the Minister has again sought refuge behind his self-made immunity certificate, I have no choice but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 53, line 42, leave out ("person") and insert ("Minister or junior Minister").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Lord Molyneaux Lord Molyneaux moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 54, line 2, leave out ("paragraph 11 of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Schedule 2 paragraph 3(b) (ii) appears unduly restrictive, particularly when one considers that Strand Two is very wide-ranging, which has always been the intention. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, accompanied me to Dublin when we each led our respective teams. We were criticised for so doing. Neither of us regrets our action. When we faced the Irish Government across the table we were disappointed that we did not have more reciprocity, if I may use that word. If that had been the case, the path that we now tread might have been much easier. We did not make much progress. Other road blocks were set

777
down in the way, as I suppose was inevitable. Can the Minister explain why it is felt necessary to curtail the activities of those who will be participating in the Strand Two discussions, particularly given the possibility of what I might call "bolt on" additions to Strand Two? They may become inevitable and desirable simply because of very valuable developments. As goodwill and co-operation become more acceptable and desirable as a result of the Strand Two discussions at various levels, I sincerely believe that there is need for real flexibility. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, when dealing with Amendment No. 76 earlier, I mentioned the definition of the North-South implementation bodies. That is relevant to our consideration of this amendment. We have consulted counsel and we are clear that for the purpose of clarity we need to use as specific a reference to the agreement as possible. For that reason implementation bodies are defined not only in Schedule 2, but in Clauses 51 and 53, as bodies for,
"implementing on the basis of that mentioned in paragraph 11 of Strand Two … policies agreed in the North South Ministerial Council".
The Government's clear view is that implementation bodies will operate on a cross-border or all-Ireland level. It is also our understanding that paragraph 11 applies to all implementation bodies, both the initial group and any bodies subsequently agreed. I hope that that helps to meet the noble Lord's concern.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I believe that the discussions will expand way beyond the North-South discussions and the implementation bodies into discussions with very real contact with our friends in the other devolved regions of the British Isles, including some of the smaller units yet to be included. It is a great mistake that we do not provide a flexible device of some kind to allow for these boundaries, as they might appear to be at the moment, to be crossed and fruitful discussion encouraged and developed between the various regions in addition to the North-South operations.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elliott of Morpeth): My Lords, before calling the next amendment, I must point out to the House that if Amendment No. 138 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 139.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 54, line 15, leave out from ("Crown") to ("; war").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 138, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 154 and 155. The question here is who should control the powers of the Armed Forces of the Crown when they are acting in support of the civil power. We all know that the Armed Forces have been called upon to support the civil power in Northern Ireland for 30 years or so and that they have done an absolutely magnificent job. However, when they were first used in that role it was felt necessary to institute direct rule. That was the immediate cause of the introduction of direct rule.
Since then the Armed Forces, along with the rest of the security forces, have been under the control of Whitehall and Westminster. That continues to be the case and, I understand from the Government, it is intended to continue to be the case, at least for a little while. We all hope that it will not continue for very long and that the support of the civil power by the Armed Forces will shortly be able to be discontinued. When that happens, no doubt all powers relating to public order—obviously, that means primarily those relating to the police—will be transferred to the Assembly and the Executive.
If at some stage following that it is necessary for the Armed Forces once again to be employed there, it seems to me that in that role, as well as in their main roles, they should continue to be under the control and direction of, and to have their powers decided by, Whitehall and Westminster and not by the authorities in Northern Ireland. I do not say that because of any lack of trust in the authorities in Northern Ireland. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said yesterday, we must think of such "fail-safe" devices in case the situation should deteriorate at some stage. That is because there will be considerable difficulties in getting cross-community agreement within the Assembly and the Executive, as set up, to take resolute action in the face of threats to public order.
However, the underlying principle I want to emphasise to the House is that it seems right that the powers of the Armed Forces in support of the civil power should be the same wherever in the United Kingdom they operate and that they should remain under the control of Whitehall and Westminster in that role as well as in their wider roles. That is the purpose of this group of three amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not totally in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on this occasion. In my service career, it was always the rule that in any internal security situation when the Armed Forces were in support of the civil power—in other words, in almost any internal security situation—they were managed by those in the civilian administration. That does not mean that the civilian administration tells the Armed Forces how to do their job, but it does mean that the specific tasks that the Armed Forces are being asked to carry out are decided by the civil power and not by the military powers concerned.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. The precise reason why we need it is because we do not know the future of the RUC. It is especially important, it seems to me, to make it clear that the maintenance of public order, which presumably covers all the activities of the armed services acting in support of the civil power and their immunities, should remain an excepted matter. It is an issue of perception. It relates necessarily to the future of the RUC.

779
According to the press, the nationalists are telling the Patten commission on policing that the RUC must be abolished, not reformed, and that not one single RUC officer should be accepted into the "people's police" which they want to set up instead. They would presumably scarcely consider accepting military support in support of that civil power. So this is not the moment, I suggest, to abandon the UK's control of these matters or even to appear to consider devolving them from excepted to reserved matters as, by implication, we are doing. The nationalists are behaving as if they were the only community in Northern Ireland.
If the amendment is not accepted, we shall be sending a signal to the majority community that we have abandoned our responsibility to protect the rights and needs of the vast majority of people who are law abiding and do not expect the police to have a political agenda. We should surely, in any case, await the recommendations of the commission. That is the only way at this stage to ensure, as the Government's own principles of policing and, indeed, the Belfast agreement state, that the police remain free from partisan political control. It may not be easy politically once we classify something as "reserved", not "excepted", to take it back into the "excepted" group. That would be regarded as a major political decision. While it will always be possible, if the situation becomes more settled and more favourable, and depending on the recommendations of the commission, to relax control through devolution, meanwhile I strongly urge that we should retain those powers as a prime responsibility of the British Government.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I would have been inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, had we been in a situation similar to that in which his late father or my noble friend Lord McConnell served. People can say that the administration in those days may have had its faults, but then all administrations have their faults, some more than others. The problem as I see it is that in the present circumstances, under the auspices of this Bill, we shall not have an "administration" as we understand it here in Westminster. It is not just a temporary coalition; it is a permanent structure depending entirely on a kind of points system which will be only marginally affected by a general election. I shall not go into the problems of how certain parties fight elections or of how they would ever draft a manifesto to appeal to the public to get themselves elected. That is a matter for another day.
However, I imagine—my noble friend Lord McConnell will correct me if I am wrong—that in the days before the abolition of Stormont, the general officer commanding could act in support of the civil power, being the Stormont government and its various echelons and layers of administration, secure in the knowledge that that was a stable administration co-operating and consulting continuously with the sovereign government—that is, the Parliament at Westminster. There will not be such a guarantee now. I am not certain how many parties will end up in the new Executive when it is formed. The number will probably
780
run into double figures. There will be no unity of purpose and no stability in the sense of decision-making on matters such as supporting the civil power.
If we do anything other than what has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I should not like to be in the shoes of any GOC (Northern Ireland) or even in those of the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will lay to rest a shadow of a doubt raised by the intervention of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. As I understand it, the effect of the amendment would not be to transfer the authority in the Bill over the forces out of civilian hands, but merely to change them from civilian hands in Belfast to hands at Westminster. If that is the case, it seems to me that everything that has been said about stability and clarity of vision in support of the amendment must stand. The only question that remains is whether, at some future longed-for date when the political situation in Belfast returns to being stable, it will be possible also to return that authority there. Until then, I agree with my noble friend Lord Cope that it is not timely to do so.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I hope that I shall be able to persuade the rest of your Lordships who feel inclined to support the amendment not to do so.
Over the years the security situation in Northern Ireland has required membership of the Armed Forces of the Crown to work alongside and in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to maintain public order. Public order legislation for Northern Ireland confers powers, authorities, privileges and immunities on those persons charged with carrying out functions under that legislation. That means both members of the Armed Fores of the Crown and members of the RUC. I wish to make it clear that public order legislation is a reserved matter under the Bill. So is the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Bill provides for the Armed Forces of the Crown to be a reserved matter only in respect of their public order role. It ensures that for all other purposes the Armed Forces are an excepted matter.
Therefore, in reply to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and others, this is not about who controls the Armed Forces. They remain under the control of the United Kingdom Government. It is about whether the Assembly, in legislating on public order matters generally, can grant similar powers to the police and the Army. That would seem sensible in a situation where the Army may yet be called upon to support the RUC. However, any such legislation will be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State and of Parliament. So we are not changing the civilian control of the Armed Forces. Nor does the Bill change who controls the Armed Forces. Whether reserved or excepted, they remain under the control of this Government. I hope that I have made it clear that this is an important and necessary distinction. We believe it is right to ensure that public order issues are dealt with consistently. We

781
believe that this matter should be in the reserved field. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to proceed with his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this short debate has helped to clarify matters somewhat. As the Minister said, this is not about who controls the Armed Forces. He is right; I accept that. That includes the allocation of tasks, etcetera, that the Armed Forces may take on in future. That ultimately remains under the civilian control of Whitehall and Westminster, although obviously on the ground the Armed Forces will be in support of the civil power. That is to say, the Chief Constable is responsible for the maintenance of public order and uses the Armed Forces as he believes they are required, subject to the Armed Forces agreeing to the tasks allocated to them.
The amendment merely relates to who legislates for the powers of the Armed Forces when they are so occupied. It is still my belief that the Armed Forces should have the same powers wherever they are in the United Kingdom in respect of public order duties. But at least, as the Minister said, the Secretary of State and Parliament will continue to control the situation for the time being and possibly for longer than we think. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 54, line 15, leave out ("to this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 156, which is grouped with it, are purely drafting points. They remove the words, "to this Act", from two references to other provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 55, line 14, at end insert—
(" . Fiscal, economic and monetary policy.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in no doubt that the Government intend that fiscal, economic and monetary policy should remain solely in the hands of the Westminster Parliament and the Whitehall administration rather than passing into the hands of the Northern Ireland administration and legislative authorities. However, I am not entirely clear that the Bill succeeds in that.
My amendment is picked up entirely from the Scotland Bill. I accept, as the Minister said earlier in more general remarks about Schedules 2 and 3, that there are differences in the construction of the two Bills which lead to differences in the wording between them. I accept also that there are other provisions in the Bill that deal specifically with the matter of taxes; that is to say, fiscal affairs in practice. However, there are also provisions in the Bill dealing, for example, with banking supervision which is part of the practical application of monetary policy. There are also provisions relating to public expenditure, which is a large component of economic policy. It may therefore be desirable to insert
782
these words into the Bill to ensure that the primacy of Whitehall and Westminster is made absolutely clear on the face of the Bill in these very important central matters. I do not need to emphasise their importance. It is obvious to all. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment would add to the list of excepted matters in Schedule 2 "fiscal, economic and monetary policy". The amendment is partially based on the reservation in the Scotland Bill. In the Scotland Bill, there is an exception from the reservation in respect of local taxes to fund local authority expenditure, which would of course also be a transferred matter for Northern Ireland. In the Northern Ireland context, however, we do not believe the amendment to be appropriate. However, although we take a different approach, I can assure the noble Lord that the outcome is broadly the same.
As I have said previously, the starting points for the Northern Ireland Bill and the Scotland Bill are quite different. The Scotland Bill starts with a clean sheet whereas in the case of Northern Ireland we are building on a legal foundation going back to 1921. In respect of the matters in Schedules 2 and 3, we take the 1973 Act as our starting-point. The 1973 Act does not make specific reference to "fiscal, economic and monetary policy". A change in this approach would run the risk of throwing up a number of uncertainties.
The Bill does, however, like the 1973 Act, make it clear that the instruments of fiscal and monetary policy are specifically excepted. In Schedule 2 taxes and duties are excepted matters. Coinage, legal tender and banknotes are also excepted matters. This makes it clear that the Assembly will not have control of these matters.
Economic policy, however, is very wide and while some aspects are excepted, others are reserved or transferred. For example, international relations and relations with the European Union are excepted, and the Assembly will not therefore have control over exchange rates or the single currency. Financial services and markets are broadly reserved, reflecting historical factors and the relationship between these matters and commercial interests. And some other issues which fall under the heading of economic policy are clearly transferred—such as the promotion of Northern Ireland's trade and the IDB, and the setting of regional rates.
As this explanation demonstrates, the amendment is not necessary as the effect is achieved but in a different way. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as I slightly expected and to a degree hinted at in what I said in moving the amendment, the practical application of the matters is covered in other places, as the Minister said. His reply demonstrates the wider fact that the three devolutions being carried out at the moment for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are being conducted in a totally different manner in each case. That leads to an extremely muddled constitutional situation. The variations in the wording of the three Bills

783
demonstrates the difference and the confusion as much as the policy which lies behind the way in which the different responsibilities are being devolved.
However, in the light of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 55, line 15, at end insert—
(" . Postage stamps.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to a specific small matter. At Committee stage we had a debate as to whether the management of the Post Office should be an excepted matter, for all time the responsibility of Whitehall and Westminster, or whether it should be a matter which was in the reserved category.
The debate is concerned with whether the design and arrangements for postage stamps should be a matter in which the Northern Ireland Assembly could become involved or whether it should be totally the responsibility of Westminster. I believe—hence the amendment—that postage stamps are a central matter which should be controlled centrally. The provision before the one relating to the amendment is provided by the Government to control bank notes centrally. There are Northern Ireland bank notes with different designs which are issued by the banks in Northern Ireland, as in Scotland, but under the control of the Bank of England's own arrangements as to design. The Government are wisely continuing to control the design of bank notes as well as their issue, as I understand it, by the provision in Schedule 2 immediately before this one. They should do the same with postage stamps.
Another point relates to the future of the Post Office more widely. At Question Time on Monday we heard that consultations on that are eventually reaching a conclusion so that in future the control of postage stamps may change within the United Kingdom. I expressed the view in Committee, and adhere to it, that the idea of the Northern Ireland Assembly discussing what devices Northern Ireland postage stamps should have—whether they should continue to have the Queen's head, for example—would be an extremely difficult matter for the Assembly to handle in its present form.
All in all, it seems to me best, both for the control of the postal service and the universality which the Government claim to want for the postal service, that postage stamps should at the least remain an excepted matter. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will remember that five years ago we came within an ace of having post offices privatised. That was resisted by those of us who represent Northern Ireland because we felt that inevitably the post offices would be sold off, particularly in the rural areas. They might even be reduced to a delivery twice a week. There were real fears over that. As the noble Lord said, it is a
784
different matter with postage stamps. I agree with him that we ought to have a common postage stamp throughout the United Kingdom.
I am less confident about bank notes, although they are not the subject of the debate. Noble Lords will know that, if they visit Northern Ireland and return with some of the rather exotic designs of bank notes we have over there, although the bank notes are claimed to be legal tender here in England the average tradesman will regard them as funny money and invite people to get them changed into sterling. We do not want to fall into that trap with a variation in designs and colours.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I support the idea that postage stamps are a matter which should be decided at Westminster and not by the Assembly. I can imagine no more fruitful source of disagreement than for the Assembly to start arguing as to what should be on postage stamps. There are enough matters for them to argue about; there is enough potential for dispute without adding this. Postage stamps should remain a subject for Westminster.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am drawn to my feet because it is such an obvious and powerful point that I hope the Minister will take it on board.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, your Lordships will recall the debate in Committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred about the Government's general approach to Schedules 2 and 3. As I said at the time, our starting point in relation to the divisions between the excepted and the reserved fields has been the divisions in the 1973 Act. A number of factors have led us to prefer the reserved field, where a decision has been required, given the flexibility which the reserved field provides, as well as the important control of it depending on the Secretary of State's consent. The noble Lord's amendment would single out "postage stamps" from the reservation in Schedule 3 of the Post Office, posts and postal services and make them an excepted matter.
Against the background of the broad interpretation on which Schedules 2 and 3 rely, I would resist any attempts to split up matters which are clearly interrelated, such as postal services and postage stamps. We consider it appropriate that these matters should be listed together.
In Committee, I said that it was not the Government's intention that the Assembly should legislate about postage stamps. This is presumably one of the factors behind the noble Lord's amendment. As I recall, the noble Lord was particularly concerned about the Assembly's power to change the design of postage stamps. He referred to that point a few moments ago. While we have not had any indications of the Assembly wanting to give any attention to this matter, I think it would be wrong for me to rule out the possibility of its taking an interest at some stage in the future. There are of course already different designs for postage stamps from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and the Assembly might want to make suggestions as to what the Northern Ireland element of the stamp should be. It

785
would not however be free to legislate about the designs unless the Secretary of State's consent was obtained. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Assembly will therefore be able to discuss the matter—which is what some of us worry about—but it will not be able to legislate about it without the Secretary of State's consent. I took that as at least a broad hint that this is one of the reserved matters which is never likely to be transferred in the future. It could perhaps be inferred from the remark of one of the Minister's colleagues on Monday that the Government wanted and intended to continue a universal postal service throughout the United Kingdom, as indeed they should.
It has become obvious in the course of our debates that some of the reserved matters will never be transferred, so it should not come as a surprise to us that this may be one of them. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 55, line 15, at end insert—
(" . Regulation of the following—

(a) building societies;

(b) banking;

(c) friendly societies and other societies to which the Friendly Societies Act 1974 applies.

. Regulation of the following—

(a) investment business, the official listing of securities and offers of unlisted securities;

(b) the transfer of securities;

(c) insider dealing.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 142. This amendment deals with the regulation of building societies, banking, friendly societies, investment business, the transfer of securities and insider dealing. This may be another example of subjects that remain on the reserved list and will never be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly, at least as far as concerns present intentions. They are very important matters. If a single market is to be maintained, as the Minister told the House yesterday, it is important that regulation throughout all parts of the UK should be the same. If banks, friendly societies, building societies and so on are to operate all over the United Kingdom it would be much easier for them to do so on the same basis.
As to investment business, in seeking to generate inward investment it is important that regulation is based on Westminster and Whitehall and not transferred to Northern Ireland, and that there are not different arrangements for the listing and offering of securities in Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Insider dealing speaks for itself. Given the rackets that have taken place in Northern Ireland and some of the difficulties that have arisen in the financial field because of the existence of strong paramilitary forces, insider dealing should also be controlled on a uniform
786
basis throughout the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future. That is the argument for transferring it to the excepted list instead of leaving it among the reserved categories, as the Bill does at present.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment would move a number of matters concerned with the regulation of financial markets and consumer services from the reserved to the excepted field. The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I cannot accept the amendment. As I have said before both in Committee and this afternoon, there are a number of reasons why, where a decision is required, we have preferred to keep matters in the reserved field rather than except them. I do not take issue with the noble Lord that the regulation of banking, building societies and the like should be on a UK-wide basis but to reserve these matters does not preclude or restrict that in any way as he conceded.
On the other hand it permits flexibility. There may be times, in circumstances that we may not at this moment be able to foresee, when it may be useful for the Assembly to be able to legislate on some of these matters, or at least on the margins of these matters. By keeping matters in the reserved field we keep open the possibility of the Assembly being able to legislate but at the same time we retain control by way of the need for the Secretary of State's consent.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister appeared to say that he sought a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom but wanted to make provision for it to be different. I am not sure that the two halves of his speech entirely joined up. However, I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 55, line 17, at end insert—
(" . Intellectual property.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 143. This amendment is related to patents, copyrights and such matters that are covered by the general term "intellectual property". It is extremely important for the functioning of markets that patents and copyrights should be as universal as possible. The whole history of legislation and international treaties on these matters over many years has proceeded in that direction. But here one is providing the opportunity in the future, if the Bill is not modified, for patent, copyright and other similar law in Northern Ireland to be different from the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that to be desirable in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole; nor is it in the interests of Northern Ireland. The encouragement of investment and such activities requires the application of a consistent law throughout the United Kingdom so that a patent once granted in one part of the United Kingdom is immediately recognised and enforceable in another. What is true of patents is true also of other intellectual property.
I do not believe it is desirable that the Assembly and the Executive should potentially have this power. The noble Lord may say that this is another of those matters in the list which will never be given to it. If a lot of these matters are to be in the reserved list but will never go to the Assembly, potential problems may arise. The Assembly may say that it would like a matter to be transferred to it but it had been refused. If matters that are never intended to be transferred are put into the excepted category everyone will know where they stand and there will be less chance of mounting an argument of that kind. However, the specific argument here involves intellectual property.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Lord has moved a number of amendments to which I have given the same answers. However, I shall try to vary my response. His amendment would move intellectual property from the reserved to the excepted field. This includes matters such as trade mark, copyright and patent laws. All of those matters were reserved in the 1973 Act. In the main they have been taken forward on a UK-wide basis. Keeping these matters in the reserved category does not mean that the UK-wide approach could or would not be maintained. There are many matters in the transferred field which have been dealt with on a UK-wide basis over the years and there is no reason why such arrangements cannot continue.
However, as I have already mentioned today, where matters were reserved in 1973 we have a preference for keeping them in that category in this Bill. This gives us added flexibility, which I would not want to rule out. For example, there might be occasions where the subject matter of proposed legislation would be partly in the transferred field and partly in the reserved field. In such cases the Assembly would, with the Secretary of State's consent, be able to deal with the matter. I see this as having a bearing on the matter of intellectual property and therefore I resist moving it to the excepted field.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Minister has said he has given much the same answer on a number of occasions. However, the answer that he has just given was slightly different. He said that there might be matters that fell partly in the transferred field and partly in the reserved field and it might therefore be necessary for Northern Ireland legislation to deal with such matters. I understood that if a matter was ancillary to an excepted matter—I do not quote the exact words used in the Bill—it could nevertheless be dealt with in Northern Ireland legislation with the permission of the Secretary of State. I believe that that would cover a case where a matter might be excepted legislation which could nevertheless be dealt with, but clearly the Minister is not of that view. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 55, line 32, at end insert—
(" . The provision of programme services within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 144 which seeks to insert the following:
"The provision of programme services within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990".
Undoubtedly noble Lords will agree that this is a most important matter. The amendment proposes that this should be an excepted matter and that the control of programme services of one kind or another should remain with Westminster and Whitehall for as long as the Bill lasts rather than that they should be in the transferred category. The category has become a little more confused since we started our discussions. We now have sub-categories of matters which are in the reserved list but will never be transferred and those in the reserved list which it is expected will be transferred at some time.
I am not sure whether it is intended to keep the provision of programme services in the reserved category for a long time in the future, or whether it is one of the matters that the Government have in mind should be transferred to the Northern Ireland jurisdiction in the foreseeable future if all goes smoothly. Perhaps we may receive some enlightenment on that in the Minister's reply.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to move broadcasting from the reserved field to the excepted field. Broadcasting was a reserved matter under the 1973 Act. As I have said before, the division of matters in the Bill between the excepted and reserved fields has been based very much on the 1973 Act.
As I have said also before, where a matter falls in the reserved field, that does not mean that it is necessarily envisaged as suitable for transfer. But the reserved field offers a much greater degree of flexibility than the excepted field, and that is an important factor in our consideration.
In respect of broadcasting, there may be some aspects where in the future the Northern Ireland Assembly will want to have some say, and we do not think that it would be appropriate to rule out this possibility by making it an excepted matter.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may raise one issue. I trust that the rules regarding political broadcasts will remain with Westminster.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand that that is so.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is another matter which is not regarded as suitable for transfer even in the future for the most part, although the Assembly may be allowed to have a small amount of influence on it.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He makes a number of assumptions about matters which I did not state. The noble Lord is entitled to make whatever assumptions he

789
wishes, but I did not say whether or not a certain matter would be transferred, except where it is in the agreement. I do not want my silence to be taken as agreeing with the noble Lord. Hence I interrupt him.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that interruption. I sought to be a little more specific about what the future was likely to be. However, the noble Lord wishes to leave it vague; and he is entitled to do so. If the noble Lord makes the same speech, so can I. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope Lord Cope moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 55, line 32, at end insert—
(" . Internet services; electronic encryption; the subject-matter of Part II of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (electromagnetic disturbance).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last of this group of amendments which seeks to put matters into the excepted field. The amendment deals with the Internet services, electronic encryption and the Wireless Telegraphy Act.
The Internet is a growing field around the world. I find it an extremely useful facility in the limited amount of use that I make of it. I have no experience of electronic encryption, but I have no doubt that that too is valuable. We should encourage the universality of Internet services in particular and the other matters covered in the amendment because they are such a valuable tool for mankind. If we do not have the same rules throughout the United Kingdom, there is even less chance of having the same rules internationally. Yet without international rules those services will not be able to flourish to the benefit of mankind as they have the potential to do.
It is not sensible to provide for the possibility of different and separate legislation, and so on, on matters of this kind in Northern Ireland compared with the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the argument for having these matters in the excepted category. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, as noble Lords will have noted from my comments, there are a number of matters which the Government have preferred to keep in the reserved field in order to retain a greater degree of flexibility. The matters of Internet services, electronic encryption and electro-magnetic disturbance are among them.
These are matters of developing technology and we do not know with any certainty how they will develop over future years and decades. There are commercial aspects to them on which it might at some future stage be appropriate for the Assembly to be able to legislate—even if only at the fringes.
790
It is for that reason, and against the possibility of circumstances as yet unforeseen, that we consider it important to keep that flexibility. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I understand the need for flexibility, as the Minister expresses it. However, I do not think that it is as appropriate to the provision of Internet services and the other matters dealt with by the amendment, as in many other cases. However, the Government have had to make their decision. I do not propose to challenge it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 55, line 38, at end insert—
(". Regulation of activities in outer space.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 146, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 164. These amendments move the regulation of activities in outer space from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2 making it an excepted matter. That fulfils the commitment I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in Committee.
As I said in Committee, we agree with your Lordships that this should be a matter for Westminster alone and have no difficulty in putting it in the excepted field. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing that at least this matter should be transferred into the excepted category. It always seemed extremely unlikely that Northern Ireland would have its own space programme separate from the rest of the United Kingdom or that it would wish to have a different regime applying in outer space above Northern Ireland compared with that above the remainder of the United Kingdom. I was always astonished that the provision was in Schedule 3 as opposed to Schedule 2. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing that and for moving it to a more appropriate category.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. It would have been absurd to leave the issue as a reserved and therefore potentially transferred matter. There is no such thing as a Northern Ireland zone in outer space compared with the Northern Ireland zone at sea. In so far as it is possible to regulate activities in outer space, it will almost inevitably be through international treaties. Therefore there would have been a potential conflict between Schedules 2 and 3 if the matter had remained in Schedule 3.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 55, line 44, leave out ("20, 21(2) and (3)") and insert (" 18, 20, 21(2) to (4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 147 to 151 and 165 to 167 represent a further modification which I suggested at Committee stage might be needed in the detail of which particular

791
provisions of the Bill are designated as excepted and reserved matters. As I indicated before, we intend that the main provisions of the Bill, reflecting as they do the agreement, should be excepted so that they are beyond substantive change by the Assembly. If the Assembly wishes to propose changes, it may do so, and in particular the agreement makes a number of provisions about reviews in the course of which it might do so.
However, there are some provisions which we think should be reserved or even transferred. They are not central to the agreement. Sometimes that is also necessary in order to avoid inadvertently preventing the Assembly from acting perfectly legitimately.
Amendment No. 147, with Amendment No. 165, moves the provisions on the executive committee from the excepted to the reserved field. This move is dictated by the technical reasons I referred to. It would permit the Assembly to confer functions on the Committee. That seems to us welcome flexibility.
Amendments No. 150 and No. 167 move the matter of unlawful oaths substantially into the reserved field. Since legislation on oaths is itself a reserved matter under the terms of the Bill, and since existing legislation, which the Assembly might perfectly legitimately wish to modify, refers to oaths, it seems to us that there is no reason to deny it flexibility to do so, subject to the safeguards associated with reserved status.
Amendment No. 166 omits several matters from the reserved field, notably the Assembly commission. Since the composition and functions of the commission are in large part in any event left to the Assembly to define, and its composition is regulated by standing orders, and since the commission is not an institution provided for by the agreement but a filling out of the mechanics, it seemed to us right to leave the Assembly free to make its own dispositions in this area if it wished. In doing so it will of course be subject to the safeguards of Assembly procedure, especially the petition of concern mechanism.
We have also proposed in Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 excluding from the excepted field certain provisions on members' interests and audit. Were they to be included, any substantive legislation by the Assembly in those areas would be impossible. The same logic applies to the treatment of the clauses on legislative proposals to remedy ultra vires acts and interpretation of Assembly Acts in Amendment No. 151. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with the general thrust of what the Minister said about the amendments and I support them. However, I did not follow his final remarks. Amendment No. 149, which deals with financial control, accounts and audit, excepts such matters from the provisions of the clause; in other words, they become transferred matters rather than reserved matters. It allows the Assembly control of its own audit.
Some of the amendments which we debated yesterday increased the powers of the Assembly over the Comptroller and Auditor General and that is correct. However, Amendment No. 151 refers to the legislative
792
power to remedy ultra vires acts and appears to prevent the Assembly from tinkering with those powers. Those amendments move in opposite directions. Amendment No. 149 gives the Assembly greater powers, while Amendment No. 151 limits its powers in the matter to which it refers. Both those proposals are right, but I was not sure that that was what the Minister was saying.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is our intention that the provisions of the Bill should not be open to change by the Assembly. That is also the case with ultra vires acts. That probably explains why we have taken such a path. Our debate yesterday on audit safeguards related to a different issue; the wider audit control of the work of the Northern Ireland departments. Here we are talking, for example, about members' interests and so forth. There is a logic in our approach to the issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 151:
Page 55, line 45, leave out (" 41(7)") and insert (" 41").
Page 55, line 47, leave out ("section 55(1)") and insert ("sections 55(1) and (Financial control, accounts and audit)").
Page 56, line 1, leave out ("and 71") and insert (", 71 and 73").
Page 56, line 2, after ("77") insert (", (Legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts) and (Interpretation of Acts of the Assembly etc.)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Reserved matters]:
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 56, line 29, at end insert (", but not the law relating to abortion").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee on 27th October I explained that the Government's decision to withhold powers relating to abortion from the Scottish and Northern Ireland parliaments was of great concern to a much wider swathe of the electorate than those concerned with the morale issue. The Government's position would have been more easily defended had they not allocated powers over euthanasia to both the Scottish parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. One must ask why the two devolved structures should be entrusted with authority over one form of killing but not over another.
In Committee, I drew attention to the debate on the Scotland Bill on 27th July 1998 in which the Scottish Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, reminded us that abortion had been placed in the list of reserved matters. He then added significantly that the reserved matters:
"can be reviewed by agreement between the two parliaments".— [Official Report, 27/7/98; col. 1305.]
I thought that that was encouraging; it was a start.
Those words encouraged me to withdraw my amendment and with the benefit of hindsight that was a wise decision. In the interval, your Lordships returned to the Scotland Bill on Report. On the fourth day we debated the contradiction inherent in the Government's efforts to grant the Scottish parliament the power to

793
legislate on euthanasia but not on abortion. Winding up for the Government on that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, accepted that the Government had to make their case, adding these significant words which transformed my view entirely:
"That case [the Government's] can be made briefly, but powerfully and persuasively. It is simply this. If in the future there were to be a considerable difference in the abortion law north and south of the Border and that in itself produced a significant cross-Border trade of women seeking abortion, that would be regarded as offensive by public opinion. That is the case that I make. It is the case upon which I rely".—[Official Report, 3/11/98; col. 212.]
The Government's problem is the land frontier in the case of Scotland: an open border and in most cases an unmarked border. But that demolishes the same Government's arguments against my proposal in Committee with regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Irish Sea is regarded by some and deplored by others but it is there and we cannot ignore that. Crossings of the Irish Sea are controlled, admittedly for a different purpose. But at the port of entry and at the airport of entry one has an obligation to have in one's possession a document of identity.
Even if we eventually have a real ceasefire, there will be a continuing need for those controls to exist between the island of Ireland, north and south, and the island of Great Britain. Those powers will remain necessary to eliminate the flourishing drugs trade between the two islands. Alas, I regret to say that on the other island it is centred mainly on Dublin; and that is no criticism of the Irish Republic.
Now that the Government have admitted that their case rests solely on the land frontier problem with Scotland, I trust that your Lordships may support my reasonable and balanced amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Fitt, who I understand cannot be here because of a hospital appointment, I am more than happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I have no hesitation in agreeing with what he said about the need to leave the decisions in the hands of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In fact, the Government have said on more than one occasion this year in ministerial replies that they have no plans at present to extend the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland. They have said that umpteen times.
But this debate is not about abortion. It is about giving those people the right to decide the questions raised by this amendment. I do not wish to go into the details of the Abortion Act and so on. That is not what this is about. It is about leaving the right to decide that in the Northern Ireland situation. We know that strong opinions are held in Northern Ireland. I happen to agree with many of them. There are strong opinions there and the people should be allowed to discuss and decide on the issue themselves. That is why I support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, on Second Reading and in Committee, I advanced a number of arguments in support of the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has placed before your Lordships' House today. It would be tedious to reiterate arguments which your Lordships have already heard.
What can be said in addition to those arguments already deployed? First, there is a reference in a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has gone out of his way to be extremely helpful and patient in dealing with the questions which arose in Committee. That letter is dated 9th November. It contains a reiteration of the remarks he made in Committee and states:
"We have no intention of foisting unwanted change on the law on this matter upon the people of Northern Ireland".
I welcome that statement.
On 26th October a letter was issued by Matthew Ellesmere of the Constitutional and Political Division of the Northern Ireland Office in response to a letter from a Mrs. McCann of Dumbartonshire. In his letter he went even further. He said:
"In such circumstances the Government recognises that any change to the law should only come about at the request of a broad cross-section of the people who live there.
I hope that this will reassure you that the Government has no intention of forcing any change on the people of Northern Ireland and will continue to honour their wishes in this matter".
It is important to put those statements on the record because there is a sustained and determined campaign, especially in another place. As recently as in the past two weeks, a further Early Day Motion has been tabled calling for changes in the law. Many Parliamentary Questions have been tabled. There is intense pressure by Members who would wish to use the Private Members' procedure to change the law over and above the heads of the elected politicians from Northern Ireland.
It would not have been necessary to have this debate today had the Government gone as far as reiterating what one might call the John Major principle. That was the principle which the former Prime Minister adumbrated to a cross-party group who went to see him during the life of the last parliament. He said that his government would not allow time for the law to be changed until the majority of politicians from Northern Ireland requested it. That seemed to me to be a perfectly proper position. He also said wryly that he was pleased to see such unanimity among the unionists, nationalists, Liberals, Conservatives and socialist representatives who went to see him that day. It is ironic, is it not, that we constantly berate people in Northern Ireland for a lack of consensus and for not perhaps co-operating with one another to the extent that they might do but on that issue, which unites the community, we are prepared, in many cases for politically correct reasons, to go over their heads and seek to impose from outside?
As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said to the House, this issue is not about whether we are in favour of or against abortion. The issue is about who should decide on that matter. We should not build further inconsistencies into our law. As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, pointed out on the Scotland Bill, we have

795
said that the Scottish parliament will decide on the issue of euthanasia but not on the issue of abortion. I find that inconsistency extraordinary. It would be far better to say that in the case of each devolved assembly, each alone will decide those crucial ethical questions.
They are grown-up people who can have those debates in their own communities. They do not need us to hold back those issues. After all, even the Government have conceded that this is a question which will be transferred ultimately to Northern Ireland if that is the wish of the Parliament there. Why do we not make a clean job of it now and take this issue away from the cut and thrust of Westminster politics and allow it to be decided in Northern Ireland, where cultural traditions may be different from some of the traditions which we have in England, but that is how it should be within these islands? If we are truthful and honest in our belief in favour of devolution, then we should be saying that such questions should be decided there and not merely on the basis of our own views about abortion here at Westminster.
For those reasons, I believe that this amendment is moderate and reasonable. It does not seek to open up the substantive question of abortion. It merely seeks a decision on the issue of where this matter should be concluded, whether it should be here or in Northern Ireland. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to your Lordships' House.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, from these Benches, I should like to raise a voice that we feel very strongly on this subject and hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I shall not rehearse all that has been said. Some of us feel very strongly about abortion, and the Irish, both north and south, are perhaps more concerned about religious and ethical matters than we are in our country. It would be quite wrong for us not to allow them to decide that issue for themselves.
Lord Monson: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molyneaux has made out a good logical case for his amendment. But as a libertarian I must approach the matter from a rather different angle.
I voted for abortion to be devolved to the Scottish parliament in the firm belief that in the end Scottish abortion law would turn out to be not very different from that prevailing in England and Wales. But, as we know, Northern Ireland is rather different. A number of noble Lords have stressed that already this afternoon.
There is a human rights aspect here. With the possible exception of Poland, nearly every country on the continent of Europe, be it mainly Catholic, mainly Protestant or mainly Orthodox, permits abortion up to the 12th week of pregnancy, subject to certain not-too-onerous restrictions; and possibly longer than 12 weeks in the case of rape victims.
Where pregnancy is further advanced, laws tend to vary quite sharply from country to country, understandably so, as different considerations then come into play—the viability of the foetus, the possibility of the foetus experiencing pain and so on. It then is no longer essentially a libertarian or human rights matter.
796
As regards the first stage of pregnancy, I believe that women in Northern Ireland, and indeed in the Republic of Ireland, are to some extent being deprived of the rights which are available to women in most other industrialised nations. It is therefore one of those fields where local majority opinion should not necessarily prevail over minority rights, and it may be that in the future—not immediately—the Westminster Parliament will decide that certain minimum rights in this sphere should prevail throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as in all matters concerned with abortion, my party has a free vote. Speaking for myself. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to transfer this matter alone when the whole of the rest of the criminal law, including the subject of euthanasia, remains a reserved matter.
Abortion is a particularly sensitive and emotive matter. It has the potential to inflame relationships between the communities in Northern Ireland and indeed between the Republic and Northern Ireland. I hope that matters will develop in a way in which the criminal law and abortion can be transferred in due course, but that time is not now.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that it would not be right to legislate for Northern Ireland on this issue without the consent of its people. That is not the same as saying that abortion should, at this stage, be a transferred matter. Treating abortion as a special case in a sense invites the Assembly to take up the issue with possibly damaging results. For that reason abortion is best placed as the Government placed it; that is, along with the rest of the criminal law as a reserved matter.
Lord Peston: My Lords, after a word of support for the Government, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, I am somewhat puzzled that noble Lords stated that they did not want to debate abortion and yet tabled an amendment on it. The Government are overwhelmingly right as a matter of principle not to devolve the criminal law to this Assembly. That is both the beginning and the end of the matter. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not be remotely deflected by any of those arguments, which I find quite preposterous.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I remember the days when the right to legislate over abortion resided in Stormont. However, I have lived a long time in Northern Ireland. I have seen the stress and problems that can be caused through young women being unable to obtain abortions and would therefore love to see it legalised there.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out, the island of Northern Ireland and the Republic, sadly, is not an ordinary place. If the right to legislate over abortion was placed tomorrow in the new Assembly, it would cause untold difficulties. Nobody is sure in this House—certainly I am not—if there were to be a debate and a vote in the Assembly, what the result would be. Strong and divided feelings exist, not necessarily down the straight, religious-political divide that we are used to in Northern Ireland.

797
Much has been said on the subject. I have discussed it with a number of people and given it a considerable amount of thought. Because being reserved leaves the Government with considerable flexibility and because it will be easier at any stage for the Government to move it from the reserved to the transferred list rather than the other way round, the matter should be reserved. Also, were the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate to legalise abortion in Northern Ireland, it would probably cause serious offence and be used as a tool to cause offence in Dublin whereas, if that were enacted here at some stage, it could be done in a more tactful and agreed manner.
To summarise, having given the matter much thought and having seen the hardships of living in a country where abortion is illegal; where young women have to catch a boat or a plane to the mainland—if they can afford it—and where those who cannot are left carrying a foetus or baby that they do not want, I believe that the Government are making the correct decision in keeping the right to legislate on abortion in Westminster.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I can be brief. Once again from the Cross-Benches I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Molyneaux. This is essentially a matter—I know it is extremely delicate—for the citizens of Northern Ireland. I cannot see any reason why we should not grant them the right, if they so wish, to choose what their own conscience dictates. In that connection we must remember that the fact that southern Ireland and Northern Ireland are one geographical whole is important.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, first, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that, as his noble friend Lord Stallard made clear at the beginning of the debate, the question before us is not what the law on abortion should be; it is whether it should be this Parliament or the Assembly who decides it.
But the question is even more complicated. It relates to who should decide the matter at this stage. The Government's view, as expressed in Committee, is that in due course the Assembly should be able to decide the law on abortion; but not now. Two considerations arise in that regard. The first is what happens in the meanwhile, while it is still Westminster's responsibility; the second is how it is affected by the agreement. The Government relied considerably on the agreement in pursuing their case.
The timing of when this matter should be transferred to Northern Ireland will be decided by other matters connected with the criminal law and the state of Northern Ireland generally—the police and so forth—not necessarily specifically to do with abortion. The timing is therefore uncertain; it has nothing to do with abortion and may be an extended period. But what happens in the meanwhile?
The Government have said they will not wish to do anything about the law on abortion in Northern Ireland without the consent of the people there. That seems to me a reason for transferring it, so that the people there
798
can make the decision. Others have said that the law on abortion in Northern Ireland should be changed. In debates on the Scotland Bill Back-Benchers from both the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Government Benches have expressed the view that abortion law should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom; that is to say, in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain. That view is held by some Members of another place.
Therefore, there may be attempts—even if the Government do not necessarily wish for or indeed initiate such moves—to alter the law on abortion in Northern Ireland during the period in which Westminster remains responsible for it. Given the fact that the Government's view is that they should not alter the law or lend their weight to an alteration in the law without the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland, why not let the Assembly decide the matter now?
However, the Government have also said—I believe that the Minister made the point in Committee—that we must stick to the agreement. We understand that; it has been made clear to us during our debates on the various amendments. But at times the Minister has also departed from the agreement during our proceedings as a result of consultations which have been held with other people. Of course, we have not objected to that. Indeed, there has been continuous consultation with the parties. That is part of what has led to the 450 amendments which have been tabled during the course of our proceedings on the Bill. Some of them have brought the Bill closer to the agreement in detail, while others have been a reaction to further suggestions and have, in some cases, put more flesh on the bones of the agreement.
There is nothing specific in the agreement about abortion. There are references to the criminal law, but I do not know whether abortion was ever mentioned or discussed during the course of the negotiations which led to the Good Friday agreement. It would be helpful to know if abortion, although not specifically referred to in the agreement, was nevertheless in the minds of those who agreed to the Belfast agreement. It would also be helpful to know if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister or the Assembly parties have been consulted during the past few weeks about this matter, as they have been about so many other matters arising from the Bill.
It seems to me that the agreement in this case is not something which can be relied upon totally: first, because it is not mentioned in the agreement and, secondly, because we are not at this stage aware of the opinion of the various other parties to the agreement on the matter. In general, I stand by the statement of my right honourable friend John Major, which was read to your Lordships a few minutes ago. I believe it is right that the law on abortion should be the responsibility of the Assembly. Indeed, as the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench said, it is a matter upon which anyone is entitled to express his or her own opinion. For myself, I support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, let us be clear on the matter. As my noble friend Lord Stallard said when he spoke earlier, this debate is not about the merits or de-merits of abortion. Indeed, it would have been a quite different afternoon had that been the case. The debate is about where decisions on abortion should be taken in the immediate future as regards Northern Ireland; in other words, whether those decisions should be made in Westminster or Belfast.
I have consistently argued—the whole Government have argued—that we stand fully behind the Good Friday agreement. We have not, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested, departed from the agreement. Indeed, the whole thrust of our support for the Good Friday agreement can be seen in the fact that we have at every point referred to the agreement as being the basis on which this Bill and other government measures should be supported. The Good Friday agreement is the key to all of this. It is clear that the agreement says that criminal justice is one of the matters which is to be reserved for decision here at Westminster.
There is no doubt at all—indeed, no one has suggested otherwise—that abortion is part of the criminal law. Therefore, it follows that it would be a breach of the Good Friday agreement if we were to do other than have criminal justice and those matters as reserved matters for decision at Westminster. The amendment would have the consequence that the whole of the law on abortion in Northern Ireland would become a transferred matter. I said very clearly in Committee, and on other occasions, that the abortion law in Northern Ireland was a matter for the Belfast agreement because criminal law is currently reserved in Northern Ireland terms.
I have also said that, as and when it is deemed appropriate to do so, some reserved matters, which may include criminal justice matters, could be passed to the Assembly. That will have to be considered in the light of the reviews envisaged in the agreement. I should also make it clear that I cannot give any cast-iron guarantees about when such transfers might be made or what individual items might be part of any transfer of responsibility. Any change in the status of reserved or transferred matters can only be made under the Bill with the agreement of the Assembly, based on cross-community support, after the approval of an appropriate resolution in each House here at Westminster. Which matters precisely are transferred must be a matter for decision at the time.
In particular, I should like to re-emphasise what I said during the debate at Committee stage; namely, that our guiding principle should be adherence to the Belfast agreement. It is my deeply-held view that it would be wrong in the principal Bill giving practical effect to the agreement to diverge from what the agreement commits us to. While it makes provision for a possible transfer of abortion law to the transferred category in future, it does not commit the Government to carrying it forward now. I believe that that is the heart of the argument before us this afternoon.
800
Noble Lords referred to the situation in Scotland. I do not want to divert the debate to the Scotland Bill, except to say that the position there is quite different. Indeed, the 1967 reform does extend there. Therefore, the starting point for Scottish legislation is a different matter.
I have already given reassurances to the House that the Government have no intention of forcing change upon Northern Ireland in respect of the current abortion law; nor have they plans to bring forward legislative provision of any kind. We are, of course, aware that the situation is regarded as unsatisfactory by some while others are anxious to ensure that there is no change in Northern Ireland. We will continue to listen to local opinion in Northern Ireland but will not—and I stress the word "not"—move forward without consensus. Therefore, I urge noble Lords not to support the amendment. Indeed, I urge the noble Lord who moved it not to pursue the matter. As I said, we stand fully by the Good Friday agreement. That is the basis upon which I say to the noble Lord that his amendment is outside the agreement. Therefore, it is one that I urge him not to press.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, say something to mitigate some of the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, as regards the possibility of blood-letting if this matter were to be discussed on the floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I believe that the noble Lord would concede that the elections held for the Assembly produced a result not very different from that which was obtained the previous year in the general election for the House of Commons. On occasions, when Members representing Northern Ireland in another place were confronted with this issue, they unanimously and right across the political and religious divide voted roughly in line with my amendment. I hope that what I have said will do something to allay the noble Lord's fears. Indeed, whatever else may happen in the Assembly, that is not likely to happen.
I have been greatly encouraged by the volume of correspondence which I have received in the past two or three weeks since I first tabled the amendment. It has come from Church men and women representing all the main denominations in Northern Ireland. I venture, to say that, if one could have a vote in the shadow Assembly at present, that would reflect the volume of opinion expressed in the other place by the elected representatives. I do not believe that there is a great gap in the attitude of those who were elected to the House of Commons and those who were elected to the Assembly.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in his expression of appreciation for the helpful attitude of the Minister. We realise that he has his problems with the Good Friday agreement. It is rather interesting to note that the Government now appear to be using two entirely different reasons for withholding powers over abortion for Scotland and for Northern Ireland; indeed, there are two entirely different grounds on which they stand. However, that may be resolved in due course.

801
I trust that your Lordships will concede that I have sought to set this debate in a wider constitutional sphere. Most noble Lords have followed that course. I can see that the Minister does not find himself in a position to meet the desire of what I believe to be a large number of your Lordships. In those circumstances I feel compelled to test feeling in a Division.
5.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 153) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 160.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L. [Teller.]

Leigh, L.

Ampthill, L.

Liverpool, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Longford, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Berners, B.

McConnell, L.

Biffen, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blatch, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brentford, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mountevans, L.

Byford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moyne, L.

Chesham, L.

Munster, E.

Chichester, Bp.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Newall, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Palmer, L.

Cranborne, V.

Patten, L.

Denbigh, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Perth, E.

Downshire, M.

Prior, L.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Effingham, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Elles, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Fitt, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Forte, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Southwell, Bp.

Gisborough, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haddington, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinfen, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swinton, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Home, E.

Vivian, L.

Hooper, B.

Waddington, L.

Hylton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wigram, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wise, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Wynford, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Young, B.

802

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ahmed, L.

Alderdice, L.

Islwyn, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Alli, L.

Amos, B.

Jopling, L.

Annan, L.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bach, L.

Kintore, E.

Barnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brightman, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Chandos, V.

McNally, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chorley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Christopher, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Molloy, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Northfield, L.

Dixon, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dubs, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Flather, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Geraint, L.

Razzall, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rea, L.

Glanusk, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Glenamara, L.

Richard, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Goudie, B.

Russell, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grey, E.

Sewel, L.

Hacking, L.

Shannon, E.

Hampton, L.

Sharples, B.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Slim, V.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taverne, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tenby, V.

Hoyle, L

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

803

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Thornton, B.

Warnock, B.

Tordoff, L.

Westbury, L.

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wigoder, L.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Varley, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.50 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 57, line 34, leave out ("to this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 57, line 34, at end insert—
(". The subject-matter of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this amendment has already been dealt with, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, would like to develop the argument. I would therefore like to reserve my position to speak when he has done so.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister is very kind to give me the opportunity. I did not particularly seek it. This amendment reserves the minimum wage to Westminster, for the time being at any rate. It is part of the single market that such restrictions, if they are to exist, should take place right across the United Kingdom.
The contrary argument is that in areas of highest unemployment and greatest economic difficulty, such regulations do the greatest damage. Given that the wage levels and so on in the more difficult areas of any country, including Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, are likely to be lower than they are elsewhere—and that this helps the region to do better than it otherwise would—it is dubious whether the minimum wage should extend in exactly the same form across the whole United Kingdom. But that is what the amendment seeks to achieve. The Minister will obviously do his best to make the case for a single minimum wage across the United Kingdom in support of this amendment. I have some reservations about it, but I will leave it to the Minister.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I did not want to take the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, unawares. From what he said yesterday I understood that he wanted to have time to reflect upon this particular amendment, and it is only right to give him the opportunity to have his say.
This amendment makes the subject matter of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 a reserved matter. We debated the matter yesterday, together with an amendment to allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate on employment matters as a whole in Northern Ireland. The underlying principle of the national
804
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 that workers across the United Kingdom 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. It is therefore right that the National Minimum Wage Act should be a reserved matter.
In framing in this Bill the reservation of the National Minimum Wage Act, however, we have also 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 universal approach of the National Minimum Wage Act. We have done this by proposing an amendment, which we discussed yesterday, 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.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 57, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 58 and insert—
(" . The following matters—

(a) financial services, including investment business, banking and deposit-taking, collective investment schemes and insurance;

(b) financial markets, including listing and public offers of securities and investments, transfer of securities and insider dealing.

This paragraph does not include the subject-matter of—

(a) the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;

(b) the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985;

(c) the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;

(d) the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989;

(e) the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1990;

(f) the Companies (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990;

(g) the Open-Ended Investment Companies (Investment Companies with Variable Capital) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997.

. The subject-matter of—

(a) the Building Societies Act 1986;

(b) the Friendly Societies Act 1992.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment replaces existing paragraph 22(2) of Schedule 3. It will widen the current reservations in respect of building societies, friendly societies, banking and investment business to cover the whole area of financial services and markets. It will not encroach on the subject-matter of existing Northern Ireland legislation in respect of

805
credit unions, industrial and provident societies, insolvency and other matters whose transferred status is protected by the Belfast agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as I said earlier, many of these matters should have been excepted rather than reserved. I certainly do not disagree with the re-writing of this particular part of the schedule.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 160 to 162 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 58, line 25, at end insert ("in relation to goods").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment clarifies the scope of the reservation in Schedule 3 on consumer safety. It makes it clear that consumer safety is concerned with the safety of goods and does not embrace the safety of services, facilities or accommodation. This is in line with Part II of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and a large number of related EC directives which provide for the safety of goods. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 164 to 167:
Page 58, leave out line 38.
Page 58, line 43, after ("17") insert (", 18").
Page 58, leave out line 44.
Page 59, line 1, leave out ("and 71") and insert (", 71 and 73(1), (2) and (4) to (8)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enactments protected from modification]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 168:
Leave out Schedule 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Northern Ireland Assembly Commission]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 61, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) charging for goods or services;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill provides at Schedule 6 that the Assembly commission may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the discharge of its functions. The principal function of the commission is to provide the Assembly, or ensure that the Assembly is provided, with the property, staff and services required for the Assembly's purposes. This amendment puts beyond doubt that the commission has the power to charge for services provided, for example, a restaurant facility.
This amendment gives the Assembly commission an express power to sell goods or provide services to the public. It is necessary because, as Schedule 6 to the Bill is currently drafted, it is not a function of the commission to provide services other than those required for the purposes of the Assembly. If the commission should wish, for example, to sell souvenirs the amendment will give it the necessary power. The
806
power is enabling and is not intended to confer a function to sell goods or provide services to the public, if the commission does not wish to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is an entirely proper amendment for the Minister to move. Not long ago, both the Minister and I had the pleasure of listening to a debate in the Assembly, which included some exchanges about whether or not a bar should be provided in the Assembly. It was a matter of much greater controversy than I have ever heard in this building on the same subject. Nevertheless, it is right that the commission should have the power, should it wish to use it, to charge for goods and services of the types described by the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 61, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission may sell goods or provide services, and may make arrangements for the sale of goods or provision of services, to the public.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 61, line 21, leave out ("proceedings") and insert ("acts").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides that acts of the Assembly commission are protected in the event of a vacancy in the membership of the commission or any defect in the appointment, or qualification for membership, of a member. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 61, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) A statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to correct an earlier failure to provide for the parliamentary process by which any Order in Council to confirm Crown status on the Assembly commission for particular purposes would become law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 64, line 14, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 are simple drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 64, line 16, leave out ("non-Commissioners)") and insert ("persons who are not Commissioners)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 64, line 42, leave out ("member") and insert ("Commissioner").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to inform the House that this group of amendments includes the Government's response to several points raised earlier in the passage of the Bill and by interested parties outside Parliament. The government amendments in particular effectively meet the objectives of Amendment No. 179 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
Schedule 9 deals with the detailed arrangements for the equality commission, which is established by Clauses 69 and 70 and will take over the existing functions of the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council. In addition, it will take on new responsibilities in relation to the equality of opportunity obligation. Those are specified in Schedule 10.
Amendment No. 175 is a technical amendment, following up Committee stage amendments which gave members of the equality commission the title of commissioner. Government Amendment No. 178 is also technical and is designed to remove the risk of a double audit of the commission's accounts by giving the responsibility for examining, certifying and reporting on the accounts solely to the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.
In discussion at the Committee stage and in the other place, much attention was paid to the balance of responsibility for the equality commission between this Parliament and the Assembly. Amendment No. 177 enhances the interest of Parliament in the activities of the commission by requiring a copy of its annual report to be laid before both Houses. Amendment No. 176 will require the commission to include in its annual report information on the progress which it and other public authorities have made in promoting equality of opportunity.
Together, Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 meet the essential objectives of Amendment No. 179, which stands in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. The only significant difference is that my noble and learned friend's amendment would require an annual report separate from the equality commission's report on its own activities, required by paragraph 5 of Schedule 9. The government amendments would create an effective system of annual reporting on the overall compliance of the public sector with Clause 71 obligations. They render the current amendment unnecessary. I therefore hope that my noble and learned friend will not move Amendment No. 179.
My noble and learned friend has also tabled Amendment No. 194, which would require public authorities to submit an annual report to the equality commission on its measures and policies for complying with the statutory equality duties. The Government expect other public authorities to co-operate fully with
808
the equality commission in the preparation of this aspect of the commission's annual report. In particular, we would expect public authorities to provide the necessary information on their own compliance with the new statutory obligation to enable the commission to report generally on progress throughout the public sector. This would achieve the aim of putting into the public domain information on the progress of the implementation of the statutory obligations.
However, it does not seem necessary to impose a further statutory administrative requirement on public authorities to make annual reports to the commission. They will of course have to submit their equality schemes to the commission. We will shortly be discussing Amendment No. 191, which would, in addition, require a public authority to carry out a five-yearly review of its scheme. Therefore, I hope my noble and learned friend will think that, in the light of what I have said, his Amendment No. 194 is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it would be ungenerous of me if I did not express gratitude to my noble friend for his very forthcoming response to some of the points which we made to him at the Committee stage. I do that unreservedly. I hope I was not being tiresome in inviting him to go a stage further. My noble friend's amendment would require the commission to report annually on what it had been doing. My Amendment No. 179 would impose a requirement on the commission to report on what the public authorities had been doing. I thought that might help to concentrate minds and to ensure that these matters were not totally overlooked. However, in view of what my noble friend said a few moments ago, I would probably be over-egging the pudding if I tried to carry the matter further.
As to my Amendment No. 194, I included it largely because, if the commission is to report annually on what public authorities have been doing—I understand from what my noble friend has just said that that is the intention—it would require the co-operation of the public authorities in supplying that information. That in itself might be a useful intellectual discipline on the public authorities. But, again, in view of what my noble friend has just said—that that is what would be expected—and knowing most of the public authorities with which we are dealing, I would be surprised if they were less than co-operative. I say at once that I do not propose to move those two amendments.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I welcome the move the Government have made in encouraging the wider publication of these reports. That is an important step towards greater transparency and very helpful for that purpose. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, I would have wished the Government to go the final step forward which the noble and learned Lord proposed. However, this is certainly a very valuable move in the right direction. I conclude by paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord for the

809
pressure that he has brought to bear on this as on so many other occasions. It is encouraging to see that it has borne fruit on this occasion.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly, from the mobile Bench, extend a very warm welcome to the government amendments. I would have supported the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, but I take on board what he said about over-egging the pudding. I felt that they would have flourished symbiotically very happily and that it would have been a better pudding. But we must be very grateful for seven-eighths of the pudding.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I think it was wise and good of the Government to have accepted to this extent the spirit of the amendments moved at an earlier stage of our deliberations. One can have too many reports. It may be necessary to introduce at a later stage the additional reporting requirements in Amendment No. 194, but I think we have sufficient reports for the time being.
Similarly, with regard to Amendment No. 178, it seems to me that one audit is sufficient. I was slightly surprised when I realised that two audits were provided for side-by-side in the Bill for these operations. That is unnecessary. I believe that the Comptroller and Auditor General is the right person to audit the accounts. After all, as a result of our labours yesterday he will be responsible to the Assembly, so there is no need for additional auditors to be appointed. That will be another way in which, from that specific point of view, the commission will be answerable to the Assembly, as is right and proper.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the supporting voices I have heard from all parts of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 176 to 178:
Page 65, line 36, at end insert ("; and
(b) on any steps which, during the year, have been taken by it and other public authorities to promote such equality of opportunity as is mentioned in section 71(1).").
Page 65, line 40, leave out ("send a copy of the report to the Assembly") and insert ("lay a copy of the report before the Assembly and send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
( ) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.").
Page 66, leave out lines 11 and 12.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Equality: enforcement of duties]:
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 67, line 16, at end insert ("or, if later, the establishment of the authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to present this series of government amendments which strengthen considerably the arrangements for equality
810
schemes and impact assessments. They respond to comments made at earlier stages of the Bill and to external consultations held over the summer.
These amendments relate to Schedule 10 which gives details of the equality schemes to be prepared by public authorities and also the arrangements for their validation by the equality commission and the handling of complaints about the failure of a public authority to comply with its scheme. These are key dimensions to the equality clauses.
Schedule 10 both puts into operation the statutory obligation of Clause 71 and also gives a role to the equality commission in the oversight of equality schemes. As has been said before, this is not an externalisation by the public sector of its obligations on equality of opportunity. The statutory obligation will fall squarely on each public authority. There will be internal arrangements in the Northern Ireland Civil Service to ensure that departments and non-departmental public bodies are aware of their new statutory responsibilities and meet them. But the equality commission will be able to draw on the accumulated experience of the four statutory bodies to add an independent dimension, validating schemes, requesting revisions and considering complaints.
The Government have been responsive to those who have suggested improvements to the arrangements originally set out in the March White Paper, whether within Parliament or outside. A series of amendments has been prepared which strengthen the provisions on impact assessments in Schedule 10. These are rightly seen as vital instruments for mainstreaming equality considerations into the policies of the public sector.
There has been some comment that paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 10, which refers to arrangements for impact assessment, is ambiguous in its scope. To clarify the position, it is the Government's intention that impact assessments should relate to the whole range of a public authority's policy. It is not intended that the assessments should be restricted only to policies aimed at promoting equality of opportunity. I hope that this makes our intentions clear.
Responding to criticisms of the Committee stage amendments, Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 extend the direct obligation on public authorities to prepare schemes to new public authorities, created after the schedule comes into operation, as well as to existing ones.
Amendments Nos. 187, 188 and 184 make clear that schemes must include details of the arrangements for monitoring any adverse impact of policies which are actually implemented, the publication of assessments and monitoring and for consultation on impact assessments. I would expect such consultation to embrace those directly affected by a policy as well as non-governmental organisations and relevant statutory bodies.
The Government are also moving Amendment No. 197, which would establish a special procedure in the case of the Northern Ireland Office and other UK government departments for dealing with problematic schemes and complaints. This is to avoid a situation

811
where the Secretary of State must reach a decision or issue directions in a case involving her own department or that of a Cabinet colleague. To avoid a potential conflict of interest, it is intended that the normal arrangements under Schedule 10 should be amended in these cases. This could lead ultimately to an adverse report from the equality commission or a complaint against a UK government department being laid before Parliament and the Assembly. This would, in itself, be a most effective sanction. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it is a pleasure doing business with my noble friend. These amendments bear witness to his readiness to respond to some of the representations and anxieties which we expressed at Committee stage. I also express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his kind reference to me. He, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and myself at Committee stage expressed anxieties on these matters. We are all grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, I endorse what is being said in these amendments and what is being done here. I have a query as regards Amendment No. 188A which appeared on the Marshalled List overnight. I do not believe that the noble Lord referred to it, but perhaps I missed the reference. It appears to delete the provision which says that a scheme prepared by a public authority under this heading should include arrangements for consultation, including details of the people who have been consulted. It is odd that they are not required to say who they consulted in the course of a scheme. I should have thought it desirable to have such a provision as part of the scheme. I am somewhat surprised that it has been taken out of the requirement. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us why this amendment was added overnight.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that these amendments have received. As regards the specific point that the noble Lord raised, the point of Amendment No. 188A has already been included in Amendment No. 183. It simply tidies up the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 67, leave out line 19.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 67, line 19, leave out from ("Schedule") to end of line 21.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we all welcome the amendment introduced by my noble friend to provide that a public authority should prepare a scheme showing how it proposes to fulfil the duties imposed by Clause 71 and submit it to the commission. Not only will that enable the commission to monitor what public authorities propose to do; it will also concentrate the mind of the public authorities
812
themselves. When one is charged with a task there is no better discipline than to have to write down in an intelligible form how one proposes to go about it.
Therefore, I am a little reluctant to introduce a dissident note. Our joy was somewhat modified when we read that the commission should have power to exempt a specific public authority from the duty to prepare a scheme. There were no conditions or restrictions on the power. The commission appears to have a complete discretion. This is not a Henry VIII clause, but a James II clause. It is a claim to total dispensing and suspending power.
It raises two questions in my mind. First, in what situation and for what purpose is it envisaged that the commission shall exempt an authority from the duty? Secondly, if the discretion is intended to be exercised in order to achieve some specific purpose, why should that not be stated and written into the Bill? Why is the discretion put in such unrestricted terms? I may well find my noble friend's reasons convincing, but at the moment I do not know what they are. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on this amendment. It may well be that there are explanations as to why the provision should be implemented, but on the face of it it appears excessive to give unrestricted power to exempt the authorities from the need to prepare schemes. There is no guidance as to the ground on which exemption can be given. I, too, am somewhat concerned by this measure. I await with interest to hear what the Minister will say.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it seems to me that it was a useful example of flexibility to allow the equality commission to exempt a public authority. I doubt whether it will want to do that very often. The commission makes the decision and not the Government or the authority concerned. No doubt there will be some public authorities—the definition is extremely wide—where the commission itself will not consider it necessary to call for a scheme of this kind. We do not want people undertaking bureaucratic work unnecessarily. Provided the Minister can suggest some public authorities which come within the definition where it would not be very sensible for them to go through such trouble, then a degree of flexibility given to the commission—I would have a different view if it were given to the Government or the authorities concerned—may be wise.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble and learned friend's amendment would remove the provision whereby the commission may exempt a public authority from the need to prepare an equality scheme. It is intended that such exemptions will be rare and that the vast majority of the public authorities, defined in Clause 71(3) and operating in Northern Ireland, will prepare such schemes.
There are, however, circumstances where the work involved in preparing a scheme and having it validated by the equality commission, would be disproportionate to a particular public authority's activities in Northern

813
Ireland; for instance, some UK-wide public authorities carry out functions to only a very limited extent in Northern Ireland. An example is the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges.
In other cases, it might be more efficient to subsume a public authority's equality scheme within another. For instance, the definition in Clause 71(3), as amended, includes all the sub-committees of Northern Ireland district councils, as well as councils themselves. The commission might consider it more feasible to exempt sub-committees of councils from the need to prepare individual equality schemes, provided that the activities of each were fully covered by the equality scheme of the district council to which it belonged. Such an arrangement would be a matter of common sense.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said in his helpful speech, which uniquely made part of my speech for me, any decision on exempting an individual public authority would lie with the equality commission but we would expect it to bear in mind these considerations and to make only limited use of the power to exempt. We believe, nonetheless, that, for the reasons I have given, it is a useful reserve power for the commission to hold. Therefore, I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, have persuaded me. I think that I noted the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, nodding his understanding, if not his agreement. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 67, line 32, at end insert ("and for consulting on matters to which a duty under that section is likely to be relevant (including details of the persons to be consulted)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 67, line 33, after ("assessing") insert ("and consulting on").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 185, I must inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 186.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 67, line 33, leave out from ("impact") to end of line 35 and insert ("on the promotion of equality of opportunity of policies adopted or proposed to be accepted by the authority;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at the risk of being thought a pussy cat, I say at the outset that this, too, is a probing amendment. Paragraph 4(2)(b) of the schedule requires a public authority to subject its policies to an impact assessment. That is precisely what some of us called for in Committee and I strongly support that.
However, I wonder whether the drafting is ambiguous. I am not given to criticising parliamentary counsel; they do a remarkable job, sometimes under formidable pressure. Their workload this Session must have been onerous. However, unless I have misunderstood the provision, this is an unusual fall from grace. Does it require a scheme to state the arrangements for assessing the likely impact of policies which relate to the promotion of equality, or for assessing the likely impact on the promotion of equality of all policies? I hope that the intention is the latter. It is not only policies designed to promote equality which need to be assessed; all of an authority's policies, even those which do not leap from the page as having an impact on equality, will need to be assessed.
My amendment is designed to remove the ambiguity, but my noble friend may be able to persuade me that I have simply failed to read the paragraph correctly; that it is not ambiguous; and that it means what I have always hoped it means. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendment No. 185 would amend paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 10. It may also be helpful if I explain the intended meaning of that provision.
Paragraph 4(2)(b) refers to the inclusion in an equality scheme of details of arrangements for assessing the likely impact of policies adopted or proposed to be adopted by the authority on the promotion of the equality of opportunity mentioned in Clause 71(1). There has been some comment that the sub-paragraph is ambiguous. Indeed, my noble and learned friend suggested that. To clarify the position, I should state that it is the Government's intention that impact assessments should relate to the general run of a public authority's policies. It is not intended that the assessments should be restricted only to policies aimed at promoting equality of opportunity.
I hope that that makes our intention clear, that I have answered my noble and learned friend's question and that he will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend has, indeed, answered my question and precisely as I had hoped. I suggest only that as it seems that the Government have heard from other sources that there might be ambiguity—I was not aware of that—there might be some merit in suggesting a possible redrafting to remove the ambiguity. However, I do not press that matter today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments No. 186 to 188:
Page 67, line 34, leave out ("the equality of opportunity mentioned in section 71(1)") and insert ("equality of opportunity").
Page 67, line 35, at end insert—
("(bb) for monitoring any adverse impact of policies adopted by the authority on the promotion of equality of opportunity;").
Page 67, line 36, leave out ("assessments") and insert ("such assessments as are mentioned in paragraph (b) and such monitoring as is mentioned in paragraph (bb)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 188A, I must inform the House that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 189 which stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 188A:
Page 67, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am placed in a difficulty. I confess that I had not noticed Amendment No. 188A. Perhaps I may indicate briefly the problem that was in my mind which impelled me to table Amendment No. 189. In Committee, I ventured to point out that human rights are largely about empowerment. They are about giving people a voice in their own destiny. They are not tablets of stone handed down from Heaven to Mount Sinai. They are about meeting the practical anxieties and aspirations of ordinary people living their daily lives. So consultation is at the heart of the problem. The Government have already provided for that in paragraph 4(2)(d).
My concern is really a very narrow one; that the authority is required to state whom it proposes to consult. I should simply like to be assured that among those whom the authority will consult are those directly affected by the policies in question. By all means consult the experts, lawyers and the NGOs—they might have a real and useful input to make into the process—but can we be assured that there will be consultation with the people who will actually be affected? That is my anxiety. If my noble friend can allay that anxiety, I do not propose to pursue the matter further.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think I can. Amendment No. 188A is a tidying-up measure. The point at issue is contained in Amendment No. 183 which deals substantially with the concern of my noble and learned friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 68, line 1, after ("paragraph") insert—
(""equality of opportunity" means such equality of opportunity as is mentioned in section 71(1);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 68, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) A public authority shall, before the end of the period of five years beginning with the submission of its current scheme, or the latest review of that scheme under this sub-paragraph, whichever is the later, review that scheme and inform the Commission of the outcome of the review.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to move government Amendment No. 191, which, again, has been tabled in response to helpful suggestions on how the provisions on equality schemes could be improved. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer has also tabled Amendment No. 192.
These amendments would have a very similar effect. Both require reviews by a public authority, after five years' experience of implementing an equality scheme. In some ways, the government amendment is more rigorous as it requires the public authority to notify the equality commission of the outcome of its review.
In the light of government Amendment No. 191, I hope that my noble and learned friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in relation to both propositions. His amendment is very similar to my Amendment No. 192, and his amendment is better than mine. It therefore remains only to thank him for having an open ear and for responding to points that we made in earlier debates. I give notice that I shall not be moving my amendment. On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 193:
Page 68, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) A public authority shall consider—

(a) measures to mitigate any adverse impact of its policies on the promotion of equality of opportunity; and

(b) alternative policies which might better achieve the promotion of equality of opportunity.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, too, is in terms very similar to Amendment No. 195 standing in the name of my noble friend. Once again, he has generously responded to our earlier representations. Accordingly, I do not propose to move the amendment and am content to leave the matter to my noble friend when he moves Amendment No. 195.
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 68, line 28, at end insert—
("Duties arising out of equality schemes
.—(1) In publishing the results of such an assessment as is mentioned in paragraph 4(2)(b), a public authority shall state the aims of the policy to which the assessment relates and give details of any consideration given by the authority to—

(a) measures which might mitigate any adverse impact of that policy on the promotion of equality of opportunity; and

(b) alternative policies which might better achieve the promotion of equality of opportunity.

(2) In making any decision with respect to a policy adopted or proposed to be adopted by it, a public authority shall take into account any such assessment and consultation as is mentioned in paragraph 4(2)(b) carried out in relation to the policy.
(3) In this paragraph "equality of opportunity" has the same meaning as in paragraph 4.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 196 and 197:
Page 69, line 12, leave out ("(2)(c)") and insert ("(3)(a)").
Page 69, line 16, at end insert—
("Government departments
.—(1) Paragraphs 6, 7 and 10(2)(b) and (3) do not apply to a government department which is such a public authority as is mentioned in section 71(3)(a).
(2) On receipt of a scheme submitted by such a government department under paragraph 2 or 3 the Commission shall—

(a) approve it; or

(b) request the department to make a revised scheme.

(3) A request under sub-paragraph (2)(b) shall be treated in the same way as a request under paragraph 3(1)(b).
(4) Where a request is made under sub-paragraph (2)(b), the government department shall, if it does not submit a revised scheme to the Commission before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date of the request, send to the Commission a written statement of the reasons for not doing so.
(5) The Commission may lay before Parliament and the Assembly a report of any investigation such as is mentioned in paragraph 10(1) relating to a government department such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Devolution issues]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 69, line 21, leave out ("a question").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 198 to 220 in Schedule 11 are essentially of a technical nature. They relate to the devolution issues schedule in the Bill, which provides a mechanism by which certain critical types of legal issues that may arise under the Bill can achieve a hearing by a court appropriate to matters of this seriousness, in proceedings in which, besides the parties, the relevant authorities can also appear. The group also includes a transitional amendment in Schedule 14. Some of our amendments here reflect amendments approved by the House yesterday to Clause 76.
The earlier amendments in this group relate to the issues that may be examined under the schedule. The first three are simply a matter of drafting, but Amendment No. 201 includes several new issues. One is a question about a failure by a Minister or Northern Ireland department to comply with the convention rights or obligations under Community law, including a quota obligation under Clause 25. The Bill envisages that the devolved institutions should implement directly obligations of these kinds that fall into their field of responsibility; and it is a ground of invalidity of legislation by the Assembly or the Northern Ireland executive authorities that they have legislated incompatibly with obligations under Community law or the convention. The first element of the amendment permits the devolution issues mechanism to be used to assess whether the devolved institutions have fulfilled their responsibilities in this context.
The second element of Amendment No. 201 permits the consideration under this procedure of other issues that may arise in connection with excepted or reserved matters under the Act. The drafting is deliberately broad, because it is not possible to define precisely all the questions relating to the policing of the constitutional
818
boundaries set up by the Bill. The Scotland Bill now contains, in Schedule 6, paragraph 1(f), a similarly broadly-cast question.
The amendments following Amendment No. 201 are chiefly concerned with ensuring that the appropriate parties are before the court. Our main concern here has been to give the devolved institutions a proper role in such proceedings, a question we have already touched on in connection with amendments to Clause 76 of the Bill. Whereas Clause 76 relates to a court's judgment about the consequences that should flow from a finding of invalidity, the devolution issues procedure relates to the consideration of the question of invalidity itself.
The devolution issues provisions in all three devolution Bills have conferred a right to institute proceedings only on Law Officers, and we believe that that is right. But we also think it right that the devolved institutions should have an opportunity to express their views when their legislation is in question.
Accordingly, Amendment No. 204 gives them the right to defend such proceedings and other amendments give them a right to have notice when a devolution issue arises in proceedings in Northern Ireland and to take part in the proceedings so far as they relate to the devolution issue. They are given similar rights in the later parts of the schedule, which relate to the contingency, which we expect will be rare, of Northern Ireland devolution issues arising in proceedings in England and Wales or Scotland.
As we explained previously in relation to Clause 76, we gave a good deal of consideration to the identity of the appropriate party to represent the devolved institutions in such proceedings. It seemed to us inevitable that it must be the First Minister and Deputy First Minister: there was no other single point to which these responsibilities could attach, in the absence of a Law Officer in the devolved arrangements. But it may be unnecessary for them to be involved directly in particular kinds of case which concern only one Northern Ireland department, and under Amendment No. 218 the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may arrange for a Minister or Northern Ireland department to exercise their functions on their behalf in proceedings that they specify.
Amendment No. 220 resembles amendments already made to the Scotland Bill to take account of the contingency, which again is likely to be infrequent, of devolution issues arising in criminal proceedings. The existing law on bail and legal aid is supplemented to ensure that adequate powers are available in all situations where they may be necessary.
Finally, Amendment No. 235 takes account of the fact that there will not immediately be an Advocate-General for Scotland, since his position as the UK Law Officer for Scotland arises in the context of devolution there. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 199 to 220:
Page 69, line 22, at beginning insert ("a question").
Page 69, line 24, at beginning insert ("a question").
Page 69, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) a question whether a Minister or Northern Ireland department has failed to comply with any of the Convention rights, any obligation under Community law or any order under section 25 so far as relating to such an obligation; or
( ) any question arising under this Act about excepted or reserved matters.").
Page 69, leave out lines 26 and 27.
Page 69, line 38, after ("General") insert ("or the Attorney General").
Page 69, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may defend any such proceedings.").
Page 70, line 3, leave out ("for Northern Ireland (unless he") and insert (", the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister (unless the person to whom the notice would be given").
Page 70, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 6 and insert ("A person to whom notice is given in pursuance of paragraph 5").
Page 70, line 31, leave out ("or the Attorney General for Northern Ireland").
Page 70, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland or the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may defend any such proceedings.").
Page 70, line 37, leave out ("General and") and insert ("General,").
Page 70, line 38, after ("Ireland") insert (", the First Minister and the deputy First Minister").
Page 71, line 33, leave out ("Lord Advocate or the Attorney General for Northern Ireland") and insert ("Advocate General for Scotland").
Page 71, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland or the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may defend any such proceedings.").
Page 71, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert—
("23. Intimation of any devolution issue which arises in any proceedings before a court or tribunal shall be given to the Advocate General for Scotland, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister (unless the person to whom the intimation would be given is a party to the proceedings.").
Page 71, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 42 and insert ("A person to whom intimation is given in pursuance of paragraph 23").
Page 72, line 38, leave out ("for Northern Ireland, the Attorney General or the Lord Advocate") and insert (", the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly or the Advocate General for Scotland").
Page 72, line 40, after ("is") insert ("or they are").
Page 72, line 41, leave out ("for Northern Ireland, the Attorney General or the Lord Advocate") and insert (", the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly or the Advocate General for Scotland").
Page 73, line 11, at end insert—
("Delegation by First Ministers
35A. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may determine that a Minister or Northern Ireland department specified in the determination may exercise on their behalf, in relation to any proceedings under this Schedule so specified, any power conferred on them by this Schedule.").
Page 73, line 31, leave out ("intimation or notice") and insert ("notice or intimation").
Page 73, line 31, at end insert—
("Bail and legal aid in criminal proceedings
37A.—(1) Sub-paragraph (3) applies where a devolution issue arises in proceedings against a person ("the defendant") for an offence and the issue is referred to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland under paragraph 7.
(2) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) apply where such an issue arises in such proceedings and—

(a) the issue is referred by the Court to the Judicial Committee under paragraph 9 or 33; or

(b) the issue is determined by the Court under paragraph 7 and—

(i) an appeal to the Committee against the determination is brought under paragraph 10; or

(ii) an application for leave to bring such an appeal is made to the Court under that paragraph.

(3) The Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the defendant, admit him to bail pending the determination of the reference, appeal or application.
(4) The Court may at any time when it appears to the Court—

(a) that it is desirable in the interests of justice that the defendant should have legal aid; and

(b) that he has not sufficient means to obtain that aid,

assign to him a solicitor and counsel, or counsel only, in the reference, appeal or application.
(5) If, on a question of granting a person free legal aid under sub-paragraph (4), there is a doubt—

(a) whether it is desirable in the interests of justice that he should have legal aid; or

(b) whether he has sufficient means to obtain that aid,

the doubt shall be resolved in favour of granting him free legal aid.
(6) The fees of any counsel, and the expenses and fees of any solicitor, assigned to a person under sub-paragraph (4) shall be defrayed, up to an amount allowed by the Master (Taxing Office), by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.
37B. Where a devolution issue arises as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 37A and—

(a) the issue is referred to the Judicial Committee under paragraph 9 or 33; or

(b) the issue is determined by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland under paragraph 7 and—

(i) an appeal to the Committee against the determination is brought under paragraph 10; or

(ii) an application for special leave to bring such an appeal is made to the Committee under that paragraph,

sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) of paragraph 37A shall apply as if the references to the Court were references to the Committee.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 79, line 6, at end insert—
("Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/460 (N.I.5))
. In Article 6(2) of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (expenses and accounts of Northern Ireland Audit Office)—

(a) for "the Department", in the first place where it occurs, substitute "the committee established under section (Expenses of Northern Ireland Audit Office) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998"; and

(b) for "the Department", in the second place where it occurs, substitute "that committee".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before Amendment No. 222 is moved, I have to inform the House that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 223 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 79, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 80 and insert—
("(2) For subsection (1)(b) substitute—
"(b) a Minister within the meaning of section 20(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or a junior Minister appointed under section 17 of that Act;"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have now moved on to the part of Schedule 14 dealing with the Official Secrets Act. Paragraph 8 applies the Official Secrets Act to Northern Ireland Ministers. The provision is necessary, not only in a general sense but particularly because of the negotiations in which they will be involved with the European Union and so on, as we discussed at earlier stages.
I have proposed a relatively modest amendment. It brings the terms of this Bill into line with the equivalent provision in the Scotland Bill. The drafting of my amendments follows that of the Scotland Bill with the necessary adjustments.
If I have understood matters correctly, the amendment would have three effects. First, Northern Ireland Ministers would be defined for this purpose as Crown servants. Under the Bill as presently drafted they are neatly not defined as Crown servants, although Scottish Ministers, United Kingdom Ministers, etc., are. It seems better that they should be placed on the same basis as Ministers from other parts or the United Kingdom.
The second effect of my amendment is to bring junior Ministers under the Official Secrets Act. It has exactly the same purpose as government Amendment No. 223. We are at one over this matter. A provision for junior Ministers having been inserted into the Bill, it is obviously right to do this.
The third effect is that contractors to the Northern Ireland Executive will be brought within the Official Secrets Act, just as contractors are in Great Britain or for that matter in Northern Ireland at present. That is important. Many government matters, including sensitive matters, are delegated these days by government to agencies of one kind or another. It seems appropriate that they should be covered by the same rules as would be the case if they were being carried out by civil servants or others within the government machine.
For all those reasons, I thought that the drafting proposed in Amendment No. 222 might commend itself to the Government as being a slightly more desirable version. I am extremely cautious about taking on Parliamentary Counsel at their own game by trying to re-draft this, just like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. I have even more reason to be cautious about it than he has. At the same time, we have a duty to put forward these matters when we can. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It seems eminently sensible that Northern Ireland
822
Ministers should become Crown servants or should be known as Crown servants. More particularly, the Official Secrets Act should clearly cover all those mentioned in the amendment. I support it.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, this amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would have the effect of including junior Ministers under the Official Secrets Act. Our own Amendment No. 223 has the same effect.
This amendment also alters the way in which Ministers or junior Ministers are brought under the scope of the Official Secrets Act. Previously, Northern Ireland Ministers under the Constitution Act 1973 were to be appointed by the Secretary of State. It was therefore appropriate for them to be defined as Crown servants for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act.
Under the Belfast agreement we are introducing a wholly new system for the appointment of Northern Ireland Ministers. The Northern Ireland Bill makes clear that they will be appointed automatically in proportion to party strength under the d'Hondt procedure. Junior Ministers may also be appointed from among members of the Assembly in accordance with procedures specified by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Since they are not to be appointed by Ministers of the Crown, it is necessary to bring them under the scope of the Official Secrets Act by a different means.
It is of course important that we ensure that Ministers are covered by the Act in the same way as those defined as Crown servants. I can assure the noble Lord that this outcome is achieved.
In the Scotland Bill, First Ministers are appointed by Her Majesty and other Ministers are appointed with her approval. As I indicated, Northern Ireland is different and under the agreement Ministers are selected by the procedures defined in the Bill. However, the outcome is the same: all Ministers will be covered by the Official Secrets Act.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am not entirely persuaded to go along with the Minister. However, I shall not pursue the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 223 to 226:
Page 80, line 1, at end insert ("and junior Ministers").
Page 80, line 30, at end insert—
("Civil Service (Management Functions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/1894 (N.I.9))
. In Article 3(1) of the Civil Service (Management Functions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute "which, by virtue of a prerogative order made under section 21(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, is exercisable by the Department of Finance and Personnel".").
Page 81, line 4, leave out ("and (8)").
Page 81, leave out line 6 and insert—
(""52.—(1) Schedule 5, except paragraph 7(a) to (c), shall have no effect.
(2) In paragraph 7(a) to (c), for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of Health and Social Services".".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a series of minor and consequential amendments to the Bill. Amendment No. 223 subjects junior Ministers as well as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act.
Amendment No. 224 is consequential on the amendments being made to Clause 21. Amendments Nos. 225 and 226 modify this schedule to preserve elements of the Disability Discrimination Act which would otherwise have been extinguished. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Ministerial offices]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 227 to 231:
Page 82, line 16, after ("made") insert ("and approved").
Page 82, line 20, at end insert—
("Junior Ministers
. Any of the following made before the appointed day—

(a) a determination of the number of junior Ministers to be appointed;

(b) a determination of the functions to be exercised by the holder of each junior Ministerial office; and

(c) an appointment of a junior Minister,

shall have effect on and after that day as if it had been made and approved under section 17.").
Page 82, line 20, at end insert—
("Department of First Minister and deputy First Minister
. Any Northern Ireland department established before the appointed day under the charge of the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly shall be treated on and after that day as if it had been established by an Act of the Assembly under section 19.").
Page 82, line 20, at end insert—
("Prerogative orders
. Any prerogative order made by the Secretary of State under the Letters Patent of Her Majesty dated 20th December 1973 before the appointed day shall on and after that day have effect as if it had been validly made under section 21(3) by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly.").
Page 82, line 24, at end insert—
("Statutory committees
.—(1) Any committee of the Assembly established before the appointed day to advise and assist a Northern Ireland Minister in the formulation of policy with respect to his responsibilities as a Minister shall be treated on and after that day as if it had been established by standing orders under section 27.
(2) Any appointment of a member, or the chairman or deputy chairman, of such a committee made before the appointed day shall have effect on and after that day as if it had been made under section 27.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 83, leave out lines 1 to 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 are purely drafting amendments moving the entry about the Comptroller and Auditor General in Schedule 15. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have no comment on this amendment, but as it is the last group
824
of amendments I wish to thank the Minister for his courtesy and patience in dealing with us throughout the discussions on the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 83, line 15, at end insert—
("Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland
. Any appointment made by Her Majesty under section 36(1)(d) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 before the appointed day shall on and after that day have effect as if it had been an appointment made by Her Majesty on the nomination of the Assembly under section 62.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 234 to 236:
Page 83, line 19, at end insert—
("Certificates by Secretary of State
Section 84 shall have effect—

(a) in relation to any act done before the appointed day, as if the reference to section 22 were a reference to section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 so far as relating to a member of the Northern Ireland Executive or other person appointed under section 8 of that Act or a Northern Ireland department;

(b) in relation to any act done before the commencement of section 72, as if the reference to that section were a reference to section 19 of that Act so far as relating otherwise than as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a); and

(c) in relation to any such act as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b), as if—

(i) the reference in subsection (1)(b) to a certificate were a reference to a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and certifying that an act specified in the certificate was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security; and

(ii) subsection (3)(b) were omitted.").

Page 83, line 19, at end insert—
("Devolution issues
. In relation to any time before the first appointment of the Advocate General for Scotland, paragraphs 22, 23, 33 and 34 of Schedule 11 shall have effect as if references to him were references to the Lord Advocate.").
Page 83, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 84.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Iran
6.46 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are implementing to improve bilateral and trading links with Iran.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my attempt tonight is to put this subject into a broad international perspective, taking into account the best interests of the United Kingdom, including the Middle East, Caucasus and central Asia. Every country in that region is important.
Iran is a country that evokes strong emotions with complex issues that are easily misunderstood and often misrepresented. I felt in July that our official bilateral

825
policy required scrutiny and so conducted a number of in-country assessments. In addition, I participated in an in-depth round table in Washington where I took the opportunity to call on the offices of Congressman Lee Hamilton, who has called for reconsideration of America's Iran policy, and Senator Brownback, chairman of the Middle East sub-committee.
I left Iran convinced of the need to adopt a differing approach and enter a new chapter in relations. As it happened, events superseded with the New York initiative and as a result we are now able to plot a clear future path together—developing political and practical co-operation. Make no mistake, geo-politically Iran is pivotal in a region of crucial strategic importance and was always too large, with its location, to be ignored or isolated.
The United Kingdom shares many areas of overlapping interests. With Afghanistan, for example, Iranian pressure is crucial to curb the excesses of the Taliban, pressing them to recognise the rights of minorities and prevent that country becoming a safe haven for terrorists and a centre of narcotics production.
As regards central Asia, Iran seeks stable borders and has sought influence based on economic exchanges. Other areas of real shared interest include the combating of drugs trafficking, for which Britain has an assistance programme, and the dire need to support continued efforts to integrate the large number of refugees.
Some argue that a trade-driven agenda is the most healthy of all and cements any relationship. In my capacity as chairman of the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce, I was able to lay the foundations of a joint chamber with the Iran Chamber of Commerce, with all the benefits that would flow from bringing the business communities of our two countries together.
In addition, and in the spirit of the essential need to assist in the expansion of the non-oil sector, I have invited, on behalf of the chamber, 15 Iranian industrialists, particularly those representing the small and medium enterprise sector, to join us in London in February with the purpose of establishing joint ventures.
I also envisage a key role for the United Kingdom in assisting in any privatisation process in Iran—an area where we have considerable experience. In addition, the chamber has been invited by the Department of Trade and Industry to pull together a June trade mission. Certain it is that the United Kingdom has a lot to do to regain its trading partnership status of old. Iran is sitting on large oil and gas reserves and ranks as a leading exporter. There were times when Britain was the number one trading partner with Iran, but over the years it has lost that position and now ranks as number six.
It is perceived that the major hindrance to British industries to expand in Iran is the lack of proper finance for which everyone blames the lack of full ECGD cover. I recognise that cash terms were recently announced but that is not sufficient. If ECGD opens the door to Iranian cover, British banks would follow suit and so by extension our trading performance would improve.
Of Iran's internal situation, President Khatami was elected with the legitimacy of popular support. His election heralded change. His popular standing and ability to fulfil election promises, including a more democratic and accountable government, respect for the rule of law, and a freer social and political climate with gender issues high on the agenda, will be determined by the impact he makes on the country's economic situation. Care must be taken not to weaken the hand of the moderates while recognising that there are those who follow a more hard line agenda and are applying constraints to the liberalisation and reform process. The conservatives who could in effect dismiss him must weigh the risks of Khatami's liberalisation policies against the risks of continued economic stagnation and deterioration. Structural reforms will be painful and divisive but necessary.
If I may offer a word of caution at this point to British Ministers, we must be sensitive to Iranian politics and not overly encourage an agenda that is too hasty or overtly political. In reality the West has little chance of influencing domestic developments with their complex political system, the leader effectively having more power than the president and controlling the military, judiciary, state radio and television.
I have paid particular attention to western concerns in the areas of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace process. On the Iranians' scepticism to the peace process, I am satisfied on two points: President Khatami would support any agreement acceptable to the Palestinians and, importantly, Iran would positively consider recognition of the state of Israel as and when Israel recognised an independent Palestinian entity. Iran, however, must address in its best interests perceptions held in western capitals of possible support to groups who have as an agenda obstruction of the process.
We are all becoming exasperated with the peace negotiations. Israel often defends its security concerns by citing Iran. The difficulty I have is that I suspect that the United States and Israel have long engineered a programme of disinformation and the time is fast coming to ask: where is the evidence to support their many allegations? I have been briefed in Jerusalem for example by Israeli officials responsible for the detail of monitoring security in relation to Iran. I left singularly unimpressed and believe the evidence to be lightweight compared with the seriousness of often-voiced allegations.
Any programme in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction needs tighter definition. I have little doubt that everybody here tonight would support the ideal of a weapons-free environment but, being realistic, Tehran understandably fears a repeat of the experience of being the target of Iraqi chemical weapons with little reaction from the international community. A plausible case can be made that it is in the centre of a region dominated by countries with nuclear capability and active weapons programmes. It therefore needs a deterrent and a means of offsetting weaknesses in conventional weapons. Iran is probably confused by President Clinton's announcement this week to lift sanctions against India and Pakistan for developing a nuclear strike capability.
Iran is a signatory to the majority of relevant international instruments banning these weapons as of course is the United Kingdom.
In the area of terrorism I would encourage clear statements from Iranian officials unequivocally denouncing terrorism from whatever source, ensuring that Iranian ministries are dissociated from any such activities, including governmental control over special agencies.
The whole region, I believe, is made up of double standards and suspect hidden agendas. Israels Mossad carried out state-sponsored terrorism recently in Amman. Who is drawing up the ground rules? Why does Washington with its scant intelligence appear to oppose for Iran technology that it actually provides to North Korea as peaceful technology? There can be little doubt that a policy that sought to influence Iran with penalties but without incentives failed. What Washington for example seeks from Iran is technically unrealisable and politically unrealistic, although I sense that the position on sanctions against Iran is changing.
What now must, I believe, be achieved is a raft of bridge-building measures. The upgrading to ambassadorial exchange is most welcome. However, urgent consideration must be given to ministerial exchanges without necessarily waiting for an ambassadorial exchange although of course that would be preferable. In addition there must be an immediate easing of the visa regime, most particularly for the business community who are being severely hampered by the current time to process visas, and recognition of the benefits of educational, parliamentary and cultural exchanges. I would particularly encourage for example early re-establishment of the British Council in Tehran. Failure to adopt these measures in my view will hinder the rapprochement process. Other issues of a more international nature could include developing such areas as support for an expanded Gulf Co-operation Council and Iranian candidates for posts in international organisations and encouragement of cultural representations such as the British Council and parliamentary exchanges.
Certainly, the need to ensure that economic and environmental logic prevails in determining a pipeline route from central Asia to the Gulf and the encouragement of the United States to end support of a tightened embargo on Iran on national security grounds would all be constructive. Finally, give the moderates something tangible such as indicating a readiness to discuss Iranian frozen funds.
Only yesterday I heard of a licence application by a British company being turned down in Tehran simply for being British. I do not take unnecessary umbrage, but clearly that is not helpful. Our officials will have to instil a spirit of friendship to all sections of ministries and ensure that they are sensitive to the rapprochement process.
I see everything to work for with Britain having a clear goal and an interest in helping Iran with relations with the international community, allowing our two nations to work together in a spirit of mutual co-operation, respecting the internal affairs of the other,
828
while concentrating on the priority issues in our relationship, balancing the strengths and experience of each.
7 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for bringing the matter to our attention. I had thought that in the post-Rushdie atmosphere there would be a long list of speakers. I have prepared a brief speech, believing that three minutes would be my limit. I shall stick to those three minutes despite everything.
I have only a few points to make. We must not only welcome the New York initiative—it is a big breakthrough in British-Iranian relations—but also the fact that in a sense Iran, having gone into a Fundamentalist Islamic mode, has drawn back from that brink, although it is not entirely free from it, as the noble Viscount pointed out. There is still a mixture between what the state does and what the religious clergy do. But at least President Khatami is there; and there is a woman vice-president. That is a welcome fact. I met her recently when I was in Seoul for a conference. She is responsible for an important ministry—the environment.
However, there is still a fragility about Iran of which we must be careful. As the noble Viscount pointed out, the overlap between the state and the clergy means that, although the Rushdie fatwa has been officially disowned, fatwas cannot technically be withdrawn. Once they are issued, they are issued. So we have to be very careful. We must ask for constant assurance that any attempt made by any private members of Iran to pursue it will not be encouraged by the Iranian Government.
The noble Viscount has expertise on the business side and has covered the topic well. I agree with him that business opportunities are opening up. Regardless of the American embargo on Iran, there is opportunity for openings for European business, not only British business, and I think that they will be welcome.
In August 1998, Iranian diplomats were captured in Afghanistan; and there was trouble on the borders of Iran. British policy has to consider carefully not only the western side of Iran but also the eastern side. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are somewhat fragile states at present. We have to be friendly to Iran as part of a general package in seeking to restore peace in that region. Peace and democracy are extremely important.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I speak anecdotally. Just over a year ago, with my son, I pulled into the fabulous city of Isfahan at three in the morning on a public coach, not knowing where I was to spend the night, nor speaking any Persian, and, frankly, feeling rather lost. A young Iranian invited us, in broken English, to his home for the night. We were extraordinarily hospitably treated.
At breakfast an appallingly disabled young man was introduced to us who spoke good English. After initial greetings, he engaged us in a debate about Britain's role

829
in the Iran-Iraq war. I think it not inappropriate on this special day of special days, our own Day of Remembrance, to recollect what few of our countrymen know: that the Iranians suffered more deaths and more casualties in the Iran-Iraq war than the whole of the Allied Forces in the First World War.
I need hardly remind noble Lords that Britain backed Saddam Hussein in his land grab for part of Iran. Many of the bombs, bullets and poison gas canisters were marked "made in England". Frankly, if one travels in Iran, as I have had the good fortune to do three times over 30 years, one finds that proud people utterly without comprehension as to how the West, having acted as they did in the Iraq-Iran conflict, could jump a few years later onto the highest of high moral ground when the same ghastly man made a land grab in Kuwait.
That episode is a deep, dark stain on our relations with Iran. I do not feel that we sufficiently face up to it; and as a matter of honour as well as real polity we should do so. My experiences and impressions in Iran—I travelled rough last year and met ordinary people—are that the Iranian people are going through the most sorely trying time. It is a time of deep depression because they wish that so many things were different. But it also a time of some little hope through the election of President Khatami. The hope is always in fine balance with depression and pessimism.
Only last month, for example, three-quarters of the seats for the Assembly of Experts which appoints the supreme leader of the country fell to the conservatives in the election. None the less I sincerely urge the Minister and Her Majesty's Government to be as liberal, open-handed and encouraging as possible with the Government of Iran, knowing full well the difficulties: the fatwa which has not been completely lifted; the terrorism; and the arms build-up. If the boot had been on the other foot in terms of the Iran-Iraq war, I warrant that our own reactions and suspicions would be no less, and possibly greater.
It is a proud country with a proud history. It needs encouragement. The majority of people in that country are looking for President Khatami's tender initiatives to go on bearing fruit. I hope, therefore, that the Motion moved by the noble Viscount, for which I am extremely grateful, can be interpreted as improving not only bilateral and trading links but also cultural, political and other links with Iran.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when I was a Member of Parliament for South Angus in the early 1980s, one of my constituents, Miss Jean Waddell, was badly assaulted and detained without charge or trial for an unconscionable period. She had committed no crime and had only remained loyally in Iran to do her duty to her God and Church. That incident, the storming of the United States Embassy, and the taking of hostages, reflected badly on Iran at the time. It coloured my views for some period after that, as I believe it coloured the views of most people in this country. Indeed, I would suspect that for a large number of people those attitudes
830
have not shifted since the early 1980s. However, the noble Viscount was correct to point out that since then Iran has changed significantly. It may well be that that change is proceeding at an accelerating pace. Clearly, we welcome that and I hope that tonight's brief debate will underline it.
The noble Viscount was also correct in offering wise words of caution when he said that we should be sensitive to Iranian politics and should not overly encourage an agenda which is too hasty or too overtly political. However, I say to the Minister that we, too, welcome the upgrading of relations to ambassadorial level following on the reassurances and clarification which the Foreign Secretary received in September that the Iranian Government would take no action to threaten the life of Salman Rushdie; nor would they encourage or assist anyone to do so.
If, as the noble Viscount indicated, it is correct that the British/Iranian chamber of commerce has been invited by the Department of Trade and Industry to pull together a trade mission for the middle of next year we would also welcome that useful initiative.
However much we share the aims of improving bilateral and trading links with Iran, there is no point in disguising the fact that concerns remain over Iranian policy; not least a concern over human rights and its record, particularly of the treatment of religious minorities. Nor can we disguise a proper alarm over the attitude to terrorism and the peace process in the Middle East. However, there may be some grounds for believing that a welcome change in relation to the peace process is underway. The Minister might give a view as to whether that is an unrealistic assessment. If there are grounds for optimism that would be a further basis for the warming of relations.
We also understand and support the concerns over the supply of weapons of mass destruction which have been expressed both by the European Union and the G7. The United States clearly shares those concerns, although the logic of the conclusions which it reaches on that basis are less easy to follow. The Minister may be aware of a speech made by the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to the Asia Society in New York in June this year. She said:
"The United States opposes and will continue to oppose any country selling or transferring to Iran materials and technologies that could be used to develop long-range missiles or weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, we oppose Iranian efforts to sponsor terror".
I doubt whether there is anyone in your Lordships' House who would quarrel with that statement. However, the Secretary of State went on to say:
"Accordingly, our economic policies, including with respect to the export pipelines for Caspian oil and gas, remain unchanged".
I have a real respect and admiration for the robust intellect of the Secretary of State, but with regard to US policy on the export pipeline for Caspian oil and gas, I have difficulty in seeing how it logically follows from its concerns over weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. On the contrary, one would have thought that the United States' concerns for political and economic stability in Central Asia and around the Caspian, and its concerns for wider environmental issues, would have led it to exactly the opposite conclusion.

831
It may be a little too early to invite the Minister to offer an assessment, but I ask whether she considers that, following on the recent elections in the United States, in particular one notable senatorial defeat, attitudes to the Iran-Libya sanctions Act might be softening in Washington. Clearly, that would be most desirable. I acknowledge and appreciate that significant negotiations were undertaken successfully by the European Union to ensure that the United States agreed to grant individual waivers for companies within the European Union, but it still seems to me that that approach is not wholly satisfactory. I have no doubt that EU companies, if they have to approach the United States authorities for individual waivers, will do so with some concern. I certainly recollect my time at the Department of Trade and Industry when comparable approaches had to be made over Cuba. Those companies did not wish to indicate to the United States Government that they had any intention of investing in that country. I have no doubt that comparable attitudes will obtain in relation to Iran.
This has been a most useful short debate and I very much appreciate all that the noble Viscount had to say. We share his desire for an improvement in bilateral relations. There may be some issues which remain to be addressed and we should face up to them. However, we certainly wish to see an improvement in trade and I hope that the Government will do all that they can to bring pressure to bear on the United States to ensure that there is a rational approach to trade with Iran. We certainly wish the noble Viscount in his capacity as chairman of the chamber of commerce every success in bringing about an improvement in these bilateral and trading relations.
7.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for this opportunity to discuss the United Kingdom's relationship with Iran at this important juncture when Iran is undergoing potentially significant and far-reaching changes. I commend the noble Viscount for the personal interest he has shown in helping to promote closer ties between the two nations. We have already made progress on some of the issues which have troubled our relationship over much of the past 20 years and in the process we have begun to overcome some of our historical suspicions of each other's intentions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, referred to that.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward tonight. I, too, recognise and welcome the recent positive steps taken by the Iranian Government in certain areas of their policies. In particular, I welcome the assurances given on 24th September over the safety of Salman Rushdie. These assurances have removed a major obstacle in the way of our bilateral relationship. However, we and our European partners also have continuing concerns, particularly over human rights and weapons of mass destruction.
832
I turn to the more positive developments in Iran. In the domestic arena, we welcome the Iranian Government's commitment to develop an Islamic civil society based on respect for the rule of law. There is now much greater freedom of expression than a year ago. There is a lively political debate in Iran's media. There have also been some modest improvements in the situation of women, notably with the appointment of Iran's first four women judges and, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, reminded us, of the first woman vice-president. I was pleased to hear what the noble Lord said about his meeting with her.
Iran's decision to allow Amnesty International to accompany Mary Robinson to attend a human rights conference earlier this year—not, as I said on 2nd November, early next year—was a significant step towards much greater transparency. Mrs. Robinson said afterwards that positive forces were at work within Iran which should be encouraged, particularly among women, where she had been surprised at the independence and willingness of the women she met to speak out.
We are also encouraged by Iranian foreign policy initiatives, in particular its attempts to reduce tensions with its Gulf neighbours. Similarly, we welcome Iran's decision to ratify the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the chemical weapons convention and hope that others in the region will follow Iran's example.
We welcome also Iranian statements condemning terrorists' attacks in Algeria and Egypt and terrorist attacks on all civilians. Those are very welcome and significant developments. We share President Khatami's goal of increased understanding between the western and Islamic worlds, as highlighted recently by the Foreign Secretary's call for a dialogue with Islam. The Foreign Secretary makes an important point as regards having that sort of constructive relationship with our Islamic friends.
But of course not everything has changed in Iran. A considerable number of human rights problems still exist. We remain particularly concerned about the discrimination practised against religious minorities like the Baha'is and the Christian minorities to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, referred. In your Lordships' House in the past couple of weeks or so we have discussed the Baha'is as well as the problems presented by the death penalty and other unacceptable forms of punishment still practised in Iran.
Her Majesty's Government will continue to urge the Iranian authorities to allow Mary Robinson's special representative, Maurice Copithorne, to visit Iran. We and our EU partners will ensure that Iran's record is reflected accurately in this year's UNGA resolution on Iran, recognising the improvements in some areas of Iran's human rights records, as I indicated, but maintaining also pressure on those areas which still genuinely cause concern to the Government.
I turn to the question of Salman Rushdie. We welcome the statement of Dr. Kharrazi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, in New York on 24th September in which he made clear that his government will take no action whatsoever to threaten the life of Salman Rushdie

833
or anyone associated with his work; nor will the government of Iran encourage or assist anyone else to do so.
We have long sought those assurances. The Foreign Secretary has accepted them as an extremely positive step. Dr. Kharrazi has also made his government's position on the bounty very clear. They have disassociated themselves from the bounty; they do not support it. Again, we welcome that as a very positive development.
Those assurances have finally addressed a long-standing cause of difference between our two countries, as we in this House have had occasion to discuss in the past. It makes possible a better relationship between the United Kingdom and Iran and should allow, we hope, the opening of a new chapter in our relationship, hence the decision by the two Foreign Ministers to upgrade the level of our diplomatic relationship to a full ambassadorial one. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for the welcome which he gave to that development.
However, as my noble friend Lord Desai said, we are aware that there are some in Iran who do not necessarily take the same view. That is not surprising. However, such dissent has tended to come from those who are far removed from the decision-taking processes in Iran. Of course we regret that there was an increase in the bounty on Salman Rushdie and we have made our concerns about that known to the Iranians. I assure my noble friend Lord Desai that the Iranians have confirmed that the assurances which they gave in the New York agreement are supported by the Iranian authorities as a whole.
Progress on the Salman Rushdie issue has therefore paved the way for a much more constructive relationship. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, pointed out, Iran is a regional power and a country with which we share many important interests. There are many regional issues—for example, Iraq and Afghanistan, to which the noble Viscount referred—where our views are close, and there are many areas in which we should like to develop practical co-operation with Iran, for example drug trafficking, to which the noble Viscount referred in his speech to your Lordships, and the humanitarian assistance which we can give to refugees. Such practical co-operation in those areas is a valuable way of developing the habit of working together and working at a practical and co-operative level.
But as the noble Viscount pointed out, trade is another extremely important area in which we must develop co-operation. We welcome Iran's increasing readiness to accept foreign investment, which will help to integrate Iran into the global economy. To that end, we are increasing the number of outward missions and exhibitions supported by the Department of Trade and Industry, as the noble Viscount indicated. During the period from April 1999 to March 2000, the DTI will support five outward missions and three exhibitions. The Government actively supported the formation of the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce, as the noble Viscount knows, and we continue to seek agreement
834
with the Iranians on an investment, promotion and protection agreement which, when agreed, should provide UK investors with added confidence to invest in Iran.
The noble Viscount was right to remind us that Iran is an important and, indeed, historic trading partner with the United Kingdom. UK exports to Iran in 1996 and 1997 reached just under £400 million. The Government support civil trade and investment with Iran and provide assistance to exporters wishing to do business there. Since December 1990, we have seen that growing in the trade exhibitions to which I referred. At this year's event, the International Trade Fair, the UK had the second largest national presence, with over 70 British companies participating. Senior Department of Trade and Industry officials also attended in support of the UK exhibitors and undertook a series of meetings with Iranian officials with a view to strengthening the commercial relationship. The Department of Trade and Industry will support next year's Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Fair. We are also encouraging Iranian exports to the UK. We believe that that programme of events which has begun and is being seen through next year and into the year 2000 should provide the encouragement which lies at the basis of the noble Viscount's thinking in putting forward the debate this evening.
The noble Viscount was concerned about ECGD cover. I am very aware of the business community's desire for medium-term export credit guarantee cover and overseas investment insurance to be extended for Iran. Any decision by the Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD) must balance the need to encourage trade with protecting the taxpayers interest. I am sure that the noble Viscount would not have expected me to say anything different on that. The ECGD's experience of debt problems in that region points to the need for a measured assessment of the risks which may arise.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, referred to Iran's role in relation to terrorism. That has been a point of concern in the past. Since the election of President Khatami we have noted significant developments: Iran has strongly condemned terrorist attacks in Egypt and Algeria and rejected attacks upon civilians anywhere. As well as those encouraging signals, we have detected positive changes actually on the ground. But we still have concerns about Iran's links with groups who seek to undermine the Middle East peace process through violence and about Iran's negative attitude towards the peace process. But overall we believe Iran is moving away from this policy. We are pleased to see the positive developments which I have been able to detail to your Lordships in that respect.
The other points about which noble Lords have been concerned relate to weapons of mass destruction. We understand that Iran has legitimate security concerns. We have not forgotten that Iran herself was the victim of horrifying chemical weapon and missile attacks by Iraq. We believe that we have a joint interest in ensuring that UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Authority complete their work in dismantling Iraq's

835
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction so that Iran and Iraq's other neighbours are never threatened again by Saddam. As the noble Viscount reminded us, unlike many states in the region, Iran is a signatory both to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the chemical weapons convention. In calling for her to stop a weapons of mass destruction programme, we are only asking Iraq to abide by the agreement which she has already freely entered into.
The noble Viscount raised too the question of visas. I must say this. We would only consider lifting a visa regime when we were satisfied that there was no threat to our immigration controls. We take the view that, where nationals of a country are subject to a visa regime, it must apply equally to all citizens of that country. The noble Viscount put forward the suggestion that perhaps something different could apply for businessmen. We do not believe that that would be appropriate. If there is a regime, Her Majesty's Government believe rightly that the regime must apply equally to all citizens of the country.
836
The noble Viscount raised the question of the British Council. That is something for the British Council to consider. As relations improve, the British Council will want to consider its position. But as the noble Lord pointed out, there are some sensitivities on the Iranian side in relation to cultural contacts. We would hope for a gradual development on that and a gradual improvement.
Her Majesty's Government therefore are encouraged both by recent positive developments in Iran, in our relationship with Iran and the improvements we have seen in that bilateral relationship. We hope that those will pave the way towards a new and more constructive relationship both with the United Kingdom and the European Union. We want to see Iran resume its proper place as a major regional power and a respected member of the international community. Her Majesty's Government are interested in developing practical co-operation to help achieve that end, including enhanced contacts between our two governments. We look to Iran to adopt the same constructive approach.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  World Trade Organisation and Developing Countries
  World Trade Organisation and Developing Countries
  Central America: Humanitarian Aid
  Central America: Humanitarian Aid
  Education Act 1996: Political Indoctrination
  Education Act 1996: Political Indoctrination
  Government Relations with Voluntary and Community Sector
  Government Relations with Voluntary and Community Sector
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Human Rights Act
  Human Rights Act
  Gift Aid
  Gift Aid
  Standing Committee on EMU Preparations
  Standing Committee on EMU Preparations
  Agricultural Charities: Lottery Funding
  Agricultural Charities: Lottery Funding
  Railway Lines: Responsibility for Trees
  Railway Lines: Responsibility for Trees
  Driving Licence Renewal Fees at Age 70
  Driving Licence Renewal Fees at Age 70
  Freight Transport by Rail
  Freight Transport by Rail
  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Motorway and Trunk Road Service Stations
  Motorway and Trunk Road Service Stations
  Mr. Aleksandr Nikitin
  Mr. Aleksandr Nikitin
  Burma
  Burma
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  Turkey: Diplomatic Presence at Murder Trials
  Turkey: Diplomatic Presence at Murder Trials
  Turkey: Freedom of Expression
  Turkey: Freedom of Expression
  Review Bodies: Terms of Reference
  Review Bodies: Terms of Reference
  Fluoride and Skeletal Fluorosis
  Fluoride and Skeletal Fluorosis
  Mobile Phones: Health Risks
  Mobile Phones: Health Risks
  Health Authority Revenue Allocations 1999–2000
  Health Authority Revenue Allocations 1999–2000