Sitting of 17 November 1998

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the promoters of the City of Westminster 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 not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings 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 Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, 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 second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That the Petition relating to 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
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary pf State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Right to Buy
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What plans he has to revise right-to-buy legislation. [58604]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): On 28 July I announced proposals to improve value for money by replacing the current £50,000 maximum discount limit with nine regional limits. This change would result in a maximum cash limit ranging from £22,000 to £38,000. Tenants would continue to be eligible for up to 60 per cent. off the value of a house and 70 per cent. off the value of a flat. We are considering the responses to consultation and we shall announce our decisions as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hughes: I welcome what the Minister said, but may I ask her to be much braver and to look at other matters, especially things that adversely affect leaseholders in the borough where she lives when she is in London, of which I am a Member of Parliament—Southwark? Will she consider the fact that many boroughs, including Southwark, wait to do capital works on estates until the protected period for new purchasers is over, when they do not have to make much of a contribution, so that the leaseholders suddenly have to make a whacking contribution to the cost of what is otherwise a council development?
    Will the Minister also ensure that boroughs do not abuse the system by lumping on to leaseholders' bills the cost of large amounts of communal works that they have not done for decades, so that leaseholders suddenly find themselves paying for drains, road repairs, pavements and so on, which the Labour council should have done a hell of a long time before?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is referring to another aspect on which the Government are about to consult—the future of leaseholding. We expect in the next few weeks to issue a consultation document on leaseholding, and the hon. Gentleman will then have every opportunity to make representations.
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: Do the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to help people who, having been encouraged to do so, buy properties—such as high-rise flats—and then discover that those properties are worthless?
    Ms Armstrong: Earlier this year, we announced proposals to offer councils a financial incentive to buy back ex-council flats and houses from owners in difficulty. We aim to enable people to enter home ownership and to sustain that wherever possible. However, as my hon. Friend says, it is impossible to re-sell some properties because they are in a block on

    733
    which lenders are unwilling to consider granting mortgages. Councils have the right—which they were given by the previous Administration—to buy back such properties. Under our proposals, 25 per cent. of councils' costs would be covered.
    Mr. Simon Burns: May I ask the Minister, lest she be tempted to do anything foolish, to think carefully before acting on proposals that will discourage home ownership and make it more difficult for tenants, especially in London and the south, to buy their own homes? Does she accept that the changes that are proposed will adversely affect approximately one in 10 families in England and one in four families in London, and that their discounts could be reduced by between £12,000 in London and £28,000 in the north-east? What possible justification is there for that type of attack on home ownership?
    Ms Armstrong: I find it amusing that the hon. Gentleman cautions me about being foolish, but there you go, Madam Speaker. As I said in my previous answer, we are interested in sustainable home ownership, but we are also interested in ensuring that the taxpayer gets value for money. Both those interests must be upheld in pursuing this policy. The hon. Gentleman exaggerated somewhat.
    Mr. Burns: No. It is in the Minister's answer.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have comments from sedentary positions, whether they are from Front Benchers or Back Benchers.
    Ms Armstrong: It is not one in four families in London who will be affected but one in four of those who buy at the top end of the market and who are already council tenants. The present figure for council tenancy in London is far from one in four families, so the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. He clearly has not listened to what I have said—but that is not untypical.
    We want to ensure that people are able to buy and sustain their own homes. At the same time, the Government respect the rights of taxpayers. The current policy costs taxpayers £400 million a year, and we want to ensure that that is not an ever-escalating bill. Our proposals will ensure that the vast majority of tenants continue to be eligible for a discount of up to 70 per cent. when buying their own homes. I believe that the taxpayers will find that very generous and very fair.

    Lake District
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What proposals he has for environmental improvements in the Lake district. [58605]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): In order to enhance the environment and preserve the special character of the national park, the Government are working with local partners in developing a sustainable Lake district transport strategy. The Government will also provide the Association of National Park Authorities with an additional £2 million next year
    734
    to improve national parks generally. I can inform my hon. Friend that the Cumbria area has so far received almost £1 million for its rural bus initiatives.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is well aware that there are major problems with road and rail systems and the environment in Cumbria—particularly in the Lake district. Can we be assured that the important review that is now going on—which we all called for—will change the environment and have a real impact on Cumbria, which has gone without for many generations?
    Mr. Meale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked tirelessly in this area for many years since his election as a Member of Parliament. He knows that the Secretary of State and I are interested in trying to implement a real strategy for the Cumbria area in order to sort out some of its problems. The Deputy Prime Minister and I visited the area on 10 October this year, and I visited again on 17 October. We have already put together a grant in aid for the Cumbria county council of £150,000 for work on the development of multi-modal interchange facilities for the area. The core partnerships in the Lake district are about to start work on that. We hope to produce a report shortly, which we shall bring before the House.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Minister accept that his interest, and that of his colleagues, in the affairs of Cumbria is very welcome? However, it would be helpful if he could give some idea of the time scale for reaching some firm conclusions. Will he reassure my constituents that he will bear in mind the unique nature of the area and its dependence on tourism? In particular, does he now recognise that Kendal is not in West Cumbria? Will he confirm that he now has more of an understanding of the geography of Cumbria than of Cyprus?
    Mr. Meale: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know where Cumbria is, as I visited the area many times when I was much younger. The Government acknowledge that tourism is very important to Cumbria. Any changes made will benefit the area so that more people can visit and have a better time when they are there.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. James Gray: What representations he has received from the Local Government Association regarding the local government finance settlement for 1999–2000. [58606]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Local Government Association and special interest groups within it have made a number of representations during discussions on next year's financial settlement for local government.
    Mr. Gray: I am sure that those groups were grateful to the Minister for her valuable time. Will she now find time to meet a delegation from Wiltshire county council, which will explain to her the consequences of last year's settlement and the £100 million that her Government robbed from shire counties? Sparsity and rural poverty in Wiltshire make it one of the eight worst-funded counties

    735
    in England. That is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister's constituency, which did conspicuously well in last year's settlement. Will the Minister explain why that was so?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the Prime Minister represents a rural constituency, too. At the request of the LGA, I have met each of the groupings in the LGA, including the county councils network. The hon. Gentleman knows from his previous position, before he became a Member of Parliament, that the period for representations on individual budgets comes once the settlement has been announced. If Wiltshire wants to make representations, we will consider them. Following the actions on which I suspect the hon. Gentleman had some influence under the previous Government, we want to make the settlement much fairer than it was when we took office. The hon. Gentleman may be able to give us lessons on how to make sure that some councils get more money than others.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I accept that the Government's objective is to make the distribution far fairer, but alterations to area cost adjustments and standard spending assessments while the overall limit remains fixed will only please some people and upset others. Will my hon. Friend recognise the plight of councils such as Burnley, which have had their capping level frozen for a number of years? Those are a small group of authorities with a particular problem, which I hope the Government will try to correct.
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is honest when he admits that, when one redistributes money, some gain and some lose, and that one can never please everybody all the time. The position of the authorities that he represents has been put to me. I have met that grouping. My hon. Friend will also know that the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear, following the comprehensive spending review, that there will be no pre-announced capping limits this year.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the vindictive attack on some of the shire counties, is the Minister aware that there is a sub-group of local authorities that have both rural and urban characteristics—the town and country issues group? This is the third time that I have raised their plight with her in the House. Could it be third time lucky? If she has not already done so, will she agree to meet that group?
    Ms Armstrong: The House is no doubt becoming aware that, if I saw every delegation before the settlement was announced, we would not have time to do the work necessary to deliver the settlement. We saw every delegation that asked to see us after the last settlement. Since then, I have met the LGA in partnership meetings and I have met the groupings recommended to us by the LGA. I have read and listened to the arguments of the town and country issues group on many occasions. I utterly reject any suggestion of vindictive treatment of shire counties last year. Far from it—we are delivering a much fairer settlement than the right hon. Lady's Government ever managed to do.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: The majority of local government appreciates the opportunity to meet my
    736
    hon. Friend and discuss matters before the SSA is settled. Will she ensure that the planned 15 per cent. increase in SSAs over the next three years provides an opportunity to distribute resources more fairly in local government, without any authority losing money? Will she assure the House and the country that she will live up to the promise to make the settlement fairer, so that authorities such as mine receive a fairer deal over the next three years?
    Ms Armstrong: We have made it clear that we are seeking to move to a much fairer settlement. There are difficult issues on the table this year. I hope that, when the statement is made to the House in two or three weeks' time, the House will recognise that the Government have listened to the representations made to them and have taken steps towards establishing fairness. The Government are putting substantial new money into local government over the next three years as a result of the comprehensive spending review. That is a demonstration of our commitment to local government and our support for the public services that it delivers.
    Jackie Ballard: I am sure that the Minister is aware that for many years local authorities, such as Somerset county council, have prioritised spending on education and social services at the expense both of other vital services and of non-statutory services. When can local government expect the Government to allow it the financial freedom to meet the needs and priorities of its local citizens?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Lady seems to be asking for every service to have priority, but the very nature of priority is that one prioritises. The Government have a manifesto commitment to prioritise health and education. We have made it clear through the comprehensive spending review that we will lift crude and universal capping, but we have also made it clear that we regard local government as an important part of the public sector and, therefore, of the overall public purse.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Is the Minister aware of the findings of the recent independent report produced for the county councils network that school transport costs more per pupil in rural areas than in urban areas?
    Ms Armstrong: As I have said, I have received representations from the county councils network. I have met its representatives and we shall take their representations into account when reaching decisions on the settlement.
    Mrs. Shephard: If the hon. Lady agrees with those findings, does she accept that the Government's decision—it was her Government's decision—to switch £100 million away from rural areas in this year's settlement was wrong? Does she also accept that boasting, as she has often done, of making a £50 million rural transport grant to the very areas that she has already robbed of £100 million, is not only naive but ludicrous?
    Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Lady does not seem to learn from one Question Time to another. I made it absolutely clear at the previous Question Time that the her figures are wrong. If one takes the amount of money

    737
    going into those rural areas along with that going to the shire districts and counties, one sees that there was nothing like a switch of £100 million. The right hon. Lady knows that, but she chooses to ignore it. That is politics, and I accept that. But the right hon. Lady also chooses to denigrate the £150 million that will go into rural bus services during the next three years. I do not wonder that she tries to do that, because the Conservative Government, of which she was a member, ensured that some rural areas simply had no buses. I hope that she is proud of her actions.

    Incinerators
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: What monitoring is undertaken by his Department on the siting of proposed (a) animal incinerators and (b) household waste incinerators. [58607]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Details on the siting of waste incinerators which are subject to planning permission are kept on the planning registers of local planning authorities. My Department keeps details of planning permissions granted and refused for incineration development both with energy recovery and without energy recovery, which can be used for monitoring. These records do not differentiate between animal and household waste incinerators.
    Mr. Pickthall: The village of Burscough in my constituency has been under siege for some time now by developers who wish to site three animal incinerators there. Alongside that, neighbouring local authorities plan to increase the number of household waste incinerators. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we desperately need a strategic overview of the location of incinerators and, with that in mind, will he review the document issued by the Department in August 1997, which says that incinerators can be installed without planning permission where there is a building or land already designated for general industrial use? Would that not mean that, wherever there was an industrial site in Britain, incinerators could sprout up, without local people or local authorities being able to object to them?
    Mr. Meacher: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. A planning application for the development of an incinerator—whether it is made in an industrial area or not—has to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations dictate otherwise, and in the light of planning guidance from the Department.
    My hon. Friend is correct to say that we issued guidance in respect of over-30-months scheme incineration on 8 August last year, but in February this year we also issued for consultation the final draft of planning policy guidance note 10, entitled "Waste Disposal and Management". That advises on the location of waste management facilities and suggests that, although some industrial sites may be appropriate for site-specific reasons, there are a range of other options.

    Travellers
    Ms Claire Ward: What discussions he has had with local authorities about the effect of travellers on local communities. [58608]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have had a number of discussions with local authorities, and with hon. Members, about gipsies and travellers. These have helped us to develop our policy on unauthorised camping, set out in "Managing Unauthorised Camping: A Good Practice Guide", which we published on 29 October, jointly with the Home Office. The good practice guidance stresses the need for local authorities and the police to develop joint protocols to deal more effectively with this issue. The good practice guidance, and the associated research report, are in the Library.
    Ms Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware of the substantial costs that may be incurred by landowners and local businesses in obtaining court orders, and that local authorities have powers to obtain similar court orders more cheaply and quickly than those private applicants? Will he issue further guidance to local authorities to assist local businesses to obtain court orders so that we may be able to achieve a cheaper and more efficient way of removing some travellers, who are causing difficulties and expense for local communities and businesses?
    Mr. Raynsford: I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed. I draw her attention to paragraph 4.5 of the good practice guidance, which specifically identifies the extent to which local authorities may assist private owners in action where there is unauthorised occupation as one of the issues that should be developed as part of local plans. I therefore urge her to talk to her local authority and the local police to develop an effective local protocol.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does the Minister recognise that we have a serious problem in Bedfordshire? One receives repeated representations from the farming community about the cost to farmers and other landowners of the removal of unauthorised travellers. Will he make the most urgent inquiries to find out whether the system be improved and made cheaper?
    Mr. Raynsford: The evidence from the research undertaken by the university of Birmingham, on which we based the good practice guidance, was that there were wide variations in the performance of different local authorities and, indeed, different police authorities, in their response to the problem of unauthorised camping. The purpose of the good practice guidance, therefore, is to show what can be achieved, efficiently and cost-effectively, by the areas where there is the best co-operation. We want that to spread throughout the country, which is precisely why we issued the guidance, less than a month ago. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will commend it to his local authority and police.

    Children's Parliament
    Mrs. Janet Dean: Which parts of the country will be involved in the children's parliament. [58609]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The children's parliament on the environment is open to all schools in England with year 6 pupils, building on the interest that young people have in their environment and giving them the opportunity to develop an understanding of the democratic process. I am pleased to announced that more than 2,000 schools have so far registered to participate.
    Mrs. Dean: Given that climate change is likely to be one of the topics discussed at the children's parliament, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he is satisfied with the outcome of the Buenos Aires conference?
    Mr. Prescott: I was pleased with the Buenos Aires conference, which followed a successful Kyoto conference at which legal targets for gas emissions were agreed. The Buenos Aires conference maintained that momentum and agreed a two-year action programme to ensure that climate change policy can be put into practice, and it sends the signal that Governments are serious about the urgent need to tackle the threat of global warming.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: As I chair a steering group that hopes to establish a UK youth parliament in 2000, may I ask what is the budget for the children's parliament?
    Mr. Prescott: It is estimated at approximately £300,000.

    Freeholders
    Mr. David Chaytor: What action his Department is proposing to take to curb the activities of freeholders who demand retrospective payment from leaseholders for alterations made to their homes. [58610]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I share my hon. Friend's concern about the large payments that are sometimes demanded from leaseholders who alter their homes. That is just one example of how leaseholders can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords. We hope to issue shortly a consultation paper on leasehold reform.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the activities of companies such as Ladybrook Securities, Simarc Property Management, Chancery Lane Estates, Leafenvoy Ltd, Grace Favour Ltd, Compton Developments and Urban Point Property Management? They all have a track record throughout Greater Manchester, including my constituency of Bury, North, of issuing extortionate demands to leaseholders for minor administrative procedures such as retrospective consent for planning permission or notification of change
    740
    of ownership. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the scandalous exploitation of leaseholders will be tackled head on in the forthcoming consultation document?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am well aware of the extensive concern, expressed by my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members from his region and other parts of the country, about the activities of some unscrupulous landlords who use loopholes in legislation to extract unreasonable sums from leaseholders. We are very concerned about it and are determined to tackle the abuse. I ask my hon. Friend to bear with us and wait for the forthcoming consultation paper to see precisely how we propose to end the abuse.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister accept that opportunities for leaseholders were considerably extended by the Housing Act 1996, introduced by the previous Government? Will he consider giving leaseholders an opportunity to apply directly to leasehold valuation tribunals in cases that commenced before that Act came into force, rather than simply allowing the courts to transfer such cases, as he is now considering?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman refers to the option of transferring cases from a court to a leasehold valuation tribunal. That will apply only in cases that are currently before the courts, and it would be wrong to deny the courts an opportunity to reach a view on such cases. However, we have acted in response to concerns expressed by leaseholders to make it possible, where the courts consider it appropriate, for the more informal£and sometimes better informed£leasehold valuation tribunals to deal with those complex and technical issues. That is the basis on which we have acted.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: The Minister referred to the consultation paper, which, in 1997, was promised for the following spring. It now appears that the consultation paper will be issued in spring 1999, which is more than a year late. May I urge the Minister to speed up the process on behalf of thousands of leaseholders throughout the country who suffer from malpractice by unscrupulous landlords or who have great difficulty in enfranchising themselves—something that they expected to be able to do under the previous Government's legislation?
    Mr. Raynsford: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a history of frequent, ill-considered change in leasehold legislation. The previous Government's motives were often good, but the legislation was not properly thought through and, as a consequence, proved unworkable. That is why we are determined to get the package right this time and have given it careful and serious thought. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), we intend to publish a consultation paper shortly, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait until next spring to see it.

    Green Belt
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement about his policy on green-belt land. [58611]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government's policy was stated in our response to the 10th report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. We said:
    "the Government favours robust Green Belt boundaries and a continuing presumption against inappropriate development within them."
    Sir Sydney Chapman: However many houses our nation will need between now and 2016, and however great the proportion that can be built on brown-field sites or recycled land and land earmarked for industrial development, given that some will have to be built on green-field sites, why cannot the Government give a continuing commitment to protect established green-belt land, especially as it represents less than an eighth of England's countryside? Why cannot the Minister give that simple commitment?
    Mr. Caborn: I want to put on record the fact that, since the Government came to power in May 1997, the amount of green belt has considerably increased. Each case will be judged on its merits. We have a specific commitment to PPG2 on the green belt. As for household growth, we are ensuring that this becomes a regional issue, we have made a commitment that 60 per cent. of building will be on brown-field sites, and we have commissioned the inquiry under Lord Rogers of Riverside. We have done more to protect the green belt in the past 18 months than the previous Administration did in 18 years.

    Air Pollution (Fuel Duties)
    Mr. Eric Forth: If he will make a statement on the impact of the level of fuel duties on pollution. [58634]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): It is estimated that, over the period 1996–2002, the road fuel duty escalator—if continued at its current level of an increase of 6 per cent. per annum in real terms—will save between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon in 2010, compared with the carbon emissions that would occur in 2010 under the alternative of no real duty increases over the relevant period.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. What estimate has he made of the impact that this enormous increase in duties will have on inflation, our business competitiveness and the automobile and related trades? Does he agree that, even if he achieves the figures that he has given, there is a distinct risk that the price in jobs, businesses and prosperity could be very high indeed?
    Dr. Reid: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his Government introduced the policy of a real increase in fuel duty. As it happens, we agree with that policy, but he obviously does not, which is probably why he is no longer a Front-Bench spokesman. The Government have made their commitment clear. We are committed to environmental considerations to achieve an improvement in the environment, and to working with motor manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient engines with fewer emissions, so that motorists can not only save money, but contribute to an improvement in air quality
    742
    and in the general environment. I am sure that that commitment is supported by motorists and non-motorists alike. It was advanced by the previous Government and has been continued by this Government. It seems that on this, as on many other questions, the right hon. Gentleman is isolated.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, and the change in policy and momentum that the new Government have achieved. Will he examine more carefully the excellent example of the landfill tax? It is a hypothecated tax linked to landfill, and is doing much for the environment up and down the country. Could we have more hypothecated taxes that the public can see are linked to environmental improvement?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend will be well aware that, in a landmark decision, the Deputy Prime Minister, with the Chancellor's agreement, proposed that we should have hypothecated taxation or charging to enable local authorities to take action on congested roads. That is a major step forward for the environment and for the reduction of congestion. It allows greater transparency, and will enable people to see that the charges they pay are being put towards the real alternative of a reliable, safe and modern public transport system. Once again, the Government are contributing towards the improvement of the environment and the creation of choice for motorists and non-motorists alike.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Given that the last Conservative Government imposed some £25 billion in extra fuel duties on motorists and that the new Government's policies would impose another £9 billion, is it not time—if we are to sell the principle of environmental taxation—to give something back to the taxpayer? That should be done not by making a small cut in vehicle excise duty, a proposal on which the Government are consulting, but by abolishing the duty—which is a tax on ownership rather than use of vehicles—for all but the most gas-guzzling cars.
    Dr. Reid: The Government have given a great deal back to the taxpayer, in both environmental and transport terms. An example mentioned earlier is the £150 million for rural transport services, part of the £1.7 billion extra for transport. The hon. Gentleman may not know about the fuel duty rebates with which we are encouraging local authorities to make buses the centrepiece of local transport plans. We are taking a number of other measures. For instance, we are considering introducing a variable car tax. Under proposals announced by the Chancellor, there would be a lower car tax for smaller, more efficient vehicles.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to describe the numerous benefits that the Government are delivering to the taxpayer, in transport as in so many other areas.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Is the Minister aware that the Government's announced intention to engage in yet more consultation—this time on variable rates of vehicle excise duty—has been memorably described by Friends of the Earth as "Carry on Consulting"? When will he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stop walking and talking, as his

    743
    right hon. Friend keeps putting it, and start making some decisions—or are they waiting for the Treasury to tell them what to do again?
    Dr. Reid: "Carry on Consulting" is slightly preferable to "Carry on Matron", which is what we see every time the right hon. Lady comes to the Dispatch Box. I am surprised that she, as a leading member of what we are now told were a caring, sharing, sensitive, listening Government, should be so opposed in principle to consulting people. Perhaps, if that Government had consulted slightly more, she would not now be sitting on the Opposition Benches.
    As for vehicle excise duty, I think that there will be wide and popular support for the idea that those who purchase and use smaller, more fuel-efficient and less polluting cars should pay less tax than those who use larger, less fuel-efficient and more polluting cars. The principle has already been agreed, we are consulting on the mechanisms, and I think that the proposal will be supported throughout the country.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: It is absolutely true that those who pollute most should pay most. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the longer-term prospects are for leaner-burn and more efficient, effective and economic combustion systems that will reduce all pollutants from engines, and will enable us over time to deal with the matter in a quite different way—not simply through price mechanisms?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend has put his point as succinctly as anyone could have.

    A303
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the A303. [58636]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): We are committed to carrying out the improvement of the A303 alongside Stonehenge and to a bypass of Winterbourne Stoke. The strategic role of the A303 and its remaining single carriageway sections will be considered as part of the corridor study from London to the south-west and south Wales. We will consult the regional planning conferences on this.
    Mr. Heath: Can the Minister distinguish between schemes that are simply intended to make the road bigger and faster and to take people to Cornwall more quickly, and those that will save lives and relieve communities of heavy traffic? Will she look again at the section from Sparkford to Ilchester, and the slip road to the A359 which will relieve the village of Queen Camel?
    Ms Jackson: I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's rejection of an imaginative scheme that will protect what is surely one of the most important historic sites in the world, and is a clear demonstration of the close co-operation between Departments across Government.
    The corridor study that 1 mentioned is a major multi-modal study, including not only roads but railways. The objective is to examine the scope for reducing
    744
    congestion by considering better management of the road network and by shifting traffic from road to rail. Clearly, underpinning all those aims is one of the Government's primary considerations: to reduce accidents on roads.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Is the Minister aware that the delay of some five to seven years caused by the new study will give concern to my constituents, and to those using the A303 where it meets the A30 in my constituency? She will know that the A30 from Honiton to Exeter is being dualled and is a new road, which we welcome, but that the holiday build-up, particularly in July and August—which will be alleviated when the new road opens—will cause problems further back on that stretch of the A303 where it meets the A30. Is she content that, while another study is carried out, there will be mayhem for people trying to get into the west country in summer?
    Ms Jackson: I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Lady seems to have plucked out of the air the figure of seven years. We hope that, subject to the regional planning conference, the study will start next year. However, as many sections of the scheme returned with boring regularity between 1989 and 1996 under her Administration—part of that inevitable wish list that everyone knew would never be achieved—I find her remarks somewhat absurd.

    Northern Line
    Sir Sydney Chapman: When the new rolling stock will come fully into service on the London Underground Northern line; and what has caused the delays. [58637]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] Perhaps that passes in the House for the cry of, "Encore."
    London Underground expects that a full Northern line service will be provided with new trains by early autumn 1999. The delivery of new trains was delayed by more than a year due to production problems at ALSTOM's train-building plant. Deliveries started during 1997.
    Before the trains can be brought into service, a number of difficulties are being resolved relating to the train and associated systems. For example, there have been problems with the computer software on trains and a delay in delivering the train simulator.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am sure that, like mine, the hon. Lady's constituents will be deeply disappointed at the delays in bringing the new rolling stock on to the Northern line. As the private finance initiative negotiated contract contained a specific clause placing financial penalties on the manufacturers and suppliers of the rolling stock for late delivery, can she say what financial compensation will be paid either to the Government or to London Transport?
    Ms Jackson: On the ground of commercial confidentiality, I regret that I cannot give the absolute figure, but there is little doubt that those companies are having to pay penalties for their failure to meet their side of the contract.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Minister take this opportunity to cast some light into the black hole of London Underground's finances? We know that the London Underground subsidy ceases in 2000, that the costs of the Jubilee line extension are up by £100 million this year, and that further losses are to be announced due to the delay in finishing the extension. How does she intend to make up those losses? Will it be by grant, or will they be added to London Underground's balance sheet?
    The Secretary of State is already planning to dump the costs of his ridiculous public-private partnership on the new Greater London authority. How much extra is he proposing to add to the mayor's bill, due to his hopeless, incompetent management of London Underground?
    Ms Jackson: I would have thought that even the hon. Gentleman had been in post long enough to be able to drop his usual approach, which is not only ill-mannered, but ill-informed. As he well knows, the Government have found an additional £365 million for London Underground, which means that, over the next two years, it will be able to meet the full commitment of £550 million a year, a maintenance bill that was left because of the previous Administration's failure, year on year, adequately to core-fund London Underground.
    There were six increases in the proposed final budget for the Jubilee line extension between 1993, when the project was given the go ahead, and May 1997—every time under the hon. Gentleman's Administration. That is another graphic example of their lamentable failure to exercise proper stewardship of London's transport.

    Strategic Roads Review
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What representations he has received on the publication of the strategic roads review. [58638]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): We have received a number of representations on various aspects of the review following its publication at the end of July.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister help me to explain, to those who tell me their objections and share some of my concerns, the apparent conflicts in the Government's policy on widening the M25? How does he square the proposal to widen the M25, substantially on its western side, with the Government's air quality strategy, bearing in mind the fact that, within two years, PM 10—particulate matter—levels, for example, will exceed levels stated in that strategy?
    On the day on which the Department has published the results of the roads review and a leaflet on the M25 London orbital motorway—which states that the Government reject the option of building out of congestion on the M25, as implementing such proposals leads only to monster motorways—how are we to reconcile the proposal to widen the M25, which I think is
    746
    unnecessary, with our objectives on air quality and basic objections on building our way out of congestion? I should welcome the Minister's explanation of how that conflict can be reconciled.
    Dr. Reid: I shall, as ever, do what I can to assist my hon. Friend. He will be aware that there were proposals—which the Government examined very closely—to widen large sections of the M25. The Government considered and withdrew proposals to widen between junctions 15 and 16 and between junctions 16 and 19. The Government decided to go ahead with specific proposals on the area between junctions 12 and 15, because we have to start by dealing with the situation as it is. Those three junctions are acutely congested, largely because of negligence by the previous Government.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Nothing to do with terminal 5?
    Dr. Reid: Unfortunately, we inherited the world that was left to us by the previous Government, which was not an ideal one. We decided to go ahead with widening proposals on that section, having rejected proposals on the other two sections.
    As my hon. Friend knows, the picture on air quality is complicated. I merely tell him that continued congestion and the stop-go driving of many cars can do very little but contribute to air congestion. As for his useful sedentary question, terminal 5 was in no way taken into account in any of the deliberations. A decision—over which we have no control—will be taken autonomously and independently. It is a quasi-judicial process, which we would not have allowed to enter into our consideration.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Labour Members used to tell us that widening the M25 was £100 million of motorway madness? It is comforting now to hear him using the same type of words that we used when trying to explain the situation to Labour Members when they were in opposition. Now that the transport White Paper has been launched—providing a photo-opportunity on the tube for the Secretary of State, before he skulked back to his Jaguar—and the roads review has been celebrated, this morning, with the opening of the Newbury bypass, at dead of night and in secret, what are we to expect? What exactly is the Government's transport policy?
    After various consultations over 18 months, we are still waiting for policy on buses, road-user charging, vehicle excise duties, car parking taxes, shipping, sustainable distribution, road safety, local transport plans, inland waterways, ports and airports. There has been not a single piece of legislation. When will the Secretary of State give us a real transport policy, rather than policy paralysis in his Department and ever more gridlock on the roads?
    Dr. Reid: In 18 months, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department over which he presides produced more common sense, strategic reasoning, detailed plans and money to assist the transport systems than the previous Government managed to do in 18 years. The reason that he was able to list documents and action across a whole range of sectors—including sustainable distribution, local authority plans, congestion charging, buses, shipping and aviation policy—is that the present Government have tackled all those strategic issues

    747
    which lay in abeyance for so long under the previous Government. The people of Britain deserve a better transport system and we are going to give it to them.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Among the representations that the Minister has received, has he had any along the lines of that submitted by the Conservative council adjacent to my constituency, which welcomed the thrust of the strategic transport policy, the roads review and the cutbacks on road projects all over the country, except for the two in its immediate vicinity?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. Many councils congratulated us on our approach to an integrated transport policy—even some Conservative councils, not all of which had benefited from a new bypass. I assure my hon. Friend that there are a number of fair-minded Conservative councils. Of course, there are also councils that take the view that it is fine for everyone else to contribute to an integrated transport policy and a better environment, but that they should somehow be excluded from consideration. By and large, however, the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that are in the White Paper have been widely welcomed, not only by local authorities, but by the transport industry and, most important, by the people of this country who have waited too long for a decent, reliable, safe transport system.

    Freight
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What incentives his Department is offering to transfer freight from road to rail; and if he will make a statement. [58639]
    Mr. Andrew Miller: What steps he will take to encourage the increased use of the railways for freight transport. [58640]
    Mr. Tom Levitt: What measures he is taking to encourage the transport of freight by rail. [58641]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The Government want to see more freight move by rail. Last year, we doubled spending on freight grants from £15 million to £30 million and we further increased grants to £40 million. In contrast to the previous Administration, we are spending every penny of it. Next spring, we will have a shadow strategic rail authority to ensure that freight is taken fully into account in planning and developing the rail network.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that the transfer of freight from road
    748
    to rail in Wales would be far easier and much improved if there were a direct rail link between Holyhead and Cardiff? In that context, has he had the opportunity to look at the report by Friends of the Earth Cymru strongly advocating that?
    Mr. Prescott: We are studying several reports on improving the freight rail system. A number of years ago, I considered the issue of Holyhead in respect of the trans-Pennine link with Europe and the land bridge concept. There are great opportunities and we are providing support for them at the moment.
    Mr. Miller: My right hon. Friend knows that, in my constituency, there have been many complaints from businesses and industries that are trying to export, but are unable to exploit the rail freight network. Will he tell us in more detail the precise effects that his announcement will have on rail freight tonnage and the longer-term plans to develop the Government's excellent policy?
    Mr. Prescott: We have taken a long-term view, particularly in regard to services to Europe. We renegotiated the channel tunnel link and we are now negotiating with the French authorities to see how we can improve the European services. We have asked Railtrack to look at all possible freight rail systems and the piggyback systems, and we are about to receive a report. We are pleased that a number of companies have increased the number of their wagons and engines, leading to a 12.5 per cent. growth in rail freight services in 1997–98—for the first time in many years.
    Mr. Levitt: My right hon. Friend's reply will be welcomed, not least by three groups in my constituency: those communities that live next to main roads; the quarrying industry, which has already announced its intention to increase the amount of freight going by rail; and those campaigning for the restoration of the Buxton to Matlock rail link. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how the strategic rail authority will help to take forward the campaign to increase the amount of freight on the rails?
    Mr. Prescott: The strategic rail authority will consider a multi-modal approach to maximise the contribution of road and rail interchanges, including park-rail systems, by which cars can connect with main rail systems, or the rail interchange systems, which have increased considerably in the past 12 months. Those are ways in which we can improve the possibilities, alongside increasing grants and encouraging people to move more to rail. There are clear signs of that change, with 12.5 per cent. growth this year. To coin a phrase, we are getting there.

Territorial Army
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): With permission, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Will those Members who are not staying for the statement please leave quietly and quickly?
Mr. Robertson: I should like to make a statement about the future organisation and structure of the Territorial Army.
When I announced the conclusions of our strategic defence review on 8 July, I said that I was determined that the Territorial Army should become more relevant, more usable and better integrated with the rest of our forces. Since then, we have analysed how to put that vision into practice and engaged in detailed and widespread consultation with those most expert on the TA. The decisions that I have taken will produce a tauter, stronger Territorial Army, ready to play its part in facing tomorrow's crises. The changes are faithful to the design that I set out in my statement on 8 July.
We said that we would consult widely, and we have, especially with members of the TA, and the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations. We said that we would listen, and we have, to the many representations that have been made by hon. Members and others. The final structure reflects many substantive changes from the initial proposals circulated for consultation.
The theme of the strategic defence review was modern forces for the modern world. We no longer face a threat to our national survival, but crises and risks are still real and operationally demanding. We can expect little warning of trouble, and we are likely to have to go to the crisis, rather than have it come to us. That places a premium on armed forces that are flexible, useable and ready to react. However, we also need to retain a foundation on which we could generate larger capabilities should a strategic threat to NATO begin to re-emerge.
Tomorrow's Territorial Army will be central to both those needs, like the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force reserves, both of which will grow as a result of the defence review. The TA will no longer be a general reserve for general war in Europe, but a wholly integrated and vital part of a single capability—regular and reserve—for overseas deployment.
We can achieve that by giving the Territorial Army clearly defined operational roles in support of expeditionary forces and structuring it accordingly. There will be a clear shift of emphasis so that we can use the whole of the TA, not just part of it.
We shall make sure that the people who make up the units will be trained and available at the time that we need them. At present, most units are manned only to the extent needed to achieve low levels of readiness. That will change. More units will be held at higher readiness. The previous Government's decisions limited most TA units to only 90 per cent. of their establishments. As a consequence, the strength of the TA today stands at around 54,000. This Government will ensure that the TA
750
of the future is fully resourced for its roles. If needs be, the Government will be prepared to call up the TA in formed units in situations short of a direct threat to the United Kingdom, such as the Gulf war. We are proposing a radical shift away from the TA's traditional image as "weekend warriors", towards a new, more heavyweight role in the world after the cold war. I believe that the TA will welcome such change.
I have set out details in a document that I placed in the Library of the House more than an hour ago. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have written to hon. Members with an interest in the matter. The letters should have reached them before this statement. I hope that that notice has given hon. Members information that will help them in the following exchange.
The structure set out in our document will, first and foremost, enable tomorrow's TA to meet the operational demands that will be placed on it in future. Secondly, it will encompass a degree of insurance for the unexpected—should a strategic threat to NATO ever re-emerge. There are third and fourth elements to our proposals, too. The reforms will enable the TA to maintain a widespread presence throughout the nations, regions and counties of the United Kingdom. The armed forces must continue to be linked to the local and national communities that they serve, and the TA is vital in achieving that. Many hon. Members have stressed the important role of the Territorial Army as part of the visible presence of the armed forces across the country, and as a source of practical help to local communities. We share those views and took explicit decisions to reflect them fully in our plans.
Fourthly, in the forefront of our minds and of those of many hon. Members has been the need to secure and promote the cadets, and in particular to protect the units which share premises with the TA. I have made that clear on many occasions my strong support for the cadets. They are not a recruiting organisation but a self-standing and successful youth movement. Even so, whereas on average only 8 per cent. of today's Regular Army have been in the TA, 25 per cent. have experience of the cadets. Consequently, our aim has been to protect cadet units as far as possible from disruption during the transition to the new structure. We shall retain many TA centres for cadet use even when they are no longer to be used by Territorial Army units. I assure the House that we will not dispose of a centre until alternative facilities have been provided for the cadets—although some temporary dislocation is inevitable. I have set aside up to £12 million to meet those needs. In addition, I will be allocating £3 million extra to the cadets over the next four years.
In the summer, I told the House that, to meet the requirements that we envisaged placing on the Territorial Army, it would need to be about 40,000 strong. Following our detailed analysis and consultation, we have decided that a modest increase in that number is needed. The result will be a TA of 41,200. In other words, that is a reduction of 13,000 on today's strength. To put that into perspective, last year we lost almost that number through natural wastage alone. In total, only 87 of Britain's 455 TA centres will close outright. A further 27 will be retained for the cadets. Four in every five centres will therefore remain.

751
The decisions will fulfil both the country's operational need and the armed forces' role in the communities that they serve and in which they live. The outcome is not some number determined by an arbitrary exercise in cost reduction, but is securely rooted in a thorough analysis of policy and military need. It has the full backing of the head of the Army, the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roger Wheeler, and the whole Army Board. In that respect, as in its operational justification, it is no different from the rest of the strategic defence review.
I know that some would have wished us to go further and to maintain the reserves at much higher levels than we have proposed, just in case; but the nation simply does not need such large numbers and I cannot justify them either militarily, or as a Minister spending the money of taxpayers. To be frank, the self-esteem of the TA is not likely to survive if it has no real military purpose and is stuck frozen in some cold war glacier. However, we have not presumed that we can predict the future, or that it will be a continuation of the patterns of the recent past, so the TA will continue to be a basis for the regeneration of larger reserve forces, should the country ever need them.
We have also taken pains to implement change in a way that is sensitive to the pride and commitment of volunteers and to their regimental traditions and ethos. Tomorrow's Territorial Army will retain substantial, though reduced, numbers of infantry. In future, there will be 15 new infantry battalions and they will choose their own names. I am pleased to tell the House that, within those, all existing TA infantry cap-badge affiliations will be maintained at company level; not a single cap badge will be lost.
Traditions in the TA yeomanry will also be maintained through a nationwide representation of yeomanry squadrons. We shall also ensure that those squadrons will have a real job to do and strong links to the regular regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps. TA yeomanry squadrons will have access to the same equipment as their regular counterparts, including the Challenger 2 main battle tank, and to the major armoured training areas.
We have also reflected carefully on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Defence on the nuclear, biological and chemical role of the Territorial Army. The SDR included the creation of a regular unit—a joint Army-RAF organisation—to improve significantly our current capability in that important area. Under initial proposals, the TA yeomanry would have contributed a single squadron to that unit; but I have decided, in light of the Committee's observations, to retain two squadrons of TA yeomanry devoted to the support of regular forces in that role.
Tomorrow's TA structure will reflect a greater emphasis on specialists and units of the supporting arms and services than has previously been the case. Those will provide, as now, the full range of combat and combat services support for a military deployment: signallers, artillery, air defence, logistics and engineers and, of course, medical services. Both regular and reserve medical services were, I regret, neglected by the previous Government. We shall, therefore, seek to increase substantially—by more than 2,000 soldiers—the manpower available to the volunteer Army medical service.
The strategic defence review was also crucially about people. Volunteer service will be more demanding in future, but it will continue to provide rewarding
752
opportunities unparalleled in most other walks of life. There will also be opportunities to contribute to our new mission of defence diplomacy overseas.
The TA of the future will be an enterprise to which we wish to attract the best. A new recruitment campaign will ensure that that message is clearly conveyed.
Retention is just as important. In recent years, for example, up to a third of the TA's recruits have been leaving within a year of joining; that must change. Therefore, there will be a package of improvements to personnel management in the Territorial Army, in particular for individual members of the TA who volunteer for service in Bosnia and elsewhere abroad. We are overhauling antiquated arrangements for keeping track of individual TA members. A new reserves training and mobilisation centre will start training individuals for overseas deployments from April next year. We shall improve education and training opportunities and ensure, through the provision of personal development records, that the value of the individual's experience and training in service is recognised, which will be to the benefit of the individual and, we hope, of his or her civilian employer.
The Territorial Army has a first-class record of responding to the need for change. As an essential part of the Army throughout this century, it has always had to be flexible in size and in organisation. It expanded to meet both world wars. Since then, it has been disbanded, re-raised, reduced and expanded again to meet developments in warfare and a changing threat.
The changes that I am announcing today will mean that, for the first time in many years, tomorrow's Territorial Army will have a clear role and purpose for the future. Tomorrow's Territorial Army will be better manned, trained, supported and integrated, and will be able to meet the challenges of the world after the cold war. In short, it will be a Territorial Army fit for the future—both valuable and valued by the whole country. I commend the reforms to the House.
Mr. John Maples: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in letting me have a look at the proposals at 12 o'clock, which was helpful. I am grateful to him for that. I wish that I could say the same about their content. However, I am afraid that our worst expectations have just been confirmed.
The Territorial Army is to be cut from an establishment of 59,500 to 41,204—a cut of 31 per cent. The number of TA centres is to be cut from 455 to 341—a cut of 25 per cent. The Secretary of State thinks that he has made a brave decision, but it is one that his predecessors resisted. The Ministry of Defence has been trying to sell this downgrading of the TA to Ministers for years, and has finally found a Minister to whom it has succeeded in selling that proposal.
Such criticism does not just come from the Opposition—this is not a party political matter. The proposals have been criticised by Government Back Benchers, the Select Committee on Defence, the media, the Territorial Army, the TAVRAs, the Director of Infantry, the Secretary of State for Scotland, many retired officers and many regular soldiers, who are not allowed to speak but whose opinions are well known privately.
Those drastic cuts are being imposed at a time when we are beginning to realise that the end of the cold war has not brought a new era of peace and security. Our

753
armed forces are heavily committed in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. We nearly became involved in Kosovo, and may still become so. The Gulf has been looking very dangerous recently, and who can be sure that armed intervention will not be needed? What about the threats that no one has yet even thought about?
Let us look at the proposals in a little more detail. First, I wish to refer to the few things that we can whole heartedly support. We wholly endorse the reintroduction of the two Yeomanry squadrons as part of our nuclear, biological and chemical capability. The 2,000 extra posts in the Royal Army Medical Corps and the new 500-strong ambulance regiment are welcome. Speaking personally, I am delighted that the Stratford-upon-Avon TA centre and Signal Squadron have been reprieved. The commitment to better training and equipment is very welcome, but we shall watch to see that that happens. The strategic defence review was full of cuts today for better equipment tomorrow, and that must not happen to the TA.
I am delighted that the cadets are not to suffer the same fate as the TA. [Interruption.] The former Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), is obviously so embarrassed by the statement that he feels compelled to leave the Chamber. [Interruption.] We missed the right hon. Gentleman, and we are delighted that he has returned to the Front Bench. I am delighted that the cadets will not suffer the same cuts as the TA, because their role in recruitment is vital.
The Secretary of State somehow pretends that it has fallen to him to reconfigure the TA after the end of the cold war, but this process has been going on for years. We agreed that the TA should be relevant to the post-cold war environment, and that is what we ensured. The TA has evolved significantly during the past few years and, frankly, it is insulting to the TA for the Secretary of State to pretend otherwise, or to describe those serving as "weekend warriors". Those weekend warriors are, as we speak, serving in Bosnia and Northern Ireland, and their lives are in danger on our behalf. The few good things that the Secretary of State proposes are largely building on what we started.
One of the effects of closing 114 TA centres will be that the TA will now be confined to our cities and large towns. Rural areas do not seem to be on the Government's map. There will be only one TA centre in Norfolk and only one in Lincolnshire, which is also a large county. There will be only one unit in central Wales between Wrexham in the north and Carmarthen in the south. In North Yorkshire, three centres are to close, leaving only one in Scarborough. What does that say to people in rural Britain? They are told that the TA is not for them and that, as in so many matters, the Government do not care about rural England. I use the word "England" advisedly because the highly critical letter of August from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Secretary of State for Defence has resulted in reprieves for several TA centres in Scotland.
Will the Secretary of State answer a few questions? Will he confirm that the TA infantry is to be cut from more than 16,000 to 7,100, that the TA yeomanry is to be cut from 2,500 to 1,300 and that the strength of the Royal Engineers will be cut from 5,900 to 2,700? Will he confirm that the Royal Artillery will be cut from 3,900 to
754
3,000, that the Royal Logistics Corps will be cut from 19 to 14 regiments and lose a third of its manpower and that the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers will lose one of their five battalions and a quarter of their men? Will he tell the House whether the Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets has endorsed those cuts?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his new figure for the TA establishment of 41,200 includes 3,500 in university officer training corps and more than 6,000 specialists? The Select Committee on Defence recommended that those categories should be excluded from that establishment. If they are, is not its true strength little more than 31,000? Does the Secretary of State think that that is an adequate reserve?
The truth of the matter cannot be hidden by the glossy booklets and heavy spin that accompany the announcement. This is all about money. The SDR imposed cuts and efficiency targets on the Ministry of Defence which it cannot meet. It is scrabbling around for any pound that it can save, and the TA seems to be a vulnerable target. The cuts in themselves will not save much; the prospect of selling off the 114 so-called surplus properties must have been too tempting to resist.
I suspect that that is why the review has been conducted in such secrecy. The Secretary of State said that a consultation paper was circulated. It was not circulated to Members of Parliament whose constituencies might be affected and it was not circulated to the public—their opinion was not sought. Circulation was so confined that the document—uniquely for the Government and the Ministry—was not even leaked.
If there was a genuine consultation exercise, why did the Select Committee feel it necessary to write to the Secretary of State on 2 November to complain that the TA and the TAVRAs felt that they had been excluded from the process? Why was it necessary for the Commander-in-Chief of Land Command to circulate a letter threatening to court-martial any soldier who even discussed the matter with his Member of Parliament? Any consultation was very narrow, and when the Select Committee reopens its inquiry, it will have its suspicions confirmed.
The TA is our insurance policy against a national emergency. At a time when we have a small Regular Army of little more than 100,000, that reserve becomes even more important. The Government's decision on the TA is dictated by a short-term policy for short-term savings, and we could pay dearly for it in the longer run. The TA is a very British institution based on volunteers, service and patriotism. It has given and continues to give valuable service to our country, but today is a black day for the Territorial Army. The Secretary of State has made a mistake today for which he will pay politically. I only hope that our country will not also have to pay the next time that we find ourselves in a major crisis.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for beginning his minor rant with a commendation because we provided information on some of our proposals in advance. The areas that he singled out are among the most important components of the reform of the Territorial Army that I have presented to Parliament today.
First, let me deal with the issue of weekend warriors. I was not being derogatory about the Territorial Army. I was simply saying that, if the public perceive members

755
of the TA to be weekend warriors, involved in training for roles that are no longer relevant, that does not work in favour of the proud and professional people who give of their time and trouble. I believe that, by giving them a modernised role, giving them a vision for the future and giving them a usability that they have never had, we shall rebuild morale in the Territorial Army from the chaos that was left to us to clean up.
Obviously, although we gave the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) the document at 12 o'clock today, he has still not sufficiently understood the figures in it. I shall bear that in mind next time, and perhaps allocate more time for him to do so. He mentioned an establishment of 59,000 in the Territorial Army. That is at best a notional and technical figure. My predecessor, Michael Portillo, did not even fund the Territorial Army to the 56,000 level, let alone the 59,000 level. As I said in my statement, the actual strength of the Territorial Army is 54,000. Therefore, the reduction is 13,000 on the basis of its existing strength, and scaremongering with irrelevant figures does not help the debate. Four out of five TA centres throughout the country will remain open. I believe that that outcome takes into account the views that we heard on the Territorial Army and on the cadets.
What a strange lack of memory the hon. Member for Stratford—on-Avon has. I know that he was out of the House for a whole Parliament, and I know that he was once a Treasury Minister, but his selective memory does not help us to have a constructive debate about this great service. Under the previous Government, and since the end of the cold war, the three Ministers who were responsible for the Ministry of Defence reduced the Territorial Army by 20,000 over 10 years. The hon. Gentleman therefore has a bit of a cheek to criticise me for trimming 13,000 from the Territorial Army.
The hon. Gentleman criticised our treatment of rural England, but that criticism will not stand a moment's examination of the maps in the document. In operational and footprint terms our proposals tell an extremely good story. The hon. Gentleman's allegations that Scotland got a special reprieve are a cheap jibe, in light of the fact that I gave him figures about the regional distribution of the Territorial Army and the reductions. The new establishment in Scotland is 75 per cent. of the previous strength; the national average is 76 per cent. Therefore Scotland is exactly on the national average.
The London area—which will get three extra infantry companies—is the one that has done best out of the add-backs that we made to bring the figure up to 41,200. We have put back an infantry company in the north-west; one infantry company in the west midlands; and one infantry company, a company of the Royal Military Police and a field hospital in the north-east of England. There is, therefore, no partiality involved in the process.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon itemises several areas where there have been reductions. Of course there have been reductions—I said that we had trimmed the numbers while increasing the role, training and integrity of the Territorial Army. However, the hon. Gentleman did not mention the addition of 2,000 to the defence medical services—an initial cut for which his Government were responsible.
756
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked whether the plan had the whole-hearted backing—
Mr. Keith Simpson: The cuts.
Mr. Robertson: The full package has been endorsed, not only by the Army Board, but by Brigadier Richard Holmes, Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets, who made that public statement only a few minutes ago, at the Ministry of Defence.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the OTCs are included. Of course they are: they are part and parcel of the Territorial Army now, and into the future. The hon. Gentleman made a variety of nit-picking criticisms. However, as we are talking about authorities consulted on the review and the conclusions reached, he should bear in mind the words today of Field Marshal Lord Vincent of Coleshill, the last but one Chief of the Defence Staff and a great friend of the reserve forces of this land. He said:
"the strategic environment has changed very significantly over the last decade. It is therefore essential that the Territorial Army is organised and allocated operational tasks in a manner that is clearly consistent with our new defence priorities. We simply have to ensure that the Territorial Army remains relevant and useable, or it will increasingly lack credibility in the years ahead. I believe that the Strategic Defence Review, followed by the extensive consultation process, has achieved these important objectives."
Senior and distinguished members of the British Army endorse what I have proposed today, and so too, I believe, will the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that that one exchange has taken 30 minutes. We must have brisk questions and answers from Back Benchers and the Secretary of State—I am sure that he will oblige—if I am to call everyone.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Today is obviously a bad day, and it is a black day for Chorley. I listened to the Secretary of State's criteria and, according to those criteria, Chorley TA centre should not be closed. It has nothing to do with some threat from Russia—far from it. I have only just read that our Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers 101 Battalion is to go to Wales. Why will it not remain in Chorley? I have been told that the cadet forces will remain untouched, but not in Chorley's case—the building that they use is marked down for closure.
I presume that something has gone wrong: either the Secretary of State has not been given the necessary information or Chorley has been treated differently. I do not believe that this is a political decision: it must be a mistake. I implore the Secretary of State to look seriously at what has happened. Will he meet a delegation from Chorley to discuss what will happen to the cadet force and why the battalion headquarters are to be moved from Chorley? When Cheshire—I have nothing against Cheshire—has nine TA centres and there is not one TA centre left in south Lancashire, there is something tragically wrong. Something has gone wrong with the formula because, according to the criteria, there is no way that Chorley's centre should close. I plead with the Secretary of State to meet us and to reverse his decision.
Mr. Robertson: I respect my hon. Friend's strong feelings. In any reform or redesign of the Territorial Army

757
there will clearly be losers as well as winners. I feel as pained as many others about the decisions that have been taken, but such decisions are in the greater interests of the Territorial Army.
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will certainly meet my hon. Friend, not to change the decision—the overall package has been thought through very carefully—but to consider how best we can ensure that the area's cadets are accommodated properly and how the Territorial Army soldiers currently based in Chorley may find a proper career in the other units remaining in Greater Manchester.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I also thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me to see the documents and the statement in advance?
Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's skill in presentation and the very welcome qualitative changes that he has announced, does he accept that today's statement will cause great dismay and disappointment to those whose units are to be disbanded? Does he accept also that, regardless of how it is described, the Territorial Army is to be reduced by a third or, at best—according to the Secretary of State's figures—by 25 per cent? Some 25 per cent. of TA drill halls will be sold to developers. With a reduction of that kind, is it not inevitable that the TA's ability to reinforce Regular Army infantry and yeomanry units will be reduced substantially?
Will there not be an erosion of the unique links between the community and the armed services that the TA provides? Will not these announcements reduce the ability of the Territorial Army to give support to the civilian community in time of emergency? Finally, how many of the senior TA officers who threatened to resign because of their anxiety about the inadequacy of the consultation process does the Secretary of State think will endorse his proposals without qualification?
Mr. Robertson: We are speaking about one British Army. The Territorial Army is a component of that, but the country must properly look at the whole of the British Army. General Sir Roger Wheeler, the Chief of the General Staff, is the head of the entire Army. In the strategic defence review we examined the global issue. The consequences of the defence review are also being announced today.
I am uncertain how many of the TA colonels will endorse or live with all the proposals, but at every stage they have been properly consulted and talked to. I anticipate that the British Army will recognise, as it always has in the past, that ultimately it is for Ministers of the Crown to make the decisions.
I made these decisions on the basis of a military judgment given to me by the Chief of the General Staff and the Army Board. At the press conference before we came to the House today, I made it clear, along with the Chief of the General Staff and the Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets, that we were as one with respect to the proposed shape of the Territorial Army.
Morale in the Territorial Army will not be eroded, because the TA is being strengthened. Its role is being refreshed. It is being given greater utility and usability. In the future, it will have the right training and equipment to
758
be in the right place at the right time. The thousands of people across the country who give their time and effort diligently in the interests of the country will recognise that this is the way forward, as part of one Army.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I warmly welcome the decision to increase the Army medical service personnel by 2,000. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will have a considerable impact in correcting the problems that we inherited from the previous Government, who cut the armed forces medical services in all three services?
I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to move the headquarters of the TA armed forces medical services to my constituency, York, and to move the field training centre for the armed forces medical services close to York, to Strensall.
Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his commendation. I know that he has had differences of opinion with me in the past, but we have made a conscious decision to locate the headquarters of the medical services in York. With the relocation of the Defence Vetting Agency to York, he can be proud of the job that he has done—the representations that he has made—on behalf of his constituents, who can be proud of him.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Secretary of State aware that, behind all the glitz of the new Labour modern speak, the cuts that he announced today are old-fashioned cuts in the Territorial Army across the land? Is he further aware that, in striking down the 10th Battalion Parachute Regiment, he is losing to the reserve forces a dedicated team of able, relevant and well-recruited volunteers whom I had the privilege of joining last weekend on exercise? Why axe them down, when the other component of the joint rapid deployment force–3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines—is to double the number of reserves that it recruits, while the paras are to be cut from 900 to 330? These are old-fashioned Labour cuts.
Mr. Robertson: I do not think that that is a fair representation, as the hon. Gentleman, who is usually fair, will recognise. A large number of defence jobs are located in his constituency. We have looked carefully at the role of the Parachute Regiment, in its regular configuration and in its Territorial Army configuration. I am satisfied that we will have an adequate number of people to perform the role that that regiment fulfils with great distinction in the Army.
Dr. Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the TA unit in my constituency at Greenhithe is one of those scheduled for closure. He will also be aware that that unit carries out an extremely important bomb disposal function for the area. Can he assure me and the members of my unit that that expertise and valuable function will not be lost, but will be moved to other units?
Mr. Robertson: I do not want to lose any expertise or function that is carried out by the TA where it is relevant to today's forces. My hon. Friend may well be disappointed at one aspect of this general review, but I

759
hope that he will recognise that, in the part of the world that he represents, the TA's general footprint will still be there and that the TA will still do a good job on behalf of the nation.
Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when proposals were made to me for reducing the size of the TA at the end of the cold war, when there was obvious justification for making some reductions, I judged the figure of 60,000 or thereabouts to be the minimum at which the TA could be sustained and its national presence and role maintained? The right hon. Gentleman will, therefore, understand why I believe that his announcement is profoundly unwise. It is based on a judgment of the world as he sees it at this moment. The particularly serious aspect of this is that he is proposing not only these reductions, but the sale of drill halls, so that when it is evident, as it may be in the future, that the cuts were unwise, it will be extremely difficult to reverse them.
Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman, who occupied my job, made a judgment at that time about the size of the TA in the circumstances then prevailing. I have had to do exactly the same, and times do change. We have only to look at the events of the past seven days to begin to realise just how quickly we have to react in times of crisis, and how, increasingly, we will have to do so in the future.
I must also say to the right hon. Gentleman, quite gently, that my predecessor, Michael Portillo, chose to fund only 90 per cent. of the figure that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about because he believed that a figure lower than 60,000 was justifiable in the then circumstances. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has listened to the words of Field Marshal Lord Vincent, which I have read out, because he served the right hon. Gentleman with distinction.
Times change, threats change, and we must reconfigure, not just the regular but the reserve forces, to be ready for the future. That is what we have done, that is the military judgment, and I stand by that.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: As my right hon. Friend has paid great attention to the footprint argument, does he agree that East Sussex appears somewhat devoid of any footprint, save for one unit in Eastbourne? In particular, will he assure me that there will be some means by which civic occasions and other such functions can be serviced by some form of military presence, which is so well received by my constituents?
Mr. Robertson: I am sure that we can consider how civic occasions can be dealt with, because that is part of the footprint of the armed forces. My hon. Friend may well be disappointed at the closure of the Hastings centre, but we shall retain it as a centre for the cadet unit that uses it. Clearly, the cadets' future role will be important both in the life of Hastings and, I hope, in the wider community.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I join others in thanking the Secretary of State for making the documents available at noon today. It is a courtesy that could be observed by other Departments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman encourages that example.
760
Throughout the process, has not the argument been about the highest and the lowest bidder, and have we not reached some form of compromise? In the north of Scotland, we welcome the fact that two companies and eight platoons remain, although we would have much preferred to retain a battalion, but that is better than we had originally expected.
However, my constituents and I will be bitterly disappointed at the decision to remove RAF Squadrons 236 and 237 from Kinloss and Lossiemouth, as they are important engineering aspects of the TA and they have given huge and invaluable service to the community in civilian disasters, such as the floods that we had last year.
Those squadrons have been based at RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth at no expense whatever, and I believe that the decision should be reconsidered—perhaps there should be a combined squadron to serve the north of Scotland—because they are vital, given the geographic area that they are expected to cover.
Mr. Robertson: Far from hearing the apprehensions that have been expressed in some quarters about the TA in Scotland, I listened—very carefully, as the hon. Lady perhaps expected—to the voices that we heard in Scotland, including the strong and convincing voice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is a personal and professional friend.
I can understand that, in the hon. Lady's constituency case—she is talking about a broader constituency, I presume—there will be disappointment at the closing of the two squadrons. The TA centre in Elgin will remain, however, and her constituency has been the beneficiary of a new RAF squadron coming into RAF Lossiemouth from Germany. That will boost the local economy and will increase the footprint of the armed forces in that area. I believe that we have the right shape for the reserve forces throughout Scotland, and they will serve Scotland well.
Mr. John McWilliam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the criticism from the Select Committee on Defence was considered, unlike the rant from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and one that we will explore further? Does he also agree that we welcome the restoration of the yeomanry nuclear, biological and chemical unit, which is fundamental to our response to the kind of terrorist incident that can take place? Will he reassure the House that his figure of 41,200 is real—unlike the notional figures of 59,000 and, going further back, 60,000, which were never funded by the previous Government—and the number that we intend to achieve?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a good and valuable point. The figure that we have announced on the Territorial Army will be fully funded, which will be a change from figures that have been bandied about today and were bandied about by the previous Government. That will be well noted by the public.
I take my hon. Friend's point about the considered view of the Select Committee on Defence. I paid particular attention to what it said on TA numbers and on provisions for NBC protection, and I hope that the Committee—which will no doubt give this statement the scrutiny that it gives all other statements—will recognise that it made a valuable contribution to the consultation.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Secretary of State intends to close the unit in Cobham—detachments

761
of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment and of the cadet force—which is extremely bad news. First, is that closure taking place not for operational reasons, but simply because it is likely that that centre will be valuable on the property market? Secondly, had he noted the reply from the Prime Minister to me on 15 June about the activities of the civil contingencies committee, in which I anticipated the remarks of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the role that the TA could play in alleviating any of the problems arising from the millennium bug? Will he comment on that? What reply did he give to his colleague?
Mr. Robertson: I refute entirely the allegation that we have closed any of the centres on the basis of property value; indeed, if that had been the objective, an entirely different map would be before the House. We have looked carefully and in enormous detail at operational need in relation to the TA. That will have consequential results in respect of vacant property, which will feed into the defence budget and help to finance the global budget of the Department.
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the problems that might be experienced at the millennium. That is a serious issue in which the Government take a particular interest, but the TA is an integral part of the armed forces and it would, if required, be available with the rest of the armed forces in any civil emergency, either actual or potential.
None of the changes that we have announced today will affect our ability to respond to any such request. We have shown that we intend to maintain a widespread TA presence throughout the UK to maintain the operational coherence of all our forces, and if there is a problem we shall be able to deal with it.
Ms Rachel Squire: I warmly welcome the commitment that my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team have shown in giving the TA a future and a significant operational role. I welcome their willingness to listen and consult, which is in marked contrast to the previous Government. I further welcome the retention of the Army cadet force in Dunfermline. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of recruits to the regular armed forces come from the cadet force, not the TA? Does he also agree that a priority for this Government must be to make up the cut of one third that the previous Government made in the Regular Army by taking all possible action to encourage recruitment to the regular fores?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right, and I thank her for her comments. Army recruitment is at its best level now since 1993–17 per cent. up on last year. It is an indication from those who would join the Army that they see a future in it because of the strategic defence review. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the cadet centre in Dunfermline. She is right to say that, although the cadet force is a youth movement and is not designed for recruitment, it gives young people in many parts of the country a flavour of the forces that will tempt them into a satisfying and high-quality career later in life. My hon. Friend has helped throughout this exercise, and I thank her for the energy and effort that she has put into
762
it. By any standards, we have listened more to the outside world and the TA than any previous Government. I presume that, as a result, our proposals will get the support that they merit.
Mr. John M. Taylor: The proposals are open to all sorts of criticism, but in the case of my constituency they are ignorant. Page 75 of the so-called fact sheet places Shirley in Birmingham, whereas it is an important part of the borough of Solihull. I went to camp this summer with Army cadets from Shirley; I will see the air cadets on Thursday this week and the sea cadets on Friday. They will be devastated to know that the TA centre at Haslucks Green road will close completely. Will the Secretary of State write to me about where he proposes that those cadets should now parade?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is willing to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman, because we have absolutely guaranteed that accommodation will be made available to replace existing cadet centres. I hope that he will tell the cadets that he mentioned—I dare say that they value the contact that they have with him—that we shall spend an extra £3 million on the cadets over the next four years because we believe in their value both to the community and to the armed forces. Their relocation will be a matter of consultation, in which the hon. Gentleman is welcome to be involved. I guarantee that suitable premises will be found.
Mr. Barry Jones: I acknowledge the Secretary of State's courtesy in sending me a letter and documentation before his statement, and I support his strategy for the new century. May I thank him and his Department for the decision to keep open the Queensferry centre? The whole of Deeside will thank him for that, whether they be the voluntary services that use it or the soldiers themselves. May I also acknowledge my right hon. Friend's decision to keep the Royal Welch Fusiliers' 3rd Battalion of the Territorial Army at Wrexham? North Wales recruits strongly for the Royal Welch Fusiliers, and people throughout north Wales will thank the Secretary of State for listening.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that the decision that we took was right and proper in the circumstances. The TA is a good area for recruitment into the regular forces. That was one of the factors that we took into account in the reconfiguration of the TA. Overall, the package that we have put together satisfies the operational requirements of the Army, and is endorsed by the Chief of the General Staff and the Army Board. It will be recognised by the country as a suitable future for the whole of the TA.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I declare an interest as the squadron leader of the Warwickshire and Worcestershire Yeomanry, although I see from these proposals that I shall not hold that appointment for much longer. What measures will the Secretary of State take to ensure that, in future, there is a sufficient number of senior TA officers at the top of the chain of command who are capable of giving advice to Ministers, so that such a stitch-up will not take place in the future?
Mr. Robertson: I am sure that we shall be able to attract the right quality of officers and other personnel

763
into the Territorial Army, and that that will be easier to achieve at all levels now that the TA can look forward to a more usable and relevant role.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: It was a great relief to read the report, because I fully expected the centre in Durham to be closed. It was unthinkable that there would be no infantry presence in Durham in the near future. I thank the Secretary of State for that and for the fact that the Burma Band and Bugles of the Light Infantry will be retained. That is very important, because it would have been a terrible loss to Durham county if such a magnificent group of musicians had been disbanded.
I did not understand what my right hon. Friend meant when he referred to the names of the new battalions. He seemed to say that they could pick their own names. Will the battalion that will be based at the new headquarters in Durham be able to take the title of 7 Light Infantry, as it has been known through history?
Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposals. I hope that it will be noticed that the pain and the pleasure are evenly shared in the House, both geographically and politically. We have sought to achieve a sensible balance that is consistent with the operational objectives of the strategic defence review.
The new regiments are described by their geographic titles, but it will be within their power to make recommendations to us about what they want their names to be. That is a sensible way of going about it, rather than commanding from the centre what the new titles should be.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The United States Chief of the General Staff recently said that he needed all his reserves, which are larger than the Regular Army. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the cuts fall most heavily on those elements of the Territorial Army that cannot be found from civilian life, especially the infantry and yeomanry, for which there is no civilian equivalent and which would take the longest to rebuild? Will he also confirm that, although the 15 remaining infantry battalions may be allowed to recruit to their new establishments, those establishments are configured in such a way that they could not be deployed as a formed unit within any reasonable time scale? Will he confirm that the largest cut in the infantry falls on the paras, who are the most ready for war?
Mr. Robertson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to forget his main point, but he rescued himself at the last minute. The hon. Gentleman has a good track record on, and a great interest in, the reserve forces. I have responsibility for all the armed forces, and for ensuring that they are ready for day-to-day operations, in which our country is engaged much more than even the American forces. It is not possible to make easy comparisons between what the reserves do in the United States of America and what our reserve forces are expected to do.
Our reserves must be much more usable, at a much higher level of readiness and trained to a much higher level of skill than the reserve forces of the United States of America. As we have seen in Kosovo, Iraq and a number of other places, we have a larger proportion of our forces engaged in day-to-day operations than the
764
United States and practically every other country. That is why we want to make our Territorial Army much more usable and relevant.
We have considered the position of the Parachute Regiment with enormous care. The regiment has a very effective outside lobby, including a number of close friends of mine, and the decision was not made lightly. I have to balance the judgment of those outside, and those who happen to be involved in the interests of particular regiments, with the general advice that I receive and the decisions that I, as Secretary of State, must make on behalf of all our armed forces and of the country. I believe that my judgment, and the judgment of my military advisers, is right.
Mr. Martin Linton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and, in particular, on his wise decision to site the headquarters of the London Battalion in Battersea, along with four companies of the London Regiment and two of the Royal Green Jackets. May I urge him to draw attention to the record of the London Regiment, a TA regiment that is rooted in its community and reflects its ethnic composition, with 15 per cent. of members drawn from ethnic minorities in the headquarters company in Battersea and 20 per cent. in the company in Balham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox)?
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words of welcome. I think that he and others will recognise that we have done the right thing in London and elsewhere. He is right to say that we have taken account of a variety of factors, including the ability to recruit from parts of the community with which we may not have had such success in the past.
I hope that it will be noticed that we have included three additional infantry companies in the London plan. One will be from the Royal Green Jackets, one from the London Scottish Regiment and one from the London Irish Regiment. I think that that will prove to be a popular decision.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be only one TA battalion in Wales, not two as at present? His document refers only to a Wales battalion. Will he also confirm that nine of the 31 TA centres in Wales are being closed? That does not reflect his claim that four out of five centres would remain in Wales; two out of three will remain—not the average relating to the United Kingdom as a whole. The recruiting record in Wales is outstanding, but I believe that the Secretary of State's proposals will seriously diminish it.
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman, normally a very fair individual, is wrong in this instance. Of all the parts of the country, Wales is doing best in terms of the numbers retained. It currently has a strength of 2,982, and its proposed establishment is 2,547. Whereas the national average is 76 per cent. of the previous average, in Wales the figure is 85 per cent. Wales has done extremely well out of the restructuring.
Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Territorial Army had an important role to play in Northampton in rescuing people

765
when more than 2,000 homes were flooded at Easter? Its lifesaving work has not been publicly recognised. I assure my right hon. Friend that his decision to keep the TA centre in Northampton will be warmly welcomed by a town that understands the important role that the TA has to play in crises not just abroad, but at home.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I, too, pay tribute to the valuable social role undertaken by many units of the TA. I hope that, by restructuring and revitalising it and boosting its morale, I am giving those units collectively a pat on the back.
At the beginning of my statement, I made the critical point that the reduction in actual numbers is only fractionally more than the natural wastage in the TA in one year. Far from attacking the TA, as some irresponsible people have suggested, we are strengthening its role. Those who have praised and admired its work, as my hon. Friend has in the past, will have even more cause to do so in the future.
Mr. David Faber: I, too, welcome the personalised letter that all hon. Members have received from the Secretary of State. Does he not think that mine would have been of a little more use if it had been honest enough to acknowledge the fact that the Territorial Army centre in Trowbridge, the county town of Wiltshire, was to close? My constituents will be confused about why no mention of the centre has been made in my letter, although, according to the document that has been produced, it is scheduled to close?
Does the Secretary of State not understand the devastating effect that that will have on a rural community such as west Wiltshire? The centre provides a focal point for the local community, for young people, for training young people in many of the arts, such as leadership, and for maintaining a serious career, which is good for the whole community, not just for the young people who try to join the TA.
Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's thanks for the fact that he received the letter. The detail about which he talks is in the document. The letter alerted him to the fact that it would be in the Vote Office, so the information was there.
We have tried to do our best. Few Departments and, indeed, few previous Governments have gone to the trouble of giving hon. Members information in advance of statements. I am sorry that that information, however the hon. Gentleman got it, is bad for him in terms of the specific constituency, but I assure him that we have ensured that the overall TA footprint is still there in Wiltshire, and that there are still relevant centres close by, which will give people who wish to volunteer the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Army in Lancaster will face the future positively and loyally, even in the face of decisions that have reduced the headquarters of a battalion to the status of a company, which is largely based in Barrow—the battalion being based in Preston? Does he understand that the Member of Parliament for Lancaster
766
and Wyre is more demoralised than it may be, and that I require a written explanation and rational justification for the changes that have taken place, which will not only say why those decisions have taken place, but give a real commitment to the Army in Lancaster? Can that justification be phrased rather better than the warm words and pats on the head that I have so far received in response to speeches in the House and many letters to the Ministry of Defence?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is a decent and fair person and makes a point on behalf of his constituency. He may wish to express that here today, but it is impossible to restructure, to reorganise and to modernise the Territorial Army if there is not going to be a single casualty affecting some constituency. I assure him that there will still be opportunities in Lancashire and near Lancaster for people to volunteer and to serve their country through the Territorial Army.
Sir Robert Smith: In disbanding the company in Laurencekirk, will he confirm that, should volunteers from Laurencekirk wish to continue to make a commitment to the Territorial Army, they will be able to do so in neighbouring companies? Will he confirm what the Minister for the Armed Forces said at a meeting: if we find that there are practical consequences for the cadet force that were not foreseen in the statement, he will listen to representations?
Mr. Robertson: We are always willing to listen. The answer to the first question—can people who are being moved seek places in neighbouring countries?— [Interruption.] Neighbouring companies, not neighbouring countries. Norway is probably closer than England to Laurencekirk, but those people will be able to find a role in neighbouring companies. We shall be willing at every stage to consider constructive criticism of and suggestions about the plan, and indeed about the strategic defence review. The situation is not static, as the threat is not static and the unexpected can always happen. We have to be able to evolve our regular and reserve forces in a manner that serves the country best, which is why we shall keep it all constantly under review.
Mr. John Smith: My right hon. Friend's proposals will receive a warm welcome in the hillsides and vales of Wales. The news of the retention of two viable battalions there to play a crucial new role in fulfilling the modern role of our armed forces will be very welcome. Is he aware that, last Friday, in Edinburgh, General Wesley Clark, NATO Supreme Allied Commander, described the strategic defence review as a remarkable achievement that should be used as a model for all other NATO countries? Today's proposals are an integral part of that review.
Mr. Robertson: I do not know whether I should be more flattered by the fact that the reform will be welcomed in the vales and valleys of Wales or by General Wesley Clark's commendation of them last week at the North Atlantic Assembly. I am looking not for plaudits or commendations, but to do what is right for the United Kingdom and for the armed forces, who serve us all.
Sir Peter Emery: As the Secretary of State's hon. Friends have failed to do so, may I thank him

767
for coming to Edinburgh to the annual meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly, at considerable inconvenience for himself, having to fly from Ypres and meeting so many of our European friends, the delegates at that conference? However, may I also remind him that Mr. Solana, the NATO Secretary-General, in addressing the conference, not only reinforced his comments on the training of reservists having to be at the highest standards but said that ever more nations would have to rely on reservists if they were to be able to meet some of NATO's modern requirements and the surprise aspects of what NATO troops might have to do in the future? Today's statement seems to run entirely contrary to that advice.
Mr. Robertson: No, it does not—exactly to the contrary. Secretary-General Solana was absolutely correct in saying that we will have to rely more on our reservists, and we shall do so. We are therefore modernising and restructuring the Territorial Army, so that we can use its members, and more of them, more often in the future. I think that Secretary-General Solana—who has himself praised our defence review and commended it to other NATO countries—would recognise that the United Kingdom, more than most countries, has made our forces more relevant to the type of problems that NATO will face in the future.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his warm words at the beginning of his remarks, and for the help that he gave me at the reception in the old Parliament building, at Edinburgh, in meeting so many delegations that had come to my native land to hear the debate in the North Atlantic Assembly and to enjoy Scotland's hospitality and scenery.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State is surely aware that, from the Haldane principles of 1908 onwards, the Territorial Army has had a particular political structure because it has required political protection. Why has he therefore not taken any notice of the recommendation in paragraph 277 of the Defence Committee's report, which would at least have led to a Territorial Army of 50,000—a figure that the central staffs in the Ministry of Defence tried to slide past Sir Malcolm Rifkind when he was Defence Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister? The tactic was rejected then because those politicians had a proper understanding of the role of the Territorial Army in the United Kingdom. Why has the Secretary of State failed in his duty to protect the country and the Territorial Army?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman, who was an adviser to the previous Government, has clearly changed his mind—or his view, with so many others, was ignored. The previous Government reduced the Territorial Army by 20,000 in the past 10 years. I shall therefore take no preaching or lessons from those who say that I should not accept military advice but who themselves went well beyond the figure that they now claim is the absolute bedrock.
Rev. Martin Smyth: First, may I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for the opportunity of consulting on the issue? The Secretary of State will be mindful of my comment that premier divisions will not be going for the top place in the division if they keep
768
reserve forces at half strength. Some have kept their reserves at half strength because they do not have sufficient money—which I suspect is the reason for the current cuts in the armed forces. May I thank the Secretary of State for the fact that my own two units—in Sunnyside street and in Hydebank—have been retained? However, as the modern Army has to do a lot of policing, he will understand our regret that the Provost company in Kinnegar will be disbanded. Where will the sea cadet unit go when the centre in Newtonards is closed? Is it a matter of HMS Never Budge becoming HMS Scuttled?
Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's words. Northern Ireland has done very well as part of the review—for good reason, too, as its recruitment record has made a serious contribution to the Regular Army.
On housing for the sea cadet unit, I have made a pledge about ensuring that alternative accommodation is available for cadet forces. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, more than at liberty to come to the Ministry to discuss how best that can be done.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not ironic that the decimation of the Territorial Army has been announced so soon after Armistice day? Was not the Secretary of State's language redolent of that of a first world war general trying to justify colossal losses? Will the Secretary of State be remembered for what he has done to our volunteer forces today as a cut-price Douglas Haig of the 1990s?
Mr. Robertson: That is pathetic, and it is unworthy of a statement in the House. In 1987, the strength of the Territorial Army was 78,000; in 1996, it was 57,000. A Conservative Government were in power all that time.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Although I recognise that many hon. Members are disappointed with the Minister's statement, it would be unreasonable for me not to welcome his announcement that the Dunoon TA centre is to remain open, and to thank the Minister for his personal letter, in which he mentioned Dunoon. I am sure that the Secretary of State—who knows the town well—appreciates that it would have been very wrong to lose the last Argyll TA link with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
Mr. Robertson: The decision was all to do with operational reasons and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I went to school in that area and was a member of the Army cadets attached to the Territorial Army centre there. Just as there are winners and losers, the decision was taken on the basis of what is required to ensure that there is a reasonable footprint across the United Kingdom and that the Territorial Army continues to make a huge contribution in rural and urban areas alike.
Mr. Tony Baldry: In the forward to the document, the Secretary of State said—quite understandably, given the increase in peacekeeping by the armed forces—that there will be a shift in emphasis to logisticians, among other things. Against that background, will he explain to the House why the Royal Logistics Corps TA is being cut by a massive 30 per cent? That does not seem to be consistent with the objectives that he sets himself in the document's forward. Will he take this

769
opportunity also to make it quite clear that he does not in any way regard the TA as weekend warriors? Considering the huge numbers of TA soldiers who served in Bosnia, the Gulf and elsewhere, it would be very unfortunate if there were any scintilla of a suggestion that the House or the Secretary of State ever thought of the TA as weekend soldiers.
Mr. Robertson: I certainly do not have that view—I am trying to fight against it. However, I fear that repeated accusations may be one reason why we lose one third of the recruits to the Territorial Army in the first year. The whole thrust of the exercise that I am undertaking is to eliminate that image completely and to make sure that the Territorial Army is valued by and valuable to the country and to the regular forces. The hon. Gentleman is an honorary colonel of a Territorial Army unit and he has made several good suggestions which I have taken on board. I greatly value his advice. He asked a fair question about the cut in the Royal Logistics Corps. There have been reductions in numbers in some units because they support a larger deployment than is likely to occur. We have made operational decisions, and that happens to be one of them.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State made a joking reference to Norway in response to the question from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). Is he aware that the Norwegian army can field no fewer than 101,000 reserves to operational status within 72 hours and that Sweden has 450,000 army reserves, 48,000 of whom do up to 31 days' training a year? Is not the great weakness of his statement that it fatally fails to recognise the importance of numbers in reserves? It is surely a consequence of Treasury pressure. The Secretary of State spoke of footprints. The only footprints that I can discern are Treasury footprints—great big brown hob-nailed boots.
Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the Opposition could agree to one line on this issue. Those on the Front Bench say that I have been sold some sort of pass by the General Staff, and now the hon. Gentleman suggests that it is all due to the Treasury. The fact is that the Army needs the Territorial Army, which has to be revamped and modernised to make it useful.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Norway and Sweden. I repeat what I said in response to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier): we are not comparing like with like. Countries such as ours that are able to contribute through their regular forces on deployment have different requirements of their reserves than countries that are unable to make the same overseas deployment. That is well worth bearing in mind.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Along with many Members on both sides of the House, I am most concerned about the future of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. I was relieved to hear what the Secretary of State said. Will he give an assurance that their role will be further enhanced so that, when necessary, they will be
770
able to assist in emergencies such as the flooding incident at Llandudno and undertake other civil work, as they have in the past?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman repeats the point that we have kept the cap badge. That is important not just for the operational importance of the unit, but for morale in the unit and in Wales. The relevance of the armed forces and their role will be in accordance with the needs of the Army.
Mr. David Heath: Although there will be great sadness at the fact that the Somerset Light Infantry is to be extinguished after more than 300 years, there will also be relief at the fact that a Territorial Army presence will be maintained in the county. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that the very small infantry units—the 15 complements proposed for Somerset and Cornwall—will remain viable in the long term?
Mr. Robertson: The purpose of the exercise is to make sure that we have viable units for the future.
Mr. Robert Walter: The Secretary of State said in his statement that we need a modern Territorial Army more fully integrated into our armed forces. The 4th Battalion of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment TA works effectively with the 1st Battalion of the regulars. Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain why it will be more fully integrated if it is abolished and replaced by two companies of the South-West Battalion which will have no attachment to the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment.
Mr. Robertson: It is for the simple reason that the soldiers concerned will be at a higher level of readiness than they are trained for at present. They will be able to train on equipment to which they did not have access before; therefore, they will be more usable within the Territorial Army than the present configuration allows.
Mr. Martin Bell: I wish to speak up for an unfashionable arm of the service. The Secretary of State will know from his visits to British soldiers on active service overseas and elsewhere that none are more heavily committed than the Royal Engineers, yet the engineering reserves are being cut from nine regiments to five, which seems hard to justify. My plea is SOS—save our sappers.
Mr. Robertson: The fact is that the five regiments that we will retain will be much better able to serve at higher levels of readiness in places such as Bosnia, where our reserve forces make such a big contribution. At present, we believe that the number of Royal Engineers units is designed to support a larger force than is likely to be deployed, even on NATO operations. That is why it is the operational judgment of the Army and Ministers that they should be reduced. However, I believe that the five remaining units will be much more useful and better motivated as a result of the change.
Mr. Andy King: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Like him, I spent my teenage years in the Army cadet force. They may not have helped me, but they were particularly enjoyable years.

771
I believe that the cadet forces are very productive in channelling the positive energies of young people, and 1 benefited greatly from my experience. I particularly welcome the £tra that is to be put into the cadet force in the next four years. Will the Air Training Corps benefit from that money or is it exclusively for the Army cadet force?
I also spent a short time in the Territorial Army, and I am delighted that 89 Signal Squadron in Rugby is to remain. I was there just two weeks ago. Its members fit the bill very well. They are highly trained, highly competent and extremely capable individuals fulfilling a useful role in complementing our regular soldiers.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise. He is right to mention the contribution made by the cadets. As 25 per cent. of the armed forces have experience in the cadets, perhaps we should try to discover how many right hon. and hon. Members have the same experience. Such was the variety available in Dunoon grammar school at the time I attended it that I was able to serve in the Air Training Corps as well. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that it will also benefit from the extra resources that will be made available to the cadets, who are a very fine movement.
Recently, I went to see the cadets in Hamilton, and I was enormously impressed by what they do and by their spirit. I was also able to make a personal visit to a large detachment in Cheltenham at a school attended by a young cousin of mine. Again, the high morale of those involved was a joy to see.

Stakeholder Pension
4.58 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require persons to contribute to a personal retirement pension scheme administered by an approved welfare supplier; to make provision with respect to contributions into and payments out of such schemes; to establish arrangements for the strategic direction and monitoring of pensions; and for connected purposes.
Our country is scarred by two nations in retirement. There are, thank goodness, a growing proportion of pensioners who have an adequate—sometimes more than adequate—income to see them through their retirement. At the same time, millions of pensioners are poor—some of them very poor. The Government have already introduced a number of measures to target resources on that group. Labour Members are looking forward to additional measures before the next election to help the poorest pensioners.
The Bill would lay the foundations to ensure that all pensioners shared in the growing long-term prosperity of our country by implementing a universal compulsory pension. All those in work would be required to become members of a stakeholder pension scheme on their 20th birthday. As each year went by, successive generations of 20-year-olds would come into the scheme. This is not a short-term measure. Pensions reform, above all else, is a long-term business and concern of the country and the House.
The aim of the Bill is to offer a guarantee. In today's terms, it would offer twice what a pensioner gets from the national insurance retirement pension—a guarantee of 30 per cent. of average earnings for a single pensioner when they came to retire. The link with average earnings is the crucial aspect in guaranteeing that future generations share in the growing long-term prosperity of the country.
That guarantee of 30 per cent. of average earnings for a single pensioner would be made up of two parts: today's national insurance retirement pension and a funded pension scheme—the stakeholder pension. The funded stakeholder part would be sold by approved welfare suppliers. Many groups and individuals could become approved welfare suppliers. They could be sponsored by trade unions, by employers, by associations of employers or by the companies that already provide pensions, such as the Legal and General and the Prudential. The crucial aspect of an approved welfare supplier is that the scheme must be owned by the members. The sponsor must set up the approved welfare supplier at arm's length from the parent organisation.
Above all, the Bill would allow for graduated contributions for the flat-rate guarantee. The scheme would have the finance to bring in the poor and those who were not part of the labour market at any given time. The groups for which the House will have most sympathy, I believe, are the parents—usually mothers, but sometimes fathers—who are outside the labour market looking after children under five and those who are doing the crucial job of looking after the long-term sick and disabled. Through that form of financing, the scheme could become universal, although it would also be compulsory.
I should like to sketch out to the House the difference that the Bill would make to our country. A Bill on compulsory stakeholder pensions would offer the Government the

773
single most important social security change available for the extension of social cohesion, something that is one of the major aims of Government policy. It would also open up a series of other welfare reforms. We are long past the time when any hon. Member thinks that there is a single, big bang reform that would implement the necessary changes. It would be possible to use a compulsory universal scheme as a basis for long-term care insurance, if the House and the Government wanted to move in that direction. Because risks would be pooled, there would also be the possibility of cheap life insurance, offering reformers the chance to move safely from current national insurance provision, such as widows' and what will shortly be widowers' benefits, to a form of cover associated with stakeholder pensions.
If we want better pensions, we need to put more money aside for them. We cannot have better pensions by paying less. Such a reform is a vital accompaniment to the pension guarantee that the Government have already offered—a means-tested income support guarantee that properly offers extra help to the poorest pensioners. Unless that is accompanied by a compulsory savings scheme, the guarantee will send out a clear message to many that they do not need to become members of pension schemes and do not need to bother to save, because, when they come to retire, taxpayers will bail them out.
Let me conclude by declaring how the Bill would change the welfare state fundamentally. It would offer the prospect of ending poverty, which is otherwise the outlook for millions of today's workers. It would offer a guaranteed income on which everybody could build by becoming a member of another pension scheme or having savings. People would know that those schemes would be paid in addition to the stakeholder pension, not withdrawn because of it. Through the delivery of approved welfare suppliers, it would offer a growth in civil society—those organisations that are greater than individuals or families, but less than Governments, states or nations. Above all, it would signal that, in this country, welfare reform is about more welfare, not less, but that more of that welfare will be provided outside the state, through mutual associations and companies, or organisations controlled by their members.
5.7 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: It was a privilege to serve with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on the Social Security Select Committee. He knows how much I admire his work. We had many conversations, and were party to many more, on pension reform, notably during our Committee's visit to Chile to study one of the world's most revolutionary pension reforms—imposed, interestingly enough, by a dictator. We can safely say that Frank ain't no Pinochet.
The right hon. Gentleman has risen to greater things in government. I still serve on the Committee, which continues to grapple with the intractable problems of pension reform. The right hon. Gentleman is in the happy position of being an ex-Minister, something that can provide opportunities for even more creative thinking, untrammelled by the dreary tramlines of office, laid down by the Treasury, which dictate that, whichever way one may want to turn, the points always ensure that one ends up in the station marked "means testing".
774
The right hon. Gentleman is a revolutionary. Like so many revolutionaries of the intellectual rather than the bruising type, he has, sadly, been devoured by his own revolution. Perhaps it is in the nature of great moralists and idealists that they can pen an idea or a concept, but cannot steer it through the muddied byways of government to fruition.
What is the great idea of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead? It is that the state can impose moral behaviour, Victorian virtues and self-reliance on all or most of us. Not surprisingly, I, too, am attracted by this antidote to libertarianism. Sadly, government is a pursuit of dreams frustrated by practicalities, particularly politics. As the Chancellor no doubt made clear to the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill simply will not deliver Labour, or anyone else who proposes it, any popularity.
Why should I care if the right hon. Member for Birkenhead or Labour does what is right at the expense of popularity? After all, we Conservatives did it often enough—eventually with fatal results. I care because any reform must be sustainable through a 40-year gestation period. The proposal is undeliverable in this sad world of spin doctors, opinion polls and elections because, with the decline in yields from gilts and the rise in annuity costs—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who knows about such things and works in the City, for his help with this part of my speech—a contribution rate of 12 per cent. of everybody's salary would be required to create an effective retirement pension of the type proposed. That means a massive rise in taxation.
We would still be left with the desperate problems of those who, through disability, unemployment, bad luck or lack of effort were incapable of sustaining such contributions. As the Minister of State, Department of Social Security said off the record, "Why should people on low incomes have help in funding their pensions when their incomes might be much higher later?" Not surprisingly, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead crashed into the No. 10 buffers with his ideas. The great game of No. 10 is not the creation of a new Jerusalem but the return, at the next election, of new Labour. A massive hike in taxation is not part of that scenario to No. 10.
All that is rather sad, because compulsion to save is probably the best way forward, but, I do not believe that it is politically deliverable. Although we respect the work that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead has done, he is being disingenuous if he claims that, having battled through the arguments during 14 months in government and having had finally to resign, his ideas are acceptable to the Government. I do not believe that they are.
We cannot, of course, go on as we are. We know—or, it is hinted at—that, as a way forward, a shoddy compromise is being imposed by the Treasury enforcer who is ensconced in Richmond house, the Minister for the Cabinet Office. That shoddy compromise has been carefully crafted to leave out in the cold the non-voting poor and to leave to their own devices the influential better-off. Meanwhile, the state pension will go on declining, eventually into a miserly 17 per cent. of average earnings by 2020. Means-testing, to the disgust of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and, indeed, all of us, will increase. The poor, and even the not-so-poor on lower incomes, will have no incentive to save because any hard-won private pension contributions will simply deprive them of income support.

775
Perhaps we are trying to reinvent the wheel. Perhaps we should create a political consensus—if that is possible—to restore the earnings link to the state pension, funded through higher national insurance contributions, to provide a decent living for elderly people, and not make them rely increasingly on income support. Perhaps, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Social Security Secretary and present deputy leader of the Conservative party, was right: we must devise a long-term plan to privatise all pensions, building on the world-leading role of our private pensions industry.
I fear that such a radical solution must await the next Conservative Government; we shall not get it from this Government. Meanwhile, we should vote to flush out from those on the Government Benches and their supporters just how many hon. Members are prepared to follow the prophet down the path of pension righteousness and into the path of political peril.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 1.

Division No. 378]

[5.14 pm

AYES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Johnson Smith

Baker, Norman

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Ballard, Jackie

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Brake, Tom

Kirkwood, Archy

Brand, Dr Peter

McDonnell, John

Burstow, Paul

Morre, Michael

Cable, Dr Vincent

Öpik, Lembit

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Chaytor, David

Sanders, Adrian

Chidgey, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Cotter, Brian

Skinner, Dennis

Dalyell, Tam

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Davis, Rt Hon David

Tyler, Paul

(Haltemprice)

Webb, Steve

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Wicks, Malcolm

Foster, Don (Bath)

Willis, Phil

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Wise, Audrey

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Mr. James Plaskitt and

Hinchliffe, David

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe

NOES

Leigh, Edward

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Michael Fabricant and

Mr. Howard Flight.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Field, Sir Peter Tapsell, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Steve Webb, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Derek Foster, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Clifford Forsythe and Mr. David Davis.

Stakeholder Pension
  STAKEHOLDER PENSION
  Mr. Frank Field accordingly presented a Bill to require persons to contribute to a personal retirement pension scheme administered by an approved welfare supplier; to make provision with respect to contributions into and payments out of such schemes; to establish arrangements for the strategic direction and monitoring of pensions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 261].

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
5.26 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that the final item of business for today before the Adjournment debate is:
"Consideration of any Lords Messages and Amendments that may be received".
In view of the fact that another place has just reaffirmed its earlier decision, have you had a request from the Leader of the House to make a brief business statement? If not, would you allow the right hon. Lady to make one?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have no information about any statement, but perhaps the Leader of the House would like to respond to that point of order.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I was not intending to make a statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it may be helpful to the House if, further to that point of order, I inform the House that it has already been agreed through the usual channels that the European Parliamentary Elections Bill will be taken as first business tomorrow. I also note the Opposition's warm welcome for a process whereby hereditary peers interfere with elections.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received.—[Mrs. Anne McGuire.]

Scrutiny of European Business
5.27 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Scrutiny of European Business (HC 791) and takes note of the White Paper on the Scrutiny of European Business (Cm. 4095).
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Resolution of the House of 24th October 1990 relating to European Community Legislation be rescinded and the following Resolution be made:
That,
(1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council or in the European Council to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union—

(a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the European Scrutiny Committee has not completed its scrutiny) or

(b) which is awaiting consideration by the House (that is, which has been recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for consideration pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) but in respect of which the House has not come to a Resolution).

(2) In this Resolution, any reference to agreement to a proposal includes—

(a) agreement to a programme, plan or recommendation for European Community legislation;

(b) political agreement;

(c) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty of Rome (co-decision), agreement to a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament); and

(d) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189c of the Treaty of Rome (co-operation), agreement to a common position.

(3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement—

(a) to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;

(b) to a proposal which is awaiting consideration by the House if the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending consideration.

(4) The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting consideration by the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons—

(a) in every such case, to the European Scrutiny Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and

(b) in the case of a proposal awaiting consideration by the House, to the House at the first opportunity after giving agreement.

(5) In relation to any proposal which requires adoption by unanimity, abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement.
That, upon the entering into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Resolution on Scrutiny of European Business (No. 2) shall have effect with the following modifications:
In paragraph (1) the words "a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union" are replaced by the words "a common strategy, joint action or common position under Title V or a common position, framework decision, decision or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union"; and
in paragraph (2)(c) the words "a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament)" are replaced by the words "a common position, to an act in the form of a common position incorporating amendments proposed by the European Parliament, and to a joint text".
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session, Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Standing Committees):
".—(1) There shall be three standing committees, called European Standing Committees, to which shall stand referred for consideration on motion, unless the House otherwise orders, such European Union documents as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) as may be recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.
(2) If a motion that specified European Union documents as aforesaid shall not stand referred to a European Standing Committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(3) Each European Standing Committee shall consist of thirteen Members nominated for the duration of a Parliament by the Committee of Selection; and in nominating such Members, the Committee of Selection shall—

(a) have regard to the qualifications of the Members nominated and to the composition of the House; and

(b) have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution.

(4) The quorum of a European Standing Committee shall be three, excluding the chairman.
(5) Any Member, though not nominated to a European Standing Committee, may take part in the committee's proceedings and may move amendments to any motion made as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below, but such Member shall not make any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum; provided that a Minister of the Crown who is a Member of this House but not nominated to the committee may make a motion as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below; and the Government may appoint the precedence of notices of motion to be considered in each committee.
(6) The European Standing Committees, and the principal subject matter of the European Union documents to be referred to each, shall be as set out below; and in making recommendations for further consideration, the European Scrutiny Committee shall specify the committee to which in its opinion the documents ought to be referred; and subject to paragraph (2) of this order, the documents shall be referred to that committee accordingly

European Standing Committees

Principal subject matter

Matters within the responsibility of the following Departments:

A

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Environment, Transport and the Regions; Forestry Commission; (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices)

B

HM Treasury (including HM Customs and Excise); Social Security; Foreign and Commonwealth Office; International Development; Home Office; Lord Chancellor's Department; together with any matters not otherwise allocated by this Order

C

Trade and Industry; Employment and Education; Culture, Media and Sport; Health

(7) The chairman may permit Ministers of the Crown to make statements and to answer questions thereon put by Members, in respect of each motion relative to a European Union document or documents referred to a European Standing Committee of which a Minister shall have given notice; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of one hour from the commencement of the first such statement:
Provided that the chairman may, if he sees fit, allow questions to be taken for a further period of not more than half an hour after the expiry of that period.
(8) Following the conclusion of the proceedings under the previous paragraph, the motion referred to therein may be made, to which amendments may be moved; and, if proceedings thereon have not been previously concluded, the chairman shall interrupt the consideration of such motion and amendments when the committee shall have sat for a period of two and a half hours, and shall then put forthwith successively:

(a) the question on any amendment already proposed from the chair; and

(b) the main question (or the main question, as amended).

The chairman shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or that it has come to no resolution, without any further question being put.
(9) If any motion is made in the House in relation to any European Union document in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (8) of this order, the Speaker shall forthwith put uccessively—

(a) the question on any amendment selected by her which may be moved;

(b) the main question (or the main question, as amended);

and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
(10) With the modifications provided in this order, the following Standing Orders shall apply to European Standing Committees:

No. 85 (Chairmen of standing committees);

No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees); and

No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees)."

That Standing Order No. 143 (Select Committee on European Legislation) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Scrutiny Committee):
(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the European Scrutiny Committee, to examine European Union documents and—

(a) to report its opinion on the legal and political importance of each such document and, where it considers appropriate, to report also on the reasons for its opinion and on any matters of principle, policy or law which may be affected;

(b) to make recommendations for the further consideration of any such document pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees); and

(c) to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents, or related matters.

The expression 'European Union document' in this order and in Standing Orders No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 119 (European Standing Committees) means—

(i) any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;

(ii) any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;

(iii) any proposal to define a common position or for joint action under Title V of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;

781

(iv) any proposal for a joint position, joint action or a convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;

(v) any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;

(vi) any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The committee shall consist of sixteen Members.
(3) The committee and any sub-committee appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker.
(4) The committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
(5) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.
(6) The quorum of the committee shall be five.
(7) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee.
(8) Every such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.
(9) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before such sub-committees.
(10) The quorum of every such sub-committee shall be two.
(11) The committee shall have power to seek from any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its opinion on any European Union document, and to require a reply to such a request within such time as it may specify.
(12) The committee or any sub-committee appointed by it shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order or with any committee of the Lords on the European Communities, or any sub-committee of that committee, for the purposes of deliberating or examining witnesses.
(13) The committee shall have power to communicate to any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its evidence or any other document relating to matters of common interest.
(14) The committees specified for the purposes of this order are those appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) including any sub-committees of such committees, the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Committee of Public Accounts, and the Environmental Audit Committee.
(15) Unless the House otherwise orders, each member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a Member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
That the following consequential Amendments to Standing Orders be made:
In Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), line 3, leave out "Community documents" and insert "Union documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee))".
In Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in Standing Committees), line 18, leave out "Community" and insert "Union".
In Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration), line 20, at the end insert:
"(c) to communicate to the European Scrutiny Committee its evidence and any other document relating to matters of common interest; and
(d) to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence.";
In Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts),
line 17, after "departments)" insert "and to the European Scrutiny Committee",
line 21, at end add:
"(4) The committee shall have power to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence."
In Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments)
line 31, after "and" insert "to the European Scrutiny Committee,"
line 39, at end insert "or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence;"
line 46, after "thereof' insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,"
In Standing Order No. I52A (Environmental Audit Committee), in line 30, after "thereof' insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,".
That, with effect from the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) shall have effect with the following Amendments:
line 21, leave out "to define a common position or for joint action" and insert "for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position";
line 23, after "Council" insert "or to the European Council"; and
line 24, leave out "joint position, joint action" and insert "common position, framework decision, decision".
That Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. Roger Casale, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Ms Jennifer Jones, Mrs. Rosemary McKenna, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Bill Rammell, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Shaun Woodward be members of the European Scrutiny Committee.
Mrs. Beckett: Our place in Europe is of vital importance and relevance to all of us. Equally, decisions taken in Brussels have an impact on all of us. That is why proper parliamentary oversight of the range of issues negotiated in Brussels and elsewhere is essential to protect our interests and, equally important, to bring Europe closer to the people. However, if we are to achieve those objectives, Parliament needs to be promptly and fully informed both of proposed European Union legislation and policies and of the Government's approach to negotiations.
That is why the Government undertook, in their election manifesto, to overhaul the parliamentary process for scrutinising European legislation. Our aims were to strengthen the role of Parliament in relation to European Union business; to improve democratic oversight of new legislation under negotiation in the EU; and to increase transparency and parliamentary awareness of how European Union business is conducted. We have explored a number of options for change and, last week, published a White Paper setting out proposals for improving the scrutiny arrangements that govern how Parliament deals with European Union business.
Arrangements for the scrutiny of European business by Parliament have been in place since 1973. Under them, the Government make available to Parliament proposals for European legislation coming before the Council of Ministers, as well as other documents that may have important policy, legislative or financial implications. An accompanying explanatory memorandum describes the purpose of the document, and the Government's views on it.

783
In this House, the Select Committee on European Legislation—the Scrutiny Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—considers each document, and may recommend that documents of particular importance are debated in Standing Committee, or by the whole House. The cornerstone of the scrutiny process is the parliamentary scrutiny reserve—n undertaking by the Government not to agree to a measure in the Council of Ministers until Parliament has completed its consideration of the proposal, unless there are special reasons for doing so. Similar arrangements operate in the other place.
The present scrutiny arrangements—which covered European Community business originally—are generally regarded as having worked well and, consequently, the Government propose today to build on that process and to make use of the experience of the arrangements that we have acquired. Although the arrangements for scrutiny have been updated periodically, they have not kept pace with developments in the EU. For example, the arrangements do not currently provide Parliament with the opportunity to comment on the full range of EU business. The common foreign and security policy, and justice and home affairs are not covered by existing procedures.
The Scrutiny Committee reported comprehensively on the scrutiny arrangements in July 1996, and made a wide range of recommendations. The Select Committee on Procedure endorsed those findings in March 1997. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons also considered the scrutiny arrangements as part of its wider remit to consider how the practices and procedures of the House should be modernised. In January this year, the Government submitted a memorandum to the Committee, outlining the key elements of a modern scrutiny system. The Modemisation Committee made its recommendations to improve scrutiny in June this year. The Government's White Paper sets out our proposals for meeting the recommendations.
Under the new arrangements, the Government would inform Parliament about proposals for European legislation and other important documents covering all three areas of EU activity. As before, the Scrutiny Committee would be able to examine the documents in detail on the basis of an explanatory memorandum, which would be supplemented by any further information that the Scrutiny Committee requested. The House would be able to debate any document it considered particularly important—normally in one of the European Standing Committees, although there would be flexibility for documents to be debated on the Floor of the House.
The new arrangements would allow more scope for specialist Select Committees of the House to be more closely involved in the scrutiny process—r example, where the measures under scrutiny fall within their area of expertise. The Scrutiny Committee would also be able to seek the views of departmental Select Committees on individual measures.
The scrutiny reserve would now cover not only European Community legislation but pre-legislative documents, and would be extended to cover business under the common foreign and security policy, and in the field of justice and home affairs. Obviously, the Government would continue to be able, in exceptional circumstances, to agree a measure before parliamentary scrutiny was completed.
784
Under the new arrangements, the Government would inform the Scrutiny Committee before a formal Council of Ministers of business expected to be on the agenda, and would provide additional evidence requested on particular items. Following the Council, the Government would provide Parliament with a written report on the outcome of the meeting. The Government will continue to make time available on the Floor of the House of Commons to debate European business before each European Council.
I turn now to the practical changes—the amendments needed to the Standing Orders and to the scrutiny reserve resolution to effect the new arrangements. The changes that we are proposing to both the scrutiny resolution and the Standing Orders follow in all but one respect the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee. The Committee recommended that the number of European Standing Committees be increased from two to five. The Committee recognised that there were practical problems involved in that, and suggested that the number of members of each Committee should be reduced from 13. After discussions through the usual channels, the best solution seems to be to keep the membership at 13, but to have only three Committees.
The proposed Standing Order change shows how the subject areas of EU documents would be divided between the three Committees. The new scrutiny resolution is set out in full, as are the two main Standing Orders affected by the implementation of the report. The new Standing Order No. 119, on European Standing Committees, will come into effect at the start of the next Session. Members will then be nominated to the three Standing Committees. The new Standing Order No. 143, on the European Scrutiny Committee, will take immediate effect.
There is also a motion on the Order Paper to appoint the current members of the Select Committee on European Legislation to the new Scrutiny Committee. There are a number of consequential amendments to other Standing Orders, mainly providing for communication between the European Scrutiny Committee and other Select Committees. The wording of the scrutiny resolution and of the Standing Orders will need to be altered slightly when the treaty of Amsterdam comes into force next year. As the changes are textual rather than substantial, the motions before the House tonight provide for those changes to be made at the appropriate time.
Before concluding, I wish to mention the effect of devolution on the arrangements. We presume that, in due course, the devolved bodies will wish to scrutinise EU business. We will be putting in place arrangements to facilitate that and to receive their comments.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend—who has been sympathetic to this view—will be aware that we desperately need a change of culture in the House if we are to have proper scrutiny of the European Parliament. Many hon. Members are quite terrified of Europe, have never been there and have never even used their one free trip per year. I see from the report that the Select Committee has suggested that the one trip a year paid for by the House is not enough. Could we have more access in the next Session so that we can have that culture change, and so that people are not terrified and can learn about how European institutions work?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend—with a number of others—takes seriously the issue of how the House can better scrutinise European Union business, and strongly argues that a freer interchange between the House and the European institutions will facilitate that process. He will know that we are bound by the travel budget, but we are considering whether there is room for greater flexibility to facilitate the kind of exchange that he and others have in mind.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the speed with which the relevant documents can be provided to the Committees is important in making them more effective. There is no point in having an elaborate Committee system if documents arrive five or 10 hours before they are to be debated. Frankly, there are some of us who not only know where Brussels is, but worked there when we were not politicians, and have been known to speak one or two odd foreign languages—no odder than our English, I have to say. Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that we want to see what is being debated in time for the House to be fully informed? Otherwise, a lot of the proposals will not be useful.
Mrs. Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point, and she is quite correct. The Government are mindful of the difficulties and problems caused to the House—and, indeed, to the Government—by the late arrival of documents. I am also well aware that my hon. Friend is in a happy position; what is very often the reason for such a delay—the difficulty in obtaining translations—is less likely to worry her, as, if I recall correctly, she speaks about seven languages, and is fluent, discursive and, frequently, more than effective as a parliamentarian in all of them.
The Government are mindful of the problems that will be caused to the scrutiny process if documents are not readily available, and we are doing all we can. My hon. Friend will know that the European Scrutiny Committee was instrumental in making proposals, which have been taken up across Europe, on the timing and handling of documents. We hope that technological developments will make the transmission of information easier. She is entirely right to say that that is the key to the working of the arrangements.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I was paying attention to what the right hon. Lady said about the possibility that the devolved Parliaments might want to scrutinise various matters. Scrutiny of fisheries legislation, which is contentious and would rank highly enough to be discussed in both Parliaments, might result in two different Parliaments reaching different conclusions. My request is merely for information. Does the right hon. Lady have any idea how we would overcome the problem of the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament coming to entirely different conclusions on the same matter? How would we proceed?
Mrs. Beckett: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern. We must explore the procedures and how they can interact between a fresh Assembly, or Parliament in Scotland, and this place. The hon. Gentleman knows where the responsibility for those matters lies.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: There are already arguments that a Minister from a devolved Scottish
786
Parliament could be a lead Minister in negotiations and discussions. Does the right hon. Lady envisage the right of a Scottish Parliament not to implement a directive that this House considers fit to be implemented? That is the critical factor. How does the right hon. Lady envisage negotiations taking place to bring the Parliaments to a conclusion on those matters?
Mrs. Beckett: I have some respect for the hon. Lady. Perhaps I misunderstood her question. No doubt we shall explore that issue at length in future. I almost get the impression—I say this with respect—that she is thinking that the Scottish National party might want not only to sever the Union with England, but to leave the European Union. That seems to me to be the purport of her saying that the Scottish Parliament might refuse to implement directives.
Mr. Michael Jack: The right hon. Lady will be aware that a great deal of the initial work on Community business is undertaken by officials from the United Kingdom and other member states' Governments attending management committees and similar structures as they develop ideas at a formative stage. Will she consider publishing lists of the committees that are sitting and stating the type of work that they are doing? One of Parliament's problems is acquiring knowledge of business early enough for us to be able to influence it by debate in the House.
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I am not sure that publishing lists of committees that are meeting is the right way in which to proceed, because that may result in a burdensome amount of information without being very illuminating.
The Government and the European Scrutiny Committee, as it will be, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale, have drawn attention to the great importance of pre-legislative scrutiny and involvement at an early stage. Although that is an issue for the House, rather than the Government, and must be carefully considered on grounds of cost, I suspect that it was at the back of the minds of those who suggested a national Parliament office in Brussels. We shall all, over time, give more and more consideration to how it is possible for the House to be informed and to be able to have an input in the early days, when it is possible to have the greatest influence on the formation of proposals.
The Government believe that the new arrangements for the scrutiny of European Union matters which are before the House will allow Parliament to carry out a comprehensive, thorough and effective examination of the full range of business across all three pillars. The adoption of the new arrangements and the changes to Standing Orders will contribute to making the EU policy process and EU legislation more democratic, more transparent and better understood. That can only be a benefit to the House and the country.
5.44 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: The Opposition support the general drift of the remarks of the Leader of the House. We were happy to agree to the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, and we accept

787
the reasons that the right hon. Lady gave for amending one of those recommendations and saying that there should be three Committees rather than five. We are glad that those Committees will each have 13 members.
The whole House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and those who serve on his Committee. That work is largely unsung, but not unhonoured because the Select Committee performs an extremely important task. Many hon. Members are barely aware of the Committee's existence, but those of us who are aware are exceptionally grateful to him and his colleagues for their hard work.
If one wants an indication of the hard work that is necessary, one has only to go to the Vote Office, as I did earlier during the Division, where I picked up a list of European Community documents for the week ending Saturday 14 November. As most hon. Members will know, a similar list is produced every week. The current list names 49 documents, ranging over issues as diverse and important as food law, landfill waste, air transport competition rules, sound financial management and renewable sources of energy. I shall not read the whole list. That reveals the sheer weight of paper that is coming in week by week, day by day.
It is crucial that Members of the House have the chance to have those documents examined on our behalf. I say "on our behalf' because we largely depend on those hon. Members who are appointed to the Select Committee and the European Standing Committees, and those who will serve on the three Committees that we shall, I hope, have after today's debate. It is vital that the Government honour their pledge and responsibility to make sure that important matters are not agreed to in Europe until the House has had an opportunity, via its Committees, to scrutinise the documents and, if necessary, to debate and vet them in detail.
We have to improve our relations with European institutions by scrutinising with greater care—that is no criticism of those who currently scrutinise these matters—the documents that emanate from the European Union. I do not say "from Europe" because, of course, we are in Europe. I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) does not live in Europe, but most of us think that we do.
Mr. Sheerman: Whether we disagree about being pro-Europe or anti-Europe—I am a passionate pro-European—the hon. Gentleman knows that I was referring to recommendation 39 in the report. It is strange that Britain has been a member of the European Union for a long time, but that hon. Members have one trip a year to a mainland European institution. I want the hon. Gentleman to join me in the campaign to make sure that we educate hon. Members so that they can go to Brussels and Strasbourg, and find their way around and have knowledge and perception of the culture. He will know, as do those of us who regularly go to those institutions, that we must do our homework, and if we do not travel to Europe to do so, we shall be unable to fulfil our function as Members of Parliament. Too many hon. Members do not even use their one trip a year. I get passionate about the matter because I want to educate my colleagues on both sides of the House.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree that it would be
788
desirable if more of our colleagues had the opportunity to use that facility more often. We are in favour of greater flexibility in the use of the sums that are available. Of course, hon. Members are subject to no prohibition on visiting European institutions whenever they wish. I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a point about the trip that is paid for, and yes, we agree that it would be desirable that there should be greater flexibility, so that, for instance, those who adamantly do not wish to avail themselves of the facility may pass it on to others, and so that others who really want to make the trip may do so more often. I believe that all hon. Members should be able to use the facility, and I am personally in favour of extending it.
I understand why the Leader of the House is not with us any more—she courteously explained why she could not be here now—but I hope that, when the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office winds up the debate, he will spell out more clearly the Government's attitude and say whether the Government are prepared to seek further means to enable hon. Members to visit European institutions more often.
I should also be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about the national Parliament office. The Leader of the House mentioned it in passing, but she did not spell out the Government's response to the clear recommendation by the Modernisation Committee that there should be a national Parliament office, representing Westminster in Brussels. I should like to know precisely what the Government intend to do about that and what they envisage would be the participation in that national Parliament office of the devolved Parliament in Scotland and the devolved Assembly in Wales.
On that subject, it is my understanding—I hope that, if I am wrong, the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me—that the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly would have a specific role to play where responsibility was devolved, but that, where responsibility had not been devolved, it remained firmly and clearly with the House, so that Committees of the House would examine such subjects. I should be grateful for clarification.
To my mind, we need as much liaison and contact as possible if European institutions are to work and if enmity is not to be built up between the House and European institutions. Frequently, enmity is based on ignorance. The more people know and understand, the more they are able intelligently to debate.
Absurdities come from Brussels from time to time, and it is right that they should be denounced. It is important to ensure that the new Committees do not have sole and exclusive responsibility for debating European documents, and it is incumbent on Government to try to find more time in which those key issues may be debated on the Floor of the House. I know that hon. Members who are not voting members of Committees may attend the European Scrutiny Committees, but that is not quite the same as holding a debate in the Chamber.
I hope that, when the Leader of the House and her colleagues consider the next parliamentary Session, they will pay regard to the time that is allowed for European debates in the Chamber. It is important that such matters be debated. Moreover, given the changes that will occur within the European Union in the next few months, there will be greater and greater focus on those European

789
institutions, and greater interest in debating what goes on there and what emanates from them. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about that.
Although the matter is not strictly relevant to the subject that we are discussing at the moment, I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will bear in mind the fact that there is an institution called the European Parliament, with which it is important that we seek to build better relations. Some years ago, I was one of those who voted against the Bill, supported by the present Baroness Thatcher, that provided for the holding of direct elections to the European Parliament. I did so because I wanted there to be a longer period in which delegated members went to that Parliament from this place; I wanted to maintain the connection between the Parliaments. I believe that that was a reasonable reason for rebelling against the Bill.
There is less contact between the European Parliament and this place than I would wish. I must not stray too far in that direction because it is not strictly relevant to the Modernisation Committee's report. I merely add that the report reveals the constructive attitude that what comes from Europe is relevant to what we do here—not more important than what we do here, but of real importance to what we do here—an attitude that I believe should be universally adopted.
In so far as the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee will enable us the better to examine and scrutinise, I welcome them. In so far as the Government's response to the report is positive, I welcome that, but I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would touch on the points that I have raised in my short speech.
5.55 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for publishing the White Paper and laying it before the House and congratulate him on doing so. I also thank the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), for the work that he and the Committee have done on the subject. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) kindly made some pleasant comments about the work of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which are very much appreciated.
In my enthusiasm for this important exchange, I cannot escape a sense of foreboding, inasmuch as I feel that I am attending a funeral and a birth at the same time. Tonight, we are ending the life of the Select Committee on European Legislation and starting the life of its successor, the European Scrutiny Committee. I remember hearing, in my early years, that sometimes it was better to celebrate a funeral and mourn a birth, on the basis that
"the newly born had all its trials and tribulations"
to come, and that
"the end of a life ended the misery of living",
but I am sure that that is not the case in this regard. Nevertheless, the Committee that is about to pass on, which I have had the pleasure of chairing, has had its trials and tribulations over the years, and I very much look forward to the new life in the scrutiny process that will be engendered by the proposals.
If I may, I shall further burden the House with a short reflection on the work that has been done since the Committee's inception in 1973. As the hon. Member for
790
South Staffordshire said, the Committee, in its 25-year life, has had one of the busiest agendas of any Select Committee. Its subject matter is not known for its sexiness, but, for the statisticians among us, the European Legislation Committee has dealt with about 35,000 directives and documents—almost four directives a day for the past 25 years.
Sadly, much of that work has not received the recognition that I humbly suggest that it might, and should, have received. Only in the past few years—and, more important, in the past 18 months, under the new Labour Government—has the Committee's work been properly appreciated. I make no complaint about that except to say that, just maybe, the great ignorance that exists—inside and outside this place—on European issues can in small measure be attributed to the lack of political will and/or understanding of the importance of our European Union membership.
The White Paper presented to us today by the Leader of the House marks a watershed in parliamentary procedures. It recognises the importance of scrutiny in our democracy. Paragraph 5 on page 2 of the White Paper states:
"the scrutiny arrangements have not kept pace with the need to ensure comprehensive Parliamentary oversight of developments in the EU and to make transparent and understandable the processes by which EU policy and legislation are made."
That is the issue that we are addressing today.
We have entered a new era of political and constitutional reform. In 18 months, the Government have passed legislation on the devolution of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and London. We have held four referendums. This new era is about good, representative politics and the need for scrutiny within our parliamentary process. As we prepare to enter the next century, better, more effective scrutiny is very much part of that change.
I shall now comment briefly on specific issues in the report. These welcome proposals should be viewed not as the end of the modernisation process, but as the beginning of a modern model of scrutiny. At this juncture, I record my thanks and that of my Committee to the staff, past and present, who have served the European Legislation Committee over the years. Their task of examining, researching, briefing, investigating and reporting is a colossal responsibility which they have taken in their stride. The House owes them a great debt of gratitude, and I so record that this afternoon.
We are delighted that the paper includes most of the suggestions put to the Procedure Committee by the ELC. However, I shall offer one or two comments in order to, first, put down a marker for further consideration; and, secondly, reassure my colleagues on departmental Select Committees that the changes will serve and assist them in the special scrutiny of their Departments. It is not my Committee's intention to step into their areas of responsibility—on the contrary, most of what we do will complement and support their good work. There will be no turf wars.
The ELC did not deal with merit considerations, and the new European Scrutiny Committee will not do so in the future. Our interest in the second and third pillars will be to assess their legal and political significance and/or importance. In practice, the conduit for information will be both ways. That will improve the scrutiny of legislation and offer information support, if required, to our colleagues on other Select Committees.

791
Our proposal that the ESC should have the right to promote a "Floor debate" was recognised by the Government, but not accepted. The Government conceded that there was merit in our suggestion, but they have not agreed to it at this stage. That is regrettable, but I ask them to keep it in mind as we continue to learn from our experience.
The value of Standing Committee debate has been somewhat undervalued in the past. I am confident that the increase in the number of Standing Committees will add value to and encourage the specialised scrutiny of legislation and documents. That increase is welcome. The Modernisation Committee recommended an increase to five, but three is better than two. Although five would have been better still, I am reasonably comfortable with three. However, I hope that the Government will consider carefully the effectiveness of the extra Standing Committees and, if necessary, revisit the matter at a later stage.
I came to the House in June 1987 and, within a few weeks, I was a member of the European Legislation Committee. I have been its Chairman since 1992, and it has been a great honour to serve with many distinguished right hon. and hon. Members over the years. I have had the privilege of travelling all over Europe and have met Prime Ministers, Presidents and some royalty. I have many happy memories from my membership of the ELC that I will treasure and value. There is also some sadness. When the European Legislation Committee is wound up tonight, I will fondly remember former Members Jimmy Boyce and George Buckley, who served on the Committee and were good personal friends.
In my first 10 years as a member of the ELC, I found myself apologising for the then Conservative Government's xenophobic anti-Europe policy. My first announcement when I met any European colleagues at conferences or meetings was, "I am not a Tory." I am assured that several Conservatives do not share the views of the then Government. However, I am delighted to be a member of a Government who have grasped this moment in our history to embrace the collective advantages of being a major player and influence within the European Union.
The new Labour Government understand and accept readily and enthusiastically that our country's national interests are better protected and advanced by co-operation with our partners than by the narrow nationalism that has done us great harm in Europe and throughout the rest of the international community. This paper is part of that new politics. I welcome it and I applaud the Government for it.
6.6 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: At the risk of contributing to this consensual atmosphere, I wish to place on record my views and those of my colleagues regarding the important work of the Select Committee on European Legislation. I pay tribute to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), his colleagues and staff who, on behalf of the House, have done extremely important work for the whole nation, which has gone largely unnoticed within this place, let alone outside it.
We would not be discussing this issue if we were not conscious of the fact that there are—in the words of the hon. Member for Clydesdale—inadequacies in the present situation and that we can do better. I agree with
792
everything that he and his Committee and the former Procedure Committee, on which I served under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), have recommended in the past. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has based its proposals this evening on those recommendations. As a member of that Committee, I am delighted to add my voice to the recommendations of the Leader of the House and the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), that we should pass the measure without dissent.
I visited some German farmers two and a half or three years ago and I recall our conversation vividly. They said, "We in Germany implement every single tiny reference in every single directive. Every element of every directive from Brussels is implemented in full. Of course, in France, they do not take any notice and in Italy they do not know that there is such a directive." I was forced to add, "In Britain, my friends, we gold-plate directives." A constant preoccupation of hon. Members on both sides of the House is that, even when directives reach us, we discover that their implications are extremely complicated and convoluted. They are often added to—there is an accretion of different regulations when a directive reaches Whitehall. The House is still grappling with that problem.
The proposals before us improve that situation, but the hon. Member for Clydesdale is absolutely right: this is not the end but the beginning of an improved process. We cannot be satisfied that scrutiny is as effective as it should be, even when the new proposals are in place. I hope that, in trying to improve them, we shall not think that that is the end of the matter. We shall move forward on a transitional and experimental basis.
The terms of reference and the name of the Committee are of little importance, except in demonstrating to the House and to the world outside that we shall take the issue a great deal more seriously than we did in the recent past.
The question is not what we should scrutinise, or even how we should scrutinise it, but when we should do so. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) both spoke of the need for the House to be aware of proposals as they are developing in the European institutions, rather than when they have become a firm proposition. The proposal that a Minister who may be about to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers should come before the Committee, and explain the range of options that may be available to him and his opposite numbers in the Council, is extremely important.
The section on the Council of Ministers in the document before us represents a significant step forward. If, for example, next week the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, after meeting his colleagues at the Agriculture Council to discuss the important issue of the beef export ban, could come back and explain the process whereby a decision was reached and what the decision was, that would contribute to the transparency and open government to which the Government are committed.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Clydesdale that it would have been preferable if there were five Standing Committees with a smaller membership—perhaps nine. That would be only a slight increase on the proposed three Standing Committees, each with a membership of 13.

793
That would be a sensible way to move forward, as there will still be a considerable work load on the three Committees.
There would have been another advantage, which has not yet been mentioned in the debate: there could have been some cross-reference between membership of the departmental Select Committees and the more specialist Standing Committees. That is difficult to achieve at present and will continue to be difficult with only three Standing Committees, because the necessary range of expertise and the work load will be so great. Some cross-reference and sharing of expertise would be helpful.
My final point relates to the way in which we deal with European business in the Chamber. I have not served on the Standing Committees but, in many cases, after careful analysis of the peculiar way in which a directive has developed and how it will apply in this country, and possibly after a Minister had retreated from his initial position on the proposal, the way in which the Committee reported back to the House left much to be desired. Many hon. Members have felt frustrated that the exercise of scrutiny did not result in effective decision making by all Members in the House. The proposals may offer the possibility of genuine improvement in that process.
We must have enough time to deal properly with European matters in the Chamber. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), is not a member of the Modernisation Committee, but I hope that he will take back to the Leader of the House the message that the effective involvement of the whole House in the scrutiny process will mean that more business must be transferred from the Floor of the House to some other procedure in a different part of the House.
All the proposals are tentative and experimental, and their effect will be cumulative. We would not expect a dramatic change—that is not how we change our procedure in this place. I know that, having battled on the issue for many years, the right hon. Member for East Devon will agree.
The proposals are an important step forward, but I have one remaining concern. Paragraph 47 states:
"We recommend that Departments individually and the Government collectively provide timely and accurate information to Parliament on European Union matters. If mistakes occur, corrective action must be taken to meet the needs of Parliament. For this purpose, a designation of responsibility as outlined above is essential. The European Legislation Committee"—
which, I think, is a reference to the European Scrutiny Committee—
"should continue to monitor the situation."
As the experiment moves forward, it is important that we monitor it closely. There is a long way to go, and this is a step in the right direction. It is a strength of the House that we never stop permanently—we are always prepared to move on. I believe that we shall have to return to the matter in a few years, to ensure that the process continues to achieve more effective scrutiny of important legislation that affects all our fellow citizens.
6.14 pm
Ms Jenny Jones: I shall not depart from the consensus that is apparent in the debate. I am one of the newest members of the Select
794
Committee on European Legislation. I was keen to be on the Committee and was extremely pleased to be appointed to it, but it was interesting to hear the reaction of some of my colleagues. They wondered why I wanted to be a member of that Select Committee and suggested that it was not the sexiest one. I found that an astonishing remark, as I had not realised that there was a beauty contest among Select Committees.
In the short time that I have served on the Committee, two features have struck me. First, its work is important, because the European Union impinges on all our lives. I have been impressed by the expertise and experience of the members who have served on the Committee much longer than I have. It is pleasing to know that that well of experience has been recognised. There is a good base for the Committee's enhanced role.
Secondly, I was struck by the dedication and hard work of the staff. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that he was astonished at the amount of work that we get through. I was pleased that the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), paid tribute to the work of the staff.
I do not disagree with anything that any of the previous speakers have said, but I shall add two comments. First, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House rightly said, whatever we may feel about the United Kingdom's membership of the EU, it touches on all our lives. As an institution, it has changed rapidly and developed significantly since scrutiny in this Parliament began. The way in which we scrutinise European business must keep pace with the rapid developments there.
Another reason why we must improve scrutiny arises from the democratic deficit in the European Union. Everyone knows that the only elected part of the EU, the Parliament, is probably the weakest in terms of balance of power, and the Council of Ministers is probably the strongest. We alone cannot do anything about that, although the Select Committee discusses the matter from time to time.
One of the most significant recommendations is the introduction of pre-Council and post-Council scrutiny, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred. That will enable us to find out much more about what goes on at the Council of Ministers. As that is probably the most powerful of the three institutions that make up the EU, and the one accused of meeting in the greatest secrecy, anything that this Parliament can do to shine a light on the work of the Council of Ministers and to bring greater transparency not only for our sake, but for the sake of the people who voted us here, is valuable.
My second comment relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in an intervention. The efficiency and effectiveness of any scrutiny system depend partly on what supports and facilitates it.
The Committee has long advocated the use of information technology and e-mail—the electronic transmission of documents from the EU to the member state Parliaments. Documents have to be received and scrutinised and questions have to be asked within the tight time scale of six weeks, so e-mailing would reduce the time taken to receive documents from 10 days to a matter of hours.
If we are to strengthen scrutiny, we must allow as long as possible for that scrutiny to be effective. We need every minute that is at our disposal. I am pleased to say that,

795
buried in the back of the report, there is a discussion on the electronic transmission of documents. Last autumn, the Select Committee raised that matter with the then Minister responsible and we were assured that pilots would take place to assess its feasibility. I hope that that matter will be pushed forward, because we are particularly concerned about it.
As I said, I welcome the Select Committee's recommendations. I look forward to the transformation of the European Legislation Committee into the European Scrutiny Committee. I have taken the precaution of looking at the Order Paper and I am pleased to see that my name has been put forward for membership of that Committee, which is a relief.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to say that this is an opportunity to bring greater transparency to, and understanding of, the work of the EU which, in turn, will mean greater democracy.
6.21 pm
Sir Peter Emery: First, I thank those hon. Members who have paid tribute to the original Procedure Committee which made the recommendations on which the scrutiny procedures of the House have been based. I rather feel as though I have been here before, and I have no doubt that I shall be here again.
It is interesting to elaborate on what the Leader of the House said about the success of our scrutiny activities, inadequate though some of us may think they have been. Without doubt, Britain considers the details of European regulations to a much greater extent than any other member state.
There are two interesting alternatives. Members of the Belgian Parliament meet Belgian Members of the European Parliament, but to debate broad European topics rather than regulations. There is no real consideration of regulations at all. Danish Ministers cannot approve a decision in the Council of Ministers until the matter has been considered by the Danish Parliament, but, again, the Danish Parliament does not consider the regulations. They are more or less approved en masse, and they are no great restriction on the Council of Ministers. Therefore, the amount of detail into which the two Committees have gone deserves the greatest praise.
I thank the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) for his work as Chairman of the Select Committee. When he entered the House, he was something of a revolutionary, but the Committee has made him a most responsible Member of the House, something about which I am delighted. As he will know, I say that in the nicest way possible.
The hon. Gentleman is correct about the number of the Committees. He will recall that the original recommendation, way back in the mid-1980s, was that there should be five. At that time, my Government rejected that. I moved an amendment to the motion before the House and, with the Procedure Committee, divided the House, because we believed that there should have been five. Given the range of material to be considered, the relatively small number of 13 Members have a massive job to do, and that frequently discourages the experts from coming forward.
We recommended five then and I am sad to say that, again, the Government have rejected the recommendation of five, limiting it to three. I am sorry that my hon. Friend
796
the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is willing to go along with that. The original Procedure Committee felt that the experts in the House on certain subjects should serve on those Committees. If those Committees are broken down, as is suggested in the Modernisation Committee's report on the scrutiny of European business, one sees how the division into five would allow experts on agriculture and health to specialise in one Committee, experts on the Treasury and home affairs to specialise in one Committee and experts on foreign affairs and trade and industry to specialise in one Committee. In those circumstances, specialists would be much more willing to serve on those Committees than they are at the moment.
Even I can quickly calculate that 13 times three is 39, but, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and the Select Committee, suggested, a Committee could easily comprise nine Members and, as nine times five is 45, only six additional Members would have to be allocated. In this Parliament, that would be four Labour Members and two Opposition Members. I cannot believe that the Whips could not find that number of Members. Even 11 times five, which is 55, would mean only 16 additional Members–11 Labour Members and 4 Conservatives and one Liberal or other Opposition Member, or three and two, whatever the division may be. With a Labour majority, there would be no great difficulty in finding that number of Members to man the Committees. Therefore, a great opportunity has again been rejected by the House in moving to only three rather than the original recommendation of five.
Mr. Tyler: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say, I very much support him on that. However, he must choose his words with care. Just now, he said that the House has rejected this proposal. Technically, at this moment, the matter has been agreed only through the usual channels—between the main Opposition and those on the Government Front Benches. I support the hon. Gentleman and I hope that, in due course, the Government and the Conservative party will think again.
Sir Peter Emery: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I shall do my best to make the Conservative party see sense on this. I have been trying for 16 years now. I might succeed in another four or five years. We move slowly. We have gone from two to three, but I hope that we can make the last dash fairly quickly.
One thing that has not been dealt with in the report is the problem that arises in a Committee if a Committee decides on something that is contrary to the original motion moved by the Government and contrary to what the Government wish. That may be the Committee's decision but, when the matter then goes to the House, the Government may move the original motion, which is not what the Committee had agreed. Many people do not realise that what the Committee has decided is not what comes before the House.
The great difficulty is that a motion has to be moved by a Minister, and the Government will not move a motion that they do not agree with. To that I say that we should have amended the Standing Orders so that an hon. Member would be allowed to move an amendment to a motion, although the Government would, of course, be able to reject it and then table their own amendment. The aspect that only the original motion, but never the decision of the Committee, is referred to the House is misleading; it should have been dealt with, but it has not.

797
"The Scrutiny of European Union Business", which was presented to Parliament by the Leader of the House, recommends:
"Informal links with the European Parliament should be encouraged."
Labour Members have said that there should be more visits by all Members of Parliament. That is something with which I do not necessarily disagree, but I believe that Select Committees should take the opportunity that exists within the present regulations on visiting to set up links with European Parliament Committees dealing with the same areas.
Each Select Committee should appoint a rapporteur who would make it his duty to visit either Strasbourg or Brussels—whichever was necessary—to see what a European Parliament Committee was getting up to. In that way, we could have an input before reports were decided. Once those reports have been published, the chances of us having any input are nil.
That process would be fairly involved, but it would mean more direct contact between our Select Committees and the equivalent Committees in the European Parliament. I am not saying that that would be perfect—in many ways, it would be difficult—but it would be a step towards achieving an input for Members of Parliament in decisions made by the Committees of the European Parliament. There would certainly be a strengthening of links between this Parliament and the European Parliament, something that I should like to see happen.
I am delighted that the Government have moved in this direction in respect of the Modernisation Committee's recommendations. With the exception of the Government's proposal on the number of Committees, I commend them to the House.
6.32 pm
Mr. Roger Casale: I am delighted to participate in the debate as a member of the European Legislation Committee, because this is a watershed in our development. This morning, I awoke as a member of that Committee, but, having checked the Order Paper, I know that I shall awake tomorrow as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee because today we are about to change our Committee's name.
Hon. Members have mentioned the lack of recognition by some of our colleagues for the work of the European Legislation Committee. My constituents sometimes ask what Committee I am on. When I say that I am a member of the European Legislation Committee, they ask, "What is that and what are you up to?" Some of them think that I am involved in some sort of seditious activity to do with Europe.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) made the unusual suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Chairman of our Committee, was something of a revolutionary before he had any contact with Europe, but has now become a rational man. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that some of his colleagues—perhaps through their contact with Europe—have gone in the opposite direction.
798
The work of our Committee is important in terms of safeguarding the interests of my constituents and of the national interest in Europe, and I am proud and pleased to be a member of it. I sometimes liken our work to that of customs officers at a border. All sorts of directives, regulations and recommendations from the European Commission and the Council of Ministers come across for decision by the Government and the House. Our Committee stands next to the conveyor belt, and when we see something that may have political, legal or financial implications, we stop the belt, unpack that directive or regulation and examine it more closely.
We do this aspect of scrutiny work very well, and that is reflected in the report of the Modernisation Committee and the Government's response. As we come to the end of this Session, the work of our Committee has been given a clean bill of health and our Chairman and the Committee have received a good end-of-term report. However, the recommendations in the Modernisation Committee's report and in the Government's response are shaped by much wider processes than procedural considerations in the House—important as they are—or by the work and the momentum of our Committee itself.
I should highlight the dynamic context which has resulted in the new proposals. On the proactive side, there is a clearly defined need for greater scrutiny of decisions taken in Brussels. My constituents want that, the country wants that and it is good that the Government want that, too. The Committee has the ambition, which I think is shared by the Government, for not only more, but better, scrutiny, and the proposals before us go in that direction. What we do, we should do well, and if anything can be done to enable our Committee to do its work better, that is all to the good.
Many of the proposals in the report and in the Government's response are shaped by that ambition. In particular, the closer co-operation that is foreseen with other Select Committees, the European committees of other national Parliaments in the EU and the European Parliament will lead to a greater level of experience, better information about EU decision making, an exchange of best practice and improved communication between the Government and the House. Other Committees of the House and committees across Europe will be partners, not competitors, in the scrutiny role with a common endeavour to do the job well.
On the reactive side, we should consider these reforms in the context of the evolving nature of the EU, and especially in the context of the treaties of Amsterdam and of Maastricht. In many ways, the report could be read as a parliamentary response to the intergovernmental treaty signed up to at Maastricht by the previous Government.
The Maastricht treaty is worthy of particular emphasis, because much in the report is aimed at scrutiny of the second and third pillar structures. Third pillar scrutiny represents a pyrrhic victory for the Committee, because, subsequently at Amsterdam, many of the those third pillar responsibilities and functions were transferred into the first pillar. Moreover, the present Government have opted out of the aspects relating to asylum, immigration and border control.
The remit of our Committee is being broadened and its responsibilities strengthened. All that will lead to greater and more informed dialogue with our Government about what they are doing in Brussels on our behalf. Thanks to

799
the report and the Government's response, if we do move towards the stars of the European Union—towards closer co-operation—we shall do so with our feet and those of this Parliament firmly on the ground.
6.38 pm
Mr. Humfrey Matins: I speak with caution because other right hon. and hon. Members have contributed greatly to the scrutiny of European legislation in the House. I wish to make just one point. Last week, as a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, I went to Brussels for a European Parliament conference on EU fraud and cross-border crime. During the conference, Members of the European Parliament of different parties asked me what the British public thought about their proposals to create a common EU criminal law system to cope with those problems, a common judicial area and a common police force. I had to scratch my head and tell the truth: the British public are not aware of such proposals. "All right," they said, "What is the British Parliament's view on those proposals?" Again, I scratched my head and said that many of us in the House were unaware of much that comes from the European Parliament and other institutions.
Some of our Select Committees, such as the Home Affairs Select Committee, should take a real interest in what happens in the European Parliament and elsewhere. Whether we like it is irrelevant; we should know more. I do not feel well informed enough. If this discussion results in better oversight and scrutiny, and more awareness among our colleagues of what is happening among our European colleagues, that must be good.
6.40 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) for his work. I have felt the heat when he has scrutinised me, as a former Minister, on fishery matters and I know the excellence of the job that he did. The role of Fisheries Minister introduced me to Europe and made me realise that the House gets involved far too late in the process of scrutiny to have a real influence on shaping United Kingdom policies when they go before the Council. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary who will reply to this debate, and the Leader of the House, to look again at mechanisms whereby Parliament may be advised much earlier on some of the formative thinking that is going on.
When I was a Minister, both in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and at the Treasury, I used to get my officials to produce for me a chart showing all the Committees that they attended regularly in Brussels so that I knew of the forthcoming attractions. I was surprised and sometimes shocked at the amount of new ideas and legislation that was coming along, on which I had not received proper briefing. I therefore urge the Parliamentary Secretary and the Leader of the House to find a way of advising the House what is going on so that we may have a much earlier sight of what is happening and can take action.
I strongly support other hon. Members who mentioned greater transparency. The more we know about what is happening, and the earlier we know it, the better. I also endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who wanted greater opportunities to travel to Europe. Some colleagues do not
800
use their one trip a year because one visit is not enough to develop a relationship, specialise in a subject, make appointments to visit officials, and so on. If there were proper opportunities to visit, we would be better informed and scrutiny would be much improved.
We should all do as much as we can to improve newspapers' reporting of European activity. If we are to get the necessary backing from the public, they must be much better informed about European legislation and activity. I endorse and support the House's attempts to improve scrutiny, but it would be better if we could be involved earlier.
6.43 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) talks about the newspapers reporting Europe. Would that they report what goes on in this place more fully. I doubt whether a single word will appear on the non-existent parliamentary pages tomorrow about this short, informative and important debate. I congratulate all those who have taken part in it, including seven Back Benchers. It is good to listen to the wise experience of those who have served for a long time on Committees. We heard from two new Members—the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) and for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale)—who were on the Select Committee and will be translated on to the new Committee, and we heard from the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood).
We should all ponder what they said, just as we should take extremely seriously the points made by my exceptionally experienced colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). I take his strictures in good part. It is important that we look at new Committees and see exactly how they work. Although we were persuaded by the Government's arguments that, to have three with 13 members had a lot of merit, my right hon. Friend made a good point about having five with 11 members. The hon. Member for Clydesdale echoed that point. When people with so much experience and knowledge of examining European documents and directives say that, we must listen carefully. I hope that the Minister agrees that we must monitor carefully just how the new Committees work.
I do not want to divide the House this evening. I hope that, in the spirit of consensus that has prevailed throughout the debate, we can agree to the new orders and then monitor their operation carefully. It has been instructive to listen to my right hon. Friends the Members for East Devon and for Fylde and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) discuss closer liaison with the European Parliament. As I said in my opening remarks, we must have closer liaison. We should listen to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon in that regard. When the new parliamentary building opens in a couple of years' time, it would be sensible to have one room available for our friends and colleagues from the European Parliament to use as of right on a regular basis to meet Members of this House. I would welcome such an innovation and I hope that it would commend itself to other right hon. and hon. Members.
I promised the Minister that I would not erode the time in which he wishes to respond. With those few words, therefore, I wish the orders good speed.
6.46 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I have listened carefully to the views expressed during the debate and I am pleased that the House has welcomed the package of measures that we are presenting today to improve the process by which we consider European business. May I add my personal commendation to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) who, the whole House agrees, has done a splendid job in chairing the European Legislation Committee? I hope that the Committee will shortly be reborn and he will again take up the challenge of ensuring that legislation that comes before the House is scrutinised even more widely and deeply than hitherto.
I commend the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on the generally supportive stance that he has taken on behalf of the official Opposition, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who has offered, in the nicest possible way, constructive support in the criticisms that he has made of some of the measures before the House this evening.
Ensuring that the House can properly scrutinise European Union business and hold Ministers to account for their actions in the Council of Ministers has universal support throughout the House. The measures proposed today are the culmination of a thorough examination of the scrutiny process undertaken by the European Legislation Committee, the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee, as well as by the Government, and respond to the range of recommendations made by those Committees.
The changes cover matters of principle—for example, they will allow the House fully to scrutinise business under the second and third pillars—and will extend coverage of the scrutiny reserve resolution. In addition, the procedural elements of the current process will be improved, including arrangements for debating European issues and providing a framework for other departmental Select Committees to become more involved in the scrutiny process. The three Committees are to be commended on their work.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire talked about taking these matters on the Floor of the House. The House will recall that, as well as specific debates on European Union documents, each year the House has two more general debates on developments in the European Union, particularly the business to be taken at European Council meetings. In most instances, a Standing Committee debate is the earliest opportunity and most effective way for hon. Members to question Ministers and debate European Union documents. The Modernisation Committee did not recommend any change in the procedure for debates on the Floor of the House. However, it is our intention, where appropriate, to bring matters on the Floor of the House.
The issue of a national Parliament office was also raised. The House authorities have done considerable preparatory work for today's debate. If the House approves the Modernisation Committee's report, a formal proposal will be made for consideration by the House of Commons Commission at the appropriate time.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), referred to the EU travel scheme. The current scheme was introduced in 1991 by resolution of the House, and has a set budget of
802
£250,000 per annum. The cost of individual journeys comes from the vote for MPs' paying allowances, so the Leader of the House is responsible for that, not the domestic Committees.
In recent years, some hon. Members have availed themselves of that allowance to visit European institutions, so as better to apprise themselves of the work of those institutions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made it abundantly clear that she is prepared to consider how we can deal with those matters with greater flexibility and within budget constraints, so that hon. Members can make such visits on a different basis.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire asked about the arrangements after devolution. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Leader of House said. We shall ensure that proper arrangements are put in place for the devolved bodies to scrutinise European Union business, and for their views to be taken into account by the Government. The precise arrangements are still being considered, but the devolved bodies themselves will examine how best to carry out their scrutiny function and how their views can be fed into the wider scrutiny process.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It would help the scrutiny and information process if the explanatory memorandums attached to each piece of European legislation were published. They set out the arguments for it, including information on ministerial responsibility, policy implications, compliance cost assessments and the process of consultation. They are available on the yellow forms, but if a consolidated weekly edition were laid before the House and made available to the other Assemblies and Parliaments in the United Kingdom and to pressure groups and organisations, that would help us to understand what is going on.
Mr. Kilfoyle: The Government consistently look for ways to reduce the paper chase. We are committed to reducing the amount of paper produced by government. However, we shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to the need to have more debates on the Floor of the House. I am mindful of the difficulties faced by smaller parties in the scrutiny process. One reason for keeping the size of the Standing Committee at 13 is to ensure that the representation of other parties is maintained. The Government have eight members, the official Opposition have three and other parties have two. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) referred to the electronic transmission of EU documents. Only last week, I attended a meeting of Ministers in Vienna, at which the United Kingdom Government were seen as a brand leader in trying to achieve a better system of electronic communication. Work on that specific issue is under way to produce an effective system for the electronic receipt of EU documents in capital cities throughout the European Union. A pilot system is being developed and evaluated. It has been particularly difficult to secure agreement on the systems and the architecture required to introduce such a system across all 15 member states.
We respect the view that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) has expressed for some years. We must reflect what the Committee has agreed.

803
The Modernisation Committee did not recommend to the House any such change. As the right hon. Gentleman said, he did not persuade the Conservative Government to change the procedure. It must ultimately be for the Government to decide what is contained in the motion they put to the House.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) rightly drew attention to the importance of departmental Select Committees examining European Union issues. The Government agree with that, and some of the minor Standing Order changes are designed to effect that improved relationship.
I believe that the improvements that the House is asked to support represent a truly comprehensive package that will continue to keep our scrutiny arrangements among the most effective in Europe. That is shown by the consensus that has been reached this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Scrutiny of European Business (HC 791) and takes note of the White Paper on the Scrutiny of European Business (Cm. 4095).
Resolved,
That the Resolution of the House of 24th October 1990 relating to European Community Legislation be rescinded and the following Resolution be made:
That,
(1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council or in the European Council to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union—

(a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the European Scrutiny Committee has not completed its scrutiny) or

(b) which is awaiting consideration by the House (that is, which has been recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for consideration pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) but in respect of which the House has not come to a Resolution).

(2) In this Resolution, any reference to agreement to a proposal includes—

(a) agreement to a programme, plan or recommendation for European Community legislation;

(b) political agreement;

(c) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty of Rome (co-decision), agreement to a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament); and

(d) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189c of the Treaty of Rome (co-operation), agreement to a common position.

(3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement—

(a) to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;

(b) to a proposal which is awaiting consideration by the House if the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated
804
that agreement need not be withheld pending consideration.

(4) The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting consideration by the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons—

(a) in every such case, to the European Scrutiny Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and

(b) in the case of a proposal awaiting consideration by the House, to the House at the first opportunity after giving agreement.

(5) In relation to any proposal which requires adoption by unanimity, abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement.
Resolved,
That, upon the entering into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Resolution on Scrutiny of European Business (No. 2) shall have effect with the following modifications:
In paragraph (1) the words "a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union" are replaced by the words "a common strategy, joint action or common position under Title V or a common position, framework decision, decision or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union"; and
in paragraph (2)(c) the words "a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament)" are replaced by the words "a common position, to an act in the form of a common position incorporating amendments proposed by the European Parliament, and to a joint text".
Ordered,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session, Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Standing Committees):
".—(1) There shall be three standing committees, called European Standing Committees, to which shall stand referred for consideration on motion, unless the House otherwise orders, such European Union documents as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) as may be recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.
(2) If a motion that specified European Union documents as aforesaid shall not stand referred to a European Standing Committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(3) Each European Standing Committee shall consist of thirteen Members nominated for the duration of a Parliament by the Committee of Selection; and in nominating such Members, the Committee of Selection shall—

(a) have regard to the qualifications of the Members nominated and to the composition of the House; and

(b) have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution.

(4) The quorum of a European Standing Committee shall be three, excluding the chairman.
(5) Any Member, though not nominated to a European Standing Committee, may take part in the committee's proceedings and may move amendments to any motion made as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below, but such Member shall not make any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum; provided that a Minister of the Crown who is a Member of this House but not nominated to the committee may make a motion as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below; and the Government may appoint the precedence of notices of motion to be considered in each committee.
(6) The European Standing Committees, and the principal subject matter of the European Union documents to be referred to each, shall be as set out below; and in making recommendations for further consideration, the European Scrutiny Committee shall specify the

805
committee to which in its opinion the documents ought to be referred; and subject to paragraph (2) of this order, the documents shall be referred to that committee accordingly

European Standing Committees

Principal subject matter

Matters within the responsibility of the following Departments:

A

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Environment, Transport and the Regions; Forestry Commission; (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices)

B

HM Treasury (including HM Customs and Excise); Social Security; Foreign and Commonwealth Office; International Development; Home Office; Lord Chancellor's Department; together with any matters not otherwise allocated by this Order

C

Trade and Industry; Employment and Education; Culture, Media and Sport; Health

(7) The chairman may permit Ministers of the Crown to make statements and to answer questions thereon put by Members, in respect of each motion relative to a European Union document or documents referred to a European Standing Committee of which a Minister shall have given notice; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of one hour from the commencement of the first such statement:
Provided that the chairman may, if he sees fit, allow questions to be taken for a further period of not more than half an hour after the expiry of that period.
(8) Following the conclusion of the proceedings under the previous paragraph, the motion referred to therein may be made, to which amendments may be moved; and, if proceedings thereon have not been previously concluded, the chairman shall interrupt the consideration of such motion and amendments when the committee shall have sat for a period of two and a half hours, and shall then put forthwith successively:

(a) the question on any amendment already proposed from the chair; and

(b) the main question (or the main question, as amended).

The chairman shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or that it has come to no resolution, without any further question being put.
(9) If any motion is made in the House in relation to any European Union document in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (8) of this order, the Speaker shall forthwith put successively—

(a) the question on any amendment selected by her which may be moved;

(b) the main question (or the main question, as amended);

and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
(10) With the modifications provided in this order, the following Standing Orders shall apply to European Standing Committees:

No. 85 (Chairmen of standing committees);

No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees); and

No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees)."

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 143 (Select Committee on European Legislation) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Scrutiny Committee):
(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the European Scrutiny Committee, to examine European Union documents and—

(a) to report its opinion on the legal and political importance of each such document and, where it considers appropriate, to report also on the reasons for its opinion and on any matters of principle, policy or law which may be affected;

806

(b) to make recommendations for the further consideration of any such document pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees); and

(c) to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents, or related matters.

The expression 'European Union document' in this order and in Standing Orders No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 119 (European Standing Committees) means—

(i) any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;

(ii) any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;

(iii) any proposal to define a common position or for joint action under Title V of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;

(iv) any proposal for a joint position, joint action or a convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;

(v) any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;

(vi) any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The committee shall consist of sixteen Members.
(3) The committee and any sub-committee appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker.
(4) The committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
(5) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.
(6) The quorum of the committee shall be five.
(7) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee.
(8) Every such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.
(9) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before such sub-committees.
(10) The quorum of every such sub-committee shall be two.
(11) The committee shall have power to seek from any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its opinion on any European Union document, and to require a reply to such a request within such time as it may specify.
(12) The committee or any sub-committee appointed by it shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order or with any committee of the Lords on the European Communities, or any sub-committee of that committee, for the purposes of deliberating or examining witnesses.
(13) The committee shall have power to communicate to any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its evidence or any other document relating to matters of common interest.
(14) The committees specified for the purposes of this order are those appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) including any sub-committees of such committees, the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Committee of Public Accounts, and the Environmental Audit Committee.
(15) Unless the House otherwise orders, each member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a Member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
Ordered,
That the following consequential Amendments to Standing Orders be made:
In Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), line 3, leave out "Community documents" and insert "Union documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee))".
In Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in Standing Committees), line 18, leave out "Community" and insert "Union".
In Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration), line 20, at the end insert:
"(c) to communicate to the European Scrutiny Committee its evidence and any other document relating to matters of common interest; and (d) to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence."; In Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts),
line 17, after "departments)" insert "and to the European Scrutiny Committee",
line 21, at end add:
"(4) The committee shall have power to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence."
In Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments)
line 31, after "and" insert "to the European Scrutiny Committee,"
line 39, at end insert "or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence;"
line 46, after "thereof" insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,"
In Standing Order No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee), in line 30, after "thereof' insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,".
Ordered,
That, with effect from the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) shall have effect with the following Amendments:
line 21, leave out "to define a common position or for joint action" and insert "for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position";
line 23, after "Council" insert "or to the European Council"; and line 24, leave out "joint position, joint action" and insert "common position, framework decision, decision".
Ordered,
That Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. Roger Casale, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Ms Jennifer Jones, Mrs. Rosemary McKenna, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Bill Rammell, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Shaun Woodward be members of the European Scrutiny Committee.—[Mr. Allen.]

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Ms Elizabeth Filkin be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the retirement of Sir Gordon Downey, KCB, on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission (HC 1143), dated 9th November 1998.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]
6.57 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is only right that we should welcome the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and pay tribute to the retiring commissioner, Sir Gordon Downey. One of the advantages we have in this country is that a number of individuals have come up through the public service and have felt it right to dedicate themselves to public service, even though the financial rewards are not as great as they may be elsewhere. Gordon Downey is an exemplar of such an approach.
After the war, there was a common feeling among some people that they should repay the work that was done for them by their predecessors. In the 1980s, that attitude did not receive high favour. It was almost mocked, and it was felt that those who did not make use of their talents and make a lot of money were failing the country and themselves. That was an appalling attitude. Some people were scorned for their work for the country and for the community. The idea that society was not as important as the individual failed to take account of the enormous value that we get from people who devote themselves to raising and maintaining standards of public life.
Gordon Downey is an outstanding public servant. It is a great privilege to be in public service: it is not a job like any other. The fact that we have so many such people is a tribute to the dedication that they have brought to the public service and to the civil service. Sir Gordon also worked with the Public Accounts Committee for some years. When I was asked whether he would be a suitable Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I was delighted: I could not imagine that anyone else could do the job as well as he could. My judgment has been borne out by events.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does my right hon. Friend feel that Elizabeth Filkin should be given more resources than have been given to Sir Gordon Downey in order to carry out the work as effectively and comprehensively as possible?
Mr. Sheldon: Sir Gordon never claimed to be short of resources, although few were available. He carried out his duties with great dedication and, through his ability, was capable of dealing with every question that arose. Of course, he had a superb background for the job. He was in the Treasury—I knew him there more than 20 years ago—and then became Comptroller and Auditor-General of the old Exchequer and Audit Department before it became the National Audit Office. He retired from there to become chairman of the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association. As he says himself, he retired from numerous jobs to take up ever more jobs that fitted his experience and abilities.
Sir Gordon retired from that job to become ombudsman for two newspapers. He retired from that job to become a regulator of hospital authorities. If we ever wished to

809
appoint a "conscience of the nation", Sir Gordon would clearly be a prominent candidate. He has undertaken his work splendidly. Following his examination of more than 40 complaints that were brought to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, the results were unanimous. Unanimity flowed from the work that he produced for the Committee. When he eventually retired, we asked him for his views, which are contained in our 19th report.
A growing tradition is for an outstanding public servant to be asked, at the end of his service, to describe the lessons that he has learnt, so that they can be passed on. That was done on a number of occasions in the Public Accounts Committee, and—as can be seen from our 19th report—it was done in the case of the retiring parliamentary commissioner. Sir Gordon told us that the disciplinary system had worked well. He also told us that he would like to see a statute of limitations—that in too many instances people had delved far into the past, when attitudes were rather different, and that such actions might not have been in accordance with the standards that we now expect.
If the public perception of the work of the House of Commons has improved—as I hope it has—much of that improvement must be due to Sir Gordon's work. That, I think, is the finest farewell tribute that could be offered. We should be judged according to whether the public perceive us in a way that would be recognisable 20 or 30 years ago—allowing for some criticisms; the House will always receive criticisms.
When Elizabeth Filkin appeared before the Standards and Privileges Committee this morning, we were able to discuss her role. She will be taking on the kind of work that Sir Gordon did so well. It is intended that she should work four days a week, but that may not be necessary: we hope that the amount of work, which was initially large, will diminish as new standards are more widely recognised. People now accept standards that were produced two or three years ago, and I trust that that will mean that far fewer representations will be made to the commissioner.
We thank Sir Gordon Downey for all the splendid work that he has done. He laid down a road for others to follow, and that is one of the great tributes that we can pay him.
7.4 pm
Sir George Young: I want to say two things, very briefly. First, let me join the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) in paying tribute to Sir Gordon Downey's work. The first holder of any post has a huge responsibility, because he establishes the framework within which the post develops, and maps out a way forward. Sir Gordon found himself in the middle, between two of the most powerful forces in a democratic society—a sovereign Parliament and a free press—at a time when relationships between the two were deteriorating. He discharged one of the most difficult jobs in the public sector with patience, diligence and tact. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, he has helped to begin to restore the House's reputation, and we all owe him our gratitude.
Secondly, I want to support the appointment of Elizabeth Filkin. As Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I encountered her when she was adjudicator for the Inland
810
Revenue. I was impressed by her commitment to her job and her staff, but, crucially, I was impressed by the fact that she retained the confidence of the Revenue, the body that she was investigating. That showed that she was fair, and that her work commanded respect. I looked at her latest report, which was commended for
"good plain English and clear strong messages"—
a welcome contrast to the legislative prose with which most of us deal for most of the time.
I support Elizabeth Filkin's nomination, commend her to the House and wish her well.
7.5 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise to be brief.
I add my grateful acknowledgement to Sir Gordon Downey. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, Sir Gordon's integrity and sterling work have helped to restore the reputation of Members of Parliament, which was at a low ebb when he was appointed.
I hope that Elizabeth Filkin will be given the resources that she needs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that Sir Gordon Downey never complained about what might have been seen as sparse resources and facilities. Let us hope that Elizabeth Filkin's work load diminishes over time—that would be a fine reflection on this place—but I hope that, if she needs more resources, the House will ensure that they are provided.
Let me repeat my thanks to a fine and honourable man.
7.7 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I cannot promise to be as brief as the other speakers, but I consider this to be an important debate. I think that the House should take the appointment of a new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards very seriously, because it is a sensitive appointment. Apart from anything else, it commands a salary that is almost twice what Members of Parliament receive, for four days' work a week. I invite any hon. Member who works for only four days a week to put his or her hand up. I doubt that I shall see many hands rise.
Mr. Eric Forth: They are the ones who are not here.
Mr. Howarth: They have been sent on an away day by the Labour Whips.
When Sir Gordon was appointed, his salary of £72,000 was more than double that of a Member of Parliament—then about £33,000. In an article written in 1995, Lord Renton, then Member of Parliament for Mid-Sussex, said of the discrepancy:
"This is like paying the company night watchman twice as much as the sales director."
He made a valid point. It needs to be taken into account when we consider these matters.
Sir Gordon Downey's appointment unquestionably reinforced in the public mind the idea that the House had something to be ashamed of. The vast majority of hon. Members work extremely hard. They are diligent. They generally pursue issues in the way in which they believe

811
they need to be pursued, promoting not a partial interest, but one that they have formed out of conviction, so it is unfortunate that Sir Gordon Downey's appointment—far from helping to reduce the public disaffection for the House, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) believes—helped to reinforce the idea that there was something deeply dishonourable about the House. I do not believe that to be true. Of course there have been problems, but they did not warrant the sort of attack that was made on the honour of the House.
I do not know Elizabeth Filkin; I have not had the privilege. I was not on the House of Commons Commission. I am not a member of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, so I have not met her. Therefore, I have relied only on what I have read in the newspaper. Last week, I read an interesting article in The Times that suggested that her credentials were excellent:
"For the past five years she has gained a reputation as an investigator of complaints made against the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency."
It was also suggested that
"The world of Westminster may seem a fitting job for a former social worker and childcare expert who has written several academic books on dealing with errant charges."
I hope that she has left all that behind her, because we are not errant charges in need of being taken in hand by a schoolmistress.
One of the things that I noticed on returning to the House after a five-year absence is how much we are now employees. I felt like an employee rather than an hon. Member: the number of forms one has to fill in; we have to do this, that and the other. Therefore, I hope that Elizabeth Filkin will not regard her task as primarily to bring people to book.
I draw some comfort from something that Elizabeth Filkin was quoted as saying by Valerie Elliott in The Times:
"I am aware that all of us can make mistakes and look foolish. One can always reflect on how things could have been done better."
I hope that she will bring that outlook to the discharge of her responsibilities. As every right hon. and hon. Member knows, we have immense pressures on us. There is no spare time in the day, and hardly any at night. For what it is worth, I was telephoned at a quarter to 6 this morning by Talk Radio and invited to give my views on an issue.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Did Talk Radio pay you?
Mr. Howarth: Talk Radio pays, does it? Well, it did not pay me. I put the telephone down, but I shall be looking for a handsome apology for having been roused from my slumbers, having got to bed at 2.30 am, after working late in the House.
Hon. Members work hard. There are great pressures on us. There are many competing priorities: our duties to our constituents, in the House and to our families. It is possible that, being frail and human, occasionally we will make mistakes. I am sure that all hon. Members think that there are things that they have done or omitted to do that may have been better not done or done, and that they regret. I hope that, in acknowledging human frailty, Miss Filkin, or Mrs. Filkin, whatever she is, will be good enough to understand our frailties in this place and not
812
encourage those elements of the media who are sitting up there like vultures, seeking to trip up Members of Parliament at every turn.
The other day, I was rung up by a newspaper, not a radio station, that suggested that I had tabled three questions on which I should have declared an interest. The whole tenor of the conversation was that, somehow, I had behaved, "Of course, not improperly, Mr. Howarth," but that I had been in breach of the rules.
I checked with the Registrar of Members' Interests and I was not in breach of the rules, but there are journalists sitting there, some aided and abetted by Labour Members, who do not like the idea of Members of Parliament having outside interests, and who seek simply to trip up Members of Parliament for some minor omission that in no way reflects on their integrity or the way in which they conduct themselves in the House. Therefore, as I say, I hope that Elizabeth Filkin will bear those points in mind.
I hope that Elizabeth Filkin will learn some of the lessons of the past few years. It is going to be her responsibility, if the House is minded to approve her appointment, to uphold the dignity of Parliament; that is one of the charges that will be upon her, but I urge her to regard that as a two-way street and not simply a question of investigating complaints against Members about things that they may have omitted to do.
I hope that Elizabeth Filkin will regard it as her duty to protect the integrity of Parliament by ensuring that those who bring unfounded and serious allegations against Members pay some penalty, once it is decided that their charges are baseless. That is why I shall not join those right hon. and hon. Members who wish to salute the departure of Sir Gordon Downey; I do not. I think that he has been a disgrace—[Interruption. The House may not like to hear it, but we have free speech in this place and I believe that he has behaved, in some respects, disgracefully. I shall tell the House why I am particularly exercised.
Soon after returning to the House last year, I went to see Sir Gordon Downey in respect of one investigation that he had recently undertaken and concluded, a serious investigation where allegations were made against the then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), that he had been guilty of taking bribes of no less than £1 million from Mr. Tiny Rowland—the complaint was made by Mr. Al Fayed.
That was duly investigated by Sir Gordon. Shortly before the general election of 1997, he dismissed the allegations as baseless, but they had all been paraded all over the newspapers, and Labour Members could revel in the idea that there was no smoke without fire and that a senior Minister was involved; it was great stuff for the sleaze machine and all the rest of it. When Sir Gordon found, of course, that there was no case to answer, that appeared as a footnote in the newspapers, but the damage had been done.
I said to Sir Gordon, "Having found that the accusation was baseless, why did you not require that Al Fayed be summoned to the Bar of the House to apologise?" "Oh, Mr. Howarth, we could not possibly do that," he said. "Why not?" I asked. "Because that would deter other people from making complaints," he said.
That was an absolutely disgraceful dereliction of the duty of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He should have been far more robust. A grave charge was

813
made against an hon. Member, which reflected on all of us, at least all of those who were in the House at the time. Sir Gordon failed miserably in upholding the dignity of the House by failing to require, or at least to recommend to the Committee, that Mr. Al Fayed be brought before the House to answer for what he had done. It was on the basis of that conversation with Sir Gordon that I felt deeply depressed about the way in which he had conducted his business.
The House will know, because I have raised it here before, that I believe that the manner in which Sir Gordon dealt with the case of Mr. Neil Hamilton was also a dereliction of duty. Sir Gordon's whole case was based on compelling evidence that Mr. Hamilton had taken money. He could not determine how much money Mr. Hamilton had taken from Mr. Al Fayed, how he had taken the money, when he had taken the money and, despite having crawled through his accounts, what he had done with the money. Nevertheless, it was good enough for Sir Gordon Downey to find that there was compelling evidence.
The truth is that Sir Gordon Downey rejected the original claims made by The Guardian—which has been part of the overall conspiracy, in cahoots with some Labour Members—that Mr. Hamilton had been paid via Mr. Ian Greer. Nevertheless, after finding that those claims had not stuck, Al Fayed made other accusations—which, when they too did not stick, he changed for a third time.
In his "compelling evidence", Sir Gordon relied on the evidence of Mr. Al Fayed's employees. If I may detain the House for a moment—I have rather a lot of literature on the matter—I remind hon. Members that, at paragraph 800 of the Committee's first report, last July, Sir Gordon said that Ms Bond, who is Mr. Al Fayed's right-hand lady, and Mr. Bromfield, who was the doorkeeper at 60 Park lane, the location of Mr. Al Fayed's headquarters—
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
Mr. Howarth: When I have finished this point, I shall of course allow my hon. Friend to intervene.
Sir Gordon stated that those people
"impressed me as reliable witnesses and I found no discrepancies in their evidence which could not be accounted for by uncertainties of recollection after a period of 10 years."
Unlike Mr. Bromfield, Mr. Hamilton was allowed no such deficiency in his recollection.
Mr. Bromfield testified that Mr. Hamilton had picked up envelopes at 60 Park lane—which of course never happened. It has now been revealed that, for about four months, Mr. Bromfield regularly handed over envelopes to Miss Francesca Pollard, who was, and acknowledges that she was, in Al Fayed's pay. Mr. Bromfield could not remember her, but he could remember Mr. Hamilton, who was never there. He was a totally unreliable witness. He was one of many such witnesses.
Sir Gordon completely failed in pursuing a course of natural justice. Charges of such a nature should have been judged on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt—which Sir Gordon did not apply—and not on the balance of probabilities. It is extremely interesting that he failed
814
to call key witnesses who would have told him that those employees were unreliable. I remind the House that those employees appeared only at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. They had held their tongues for three years, and came forward only three days before the case was due to go to court.
Sir Gordon completely refused to take the evidence of Mr. Christoph Betterman, who had been no less than a director and vice-chairman of Harrods.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I said that I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). I should do that, and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I say this with some hesitation. If my hon. Friend has already dealt with the issues with which he wanted to deal, my remarks will be unnecessary. However, if he is thinking of going into the matter in some depth, I should tell him that, when I was involved in a High Court action, I was cautioned to be rather cautious about taking up issues that might be further determined by a court. I do not want to say any more than that, but I have a fear.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to my attention. He makes a fair point, to which I shall of course have regard. I do not want to take much longer, but I should give way to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not have a legal warning, but merely say that—on the occasion of the retirement of a very distinguished public servant—the tactic of raking over old, dead coals and going over evidence again is not only ungracious but downright wrong. However, if the hon. Gentlemen is going to do that, why does he not declare his own interest as a close friend of the man about whom he is talking, and as someone who was coupled with him in a libel action and gained damages with him from the BBC?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We should not deal with issues concerning the BBC and events of some time ago, as they have nothing to do with the motion. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is speaking within the rules of debate. If he were not, I would soon stop him. However, I also remind him that hon. Members have a tradition of being careful not to malign those with no protection.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the mover of the motion, on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, may I have some guidance? The report that we have tabled deals with the nomination of a candidate and is essentially about welcoming a new person to the job. Therefore is it technically in order—as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said—to rake over the coals?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I said to the hon. Member for Aldershot—and as he should know by now—

815
the occupant of the Chair would not allow the debate to go out of order. The report mentions the work done by Sir Gordon Downey. The hon. Member should have mentioned occasionally the new commissioner, which he has done. However, I reiterate that there is a tradition in the House of being careful in dealing with privilege. An hon. Member who is attacked by another hon. Member will have an opportunity to rebut, but hon. Members are careful about using our privilege in the Chamber.
Mr. Howarth: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am most grateful to you for making a very considered response. I have attempted to conduct myself in a manner that I hope the House will regard as being as courteous as possible in the circumstances.
I tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that every hon. Member knows that I am a close friend of Neil Hamilton; I do not have to declare that. Moreover, I tell the hon. Gentleman that his comments were unworthy of him as a man of principle. I am fighting for a principle, and he, too, should be prepared to fight for a principle. The principle is that a man in this country is innocent unless proved otherwise.
Neil Hamilton has not been proved to have taken the money. The Committee concluded that it did not have evidence that he had taken the money. I am therefore not attempting to rake over old coals. However, I shall not join in the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to Sir Gordon Downey. I do not share my right hon. Friend's view. I believe that Sir Gordon has failed to discharge his duty, and I am entitled to say so in the House.
I have publicly expressed that view, and I have told Sir Gordon Downey on the telephone that I wish to call for his dismissal. He has not been shy in replying to me. He is an unelected appointee of the House who should be accountable to the House. I feel that he has not been properly accountable to the House. When challenged about my views, he asserted in The Daily Telegraph that my opinions were a matter of "total indifference" to him. All I can say is that no public official has the right to speak in such terms about the opinions of an elected Member of this place.
Sir Gordon has been quite happy to defend himself. He has made some outrageous remarks. After seeing something about the 19th report in The Times and learning its basis—wishing Sir Gordon well—I have only just picked up a copy of it. However, I shall not join in the general euphoria—forgive me—because I believe that the public are entitled to know about those matters. I am grateful to hon. Members who are giving me a fair hearing.
The essence of my argument—of why I believe that Sir Gordon Downey has failed—is that he has failed to discharge his responsibility to uphold the integrity of the House by requiring those who make baseless allegations to be brought to book. That is where he has failed, and that is why I wish to say to his successor that I hope that she will not make the same mistake.
I believe that Sir Gordon Downey also does not deserve the eulogies of the House because of the way in which he dealt with a case in which I have declared a close interest. I have argued why. I am not simply asserting that Sir Gordon Downey is a bad chap; I am giving chapter
816
and verse as to why I do not believe that the House should give the bloke a happy send-off. One of my reasons is that he chose to rely on the evidence of people who were totally and completely committed to a known crook and liar, in the words of the Department of Trade and Industry report. He failed to take into account the evidence of Mr. Christoph Betterman, a former vice-chairman of Harrods, who ended up banged up in a gaol in the middle east for nine months in squalid conditions. In evidence to Sir Gordon Downey, he said:
"In my bitter personal experience, Mr. Al-Fayed is a compulsive liar who will stop at nothing to achieve his objectives. Any statement of his and of his close employees seeking to corroborate him should be treated with the greatest circumspection."
Let me ask the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who is a member of the Committee, why he did not require Sir Gordon Downey to invite Mr. Betterman to give evidence. Sir Gordon failed in his duty. He invited only those who would support the case for the prosecution, as it were.
We have now seen exhibited to public view the activities of Mr. Al Fayed in raiding the safe deposit box belonging to Tiny Rowland. He has now pulled out of the case, which cost £2.5 million and has now ended. It is further evidence that he and his colleagues have been crooks.
My basic point is that Sir Gordon Downey failed to discharge his responsibility.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman condemns the work of Sir Gordon Downey, but surely he should respect the decision of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to find Mr. Neil Hamilton guilty on seven out of the eight charges brought against him. I believe that the fact that Mr. Hamilton admitted to those seven charges would have resulted in his suspension from the House. Does the hon. Gentleman not respect the decision of the elected Members on the Select Committee?
Mr. Howarth: I am afraid that I do not, because the whole issue has been imbued with enormous partisan advantage, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. The evidence is in paragraph 814 of the report. The Prime Minister himself has been hauled before the Select Committee on three occasions and been accused—and found guilty—of minor transgressions which ought properly to have been recorded; yet Sir Gordon Downey asserts that the fact that Neil Hamilton was found guilty on a number of counts puts him completely beyond the pale. I am sorry, but I cannot find the exact quotation.
Sir Gordon Downey does not deserve the approbation of the House because he was partial. He took a more lenient and favourable towards some Members than towards others.
I am not alone in that view. On 20 October, The Daily Telegraph—a newspaper of repute and undoubted independence of mind, a fearless fighter for worthy causes—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are not here."] No; but they will be watching on the box, and I did not vote to bring television into the House.
On 20 October, The Daily Telegraph said:
"Under pressure to show that the new system of parliamentary regulation could handle corruption, Sir Gordon appears to have jumped to conclusions. Had he conducted a thorough investigation,

817
he would have realised that allegations made by employees under Mr. Fayed's direct control were highly suspect. The reason is obvious. Mr. Fayed carries out dirty tricks campaigns against staff who cross him. In the specific case of Alison Bozek, her claims are categorically denied by former members of Mr. Fayed's operations."
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Aldershot gives way, I have something to say. The hon. Gentleman has made his point about Sir Gordon Downey and has said that he does not wish to join his hon. Friends in congratulating him. He has a perfect right to do that. He has put the case as to why he should not congratulate Sir Gordon Downey, but the House should not have to listen to every piece of evidence. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I hope that he will not give us chapter and verse of what Mr. Al Fayed or anyone else has done. The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he does not like Sir Gordon Downey.
Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) consider withdrawing his remarks? He has cast aspersions on certain right hon. and hon. Members by saying that the Select Committee treated some hon. Members more favourably than others. That raises questions about the right hon. and hon. Members on that Committee, and I think that he should withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Howarth: I am sorry, but I cannot withdraw what I said, as I believe it to be the case. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House for very long. He and I worked together on aerospace matters and I respect him, but I do not believe—
Mr. Hoyle: Name the hon. Members.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman asks me to name the hon. Members involved. I have named the Prime Minister, whom I believe to have been treated more favourably and more leniently. I also believe that the Select Committee treated the Paymaster General more leniently than he warrants. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel very strongly about that.
Dr. Godman rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, let me say to the hon. Member for Aldershot that it is time that he concluded his remarks. The House has heard his case and knows exactly where he is coming from. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman is listening, because, if he intends indulging in personal criticism of any right hon. or hon. Member, he must table a motion and put it before the House.
Mr. Howarth: I accept your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mentioned to the Paymaster General—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to mention something to any right hon. or hon. Gentleman. If he is going to make personal criticisms of right hon. or hon. Gentlemen, he must put a motion before the House.
Mr. Howarth: Let me remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that an hon. Member lost his seat because of
818
false allegations that were made against him. They are serious charges. You invited me not to adduce an extensive range of evidence. I hope that I have introduced to the House sufficient evidence to support my claims. I invite Labour Members to be fair-minded and to imagine how they would feel if they were the victims of persecution.
Dr. Godman rose—
Mr. Mitchell rose—
Mr. Howarth: I remind the House that Mr. Hamilton was the Minister for Corporate Affairs who refused to do A1 Fayed's bidding. It was crystal clear that the man had a motive and that is another reason why I feel Sir Gordon Downey has failed.
The purpose of my raising the issue is not to rake over old coals, but to ensure that the new commissioner, if her appointment is endorsed by the House tonight, is aware that there is not a one-sided view of the issue in the House and that there are serious matters to which she has to turn her mind. In order to uphold the integrity of the House, I invite her to look carefully at the way in which she discharges her responsibility. I have not met the lady and I have no idea about her. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, except those on the House of Commons Commission, I have to rely on their judgment. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has had the benefit of considering the candidates. I have not. I have not been able to put my points and encourage the candidates to consider the nature of their responsibilities.
Mr. Mitchell rose—
Mr. Howarth: I shall give way one last time, because I know that you want to move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is raking over the coals of the case by attacking Sir Gordon Downey, but the problem about which he is complaining is the office of the independent commissioner for standards. If we have such an office—and we should—it is bound to work in the way in which Sir Gordon Downey worked.
The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to what would have happened with such accusations before we had the independent commissioner. The issue would have been dealt with entirely by a Committee of the House. There would have been accusations of chaps judging chaps and there would have been little faith outside in any verdict, for or against Neil Hamilton, because people would have said that we were being judge and jury in our own case. The issue would have been worse and more muddied. Why does the hon. Gentleman not compare what happened with what would have happened before?
Mr. Howarth: I believe that such matters should be dealt with by Members of Parliament. I do not believe that we should appoint outside people to judge them. The experience of Sir Gordon Downey proves the point to my satisfaction. I accept that it does not prove it to the satisfaction of other hon. Members. The guy is accountable, for goodness sake. Is he supposed to be

819
untouchable? Can we not criticise him or say anything about him? Of course we can say something about him. If we appointed him, we can jolly well hold him to account. That is all that I am trying to do.
I do not wish to strain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been very gracious towards me, and I appreciate that. I know that you know how I feel about the matter. I have not been raking over the coals. New evidence has appeared in the book by Mr. Tom Bower and in the excellent book called "Trial by Conspiracy" by Jonathan Boyd Hunt, a copy of which I shall let the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) have, for an appropriate fee—he insisted that he wanted to pay for it and did not want it for free. It is subtitled "The Lies, Cover-ups and Injustices Behind the Neil Hamilton Affair".
I shall ensure that Ms Filkin has a copy of the book, because I should like her to read it before she embarks on her job. It sets out what I believe to have been the gravest miscarriage of justice. I accept that it happened to a friend of mine, but I make no apologies for that—why should I? The House should recognise that it has been guilty of not having satisfactorily resolved a matter pertaining to one of its own. This is unfinished business. I hope that the new commissioner will look at the issue again and will take into account the matters that I have tried to put before the House.
7.42 pm
Mr. Tony McNulty: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). It is appropriate to dwell on the report and some of Sir Gordon Downey's parting shots to mark his retirement. It would have been dreadful, not least because of the entertainment that we have just had, if we had simply nodded the motion through.
I am a relatively new Member of Parliament and I bow to most others in experience, but I am a keen watcher of politics. I note in passing that until the last election, in Mr. Julian Critchley, Aldershot was represented by someone with a good deal more dignity than the current incumbent.
It is right that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was able to have his say in the context of welcoming Ms Filkin and marking the retirement of Sir Gordon Downey, however much others of us may disagree with what he said. The pound sign on the hon. Gentleman's lapel has just been drawn to my attention. I do not know whether it represents a subliminal signal of solidarity with Neil Hamilton, but I shall let that pass.
Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is about to tell me that the lapel badge is about saving the pound.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman was right the second time—and I think that he knew it at the outset. Of course it is to do with saving the pound.
Mr. McNulty: It may still be subliminal.
If ever there was evidence of the need for Sir Gordon Downey and his good works and the appointment of Elizabeth Filkin, it is what we have just heard. That eloquent, if petulant and ungracious, soliloquy from the
820
apologia for the Neil Hamilton club shows far more clearly than anything that I could say that Sir Gordon Downey and his successor are sorely needed. To revisit an event at the general election, what we have just heard takes the biscuit in all sorts of ways and is entirely wrong. I wish Ms Filkin good luck. Given what we have just heard, she will need all her experience in looking after errant charges and children. The distortions that we have just heard on the clear evidence against Neil Hamilton that Sir Gordon Downey refers to were a travesty.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has a right to his say. He has united most hon. Members behind a complete exoneration of and welcome for everything that Sir Gordon Downey has done. If Sir Gordon and Ms Filkin needed an enemy in the House, they could find no less a man than the hon. Gentleman.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I know precious little about Ms Elizabeth Filkin. I fully accept what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and other members of the Committee have said about her expertise and experience and I am sure that she is a more than appropriate successor to Sir Gordon Downey, but it might have been useful if we had had a detailed CV, perhaps in the Vote Office, for us to peruse, purely for information.
Sir Gordon Downey rightly did not mention it, but the issue of resources may need to be investigated. Some key points in the report are worth noting, not least the point on page vi about penalties. There is a real concern about the level, extent and manner of penalties imposed. I draw particular attention to the last paragraph of that page, which talks about the present range of penalties. Sir Gordon Downey says that they are adequate and appropriate, but a broader range could be employed by the Committee, beyond public censure, required apology, suspension and expulsion. Sir Gordon says in his retirement note that public opinion may feel that the Committee is a bit soft. We have moved from a zero base with no sanctions all the way to public apologies, public censure, suspension and expulsion, which crudely brings to mind being publicly executed for shoplifting. There must be a range of sanctions and penalties.
Sir Gordon's points about the lack of collective memory are also well made. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee or the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will let me know afterwards whether there is to be serious training and reflection for future members of the Committee. They may need more than just half a morning from time to time.
I am not entirely sure that there should be any limitations, save perhaps for death. Seven years may be enough, except for issues of a particularly serious nature, as Sir Gordon Downey says, but there may be more to it. Seven years may be appropriate, but I am not sure.
It is worth dwelling on the report. The whole House should join the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire in wishing Ms Filkin well in her job and the best of luck. Given the drivel that we have heard from the hon. Member for Aldershot, she will clearly need it.
7.49 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: It had not been my intention to say anything in this debate, but it is hard to remain silent following the remarks by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who has every right to stand by his friend—and I applaud him for that. One can have

821
doubts about the way in which the House dealt with my predecessor in matters of the appeal procedure, as I have. None the less, I have been a Member—I became one rather by accident—for a little more than 18 months, and I found the hon. Gentleman's remarks the saddest and most melancholic and graceless that I have heard. To turn against him a word that he used, I would even say that his remarks were disgraceful. They were very sad to listen to.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman found my remarks graceless. If Mr. Neil Hamilton is successful in his libel action against Mohammed Al Fayed, the hon. Gentleman will have fought a baseless campaign.
Mr. Bell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I will be very surprised if the people who made the difference in this matter—the electors of Tatton—are proved wrong.
I turn to the remarks by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), whom I regard as my friend, although I am not of his party or any other. I thoroughly endorse his remarks about Sir Gordon Downey—a remarkable public servant. People in public service who are not elected representatives normally do not expect to be exposed to the vilification to which he has been subjected in the past two years. He has dealt with it with enormous calmness and dignity, and the House and the nation owe him a debt of gratitude. To draw on my previous occupation, Sir Gordon Downey has shown a particular quality which one normally finds only in soldiers in difficult situations: courage under fire.
7.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I want to use this opportunity, on behalf of the Leader of the House, who, unfortunately is not able to be present but has sent her apologies, to put on record the Government's support for and tribute to the work of Sir Gordon Downey. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of his record. I pay tribute to him, particularly for the way in which he has performed the duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He has been a most effective first occupant of the post. He has handled the setting up of the new arrangements for standards and privileges with great skill. He also had to handle some very difficult cases at the end of the previous Parliament. He set a high standard of service to the House, and has ensured that the office of parliamentary commissioner is highly respected. In doing so, he has helped to restore the reputation of the House. We wish him well.
We also welcome and support the House of Commons Commission's recommendation on the appointment of Elizabeth Filkin. Her recent role as the adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Department of Social Security Contributions Agency will ensure that she brings to the post a wealth of experience and a reputation for independence and integrity. We wish her well. We know that she will receive the full support of the House in her very important role, and we fully support the recommendation to appoint her.
7.53 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: There has been a range of contributions to this debate; I shall make a fairly limited speech.
The vast majority of the public do not know who Sir Gordon Downey is. There is no particular reason why they should. Although the post is a public appointment, the office-holder is not constantly on the radio or the television. Sir Gordon was almost invariably asked to discover whether there was evidence behind a complaint, and if there were, to consider the facts and put them to the Standards and Privileges Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is the distinguished Chairman—not just as a result of his background but because he manages to get the Committee's members to agree. I endorse what he said in private that, if the Committee agrees unanimously, it carries far more weight.
One case fell out of the ordinary—the one considered in the eighth report. Paragraph 10 spells out clearly that the Speaker asked for something to happen that did not follow the usual way forward. Although I do not want to go further into events that may be considered in other places, it is worth noting that those who read the eighth report carefully will have an understanding of what happened and of the responsibilities of the commissioner and the Committee. In the appendix to the 19th report—the commissioner's valedictory report, if I may put it that way—people can see the range of disposals of complaints. Some were upheld, and some were not.
I have known Elizabeth Filkin in the past. She has been well chosen by the Commission. We should thank members of the Commission for their work. The Standards and Privileges Committee has thanked Sir Gordon Downey—not at great length, because the paragraph that thanks him does so properly and well. I hope that, in time, when we consider a successor to Elizabeth Filkin, the Committee will have earned as much respect as the commissioner. I hope that the House will have done so, too.
Anyone who believes that there are hon. Members who behave as badly as those in the past does not understand. According to the Cross-Bencher articles in the decade after the war, Members of Parliament engaged in a range of activities which make even the worst of us look pretty good. I take comfort from the fact that members of the public consider the standards of their own Member of Parliament to be high. Members of Parliament as a whole are considered not to be as good as we might be—although it is worth noting that we are generally considered to be better than Ministers as a whole. That may be the wrong way around; it is just the way that the public see it.
Let us stick to our responsibilities. I join those who congratulate Sir Gordon, who, when the Committee did not accept everything that he proposed, did not object. Let us remember that any recommendations made by the Committee were ours and not the commissioner's. Let us hope that, in future, the partnership between the people, Parliament, the Committee and the commissioner is as good as it has been recently.
7.56 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful to hon. Members for their speeches. The only complaint that I would make about the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who is an old friend, is that he chose an inappropriate occasion on which to make them. Of course he is entitled to the views that he expressed; he has expressed them before. On reflection, he may consider that a substantive motion would have been a much better way in which to bring such important matters before the House.
The hon. Member for Aldershot is entitled, too, to his view of Sir Gordon Downey. Speaking on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, I certainly disagree with him. We should bear in mind the fact that Sir Gordon Downey took up the post of commissioner in the middle of a Parliament, when the new process was in gestation. It fell to him to adjudicate, in the light of common sense and reason, on many questions of interpretation posed by hon. Members. He discharged his task with great dignity. In co-operation with the Clerk of the Standards and Privileges Committee, he was able to include a corpus of detailed guidance in the code of conduct and the guide to the rules on which the House now relies. More than anything else, that is his legacy. Of course the process will evolve; of course there are lessons to be learned; of course there will be pressures on the individuals whom we appoint commissioners. The role that Sir Gordon established, which set standards for the future, will serve the House well in years to come.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman address the important issue that I raised? If somebody makes false allegations against an hon. or right hon. Member, should that person be brought before the House to apologise and brought to book? Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is just a one-way street?
Mr. Kirkwood: Some of the facts and circumstances as related by the hon. Gentleman seem to me to show his misunderstanding of the position, because he is, indirectly or directly, criticising not the parliamentary commissioner, but the Committee itself. He is entitled to do so, but I should have thought that the appropriate way of doing so would be to table a substantive motion, which could then be amended and debated in the House in the proper way. He is investing the post with a degree of authority that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards retiring and the prospective Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards do not have.
Let me direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the annexe to the report that we are debating. The final point in the section detailing the job description states clearly that the principal duties are, inter alia,
"Receiving and investigating complaints about the conduct of Members (whether related directly to alleged breaches of the Code or not) and reporting her findings to the Committee."
824
Surely, that is the point. Any substantive complaints about past events should be directed at members of the Committee. That is right and proper.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has raised an important issue. I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) agrees that it is right to put it on the record that, in any future complaint, the complainant will be expected to carry the burden of providing evidence so that the commissioner will know whether there is something worth investigating. If the commissioner were satisfied that there was prima facie evidence that justified an investigation, I suspect that people who gave false evidence would find themselves in trouble, but those who gave evidence that did not fully substantiate the case would not necessarily face any penalty.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am only a humble member of the House of Commons Commission, but those points cover territory that should be considered by the Committee itself. I am sure that the new commissioner will closely examine our debate, which will be a positive step. I am happy to take back the points raised and ensure that the new commissioner gives them some thought, albeit in conjunction with the Clerks and the members of the Committee, because they are the people who will consider and develop our future procedures.
I can put my hand on my heart and give a cast-iron assurance to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who was, quite rightly, concerned that the Commission should in future take the time to set out more details about a prospective candidate before the report came to the House for a final decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a comprehensive and detailed board was set up in accordance with all the civil service equal opportunities provisions. There were 19 applications, reduced to a shortlist of five, consisting of three men and two women. The process of deliberation was exhaustive and resulted in two excellent final candidates. Others have not had the advantage of being able to cross-examine Elizabeth Filkin, but having had the benefit of doing so, I have no hesitation in saying that she is an appropriate person for the job.
The debate has been useful, albeit slightly tense at times. We on the Commission will certainly reflect on the substantive points raised. I hope that other hon. Members, including those who have spoken, will also reflect. To return to the main business, I urge the House to endorse the recommendation that the report contains.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Ms Elizabeth Filkin be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the retirement of Sir Gordon Downey, KCB, on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission (HC 1143), dated 9th November 1998.

Prisoners (Northern Ireland)
8.3 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) (No. 2) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
Under the Good Friday agreement, both Governments promised to put in place an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners. That part of the agreement has caused deep heart searching for many, including those who have to implement it. For many of the victims of horrendous crimes over the years, it has renewed the pains and hurts that they still bear. The Government are working with them to address their needs and we shall continue to look at ways in which we can support and help the all too many victims of the past 30 years and their families.
However, despite the pain and the doubts, the issue of releases was and remains an integral part of the agreement, which was adopted by the participants, endorsed by the people and implemented by this Parliament in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. In the agreement, a clear condition was attached to the release of prisoners in paragraph 2, page 25, which states:
"Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements. The situation in this regard will be kept under review."
The Act passed by the House on 28 July reflects that condition in full. It also reflects the four factors that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the course of the referendum campaign, said would be taken into account in reaching an overall judgment on whether an organisation could benefit.
The agreement clearly linked the release of prisoners to the maintenance of a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. It is not for us to overturn the agreement and add new conditions or make new linkages. If we did so, what authority would we have to insist that others should also hold to their commitments without adding new conditions?
The draft order recognises that the Loyalist Volunteer Force has declared a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. The effect of the draft order is that the LVF will be removed from the list of specified organisations. Therefore, individuals affiliated to it will be eligible for the benefit of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. That benefit is the early release of prisoners convicted of scheduled offences committed before 10 April 1998, the date of the Good Friday agreement.
If an organisation is specified, members of that organisation do not qualify for early release. The draft order shows that the organisations that remain specified are the Continuity IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Real IRA. The draft order is the result of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State keeping the security situation and relevant organisations under continual review. That review of our earlier judgment of the organisations to be specified has taken account of the ceasefires called by the LVF, the INLA and, more recently, the Real IRA.
Mr. Eric Forth: I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain
826
something that increasingly mystifies and disturbs many people, principally those on the mainland. How is it that the prisoner release process is proceeding apace, when nothing whatsoever appears to have happened regarding decommissioning of arms, explosives and other weapons? Can the Minister explain to frustrated voters on the mainland why that is happening, when earlier so much stress was laid on the fact that the two had to be intimately connected?
Mr. Ingram: Conservative Members could help to spread understanding of the Good Friday agreement. The agreement was not about that linkage, although aspects of the agreement related to decommissioning. I was going to refer to the totality of the agreement later in my speech, and I hope that that will provide an explanation. I call on everyone who has an understanding of the agreement not to create new parameters, or to try to define new dimensions or establish new preconditions; if they do so, they are no longer supporters of the Good Friday agreement, which the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic supported in overwhelming numbers. That is not to say that the issue has not been addressed: it is being addressed. Every Member of Parliament wants full decommissioning to happen.
I was saying that the review of our earlier judgment of the organisations to be specified had to take into account the ceasefires called by the LVF, the INLA and the Real IRA. Although our current conclusion is that no additional organisations should be specified, the situation will remain under review.
Let me deal with the organisations that are now specified in the order. The Continuity IRA has not declared a ceasefire and will, therefore, remain specified. The Real IRA announced a ceasefire on 7 September—a most welcome development. The worth of that ceasefire will have to be proved in word and deed over a longer period. I do not need to remind the House that this was the organisation responsible for the horrific events at Omagh which resulted in 29 deaths and many hundreds of others injured and traumatised. The Government are far from convinced that its ceasefire represents a genuine and lasting commitment to exclusively peaceful means.
The INLA also remains specified, since we are not yet persuaded that its ceasefire is complete and unequivocal. Its ceasefire was called on 22 August and, like the Real IRA, it still needs to demonstrate by word and deed its commitment now and in the future to exclusively peaceful and democratic means to pursue its objectives.
The Government will pursue those responsible for past terrorist crimes, and bring the full weight of the law to bear against those who continue to plan and perpetrate such evil acts.
Let me now refer to the Loyalist Volunteer Force. The Secretary of State is now satisfied that this organisation has established a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, and has done so over a significant period. Since May this year, the LVF has demonstrated that its ceasefire is being maintained. The decision that it should no longer be specified also recognises the significant contacts that the LVF has made, via an intermediary, with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
The decision also takes into account the LVF's public commitment to make a start to decommissioning within a short period of its ceasefire being recognised.

827
Although other organisations have maintained their ceasefires for longer, no other organisation has committed itself to a start to decommissioning. We welcome the LVF's commitment. We look forward to it being honoured.
All the participants in the negotiations committed themselves to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. Paragraph 3 of page 20 of the Good Friday agreement says:
"All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement."
In common with all commitments in the agreement, we look for tangible evidence that that commitment also is being implemented. The Government are living up to our commitments under the agreement; we expect everyone else to do so as well.
As I have said, all of those issues are kept under continuous review, taking into account all the evidence available on the best security advice, and taking into account all the factors prescribed in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the Good Friday agreement itself. We are working to ensure that, as the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland have indicated, there is no future for violence—it must be consigned to the past.
The future is in peace, in following the democratic path and in acknowledging other people's rights as one would expect them to acknowledge one's own. Arguments can and should be settled through discussion, consensus and the rule of law, and not through perpetual distrust and recourse to arbitrary and brutal violence. The Government are committed to seeing this process through, facing up to all the difficulties and, importantly, looking for resolutions to them. The way forward is through the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. The order is part of this process. I commend it to the House.
8.13 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: First, I believe that the Secretary of State's timing is about right in reviewing her earlier judgments on specifying—or unspecifying, as the case may be—the various terrorist organisations. I welcome the fact that the Minister has come to the House with the order. I will not second-guess the security advice that the Secretary of State and the Minister have been given. I trust that advice and, therefore, the Opposition will not oppose—indeed, we will support—the order in any Division tonight.
Having said that, it is worth while reflecting that the Loyalist Volunteer Force has been one of the most evil, sectarian and psychopathic organisations that this country has had the misfortune to experience. Nothing that we do tonight by voting for the order in any way diminishes the evil of what has taken place.
I have noted carefully that, over the past few months since its ceasefire began, the LVF has promised that, once it has been unspecified by the Secretary of State, it will immediately start decommissioning all its illegally held arms and explosives. I hope that the LVF sticks to its
828
word—it is vital that it does. It will be a useful nudge to those who have been extremely dilatory and have been dragging their feet by not decommissioning in any shape or form, even though they have signed up to the Good Friday agreement.
I wish to take issue, gently, with the Minister, who gave the impression to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that there was no link between decommissioning and the early release of terrorist prisoners. On 20 April in the House, the Secretary of State said:
"I am sure that he and his colleagues understand that, according to the nature of the agreement, several things must happen in parallel in order to build confidence. That has always been the situation, whether it be decommissioning, the release of prisoners".—[Official Report, 20 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 484.]
I agreed with the Secretary of State then. I fear that many will feel let down that that has not happened.
On 6 May, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:
"Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is important to emphasise that people must sign up to the whole agreement and not to bits and pieces of it. The whole agreement stands as a package, and everyone who says yes to it is saying yes to all the agreement. They cannot say yes to the bits they like and leave aside the bits that they do not like; they must sign up to the agreement in its entirety."
Clearly, the paramilitaries have not done that, as shown by the lack of decommissioning.
Later—again in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—the Prime Minister said:
"Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that, of course".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.1]
That has not happened.
During the referendum campaign—when we rightly campaigned for a yes vote in the Province—the Prime Minister, at the Balmoral showgrounds, said on 14 May:
"The Agreement is what has to be implemented, in all its parts. In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the Agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account … progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence; full co-operation with the Independent Commission on decommissioning to implement the provisions of the Agreement".
Again, the people of Northern Ireland have a right to feel let down, because there has not been that co-operation. Although 204 terrorist prisoners have been released early by the Government, there has been no sign of any decommissioning of illegally held weapons—not one gun, not one ounce of Semtex.
Shona McIsaac: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when the previous Government were in power, early prisoner releases were taking place, yet there were no unequivocal ceasefires?
Mr. MacKay: There was a change in the rules to release prisoners, and the hon. Lady is correct. I am not saying that there should be no release of prisoners. That was in the Good Friday agreement, as the Minister of State has rightly pointed out. The Government have shown their good faith to the paramilitaries by releasing prisoners early. I object to the fact that they have continued to release prisoners–204 terrorist prisoners

829
have now been released early—even though there has been no sign of decommissioning of illegally held weapons. I have said on a number of occasions that the Prime Minister should have drawn a line in the sand and said that no more terrorist prisoners would be released early until there was substantial and verifiable decommissioning.
Reasonable people on the mainland and in the Province cannot understand why there is continuing early release of terrorist prisoners when there is no sign of decommissioning. As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) might recall, I put that to the Secretary of State at the most recent Northern Ireland Question Time on 28 October. She replied:
"I have made clear to the right hon. Gentleman on other occasions the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I shall repeat them. He said that decommissioning is crucial, that it is a central part of the agreement and that we want all dimensions to move in parallel. If there is no progress, we will review it"— [Official Report, 28 October 1998; Vol. 318, c. 322.]
Clearly, the dimensions are not moving in parallel. The Good Friday agreement is now seven months old, and if there is no decommissioning, but there are prisoner releases, the dimensions are not running in parallel as the Secretary of State and I rightly believe they should. I therefore suggest that a review of the situation is long overdue. The right hon. Lady willingly admitted to me that it should be reviewed.
I warn the Minister of State, in the gentlest way, that the agreement made in Belfast on Good Friday, which he and I strongly support, will be in jeopardy if there is continuing early terrorist release without substantial and viable decommissioning, not to mention the problems that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the First Minister in the Assembly, has in appointing Ministers to the Executive. The right hon. Gentleman has correctly said that he is not prepared to appoint Sinn Fein Ministers until there is substantial and verifiable decommissioning. I hope that the Minister agrees that no politician can hold ministerial office, with all the responsibilities that that entails, while his paramilitary associates retain their guns and explosives.
The House must remember that the IRA and Sinn Fein are one and the same.
Mr. Ingram indicated assent.
Mr. MacKay: The Minister nods vigorously. I am always pleased to hear the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State say that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked. There is, therefore, absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness were in favour of decommissioning, there would be no problem in achieving it. They have seen a substantial number of their terrorist friends released from prison early without any decommissioning taking place, so they have said, "It does not look as though there is any need for decommissioning. We can have what we want from the bargain. We can cherry-pick and have our prisoners released and retain all our arms and explosives."
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will have to say to all the paramilitaries, whether they are so-called loyalist or republican, "You will not have one more terrorist prisoner released early under the agreement
830
unless you comply with the rest of the agreement and start substantially to decommission." It is not good enough for Mr. McGuinness to say, as he did in an interview on the same radio station as me last week, "Well, we have two years to do it." Any reasonable person would say that, seven months on, if there is absolutely no sign of decommissioning, that is not satisfactory.
Conservative Members are not saying that every gun and every ounce of Semtex should already have been handed in or handed in before any prisoners were released. We are certainly not saying that any of the terrorist organisations must publicly hand in their weapons. All we want is for decommissioning to be verifiable by the decommissioning commission because we, like the Minister, have full faith in General de Chastelain. The method is secondary to the process taking place.
Mr. Ingram: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the assessment of the Secretary of State and of me that the Provisional IRA is currently engaged in an unequivocal ceasefire? It is, therefore, a beneficiary under the Act and should remain so because that is the basis on which the Act was passed by the House in response to the Good Friday agreement.
Mr. MacKay: An unequivocal ceasefire, as the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box on 6 May in response to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), has to include decommissioning. I warmly welcome, as does the Minister, the fact that there has been a cessation of violence, but it is not an unequivocal cessation. He and I cannot sit comfortably until all the paramilitaries, not just the Provisional IRA, fully comply with the conditions that they signed up to in Belfast on Good Friday, and they are clearly not doing so. Let us be blunt—there is absolutely no decommissioning going on.
Rev. Martin Smyth: We speak of an unequivocal ceasefire, but weapons have been used by terrorists. That is a sham when it is claimed not by the IRA or UVF, but by others. However, is it not more significant that the spokespersons representing the UVF and the IRA, who sit with the general on the decommissioning commission, have said publicly that they will not decommission?
Mr. MacKay: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Minister has said publicly that the remarks of Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness that the Provisional IRA will not decommission were deeply regrettable. I hope that they will think again, but I fear that they will do so only if they are told by the Prime Minister that no more of their terrorist friends will be released early from prison.
To take up another point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), although it strays slightly wide of the order, none of us can be comfortable with the punishment beatings and intimidation that continue, and while they continue, there is no complete and unequivocal renunciation of violence. On balance, that is not serious enough for us to respecify organisations, but I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will make it clear that if punishment beatings continue, the organisations proved to be involved

831
will lose their status under the order. That is a wicked and evil form of violence, which the Minister and I know intimidates some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of the community in the Province.
Mr. Ingram: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as I said in my opening remarks, all the elements on which any paramilitary or terrorist organisation is judged are continually kept under review, and we act on the basis of the best security advice available. The Secretary of State has made it clear that she will not hesitate to exercise her judgment correctly and proportionately on any breach of those conditions.
Mr. MacKay: I am, as usual, grateful to the Minister of State. It is important that, when we are debating this sensitive issue in the House, we never let those who are the victims of so-called punishment beatings and intimidation, who are often those in the poorest areas of the Province, feel that they have been forgotten or that they are vaguely expendable in the greater political process in which the Minister and I are engaged. It is vital that the House sends a clear message; I am extremely grateful to the Minister for doing so.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, last month, he and I met representatives of a newly formed group, Families Acting for Innocent Relatives, and does he recall the deep sense of injustice felt by those representatives of the Protestant community of south Armagh in particular, about early release without decommissioning?
Mr. MacKay: I most certainly do remember the occasion. I have been in correspondence since, and I am due to meet representatives of Families Acting for Innocent Relatives. The families concerned, especially those that live in and near south Armagh, have a genuine grievance. Substantial terrorist activity is continuing. Innocent people on both sides of the sectarian divide are being intimidated, and are very scared. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that and that, like me, he would like that to be stopped as soon as possible. I hope quite soon to visit south Armagh to see for myself at first hand what that organisation of very brave people has to show me. I very much concur with my hon. Friend.
Tonight the House must give the following clear message. Yes, we pass the order unspecifying the LVF, but we insist that the LVF decommissions as it promised and declare that, if it does not do so, the matter will be reviewed again; moreover, we shall stop releasing terrorist prisoners early until we have substantial and verifiable decommissioning on behalf of all paramilitaries, whatever side of the sectarian divide they come from.
8.31 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) knows that I share his profound revulsion at the murderous psychotic members of the LVF, and others like them. I am sure that all hon. Members share that revulsion. I have said often enough in this place that we live in a mature parliamentary democracy, and that the activities of such psychotic people are those of the mobster—of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s.
832
I believe that the right hon. Member for Bracknell acts in good faith when he offers legitimate criticisms of the utter lack of progress on the almost insoluble issue of decommissioning. However, 1 believe that the Minister has acted with good sense and courage in relation to the order—it is a curious way of putting it—in unspecifying those psychotic people. I sometimes wish that we could unspecify them out of our hair, but that may be too much to hope.
The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) know that I have often said—as did the right hon. Member for Bracknell earlier—that I detest the dreadful punishment beatings. They are the acts of gangsters, some of whom claim—absurdly and obscenely—to be engaged in a military campaign, either defending the Union or seeking its partial destruction where the north of Ireland is concerned.
I agree that the decommissioning issue was always going to be the most difficult problem to tackle in relation to north-south relations, east-west relations and other developments. I do not have the answers. I believe that, in the fulness of time, decommissioning will take place—that it will be brought about by the efforts of the Government and of all those actively involved in politics in Northern Ireland. General de Chastelain has an important role to play. His patient, painstaking work and that of his colleagues will help enormously in this matter, but I believe that it will be a slow process.
Like the right hon. Member for Bracknell, I should love to see what he called substantial and verifiable demonstrations of decommissioning. Yes, we all desire to see such gestures by those psychotic people. I should also like those members of the American Congress—some of whom I met in Washington—who appear to be fully paid-up members of Sinn Fein-IRA, to urge their friends, or "comrades", in Northern Ireland to act more constructively. I wish that, now that the peace process is in operation and the House is legislating for radical constitutional change in the United Kingdom, they would play a more constructive part vis-a-vis their friends in the north.
I believe that progress in decommissioning will be brought about to a large extent by what I have called the patient or painstaking work of General de Chastelain and his colleagues and others, but it will be a hard road to follow. Sinn Fein-IRA could do much more to help things along. Recently, we have heard some very disingenuous—to put it mildly—statements by Sinn Fein representatives. For the people of Northern Ireland—the men, women and children represented by the two Northern Ireland Members present, the hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—let us have a substantial and verifiable form of decommissioning. However, as I said to the Minister, it was right and proper to bring the order to the House.
8.36 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: The issue of prisoner release is creating immense difficulties for those who are set the task of putting in place a devolved structure in Northern Ireland that can meet the expectations of society as a whole.
I agree with all that has been said about the LVF to the effect that its members are ruthless killers. Those are sectarian killers. They are not people for whom I or any of my colleagues have the slightest sympathy.

833
I shall raise one small issue with the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who has said that those in the LVF are the most ruthless and sectarian killers. For someone who has lived in Northern Ireland for the past almost 30 years of violence, there is no such thing as the most ruthless. Each terrorist organisation—
Mr. MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maginnis: I shall not give way at this stage. I may be nit-picking—
Mr. MacKay: I said "some of the most ruthless" killers.
Mr. Maginnis: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps allow me, at his expense, to make my point.
Each and every terrorist organisation—whether it be a terrorist organisation that has a political wing, that political wing having been involved in a talks process, or whether it be a terrorist organisation that is without a political wing—has displayed the utmost ruthlessness at some time during the past 28 years. One must look at what is being achieved by accepting the declaration of the LVF—an organisation with no political wing. The LVF obviously feels that it will not be taken seriously unless it makes an offer to Government—remember that self-interest is involved—regarding the release of prisoners. To secure their release, the organisation is prepared not only to declare an end to violence but to surrender its guns, disarm or decommission—whatever euphemism is most acceptable to it.
That creates a difference between the LVF and other organisations such as the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force. Those organisations have politically linked parties. There is much real linkage between the politicians—the Adamses and the McGuinnesses—and organisations such as the IRA. Others in other political parties are linked in the same way. One must now ask whether we have made good progress and whether the Government are as assiduous in seeking to make progress at this stage as they were in March and April this year. I believe that both our Government and the Irish Government are failing to show the enthusiasm for implementing the agreement that they demonstrated in achieving the agreement in March and April. That is a fundamental mistake.
We must remember that the LVF did not accept that agreement; it rejected it. That is why the organisation continued its violence after agreement was reached. We must not forget that fact because it may have repercussions: members of that organisation may be imprisoned for long periods as a result. We must wonder at what stage, having achieved its objective of getting prisoners released in return for decommissioning, we shall see the LVF resume violence—they are ruthless people—under that or some other convenient name, as part of a campaign to have others released.
The Minister shakes his head. I have been around for too long to trust any terrorist. I know how terrorists on both sides are willing to exploit what they perceive as weakness on the part of the Government—and that weakness has been displayed by both parties in government during my time in the House.
834
When taking stock, one must get over the notion that, because the LVF does not have a politically linked group, it is somehow worse than the UDA or the IRA. As the IRA, through Sinn Fein, is likely to be involved in the Executive—although certainly not immediately because it has not qualified—we should remember what Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, in particular, stand for. Let me remind the House who Gerry Adams is. He is the person who, in 1983, said:
"The IRA does not need an electoral mandate for armed struggle. It derives its mandate from the presence of the British in the six counties."
In 1986, he said:
"For our part, this leadership has been active in the longest phase of resistance to the British presence. Our record speaks for itself … The tactic of armed struggle is of primary importance."
So we move down the years. In 1988, Gerry Adams said:
"Armed struggle is seen as a political option. Its use is considered in terms of achieving national political aims and the efficacy of other forms of struggle."
We move on to 1989. Gerry Adams complained:
"The British government rarely listens to the force of argument. It understands only the argument of force … Armed struggle, however, is not merely a defensive reaction by an oppressed people. It sets the political agenda. Thus armed struggle can advance the overall struggle to the advantage of those in whose interests it is waged … armed struggle is a necessary and morally correct form of resistance in the six counties."
Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maginnis: I shall give way when I have completed these quotations. It is important to recognise that the thinking of IRA-Sinn Fein and its leader, Gerry Adams, has not changed down the years. In 1990, he said:
"We believe that Irish people have the right to use armed struggle in the context of seeking Irish independence and in the conditions of British occupation of the six counties."
In 1994, he said:
"The causes of conflict are still on-going".
That was at a time when he was considering calling a ceasefire. Therefore, we must put that ceasefire in context—if we need to do so after Canary Wharf. He continued:
"Every so often there will be a spectacular to remind the world."
Gerry Adams summed up his attitude to violence by saying:
"The tactic of armed struggle is of primary importance because it provides a vital cutting edge. Without it the issue of Ireland would not even have become an issue. So, in effect the armed struggle becomes armed propaganda."
We must look carefully at an organisation linked to a paramilitary force that has never repudiated or retracted that philosophy. When the Secretary of State said last week in her speech to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies that the IRA had said that it had accepted a partitionist solution, she was indulging in a flight of fancy. The IRA—and hence its paramilitary linked party, Sinn Fein—has never accepted any such thing.
Mr. Winnick: As the hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Adams, perhaps he would be interested to know that, in September 1983, at a meeting with Mr. Adams, I asked

835
him what mandate he had from the Irish people as a whole for the terrorism of the IRA. I also said that no British Government would ever surrender to the IRA against the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, and I was not proved wrong. The peace process demonstrates that terrorism will not bring about the kind of unitary state that Mr. Adams wants. It can be brought about only when the majority of people in Northern Ireland say that that is what they want.
Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is helpful and bears out much of what I believe. I am trying to impress on the House the fact that we are going through a process in which, whatever we achieve—I supported what was achieved on 10 April—cannot be implemented by only one party to the agreement, while the other party procrastinates.
I illustrate that by pointing out to right hon. and hon. Members that the issue of prisoner releases had to be addressed over a two-year period. No start date was specified for prisoner releases, yet the Government moved ahead at the earliest opportunity, and within five months of beginning, have released more than half the prisoners who may be eligible.
If that is the way in which the Government are prepared to implement the agreement, with all the risks attached, it cannot be improper for those of us who want disarmament and verification of that process to say, "No, there never was a specified starting date for disarmament, but in the agreement it was predicated on the same basis as prisoner releases." It had to be completed within two years of the date of the referendum, and it could not possibly happen in the last week, as Martin McGuinness suggests. It must be an on-going process.
Reassurance and confidence building are a two-way street. Many of us have accepted the advice of people such as Michael von Tangen Page of the department of peace studies at the university of Bradford, who pointed out that, in most civil conflicts, it is usually necessary to release prisoners in order to bring about a clean cut-off from terrorism as one moves towards democracy. That is what I read into what Michael von Tangen Page has written, which is cited in a research paper produced by the Library.
If I accept that, I must look to see whether there has been a clean cut-off between the violence and the new democratic process. That is what I voted for on 22 May and again on 25 June. I believe that it is what most of the 70-plus per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted for on those occasions. If Government—perhaps I should say if the parties to the agreement—do not meet their obligations in that respect, confidence will be undermined and it will become virtually impossible to make the political process work as we had hoped that it would.
My party leader asked the Prime Minister on 13 May whether he would
"make clear that those obligations"—
the obligations to disarm and so on—
"which are clearly set out in the agreement, will be made effective and reflected in forthcoming legislation?"
The Prime Minister replied:
"Yes—I intend to make it clear that the commitment and the obligations in the agreement must all be fulfilled and that no one can choose to fulfil some parts of the agreement and not others." —[Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 365.]
836
We must build confidence at each and every opportunity that presents itself. That is why I welcome the decision to test the LVF, but I do not want that organisation tested softly. I want it tested in the most stringent manner.
Since 10 April, there have been two sides to the situation in Northern Ireland—not Protestant and Roman Catholic, and not nationalist and Unionist. The two sides now are the terrorists who have yet to cross the psychological hurdle of abandoning terrorism, with all that that implies, and the law-abiding citizenry of Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. The Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister must begin to reassure us that their enthusiasm for implementation, their attention to detail and their expectation in respect of all parties are as strong as was their desire for an agreement in the first place.
There are various indicators of the progress that has been made. Particularly in respect of Sinn Fein-IRA, which will be in the Executive of a devolved Government if it meets the criteria laid down, there are a number of indicators that must be examined carefully at this stage. We must ask ourselves why the entire energies of Sinn Fein-IRA are now directed exclusively against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in every respect possible, down to intimidating a football team in West Belfast into refusing to take part in a football competition because the RUC was the team that it drew in the competition.
I have listened to members of the Roman Catholic tradition in Northern Ireland-people for whom I have the highest respect, such as Monsignor Denis Faul. I have heard them tell what it is really like, from the Catholic side of the community, to have to face up to the IRA's intimidation. I also hear exactly the same thing from people within my own tradition in respect of the UVF and the UDA. 1 always feel obliged to say that all organisations that indulge in terror are equally obnoxious to me.
The Government of the Irish Republic have been found wanting. I am particularly disappointed that Bertie Ahern, who I believed had the courage to move things forward, has been equivocal about those who sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
When it was announced that the LVF was to be brought aboard the scheme for prisoner releases because of its ceasefire and willingness to disarm, Bertie Ahern had no need to say, "But this does not mean anything as far as the IRA is concerned." How does Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, know that, unless that is the message that he has been getting? If that is the message that he has been getting from the IRA, he should be sharing that message with our Secretary of State and with our Prime Minister, and they should act immediately to bring an end to prisoner releases and the process that was intended to allow us all to move into a devolved democratic mode in Northern Ireland.
Those are the questions that I must ask. I do not have an answer to all the questions. When I put my hand up for the agreement on 10 April, I never believed that everything would be easy; that it would not take time; that there would not be fears and suspicions; that there would not be delaying processes—
Dr. Godman: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman closely. He may criticise the lack of enthusiasm shown by

837
Ministers here and by the Taoiseach and his Ministers, but he cannot deny that they are all utterly committed to progress in these matters. Surely commitment as well as enthusiasm is important.
Mr. Maginnis: Commitment is a wonderful thing, but in this case the energy to realise one's ambitions is more wonderful still.
The two Governments have the power and authority to insist—it is not within the power of my party to insist—that all meet their obligations as we advance what is now called the peace process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has done everything in his power. He has been assiduous in putting into place every measure that can encourage even those who have been our enemies for the past 28 years.
I leave the House with this thought, which may help it to understand. Sinn Fein-IRA, through Adams and McGuinness, used to clamour to speak to a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. That happened. Then they clamoured to speak to a member of the Cabinet—the Secretary of State. That happened. Then they clamoured to speak to the Prime Minister, and the day they walked out of No. 10 Downing street for the first time, they did not tell us what progress they were going to make. They did not tell us how they would remove the threat that they pose to society in Northern Ireland, and they did not even tell us what they had said to the Prime Minister. They said that they had to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann. Hon. Members will remember that my right hon. Friend was persuaded, from both sides of the House, that he should concede that particular point, and he has done so. Again, he has seen no reward for his industry.
It is time for stocktaking. This is the first opportunity that we have had to consider the prisoner issue and other issues relevant to progress in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will give us some small suggestion of the time scale within which he hopes to stocktake in public and tell us where the Government are going in relation to the problems that we face.
9.5 pm
Mr. Lembit Öpik: In our judgment, the order is good news because it suggests that the process is working. If the Secretary of State has the evidence to make her confident that the Loyalist Volunteer Force should be removed from the specified list, that suggests that other organisations are leaving the path of violence and accepting that there is a more attractive, peaceful alternative.
As for the related issues that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), it is clear that there is a relationship between prisoner release, decommissioning, specified organisations and the peace process. As the Minister has said, however, and it needs to be emphasised repeatedly, we cannot renegotiate the Good Friday agreement and, as a result, there are clear consequences for prisoner release in respect of that text, which must be honoured. I do not imagine that any hon. Member is suggesting otherwise. The issues relating to the Good Friday agreement are now accepted, implicitly at
838
least, but the relationships between decommissioning and removing specified organisations from the list, and the prisoner releases that that entails, seem to be the biggest sticking point.
We must recognise the importance of flexibility in the process. If there had not been flexibility in the debate before the Good Friday agreement and thereafter, we would not be making such progress. One of the biggest difficulties in Northern Irish politics was the unwillingness of anyone to move an inch from often dogmatic positions, but we find ourselves in a much more fluid environment. It is a testimony to all sides in Northern Irish politics that the sometimes risky moves that have been made have led to the breakthroughs which appear to be consolidating the peace as it stands.
To that extent, notwithstanding the examples cited by the right hon. Member for Bracknell from the Prime Minister's quotations, we must recognise that flexibility remains a key consideration—a key concern—as we attempt to find a way forward on the sticking point of decommissioning.
Decommissioning will be a problem, although some people regard it as a merely symbolic issue. I regard it as more than that, and other hon. Members have said the same, but it is appropriate for us to keep our eye on the ball and on the big picture—the elimination of violence in Northern Ireland and its replacement with a peaceful alternative. To that extent, the flexibility that Ministers, as well as Northern Ireland politicians, have shown has led to a direct reward in terms of the progress that we have made.
What is more, apparently intransigent comments on both sides have sometimes led to surprising breakthroughs. Forty-eight hours before the Good Friday agreement was settled, one hon. Member said that the chance of a successful outcome was less than 5 per cent. I understand why he said that, but let us not fool ourselves: it is sometimes expedient for individuals to make strong statements in defence of their position, which could shift. On that occasion, it did so radically. I was so surprised by the odds and the result that I seriously thought about doing the lottery.
If we are realistic and honest with ourselves, similar breakthroughs could occur in respect of those who resist decommissioning. It has been a testimony to Northern Irish politicians that they have often not accepted that failure is an option in this process. The public in Northern Ireland have been clear that they want lasting peace. There have been acts of faith all down the line. The religious interpretation of an act of faith is believing in something that one cannot see. Perhaps nothing short of a political miracle is required before we can make progress on decommissioning, but breakthroughs have been made repeatedly in the past few years, beginning with the previous Administration's courageous efforts to kick the process off and continuing with the current Government's efforts and successes. Therefore I do not entirely share the concerns of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I am an optimist, based on the evidence so far.
A subject that has already been mentioned is punishment beatings. Although bombings and shootings seem to have declined massively as reported in the traditional sense on the "Nine O'clock News", and, in the case of many organisations, disappeared altogether, punishment beatings remain at a high level. Evidence

839
suggests that the occurrence of punishment beatings far exceeds the official police record. One need not be a genius to understand why many are not reported. The victims suffer appallingly and some have their lives threatened. Will the Minister assure the House and the public at large that the Government do not find the current level of punishment beatings in the Province acceptable? Will the Government tackle the problem directly with those who may have an influence, and indirectly through the security forces, as a short-term concern that must be headed off?
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone showed great insight into the relationship between the LVF and political bodies. To the best of my understanding, the LVF has no clear connection with a particular political group in Northern Ireland. He is right to point out that other dangers lie ahead. Some individuals who are intent on pursuing a course of violence may be tempted back to that bankrupt philosophy. I hope that the security forces and the Government will watch for the danger signs, because violence is bound to corrupt the peace process and we want no backward steps.
The order represents progress and I am pleased to support it. It is a credit to the generally sensible speeches that we hear in the House and a testament to the people and politicians in Northern Ireland who have shown great courage in exploring, in a flexible way, new processes to achieve the result that we all want. The current circumstances show great promise. We have heard about the issues, but so long as we build up a momentum behind the peace process and keep making it clear that results are being achieved in a practical way, our discussions may be instrumental in achieving the necessary breakthroughs in decommissioning and punishment beatings, so that we may make peace a lasting and consolidated outcome. At the moment, the process promises to deliver an awful lot more than many of us imagined possible.
9.13 pm
Mr. Ingram: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I do not intend to go over all the points, because I dealt with many of the issues raised in the debate in my opening remarks. I pay tribute to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, because they have raised important issues. Everyone welcomed the order, although such a welcome was not forthcoming when the first order was placed before the House.
I shall deal with two key points that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made. He said that there was no obligation on the Government to deal with prisoner releases within a time frame. I shall quote to him from the Good Friday agreement. On page 25, paragraph 3 of the section on prisoners says:
"Both Governments will complete a review process within a fixed time frame and set prospective release dates for all qualifying prisoners. The review process would provide for the advance of the release dates of qualifying prisoners while allowing account to be taken of the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community. In addition. the intention would be that should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point."
Importantly, paragraph 4 says:
"The Governments will seek to enact the appropriate legislation to give effect to these arrangements by the end of June 1998."
840
We were not able to do that, but we completed the legislation, which was endorsed by the House, in July 1998. I want to make it clear that the Government will continue to honour all their commitments under the Good Friday agreement. We expect every other party to that agreement to do the same.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone warned that the Government and Ministers responsible for such matters should be wary of the LVF returning to its violent ways after it has achieved the release of its prisoners, under its own name, by redefining itself under another name or by using a proxy organisation. I again want to make it clear that, if any organisation returns to violence and is in breach of its ceasefire, it should understand that its prisoners will have been released on licence, and released prisoners will be recalled to prison if they either give support to an organisation that re-engages in terrorist activities or re-engage in such activities themselves.
That was made abundantly clear when the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 was being passed. Prisoners of a despecified organisation who have been or are likely to be released in the future are on licence, and the position will constantly be reviewed. Their organisations and any acts that they may carry out in support of those organisations will be monitored.
Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but that is such a conditional assurance as to be meaningless. We have already pointed out that, once prisoners are released, the onus is on the Government to prove not that the organisation has changed its name and is active again, but that released prisoners are acting in support of that organisation, which means that everything has to start from the beginning.
The Minister knows that records are being pushed to one side and destroyed. People may have been out of prison for some time, so it will be virtually impossible for any effective action to be taken—in a normal society that may be acceptable. The Minister should recognise that this is a useless measure, because that would make him and those responsible more alert to what they are doing as prisoners are released.
Mr. Ingram: I do not want to open up a debate on this matter. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take the assurances that I am giving him from the Dispatch Box, which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have also given, about the nature of the sentencing legislation. It is specific and has not been put in place merely to be implemented and then forgotten about. We rigorously hold to those conditions. If an organisation returns to its violent ways, any individual who has been released as a member of that organisation and who subsequently participates in support of the organisation or of any organisation that is acting as a proxy for that organisation will be returned to prison. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept assurances that have been given in good faith, and with determination and commitment.
We must hope that all the organisations that we have despecified maintain the ceasefire, and that the organisations that are the subject of the order hear what has been said and understand the message—that the people north and south in the island of Ireland want a peaceful future. They do not act other than for their own

841
approach; they do not represent any body of opinion. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made that point in his speech. The good people of the island of Ireland—both Northern Ireland and the Republic—made their view clear in the referendum, and I think that more people are signing up to what the future will entail if we can move the process forward.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) raised the issue of what people describe as punishment beatings. As I have said from the Dispatch Box before, the word "punishment" should not be used in this context, because it gives a form of justification to paramilitary assaults performed on people within their own community. The hon. Gentleman asked for a number of assurances in regard to the Government's approach. I have given them before, and I now give them again. We are resolute, and will continue to monitor the position. When we can exert pressure to end such action, we will.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary is active in that regard as well, but we must prove the case, and we must have evidence of where the action is taking place. We cannot act on the basis of what people may be saying to the newspapers, or what some people may believe to be happening; in all instances, the case must be proved before we can act. Nevertheless, the conduct of those who perpetrate such acts against their own people is unacceptable and should cease forthwith, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).
We have had a useful discussion. I think that the motion has enabled us to make progress, and I hope that we can build on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) (No. 2) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Stephen Twigg be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Derek Twigg be added. —[Mr. Hanson.]

PETITION

  East Kent Health Authority
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: The petition has been signed by 34,000 people gathered by an organisation called Concern for Hospitals in East Kent, which opposes the rundown of Kent and Canterbury hospital in my constituency. The petition was prompted by outrage about the consultation process organised by East Kent health authority, following which the views of no fewer than 27 organisations were misrepresented in the authority's document. In view of that, the petitioners say that they lack confidence in East Kent health authority to provide appropriate health care for the population of east Kent.
  The Petitioners therefore ask that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to take steps to replace the current members of the East Kent Health Authority with people who will truly respect the health needs of the people of East Kent.
  I thoroughly endorse every word of that.
  To lie upon the Table.

Clothing and Textile Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
9.23 pm
Mr. Phil Woolas: It is delightful to be able to introduce a debate on the prospects of the clothing and textile industries. The debate refers to the carpet and footwear industries as well, because a newly re-established all-party group is attempting to reach across the spectrum of the sector, and those industries constitute an important part of our work. Indeed, my work as chairman of the new group has been rewarding, although it has coincided with a huge fall in the number of jobs in the industry; I hope that it is a coincidence and not cause and effect. The group is working hard on behalf of the sector. I should like to place on record my thanks to all the members of the group who have taken part.
One of our main achievements has been to establish an industry advisory group, which brings together industrialists, academics, employers and trade unions from throughout the sector. It is to that body that we turn for advice, on which some of my remarks will be based.
Another implication of the establishment of that group is that I am forced, although it is a pleasant duty, to wear British-made clothing on every public occasion. My suit and tie were made in the United Kingdom. Indeed, everything that I wear that you cannot see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was also made in the UK. After close conversations this evening, I am delighted to be able to report that the Minister is also wearing a British-made suit.
The advisory group to the all-party parliamentary group estimates that, this year, some 25,000 jobs have been lost in the industry. In the trade-unionised sector alone, job losses have been running at about 500 a month. I give just one example of how important the industry is in one region. In the east midlands, the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Clothing and Textiles Association reports that 3,000 jobs will be lost this year; that represents some 6 per cent. of the sector in the region.
I do not want to be a merchant of doom—far from it; we must not, whatever we do, talk down the industry. Nor is it responsible to talk down the manufacturing sector as a whole. However—it is a big however—there is no doubt that the industry is in what the Governor of the Bank of England has described as an exposed sector of the economy.
The industry is important to many communities, to seven regions and, of course, to the national economy. According to House of Commons statistics, based on the industrial classification statistics that are available, the industry directly employs some 359,000 people. That makes it larger than the farming industry, car industry and chemical industry, to name just three. In answer to a question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
"The textiles industry is one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the United Kingdom, with sales of more than £17 billion." —[Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 369.]
The total value of exports last year was £8 billion.
This debate is not, however, about macro-economic policy. Sustained, stable growth within the context of low inflation is what our industry needs. Having said that,
844
there is no doubt that the value of sterling recently has caused problems. Nor, however, must we over-egg the pudding. Sometimes, the value of sterling has been used by industrialists as an excuse to bring forward a process that was happening anyway. However, I cite the case of Saddleworth woollen mill in my constituency, which closes tragically this Friday after 150 years in the woollen business—woollen spinning on the site can be traced back 1,000 years—with the loss of a further 110 jobs. There is no doubt that it was the value of the pound, particularly in the second half of last year, that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Overall, the value of exports in the first half of this year has fallen by 20 per cent. That coincided with a number of events throughout the world: the collapse of the far east, or certainly the significant fall of the far east market, and the near collapse of the Russian market. Interestingly, the mild summer has added to the problems. I know that even the Prime Minister could not solve that one, although I have heard people in my party demanding a solution. Whatever the problems, whether they be short term or outside the influence of Ministers, all of us in the industry know that globalisation has been going on throughout this century.
I do not wish to base my appeal for support of the clothing and textile industry on nostalgia or heritage—although the United Kingdom continues to produce the best cloth and clothing in the world. I could mention Nottingham lace, Savile row suits or even—given my Lancastrian background-Yorkshire wool, but I could not do justice to them. Kidderminster carpets are the best in the world. In my own region, king cotton is, and has been for many years, the market leader. The clothing and textile industries in Northern Ireland and Scotland produce some of the world's finest products. If I have omitted to mention the constituencies of any colleagues, it is not to be rude, but only because the list is very long. As I said, I do not want our appeal to be based on nostalgia; it must be based on the importance of the industry to our economy, and on the industry's many future opportunities.
Globalisation brings new problems. Production in a clothing factory can be switched offshore with one telephone call from a buyer—as many factories across the country have regularly discovered. Despite the appalling exploitation of labour, including child labour, in the developing world, developing areas are developing a very sophisticated clothing and textile sector of their own. Exploitation is still occurring in our country, too, although I hope that that will be dealt with by the minimum wage and other measures. For all those reasons, the industry has to have a strategy, and to work in partnership with the Government on it.
The group and our advisers have identified various elements of a strategy. The first element is that we must work to the action plan that has been drawn up by trade unions and employers as part of the social partnership process, and will be discussed next week with my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry. The document will be the manifesto of the lobby of the House that will take place next Wednesday.
We must address the productivity problem. According to the plan, our productivity is 30 per cent. below that of our European competitors—although I should think that many workers in the industry would find that figure hard to believe. I do not accept, as some have said, that the minimum wage and other employment rights, such as

845
the 48-hour week, will make matters worse. We have to increase standards and quality if the industry is to have a future.
There is absolutely no future in chasing down employment costs. We could never compete with Morocco, for example, where the average hourly rate for clothing worker is 5p an hour. Some hon. Members—I have heard them say it—think that we should compete on such a basis.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend mentioned Morocco. The work force of Bairdwear, in my constituency, were told just a few weeks ago of the closure of their plant. Their work is being transferred to Morocco, where slave labour rates operate. Does he agree that a job could be done collectively, perhaps within the European Union, to address such issues?
Mr. Woolas: I very much agree. I have been told of cases in which employees in the industry have been videoed doing their jobs, so that the videos can be sent overseas to teach other people how to do those jobs. I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments.
We need high investment, high-tech solutions and marketing and design inputs. Many of our industrialists are already taking action on those matters, and good luck to them. The footwear industry is a good example of an industry that has turned the corner. It has a social partnership plan, which is working. That industry has gone upmarket and is successfully marketing its goods. We need to address the question of how the Department of Trade and Industry can help our exporters, as there is no doubt that export is our future.
Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the statement made to our advisory group last week by the British Apparel and Textile Confederation that the DTI has agreed to support only 19 exhibitions and seminars overseas, compared with 31 last year? Does he agree that our textile and clothing industry can compete overseas only on the basis of the excellence in design and innovation shown by the best firms in my constituency and his, and that that requires the Government to put every possible effort into promoting that excellence overseas?
Mr. Woolas: Yes. We should be encouraging more rather than fewer overseas trade missions and exhibitions. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.
We are telling our manufacturers to move upmarket, to increase design input and to go for niche markets, but those markets can only be global. Therefore, the value of sterling becomes even more important to our international sales force, notwithstanding the cheapening of imports. We must support the work of our sales force.
I do not wish to sound over-critical. I congratulate my right hon. Friends on their superb success in getting rid of the cotton dumping duties in the European Union. Many of my constituents are grateful for that. However, I think it was General Jiap who said that we must fight on all fronts at all times. In a very exposed market,
846
we need to be reassured that our Ministers are following that philosophy in relation to clothing and textiles, if not in other activities.
We need quickly to establish national training organisations. Training is too fragmented and we are not providing the industry with what it needs. We need to ensure that the assisted area status maps, which are being redrawn, prioritise the clothing and textile industry. The ending of objective 2 regional funding could hit the clothing and textile sector in particular as it is regionally based. I plead with Ministers to prioritise the clothing and textile industry when they draw up submissions on the new European regional funding model.
Retex has been a great success, but we are about to lose it. We must not forget that negotiations on the multi-fibre agreement will soon be on us again. Goodness knows what will happen when MFA protection is removed.
In addition, we need to address the major structural problems that underpin the process. It has nothing to do with the value of sterling—the value against the major currencies that affect the sector is lower than it was two years ago—but relates to the relationship between retailers and manufacturers. Some of the problems are outside the Minister's control, but none of them is outside his influence.
The DTI-funded work of the apparel and textile challenge comes close to achieving the correct solution. We cannot have a retail sector that bullies the manufacturers or a manufacturing sector that is not flexible and responsive to the retail sector, as that will push production overseas. We must address that problem.
Nor can we base our appeal for the future of the sector just on patriotism. If we want consumers to buy British, we must make British best. There is no premium on the label "Made in Britain" in this country, although British goods sold overseas carry a huge premium because of their label. It is ironic that manufacturers label goods for overseas "Made in Britain", but often fail to label goods intended for the domestic market. The Government can give enthusiasm to the process. We need to examine the labelling laws, perhaps to take into account ethical production issues such as child labour. I believe that consumers have a right to know whether production methods are unethical and the country of origin of the goods that they buy. I also believe that the best badge of quality in this sector and many others is the label that says "union made". In the United States, that is the kitemark of quality. If it is good enough for the entrepreneurial United States of America, it is good enough for my constituents.
The industry must shed its rag trade image. We cannot continue to talk the industry down; it is too important. We cannot treat the industry as a Cinderella sector, because it is not. We have the best cloth makers, the best shoe makers, the best carpet weavers and the best designers. This country has a great reputation for quality; we should build on that. I urge Ministers to do all in their power to support the social partners in their endeavours.
9.40 pm
Mr. David Lock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) on securing this debate on such an important sector of British manufacturing industry. I have the privilege to represent Wyre Forest, which includes

847
Kidderminster—the home of the British carpet industry. More carpets are made in Kidderminster than in any other part of Britain.
My hon. Friend has referred to the problems of the high pound. I endorse what he has said. They are long-term problems, not short-term ones. The markets that have been lost in Europe were lost long before the Labour Government came to power. With stability in macro-economic policy, those markets are now back within the grasp of the manufacturers that I represent, but there is still a feeling that the high pound is detrimental to our ability to sell to Europe. I hope that, as interest rates come down over the next 12 months, the value of the pound will ease slightly, to the benefit of manufacturers in my constituency.
I thank Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry for their excellent work in preventing a ban on carpets by Russia, which was threatened during the summer and would have removed a substantial market. We were particularly worried in Kidderminster, because the prospect of a large amount of cut-price carpet from Belgium, much of it produced in circumstances that are, at best, very close to breaching EU rules, caused great concern. Despite all the good work of the DTI, other circumstances have caused the Russian market to collapse. We now fear a substantial ingress of carpet from Belgium. I ask Ministers to bear that in mind when considering the sector in the coming months.
My constituency is not in an EU-funded area. Will Ministers bear in mind the detrimental effect that substantial grants to carpet companies in parts of the United Kingdom that are fortunate enough to be in EU assisted areas would have on companies in my constituency, which are in direct competition, when considering applications for grants or support? I am thinking particularly of companies in Ulster, which have received substantial grants in recent years and are now competing directly with Kidderminster.
There are several high spots. I do not want my hon. Friend the Minister to think that the progress made in the carpet industry in Kidderminster has not been noticed or that the achievements should go unrecorded. World-class companies are being built and investment is high. Investment in marketing, technology and computers is impressive. Companies manufacturing carpets in other parts of the world are being taken over and run by British companies in Kidderminster, with the benefit of the manufacturing know-how of the west midlands. That means that, at the moment, jobs in the traditional industry in Kidderminster are reasonably secure. I hope that the industry there will expand, not contract.
I shall conclude by making two points. First, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that those of us who are concerned about the housing market do not view it purely as a construction issue? When people move house, they spend considerable amounts of money on white goods and carpet. A steady housing market—not a boom or a bust—is essential to the health of the domestic carpet industry.
Secondly, will the Minister use his influence, as those of us in the all-party group do, to encourage members of the public to buy British? By buying British, they are not only buying the best but securing and creating jobs in some important areas of the country.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) on the way in which he has raised this important issue, as I do my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on assisting him. I notice the huge interest among the Opposition parties—Tories, Liberal Democrats and nationalists—in this extraordinarily important debate on manufacturing. It is a disgrace that they cannot even be bothered to turn up for such a debate.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth on reviving the clothing, textile, carpet and footwear industries all-party group, and especially on the formation of the sectoral advisory committee. Such joint approaches are the way forward. We have suffered too often from being unable to tap the enormous potential in our work force in many sectors. My hon. Friend has taken an imaginative approach to moving forward at a difficult time for the industry.
The Government recognise the substantial contribution that the United Kingdom's textile, clothing and footwear industries make to the economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth has reminded us, they have a turnover in excess of £17 billion a year and employ about 350,000 people. That is a huge number. We have had many debates on the steel and coal industries, but I cannot remember when we last debated the textile industry—still less the carpet or footwear industries. Yet many are located in some of the most vulnerable industrial areas, very often on the edge of rural parts, where the alternatives to such employment are very few and far between. This debate is very timely, and I wish that many more hon. Members were present to take part in it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth mentioned exchange rates as a factor in closures. As he said, the exchange rate is now broadly the same as it was when the Government came to power. The important difference, as I am sure he will tell his constituents and those in the industry who are trying to do something about the situation, is that inflation is firmly under control. In addition, long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years. That makes a difference; it makes the industry less vulnerable, and poses new challenges. Although growth is expected to be slow, no one is forecasting a re-run of the early 1990s, when, under the previous Government, manufacturing output fell by 7 per cent. and 1 million jobs were lost as the economy suffered its longest recession since the second world war.
I turn for a moment to the support that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry is giving to the effort that everybody is making to try to drive up productivity.
A stable macro-economic environment is an important external factor that provides the opportunity for the industry to flourish, but it is not enough. Our industries have to be globally competitive as well, and the Government have a role to play in that respect. My hon. Friend reminded us of studies that show that parts of our textile sector are 30 per cent. less competitive than those of our main European competitors. There are all sorts of variables in that equation, but I am absolutely convinced that one in particular is the key—investment.

849
I have no doubt that, if firms here had invested in the way that Italian and American firms have invested over the years, we would not be facing the current situation—my hon. Friend reminded us not to talk down the industry by referring to a crisis. There are some superbly efficient firms in operation, but the difficulties would have been far less had there been proper levels of investment. It is all part of the British malaise—refusing to invest and assuming that firms can stagger along by paying lower wages, without realising that technology is advancing around them.
My hon. Friends mentioned the problem of technology transfer to places such as Morocco, and it is true that technology transfer has never been easier than it is now. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth mentioned videos that show workers in Morocco how the job is done. Such technology transfers will not stop and no rules will be introduced to prohibit them. The economies of the world are opening up and captive markets are becoming fewer. We have to try to understand how we can compete in the new world.
The way to compete is to ensure that we add real value to the carpets we create. We have some of the best art colleges and fashion houses in the world, and fashion and design are crucial to the textile sector. I want a rocket to be put up many of our universities and institutions of higher and further education, so that they start to talk to industry and embark on joint projects with sectors such as textiles. That will encourage everyone to become involved in a crusade to exploit the marvellous design capabilities that this country has. The Government, through the Departments for Trade and Industry and for Education and Employment, have a role to play in encouraging such a partnership approach.
Mr. Lock: Does the Minister recognise that, in some parts of the country, local further education colleges are more innovative and imaginative than their traditional university counterparts? I am thinking particularly of Kidderminster college in my constituency, which runs an impressive textiles degree and works closely with industry. It is now finding that students from across the world, especially the far east, are coming to Kidderminster to study carpets and carpet design, because of the expertise that is found nowhere else in Britain.
Dr. Howells: Kidderminster has a great reputation and long may it flourish. I was an art student in the 1960s, although I must admit that I was far more interested in revolution than in art. I remember giving up painting on 28 May 1968, because it was bourgeois individualism. My mother called me mad, and she was dead right.
We are only just beginning to understand what value our universities and colleges can add. My hon. Friend is right to say that further education colleges often outstrip our best universities, which have a stultified view of the relationship between academia and industry.
Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend invite another partner into that esquation—the major high street chains? They are the buyers of the products and the cause of some of the closures, such as that of Bairdwear in my constituency.
850
After all, unless they become involved in the debate, those of their customers who currently work in industry will not be able to afford to buy their products in future.
Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes a good point. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth is looking carefully at ways of bringing major buyers of textiles, footwear and carpets into the debate so that they understand that their symbiotic relationship cannot be allowed to wither on the vine. The best buyers are interested in talking about that relationship.
Buyers should want to buy from nearby producers, and their relationship is so important. Why must products be produced in Morocco or China? It is logical for products to be produced on demand, quickly and to meet changing market demands as closely as possible to the markets. We should start celebrating that fact and find out how to achieve it—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I realise that most of the Minister's hon. Friends are sitting below the Gangway, but I am here and it is to the Chair that he should address his remarks.
Dr. Howells: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is late and I have clearly forgotten that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley referred to the tangible ways in which we can help the industry. I wish to refer to the support for the exhibitions and seminars abroad scheme. I am delighted that we have received a record 1,000-plus bids for support under the new scheme. I take that to indicate broad satisfaction with the new arrangements. We have included about 40 per cent. of the bids in the programme for 1999–2000. With 45 of the clothing sector bids included—some 62 per cent. —the industry has, in fact, done much better than the average.
Organisations bidding for support have told us that they expect to take well over 900 supported clothing firms to the 45 events. Despite the slightly smaller programme, that is well above the 770 firms expected to be supported in 1998–99. My statistics and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley diverge, and I shall check to ensure that we arrive somewhere near the truth as quickly as I can.
The DTI is not only helping companies to identify and exploit market opportunities overseas, but at home. The Department provides support to the apparel and textiles challenge, which is dedicated to the improvement of the textiles and clothing supply chain. The challenge organises meet-the-buyer forums around the country, which provide the opportunity to bring textiles and clothing manufacturers together with potential customers. Six events have been held so far this year, with each event generating, on average, £500,000 of new business for the participants.
More generally, we understand that the UK high street is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) pointed out—a very demanding market, and that retailers here have very high expectations of their suppliers. Through the apparel and textiles challenge, we want to encourage a dialogue between UK suppliers and retailers that will help each of them to understand more thoroughly the other's needs.

851
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth and his delegation will discuss these matters with my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry next week, and they will explore the ways in which the industry can be helped. The days are long gone when we could bail out firms that were failing—nor would we want to. The textile, carpet and footwear industries have the experience and the wherewithal to compete with anyone in the world. It is a question of having the confidence and the will to invest in those sectors, and not to be frightened by those who would preach a gloomy message—that the whole of world production will move to China or another part of the world where poverty wages are paid. I do not believe that that is the case.
Mr. David Drew: It may interest hon. Members to know that the Stroud valleys were built on
852
the textile industry. The Government could provide help by encouraging organisations such as business links and development agencies to give training the emphasis that it deserves. I am sure that that would be very helpful to industries such as textiles.
Dr. Howells: That is an important point, and a good one on which to end. If we have the confidence to invest in new machinery, new technology and new techniques in training an already excellent work force to learn new skills, we will be able to compete with anyone in the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Sandford Rectory
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if the Church Commissioners have transferred since 1968 the trust owning Sandford Rectory, Devon to(a) other trustees and (b) other parties. [60200]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  No. Since 1930 the property has been vested in the incumbent of the benefice of Sandford with Upton Hellions by virtue of his office.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Law Lords
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the(a) total number and (b) percentage of currently active law lords who have professional experience of (i) human rights work and (ii) commercial law. [59601]

  Mr. Hoon
  All sitting Law Lords have such experience.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parole
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses he has received to the consultation document "Improving Parole Decision Making"; and how he intends to proceed with the proposal to delegate authority in parole cases involving prisoners with determinate sentences of between four and 15 years. [60440]

  Mr. Straw
  The consultation period ended on 4 November 1998. We have received 38 responses to the paper: 33 supported the proposals in the paper in their entirety; five others offered differing degrees of support. Of these:three respondents had no objections to the proposals but suggested that ministerial involvement in all parole and lifer cases should cease.
  one respondent favoured further delegation to the Parole Board but suggested a cut-off point of 10 years rather than 15 years.
  one respondent suggested that the number of previous parole reviews should determine which cases should he decided by the Parole Board.

  In the light of the positive responses to the paper. I have today laid before Parliament a draft Order giving effect to the proposals.

  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of young offenders who have served a sentence at the Medway Secure Training Centre subsequently obtained a school place in each of the last five years. [59405]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since Medway Secure Training Centre opened on 17 April 1998, a total of 29 trainees have been released to serve the second half of the Secure Training Order sentence under supervision in the community. At the time of release, arrangements were in place for eight to go straightaway into full time education, with 16 receiving part time tuition for several hours per week. The remaining five had no firm arrangements for education at the point of release, but provision has since been made for four of them to receive education, including two who have been placed in full time education.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if he will make a statement; [60060]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the computer systems in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if he will make a statement. [60062]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1109, in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government Departments' and agencies' progress in tackling the bug. This also covered key organisations within the wider public sector. Departments' plans have been published in the Library. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Library and on the internet.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the problems which have arisen in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible from millennium compliance; if he will make a statement on progress to date in tackling such problems; and what are the priority areas for remedial work. [60061]

  Mr. Straw
  Four millennium compliance problems have occurred in my Department, affecting management information, statistical and payroll data. Three of these were solved before December 1997. In the fourth case, the few statistical records affected are being dealt with manually while the software is corrected. This correction is due to be completed by the end of December 1998. The agencies and public bodies for which my Department is responsible have not reported any compliance problems.
  447
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60063]

  Mr. Straw
  Contingency planning is a major element of the response of my Department and its agencies to the millennium date change problem. In line with recent Cabinet Office recommendations, the target is to have initial contingency plans in place by the end of January 1999.

  Chief executives of national departmental public bodies and similar bodies sponsored by my Department provided quarterly progress reports against their Year 2000 plans, for publication on the Internet. These refer specifically to contingency planning.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers ordinarily resident in a non-EU European country sought entry to the UK, by country of residence, in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what were(a) the numbers of Roma people and (b) the citizenship of the applicants, within each of the individual country totals. [59906]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information regarding persons applying for asylum in the United Kingdom gives a breakdown only by nationality. I regret, therefore, that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been provided with accommodation by local authorities in seaside towns since 1996. [60351]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not held by my Department.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on securing accommodation(a) directly and (b) by contracting with local agencies in seaside towns for asylum seekers under the proposed new national support scheme. [60350]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The project team is currently considering the issue of the provision of accommodation, but it is too soon to indicate precisely how accommodation will be supplied. The issue is appropriate accommodation availability, not proximity to the sea.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he or his Department have had with local authorities and other interested parties in seaside towns regarding the availability of accommodation for asylum seekers under the proposed new national support scheme; [60348]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the availability of accommodation in seaside towns for asylum seekers under the proposed new national support scheme. [60347]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There has been no such assessment on discussions directed at seaside towns.
  448
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for consultation on the operation of the proposed new national support scheme for asylum seekers with(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations, (c) voluntary bodies and (d) the private sector. [60352]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have set up a stakeholder group, consisting of representatives of Government, local authorities, housing associations and voluntary bodies. That group will meet with the project team at key stages of the project. In addition, the project team will be consulting widely, including with representatives of the private sector, about the plans for the support system.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on directing local authorities and housing associations to provide surplus accommodation for asylum seekers under the proposed new support arrangements. [60349]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There will be a general duty on local authorities to assist the Secretary of State in discharging his functions to provide accommodation. That duty is to extend to registered social landlords, but only so far as is compatible with their memoranda and articles of association. A local authority is also to be under a duty to supply such information about its housing stock in such manner as the Secretary of State may reasonably direct. There will also be a power for the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to provide accommodation if he concludes that a particular local authority is unreasonably refusing to do so.

  Integrated Emergency Management
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on national standards of integrated emergency management. [59590]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) are aware that National Standards for civil protection in England and Wales are being developed. No formal discussions have taken place between the Home Office and DETR to date.

  Dr. Robert Gross
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Minister in his Department is responsible for the handling of the request from the United States of America for the extradition of Dr. Robert Gross; what discretion is available to him in extradition cases; and what are the factors which will influence the exercise of that discretion. [59525]

  Kate Hoey
  A request by the United States for the extradition of Dr. Gross is currently before the courts awaiting the hearing of a habeas corpus application. It will be my responsibility, if he is not discharged by the courts, to decide in due course whether his surrender should be ordered.

  At that stage, Dr. Gross would have an opportunity to make representations against surrender. In reaching a final decision under the Extradition Act 1989, I would have

  449
  regard to all of the circumstances in the case, including any grounds for concluding that it would be wrong, unjust or oppressive to order surrender.

  Offenders (Service Provision)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the provision of services for offenders diagnosed as having both mental health and substance misuse problems. [59699]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service is committed to improving services for prisoners with mental health problems who do not meet the criteria for transfer to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. A joint Prison Service/National Health Service Executive working group has considered ways of increasing the NHS input to services for prisoners with mental health problems. The Government will consider the working group's report and recommendations very carefully.

  Prison Medical Officers are encouraged to establish links with their catchment area psychiatric units to enable the assessment of mentally disordered prisoners and, if appropriate, their transfer to psychiatric hospital. The number of prisoners transferred under the 1983 Act has risen from 325 in 1990 to 745 in 1997.

  The Prison Service is to be allocated an extra £76 million over the next three financial years to help implement its drugs strategy. This will allow a major expansion of drug treatment services. It will also deliver the Government's manifesto commitment on voluntary testing and improve throughcare arrangements for drug misusers.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders were introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The aim of the orders is to provide effective treatment in the community, with rigorous testing to evaluate an offender's progress. Pilots have started in three probation service areas and funding of £1.75m has been provided for these pilots, which will run until March 2000. In addition, probation services are being encouraged to contribute from existing resources to partnership work with other agencies to address the problems of other drug misusing offenders under their supervision.

  Probation Service (Paedophiles)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide additional funding for probation services which have significantly greater than average workloads as a result of the supervision of paedophiles. [59702]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Over the next three financial years, we are providing an additional £127 million in probation grant, which takes account of the work which area services have to undertake in supervising sexual offenders; but we have no present plans to adjust the formula used to allocate grant to probation areas to reflect the number or proportion of paedophile offenders under supervision in each area.

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average time currently taken to process claims under categories A and B of the Firearms Compensation Scheme; [59853]
  450
  (2) how many people under categories A, B and C of the Firearms Compensation Scheme have received full compensation for their claims; [59854]

  (3) what is the current delay in processing applications for compensation under Category C of the Firearms Compensation Scheme; and what was the delay (a) one month ago and (b) two months ago. [59852]

  Mr. Boateng
  Payments under Options A and B of the compensation scheme for large calibre handguns and the ex gratia scheme for small calibre pistols were completed at the end of May, apart from a small number of cases still under inquiry, in an average processing time of 19 weeks. Processing of the Option A and B claims under the statutory compensation scheme for small calibre pistols surrendered during February 1998 began in August, and around three quarters of these claims have now been paid in an average processing time of 30 weeks.

  The average processing time for claims processed so far under Option C of the compensation scheme for large calibre handguns and small calibre pistols is 53 weeks. In the great majority of these cases, payments have already been made under Options A and B. I regret that information is not available on the comparable processing times for earlier periods.

  Around 42,000 claimants under the large calibre and ex gratia schemes and around 7,000 claimants under the statutory small calibre scheme have received payment under Options A and B. Around 6,500 claimants under the large calibre and ex gratia schemes have received payment under Option C. Option C payments under the statutory small calibre scheme will begin when the overall work position permits.

  I outlined the measures we are taking to speed the processing of the compensation claims in my reply to a written question from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 28 October 1998, Official Report, columns 179–80.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Junior Football Clubs (Injury Insurance)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will make it a requirement for junior football clubs that they provide adequate insurance against injury for their members; [59710]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the adequacy of insurance against injury for the members of junior football clubs; [59709]

  (3) what requirements there are for junior football clubs to provide adequate insurance against injury for their members. [59708]

  Mr. Banks
  I have received no representations to date concerning the adequacy of insurance against injury for the members of junior football clubs. Responsibility for personal injury insurance for junior football club members rests with the clubs themselves. I understand that although there is no requirement for junior football clubs to take out personal injury insurance policies the Football Association is encouraging its County Associations to stress the importance of best practice in
  451
  this area to their affiliated clubs. A number of County FAs are working closely with insurance companies to develop personal injury insurance schemes on a corporate basis for all their affiliated clubs. These pilot schemes are an encouraging development.

  Coalfield Communities
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of lottery funds excluding Millennium Landmark projects has been received by coalfield communities in(a) South Yorkshire and (b) nationally. [59820]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 November 1998]: In the coalfield communities of South Yorkshire, which comprise the local authorities of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield, there have been 608 non-Landmark awards worth £112,812,862. This represents 2.78 per cent. of the National total of over £4.25 billion awarded to 31,788 non-landmark awards.

  Information on lottery awards is available on the Department's website www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the(a) average value and (b) number of lottery grants of less than £1 million received by coalfield communities (i) in South Yorkshire and (ii) nationally. [59822]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 November 1998]: To date the National Lottery distributors have awarded over £5.07 billion to 31,788 awards. In the coalfield communities of South Yorkshire there have been 609 awards worth £162,812,862.

  The average value and number of grants in South Yorkshire coalfield communities and nationally are set out in the following table:

  Average value of all awards (£)

  Total number of awards under £1 million

  Coalfield communities in South Yorkshire

  267,344

  577

  Nationally

  159,684

  31,111

  Information on lottery awards is available on the Department's website www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  Sport (Injury Insurance)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what statistics are collected by, or reported to, his Department relating to minors sustaining personal injury while taking part in the activities of junior sports clubs. [59707]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department does not collect information on injuries from sporting activities at junior clubs. Although the hospital episode statistics data system has information on injuries and accidents, these relate only to events which require medical treatment at a hospital. These do not specify the location of the accident. The Department of Trade and Industry's Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System records treatment for injuries from sporting activities from a sample of accident and
  452
  emergency departments in the United Kingdom. Under this system an estimated 215,000 children under 15 had sports injuries in 1996 in the UK. Although the database cannot identify whether they occurred in junior sports clubs, it can differentiate between organised and non-organised games.

CABINET OFFICE

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what are the figures for(a) the public sector, including local authorities, grant-maintained schools and NHS trusts and (b) the private sector for days lost due to absence from work through sickness, expressed as a number of days per employee in each sector in the most recent available year. [59584]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Information about the average number of days lost per employee due to absence through sickness in the public and private sectors is not collected centrally. However, the Office for National Statistics estimate from the Labour Force Survey that in the United Kingdom 5.5 per cent. of public sector employees and 4.4 per cent. of private sector employees were absent from work due to sickness or injury for at least one day in an average week between autumn 1997 and summer 1998.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his oral statement of 10 November 1998,Official Report, column 168, what the remit will be of the better regulation task force's assessment of SMEs; and when he expects them to report. [60150]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to which the question refers was a reference to a review of the role of regulation in relation to productivity which will be undertaken by the Better Regulation Task Force, for
  which this Department has responsiblity. The review was first announced in the pre-Budget Statement on 3 November 1998.Official Report, columns 681–702.

  I can confirm that the Task Force has established a sub-group to take this work forward. They are currently agreeing the details of their terms of reference, including the timetable for this work. The review will examine the degree to which regulation acts as a barrier to business start-up, survival and growth. The Task Force will consider existing material and seek further evidence from a wide range of interested parties.

  I hope that the Task Force will present their first findings next Spring, and a final report as soon as practicable thereafter.

  Relocation
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the decision was taken to relocate parts of the Cabinet Office to Admiralty Arch, Ripley Block and Kirkland House; and if he will make a statement. [60470]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The relocation was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 28 July 1998,Official Report, columns 132-33, in connection

  453
  with the review of the Cabinet Office by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson. The funding for the project was agreed as part of this Department's Comprehensive Spending Review, in collaboration with HM Treasury. The buildings will be occupied by civil servants. Although these decisions were taken before my appointment to the Cabinet Office, I fully support this initiative to create a focus for the drive to modernise Government and to tackle the new challenges it faces. Ministerial accommodation will remain at 70 Whitehall.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if British tanks fired depleted uranium shells during the Gulf War; and if he will make a statement. [59333]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Main Battle Tank used by UK forces during the Gulf conflict in 1990–91 was the Challenger 1, armed with the 120mm rifled-barrel L11 gun. However, when planning Operation GRANBY, it was assessed that the existing tungsten-based armour-piercing rounds in use with Challenger 1 might not be sufficiently powerful to defeat the most modern Iraqi tanks—Soviet designed T72s. It was therefore decided that MOD should undertake the emergency development and deployment of a new armour-piercing round for Challenger 1.

  This new round was based on a 120mm armour-piercing round, containing a solid depleted uranium (DU) penetrator core with a protective (non-DU) coating and known as CHARM 1, which was already being developed for use by the more powerful gun on the new Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank, also then under development. In fact, the CHARM 1 round needed only minor modifications in order to fit the existing gun on Challenger 1, but a totally new charge needed to be developed. The new charge and slightly modified round, known as Jericho I and Jericho II respectively, were deployed to the Gulf and issued to UK armoured formations just before the start of Coalition operations against Iraq.

  The MOD's current assessment is that UK forces fired fewer than 100 Jericho II rounds against Iraqi military forces during hostilities, which equates to less than 1 metric tonne of DU overall, although additional rounds were fired during earlier work-up training to establish the round's Mean Point of Impact (MPI).

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors were taken into account in deciding to reduce the size of the TA force; and if he will make a statement. [59695]

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce his conclusions on the future of the Territorial Army. [60246]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the statement I made earlier today,Official Report, columns 749-70.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future 454
  of the Territorial Army building, Surbiton Road, Kingston-Upon-Thames. [59865]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the document concerning the future of the Territorial Army, placed in the Library of the House today.

  Training Review
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects his Department to complete its review of its training methods. [56348]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have completed our initial review of my Department's training methods and now plan a further study involving representatives of the Royal College of Surgeons and other bodies to determine appropriate means of providing necessary training in surgical trauma skills. We intend that the study should be led by an independent figure and should be completed in the first part of next year. Meanwhile, UK military participation in the Danish Armed Forces medical exercises involving the use of pigs remains suspended.

  Gulf War Illness
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those hon. Members who have made representations to him on behalf of constituents concerning Gulf War illness. [58808]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department's record show that, since 1 May 1997, the following hon. Members have made representations to Ministry of Defence Ministers on behalf of one or more constituents concerning Gulf veterans' illnesses:

  Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, North)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea, East)

  Ashdown, Rt. Hon. Jeremy John Durham (Yeovil)

  Ashton, Joseph William (Bassetlaw)

  Atherton, Candy (Falmouth and Camborne)

  Ballard, Jacqueline Margaret (Taunton)

  Barnes, Harry (North-East Derbyshire)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Anthony Neil Wedgwood (Chesterfield)

  Betts, Clive James Charles (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Brazier, Julian William Hendy, TD (Canterbury)

  Breed, Colin Edward (South-East Cornwall)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Byers, Stephen John (Tyneside, North)

  Cann, Jamie (Ipswich)

  Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh, North and Leith)

  Clark, Rt. Hon. Dr. David George (South Shields)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey, ARICS (Cotswold)

  Cooper, Yvette (Pontefract and Castleford)

  Curry, Rt. Hon. David Maurice (Skipton and Ripon)

  Dalyell, Tam (Linlithgow)

  Darling, Rt. Hon. Alistair Maclean (Edinburgh, Central)

  Davies, Rt. Hon. Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Davey, Mrs. Valerie (Bristol, West)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ewing, Margaret Anne (Moray)

  Fisher, Mark (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna (Rochdale)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  455

  Foulkes, George (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

  Gapes, Michael John (Ilford, South)

  Gilroy, Linda (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Griffiths, Winston James (Bridgend)

  Grocott, Bruce (Telford)

  Hancock, Michael Thomas, CBE (Portsmouth, South)

  Harman, Rt. Hon. Harriet (Camberwell and Peckham)

  Harvey, Nicholas (North Devon)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan Gordon Barraclough (Saffron Walden)

  Heath, David Williams St. John, CBE (Somerton and Frome)

  Heppell, John (Nottingham, East)

  Home-Robertson, John (East Lothian)

  Hoyle, Hon. Lindsay Harvey (Chorley)

  Humble, Mrs. Jovanka (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)

  Hunter, Andrew Robert Frederick (Basingstoke)

  Hutton, John (Barrow and Furness)

  Johnson, Alan Arthur (Hull, West and Hessle)

  Johnson, Melanie Jane (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Jones, Stephen Barry (Alyn and Deeside)

  King, Rt. Hon. Tom, CH (Bridgwater)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen John (South Thanet)

  Lawrence, Jackie (Preseli Pembrokeshire)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Liddell, Mrs. Helen Lawrie (Airdrie and Shotts)

  Lilley, Rt. Hon. Peter Bruce (Hitchin and Harpenden)

  Linton, Martin (Battersea)

  Malins, Humfrey Jonathan (Woking)

  Mawhinney, Rt. Hon. Sir Brian Stanley (North-West Cambridgeshire)

  McCafferty, Christine (Calder Valley)

  McFall, John (Dumbarton)

  McIsaac, Shona (Cleethorpes)

  McNamara, Joseph Kevin (Hull, North)

  Moore, Michael Kevin (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

  Nicholls, Patrick Charles Martyn (Teignbridge)

  O'Neill, Martin John (Ochil)

  Paice, James Edward Thornton (South-East Cambridgeshire)

  Pendry, Thomas (Stalybridge and Hyde)

  Pickthall, Colin (West Lancashire)

  Plaskitt, James Andrew (Warwick and Leamington)

  Pope, Gregory (Hyndburn)

  Prescott, Rt. Hon. John Leslie (Hull, East)

  Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough and Whitby)

  Randall, John (Uxbridge)

  Rendel, David Digby (Newbury)

  Ruane, Christopher (Vale of Clwyd)

  Russell, Christine Margaret (City of Chester)

  Shaw, Jonathan Rowlan (Chatham and Aylesford)

  Sheldon, Rt. Hon. Robert Edward (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Andrew David (Oxford, East)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe and Lunesdale)

  Smith, John William Patrick (Vale of Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llewellyn Thomas (Blaenau Gwent)

  Soley, Clive Stafford (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

  Spring, Richard (West Suffolk)

  Squire, Rachel (Dumfermline, West)

  Stinchcombe, Paul (Wellingborough)

  456

  Strang, Rt. Hon. Dr. Gavin Steel (Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh)

  Swinney, John Ramsay (North Tayside)

  Todd, Mark Wainwright (South Derbyshire)

  Yeo, Timothy Stephen Kenneth (South Suffolk).

  Service Children's Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to set targets for pupils in schools operated by the Service Children's Education Authority; and if the Service Children's Education Authority is to be included within the inspection regime currently in operation for local education authorities. [59190]

  Mr. Spellar
  Service Children's Education is an Agency of the Ministry of Defence charged with the provision of education services to MOD personnel serving overseas and with the provision of advice to service personnel in UK on educational matters. Key Targets for the Agency are approved annually by Ministers and those for 1998 were announced in the House on 25 June 1998,Official Report, columns 565-66. In addition, the current Key Targets are set out in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts which were laid before Parliament on 30 July 1998.

  Whilst SCE schools are subject to inspection by Ofsted, the Agency falls outside Ofsted's remit to monitor Local Education Authorities. However, the Chief Executive reports on a termly basis to an Owner's Board whose membership includes representatives of the DfEE, Ofsted and an LEA. SCE is also subject to MOD's own internal management inspection and audit as well as being audited annually by the National Audit Office for the production of the Agency's Accounts.

  Officer Training Corps (Queen's University)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Officer Training Corps at Queen's University, Belfast. [57588]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Department has no plans to make changes to the University Officer Training Corps. Queen's University Officer Training Corps will continue to provide an opportunity for students to undertake a wide variety of military training, which will enable them to develop their self-confidence and initiative and to gain useful skills for any future profession.

  Major Eric Joyce
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he(a) has taken and (b) proposes to take following the recent appearance on television of Major Eric Joyce speaking on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party; and if this contravened Queen's Regulations. [58791]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]: Serving members of the Armed Forces are not permitted under Queen's Regulations for the Army to take an active part in the affairs of any political organisation. Major Joyce's future in the Army is currently under consideration by the Army Board.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will undertake a study of the potential environmental effects of cruise missiles landing on(a) oil wells and (b) petroleum-refining complexes. [59547]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 16 November 1998]: We have no current plans to undertake such a study.

  Field Park Squadron
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what receipts were generated for the Defence Budget by 198 Field Park Squadron in financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [59467]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There have been no significant receipts generated to the Defence Budget by 198 Field Park Squadron in the last three financial years.

  Hurricane Mitch
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the marginal costs that will be incurred by the Ministry of Defence in assisting the provision of aid and relief to Central America following Hurricane Mitch. [59466]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Full details of the marginal costs to the Ministry of Defence of providing this humanitarian assistance are not yet available. We estimate, however, that the figure should be below £100,000, as help has been provided by forces which would otherwise have been engaged in operations or training in the Caribbean area.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council (1) what is her latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in her Department, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if she will make a statement; [60052]

  (2) if she will list the problems which have arisen in her Department from millennium compliance; if she will make a statement on progress to date in tackling such problems; and what are the priority areas for remedial work; [60053]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the extent to which the computer systems in her Department will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if she will make a statement; [60054]

  (4) if she will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by her Department in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60055]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Work on ensuring the Millennium compliance of the Privy Council Office's systems is being taken forward as part of the Cabinet Office's Year 2000 Programme. No insurmountable problems are expected 458
  for the Cabinet Office and its agencies arising from millennium compliance. Plans are well advanced to replace non-compliant systems as part of an ongoing programme of work. Business continuity is not believed to be at risk, but the Cabinet Office and its agencies nevertheless have continuity plans that cater for possible disruption. Details of the Cabinet Office's programme, together with costs, were published following my last quarterly statement to the House on 9 September and are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council what estimate she has made of the cost to the UK public sector of tackling the millennium computer problem and the embedded chip problem; and if she will make a statement. [59945]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The latest estimate of the cost of tackling the Millennium bug across central government departments and agencies is £400 million. This figure is based on departmental returns to the September quarterly review.

  Forecasts which have been made by independent experts and companies with experience of the costs of tackling the problem have put the total cost of tackling the Millennium bug across the whole of the UK public sector in the range of £1 billion-£0 billion. These figures appear to be reasonable. For example, the NHS Executive has estimated the cost across the NHS in England at around £310 million, while the Local Government Association has put the cost to local authorities at £500 million.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council what action she is taking to increase the preparedness of(a) local authorities, (b) the Police, (c) defence forces and (d) the NHS in relation to the millennium computer problem; and if she will make a statement. [59946]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As the Cabinet Minister responsible for the co-ordination of Government policy in response to the Millennium Bug, I have been working with colleagues to drive forward action in both the public and private sector. As a key part of this work, I am responsible for monitoring and reporting on the progress across all central government departments and agencies and key parts of the wider public sector, including local authorities, the Police, the Ministry of Defence and the NHS. Details of the progress in each of these four sectors were included in the last quarterly statement which I issued on 9 September. I will be making my next quarterly statement on progress in tackling the Millennium Bug to the House shortly. Specific questions about progress in these four sectors are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Home Affairs, Defence, and Health respectively.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Passes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if she will publish the total number of House of Commons passes issued for persons
  459
  classified as assistants/research assistants to hon. Members, and the known number who work full or part-time in the above positions. [59944]

  Mrs. Roe
  [holding answer 16 November 1998]: 448 photo-identity passes have been issued for hon. Members' research assistants. The numbers who work full or part-time are not known, as an hon. Member is not required to give this information.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Offences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been(a) killed by explosions caused by terrorists and (b) killed by bombs which they were constructing, transporting or placing in position, in each of the last 10 years and the current year. [59030]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table illustrates the number of persons killed by explosions caused by terrorists and by their own bombs over the period in question:

  Year

  Number of deaths Caused by explosions

  Killed by own bomb

  Total

  1988

  39

  3

  42

  1989

  16

  1

  17

  1990

  22

  0

  22

  1991

  18

  0

  18

  1992

  11

  0

  11

  1993

  17

  2

  19

  1994

  5

  0

  5

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  1996

  1

  0

  1

  1997

  2

  1

  3

  19981

  30

  0

  30

  1 To 8 November

  Omagh Bombing
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the injuries suffered by the surviving victims of the Omagh bomb. [55477]

  Mr. Ingram
  (a) The following is a list of the injuries suffered by the surviving victims, admitted to hospital, in the immediate aftermath of the Omagh bomb:

  Abdominal Organ Injuries: 4

  Amputees: 5

  Blast Lung: 1

  Burns: 8

  Eye Injuries: 2

  Fractures: 24

  Fracture and Eye Injury: 3

  Head Injury: 1

  Soft Tissue Injury: 10

  Wounds/Shrapnel: 77.

  Many of the victims had multiple injuries. Injuries treated for those victims who were not admitted to hospital included wounds, shrapnel injuries, soft tissue injuries and ear injuries.
  460
  (b) Three of the surviving victims remain in hospital at the present time. Injuries suffered by the three patients are as follows:

  Burns [over 60% of body] and multiple injuries

  Amputation of lower leg and severe burns

  Amputation of lower leg and multiple shrapnel injuries.

  Regional and Minority Languages
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) Ulster Scots and (b) Irish as two minority languages to benefit from the provisions of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages; and if she will make a statement. [59289]

  Mr. McFall
  The Government intend that the Charter will apply to the Irish language in Northern Ireland from the coming into operation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In regard to Ulster-Scots, arrangements are in hand to commission independent academic research which will help to determine whether Ulster-Scots should be treated as a language for purposes of the Charter. The Charter does not distinguish between regional languages and minority languages.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what child care provision is made available by her Department for the use of staff; what is the cost to parents of this child care; how many parents used the facilities in the financial years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and what proportion of total staff used these facilities in the financial years (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98. [59730]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 November 1998]: In Northern Ireland, current policy is that Departments can contribute to staff child care costs where this is justified on value for money grounds.

  The Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments do not provide child care facilities. However, child care provision in the form of subsidy based schemes is only one of a range of family friendly measures that are available to staff. Others include flexible working hours, part-time and job sharing arrangements, paid and unpaid special leave and career breaks and reimbursement of expenses when the normal working routine is broken by the job demands. Information packs from the Northern Ireland Childminding Association are also given to staff applying for maternity or paternity leave.

  In addition, some Departments provide a range of assistance schemes as follows.

  In April 1998, NIO (Belfast) introduced a child care voucher scheme for staff which provided a contribution of £60 per month towards pre-school child care costs. Initially places on the scheme have been limited to 23 (2.8 per cent. of total staff) but it is planned to extend it to all staff with pre-school children within the next four years. NIO (London) introduced a similar scheme in July 1997 at the rate of £100 per month per child under the age of 5. Prior to July 1997, the NIO (London) subsidised 5 places in a nursery close to the office. The total proportion of staff that used these facilities in 1996–97 was 3 (2.9 per cent.) and in 1997–98 was 5 (4.4 per cent.).
  461
  In the Department of Health and Social Services, the Child Support Agency provides financial assistance to staff in the form of a subsidy towards the cost of placing a child in a registered nursery of the parents choice. The parents pay the first £30 of the cost, the Agency pays up to the next £30 (grossed up by 45.7 per cent. to cover Tax and NI Contributions) and the parent pays the balance. There are 40 subsidies available. In 1996–97, 30 (2 per cent. of staff) were taken up and 40 (3 per cent.) in 1997–98.

  The Department of the Environment provides a pre-school nursery subsidy scheme for up to 44 staff at any one time selected by a random draw. A reserve list is held to fill drop-outs from the 44. The subsidy is 35 per cent. of the weekly nursery fees up to a maximum of £30 gross per week. Forty-eight staff (0.6 per cent.) received subsidies in 1996–97 and 54 (0.7 per cent.) in 1997–98.

  The Department of Education, in May 1997, introduced an emergency child care subsidy scheme to provide the actual cost of emergency child care for a maximum of 2 days on any one occasion (limited to 4 occasions in a year) with the care provider being a registered childminder, playgroup or nursery. There has been no uptake of the subsidy. The scheme was introduced on a trial basis and the Department is presently reviewing the aspect of sufficient time off for staff to make alternative arrangements which has been identified as the main difficulty with the scheme.

  The Department of Finance and Personnel, through the Equal Opportunities Unit, financially assists 8 holiday playschemes. Subsidies of 50 per cent. accommodation costs and 40 per cent. staff costs are provided to each playscheme. Total financial assistance in 1997 was £20,250.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60145]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Following recommendations made by the PAC, the President of the Council wrote to Cabinet colleagues and Ministers in October asking all Departments to complete risk assessments and have initial year 2000 business continuity plans in place by the end of January 1999. This has been conveyed to all Northern Ireland Departments and they have been informed that future quarterly surveys by the Cabinet Office will require reports on progress against targets in this area. Millennium contingency planning has to cover the eventuality of system failures due to embedded chip malfunction.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is her latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies
  462
  for which her Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if she will make a statement; [60142]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the extent to which the computer systems in (a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies to which her Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if she will make a statement. [60144]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1109, in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government departments' and agencies' progress in tackling the bug. In Northern Ireland, the Departments and their agencies are directly responsible for much of the services provided by local government and the privatised utilities in Great Britain—e.g., Health and Personal Social Service, Housing Benefits, Water and Sewage. Electricity is the only privatised service in Northern Ireland.

  The information that the hon. Member requests will be found in the copies of departments' plans which have been published in the Libraries of the House. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Libraries of the House and on the Internet.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the problems which have arisen in(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which her Department is responsible from millennium compliance; if she will make a statement on progress to date in tackling such problems; and what are the priority areas for remedial work. [60143]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The problems are the same for all organisations striving for millennium compliance and the Northern Ireland departments are working closely with their Great Britain counterparts, sharing information and advice, to address these. Specifically, some departments in Northern Ireland have lost skilled computer staff to the private sector and this has impacted on some compliance programmes. However, steps are being taken by the individual departments and centrally by the Northern Ireland public service to address the situation.

  Northern Ireland Bill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 34, concerning the human rights and equality provisions of the Northern Ireland Bill, if she will place in the Library copies of her correspondence with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. [60270]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Copies of correspondence between myself and the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe have been placed in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Montserrat
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the final version of the Sustainable Development Plan for Montserrat will be published. [60359]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Agreement has been reached between the Government of Montserrat and Her Majesty's Government on the final text of the Sustainable Development Plan. This followed a wide-ranging consultation exercise involving Montserratians on island, elsewhere in the Caribbean and in the UK, and regional and international aid agencies. The plan reflects the shared priorities of our two Governments for the social and economic recovery of the island and sets out a plan for the future of the island and the strategies needed to achieve its goals and objectives.

  Copies of the final text will be placed in the Libraries of the House today. The formal published version will be made available in early December.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what is her latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which her Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if she will make a statement; [60056]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the extent to which the computer systems in (a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which her Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if she will make a statement. [60058]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right. hon. Friend the President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Gartson (Maria Eagle), on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1109, in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government departments' and agencies' progress in tackling the bug. This also covered key organisations within the wider public sector. The information the hon. Member requests will be found in the copies of departments' plans which have been published in the Library of the House. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Libraries of the House and on the internet.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will list the problems which have arisen in(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which her Department is responsible for millennium compliance; if she will make a statement on progress to date in tackling such problems; and what are the priority areas for remedial work; [60057]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by (a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60059]
  464
  Mr. Foulkes
  We have recently reviewed the Year 2000 compliance programme. Work is well advanced on mission-critical systems and we have systems in place for testing at various milestone dates. Our key systems will be fully tested and independently audited before the Year 2000.

  Our current switchboard is not compliant, but will become so with the next installation of software which will be in place before the end of 1998. Our equipment to send telexes is not compliant, but is in any case to be discarded for more modern forms of communications. We shall provide fuller details in our next quarterly return.

  We have obtained assurances from our prime hardware and software suppliers. In several cases we are required to upgrade software to more modern versions. We have developed a programme of work to take this forward. Progress is reported in our quarterly return.

  Work will start in early December to develop a separate series of business continuity plans, which will complement the work already done on business critical systems. Progress will be reported in the appropriate quarterly return.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which forum the Government will propose as appropriate for future negotiations on a multilateral agreement on investment, in order to ensure(a) that the interests of developing countries are represented and (b) that developing countries are equal participants in the negotiations. [59183]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government, and the EU as a whole, have a long-standing objective of pursuing investment negotiations in the WTO, and have called for investment to be on the agenda of any future multilateral Round of negotiations. This objective was reflected in the White Paper on International Development in November 1997, underlining the developmental value of a stable and transparent framework for international investment.

  Any decision to begin negotiations on multilateral investment disciplines in the WTO will require consensus among WTO members. Over three quarters of WTO members are developing countries. We are committed to helping strengthen the capacity of developing countries—many of which have limited resources—to participate effectively in the WTO. Specifically on investment, we have already agreed a contribution of over £0.5 million for a programme run by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to provide advice and training to developing countries on the issues posed by a possible multilateral framework for investment.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's current estimate of the cost to be borne by Scottish local authorities arising from new central Government initiatives in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and

  465
  (c) the following three years, by initiative, indicating the contribution to be made towards such costs from central Government. [56952]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: In 1998–99 the following amounts were added to the local government finance spending plans inherited from the previous Administration:
  Additional resources for schools: £89 million (announced in the July 1997 Budget) plus £19 million (announced in March 1998 Budget).
  Recommendations resulting from the Pennington Report: £2.6 million.

  The cost of new central Government initiatives over the next three years was considered in the course of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. In total, following the review the following additional resources (each representing increases compared with 1998–99) have been provided over the next three years:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Education

  154

  266

  373

  Social Work

  51

  94

  130

  Police

  23.7

  50.9

  71.8

  Fire

  8.5

  16.9

  24.3

  Other Services including Loans Charges

  58.8

  163.5

  319.2

  Decisions for subsequent years have not yet been made.

  Youth Clubs
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make more money available to youth clubs in areas with high levels of juvenile crime. [57609]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]: The Scottish Office does not provide funding for youth clubs. In the main youth clubs are run by local authorities or voluntary groups which have access to local facilities. The Scottish Office provides a grant to Youth Clubs Scotland, a national voluntary organisation which is involved with the informal education of young people. The grant towards headquarters expenditure is awarded under the Scottish Office community education recurrent grant scheme for voluntary organisations. Youth Clubs Scotland has been awarded a grant of £75,000 in 1998–99, an increase of 7 per cent..

  Youth Employment
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of young people who took up the employment option under the New Deal have secured full-time employment at the end of their placement(a) in total and (b) by local authority area. [58980]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 11 November 1998]: The latest New Deal figures published by the Government Statistical Service relate to August, and information on those completing their placement is not yet available. We plan in future to publish figures by units of delivery which in Scotland are based on local enterprise company areas.

  Intellectual Property
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the purpose and scope of the reservation of intellectual property in the Scotland Bill. [60441]

  Mr. McLeish
  The purpose of the reservation is to ensure the continuation of uniform intellectual property laws across the UK. This will avoid difficulties for owners of intellectual property rights arising from, for example, difference in what can be protected, the extent of the protection and remedies for breach of rights. Indeed, the benefits of harmonisation in this area are becoming increasingly recognised with the ever wider harmonisation of intellectual property rights and related matters across Europe and the rest of the world.

  Patents, designs, registered trade marks and copyright are well known examples of intellectual property rights and are reserved. The reservation also embraces all other existing and future analogous rights and matters, such as rights in performances and semi-conductor topographies, moral rights, the law of passing off and trade secrets, and the new database right. Moreover, rights such as those in utility models and matters such as technical measures for the protection of copyright works and information relating to the management of rights, all of which are included in recent draft EC Directives on intellectual property, fall within the scope of the reservation. Furthermore, all matters relating to the Patent Office are reserved, as are current and future ancillary matters.

  The existing major legislation on intellectual property, namely the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Patents Act 1977, the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Registered Designs Act 1949, exemplifies but does not limit the range of provisions relating to 'intellectual property' which falls or may in the future fall within the reservation.

  There is just one exception from the reservation, that is UK plant breeders' rights within the meaning of the Plant Varieties Act 1997. Agricultural Ministers, that is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are jointly responsible for UK plant breeders' rights. Devolution in this one area of intellectual property is therefore consistent with the joint responsibility which already exists for plant breeders' rights.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the computer systems in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies to which his Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if he will make a statement; [60136]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and(c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [60134]
  467
  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1109, announcing the results of the most recent quarterly review of Government Departments' and agencies' progress in tackling the Year 2000 date change issue and providing information on progress and costs. Information on progress in the wider public sector in Scotland, including the National Health Service, water authorities, nationalised industries and some non-departmental public bodies, is available on The Scottish Office's Web site. The results of the next quarterly review of progress will be announced shortly to the House and updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Library of the House and on the Web.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60137]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department and Agencies recognise the need to review and keep up to date their plans to deal with threats to business community, including the millennium date change. I expect them to have completed a review of key aspects of their operations, and to ensure that appropriate plans are in place, by the end of January 1999.

  Planning to ensure the continued delivery of key public services is primarily the responsibility of those who manage these services. The Scottish Office will continue to encourage organisations in the wider public sector in Scotland to ensure that their contingency plans are adequate in the light of the millennium date change issue.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the problems which have arisen in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible from millennium compliance; if he will make a statement on progress to date in tackling such problems; and what are the priority areas for remedial work. [60135]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Office has been working since 1996 to ensure that the service it provides to the public will not be materially affected by the Year 2000 computer problem. The Department expects that all of its important systems will be tested and proved to be Year 2000 compliant by March 1999. Agencies and other public sector bodies in Scotland including the water authorities, the NHS in Scotland, local authorities, the nationalised industries and certain non-departmental public bodies are responsible for ensuring that their services will not be materially affected by the problem. Their progress is monitored by The Scottish Office. A range of progress reports is published on the Web, including the Web sites maintained by The Scottish Office, the NHS in Scotland and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.

  Financial Management
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to ensure adequate training in 468
  financial management of those in charge of the financial management of projects receiving Government funding as a condition of grant; [59630]

  (2) what plans he has to insist on adequate external auditing and monitoring of projects receiving Government funding as a condition of grant. [59631]

  Mr. McLeish
  Grant conditions, and monitoring arrangements for different grant schemes operated by The Scottish Office are set taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the individual scheme. The conditions and monitoring arrangements are kept under review.

  Where the grant is towards a particular project the conditions normally include a requirement for external validation that the grant has been used for the purpose for which it was provided. Alternatively, in the case of grants to local authorities, the Scottish Office may make arrangements directly with the Accounts Commission for Scotland for the external auditing of councils' grant claims.

  In the particular case of grants under the Urban Programme to local authorities, the standard terms and conditions require local authorities to establish effective appraisal, monitoring and financial systems.

  These conditions also require the local authority to ensure that the expenditure by third parties receiving funding from the Council is accounted for properly; and that the accounts of third parties are either audited statutorily, or in the case of unincorporated bodies, reported on by a qualified accountant.

  The reporting accountants have to report if they are not satisfied: that proper records have been kept; that the accounts are consistent with the records; that they have received all necessary information; and that other information in the annual report is consistent with the financial statements.

  Training in financial management is a matter for the bodies concerned.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that councils arrange for adequate auditing arrangements and training in financial management when giving grants to projects receiving public funds. [59629]

  Mr. McLeish
  Local authorities are fully responsible for ensuring that there is clear public accountability where they provide public funds to external bodies. I expect councils to follow the guidance laid out by the Accounts Commission and COSLA in the Code of Guidance on Funding External Bodies and Following the Public Pound. This sets out the procedures for specifying minimum standards of accountancy and audit arrangements in appropriate cases. Where these are found wanting in individual cases, I would expect councils to take firm corrective action.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the recent report by Edinburgh City Council into the financial management of publicly funded projects in the city. [59632]
  469
  Mr. McLeish
  The City of Edinburgh Council has identified weaknesses in the management of some projects. This is primarily a matter for the Council but the Government place the highest importance on the proper conduct and management of projects and organisations which are publicly funded and discussions are taking place with the Council on the issues raised in its report and the action it should take.

  Aspirin Poisoning
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases in Scotland in each of the past five years individuals have had to spend more than one night in hospital because of aspirin poisoning. [59638]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the number of emergency admissions staying more than one night in hospital with a reported diagnosis of aspirin poisoning is shown in the table. The table refers to the number of emergency admissions during the specified year. It is possible that an individual patient may have had more than one admission in any year.

  The data exclude poisoning by compounds of aspirin with phenacetin-codeine which cannot be separately identified under the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision.

  Year

  Number1

  1992

  151

  1993

  179

  1994

  146

  1995

  160

  1996

  156

  1 Diagnoses are coded to the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision (1980–March 1996) code 965.1 and the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (April 1996-) code T30.9

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths have been recorded in Scotland from aspirin poisoning in each of the past five years, and in how many of these cases aspirin had been taken(a) in soluble form and (b) in dispensable form. [59633]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information available is given in the list. It is not possible to distinguish the form in which the aspirin had been taken.

  Deaths from poisoning involving aspirin1, Scotland

  1993: 6

  1994: 9

  1995: 2

  1996: 2

  1997: 6.

  1 Includes cases where aspirin was taken together with other drugs.

  Paracetamol Poisoning
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths have been recorded in Scotland from poisoning by paracetamol in each of the past five years. [59636]
  470
  Mr. Galbraith
  The information available is given in the list.

  Deaths from poisoning involving paracetamol1,2 Scotland

  1993: 89

  1994: 90

  1995: 81

  1996: 96

  1997: 102.

  1 Includes compound preparations containing paracetamol.
  2 Includes cases where paracetamol was taken together with other drugs.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many summary criminal trials in each Scottish sheriff court have been adjourned on more than one occasion in each of the past four years; [59627]

  (2) how many summary criminal trials in each Scottish sheriff court have concluded at the first trial diet; and how many have been adjourned because of pressure of business in each of the past four years. [59628]

  Mr. McLeish
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Scottish Court Service to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Ewart to Mr. Donald Gorrie, dated 17 November 1998:
  Mr. McLeish has asked me to respond to your question about summary criminal trials. The attached tables show the number of:
  Summary cases with one trial diet;
  Summary cases with 2 or more trial diets;
  Summary trials adjourned through lack of court time for each Sheriff Court over the past years.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Summary cases with one trial diet

  Summary cases with two or more trial diets

  Summary trials adjourned through lack of court time1

  1995

  Aberdeen

  1,516

  390

  69

  Airdrie

  930

  360

  49

  Alloa

  294

  118

  22

  Ayr

  847

  233

  17

  Arbroath

  302

  91

  3

  Banff

  77

  20

  7

  Campbeltown

  82

  61

  2

  Cupar

  223

  56

  25

  Dingwall

  147

  46

  3

  Dornoch

  69

  30

  2

  Dumbarton

  1,009

  503

  61

  Dumfries

  606

  132

  12

  Dundee

  1,170

  386

  36

  Dunfermline

  619

  210

  32

  Dunoon

  185

  94

  8

  Duns

  55

  9

  1

  Edinburgh

  3,876

  950

  110

  Elgin

  269

  56

  14

  Falkirk

  915

  253

  43

  Forfar

  236

  73

  0

  Fort William

  174

  68

  21

  Glasgow

  6,533

  3,072

  558

  Greenock

  669

  158

  3

  Haddington

  336

  100

  6

  Hamilton

  2,288

  1,148

  167

  Inverness

  725

  216

  13

  Jedburgh

  118

  35

  4

  Kilmarnock

  1,432

  94

  13

  Kirkcaldy

  747

  240

  6

  Kirkcudbright

  84

  19

  29

  Kirkwall

  37

  12

  0

  Lanark

  374

  140

  18

  471

  Summary cases with one trial diet

  Summary cases with two or more trial diets

  Summary trials adjourned through lack of court time1

  Lerwick

  75

  37

  0

  Linlithgow

  872

  307

  20

  Lochmaddy

  52

  9

  0

  Oban

  135

  39

  16

  Paisley

  1,782

  814

  239

  Peebles

  48

  21

  0

  Perth

  644

  167

  34

  Peterhead

  169

  41

  9

  Portree

  43

  14

  0

  Rothesay

  65

  20

  3

  Selkirk

  103

  12

  3

  Stirling

  626

  215

  50

  Stonehaven

  174

  35

  2

  Stornoway

  82

  41

  15

  Stranraer

  228

  64

  5

  Tain

  118

  43

  12

  Wick

  102

  32

  3

  Summary cases with one trial diet

  Summary cases with two or more trial diets

  Summary trials adjourned through lack of court time1

  1996

  Aberdeen

  1,043

  313

  79

  Airdrie

  844

  341

  114

  Alloa

  260

  84

  13

  Ayr

  815

  200

  2

  Arbroath

  266

  37

  46

  Banff

  66

  25

  10

  Campbeltown

  89

  27

  5

  Cupar

  150

  65

  52

  Dingwall

  84

  195

  3

  Dornoch

  53

  37

  12

  Dumbarton

  919

  283

  60

  Dumfries

  497

  91

  4

  Dundee

  911

  399

  46

  Dunfermline

  554

  178

  39

  Dunoon

  169

  76

  20

  Duns

  61

  13

  2

  Edinburgh

  4,206

  1,044

  223

  Elgin

  194

  44

  18

  Falkirk

  750

  281

  93

  Forfar

  160

  34

  2

  Fort William

  141

  47

  30

  Glasgow

  6,614

  2,474

  445

  Greenock

  665

  143

  14

  Haddington

  353

  84

  3

  Hamilton

  2,276

  1,021

  278

  Inverness

  547

  168

  15

  Jedburgh

  105

  25

  13

  Kilmarnock

  1,204

  93

  15

  Kirkcaldy

  671

  177

  4

  Kirkcudbright

  92

  15

  87

  Kirkwall

  45

  8

  0

  Lanark

  356

  143

  37

  Lerwick

  83

  56

  2

  Linlithgow

  1,040

  263

  56

  Lochmaddy

  40

  6

  0

  Oban

  107

  43

  36

  Paisley

  1,613

  708

  293

  Peebles

  34

  12

  2

  Perth

  565

  182

  26

  Peterhead

  152

  41

  11

  Portree

  25

  11

  0

  Rothesay

  50

  11

  0

  Selkirk

  68

  15

  2

  Stirling

  545

  241

  85

  Stonehaven

  172

  32

  23

  Stornoway

  95

  48

  26

  Stranraer

  223

  58

  9

  Tain

  91

  29

  9

  Wick

  115

  18

  3

  1 Adjourned through lack of court time; figures available only from 1 April to 31 December 1995

  472

  Summary cases with one trial diet

  Summary cases with two or more trial diets

  Summary trials adjourned through lack of court time

  1997

  Aberdee

  998

  225

  58

  Airdrie

  833

  300

  31

  Alloa

  191

  72

  11

  Ayr

  754

  151

  25

  Arbroath

  245

  73

  30

  Banff

  43

  15

  5

  Campbeltown

  85

  13

  0

  Cupar

  146

  55

  32

  Dingwall

  187

  55

  28

  Dornoch

  54

  25

  10

  Dumbarton

  772

  305

  60

  Dumfries

  465

  79

  6

  Dundee

  958

  368

  42

  Dunfermline

  465

  190

  48

  Dunoon

  156

  56

  25

  Duns

  40

  13

  4

  Edinburgh

  3,804

  946

  322

  Elgin

  181

  48

  9

  Falkirk

  644

  233

  43

  Forfar

  118

  28

  2

  Fort William

  110

  47

  20

  Glasgow

  4,665

  1,729

  293

  Greenock

  563

  135

  26

  Haddington

  305

  85

  8

  Hamilton

  1,965

  848

  189

  Inverness

  384

  49

  5

  Jedburgh

  103

  26

  8

  Kilmarnock

  1,127

  98

  23

  Kirkcaldy

  569

  264

  0

  Kirkcudbright

  94

  12

  104

  Kirkwall

  49

  10

  2

  Lanark

  315

  81

  39

  Lerwick

  83

  36

  1

  Linlithgow

  671

  314

  84

  Lochmaddy

  34

  7

  3

  Oban

  113

  54

  23

  Paisley

  1,369

  497

  121

  Peebles

  29

  14

  5

  Perth

  531

  196

  32

  Peterhead

  209

  62

  14

  Portree

  22

  4

  0

  Rothesay

  35

  8

  2

  Selkirk

  56

  6

  0

  Stirling

  363

  156

  59

  Stonehaven

  154

  26

  9

  Stornoway

  72

  49

  8

  Stranraer

  260

  43

  9

  Tain

  82

  21

  5

  Wick

  120

  38

  2

  Summary cases with one trial diet

  Summary cases with two or more trial diets

  Summary trials adjourned through lack of court time

  1998 to date1

  Aberdeen

  1,259

  218

  44

  Airdrie

  1,127

  345

  29

  Alloa

  218

  46

  6

  Ayr

  845

  168

  18

  Arbroath

  317

  102

  26

  Banff

  86

  7

  0

  Campbeltown

  79

  18

  0

  Cupar

  148

  30

  14

  Dingwall

  126

  35

  3

  Dornoch

  55

  31

  13

  Dumbarton

  864

  252

  8

  Dumfries

  428

  59

  1

  Dundee

  1,144

  409

  48

  Dunfermline

  414

  93

  11

  Dunoon

  122

  47

  14

  Duns

  34

  0

  0

  473

  Summary cases with one trial diet

  Summary cases with two or more trial diets

  Summary trials adjourned through lack of court time

  Edinburgh

  3,875

  1,191

  285

  Elgin

  323

  68

  18

  Falkirk

  663

  163

  31

  Forfar

  111

  29

  5

  Fort William

  76

  27

  4

  Glasgow

  5,371

  1,504

  69

  Greenock

  621

  92

  16

  Haddington

  312

  56

  0

  Hamilton

  1,745

  757

  70

  Inverness

  504

  88

  18

  Jedburgh

  95

  12

  0

  Kilmarnock

  1,068

  71

  7

  Kirkcaldy

  506

  268

  0

  Kirkcudbright

  68

  11

  81

  Kirkwall

  49

  13

  0

  Lanark

  309

  68

  16

  Lerwick

  85

  18

  1

  Linlithgow

  696

  241

  44

  Lochmaddy

  34

  6

  0

  Oban

  83

  23

  7

  Paisley

  1,393

  422

  63

  Peebles

  44

  8

  1

  Perth

  647

  217

  33

  Peterhead

  273

  68

  23

  Portree

  16

  3

  0

  Rothesay

  36

  9

  0

  Selkirk

  86

  8

  1

  Stirling

  373

  104

  20

  Stonehaven

  118

  16

  0

  Stornoway

  87

  21

  0

  Stranraer

  236

  42

  1

  Tain

  146

  28

  9

  Wick

  85

  31

  0

  1 1998 figures cover the period 1 January to 9 October 1998

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Coalfields Task Force
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he can report on implementing the recommendations of the coalfields task force. [58612]

  Mr. Prescott
  I will launch the Government's response to the Coalfields Task Force Report at the Second Coalfields Conference on Tuesday 1 December at the Peterlee Leisure Centre in County Durham. Copies of the written responses will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Leylandii
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation relating to Leylandii and other fast-growing trees. [58613]

  Mr. Meale
  We are considering whether there is a need for Government intervention in relation to problems caused by leylandii trees and other high garden hedges. We will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the need to review council tax rates for(a) second and (b) mobile homes. [58614]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 30 July we published our Local Government White Paper—"Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People". In this we explained that the council tax is working well as a local tax and that it has been widely accepted. In reviewing council tax, we had to balance the expense and potential great disruption of a revaluation against various proposals for change. We have concluded that the current valuation base remains broadly acceptable, and is likely to remain so for the next few years. While we shall be keeping the fairness of the council tax under review we do not propose to change the council tax levels for second homes or mobile homes during the course of this Parliament.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the current arrangements for levying council tax on second homes. [58633]

  Ms Armstrong
  In response to the consultation paper on local government finance, we received 40 representations on second homes. Since the election, we have also received an additional 121 representations on second homes. Of the representations received, 118 were in favour of not applying the 50 per cent. reduction for second homes and 43 were in favour of retaining the reduction.

  Capital Receipts
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the capital receipts programme on housing to date. [58615]

  Mr. Prescott
  Having a decent home for everyone is a goal of a civilised society. We promised to release funds to restore and build new houses for rent, and that is what we are doing. Capital allocations of around £750 million have been made available to local authorities under the Capital Receipts Initiative in 1997–98 and 1998–99. I have today placed information in the Libraries of both Houses on the capital receipts allocations for Local Authorities in England for 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the capital receipts programme in the London region to date. [58623]

  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the capital receipts programme in the London region to date. [58630]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under the Capital Receipts Initiative, London has received £220 million in 1997–98 and 1998–99. On average, around 70 per cent. of these resources will be spent by local authorities on renovations to their own housing stock, benefiting over 100,000 dwellings. Approximately 40 per cent. of this work will include energy efficiency improvements. The resources will also help to finance the building or acquisition of around 1,000 extra dwellings.

  Business Taxes
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has had from the business community regarding his proposals for new business taxes. [58616]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since the publication of the White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People", we have discussed the proposals for local business rates with representatives of a number of business organisations.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to reform the structure of local government. [58617]

  Ms Armstrong
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told the House when announcing our White Paper on modern local government, on 30 July 1998,Oficial Report, columns 529-46, on 30 July 1998, Official Report, columns 529-41, our programme of reform today is about how councils work and how they can be more in touch with the people whom they serve. We have seen over the past few years what a distraction boundary and structure changes can be.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's actions to meet the carbon dioxide reductions agreed at Kyoto. [58618]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 26 October the UK became one of the first developed countries to launch a consultation exercise on policy options for meeting its climate change targets. The paper lists the steps the Government have already taken and sets out in detail further options.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure a more equal level of funding for local authorities in England. [58619]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We made a commitment to a fair distribution of grant for all authorities. We shall make changes only where we are convinced that it would be fair to do so and in keeping with our policy priorities.

  Opencast Coal Mining
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has had to the announcement of new planning guidance governing opencast coal mining. [58620]

  Mr. Caborn
  I published draft revised planning guidance on coal extraction in England on 16 October. Comments are requested by 15 January 1999. As yet we have received very few responses.

  Children's Parliament
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the purpose of the Children's Parliament. [58621]
  476
  Mr. Prescott
  The purpose of the Children's Parliament on the Environment is two-fold: first, to build on the interest that young people have in the environment and to stimulate them to think about what can be done, and in particular what they can do themselves, to secure a healthy future for everybody; and, secondly, to provide children with an opportunity to develop an understanding of, and take an active role in, the democratic process, and to understand their duties, responsibilities and rights as citizens.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the total amount paid from housing revenue account surpluses in housing benefits to council house tenants in the last financial year. [58622]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our latest information is that £1.226 billion of housing element surpluses in the Housing Revenue Account was used to offset the cost of rent rebates in 1997–98.

  Capital Allocation System
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the capital allocation system. [58624]

  Ms Armstrong
  Following the publication of the capital finance consultation paper "Modernising local government: capital finance", we received 353 responses from the English local authority community, 27 from organisations representing local authorities, 4 from business and their representative organisations and 40 from others with an interest in local government including members of the public and academics. The vast majority of these responses concerned the capital allocation system.

  Representations on the capital allocation in Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Standard Spending Assessments (London)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the formula for the computation of standard spending assessments for London borough councils. [58625]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have been considering a range of suggested changes to the calculation of Standard Spending Assessments, taking account of discussions that have taken place this year with local government representatives, to ensure a fair distribution among all authorities.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on access to the countryside for walkers. [58626]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has received over 2,000 formal responses to our consultation paper "Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales". In addition. since the closing date for responses to the consultation
  477
  paper on 5 June, approximately 340 letters have been received from members of the public on this subject, and approximately 230 letters from Members of Parliament. Ministerial colleagues and I have held meetings recently with organisations representing both landowners and recreational users.

  Sellafield
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  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. [58627]

  Mr. Meale
  The Agency's draft determination was received in my Department on 2 November 1998. 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.

  Regional Bodies (South-East)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to promote the public accountability of the Government's regional bodies in the south-east. [58628]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are committed to improving the openness, accountability and effectiveness of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs). The South East Regional Development Agency—like other Regional Development Agencies—will be required to take into account the views of, and give an account of its activities to, the South East Regional Chamber which will represent those in the region with an interest in its work.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to increase the supply of affordable housing. [58631]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are making available nearly £5 billion extra for investment in housing over the lifetime of this Parliament. The majority of these resources are being directed through local authorities, who we expect to take investment decisions that reflect local needs and priorities. Where demand for affordable housing is high, local authorities may use a proportion of their resources to provide new social lettings. We have also boosted the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme relative to the spending plans of the last Government, thereby ensuring that it will continue to play a key part in support of social housing provision, complementing local authority housing strategies.

  Our revised Planning Circular on affordable housing (6/98) will enable local planning authorities to increase the supply of affordable housing secured through the planning process.

  Ports Policy
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response the Government have made to the EU Transport Commissioner's EU Green Paper on ports policy. [58642]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The European Commission issued its Green Paper on ports last December. We published a detailed response at the end of March 1998, setting out our broad support for the Commission's proposals for establishing fair competition between European ports. Copies of our response are in the Library of the House.

  Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will visit Heald Green, Bramhall, Hazel Grove and Woodford to study the effects of cancelling the completion of the Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road. [58643]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Roads Review led us to conclude that further consideration was necessary of the transport pressures around the airport and to the south-east of Manchester. We therefore proposed a study, which will look at potentials for increased use of public transport and address the problem of through traffic, while not encouraging further car commuting.

  Cycling
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress the Government are making towards its target in respect of cycling by 2002. [58644]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The target of doubling the number of trips by bicycle by the end of 2002, and doubling them again by the end of 2012, was established by the National Cycling Strategy. In the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", we endorsed that target. Good progress is being made in implementing the Strategy.

  Integrated Transport Strategy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what part parkway stations play in his integrated transport strategy. [58645]

  Dr. Reid
  Carefully designed park and ride schemes can contribute to more sustainable transport. Local authorities should consider the potential of park and ride, as part of a package of traffic management measures, when preparing their local transport plans.

  Railtrack
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding the permitted development rights of Railtrack. [58647]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants planning permission for classes of development described in Schedule 2 to the Order. No specific application for planning permission is required. Part 11 grants permission
  479
  for development authorised under local or private Acts or Orders subject to conditions. Part 17 grants permission for certain development by statutory undertakers, including development by railway undertakers on their operational land required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail. The question of permitted development rights and Railtrack is currently before the Secretary of State in relation to the Hinksey Sidings site in Oxford.

  Rail Industry
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further action his Department is taking to improve the performance of the rail industry. [58648]

  Dr. Reid
  We recently announced the creation of a shadow Strategic Rail Authority to get a grip on the rail industry. We have called all franchisees and Railtrack to a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister and me on 26 November to identify solutions to their current poor performance.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what remit the shadow strategic rail authority will have. [58649]

  Dr. Reid
  The shadow Strategic Rail Authority, to be formed by close working between the British Railways Board and the Franchising Director, will be operational by Spring 1999. It will lead changes to the way the privatised railway is controlled, in advance of legislation to establish the SRA on a statutory basis. We will announce the remit of the shadow SRA in due course.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to ensure that the north-west region benefits from the channel tunnel rail link. [58650]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The deal which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367-84, secured the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link which will deliver economic, transport and environmental benefits for the whole country.

  North-West Trains
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take action to prevent reductions in services by North-West trains. [58651]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Train operators are contractually committed to maintain an agreed minimum level of service in their Passenger Service Requirement (PSR), which is a key component of the franchise agreement. These minimum levels are broadly based on those that were operated prior to privatisation. To deviate would put the train operator in breach of its contract. Where additional services above the PSR have been added for commercial reasons, operators have the freedom to reduce them, after informing the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and rail user groups.

  Cleaner Vehicles
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce measures to encourage the purchase of more fuel-efficient, less polluting cars. [58652]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government have already introduced fiscal measures including fuel duty incentives and are consulting on a lower rate of Vehicle Excise Duty to encourage less environmentally damaging cars. We have also supported more stringent European vehicle emission and fuel quality standards and welcome the recent voluntary agreement from motor manufacturers to improve the fuel efficiency of new cars. The market for less polluting vehicles will be further stimulated through the Cleaner Vehicle Task Force, a partnership between the Government and the private sector to promote environmentally friendly vehicles people will want to drive and buy.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what future role he envisages for regional airports. [58653]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We promised in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" that, taking account of the emerging findings of a series of regional air services studies, we would encourage the growth of regional airports to meet local demand for air travel where consistent with sustainable development principles. The aim is to maximise the contribution which regional airports make to local and regional economies, to relieve pressure on congested airports in the south-east of England and to reduce the need for long surface journeys, particularly by road, to south-east airports. The south-west England study was already under way when the White Paper was published and the Welsh study is now also under way. Work on setting up the other four studies is in hand. We announced last week the details of our proposals to free soundly financed local authority airports from public sector borrowing controls. The new financial regime will come into effect, subject to Parliamentary approval, on 1 April 1999 and we have invited applications from those airport companies which wish to benefit from the new freedom.

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve commuter services on lines operated by Connex South Central. [58654]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In August the Franchising Director asked each train operating company to submit to him an action plan indicating how they intend to improve performance. Connex South Central has submitted an action plan which the Franchising Director is currently reviewing. We have announced our intention to establish a Strategic Rail Authority which will be responsible for overseeing the performance of the franchise agreements and the strategic development of the rail network. In any new or re-negotiated franchise contracts we expect to see much better performance requirements and arrangements to enable passengers to hold operators responsible for the services they run. We also propose to amend the Railways
  481
  Act so that financial penalties for poor performance can be imposed much faster, and infringements penalised. Ministers are to meet with representatives from all train operating companies on 26 November to discuss future railways policy and in particular ways of improving poor performance generally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many routes operated by Connex South Central the punctuality of rail services(a) improved and (b) deteriorated in the last period for which figures are available. [60296]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The latest figures released by the Franchising Director cover the three rail industry periods from 28 June 1998 to 19 September 1998. The Connex South Central franchise is split into two route groups—South London lines and Sussex Coast for the purpose of performance monitoring. Comparing the annual average at the end of September 1997 with the annual average at the end of September 1998, both route groups improved. Copies of the Franchising Director's latest report—issued on 4 November—are in the House Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 November 1998,Official Report, column 116, concerning Connex South Central, if, when Ministers meet Connex South Central, he will ensure that the company puts in place an action plan to improve services in the coming winter. [60301]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director has required all train operating companies to produce and implement an action plan setting out how they propose to deliver improvements in performance. These have been received and are being evaluated. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be meeting representatives from the train operating companies on 26 November, and will impress the importance of delivering improved performance on them then.

  Road Freight Hauliers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from road freight hauliers regarding the impact of the proposals in the White Paper on integrated transport strategy on their industry. [58655]

  Dr. Reid
  The industry is generally satisfied with the Government's approach to sustainable distribution as set out in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone".

  This Government's policy towards the haulage industry is to promote an industry which is sustainable, which is efficient and effective and which meets the Government's environmental and social objectives at the same time.

  For example, industry has welcomed the fact that 40 tonne 5-axle lorries will be allowed for domestic use as well as for international movements. Industry has endorsed our intention to improve enforcement in the industry through improvements in the efficiency of the enforcement agencies. We are ensuring that modern IT systems are introduced which will allow better co-ordination and sharing of data between the agencies. They have endorsed our intention to impound illegally operated vehicles used by cowboy operators. The industry
  482
  has been very constructive in helping us to formulate these proposals. Such a scheme will help to ensure that, within the UK, hauliers operate within a competitive regime which is both fair and honest.

  Leisure Craft
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact the new Maritime and Coastguard Agency will have on leisure craft. [58656]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On 7 October, at the official launch of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), I announced the Government's continuing commitment to improve the safety of recreational craft. The MCA will develop a voluntary Code of Conduct for all recreational craft which will include best practice and a voluntary registration and identification scheme. The Agency will also continue safety education initiatives. The Code will be developed by the Sea Safety Liaison Group which, in addition to the MCA, comprises representatives of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Royal Yachting Association, the Royal Life Saving Society UK and the British Marine Industries Federation and will be subject to external consultation before being launched next Summer.

  In due course the Government also intend to pursue the primary legislation needed to enable local authorities to have better control, through byelaws, of their coastal waters.

  I believe this strategy will do a great deal to improve the safety of the increasing numbers of people who use our coastal waters for recreation.

  Community Transport Schemes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the costs of implementing a comprehensive nationwide network of community transport schemes. [58657]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have commissioned a major review of voluntary and community transport nationwide. The review, which was carried out in collaboration with the Community Transport Association, has looked at both the range and the scope of work currently undertaken by voluntary and community transport operators and at what measures should be considered to enable them to deliver their invaluable services most effectively. A report will be published early in the New Year.

  Vehicles (Safety Checks)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's policy on safety checks on the roadworthiness of vehicles. [58646]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's policy is to require vehicles to undergo periodical tests for roadworthiness and for exhaust emissions. This contributes towards well-maintained, safe vehicles and relatively low levels of pollution.

  Rural Areas (Parliamentary Representation)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his
  483
  oral statement of 20 October 1998, Official Report, column 1062, on what definition of rural areas his statement that more Labour Members than Conservative Members represent rural areas was based. [57958]

  Ms Armstrong
  There are more Labour Members of Parliament representing the non-metropolitan counties of England than there are Conservative MPs representing similar constituencies. There are no Conservative MPs representing any rural or urban constituencies in Scotland and no Conservative MPs representing any urban or rural constituencies in Wales.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [59054]

  Mr. Meale
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy in the Library.

  Supermarket Developments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received from supermarket chains regarding planning policy for supermarket store developments. [58884]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State has received a number of letters from representatives of the retail sector, but has had no direct representations about planning policy for supermarket store developments. My colleague the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning and I have met representatives of the retail sector recently.M

  M65 (Blackburn)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons resurfacing work is being carried out on parts of the M65 at Blackburn. [59473]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 17 November 1998:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the M65 at Blackburn.
  Small areas of the road surface of the M65 Blackburn Southern Bypass have proved to be sub-standard and have had to be replaced for safety reasons. The problems only became apparent after traffic started to use the road, which was opened in December 1997.
  The cost of the work was met by the Contractor who originally constructed the Motorway.
  The work was carried out at night to keep inconvenience to traffic to a minimum and was completed in the early hours of Friday 13 November.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate 484
  was made of the final construction cost of the Jubilee Line Extension in each year since the project was started. [59588]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At project go-ahead in October 1993, the project was expected to cost £1.9 billion plus a further £219 million on improvements to the core network related to the JLE project. This estimate remained unchanged until August 1995 when cost increases were identified, bringing the total to £2.3 billion. In 1996 a revised forecast of £2.69 billion was made. This increased to £2.76 billion in 1997. London Transport's latest estimate of final cost is £2.85 billion, but this is being reviewed, having regard to the rephased programme for line opening in 1999.

  Drinking and Driving
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to be in a position to publish the responses to his Department's consultation document on tightening the laws relating to drinking and driving; and if he will make a statement as to what action he proposes to take. [59700]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We shall make an announcement when we have finished considering the responses to our consultation exercise.

  Childhood Cancers
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the degree of correlation between the incidence of childhood cancers and proximity to industrial sites. [59609]

  Mr. Meale
  The Small Area Health Statistics Unit at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine has carried out a number of studies of cancer incidence and mortality around industrial sites at the request of Government Departments. A study of lymphohaematopoietic cancers around all industrial complexes in Great Britain which include major oil refineries specifically examined rates in children aged 0 to 14 years of age. It found no evidence of association between residence near oil refineries and the overall incidence of lymphatic and haematopoietic malignancies in this age group.

  The results of this work are due to be published early next year and a copy will be placed in the House Library.

  Visual Display Units
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require the manufacturers and retailers of visual display units to affix to the front of the screen surround a notice advising users of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992. [59653]

  Mr. Meale
  There are no plans to require manufacturers and retailers of visual display units to affix any information about the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 to the front of the screen surround. The Regulations place duties on employers rather than on manufacturers or suppliers. Employers are required to provide health and safety
  485
  information and training to all their employees who habitually use display screen equipment as a significant part of their normal work.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to publicise more widely the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, Guidance on Regulations and Supplementary Practical Advice Guide. [59654]

  Mr. Meale
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has recently revised and reissued its free guidance booklet "Working with VDUs". Since February, over 174,000 free copies have been sent out and over 25,000 priced packs of 10 leaflets have been sold. "Working with VDUs" includes details of HSE's comprehensive priced guidance on the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 and explains how to obtain copies. In addition, Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Inspectors and Local Authority Enforcement Officers raise awareness of the Regulations and guidance during their inspections of workplaces.

  Railway Property Maintenance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to extend the duties to clean railway stations and other railway property under the Environmental Protection Act

  Arrivals–25 December 1997

  Airline

  Aircraft Type

  Origin

  Actual Time of Arrival (ATA)1

  Scheduled Times of Arrivals (STA)2

  Gama Aviation

  Ciation

  Dublin

  0132

  0200

  Virgin Atlantic

  A340

  Hong Kong

  0407

  0415

  British Airways

  B747

  Hong Kong

  0415

  0450

  British Airways

  B747

  Hong Kong

  0418

  0435

  British Airways

  B777

  Riyadh

  0428

  0455

  British Airways

  B777

  Boston

  0500

  0520

  Cathay Pacific

  B747

  Hong Kong

  0503

  0515

  British Airways

  B747

  Kuala Lumpur

  0505

  0525

  British Airways

  B747

  Johannesburg

  0515

  0525

  British Airways

  B747

  Singapore

  0518

  0535

  British Airways

  B747

  Bangkok

  0524

  0540

  Qantas

  B747

  Singapore

  0528

  0530

  Singapore Airlines

  B747

  Singapore

  0532

  0530

  Saudia

  B747

  Riyadh

  0551

  0545

  British Airways

  B777

  Dhahran

  0600

  0625

  American Airlines

  A300

  New York

  0602

  0620

  British Airways

  B747

  Cape Town

  0603

  0620

  Virgin Atlantic

  A340

  Johannesburg

  0605

  0635

  Malaysian Airlines

  B747

  Kuala Lumpur

  0607

  0555

  EL AL

  B757

  Tel Aviv

  0608

  0620

  British Airways

  B777

  Kuwait

  0610

  0620

  Thai Airways

  B747

  Bangkok

  0618

  0620

  Canadian Airlines

  DC10

  Toronto

  0620

  0625

  British Airways

  B747

  Singapore

  0622

  0620

  Cathay Pacific

  B747

  Paris

  0624

  0630

  Air Canada

  B747

  Montreal

  0625

  0645

  British Airways

  B747

  New York

  0627

  0700

  Air Canada

  B747

  Toronto

  0628

  0640

  Qantas

  B747

  Bangkok

  0630

  0630

  British Airways

  B747

  Bombay

  0632

  0650

  United Airlines

  B777

  San Francisco

  0634

  0640

  Vigin Atlantic

  B747

  Miami

  0636

  0655

  Gulf Air

  A340

  Bahrain

  0638

  0620

  United Airlines

  B777

  Washington

  0639

  0630

  American Airlines

  B767

  New York

  0641

  0650

  British Airways

  B777

  Bahrain

  0642

  0700

  486
  1990 to companies which took over responsibility for maintenance of property previously managed by British Rail. [59614]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  An Order to place a duty on the privatised railway companies to clear litter from their land will be laid before Parliament early in the new year.

  Coastguards
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the dates during the last six months when there was no officer on duty at Tyne-Tees coastguard station qualified above the rank of coastguard watch assistant. [59886]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  During the last six months, there has been no period when the watch complement at the Tyne-Tees coastguard station fell below the required criteria.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the aircraft movements at Heathrow airport between midnight and 7 a.m. on Christmas morning 1997, indicating(a) airline, (b) aircraft, (c) origin or destination and schedule and (d) actual times of arrival and departure. [60185]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information from Heathrow Airport Ltd is as follows:
  487

  Arrivals–25 December 1997

  Airline

  Aircraft Type

  Origin

  Actual Time of Arrival (ATA) 1

  Scheduled Time of Arrival (STA)2

  British Airways

  B737

  Paris

  0644

  0655

  British Airways

  B747

  Washington

  0646

  0645

  United Airlines

  B767

  New York

  0647

  0655

  British Airways

  B777

  Dubai

  0650

  0625

  Virgin Atlantic

  B747

  New York

  0652

  0710

  South African

  B747

  Cape Town

  0657

  0655

  1 Actual Time of Arrival—time of touchdown of aircraft.

  2 Scheduled Time of Arrival—refers to the time aircraft was scheduled to reach the stand after taxiing from the runway exit.

  There were no departures during the period midnight and 0700.

  Of the above landings between midnight and 0600, all of the flights except for the Citation (a small business jet) counted against the movements limit and against the noise quota, in accordance with the night flying restrictions.

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 November 1998,Official Report, columns 114-15, for what reasons the names of the companies which submitted bids for Teesside Development Corporation equipment are commercially confidential. [59864]

  Mr. Meale
  The firms that submitted the bids would have presumed that they were tendering on a commercially confidential basis, in accordance with normal practice. It would be improper for me to release their names without their approval.

  Radioactive Gases (Cap La Hague)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evaluation he has made of the spread of radioactive gases over the South Coast from the French nuclear power station at Cap La Hague. [60107]

  Mr. Meale
  No specific evaluation of the kind referred to has been made. The Government are not aware of any unauthorised release of radioactive gases from a French nuclear installation which might have affected the South Coast of England. The UK would be notified of any such incident by the French authorities, under the terms of a bilateral agreement. In addition, any elevation in the background levels of radioactivity in the UK would be detected by the RIMNET network of continuously operating gamma dose rate monitors, many of which are located along the South Coast and in the Channel Islands.

  Routine aerial releases of radioactivity from the reprocessing plant at Cap La Hague and other sites in France are subject to stringent controls by the French competent authority, to ensure that the levels of radioactivity to which the public are exposed are below safety levels set by the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, the European Commission must be satisfied that no contamination of another Member State will result, before any routine releases of radioactivity can
  488
  be authorised. Environmental monitoring programmes carried out in southern England and the Channel Islands have detected no elevated levels of radioactivity.

  Local Government Debt
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to reduce the level of local government debt. [59856]

  Ms Armstrong
  Local authorities' new borrowing is regulated by the issue of credit approvals, in accordance with the policy established by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Under this Act, authorities also have a statutory duty to make provision to meet their existing debts. It is for them to decide whether it would be prudent to repay any loan before they are contractually required to do so. Incentives to reduce the level of debt include the greater freedom for debt-free authorities to spend their capital receipts.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the problems which have arisen in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible from millennium compliance; if he will make a statement on progress to date in tackling such problems; and what are the priority areas for remedial work. [60081]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department and its agencies report fully on problems arising from millennium compliance in the quarterly review process organised by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council. As part of the initial planning process, possible problems were identified, corrective action put in hand and in many cases work is complete. All remedial work has been prioritised with business critical areas being tackled first. Information on specific problems, priorities and progress will be found in the copies of departments' plans which have been published in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the computer systems in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies to which his Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if he will make a statement; [60082]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in (a) his Department, (b) its

  489
  agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [60080]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1109, in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government departments' and agencies' progress in tackling the bug. This also covered key organisations within the wider public sector including CAA, London Transport, the Environment Agency and Local Authorities. The information the hon. Member requests will be found in the copies of Departments' plans which have been published in the Library of the House. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Library of the House and on the Internet.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60083]

  Mr. Meale
  I am mindful of the advice given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to Cabinet Colleagues and members of MISC4 in October in response to the PAC recommendations. DETR, its agencies and associated public bodies have been asked to review their existing contingency plans to take account of possible problems arising from millennium compliance. It is my intention that they will have completed risk assessments and have initial Year 2000 business continuity plans in place by the end of January 1999.

  Airline Safety
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what guidance he has issued to the Civil Aviation Authority concerning the responsibilities of UK airlines safely to transport exceptionally tall people; [59603]

  (2) what representations he has received relating to the responsibilities of UK airlines in respect of the safe transport of exceptionally tall people. [59602]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have not received any representations about the responsibilities of UK airlines in respect of the safe transport of exceptionally tall people.

  The detailed safety regulation of aircraft and their operations is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The CAA has set minimum requirements relating to the spacing of passenger seats for UK registered aircraft and carries out regular checks to ensure compliance.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to prevent airlines from charging a premium to passengers requesting the allocation of mergency exit row seats. [59604]
  490
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The practice of charging a premium for allocating specific seats to passengers, particularly on charter flights, is essentially a commercial issue for the airlines and provided the seat spacing does not fall below that stipulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, the Government would not wish to intervene.

  Pigeon Proofing
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Railtrack's responsibilities with regard to the pigeon proofing of bridges. [59866]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  While Railtrack is responsible for the safety and general condition of their railway bridges, the main responsibility for minimising the nuisance and mess caused by pigeons rests with the local authorities. Railtrack has in the past entered into agreements to provide anti-pigeon netting, providing the local authority is willing to bear the cost of the project. For operational reasons (urgent safety works may require Railtrack to remove the netting) any installation is subject to a legal agreement.

  Multiple Occupation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish for consultation the national mandatory licensing scheme for buildings in multiple occupation. [60269]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We hope to publish a consultation document on our proposals for a national mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation early next year.

  Roads (Noise Abatement)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ring-fence money provided for the Highways Agency to carry out noise abatement measures on existing roads; when he expects to announce how much will be provided; and if he will make a statement. [59598]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We announced our intention to establish a ring-fenced budget and revised criteria for this purpose in "A New deal for Trunk Roads in England". Work on this is currently in hand and we shall make a full announcement as soon as possible.

  Parish Council Audits
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average charge made by the District Auditor on behalf of the Audit Commission to carry out audits of parish councils' yearly accounts; what percentage this charge represents of the average annual precept for parish councils; what options for redress are open to parish councils in the case of disputes over audit fees; and if he will make a statement. [59599]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The average audit fee for the audit of parish councils' accounts was £175 in 1997–98 which represents some 1.25 per cent. of the average annual precept of parish councils in England. The number of hours required for any audit are agreed between the
  491
  auditor and the audited body at the time of the audit. The first option for redress for a parish council would be to discuss the matter with the auditor. Subsequently they should pursue any complaint through the formal procedure operated by the Audit Commission.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment will be looking retrospectively at all the genetically modified crop approvals given to date in the light of its new remit. [59751]

  Mr. Meale
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked ACRE to look at not only direct and indirect effects of releasing genetically modified organisms but also the possible resultant changes in agronomic practice and subsequent effects of biodiversity. This will apply only to applications to market GM crops for cultivation in the UK. When the results are known of the farm-scale ecological monitoring we will be asking ACRE to consider whether there are any implications for approvals given to date.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if companies are still required to give information about the progress of a genetically modified crop to his Department after the crop has been given marketing consent by his Department. [59749]

  Mr. Meale
  Companies are required to inform my Department if new information becomes available concerning the risk assessment on which the original marketing consent was based.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the monitoring of genetically modified crops; and if he will ensure that this includes the monitoring of gene transfers. [59753]

  Mr. Meale
  All experimental releases of GM crops must be monitored by consent holders, and reports must be submitted to my Department on the outcome of the monitoring. In addition, my Department is funding the monitoring of releases of Plant Genetics Systems' herbicide tolerant oilseed rape which is being grown in the UK under a marketing consent for seed production only. This work is being carried out by the National Institute for Agricultural Botany and includes monitoring for evidence for gene transfer. Other genetically modified crops will be included in this programme when they enter commercial production.

  Negotiations are now underway on the European Commission's proposal for amending Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms to the environment. The Government support the proposals for post-market monitoring of GMO products including monitoring for gene transfers.

  At the House of Lords Select Committee, my right. hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced his intention to allow farm scale plantings of GM crops to take place in order to carry out ecological monitoring. The Government are still in the early stages of developing the specifications for how the ecological monitoring will be carried out.
  492
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what acreage of the genetically modified oilseed rape (Ref. 95/m1/1) marketed by Plant Genetic Systems Ltd has been licensed to be grown on a commercial scale in the United Kingdom. [59750]

  Mr. Meale
  The genetically modified oilseed rape developed by Plant Genetic Systems has been granted a consent for commercial seed production only. No specific acreage has been licensed by the Secretary of State for growth in the UK.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the earliest dates that herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant crops could have been grown legally in the UK. [59752]

  Mr. Meale
  Legislation has permitted the growing of genetically modified crops, under consent from the Secretary of State, since February 1993. They could have been grown prior to this under the Genetic Manipulation Regulations 1989 and a voluntary agreement covering risks to the environment. The first release of a GM crop under this scheme was in 1987.

  New Forest (Car Parking)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will give a decision on the appeal by New Forest District Council against Hampshire County Council on the question of car parking charges which the Government Office of the South East has referred to him. [60164]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A decision will be issued shortly.

  Traffic Congestion (Southend)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of traffic congestion within Southend-on-Sea; and if he will promote a bypass road from Shoeburyness to the Al27. [58635]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  These are both matters which are the responsibility of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and Essex County Council. Essex County Council have withdrawn their proposal for a £75 million road and both authorities are now pursuing sustainable transport solutions in the South East Essex package.

  Night Flights
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to issue detailed proposals on the next night restrictions regime for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted; and what his plans are for consulting on the introduction of runway alternation at night at Heathrow and the continuance of westerly preference at night. [60384]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is the second consultation in the two-stage process announced earlier this year on 27 February 1998,Official Report, column 404.

  Part 1 of this consultation invites comments on detailed proposals for future night restrictions at the three airports. Part 2 deals with Heathrow only, and invites views on options for the possible introduction of night-time runway alternation and on changing westerly preference at night.

  493
  It also includes a summary of the assessment of the continuing trial procedure for landings over London in the early morning. The Government wish to consider all responses to Part 2 before reaching a view.

  In developing these proposals we have taken into account the responses received to the preliminary consultation paper. We have sought to strike the right balance between the need to protect local communities from excessive aircraft noise at night and the need to allow air services to operate at night where they benefit the local, regional and national economy.

  A ban on night flights is not considered practicable but further steps are proposed to restrict operations by the noisiest types of aircraft at night and to encourage the use of quieter types.

  Our aim is to put in place arrangements which, over time, will bring about improvements in the noise climate during the night quota period (11.30 pm-6.00 am) around Gatwick, and further improvements around Heathrow. We also wish to provide for the planned development of Stansted, broadly as envisaged in 1993, while maintaining and strengthening the incentive for airlines to use quieter aircraft.

  The main proposals are:
  to reduce the seasonal noise quotas for Heathrow to nearer the level of current usage, in order to safeguard the improvements in the night quota period achieved since 1993;
  to reduce the seasonal noise quotas for Gatwick from winter 2001–02 onwards and to balance the movement limits pro rata per season, from winter 1999–2000 onwards;
  to increase the Stansted noise quotas gradually from winter 1999–2000 onwards, while maintaining the incentive for airlines to use quieter aircraft;
  to ban aircraft classified QC/4 in the noise quota count (QC) system from being scheduled to land or take off during the quota restricted period from the start of the 2002 summer season at all three airports, subject to the technical reviews of the quota count system; and
  to reduce to 5 per cent. the amount of end of season flexibility permitted, except when there are calendar reasons for retaining 10 per cent.

  Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the House Library. The closing date for responses to the consultation is 12 February 1999.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on the economic development activities of local authorities of the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [59533]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following the French withdrawal last month from the negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in the OECD, it appears most unlikely that the Agreement will be concluded.

  The Department looked closely at the possible impact of the draft MAI on local government activity, in consultation with the Local Government Association. We reached the conclusion that there should be no conflict between the broad principles of the MAI and the social and economic development objectives of local governments. However,
  494
  there were some respects in which we felt that the draft text required greater clarity in order to provide increased certainty.

PRIME MINISTER

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans there are for a ministerial visit to St. Helena. [59436]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 November 1998]: At present there are no plans for a Ministerial visit to St. Helena.

  All elected members of the St. Helena Legislative Council have visited the UK during the last year at the invitation of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). While they were here they were able to meet a number of British Government Ministers.

  Senior officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development visit St. Helena regularly. The next visit by officials will be in December to review the three year Country Policy Plan and the Government's £26 million aid grant.

  "Europe in Ten Points"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's input into section A, People's Europe, in the European Communities document "Europe in Ten Points"; and what discussions were held on the subject during the recent Heads of Government meeting at Pörtschach. [59996]

  The Prime Minister
  The present Government made no contribution to the pamphlet "Europe in Ten Points".

  The meeting of Heads at Pőrtschach was an informal meeting in preparation for the full European council in Vienna, at which a broad range of issues were discussed. No formal decisions were taken. There was discussion of how to enhance democratic legitimacy, make a reality of subsidiarity and improve the efficiency of the Community institutions.

  Millennium
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has made for a specific Minister in each Department to be on duty at midnight on 31 December 1999 to deal with emergencies arising from the millennium bug. [59908]

  The Prime Minister
  In line with the practice of the previous administration, the Civil Contingencies Committee (previously the Civil Contingency Unit) is always on standby for any emergency event which warrants a contribution from central Government. The existence of the Year 2000 problem is of course one of the matters which the Civil Contingencies Committee has taken into account in its planning arrangements.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Prime Minister how he will ensure that essential services are able to maintain adequate staffing levels on New Year's Eve 1999. [59855]
  495
  The Prime Minister
  Individual Ministers are responsible for ensuring that their departments have plans in place to deal with possible Year 2000 failures. Where appropriate, these plans will make provision for essential staff to be on duty over New Year's Eve 1999.

  Across the wider public sector, Chief Executives of Local Authorities and NHS Trusts, and Chief Police and Fire Officers will be responsible for ensuring that staff are on duty on New Year's Eve 1999.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will send a delegation of officials to Iraq to discuss the areas of disagreement between the UK and Iraq. [60090]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Her Majesty's Government have held with Arab states aimed at obtaining overflying rights in the event of an attack on Iraq. [60228]

  The Prime Minister
  We regularly discuss these and other bilateral matters with Arab states.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will investigate allegations that(a) Polish and (b) other members of UNSCOM have provided information to the US on the location of possible targets for attack. [60198]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter for UNSCOM. I am, however, aware that UNSCOM has dismissed these allegations as groundless. I am satisfied that UNSCOM has been operating in accordance with its mandate from the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the German Foreign Minister's statement in aDie Zeit interview that an attack on Iraq would mean that UN weapons inspectors would be unable to return to Iraq for a long time. [60199]

  The Prime Minister
  The ultimate aim of our policy, and that would include any use of military force against Iraq, is the full implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions. We attach great importance to UNSCOM and IAEA being able to carry out their work effectively.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister what child care provision is made available by his Office for the use of staff; what is the cost to parents of this child care; how many parents used the facilities in the financial years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and what proportion of total staff used these facilities in the financial years (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98. [59720]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 November 1998]For the purpose of this question, my office is part of the Cabinet Office.

  Staff in the Department, with children between the ages of 5 and 12, may use the Westminster Holiday Playscheme during the school half terms and major holidays.
  496
  Six programmes within the Westminster Holiday Playscheme ran in the financial year 1996–97 and six ran in the financial year 1997–98. The cost borne by Cabinet Office parents in total in the financial year 1996–97 was £1,789.25 and the number who used the scheme was 28. The cost to parents in the financial year 1997–98 was £2,056.79 and the number who used the scheme was 45. The proportion of total staff who used the playscheme in the financial year 1996–97 was 2.8 per cent. and in the financial year 1997–98 it was 4 per cent.

  The Department places great importance on maintaining and developing a wide range of family friendly policies. Child care is just one element of these policies. Others include maternity leave at full pay, career breaks of up to five years, special leave to help those caring for elderly dependants, five days' paid paternity pay and special leave for domestic emergencies. In addition staff are able to claim help with additional child care costs associated with activities such as attendance at a training course or while on special duties. Other measures to help staff balance work and family life include a range of flexible working patterns.

  Savers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) of 3 December 1997,Official Report, column 349, by what date he expects his target of six million new savers to be achieved. [60084]

  The Prime Minister
  We have designed the Individual Savings Account and the Cost, Access and Terms standards to respond to the concerns of those who are not currently saving, or who are only saving very little. Half of this country's population have savings of less than £200. We are confident that ISAs will be attractive to significant numbers of new savers over the coming years.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations contained in departmental Select Committee reports which have been accepted by Government departments. [59841]

  The Prime Minister
  Implementation of recommendations is a matter for individual departments and the relevant Select Committees. Departments set out in the Government response to a Select Committee report how they propose to implement the recommendations and, where appropriate, indicate a timetable. Select Committees then monitor progress as they see fit.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 11 November 1998,Official Report, column 365, what assessment he has made of the impact of the Working Time Directive on the rate of inflation in each of the next three years. [60201]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government do not believe that the Working Time Directive will have any significant impact on the rate of inflation over the next three years.

  Charities (Ex-Service Men)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 11 November 1998,Official Report, column 361, if he will list the support given to (a) St. Dunstan's and (b) other such organisations. [60202]

  The Prime Minister
  We are very conscious of the tireless and highly professional way organisations such as St. Dunstan's assist their former colleagues and know how greatly their efforts are valued both by the present Service community and by ex-Servicemen and women.

  There is, however, a considerable amount of Government assistance for those ex-service personnel who are disabled, including St. Dunstaners, including payment of tax-free War Pensions and enhanced occupational pensions through the Armed Forces Pensions Scheme (AFPS). Taken together, the AFPS and the War Pension Scheme provide a system of compensation for anyone disabled or widowed as a result of service in the Armed Forces. All War Pensioners are entitled to priority treatment through the National Health Service for treatment of their disability.

  However, in keeping with the long standing practice of successive Governments, that public funds, raised through taxation, are not provided to assist charities' core activities, St. Dunstan's, in common with all registered charities, be they concerned with the Armed Forces or otherwise, is required to raise its own funding. The Charity Commissioners advise there are some 180,000 charities and it would be impossible for central Government to assist with fairness to any measurable degree. Again in common with all other charities, St. Dunstan's does receive support from the Government by way of certain tax reliefs.

  Under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, there are powers to fund voluntary organisations whose activities support the Department of Health's policy objectives relating to health and personal and social services. However, the budget is finite and more applications are received than it is possible to meet. Earlier this year, an application from the Diana Gubbay Trust for the Blind, which is administered by St. Dunstan's, was reluctantly turned down as it was for more than the total amount of money available. A further application has been received by the Department of Health and will be given serious consideration.

  Joint Statement (Liberal Democrats)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the constitutional and practical implications of the agreement between the Government and the Liberal Democrats; [60239]

  (2) if Liberal Democrat Members who sit on Cabinet sub-committees are in receipt of classified material not available to all hon. Members belonging to the Government party; [60236]

  (3) which members of the Liberal Democrat party will sit on Cabinet sub-committees as a result of his recent agreement with the leader of the Liberal Democrats; [60238]

  (4) if the constitutional convention of collective Cabinet responsibility extends to Liberal Democrats serving on Cabinet sub-committees. [60240]
  498
  The Prime Minister
  Members of the Liberal Democrat Party sit on only one Cabinet Committee: the Joint Consultative Committee (JCC). It is a matter for the Liberal Democrats as to which of their members attend. These arrangements will not change as a result of my recent joint statement with the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

  Members of the Liberal Democrat Party who attend the Joint Consultative Committee are not bound by the constitutional convention of collective responsibility for decisions of the Government. However, they naturally receive the papers and minutes of the Committee, which, as is usual for Cabinet Committees, are classified documents.

  No new constitutional implications arise as a result of my joint statement with the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Any practical implications will emerge from the review of the work of the JCC which is being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost to the National Insurance Fund of the 2 per cent. inducement to purchase personal pension schemes; and how much of it was provided in respect of schemes which were mis-sold. [59759]

  Mr. Denham
  For tax years 1987–88 to 1992–93 inclusive, most people who contracted-out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) with an Appropriate Personal Pension (APP), qualified for an additional 2 per cent. incentive payment of minimum contributions. Up to the end of January 1998 (the last month for which figures are available) the total amount paid was £3,396.8 million.

  Figures are not available for the amount paid to schemes that were mis-sold. People who were previously in their employer's contracted-out pension scheme for two years or more, and who were entitled to stay in that scheme but left voluntarily after 5 April 1988 while continuing to work for the same employer, would not have qualified for the incentive. The majority of people who were mis-sold an APP would have left their employer's scheme and would not therefore have qualified for the 2 per cent. incentive.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the cost to the National Insurance Fund for 1999–2000 and subsequent years, of the changes in(a) employers' and (b) employees' contributions announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Financial Statement on 17 March 1998, Official Report, columns 1097-111, and his pre-Budget statement on 3 November 1998, Official Report, columns 681-88. [59756]

  Mr. Timms
  The proposed changes to employees' National Insurance contributions from April 1999 are broadly revenue neutral for employers as a whole. The
  499
  changes to employees' contributions will reduce contribution revenue to the National Insurance Fund by £1.2 billion in 1999–2000 and by £1.4 billion a year in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Source:
  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost to the National Insurance Fund of the reduction in employers' contributions in April 1997 for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99. [59818]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Reduction in employers' contributions

  1997–98

  590

  1998–99

  640

  Source:
  Government Actuary's Department

  National Insurance Recording Computer
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 603, in how many cases new claimants for incapacity benefit have claims remaining to be processed, or have been referred to income support, as a result of the problems with the implementation of NIRS2; and when those claimants will be given correct payments of incapacity benefit. [59297]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 November 1998]95 per cent. of Incapacity Benefit claims received since 19 June 1998 have been processed normally by obtaining the contributions information from other sources. The remainder are either awaiting processing as normal or have been referred to Income Support. It is estimated that approximately 8,000 claimants have been referred to Income Support because the contributions information could not be obtained from other sources. These claimants will have their Incapacity Benefit claims reviewed as soon as the NIRS2 system is available.

  It is planned that all new claims to Incapacity Benefit should be processed through NIRS2 from 18 November.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what contingency plans the Contributions Agency and Benefits Agency developed to accommodate the phased implementation of the introduction of NIRS2. [59285]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 November 1998]Due to the scale, complexity and sensitivity of the NIRS2 system it has been thoroughly tested prior to acceptance by the Contributions Agency (CA). During the first year of operation the system is being introduced through a series of pilots leading to national implementation.

  Contingency plans were developed by both the CA and the Benefits Agency (BA) in order to accommodate the phased implementation and the attendant difficulties. The CA appointed a Continuity Planning Manager in January 1998 with the aim of ensuring that CA, BA, Inland Revenue and other major stakeholders involved
  500
  with NIRS2 developed robust and comprehensive contingency plans. These plans have been systematically updated to ensure minimum impact on contributors and benefit claimants.

  The BA's contingency plans are based upon long-standing emergency procedures. As part of those procedures, managers and staff were provided with comprehensive guidance to enable them to deal with claims that could be affected by problems with the introduction of NIRS2. The guidance was issued at the beginning of the year and has been revised as required.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 603, how much of the NIRS2 system remains to be switched on. [59286]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 November 1998]On the 13 July 1998, the majority of the new system was switched on. With effect from 14 September 1998 further parts of the system were integrated with those already available.

  The system is now being used to process Employers' End of Year National Insurance Returns. It is debiting the self-employed on a monthly basis and issuing National Insurance bills to the self-employed on a quarterly basis as well as making monthly payments to the pensions industry in relation to age-related rebates. NIRS2 has been processing all new and repeat claims for Jobseeker's Allowance since 9 November 1998, and it is planned that Incapacity Benefit will be processed from 18 November 1998.

  There are still some functions within NIRS2 which are being piloted. These relate to the processing of Retirement Pensions, Widows Benefits and other functions to maintain individual National Insurance accounts. As soon as piloting is complete the functionality will be made available to system users.

  Benefits (Entitlement Rules)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on those changes to benefit entitlement rules he currently proposes, indicating for each proposal the number of people who(a) will lose and (b) will be denied benefits as a result of proposed changes and their average financial loss. [56250]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government set out their proposals for taking forward the reform of the Welfare State in the document "A new contract for welfare: Principles into Practice" (Cm 4101). These proposals are based on the principles of work for those who can and security for those who cannot. Details of proposals which affect benefit entitlement are as follows:

  Severe Disablement Allowance—we propose to reform Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) to provide more help to young people disabled at birth or early in life who do not have the opportunity to work and to build up entitlement to Incapacity Benefit. In the first year we estimate that there will be around 8,000 new claims from this group of people who will gain from the proposals. In the second year of the scheme almost 20,000 existing SDA recipients will be transferred on to the higher rate of Incapacity Benefit. These people will see increases of up to £25.60 a week at April 1998 rates.
  501
  We estimate that around 16,000 people per year aged 20 or over will no longer be able to claim SDA following the introduction of these changes. However, around 70 per cent. of those currently receiving SDA also receive Income Support (IS) and it is likely that the same proportion will continue to qualify for IS. This group will therefore see no change to their overall level of income. For those whose other income means they do not qualify for IS, the average loss will be in the region of £50 a week.

  At the point of change, no one on SDA aged 20 or over will lose the benefit as a result of the changes.

  Disability Income Guarantee—we propose to introduce a new Disability Income Guarantee for the poorest severely disabled people who have the highest care needs. We estimate that around 175,000 people under age 60 will benefit from the Guarantee in the first year. For adults, the Guarantee will mean an extra £5.75 a week for a single person and £8.30 for a couple, at April 1998 rates. Families will receive an extra £5.75 a week for each disabled child that qualifies.

  Disability Living Allowance—we propose to extend the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to severely disabled children aged 3 and 4. We estimate that around 8,000 children will gain from this change during the first year by £35.85 a week at April 1998 rates.

  Incapacity Benefit—e propose to modernise the Incapacity Benefit rules to strengthen the link between work and entitlement and to introduce a fairer partnership between State and private provision. These measures will apply only to new claims for benefit. At the point of change, no one already on Incapacity Benefit will lose benefit as a result of these changes.

  In the first year following the introduction of the changes, we estimate that around 30,000 claimants will not qualify for Incapacity Benefit as a result of the change to the contribution conditions. Approximately 70 per cent. of them will already be on income-based Jobseeker's Allowance or Income Support when their claim to Incapacity Benefit is made, and their entitlement to these benefits would continue. Over the same period, we estimate that a further 35,000 claimants will have their Incapacity Benefit reduced as a result of taking some account of their occupational and personal pensions.

  The average net loss will be around £27 a week at April 1998 rates.

  The single gateway—from April 2000, in the pilot areas, new benefit claimants of working age who are out of work will be required to participate in an interview with a personal adviser as a condition of receiving benefit. This will affect approximately 400,000 new claimants per year over the 12 pilot areas.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by(a) his Department,(b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60125]
  502
  Mr. Timms
  The major systems key to the payments of benefits and pensions are designed to hold dates in a format unaffected by the turn of the century. The first part of our contingency is that testing has been built in to allow for a full year's running before 31 December 1999 except for the National Insurance Recording system which is not expected to be confirmed compliant until 31 October 1999, or earlier if possible. Additional testing including business assurance testing will continue to provide further confidence.

  The Department expects to complete the programme of work to upgrade or replace business critical desktop computer systems by the end of March 1999. This target allows adequate contingency before the dates these systems might otherwise fail.

  We have a range of plans to support the continuity of Social Security operations and are working closely with other Departments, public bodies and Action 2000 to identify and if necessary deal with specific Year 2000 related threats. Our target for having rehearsed Millennium-related business continuity plans is the end of March 1999. However, even beyond this date we will continue to assess the potential impact of residual risks arising from external factors over which we have no direct control, for example, electricity supply. We will continue to update plans and if necessary take action as more and better intelligence becomes available.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if he will make a statement; [60122]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the computer systems in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if he will make a statement. [60124]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1109, in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government Departments' and agencies' progress in tackling the bug. This also covered key organisations within the wider public sector. The information the hon. Member requests will be found in the copies of Departments' plans which have been published in the Library of the House. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Library of the House and on the Internet.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the problems which have arisen in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible from millennium compliance; if he will make a statement on progress to date in tackling such problems; and what are the priority areas for remedial work. [60123]
  503
  Mr. Timms
  This Department's Year 2000 activity is being progressed on the basis of business critical first. There have been no problems to date arising from Millennium compliance which have affected the Department's operations.

  A problem which this Department has encountered in dealing with the Millennium date change concerns reliance on third parties. We have identified those suppliers which pose the greatest risk and where impact of external failure on the business would be greatest. We have successfully identified and contacted 99 per cent. of these business critical suppliers. In common with other organisations, it is proving difficult to obtain from some of our suppliers a precise account of the progress of their Year 2000 compliance work. We are validating risk assessments and ensuring relevant business continuity plans incorporate the necessary contingencies.

  We anticipate that initiatives led by Action 2000, such as Pledge 2000 and the National Infrastructure Forum, to which this Department is contributing, will improve the quality of compliance information available.

  SERPS
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the number of pensioners contracted out of state earnings related pension scheme who are being underpaid sums of(a) £0.01 to £4.99, (b) £5 to £9.99, (c) £10 to £19.99, (d) £20 to £29.99, (e) £30 to £39.99. (f) £40 to £49.99, (g) £50 to £59.99, (h) £60 to £(i) £70to £79.99,(j)£80 to £80.99 and (k)£90 to £100 per week. [59259]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 November 1998]It is estimated that there are 7,000 cases of people contracted-out of SERPS where the calculation of the amount of SERPS payable has been prevented.

  These are cases where a claimant paid into a personal pension or occupational pension schemes and there are unresolved issues relating to the membership of that scheme. The theoretical underpayment can range from £0.01 to £100 a week. Procedures are in place which allow Benefits Agency offices to obtain a clerical calculation in cases of financial hardship or where the claimant is not prepared to wait. An estimated 1,500 clerical calculations have been carried out enabling the correct payments to be made to these claimants. Approximately 5,500 claims are potentially underpaid. As soon as the system is operating satisfactorily any underpayments will be made.

  A detailed breakdown of the amounts of underpayments is not yet available. A more accurate assessment will be available in due course. Considerable effort is being made to ensure that full normal operations can resume as soon as possible.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the real annual growth in the Social Security budget from(a) 1993–94 to 1998–99 and from (b) 1998–99 to 2001–02, after adjusting for the transfer from family credit to the working families tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [59431]
  504
  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 12 November 1998]Following real growth in the Department's benefit expenditure of 10.1 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1992–93 and 6.7 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1993–94, average annual real growth in the Department's benefit expenditure is estimated to be 0.6 per cent. from 1993–94 to 1998–99 and 1.5 per cent. from 1998–99 to 2001–02. Benefit expenditure grew by 4 per cent. over the last Parliament. It is estimated that it will grow by less than 2 per cent. in this Parliament.

  Private Pensions
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the review of private pension provision will be completed. [59322]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government's Pension Review is looking at all aspects of pensions, including second tier pensions. As set out in the Green Paper "New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare" (Cm 3805), we intend to publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 606-07, (1) what is the average loss in child maintenance to parents under the formula proposed in the Green Paper on child support, broken down into those now receiving (a) under £5, (b) £5-£9.99, (c) £10-£19.99, (d) £20-£29.99, (e) £30-£09.99, (f) £40-£49.99, (g) £50-£59.99, (h) £60-£69.99, (i) £70-£79.99, (j) £80-£89.99, (k) £90-£99.99 and (i)£100 and above per week; [59382]

  (2) what the basis is of his estimate that compliance with child maintenance orders will rise to 80 per cent. or more under the new scheme. [59648]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Current banded assessment(£)

  Average change in maintenance assessment

  Under 5.00

  *

  5.00-9.99

  2.50

  10.00-19.99

  4.50

  20.00-29.99

  7.00

  30.00-39.99

  11.00

  40.00-49.99

  14.50

  50.00-59.99

  19.00

  60.00-69.99

  21.00

  70.00-79.99

  24.50

  80.00-89.99

  24.50

  90.00-99.99

  24.50

  100 and over

  22.00

  All cases

  16.50

  Notes:

  1. Average changes in maintenance assessments calculated from February 1997 5 per cent. scan of the child support computer and based on estimated 1997–98 caseloads and do not take account of, for example, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit.

  2. Average changes have been rounded to the nearest 50p. '*' denotes a change of less than 50p a week.

  3. Caseloads include parents with a full maintenance assessment in place and for whom the non-resident parent has a positive assessable income.

  4. Reflects benefit status of the parent with care at date of first assessment.

  505
  This table does not include parents with care on Income Support whose maintenance assessment is reduced; these cases will experience an overall increase in income because of the proposed introduction of a £10 maintenance premium. Also the information above defines cases as losers based on assessed maintenance, rather than maintenance paid, and before allowing for any changes in compliance which may occur as a result of the new formula.

  Our estimates of increased compliance are based on the simpler, transparent rules of the new scheme. Non-resident parents will be able to see at a glance how much their assessment should be. Information on which the basic assessment is calculated will be more straightforward and there will be little opportunity for those who simply do not wish to pay to thwart the Agency's efforts in securing maintenance for the children. Assessments will be made faster and all the evidence is that non-resident parents are more willing to pay, and pay regularly, if they are contacted quickly.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals claimed invalidity benefit or its equivalent as a year on year figure from 1995 to 1998 in(a) each London borough,(b) each London parliamentary constituency and (c) nationally. [59356]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 12 November 1998]The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Number of new claims to incapacity benefit in Great Britain

  Period

  Number

  13 April 1995–31 March 1996

  1,054,340

  1 April 1996–31 March 1997

  1,062,817

  1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  1,012,981

  Number of incapacity benefit recipients

  Area

  1996

  31 May 1997

  1998

  Great Britain

  1,794,460

  1,732,740

  1,644,600

  All London Boroughs

  141,550

  138,796

  129,796

  City of London

  101

  61

  124

  Barking and Dagenham

  4,438

  4,716

  4,658

  Barnet

  4,579

  4,312

  3,906

  Bexley

  4,277

  4,109

  4,088

  Brent

  4,478

  4,513

  4,000

  Bromley

  4,922

  4,677

  4,648

  Camden

  3,974

  4,048

  4,092

  Croydon

  5,426

  5,466

  4,882

  Ealing

  6,959

  6,479

  6,291

  Enfield

  5,709

  5,488

  4,868

  Greenwich

  5,204

  5,122

  5,180

  Hackney

  4,135

  4,151

  3,800

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,853

  3,564

  3,426

  Haringey

  4,418

  4,495

  4,285

  Harrow

  3,268

  3,138

  2,925

  Havering

  5,426

  5,082

  4,962

  Hillingdon

  4,357

  4,595

  4,279

  Hounslow

  4,902

  4,715

  4,356

  Islington

  4,297

  4,555

  4,024

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,158

  2,207

  2,139

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,755

  1,842

  2,106

  Lambeth

  5,971

  5,607

  5,284

  Lewisham

  5,346

  5,223

  4,944

  Merton

  3,147

  3,117

  2,714

  506

  Number of incapacity benefit recipients

  Area

  1996

  31 May 1997

  1998

  Newham

  6,677

  6,660

  6,047

  Redbridge

  4,720

  4,657

  4,430

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,997

  2,024

  1,570

  Southwark

  6,052

  5,891

  4,943

  Sutton

  2,421

  2,489

  2,202

  Tower Hamlets

  3,714

  3,199

  3,582

  Waltham Forest

  5,104

  5,041

  4,589

  Wandsworth

  4,962

  4,879

  4,063

  Westminster

  2,804

  2,510

  2,390

  Notes:

  1. The source of the number of new Incapacity Benefit claims is the Benefits Agency Central Data Unit. These figures are subject to change.

  2. The source of the number of Incapacity Benefit recipients is a 5 per cent. sample of the INCAP computer system. Excludes a small number of cases not on the system.

  3. An individual may make more than one claim to Incapacity Benefit during a year.

  4. Incapacity Benefit replaced Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit on 13 April 1995.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the additional cost of the guaranteed minimum income for pensioners if 100 per cent. take-up were achieved. [59819]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  Estimates of the additional cost of 100 per cent. take-up of the guaranteed minimum income for pensioners, above the cost for take up included in the comprehensive spending review (CSR) package

  £ million

  Estimated expenditure across Income Support/Housing Benefit/ Council Tax Benefit

  Year

  Mid-range estimate

  1999–2000

  750

  2001–2001

  550

  2001–2002

  350

  Notes:

  1. 100 per cent. take-up could be achieved only if all eligible pensioners took up their entitlement from the very first day they became entitled. There will always be some pensioners who choose not to claim because they are entitled only to small amounts.

  2. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest £50 million, and are based on the 1995–96 and 1996–97 Family Resources Survey, and forecasts of pensioner benefit units consistent with estimates produced for the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  3. Estimates decrease over the three-year CSR period, reflecting the build up to 85 per cent. take-up by expenditure assumed in the CSR costings. Estimates are normally given in ranges, but for consistency with the CSR published figures, the mid-point estimate is quoted in the reply.

  4. As all estimates based on household survey data are subject to a degree of uncertainty, these estimates should be treated as indicative of broad magnitudes only.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list changes in employee contribution National Insurance rates from 1979 to the present day. [59526]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.
  507

  Employee National Insurance Contributions rates

  Financial Year

  Earning per week

  Contribution rate percentage

  1979–80

  Under £19.50

  —

  £19.50-£135

  6.5

  Over £135

  —

  1980–81

  Under £23

  —

  £23-£165

  6.75

  Over £165

  —

  1981–82

  Under £27

  —

  £27-£200

  7.75

  Over £200

  —

  1982–83

  Under £29.50

  —

  £29.50-£220

  8.75

  Over £220

  —

  1983–84

  Under £32.50

  —

  £32.50-££235

  9

  Over £235

  —

  1984–85

  Under £34

  —

  £34-£250

  9

  Over £250

  —

  1985–86

  Under £35.50

  —

  £35.50-£265

  9

  Over £265

  —

  5 October 1985

  Under £35.50

  —

  £35.50-£54.99

  5

  £55-£89.99

  7

  £90-£265

  9

  Over £265

  —

  1986–87

  Under £38

  —

  £38-£59.99

  5

  £60-£94.99

  7

  £95-£285

  9

  Over £285

  —

  1987–88

  Under £39

  —

  £39-£64.99

  5

  £65-£99.999

  7

  £100-£295

  9

  Over £295

  —

  1988–89

  Under £41

  —

  £41-£69.99

  5

  £70-£104.99

  7

  £105-£305

  9

  Over £305

  —

  1989–90

  Under £43

  —

  £43-£74.99

  5

  £75-£114.99

  7

  £115-£325

  9

  Over £325

  —

  5 October 1989

  Under £43

  —

  £43-£325

  2% on first £43 + 9% on balance

  Over £325

  —

  1990–91

  Under £46

  —

  £46-£350

  2% on first £46 + 9% on balance

  Over £350

  —

  1991–92

  Under £52

  —

  £52-£390

  2% on first £52 + 9% on balance

  Over £390

  —

  1992–93

  Under £54

  —

  £54-£405

  2% on first £54 + 9% on balance

  Over £405

  —

  508

  Employee National Insurance Contributions rates

  Financial Year

  Earnings per week

  Contribution rate percentage

  1993–94

  Under £56

  —

  £56-£420

  2% on first £56 + 9% on balance

  Over £420

  —

  1994–95

  Under £57

  —

  £57-£430

  2% on first £57 + 10% on balance

  Over £430

  —

  1995–96

  Under £58

  —

  £58

  —

  Over £440

  £440 2% on first £58 + 10% on balance

  1996–97

  Under £61

  —

  £61

  Over £455

  £455 2% on first £61 + 10% on balance

  1997–98

  Under £62

  —

  £62

  align="right">—

  Over £465

  £465 2% on first £62 + 10% on balance

  1998–99

  Under £64

  —

  £64

  —

  Over £485

  £485 2% on first £64 +10% on balance

  Notes:

  1. Figures shown are standard non-contracted-out rates

  2. The National Insurance Contribution rates have been extracted from Social Security Statistics 1994 and 1998

  3. Reduced banded rates were introduced from October 1985

  4. The rates structure was further revised in October 1989

  Photosensitivity
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the mobility allowance regulations to ensure that people who cannot walk in daylight because of disability arising from photosensitivity are included within the scope of the allowance. [59711]

  Mr. Timms
  Regulations provide entitlement to the higher rate of Disability Living Allowance mobility component where a person's"ability to walk out of doors is so limited, as regards the distance over which or the speed at which or at the length of time for which or the manner in which he can make progress on foot without severe discomfort, that he is virtually unable to walk".

  It is accepted that a severe reaction to sunlight may cause severe discomfort, however, the discomfort is not related to the act of walking. This was also the view of the Court of Appeal and we will not therefore be reviewing the regulations.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will eliminate the difference in entitlement to social security benefits between those resident in local authority residential houses and those in private residential homes. [59712]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 10 November 1998,Official Report, columns 163-64.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people, awaiting an appeal hearing on refusal of applications for, or withdrawal of, the mobility element of disability living allowance, have been waiting
  509
  (a) between six and 12 months and (b) over 12 months, for their appeals to be heard; and if he will make a statement. [59615]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, at the end of August 1998, the number of people awaiting an appeal hearing on refusal of applications for, or withdrawal of, the mobility element of Disability Living Allowance totalled 277. Of these. 121 had been waiting less than six months, 88 between six and 12 months and 68 over 12 months.

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

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current child dependency increases for widowed mothers allowance; and what additional uprating would have been needed to restore the combined value of child benefit and child dependency increases in April to their November 1979 level relative to(a) prices and (b) earnings. [59814]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  £

  First child

  Subsequent child(ren)

  November 1979

  Child Dependency increase

  7.10

  7.10

  Child Benefit

  4.00

  4.00

  Total

  11.10

  11.10

  April 1998

  Child Dependency increase

  9.90

  11.30

  Child Benefit

  11.45

  9.30

  Total

  21.35

  20.60

  If increased by earnings to April 1998

  Child Dependency increase

  26.70

  26.70

  Child Benefit

  14.95

  14.95

  Total

  41.65

  41.65

  If increased by prices to April 1998

  Child Dependency increase

  19.30

  19.30

  Child Benefit

  10.60

  10.60

  Total

  29.90

  29.90

  Notes:

  1. The Retail Prices Index (all items) was used to put Child Benefit and Widowed Mother's Allowance child dependency addition into real terms as at April 1998

  2. The average earnings of full time adult employees was calculated using the New Earnings Survey and Average Earnings Index (AEI), both produced by the Office for National Statistics

  Benefit Uprating
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish details of the April 1999 benefit uprating. [59816]

  Mr. Darling
  The information requested was placed in the Library, and the Vote Office and copies of the schedule were sent to all right hon. and hon. Members of the House in October. These details are now reproduced.510

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates— April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Attendance Allowance:

  higher rate

  51.30

  52.95

  lower rate

  34.30

  35.40

  Child Benefit:

  only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable (couple)

  11.45

  14.40

  only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable (lone parent)

  17.10

  17.10

  each subsequent child

  9.30

  9.60

  Child's Special Allowance:

  see note on Child Dependency Increase1

  11.30

  11.35

  Council Tax Benefit:

  Personal allowances

  single

  18 to 24

  39.85

  40.70

  25 or over

  50.35

  51.40

  lone parent–18 or over

  50.35

  51.40

  couple—one or both over 18

  79.00

  80.65

  Dependent Children birth to September following 11th birthday

  17.30

  20.20

  from September following 11th birthday to September following 16th birthday

  25.35

  25.90

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  30.30

  30.95

  Premiums

  family

  11.05

  13.90

  family (lone parent rate)

  22.05

  22.05

  pensioner

  single

  20.10

  23.60

  couple

  30.35

  35.95

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  22.35

  25.90

  couple

  33.55

  39.20

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  27.20

  30.85

  couple

  38.90

  44.65

  disability

  single

  21.45

  21.90

  couple

  30.60

  31.25

  severe disability

  single

  38.50

  39.75

  couple (one qualifies)

  38.50

  39.75

  couple (both qualify)

  77.00

  79.50

  disabled child

  21.45

  21.90

  carer

  13.65

  13.95

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  16.20

  16.70

  lower rate

  12.95

  13.35

  Non-dependant deductions aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  gross income: £255 or more

  6.00

  6.50

  gross income: £204 - £254.99

  5.00

  5.40

  gross income: £118 - £203.99

  4.00

  4.30

  gross income less than £118

  2.00

  2.15

  others, aged 18 or over

  2.00

  2.15

  511

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates—April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Alternative maximum Council Tax Benefit second adult on Income Support or income based Jobseekers Allowance

  25% of Council Tax

  second adult's gross income: under £118

  15% of Council Tax

  £118 to £154.99

  7.5% of Council Tax

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit for perm. res. of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded for perm. res. of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15.00

  15.00

  various specified employments

  15.00

  15.00

  lone parent

  25.00

  25.00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10.00

  10.00

  single claimant

  5.00

  5.00

  where carer premium awarded

  15.00

  15.00

  childcare charges

  60.00

  60.00

  childcare charges (2 or more children)

  100.00

  100.00

  other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  30 Hr Adult Allowance in DWA

  10.80

  11.05

  30 Hr Adult Credit in FC

  10.80

  11.05

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.25

  9.25

  Dependency Increases:

  Adult Dependency Increases

  For spouse or person looking after children, with; retirement pension on own insurance, long term incapacity benefit, unemployability supplement

  38.70

  39.95

  severe disablement allowance

  23.20

  23.95

  invalid care allowance

  23.15

  23.90

  short-term incapacity benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  37.20

  38.40

  maternity allowance/short-term incapacity benefit

  30.20

  31.15

  Child dependency increases, with; retirement pension, widows benefit,short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate &long term incapacity benefit invalid care allowance severe disab. allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement and short-term incapacity benefit if beneficiary over pension age1

  11.30

  11.35

  512

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates— April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Disability Living Allowance:

  Care Component

  Highest

  51.30

  52.95

  Middle

  34.30

  35.40

  Lowest

  13.60

  14.05

  Mobility Component

  Higher

  35.85

  37.00

  Lower

  13.60

  14.05

  Disability Working Allowance:

  Adult allowance

  Single people

  50.75

  51.80

  Couples/Lone Parents

  79.40

  81.05

  30 Hours Allowance

  10.80

  11.05

  Child allowance

  from birth

  12.35

  15.15

  from September following llth birthday

  20.45

  20.90

  from September following 16th birthday

  25.40

  25.95

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  Single people

  59.25

  60.50

  Couples/Lone Parents

  79.00

  80.65

  Disabled Child's Allowance

  21.45

  21.90

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  childcare charges

  60.00

  60.00

  childcare charges (2 or more children)

  100.00

  100.00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.25

  9.25

  Earnings Rules

  Invalid Care Allowance

  50.00

  50.00

  Limit of earnings from councillor's allowance

  48.00

  49.50

  Therapeutic earnings limit

  48.00

  58.00

  Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level(annual amount)

  2,496.00

  3,016.00

  War pensioners' unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  2,496.00

  3,016.00

  Adult dependency increases with short-term incap.benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  30.20

  31.15

  (b) over pension age

  37.20

  38.40

  maternity allowance

  30.20

  31.15

  513

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates— April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  retirement pension, long-term incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, unemployability supplement where dependant

  (a) is living with claimant

  50.35

  51.40

  (b) still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

  45.09

  45.09

  retirement pension, long-term incap benefit and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant

  38.70

  39.95

  severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant

  23.20

  23.95

  invalid care allowance

  23.15

  23.90

  Child dependency increases level at which CDIs are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner for first child

  140.00

  145.00

  for each subsequent child

  18.00

  19.00

  Family Credit

  Adult credit

  48.80

  49.80

  30 hours credit

  10.80

  11.05

  Child credits

  from birth2

  12.35

  15.15

  from September following 11th birthday

  20.45

  20.90

  from September following 16th birthday

  25.40

  25.95

  Applicable amount (ie threshold)

  79.00

  80.65

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  Assumed income from capital £1 for every £250 or part of £250 disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  childcare charges

  60.00

  60.00

  childcare charges (2 or more children)

  100.00

  100.00

  Expenses for subtenants furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.25

  9.25

  Guardian's Allowance

  11.30

  11.35

  see note on Child Dependency Increase

  Hospital Downrating

  20% rate

  12.95

  13.35

  40% rate

  25.90

  26.70

  Housing Benefit

  Personal allowances

  single

  16 to 24

  39.85

  40.70

  25 or over

  50.35

  51.40

  lone parent

  under 18

  39.85

  40.70

  18 or over

  50.35

  51.40

  514

  Schedulde of main proposed social security benefit rates— April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  couple

  both under 18

  60.10

  61.35

  one or both over 18

  79.00

  80.65

  dependent children birth to September following 11th birthday

  17.30

  20.20

  from September following 11th birthday to September following 16th birthday

  25.35

  25.90

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  30.30

  30.95

  Premiums

  family

  11.05

  13.90

  family (lone parent rate)

  22.05

  22.05

  pensioner

  single

  20.10

  23.60

  couple

  30.35

  35.95

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  22.35

  25.90

  couple

  33.55

  39.20

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  27.20

  30.85

  couple

  38.90

  44.65

  disability

  single

  21.45

  21.90

  couple

  30.60

  31.25

  severe disability

  single

  38.50

  39.75

  couple (one qualifies)

  38.50

  39.75

  couple (both qualify)

  77.00

  79.50

  disabled child

  21.45

  21.90

  carer

  13.65

  13.95

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  16.20

  16.70

  Lower rate

  12.95

  13.35

  Non-dependant deductions rent rebates and allowances aged 25 andover, in receipt of Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance aged 18 or over, not in remunerative work or gross income less than £80.00

  7.00

  7.20

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work gross income: less than £80.00

  7.00

  7.20

  gross income: £80 to £117.99

  16.00

  16.50

  gross income: £118 to £154.99

  22.00

  22.65

  gross income: £155 to £203.99

  36.00

  37.10

  gross income: £204.00 to £254.99

  41.00

  42.25

  gross income: £255.00 and above

  45.00

  46.35

  Service charges for fuel

  heating

  9.25

  9.25

  hot water

  1.15

  1.15

  lighting

  0.80

  0.80

  cooking

  1.15

  1.15

  Amount ineligible for meals three or more meals a day single claimant

  17.95

  18.35

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  17.95

  18.35

  each child under 16

  9.05

  9.25

  less than three meals a day single claimant

  11.95

  12.20

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  11.95

  12.20

  each child under 16

  6.00

  6.15

  breakfast only—claimant and each member of family

  2.15

  2.20

  515

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates— April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit for perm. res. of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amt disregarded for perm. res. of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15.00

  15.00

  various specified employments

  15.00

  15.00

  lone parent

  25.00

  25.00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10.00

  10.00

  single claimant

  5.00

  5.00

  where carer premium awarded

  15.00

  15.00

  childcare charges

  60.00

  60.00

  childcare charges (2 or more children)

  100.00

  100.00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  30 Hr Adult Allowance in DWA

  10.80

  11.05

  30 Hr Adult Credit in FC

  10.80

  11.05

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.25

  9.25

  Incapacity Benefit

  Long-term Incapacity Benefit

  64.70

  66.75

  Short-term Incapacity Benefit (under pension age)

  Lower rate

  48.80

  50.35

  higher rate

  57.70

  59.55

  Short-term Incapacity Benefit (under pension age)

  Lower rate

  62.05

  64.05

  higher rate

  64.70

  66.75

  Increase of Long-term Incapacity Benefit for age

  higher rate

  13.60

  14.05

  Lower rate

  6.80

  7.05

  Invalidity Allowance (Transitional)

  higher rate

  13.60

  14.05

  middle rate

  8.60

  8.90

  lower rate

  4.30

  4.45

  Income Support

  Personal Allowances

  single

  under 18—usual rate

  30.30

  30.95

  under 18—higher rate payablein specific circumstances

  39.85

  40.70

  18 to 24

  39.85

  40.70

  25 or over

  50.35

  51.40

  lone parent

  under 18—usual rate

  30.30

  30.95

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  39.85

  40.70

  18 or over

  50.35

  51.40

  516

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates—April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  couple

  both under 18

  60.10

  61.35

  one or both 18 or over

  79.00

  80.65

  dependent children birth to September following 11th birthday

  17.30

  20.20

  from September following llth birthday to September following 16th birthday

  25.35

  25.90

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  30.30

  30.95

  Residential Allowance

  except Greater London

  57.50

  59.40

  Greater London

  64.00

  66.10

  Premiums

  family

  11.05

  13.90

  family (lone parent rate)

  15.75

  15.75

  pensioner

  single

  20.10

  23.60

  couple

  30.35

  35.95

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  22.35

  25.90

  couple

  33.55

  39.20

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  27.20

  30.85

  couple

  38.90

  44.65

  disability single

  21.45

  21.90

  couple

  30.60

  31.25

  severe disability

  single

  38.50

  39.75

  couple (one qualifies)

  38.50

  39.75

  couple (both qualify)

  77.00

  79.50

  disabled child

  21.45

  21.90

  carer

  13.65

  13.95

  Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in residential care homes

  old age

  213.00

  218.00

  very dependent elderly

  247.00

  252.00

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  225.00

  230.00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  225.00

  230.00

  mental handicap

  257.00

  262.00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  292.00

  298.00

  (b) (over pension age)

  213.00

  218.00

  others

  213.00

  218.00

  maximum Greater London increase

  44.00

  45.00

  nursing homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  319.00

  326.00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  319.00

  326.00

  mental handicap

  325.00

  332.00

  terminal illness

  318.00

  325.00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  359.00

  367.00

  (b) (over pension age)

  318.00

  325.00

  others (including elderly)

  318.00

  325.00

  maximum Greater London increase

  49.00

  50.00

  Amounts for meals where these cannot be lone parent purchased within the accommodation (Daily Rate)

  breakfast

  1.10

  1.10

  midday meal

  1.55

  1.55

  evening meal

  1.55

  1.55

  517

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates— April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in

  private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes

  personal expenses

  14.45

  14.75

  dependent children

  (a) under 11

  5.95

  6.05

  (b) 11 to 15

  8.65

  8.85

  (c) 16 to 17

  10.05

  10.25

  (d) age 18

  14.45

  14.75

  hospital

  higher rate

  16.20

  16.70

  lower rate

  12.95

  13.35

  local authority (Pt III) accommodation

  64.70

  66.75

  of which, Personal Expenses

  14.45

  14.75

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in:

  the Polish home Ilford Park max amount for accommodation and meals

  359.00

  367.00

  personal expenses for claimant

  17.35

  17.35

  personal expenses for partner

  17.35

  17.35

  personal expenses for dep children

  (a) under 11

  5.95

  6.05

  (b) 11 to 15

  8.65

  8.85

  (c) 16 to 17

  10.05

  10.25

  (d) 18

  15.55

  15.55

  Housing costs

  deduction for non-dependants aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance

  aged 18 or over, not in work or gross income less than £80.00

  7.00

  7.20

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work:

  gross income: £80 to £117.99

  16.00

  16.50

  gross income: £118 to £154.99

  22.00

  22.65

  gross income: £155 to £203.99

  36.00

  37.10

  gross income: £204.00 to £254.99

  41.00

  42.25

  gross income: £255.00 and above

  45.00

  46.35

  Deduction for direct payments arrears of housing, fuel and water costs council tax and fines default

  2.55

  2.60

  deductions for child maintenance(standard)

  5.10

  5.20

  deductions for child maintenance (lower)

  2.55

  2.60

  Arrears of Community Charge

  court order against claimant

  2.55

  2.60

  court order against couple

  3.95

  4.05

  Maximum rates for recovery of overpayments ordinary overpayments

  7.65

  7.80

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.00

  10.40

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  27.00

  27.50

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit for perm. res. of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amt disregarded for perm. res. of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Tariff income £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  518

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates— April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5.00

  5.00

  couple's earnings

  10.00

  10.00

  higher earnings

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.25

  9.25

  Industrial Death Benefit

  Widow's pension

  higher rate

  64.70

  66.75

  lower rate

  19.41

  20.03

  Industrial Disablement Pension

  18 and over, or under 18 with dependants

  100%

  104.70

  108.10

  90%

  94.23

  97.29

  80%

  83.76

  86.48

  70%

  73.29

  75.67

  60%

  62.82

  64.86

  50%

  52.35

  54.05

  40%

  41.88

  43.24

  30%

  31.41

  32.43

  20%

  20.94

  21.62

  Under 18

  100%

  64.15

  66.20

  90%

  57.74

  59.58

  80%

  51.32

  52.96

  70%

  44.91

  46.34

  60%

  38.49

  39.72

  50%

  32.08

  33.10

  40%

  25.66

  26.48

  30%

  19.25

  19.86

  20%

  12.83

  13.24

  Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

  6,960.00

  7,180.00

  Unemployability Supplement

  64.70

  66.75

  plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity

  higher rate

  13.60

  14.05

  middle rate

  8.60

  8.90

  lower rate

  4.30

  4.45

  Maximum reduced earnings allowance

  41.88

  43.24

  Maximum retirement allowance

  10.47

  10.81

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  84.00

  86.60

  intermediate rate

  63.00

  64.95

  normal maximum rate

  42.00

  43.30

  part-time rate

  21.00

  21.65

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  42.00

  43.30

  Invalid Care Allowance

  38.70

  39.95

  Jobseekers Allowance

  Contribution based JSA—pers. rates

  under 18

  30.30

  30.95

  18 to 24

  39.85

  40.70

  25 or over

  50.35

  51.40

  519

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates—April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Income-based JSA—pers. allowances

  under 18

  30.30

  30.95

  18 to 24

  39.85

  40.70

  25 or over

  50.35

  51.40

  lone parent

  under 18—usual rate

  30.30

  30.95

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  39.85

  40.70

  18 or over

  50.35

  51.40

  couple

  both under 18

  30.30

  30.95

  both under 18, one disabled

  39.85

  40.70

  both under 18, with resp. for a child

  60.10

  61.35

  one under 18, one 18-24

  39.85

  40.70

  one under 18, one 25+

  50.35

  51.40

  both 18 or over

  79.00

  80.65

  dependent children birth to September following 11th birthday

  17.30

  20.20

  from September following 11th birthday to September following 16th birthday

  25.35

  25.90

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  30.30

  30.95

  Residential Allowance

  except Greater London

  57.50

  59.40

  Greater London

  64.00

  66.10

  Premiums

  family

  11.05

  13.90

  family (lone parent rate)

  15.75

  15.75

  pensioner

  single

  20.10

  23.60

  couple

  30.35

  35.95

  pensioner (enhanced)

  couple

  33.55

  39.20

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  27.20

  30.85

  couple

  38.90

  44.65

  disability

  single

  21.45

  21.90

  couple

  30.60

  31.25

  severe disability

  single

  38.50

  39.75

  couple (one qualifies)

  38.50

  39.75

  couple (both qualify)

  77.00

  79.50

  disabled child

  21.45

  21.90

  carer

  13.65

  13.95

  Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in residential care homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  225.00

  230.00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  225.00

  230.00

  mental handicap

  257.00

  262.00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  292.00

  298.00

  (b) others

  213.00

  218.00

  maximum Greater London increase

  44.00

  45.00

  nursing homes mental disorder (not handicap)

  319.00

  326.00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  319.00

  326.00

  mental handicap

  325.00

  332.00

  terminal illness

  318.00

  325.00

  520

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates—April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  359.00

  367.00

  (b) others (including elderly)

  318.00

  325.00

  maximum Greater London increase

  49.00

  50.00

  Amounts for meals where these cannot be purchased within the accommodation (Daily Rate)

  breakfast

  1.10

  1.10

  midday meal

  1.55

  1.55

  evening meal

  1.55

  1.55

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes

  personal expenses

  14.45

  14.75

  dependent children

  (a) under 11

  5.95

  6.05

  (b) 11 to 15

  8.65

  8.85

  (c) 16 to 17

  10.05

  10.25

  (d) age 18

  14.45

  14.75

  hospital

  higher rate

  16.20

  16.70

  lower rate

  12.95

  13.35

  local authority (Pt III) accommodation

  64.70

  66.75

  of which, Personal Expenses

  14.45

  14.75

  Housing costs deduction for non-dependants

  aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance

  aged 18 or over, not in remunerative work or gross income less than £80.00

  7.00

  7.20

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work gross income: less than £80.00

  7.00

  7.20

  gross income: £80 to £117.99

  16.00

  16.50

  gross income: £118 to £154.99

  22.00

  22.65

  gross income: £155 to £203.99

  36.00

  37.10

  gross income: £204.00 to £254.99

  41.00

  42.25

  gross income: £255.00 and above

  45.00

  46.35

  Deduction for direct payments

  Deductions from JSA (IB)arrears of housing, fuel and water costs council tax and fines default, and

  2.55

  2.60

  Deductions for Child Maintenance

  deductions for child maintenance (standard)

  5.10

  5.20

  deductions for child maintenance (lower)

  2.55

  2.60

  Arrears of Community Charge court order against claimant

  2.55

  2.60

  court order against couple

  3.95

  4.05

  Deductions from JSA (Cont.)

  Arrears of Comm. Charge, Council Tax & fines

  Age 16-17

  10.10

  10.31

  Age 18-24

  13.28

  13.56

  Age 25+

  16.78

  17.13

  Maximum deduction for arrears of Child Supp. Maintenance

  Age 16-17

  10.10

  10.31

  Age 18-24

  13.28

  13.56

  Age 25+

  16.78

  17.13

  Maximum rates for recovery of overpayments

  ordinary overpayments

  7.65

  7.80

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.00

  10.40

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  27.00

  27.50

  521

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates—April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit for perm. res. of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amt disregarded for perm. res. of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Tariff income £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5.00

  5.00

  couple's earnings

  10.00

  10.00

  higher earnings

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  Expenses for subtenants furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.25

  9.25

  Maternity Allowance

  Lower rate

  50.10

  51.70

  Higher rate

  57.70

  59.55

  Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis, Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) and other schemes

  Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

  104.70

  108.10

  Partial disablement allowance

  38.70

  39.95

  Unemployability supplement

  64.70

  66.75

  plus where appropriate increases for early incapacity

  higher rate

  13.60

  14.05

  middle rate

  8.60

  8.90

  lower rate

  4.30

  4.45

  Constant attendance allowance exceptional rate

  84.00

  86.60

  intermediate rate

  63.00

  64.95

  normal maximum rate

  42.00

  43.30

  part-time rate

  21.00

  21.65

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  42.00

  43.30

  Lesser incapacity allowance

  maximum rate of allowance

  38.70

  39.95

  based on loss of earnings over

  51.30

  52.95

  Retirement Pension

  Category A or B

  64.70

  66.75

  Category B (lower)—husband's insurance

  38.70

  39.95

  Category C or D—non-contributory

  38.70

  39.95

  Category C (lower)—non-contributory

  23.15

  23.90

  Additional pension

  Increase by:

  3.20%

  Increments to:

  Basic & additional pensions

  Increase by:

  Contracted out deductions (CODs) (Pre April 1988 earnings)

  3.20%

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (GRB)

  522

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates—April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Increments to CODs (April 1988-April 1996 earnings)

  Additional increase

  (3.0% paid by schemes)

  0.2% to that paid by schemes

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (unit)(pence)

  8.40

  8.67

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (Inherited)

  Increase by:

  3.20%

  Addition at age 80

  0.25

  0.25

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Basic rate

  39.10

  40.35

  Age-related addition (from December 1990)

  Higher rate

  13.60

  14.05

  Middle rate

  8.60

  8.90

  Lower rate

  4.30

  4.45

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  Earnings threshold

  64.00

  66.00

  Lower rate

  57.70

  59.55

  Statutory Sick Pay

  Earnings threshold

  64.00

  66.00

  Standard rate

  57.70

  59.55

  War Pensions

  Disablement Pension (100% rates)

  officer (£ per annum)

  5,797.00

  5,985.00

  other ranks

  111.10

  114.70

  Age allowances

  40-50%

  7.40

  7.65

  over 50% but not over 70%

  11.45

  11.80

  over 70% but not over 90%

  16.30

  16.80

  over 90%

  22.90

  23.60

  Disablement gratuity

  specified minor injury (minimum)

  707.00

  730.00

  specified minor injury (maximum)

  5,284.00

  5,453.00

  unspecified minor injury (minimum)

  294.00

  303.00

  unspecified minor injury (maximum)

  6,871.00

  7.091.00

  Unemployability allowance

  personal

  68.65

  70.85

  adult dependency increase

  38.70

  39.95

  increase for first child

  9.90

  9.90

  increase for subsequent children

  11.30

  11.35

  Invalidity allowance higher rate

  13.60

  14.05

  middle rate

  8.60

  8.90

  lower rate

  4.30

  4.45

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  84.00

  86.60

  intermediate rate

  63.00

  64.95

  normal maximum rate

  42.00

  43.30

  part-time rate

  21.00

  21.65

  Comforts allowance

  higher rate

  18.00

  18.60

  lower rate

  9.00

  9.30

  Mobility supplement

  39.95

  41.25

  Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)

  41.88

  43.24

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  42.00

  43.30

  Severe disablement occupational allowance

  21.00

  21.65

  523

  Schedule of main proposed social security benefit rates— April 1999

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Clothing allowance (£ per annum, maximum)

  142.00

  147.00

  Education allowance (£ per annum, maximum)

  120.00

  120.00

  War widow's pension

  Widow (private)

  83.90

  86.60

  Widow (NCO)

  84.20

  86.90

  Widow—Officer (£ per annum, maximum)

  5,190.00

  5,356.00

  Childless widow u-40 (private)

  19.41

  20.03

  Childless widow (NCO)

  19.70

  20.33

  Childless widow (Officer maximum £ perannum)

  5,190.00

  5,356.00

  Supplementary Pension

  54.70

  56.45

  age allowance

  (a) age 65 to 69

  9.60

  9.90

  (b) age 70 to 79

  18.40

  19.00

  (c) age 80 and over

  27.40

  28.30

  children's allowance increase for first child (adjusted for ChB increase)

  14.25

  14.35

  increase for subsequent children

  15.65

  15.80

  Orphan's pension

  increase for first child

  16.05

  16.20

  (adjusted for ChB increase) increase for subsequent children

  17.45

  17.65

  Unmarried dependant living as spouse (max)

  81.85

  84.55

  Rent allowance (maximum)

  31.75

  32.75

  Adult orphan's pension (maximum)

  64.70

  66.75

  Widower's pension

  private (maximum)

  83.90

  86.60

  officer (£ per annum, maximum)

  5,190.00

  5,356.00

  Widow's Benefit

  Widow's payment (lump sum)

  1,000.00

  1,000.00

  Widowed mother's allowance

  64.70

  66.75

  Widow's pension

  standard rate

  64.70

  66.75

  age-related3

  age 54 (49)

  60.17

  62.08

  53 (48)

  55.64

  57.41

  52 (47)

  51.11

  52.73

  51 (46)

  46.58

  48.06

  50 (45)

  42.06

  43.39

  49 (44)

  37.53

  38.72

  48 (43)

  33.00

  34.04

  47 (42)

  28.47

  29.37

  46 (41)

  23.94

  24.70

  45 (40)

  19.41

  20.03

  1 The Overlapping Benefits Regulations provide for the rate of child dependency increases, guardian's allowance and child special allowance to be adjusted where the increase or allowance is payable for the eldest eligible child for whom ChB is also payable. The weekly rate of the increase or allowance is reduced by the differential (less the 75p derived from the Oct 1991 increase in Chb and the £2.60 above normal uprating) between the rate of ChB payable for the oldest eligible child and that payable for a subsequent child.

  2 Includes £2.50 increase from 9 November 1998.

  3For deaths occurring before 11 April 1988 refer to age-points shown in brackets.

  524

  Earnings top-up (ETU) rates

  £

  Old rates 1998

  New rates 1999

  Scheme A

  Credit

  couple

  48.80

  49.85

  single 25 and over

  29.45

  30.00

  Single under 25

  23.90

  24.40

  for working 30 hours+ pw

  10.80

  11.05

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  couple

  79.00

  80.65

  single 25 and over

  61.15

  62.45

  single under 25

  50.65

  51.70

  Scheme B

  Credit

  couple

  58.90

  60.15

  single 25 and over

  29.45

  30.00

  single under 25

  23.90

  24.40

  for working 30 hours+ pw

  10.80

  11.05

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  couple

  79.00

  80.65

  single 25 and over

  79.00

  80.65

  single under 25

  79.00

  80.65

  Both Schemes

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  fixed rates

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  fixed rates

  Tariff income £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  fixed rate

  Widowed Mothers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the percentage increases in April 1999 in(a) benefits, including child benefit, for the first and subsequent children of widowed mothers and (b) child benefit for two-parent families; and what is the reason for the differences between the percentages in
  (a) and (b). [59815]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is set out in the table.

  April 1998 (£)

  April 1999(£)

  Increase

  Percentage increase

  Widowed mother

  First child

  21.35

  24.30

  2.95

  13.82

  Subsequent children

  20.60

  20.96

  0.35

  1.7

  Two parent family

  First child

  11.45

  14.40

  2.95

  25.76

  Subsequent children

  9.30

  9.60

  0.30

  3.2

  From April 1999 both Child Benefit and the Child Dependency Increases, including those paid to widowed mothers, will be uprated by the Retail Prices Index.

  The Child Dependency Increases provide a "top up" to Child Benefit for those who are unable to take up employment. The reason for the difference between the percentages in (a) and (b) is that legislation specifically provides for the rate of Child Benefit to be taken into account when determining the levels of child dependency increases. The method is to calculate what the child

  525
  dependency increase would be if the general uprating percentage were applied, and then to deduct the actual cash increase in Child Benefit. However, from next April, the standard rate of Child Benefit for the eldest child will increase by an additional £2.50, increasing to £2.60 after uprating. To ensure that families on other benefits, including widowed mother's allowance, gain equally from this additional measure they will receive the full £2.60 in addition to the normal uprating.

  Expenditure on the above benefits for the period 1992–93 to 1996–97

  £ million

  Expenditure (1997–98 prices)

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Industrial Injuries Benefits

  756

  758

  769

  773

  762

  Disability Living Allowance

  2,236

  3,060

  3,401

  4,021

  4,615

  Incapacity Benefit

  —

  —

  —

  8,062

  7,861

  Invalidity/Sickness Benefit

  7,450

  8,205

  8,758

  299

  —

  Income Support

  16,761

  17,784

  17,836

  17,654

  14,820

  Widows Benefit

  1,145

  1,148

  1,112

  1,075

  1,007

  Notes:

  1. Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit were replaced by a single Incapacity Benefit in April 1995.

  2. Income Support to the unemployed was replaced by Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based) in October 1996.

  Source:

  Departmental Report 1998

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 10 November 1998,Official Report, column 167, concerning the Benefit Integrity Project, when the special working group will be set up. [60302]

  Mr. Timms
  At the Disability Benefits Forum meeting on 9 November 1998 it was agreed that a separate working group, comprising a small number of the Forum members and officials, should discuss proposals for a new, active, modern service for Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance; including the replacement of the Benefits Integrity Project. Forum members who expressed an interest have been contacted and the first meeting of the working group, planned for December, is currently being organised.

  Residential Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 10 November 1998,Official Report, columns 163-64, concerning residential living allowance, when officials were asked to consider whether residential allowance is meeting the objectives of community care, and for what reasons. [60304]

  Angela Eagle
  Officials began reviewing whether Residential Allowance meets the objectives of community care as part of the comprehensive spending review launched last year. This was in the context of identifying if there were any perverse incentives in the system, and of ensuring that resources are used in the most cost-effective way to produce the best outcomes for adults receiving community care services.

  Benefits (Parliamentary Scrutiny)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that all

  Benefits (Expenditure)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money has been paid out in(a) industrial injuries benefit, (b) disability living allowance, (c) incapacity benefit, (d) income support and (e) widows pension in each of the last five years for which figures are available at current prices. [59995]

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

  changes to the eligibility criteria for disability living allowance and attendance allowance are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. [60274]

  Mr. Timms
  All legislation is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. It is already possible to change the eligibility criteria for Disability Living Allowance through regulations which are subject to the negative resolution. We propose to introduce similar powers for Attendance Allowance.

  Disability Living Allowance (Children)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the mobility component of disability living allowance to children aged under five years; and when such changes will take effect. [60273]

  Mr. Timms
  Entitlement to the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance will be extended to 3 and 4-year-old severely disabled children who have difficulties walking. There is no firm date for implementation, but it is unlikely to be before April 2001.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 1998,Official Report, column 1182, concerning the absence of revisions to social security expenditure plans since the Comprehensive Spending Reviews, what factors underlie the difference between the social security benefit line in Table 2 of the Comprehensive Spending Review and Table B 12 of the pre-Budget report. [60295]

  Mr. Darling
  Revisions to the forecasts of Social Security expenditure published in the Pre-Budget Report reflect new information about caseloads and economic assumptions.

  Mr. M. E. Hatcher
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reinstate the(a) medium rate and (b) high rate of disability living allowance awarded for life on 11 March 1997 to Mr. M. E. Hatcher, 1 Raddicombe Drive, Brixham, Devon; and if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying its withdrawal. [59715]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 16 November 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will reinstate the (a) medium rate and (b) high rate of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) awarded for life on 11 March 1997 to Mr M.E. Hatcher, I Raddicombe Drive, Brixham, Devon: and if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying its withdrawal.
  It may be helpful if I explain that entitlement to DLA does not depend on the diagnosis of a condition but on the way in which that condition affects a person on a day to day basis. Decisions are made by Adjudication Officers (AOs) who are statutory office holders. It would be improper for me to comment on, or interfere in their decisions. I can confirm that although an award of DLA may be given for life an AO may reduce or revoke an award on review if the information received indicates that a person's entitlement to DLA has changed.
  Mr Hatcher's DLA was reviewed on 29 July 1998 after he requested his care component be uprated to the highest rate. It is for the AO to decide what evidence is required in order to reach a
  528
  decision. The evidence used by the AO included the review request, a DLA claim pack received on 19 May 1998, and a report the AO requested from Mr Hatcher's GP. The evidence indicated that Mr Hatcher's care and mobility needs had reduced and he was no longer entitled to benefit.
  A further review request provided more information from Mr Hatcher. The AO considered this evidence and decided that he had sufficient night needs for an award of middle rate care only from 2 May 1998 to 1 November 1999 but maintained the decision relating to the mobility component.
  Since Mr Hatcher's latest request for a review, the AO decided, with advice from a Benefits Agency Medical Advisor, that a report from the Examining Medical Practitioner should be obtained. Mr Hatcher was invited to attend an examination on 6 November 1998. The doctor who was to carry out the examination has confirmed that the appointment was cancelled on 5 November 1998. A further appointment will not be arranged.
  I am sorry I cannot be more conclusive within this reply.

  Pension Schemes (Annuities)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to change the rules governing small self-administered pension scheme annuities. [59323]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  For many types of pension scheme the purchase of an annuity is the only means to guarantee that a pension can be paid for life (which is a requirement of pension scheme rules). This includes small self-administered schemes, but the trustees of these pension schemes have broad flexibility over the timing of an annuity purchase. We have no plans to change this flexibility.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the computer systems in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies to which his Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if he will make a statement; [60120]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [60118]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1109, in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government departments' and agencies' progress in tackling the bug. This also covered key organisations within the wider public sector including British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and the Post Office. The information the hon. Member requests will be found in the copies of departments' plans which have been published and placed in the Libraries of the House. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Libraries of the House and on the internet.

  Miners' Widows (Compensation)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the exclusions regarding the compensation claims for widows of miners, other than miners who have suffered from chest diseases. [59373]

  Mr. Battle
  There are no exclusions regarding valid compensation claims from widows of miners for any diseases or accidents where British Coal have been found liable or liability has been accepted.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what value for money criteria Ministers have introduced regarding the compensation for widows of miners who have suffered chest diseases; [59369]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the savings resulting from excluding widows of miners from compensation claims; [59371]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the consultation undertaken by his Department regarding the exclusion of widows of miners from compensation claims; [59368]

  (4) when he expects to reach a conclusion on policy concerning the exclusion of widows of miners from compensation claims; [59370]
  530
  (5) what limits his Department has introduced for compensation claims for widows of miners.[59372]

  Mr. Battle
  There has never been any intention to exclude widows with valid claims from receiving compensation. Our policy has always been that widows should be compensated fairly and in accordance with their legal entitlement. With regard to the British Coal respiratory disease litigation, we have put our proposals for dealing with claims from widows to the plaintiffs' solicitors and these are currently under discussion. We must ensure that the final arrangements are robust enough properly to validate claims and are fair to claimants. To this end, medical advisers met last week to address certain issues which should help to iron out the remaining problems quickly and put us in a position to begin making offers very shortly. We have made it clear previously that the necessary funds are available for settling all these claims.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on the motor industry of the proposed multilateral agreement on investment;[59534]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on the textile and clothing industry of the proposed multilateral agreement on investment. [59535]

  Mr. Wilson
  In developing their policy towards the MAI, the Government considered the impact that it might have on all sectors of the UK economy. We did not identify any particular sectoral impact to be expected from the MAI in either the motor industry or the textiles and clothing industry.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the changes to his Department's policies on the proposed multilateral agreement on investment. [59656]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is now most unlikely that an MAI will be concluded and it is better to start afresh in another forum, following full and open consultation with interested parties. The Government's support for separate negotiations on investment in the WTO as part of a comprehensive Round of multilateral negotiations has remained unchanged.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the relative merits of conducting negotiations on the proposed multilateral agreement on investment through(a) OECD, (b) WTO and (c) UNCTAD. [59536]

  Mr. Wilson
  Following the French withdrawal last month from negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in the OECD, it appears most unlikely that the Agreement will be concluded. There is no prospect of the MAI being negotiated in any other forum. However, the Government—and the EU as a whole—have a long-standing objective of pursuing investment negotiations in the WTO, and have called for investment to be on the agenda of any future multilateral Round of negotiations. Although UNCTAD is not a negotiating
  531
  forum for rules of this kind, it has been carrying out analytical work on investment issues and the Government would expect it to add its expertise to any WTO negotiation.

  Change Bureaux
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate possible price-fixing of commissions charged by change bureaux at Heathrow airport. [59522]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the competition legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anticompetitive behaviour, abuse of monopoly power or restrictive trade practices.

  If anyone has evidence of anti-competitive behaviour by change bureaux at Heathrow Airport, they should send this to the Director General.

  Turkey
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans ministers in his Department have to visit Turkey. [59542]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am planning to visit Turkey in Spring 1999.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to refer the profit margins enjoyed by supermarkets to(a) the Office of Fair Trading and (b) the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement. [60313]

  Dr. Howells
  Under UK competition legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour, abuse of monopoly power or restrictive trade practices. The Office of Fair Trading is currently examining the profitability of the major supermarkets in the grocery sector. The decision on whether to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is a matter for the Director General.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement about the responses of the credit card companies to the recent reductions in the base interest rate; [59902]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the readiness of the different sectors of the financial services industry to reduce interest rates charged by them following reductions in the base interest rate; [59901]

  (3) if he will consult with representatives of the credit card companies with a view to securing reductions in the interest rates that they charge; [59903]

  (4) if he will introduce legislation to control the interest rates charged by credit card companies. [59904]

  Dr. Howells
  It is for lenders themselves to determine the interest rates they will charge according to their own commercial judgment.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many projects in receipt of RSA have received offers of regional selective assistance from sources in more than one of England, Scotland and Wales. [59875]

  Mrs. Roche
  We do not keep a record of such projects and to obtain details would involve disproportionate costs.

  Robert Maxwell Companies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) on what dates the noble Lord Donoughue was interviewed by Department of Trade investigators in connection with Robert Maxwell companies; [57666]

  (2) on what dates the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) was interviewed by Department of Trade investigators in connection with Robert Maxwell companies. [57665]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]Inspectors were appointed under Companies Act powers to investigate and report on the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc. They were asked to look, in particular, at the offers for sale of the company's shares in early 1991.

  They have not yet completed their inquiries, which are conducted in private. It is not our policy to comment on which individuals may or may not have been seen by the inspectors.

  Royal Observatory
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which body will have responsibility for the former buildings and remaining equipment on the site of the former Royal Observatory at Greenwich following its removal to Herstmonceux Castle. [60102]

  Mr. Battle
  The National Maritime Museum became responsible for the former Royal Observatory buildings at Greenwich and for much of the historically important scientific equipment they housed, following the removal to Herstmonceux Castle in 1948 of the Royal Greenwich Observatory with its continuing scientific programme.

  The Royal Greenwich Observatory moved from Herstmonceux to Cambridge in 1990 and ceased operating there at the end of October 1998 with the transfer of the major elements of its scientific programme and associated equipment to other institutions, including the new Astronomy Technology Centre at Edinburgh, the telescope facilities on the island of La Palma, the University of Cambridge, the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils and the National Maritime Museum. The RGO' s remaining historical artefacts have also been returned to Greenwich.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the
  533
  impact on manufacturing supplier industries of Railtrack's halt in spending on its track and signalling renewal programme. [58842]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 11 November 1998]I am not in a position to offer an assessment of Railtrack's ordering policy, or its ongoing infrastructure investment programme. Railtrack is now a private sector, commercial company, and will make its investment decisions in the light of its own priorities and obligations under its network Management Statement, produced for the Rail Regulator, under its Network Licence, and the Government will expect Railtrack to meet these obligations.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [59053]

  Dr. Howells
  In the Financial Year 1997–98, the DTI (including its Executive Agencies) paid a total of £10,590 to its employees or ex-employees in respect of compensation for personal injury. In the same period, no awards were made to employees or ex-employees by the Civil Service Appeals Board or Employment Tribunals in respect of employment protection compensation.

WALES

  Farming Subsidies
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the amount of money lost by Welsh farmers as the result of delays in the administration of farming subsidy payment system; and if he will make a statement. [59317]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I appreciate the problems which can be caused but Welsh farmers do not lose their entitlement to subsidies because of delays. The vast majority of payments are made within EC deadlines.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will assess the amount of fanning subsidy currently being lost by Welsh farmers as the result of farmers inaccurately filling out subsidy claims; and if he will make a statement. [59318]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  This information is not collected. An average of between 1 and 2% of claims are rejected annually in Wales. These may be rejected for a number of reasons including instances where farmers inaccurately fill out subsidy claims.

  Wrexham to Bidston Rail Link
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he plans with North West Rail concerning the future of Sunday services on the Wrexham to Bidston rail link. [59515]

  Mr. Hain
  None. Sunday services on the Wrexham to Bidston line are supported financially by a consortium of local authorities, and I understand that an agreement is 534
  now in place which should ensure the continuation of these services up to and including the Summer 1999 timetable.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his recent efforts to transfer freight from road to rail. [59510]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government's proposals to encourage more freight to transfer from road to rail were set out in the Transport White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" and the Welsh Transport Policy Statement "Transporting Wales into the Future". The plan for a European rail freight terminal at Wentloog will provide a major boost to the rail freight industry in Wales. There has also been a significant increase in the level of interest in our Freight Facilities Grant which should result in further projects to transfer freight from road to rail.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses have been built by the local authority housing departments in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [59514]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on the number of new dwellings completed annually by local authorities may be found in table 2.3 of Welsh Housing Statistics, 1998, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Schools (Delegated Funding)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the response to the Welsh Office consultation paper, Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools; if the Government plan a further consultation document reflecting the response to the initial proposals; what further opportunities local education authorities and others will have to discuss the changes before they are implemented; when any changes are expected to come into force; and if he will ensure that the National Assembly for Wales is able to discuss them before a final decision is taken. [59379]

  Mr. Hain
  I announced my decisions on the proposals contained in the consultation paper Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools on 23 September. A copy of my press release is in the Library. From April 1999, the new funding framework described in Fair Funding will replace the present systems of Local Management of Schools and grant-maintained school funding which operate under the Education Act 1996. The changes meet our commitment to fairer funding and greater delegation whilst ensuring that local education authorities have the resources to provide those services which have to be delivered centrally.

  Since my announcement, the Welsh Office has issued the following documents to LEAs and others for consideration:
  the outline scheme and draft regulations under section 48 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 which contain detailed provisions relating to schemes of delegation;
  draft regulations under section 46 of the Act which define the Local Schools Budget and identify those items that an authority may deduct from the LSB in order to arrive at the amount to be delegated to its school;

  535
  draft regulations under section 47 of the Act which prescribe the factors, criteria and requirements that LEAs need to take into account when deciding their budget allocation formulae;
  a consultation paper on the delegation of funding for school meals; and
  a consultation paper on the funding of grant-maintained schools in 1999–2000.

  Copies of each of these have been placed in the Library.

  Under section 138 of the Act, the first regulations to be made under sections 46-48 have to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. The draft regulations will be laid shortly.

  We want to make the budgeting of the LEAs for education more transparent; to relate the budget to the role of LEAs in improving standards; and to secure improved delegation to schools. We want schools and local authorities to reap the benefits from the changes as soon as possible. The National Assembly will be able to review what has been done and make changes if it wishes using its secondary legislation powers.

  European Development Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department is taking to secure for(a) Gwynedd and (b) other areas in Wales, full development area status in his current review of the assisted areas map. [59378]

  Mr. Hain
  Derogation 92(3)(a) is the highest level of Assisted Area status. To qualify, a NUTSII area must have per capita GDP of less than 75 per cent. of the EU average. The UK agreed a new set of NUTS boundaries with Eurostat on 29 June. The Government have written to the EC confirming that they wish the new NUTS boundaries to be used in the definition of areas to be assisted under derogation 92(3)(a). Recent ONS GDP figures indicate that the West Wales and the Valleys NUTSII area, which includes Gwynedd, could be eligible for derogation 92(3)(a).

  Teachers (Funding)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by county, the names of schools that have received extra funding to employ Key Stage 1 teachers. [59579]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Economic Inactivity
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the current economic inactivity rates are for each(a) county and (b) constituency in Wales. [59580]

  Mr. Hain
  It is estimated from the Labour Force Survey that 26 per cent. of the working age population in Wales were economically inactive in the period July-September 1998. The corresponding rate for all people aged 16 or over was 42 per cent. The latest economic inactivity rates for each unitary authority in Wales are for 1996 and are shown in the following table. Inactivity rates are not available at a constituency level.536

  Economic inactivity rates by unitary authority, 19961

  Percentage, not seasonally adjusted

  Economic inactivity rate2

  Unitary authority

  All aged 16+

  All aged 16-59/64

  Blaenau Gwent

  49

  33

  Bridgend

  35

  21

  Caerphilly

  46

  32

  Cardiff

  36

  20

  Carmarthenshire

  44

  25

  Ceredigion

  41

  21

  Conwy

  46

  25

  Denbighshire

  49

  24

  Flintshire

  37

  21

  Gwynedd

  43

  25

  Isle of Anglesey

  50

  31

  Merthyr Tydfil

  41

  28

  Monmouthshire

  38

  22

  Neath Port Talbot

  46

  33

  Newport

  37

  25

  Pembrokeshire

  39

  24

  Powys

  36

  18

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  46

  31

  Swansea

  46

  28

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  42

  24

  Torfaen

  34

  19

  Wrexham

  43

  26

  Wales

  42

  25

  1 Data relate to the period March 1996-February 1997

  2 Total economically inactive as a percentage of all persons in the relevant age group

  Source:
  Labour Force Survey 1996 Local Authority Database, Office for National Statistics

  Long-term Illness
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the incidence is of limiting long-term illness in each of the 22 authorities in Wales [59578]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The latest available information on long-term illness is provided by the 1997 Welsh Household Interview Survey, a sample survey of people living in domestic properties throughout Wales. People living in institutions or communal establishments, such as residential homes for the elderly, are excluded, as are people living in second or holiday homes. The available information is given in the following table:

  Estimated numbers and percentages of people in occupied first homes with a long-standing illness or disability, by local authority

  Local authority area

  Number of people with a long-term illness or disability

  As a % of the total population in occupied first homes

  Total population in occupied first homes

  Isle of Anglesey

  11,400

  16.6

  68,700

  Gwynedd

  15,300

  13.7

  112,000

  Conwy

  15,500

  13.7

  112,800

  Denbighshire

  14,200

  15.7

  90,600

  Flintshire

  20,700

  15.1

  137,400

  Wrexham

  20,300

  15.7

  129,300

  Powys

  14,200

  11.8

  120,300

  Ceredigion

  7,900

  12.7

  62,300

  Pembrokeshire

  13,500

  12.5

  107,800

  Carmarthenshire

  35,200

  20.9

  169,000

  Swansea

  41,300

  18.4

  225,000

  Neath Port Talbot

  28,200

  20.0

  141,200

  Bridgend

  23,000

  17.0

  135,400

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  17,900

  15.2

  117,700

  Cardiff

  40,400

  13.1

  307,300

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  46,200

  19.3

  239,100

  Merthyr Tydfil

  12,500

  20.9

  59,600

  537

  Estimated numbers and percentages of people in occupied first homes with a long-standing illness or disability, by local authority

  Local authority area

  Number of people with a long-term illness or disability

  As a % of the total population in occupied first homes

  Total population in occupied first homes

  Caerphilly

  33,700

  20.0

  168,100

  Blaenau Gwent

  16,100

  22.7

  70,800

  Torfaen

  16,400

  18.1

  90,600

  Monmouthshire

  8,000

  9.8

  81,300

  Newport

  22,300

  16.0

  139,300

  Wales

  474,100

  16.4

  2,885,500

  Source:
  1997 Welsh Household Interview Survey

  Flooding
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what help is being offered to those who have suffered from the recent floods. [59612]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  It is recognised that the recent floods caused much distress and that there are those who were not insured. To people receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance, help for flood victims may be available from the Social Fund by way of community care grants, or interest-free budgeting loans. People not on income support may be eligible for a crisis loan. There has been recent guidance to all Social Fund staff on the payment of grants to disaster victims.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the projected increase in education funding for each county in Wales for each of the next three years. [59582]

  Mr. Hain
  In July this year, we announced indicative increases in education spending of £110m in 1999–2000, £250m in 2000–01 and £370m in 2001–02. These include increases in local authority spending on education.

  Final decisions on allocations for education and other services will be made taking account of the consultation on the comprehensive spending review and will be announced later in the Autumn.

  Pwllheli Planning Appeal
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange for the planning appeal public inquiry, scheduled to be heard at Pwllheli on 2 February 1999, to be conducted by an inspector who is proficient in both the Welsh and English languages. [59760]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Chief Planning Inspector has written to the right hon. Gentleman explaining that no bi-lingual Inspector is available to conduct this inquiry but that simultaneous translation facilities will be provided. I will put a copy of his letter in the Library. In error, the Chief Planning Inspector's letter gives the date of the inquiry as 2 February; in fact the date is 9 February.

  The provision of Inspectors is a matter for the Planning Inspectorate and the arrangements proposed are consistent with the Inspectorate' s approved Welsh Language Scheme.

  Midwives (Salary)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which NHS trusts in Wales(a) have and (b) have not implemented the Government's recommendation to ensure that midwives working as the lead professional are awarded a minimum F-grade salary. [59986]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Government accepted last year's nurses pay review body recommendation, which urged the Health Departments to ensure implementation of the 1995 agreement, whereby any changes in midwives' roles and responsibilities should be reflected in their grading and pay. A recent questionnaire sent to NHS Trusts seeking information on the grading and role of midwives is still being analysed. A summary of the responses will be submitted as supplementary evidence to the pay review body and will be placed in the Library of the House at the same time.

  Water Budget Payment Units
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes in Wales had their water disconnected following the installation of water budget payment units by Hyder in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [59911]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  This information is not available to the company. Its present technology does not enable the interruption of supplies to customers to be monitored directly.

  The Government's recent consultation paper "Water Charging in England and Wales—A New Approach" welcomed the High Court ruling that budget payment meters which cut off the flow of water were unlawful. A response to this consultation exercise is to be published by the Government shortly.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes in Wales have water budget units. [59912]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I am advised that Dwr Cymru presently has 24,243 watercard customers in its area of supply. Neither of the other two water supply companies operating in Wales, Severn Trent and Dee Valley Water, offers water budget units to its customers as a means of paying for water.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the computer systems in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies to which his Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if he will make a statement; [60148]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [60146]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston
  539
  (Maria Eagle), 21 October 1998, Official Report, column 1109, in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government Departments' and Agencies' progress in tackling the bug. This also covered key organisations within the wider public sector including Local Authorities and the NHS in Wales. The information the hon. Member requests will be found in the copies of Departments' plans which have been published in the libraries of the House. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Libraries of the House and on the internet.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the problems which have arisen in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible from millennium compliance; if he will make a statement on progress to date in tackling such problems; and what are the priority areas for remedial work. [60147]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Council presents quarterly reviews to Parliament of progress on tackling all issues, including progress on remedial work, relating to the Millennium date change problem across central Government and the wider public sector. The information the hon. Member requests will be found in the copies of Departments' plans, which have been placed in the Libraries of the House and on the Internet. The next review to Parliament will be presented shortly and will provide a report on progress to date in my Department.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by(a) his Department,(b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60149]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Council presents quarterly reviews to Parliament of progress on tackling all issues relating to the Millennium date change problem across central Government and the wider public sector. The next review to Parliament will be presented shortly. In accordance with the response of my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to the PAC recommendations in October, my Department will complete risk assessments and have initial year 2000 business continuity plans in place by the end of January 1999.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the demand for the full-time education and training option under the new deal(a) nationally, (b) by region and (c) for each category of intake during 1998–99 and for each of the next three years. [59188]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The choices will be for the young people to make, but we expect nationally around a fifth to make up the education and training option. This may vary a little regionally.
  540
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost per 18 to 24 year old of options completed under the new deal for young people(a)nationally, (b) by Pathfinder area and (c) by new deal option. [59197]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The unit costs for each option, which apply to all units of delivery, are as follows:

  Voluntary Sector (VS) Option; £2,750

  Environment Task Force (ETF) Option; £2,750

  Full Time Education and Training (FTET) Option; £2,300

  Subsidised Employment Option; £2,070.

  Contracts were negotiated around these costs and will be monitored accordingly as new deal clients flow into, and subsequently complete, the options. The actual costs incurred will be monitored and systems are being put in place to do so. Information will be available early next year. Significant numbers will not complete new deal options until the first quarter of next year.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people aged 18 to 25 years have enrolled on the New Deal; and what percentage of these are(a) male, (b) disabled and (c) from ethnic minorities. [59783]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The number of young people joining New Deal for 18-24 years olds between January and the end of September is 165,600. A breakdown of this figure is possible only for the 148,100 starting before the end of August. Of these(a) 72% are male, (b) 13% are disabled, and (c) 13% are from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by region those employers which had unfilled vacancies for new deal trainees and the number of vacancies involved in each case at the latest available date. [59185]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 11 November 1998,Official Report, column 236. Over 29,000 employers have signed up to New Deal leading to 54,000 New Deal job pledges. New Deal participants are also, of course, eligible to apply for other jobs. At present, further employer-related information is unavailable.

  Lip Reading Classes
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what measures he is taking to ensure that all people who lose their hearing have the opportunity to attend lip reading classes; [59314]

  (2) what advice he has given to local education authorities on (a) the provision of and (b) the charging for lip reading classes; [59315]

  (3) what proposals he has to promote courses on lip reading through the Further Education Funding Council. [59316]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledges the importance of training in lip reading in helping to secure the communication needs of deaf people.

  The availability of courses in further education colleges is a matter for local decision, although the Further Education Funding Council has a duty to secure adequacy

  541
  and sufficiency of provision for which it is responsible; and, in doing so, to have regard to the needs of students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.

  Similarly, the range of adult education courses offered by local authorities is decided locally, and the Secretary of State has issued no guidance on how they might do so. All authorities are, however, required to publish annual statements containing details of the further educational provision that they make for disabled people, and the relevant facilities which are available.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the changes which have been made to Form 7 data collection for the calculation of class sizes in England since January. [59193]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Copies of the data collection forms for maintained primary and secondary schools for January 1998 and 1999 have been placed in the Library.

  Head Teachers (Secondment)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the percentage of head teachers on secondment for one term or longer for the most recent year for which the information is available. [59194]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not held centrally.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors are taken into account when deciding whether to allow the closure of a village or rural school; and what the timescale is for such a decision-making process. [59600]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  When considering proposals for the closure of a rural school, all factors bearing on the proposals will be taken into account, although the presumption will be against closure. Factors that will be considered will include the overall supply of school places in the area and the likely future demand for places; any points made by the Local Education Authority or by the school proposed for closure or by other schools; the standard of the school that is proposed for closure and the standards and accessibility of alternative schools; the views of parents and other interested parties; the overall effect of the closure on the local community; and the cost implications of the possible options. The aim is to reach a decision within five months of the date of publication of the proposals.

  Access to Work
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 10 November 1998,Official Report, column 137, if a councillor who is disabled and can prove that his activities as a councillor are his main paid employment will be eligible for Access to Work support. [60300]

  Ms Hodge
  Access to Work provides help for disabled people in, or about to start, paid employment. It is designed to encourage employers to take on, or retain,542
  disabled people by meeting some or all of the extra costs resulting from disability. The aim is to help disabled people in activities from which they earn their living. Activities as a councillor are not themselves regarded as paid employment, but disabled councillors may be eligible for Access to Work support where they are also in paid employment.

  Education Action Zones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each education action zone the financial contribution from business in the form of(a) cash and (b) services or donations in kind. [60268]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Each of the first 25 Education Action Zones must raise £250,000 from the private sector in the first year, whether in cash or kind. They are well on the way to achieving this. I will publish a complete set of information as soon as it is available.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reason underlies the rule that a person who has been in prison has to have been unemployed for two years prior to his or her imprisonment in order to qualify for support under the Welfare to Work Scheme. [59380]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There is no such rule. Anyone leaving prison and claiming JSA will be able immediately to take advantage of a whole range of help including work-based training, trial periods with employers and help with jobsearch. If, after a year, they are still unemployed and claiming JSA, they can, at ES's discretion, begin on the New Deal advisory process when they will, in addition to the provision mentioned before, qualify for the £75 a week employer subsidy and the opportunity to study or train full-time on JSA. All this is regardless of their previous work history. If, however, they have experienced a number of spells of unemployment-related benefits in the past, interrupted only by short periods, they may qualify for the New Deal as soon as they claim JSA.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in developing and publishing a Special Educational Needs Action Programme. [59761]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Consultation on the Green Paper,Excellence for all children: meeting special educational needs, generated many thoughtful ideas and comments. In the light of these, and the advice of the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs (SEN), we published Meeting Special Educational Needs: A programme of action on 5 November. The Action Programme sets out the practical steps we will take to support and promote developments in SEN over the next few years. Copies were sent to all MPs and are also available in the Library.

  Education Funding (Bids)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those additional funds that have been made available to(a) local education authorities and (b) schools through a bidding process

  543
  since May 1997 indicating for each aspect of funding the numbers of bids received and the number of recipients of funding. [59832]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 November 1998]The information requested is currently being collected and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many hits each week were recorded on the National Grid for Learning website between April and October. [59191]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Between the weeks beginning 2 April and ending 4 November, 11,285,679 hits were recorded on the main servers for the prototype National Grid for Learning at BECTA, at an average rate of 364,054 hits per week. This excludes hits on numerous other servers to which the NGfl provides onward direction. A weekly breakdown is provided in the following table.

  'Hits' on the National Grid for Learning website between 2 April and 4 October 1998

  Date

  Number of 'hits'

  2-8 April

  247,257

  9-15 April

  159,401

  16-22 April

  229,988

  23-29 April

  245,941

  30 April-6 May

  257,864

  7-13 May

  294,393

  14-20 May

  278,607

  21-27 May

  313,633

  28 May-3 June

  322,644

  4-10 June

  300,961

  11-17 June

  313,210

  18-24 June

  343,108

  25 June-1 July

  351,735

  2-8 July

  376,178

  9-15 July

  341,823

  16-22 July

  335,454

  23-29 July

  355,927

  30 July-5 August

  358,764

  6-12 August

  302,818

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Degree subject

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Chemistry

  470

  3.1

  530

  3.3

  580

  3.4

  520

  3.1

  Physics

  360

  2.4

  430

  2.7

  430

  2.5

  360

  2.1

  Biology

  980

  6.5

  1,130

  7.0

  1,330

  7.7

  1,330

  7.9

  Engineering

  450

  3.0

  620

  3.8

  690

  4.0

  570

  3.4

  Medical sciences

  100

  0.7

  110

  0.7

  150

  0.9

  180

  1.1

  General sciences

  260

  1.7

  260

  1.6

  490

  2.8

  390

  2.3

  Figures for 1997 are not yet available. Graduates qualified in more than one subject are counted against each relevant subject listed above.

  The £130 million package of measures announced by my department on 27 October includes measures intended to increase the number of science graduates recruited to initial teacher training courses.
  544

  'Hits' on the National Grid for Learning website between 2 April and 4 October 1998

  Date

  Number of 'hits'

  13-19 August

  308,894

  20-26 August

  258,089

  27 August-2 September

  306,171

  3-9 September

  397,292

  10-16 September

  443,707

  17-23 September

  437,001

  24-30 September

  486,867

  1-7 October

  594,884

  8-14 October

  513,444

  15-21 October

  651,156

  22-28 October

  582,455

  29 October-4 November

  576,004

  Total

  11,285,679

  European Citizenship
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the teaching of European Citizenship in European Community projects in schools.[59808]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Under the EU SOCRATES programme, UK schools are co-operating with schools in other European countries on a wide range of subjects of mutual interest. No current project under this programme involving UK schools has European citizenship as its subject.

  Science Teachers
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many science graduates completed teacher training broken down by subject into(a) chemistry, (b) physics and (c) biology, (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of the total graduates completing teacher training in each year between 1993 and 1997. [57079]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of graduates in Chemistry, Physics and Biology and other related sciences who completed a Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) in England and Wales between 1993 and 1996 and the number expressed as a percentage of all graduates completing a PGCE are given in the table:

  Employment Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many Employment Service staff have responsibilities which do not include work on the new deal;[59184]

  (2) how many and what proportion of Employment Service staff are currently working exclusively on the new deal. [59187]
  545
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  New Deal is an integral part of the Employment Service's work. No figures are available which show separately staff working exclusively on new deal.

TREASURY

  Paracetamol and Aspirin Poisoning
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many deaths have been recorded in England and Wales from poisoning by paracetamol in each of the past five years; [59634]

  (2) how many deaths have been recorded in England and Wales from aspirin poisoning in each of the past five years; and in how many of these cases aspirin had been taken in (a) soluble and (b) dispersible form. [59635]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Donald Gorrie, dated 17 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions on deaths from poisoning by paracetamol and from aspirin.
  The information requested is shown in the tables below.

  Deaths by year of occurrence from paracetamol poisoning in England and Wales, 1993–97

  Year

  Deaths mentioning paracetamol

  1993

  316

  1994

  275

  1995

  324

  1996

  279

  1997

  335

  Figures relate to the number of deaths in England and Wales where paracetamol was mentioned on the death certificate. They do not include deaths with a mention of a paracetamol-containing compound e.g. co-proxamol.

  Deaths by year of occurrence from aspirin poisoning in England and Wales, 1993–97

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1993

  25

  1994

  28

  1995

  19

  1996

  32

  1997

  12

  It is not possible to determine from the information collected at death registration whether aspirin was taken in soluble or dispersible form.
  The deaths were identified as those with an underlying cause of death coded to drug dependence, non-dependent abuse of drugs, accidental poisoning, suicidal poisoning and poisoning of undetermined intent.
  The figures for deaths where paracetamol or aspirin was mentioned on the death certificate include deaths attributed to the substance in combination with other drugs. Where two or more substances are listed together, the contribution, if any, of each to the death is unknown. Even where one substance is listed alone there may well be other factors with an important bearing on death.
  546
  Moreover, coroners do not always record all specific drugs associated with a death on the death certificate. Therefore, with the information available from death registration, it is only possible to give an approximation of the number of deaths associated with or directly due to any particular substance.

  Cancer (Survival Rates)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the five-year survival rate for cancer is in (a) the UK and (b) other OECD countries. [59849]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, dated 17 November 1998 As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary question on the five-year survival rate for cancer.
  I refer you to my answer of 5 November to Dennis Skinner MP (Hansard number 233, column 682), which gave information on the survival of cancer patients.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of cot death in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 to date. [60012]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Ronnie Fearn, dated 17 November 1998 As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on rates of cot deaths.
  The infant mortality rate1 for England and Wales due to sudden infant death is as follows:
  1996 0.65 1997 0.61
  1998 Data are not yet available
  1per 1,000 live births
  This information is published in the ONS monitor DH3 98/2 Sudden infant deaths 1993–1997, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Abortions
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of abortions for women in Walthamstow were funded by the NHS in the last three years for which figures are available. [60031]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 17 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on NHS abortions in Walthamstow.
  Information on the number of abortions performed on residents of each parliamentary constituency is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  547
  The ONS routinely publishes abortion statistics by regions and health authorities (HA). The following table shows the percentage of abortions funded by the NHS for residents of Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA.

  Percentage of abortions funded by the NHS for residents of Redbridge and Waltham HA, 1995–97

  Year

  Percentage

  1995

  42

  1996

  34

  19971

  42

  1 Provisional figure

  Figures for each year from 1995 and 1996 are published in the ONS Annual Reference Volumes: Abortion statistics series AB nos. 20-23. Provisional figures for 1997 were published in the ONS Monitor Series AB 98/4 Legal abortions 1997: residents of regions and health authorities on 26 June 1998. These are available in the House of Commons library.

  Landfill Tax
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on landfill tax in relation to salt extraction companies. [58629]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 9 November 1998,Official Report, column 100.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out his estimates of additional public expenditure for each Department on the basis of the same assumptions as underly the calculation that spending on health and education will rise by £40 billion by the end of the Parliament,(a) on the Government's proposed accounting conventions and (b) treating public expenditure and tax expenditures on the working families tax credit in the same way as expenditure on family credit is currently treated. [58599]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 9 November 1998]Estimates of the cumulative increase in each department's Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 over and above expenditure planned for the current year, 1998–99, can be calculated from Table B 17 in the Pre-Budget Report, which updates Table A4 in the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper. The figure of £40 billion for additional spending on education and health includes estimates of spending in these areas by the Scottish Office, Welsh Office and Northern Ireland departments, and by local authorities, as well as by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health.

  Expenditure on family credit in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is included not in DEL but in Annually Managed Expenditure (AME). Payments of working families tax

  Progress by pensions firms in resolving cases of personal pensions mis-selling in the period to the end of October 1998

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  50-75% of cases resolved

  Countrywide

  5,205

  2,644

  351

  202

  149

  121

  2

  57

  DBS

  2,410

  914

  939

  225

  714

  514

  21

  69

  Over 75% of cases resolved

  IFA Network

  382

  119

  167

  112

  55

  55

  14

  75

  Burns Anderson

  1,278

  435

  612

  242

  371

  292

  23

  76

  548
  credit from 1999–2000 onwards will also score in AME, in line with the new European System of Accounts. The cumulative increase in AME for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 over 1998–99 can be calculated from Table B12 of the Pre-Budget Report.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will press the IMF for(a) the publication of all Article IV reports and (b) greater transparency of the IMF's accounts. [56528]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]In his statement to the Interim Committee of the IMF on 4 October, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the case for publishing in a timely and systematic way all key surveillance and programme documents, including Article IV reports, should be considered. He also said that ways should be found to improve the IMF's own accountability, to ensure that it performs its responsibilities in an open and transparent way that enhances public confidence. As part of that effort, the Chancellor is encouraging the IMF to continue looking for ways to improve the format, readability and clarity of their financial data.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest progress in the review of personal pensions mis-selling. [60382]

  Ms Hewitt
  Further advances have been made towards completion of the first phase of the review.

  On the regulators' advice, a further eight firms who have met their targets for phase 1 of the review have been removed from the Treasury's published list. The eight are Albany Life, Allied Dunbar, Canada Life, Gan, M&E Network, National Westminster, Royal London and Wesleyan Assurance.

  Of the 21 firms whose results are set out in the table, only two have resolved less than 75 per cent. of their cases. Seven have now resolved over 90 per cent of their cases.

  Substantial progress is now being made with phase 1 of the review. But firms should be clear that it is essential the remaining cases are resolved in line with the regulators' timetable. That means all firms completing phase 1 by the end of December.

  The published figures measure firms' progress in assessing whether people are entitled to redress, and, if so, reaching agreement on offers of redress, but that is not the end of the process. It is also important that the redress is delivered as a matter of priority. The regulators will continue to take action against laggards to ensure that investors are properly protected.
  549

  Progress by pensions firms in resolving cases of personal pensions mis-selling in the period to the end of October 1998

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Financial Options

  549

  330

  134

  31

  72

  57

  10

  76

  Windsor Life

  9,645

  4,104

  4,608

  326

  4,282

  3,532

  37

  83

  Abbey Life

  18,152

  6,434

  9,696

  1,307

  8,389

  7,408

  41

  83

  Sun Life of Canada

  28,993

  11,163

  14,722

  2,645

  12,077

  10,636

  37

  84

  Lincoln National

  13,581

  2,218

  10,423

  1,409

  9,014

  7,824

  58

  84

  London and Manchester

  8,568

  1,578

  6,484

  703

  5,781

  5,080

  59

  86

  Standard Life

  7,466

  901

  5,876

  1,289

  4,587

  4,312

  58

  87

  Hill Samuel

  6,120

  914

  4,818

  712

  4,106

  3,742

  61

  88

  Colonial

  8,728

  3,149

  5,161

  606

  4,555

  3,933

  45

  88

  Sedgwick

  16,884

  9,824

  5,512

  1,865

  3,647

  3,255

  19

  89

  CIS

  44,681

  7,745

  36,121

  14,132

  21,989

  18,425

  41

  90

  Berkeley Independent

  186

  123

  47

  32

  15

  13

  7

  90

  Friends Provident

  7,120

  1,327

  5,414

  828

  4,586

  4,315

  61

  91

  Hogg Robinson

  2,324

  861

  1,381

  472

  909

  799

  34

  92

  Equitable Life

  7,628

  1,967

  5,400

  1,816

  3,584

  3,351

  44

  94

  Pearl

  47,541

  4,640

  41,991

  5,912

  36,079

  34,186

  72

  94

  Legal & General

  37,044

  15,251

  21,321

  1,993

  19,328

  17,726

  48

  94

  Notes:

  A: cases identified as requiring review.

  B: of A, cases where investor was informed that information gained during assessment excluded cases from review.

  C: number of assessments completed.

  D: cases where the investor has been informed that no redress is due.

  E: cases where redress has been offered.

  F: cases where redress has been accepted.

  G: cases where redress has been accepted as a percentage of cases identified for review ((F/A)x100).

  H: cases completed, including exclusions, as a percentage of cases identified for review (((B+D+F)/A)x100).

  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he plans to make to petroleum revenue tax legislation for pipelines in the North Sea. [60383]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the next Finance Bill, the Government intend to make a minor change to legislation introduced in the Finance Act 1994 which helped remove possible distortions in North Sea pipeline competition. This change is to ensure that, for pipelines subject to the 1994 rules, tariffs received for transporting oil and gas to the UK from fields in other countries are taxed in the same way as tariffs for transporting oil or gas from new UK fields. This change will allow these pipelines to compete more fairly for the transportation of non-UK oil or gas.

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue the Government have obtained from the United Kingdom road haulage industry through(a) vehicle excise duty for heavy goods vehicles and (b) excise duty on diesel since 1 May 1997. [59345]

  Ms Hewitt
  The amount of revenue raised from VED on Heavy Goods Vehicles from May 1997 to September 1998 was £818 million.

  It is not possible to separate the revenue raised from excise duty on diesel paid by the road haulage industry from the total revenue received.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on 550
  the competitiveness of the United Kingdom road haulage industry of differences in (a) vehicle excise duty on heavy goods vehicles and (b) excise duty on diesel, between EC nations. [59344]

  Ms Hewitt
  Impact on competitiveness is one of the factors that the Chancellor takes into account when making decisions on Budget measures.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of(a) vehicle excise duty on heavy goods vehicles and (b) excise duty on diesel, for each EU country. [59352]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Essex, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 10 November 1998,Official Report, columns 152-53.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the cost of collection of vehicle excise duty as a result of the proposed changes to the duty set out in the pre-Budget statement. [59666]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 November 1998]The cost will depend on the precise options chosen as a result of consultation.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department contributed to the section on economic and monetary union in the European Communities booklet, "Europe in Ten Bints"; what assessment he has made of the contents of the document; and how many copies of that document have been distributed in the UK. [59789]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Treasury did not contribute to the section on Economic and Monetary Union in the European Communities publication "Europe in Ten
  551
  Bints". The document is largely factual. It sets out the institutions of the EU and their origins and identifies some of the challenges now faced by the Union. The document is distributed in the UK by the London office of the European Commission. The Commission estimate that around 4,000 copies have been distributed throughout the UK.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 339, concerning national deposits and share capital in the European Central Bank, if he will tabulate the percentage of the share capital subscribed by each participating state on 1 January 1999. [60112]

  Capital subscription to the European Central Bank

  euro

  NCB

  Key percentage

  Subscribed capital

  Percentage to be paid up

  Total amount due

  Germany

  24.4096

  1,220,480,000

  100

  1,220,480.000

  France

  16.8703

  843,515,000

  100

  843,515,000

  Italy

  14.9616

  748,080,000

  100

  748,080,000

  Spain

  8.8300

  441,500,000

  100

  441,500,000

  Netherlands

  4.2796

  213,980,000

  100

  213,980,000

  Belgium

  2.8885

  144,425,000

  100

  144,425,000

  Austria

  2.3663

  118,315,000

  100

  118,315,000

  Portugal

  1.9250

  96,250,000

  100

  96,250,000

  Finland

  1.3991

  69,955,000

  100

  69,955,000

  Ireland

  0.8384

  41,920,000

  100

  41,920,000

  Luxembourg

  0.1469

  7,345,000

  100

  7,345,000

  Euro NCBs

  78.9153

  3,945,765,000

  —

  3,945,765,000

  Non-euro NCBs

  21.0847

  1,054,235,000

  5

  52,711,750

  Total

  100.0000

  5,000,000,000

  —

  3,998,476,750

  Exchange Trading Schemes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to expand the experiments in local exchange trading schemes under which unemployed participants in a local area work for each other. [59530]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government are investigating whether Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) can play an effective role in fostering community cohesion and encouraging unemployed people back into economic activity. The use of LETS is one of the issues being taken forward by the "Jobs" Policy Action Team, one of 18 teams set up as a follow up to the Social Exclusion Unit's report on deprived neighbourhoods "Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal". This team is being headed by my right hon Friend, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and will report to the Prime Minister in July 1999.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to measure the effectiveness of the Monetary Policy Committee (i) annually and (ii) over four-year periods; [59528]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Monetary Policy Committee to date. [59583]

  M0s Hewitt
  The task of the Monetary Policy Committee is to set short-term interest rates to meet the Government's inflation target. The success of the new monetary framework is demonstrated by the fact that
  552
  Ms Hewitt
  In accordance with Article 29 of the ESCB Statute, the formula for the subscription of capital to the ECB is based on Member States' population and GDP. The table gives details of the weightings assigned to national central banks.

  The national central banks of participating Member States will be required to pay up the full amount of their subscribed capital in the ECB. In accordance with Article 48 of the Statute of the ESCB, the ECB General Council decided in September that the national central banks of non-participating Member States should pay up 5 per cent. of their shares in the subscribed capital of the ECB. This payment will be made by offset against the proceeds of the liquidation of the EMI.

  inflation is at its target, long-term interest rates are currently at their lowest level for over 35 years and inflation expectations have fallen.

  Airports (Borrowing)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will allow airports owned by local authorities to borrow on normal commercial terms. [59659]

  Mr. Byers
  Subject to Parliamentary approval, public sector borrowing controls on financially sound local authority airports would be relaxed from 1 April 1999. This will allow qualifying local authority airports to raise development capital on the money markets to cater for growing demand.

  Local authority airport companies will have to meet strict financial criteria before the controls on them are relaxed. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has launched a consultation exercise into the qualifying criteria.

  Euro Preparations Unit
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the selection of non-civil servants to serve on the Euro Preparations Unit; on what terms the HSBC Midland secondee is serving; what is his area of expertise; how many other candidates were considered; and if additional non-civil servants will be brought in. [59836]
  553
  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury encourages inward secondments to promote the exchange of ideas and experience. The secondee from HSBC Midland has been seconded for a period of 12 months, with the possibility of extension. and was selected from a field of candidates with extensive experience in providing advice to SMEs. As with other secondees, he remains the employee, and retains the employment terms, of his parent organisation.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assets the United Kingdom is obliged to hand over to the European Central Bank; and at what stage. [59823]

  Ms Hewitt
  In accordance with Article 48 of the Statute of the ESCB, the ECB General Council decided in September that the national central banks of non-participating Member States should pay up 5 per cent. of their shares in the subscribed capital of the ECB. Unless the UK joins the single currency, the UK will not be required to forward any foreign reserves to the ECB.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in(a) his Department, (b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if he will make a statement; [60064]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the computer systems in (a) his Department, (b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies to which his Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if he will make a statement. [60066]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1109, in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government departments' and agencies' progress in tackling the bug. This also covered key organisations within the wider public sector. This included the Bank of England. The information requested can be found in the copies of Departments' plans which are available in the Library of the House. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Library and on the Internet.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by(a) his Department, (b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60067]

  Ms Hewitt
  Business contingency work is under way in all the Chancellor's Departments and agencies. Existing contingency plans are being reviewed to ensure they cover all the risks the Millennium may bring. This includes embedded chip systems.
  554
  Plans include:

  manual workarounds;

  ensuring key staff are available in the changeover period;

  identifying the affect of possible increased demands on business in the period prior to 1 January 2000;

  reducing the pressure on normal business processes;

  backing up key data;

  The Chancellor's Departments comprise:

  HM Treasury (and Debt Management Office)

  Inland Revenue (and Valuation Office)

  HM Customs and Excise

  Office for National Statistics

  Royal Mint

  National Savings

  National Investment and Loans Office

  Government Actuary's Department

  Registry of Friendly Societies.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what (1) estimate he has made of the effect of the millennium bug on the rate of economic growth; [60168]

  (2) if the growth forecasts contained in his Pre-Budget Report take account of the effects of the millennium bug; and if he will make a statement. [60169]

  Ms Hewitt
  The effect of the Millennium bug on the rate of economic growth is considered in the Pre-Budget Report, paragraph A56 and box A2 ("Impact of the 'Year 2000' problem").

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what the growth of United Kingdom GDP would be in 1999, on the basis of the rates of growth of exports and imports assumed in the March 1998 Budget. [59625]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 November 1998]Analysis of all the effects on the UK economy of the deterioration in the world economic outlook was given in the Pre-Budget Report.

  Age Allowances (Pensioners)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the current value of the age allowances for pensioners(a) aged 65 years and over and (b) aged 75 years and over in respect of those on a single income of (a) £4,045 to £5,220, (b) £5,221 to £9,320, (c) £9,321 to £15,600 and (d) £15,601 to £17,950 and on joint incomes of (i) £7,545 to £10,075, (ii) £10,076 to £14,175, (iii) £14,176 to £15,895 and (iv) £15,895 to £32,555; [60034]

  (2) if he will list the value of the age allowance for single pensioners with joint incomes at five yearly intervals for the last 30 years. [60032]

  Ms Hewitt
  In 1998–99, for a single pensioner aged 65 to 74 years, the personal allowance is as shown in the table:
  555

  £

  Range of income

  Personal allowance

  For incomes up to the aged income limit (16,200)

  5,410

  For incomes between 16,201 and 18,630

  5,410 less half of the difference between total income and 16,200

  For incomes above 18,630

  4,195

  In 1998–99, for a single pensioner aged 75 years and over, the personal allowance is:

  £

  Range of income

  Personal allowance

  For incomes up to the aged income limit (16,200)

  5,600

  For incomes between 16,201 and 19,010

  5,600 less half of the difference between total income and 16,200

  For incomes above 19,010

  4,195

  For a married pensioner, the value of the allowances available will depend on the ages of the husband and wife and the distribution of income between them.

  The historical series are available in the 1997–98 edition of the Tax Benefit Reference Manual which is available in the Library.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the pay bands for each tier of employees at the Financial Services Authority. [60049]

  Ms Hewitt
  This is a matter for the FSA.

  Electronic Commerce
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of a worldwide tax treaty on electronic commerce. [60259]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is the key forum in which discussions are taking place. A framework for the taxation of electronic commerce was presented to Ministers at the OECD conference on electronic commerce in Ottawa last month, and a future work programme endorsed.

  United Kingdom Excessive Deficit
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the amount of the excessive deficit for the United Kingdom decided by the Council of the European Union under Article 104C(6) of the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of the European Union; what plans Her Majesty's Government have, pursuant to Council Declaration 11393/97 to comply with the Council recommendation to bring that situation to an end; within which time scale; and what assessment he has made of the impact on UK(a) taxation and (b) public expenditure. [60008]

  Ms Hewitt
  As a result of the Government's prudent approach to fiscal policy, the public finances have improved markedly. The Council Recommendation 556
  11393/97 is concerned with the Council Decision of 26 September 1994 on the existence of an excessive deficit in the UK. This Decision was abrogated on 1 May 1998.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statutory force attaches to the EU Council's recommendation of 28 October 1997 that the UK Government achieve a Government deficit that is close to balance when an allowance is made for the economy's cyclical position as projected in the convergence programme; and what extra measures will be required to fulfil this. [60109]

  Ms Hewitt
  The EU Council's recommendation of 28 October 1997 was non-binding.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he took to implement the EU Council recommendation of 28 October 1997 on an excessive Government deficit in the UK; and if he will publish the new convergence programme he submitted in September 1997. [60105]

  Ms Hewitt
  As a result of the Government's prudent approach to fiscal policy, the public finances have improved markedly. The decision that the UK had an excessive deficit was abrogated by the Council on 1 May 1998. The September 1997 Convergence Programme was sent to the European Legislation Committee of the House of Commons and the Select Committee on the European Communities of the House of Lords on 4 September 1997.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the EU Council's conclusions of 13 October 1997 on the UK Government deficit. [60108]

  Ms Hewitt
  The conclusions of the ECOFIN of 13 October 1997 on the UK deficit were concerned with the Council Decision of 26 September 1994 on the existence of an excessive deficit in the UK. This Decision was abrogated on 1 May 1998.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the council decision of 26 September 1974 on Britain's excess in deficit was abrogated; when he applied for this to be abrogated; and if he will make a statement on its impact. [60113]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Council's decision of 26 September 1994 that the UK had an excessive deficit was abrogated on 1 May 1998.

HEALTH

  Aspirin and Paracetamol
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the increase in the retail price for aspirin and paracetamol following the new Department of Health guidelines on pack size; and if he will make a statement. [57872]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has received a number of letters from hon. Members and from members of the public since the introduction of new pack sizes for most aspirin and paracetamol products which became a statutory requirement on 16 September 1998.
  557
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases in England and Wales in each of the past five years individuals have had to spend more than one night in hospital because of aspirin poisoning. [59637]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of finished consultant episodes in National Health Service trusts in England with a primary diagnosis of poisoning by aspirin is shown in the table.

  Information relating to health services in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Year

  Number

  1993–94

  1,374

  1994–95

  1,328

  1995–96

  1,503

  1996–971

  1,439

  1997–981

  1,505

  1 For 1996–97 and 1997–98 no adjustments have been made for shortfalls in data

  Source:
  Hospital Episodes Statistics

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons soluble and effervescent products are exempt from the regulations restricting the number which may be sold in one package to 32; and for what reasons dispersible products are not exempt. [59639]

  Ms Jowell
  The new measures for aspirin and paracetamol are aimed at reducing toxicity in overdose by limiting pack size for solid (tablet and capsule) formulations available over the counter.

  Effervescent and some soluble formulations (which contain at least 75 per cent. carbon dioxide-forming ingredients) are exempt from the new pack size restrictions because they are difficult to swallow in quantity. These tablets will foam, making it difficult to take more than a small number. Powders, granules and suppositories are also exempt for similar reasons.

  Dispersible and some soluble preparations are not exempt because, although designed to be dissolved in water, they can easily be swallowed in solid form and so there is potential for abuse.

  Loughborough General Hospital
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the completion of a full business case to replace Loughborough' s general hospital through a private finance initiative. [57742]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive is expecting to receive a revised full business case from Fosse Health NHS Trust for the scheme to replace Loughborough' s General Hospital under the private finance initiative in the next month. It is understood that the best and final offer from the private partner was submitted on 3 November 1998 and the trust are currently considering the case in the light of this information.

  Administrative Staff
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many administrative staff were employed by the NHS(a) in May 1997, (b) in May 1998 and (c) in September 1998. [58250]
  558
  Mr. Milburn
  The number of clerical and administrative staff employed by the National Health Service in England as at 30 September 1997 was 131,860 whole-time equivalents. Figures relating to other times of the year are not collected centrally. Figures for September 1998 are currently being collected and will be published in due course.

  Capitation Formula
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he proposes to the NHS capitation formula. [58343]

  Mr. Milburn
  There were three changes to the target setting process for 1999–2000 health authority allocations:the speciality cost weights in the hospital and community health services age adjustment were updated;
  a new additional need adjustment for prescribing was introduced;
  a supplement to the formula was introduced for the extra costs of interpretation, advocacy and translation services for ethnic minority populations who experience difficulties with the English language.

  No further changes will be made to the target setting process at least until 2001–02. This is because on 10 November 1998 we announced a wide ranging review of the formula.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unannounced inspections of(a) local authority and (b) private sector residential homes for the elderly took place in 1997; and how many and what percentage of the inspection reports were critical of the way in which the elderly residents were treated. [58504]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, my hon. Friend may like to refer to the Social Services Inspectorate publication—Local Authority Social Services Department Registration and Inspection Units Key Data 1996–97—copies of which are available in the Library, for limited information on the number of inspections carried out.

  Sensory Loss
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into loss of(a) smell and (b) taste, as a result of (i) sinusitis and (ii) influenza. [59149]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department's policy research programme and the central National Health Service research and development programmes are not currently supporting any such research.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC), which is funded by the Office of Science and Technology, commissions most of the Government's research into bio-medical and clinical issues. The MRC is always open to new sound scientific proposals in competition with other applications. In deciding priorities and taking decisions, the MRC takes account of the Department's priorities, together with input from the health research community in general. The Department's policy research programme supports the formulation of health and social care policy and the

  559
  NHS programmes support the needs of the health service. Records are not held centrally of all research carried out in the NHS.

  Dentists (Retirement)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have retired before retirement age in each of the last five years; and how many retired on health grounds. [58746]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of general dental practitioners retiring before retirement age in England and Wales and the number of these retiring on health grounds are shown in the table.

  Year ending March

  Early retirements

  Of which on grounds of ill-health

  1994

  141

  40

  1995

  200

  106

  1996

  212

  80

  1997

  183

  91

  1998

  159

  87

  Ministerial Visit (West Byfleet)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), visited the West Byfleet Health Centre; and if he gave prior notification to the local hon. Member. [58807]

  Mr. Hutton
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South visited West Byfleet on 14 October 1998. Ministers are fully aware of the need to notify hon. Members of their intention to visit their constituencies. I understand that on this occasion prior notification was not given. I apologise for any embarrassment and inconvenience caused to the hon. Member.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of NHS computer systems which will be millennium-compliant on 1 April 1999. [58846]

  Mr. Milburn
  The precise information requested is not held centrally. National Health Service organisations are making good progress to ensure that their systems are compliant or that they have contingency arrangements in place by 30 September 1999.

  Hospitals (Doncaster)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of operating theatre time in NHS hospitals in the Doncaster area, is devoted to the treatment of(a) waiting list patients, (b) emergencies, (c) other NHS patients, and (d) other non-NHS patients, for the most recent period for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [59308]

  Mr. Milburn
  The central collection of returns relating to theatre use has been discontinued. Since 1994, collection of this data within districts has been a matter for local discretion. My hon. Friend may wish to contact 560
  the Chairman of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital National Health Service Trust, Mr. David Kitson.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number of waiting list patients were treated by hospitals in the Doncaster area as(a) day patients and (b) in-patients for the years (a) 1977, (b) 1987 and (c) 1997, respectively; and if he will make a statement. [59309]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the number of patients treated by hospitals is available only from 1990–91. The table shows the available information for Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital National Health Service Trust and Doncaster Healthcare Trust for 1996–97. 1997–98 data are not yet available.

  Number of waiting list and elective admissions to Doncaster Trusts: 1996–97

  Trust

  Ordinary admissions

  Day cases

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu NHS Trust

  10,272

  16,513

  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust1

  75

  0

  1 Doncaster Healthcare Trust is a community and mental health trust

  Source:
  1996–97 Hospital Episode Statistics

  Ear, Nose and Throat Consultants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants have been employed in NHS ear, nose and throat departments in each of the last five years. [59349]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information about the number of consultants employed in otolaryngology (Ear, Nose and Throat), on 30 September in each of the last five years for which data are available is shown in the table.

  Number of consultants in otolaryngology (ENT) in the National Health Service in England as at 30 September (whole time equivalents):

  Year

  Wte

  1992

  380

  1993

  370

  1994

  370

  1995

  380

  1996

  380

  1997

  400

  Note:
  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:
  The Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  NHS Trusts
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has issued to NHS trusts about setting goals for the representation of(a) women, (b) people from ethnic minorities and (c) people with disabilities in the workforce; and if he will make a statement; [59361]

  (2) what guidance he has issued to NHS trusts on monitoring and evaluating information collected about the (a) gender, (b) ethnic origin and (c) disability of job applicants. [59360]
  561
  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 12 November 1998]We have recently issued the first ever human resource strategic framework for the National Health Service. One of the strategic aims of Working Together: Securing a Quality Workforce for the NHS is that the NHS should have a quality workforce, in the right numbers, with the right skills and diversity, organised in the right way to deliver the Government's service objectives for health and social care. The framework commits trusts to demonstrate year on year progress towards achieving a workforce that is fully representative of the community it serves, at all levels of the organisation. Further guidance on equal opportunities monitoring will be issued in 1999 as part of the work on implementing the human resources framework and integrating it with performance management systems within the NHS.

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 1998,Official Report, columns 1180-81, what are the latest figures for the number of people in the Mid Essex Hospital NHS Trust area waiting to see a consultant for (a) 13 to 25 weeks and (b) 26 or more weeks. [59546]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 October 1998,Official Report, columns 1180-81. This provides the latest published figures for outpatient waiting times. Figures for the end of September 1998 will be available shortly.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 1998,Official Report, column 1180, how many people in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area had been waiting for treatment for 12 months or more at the latest date for which figures are available. [59905]

  Mr. Milburn
  At Mid Essex Hospital National Health Service Trust, a total of 1,155 people have been waiting for treatment for 12 months or more as at 30 September 1998.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the total number of people in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area awaiting treatment on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) 30 September 1998. [59867]

  Mr. Milburn
  Mid Essex Hospital National Health Service Trust's total waiting list was 8,391 as at 31 March 1997, and was 11,615 as at 30 September 1998.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his officials have concluded their review of the impact of the introduction of the VAT Order SI 1997/2744; and if he will make a statement. [59895]

  Mr. Milburn
  Officials have concluded their review of the impact of the introduction of the Value Added Tax Order Statutory Instrument 1997/2744.

  They are now working closely with Her Majesty's Treasury officials to finalise the administrative procedures to ameliorate the effect of the VAT Order on the supply
  562
  of certain renal and cancer drugs and on the supply of pharmaceutical products by retail pharmacists to residents of nursing homes.

  The VAT Order also affected certain incontinence supplies. A review of continence policy is currently underway which is intended to ensure that the most appropriate and effective continence services are being planned and delivered.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce(a) part-time and (b) term-time nurse training to assist mature students with family responsibilities. [59331]

  Mr. Milburn
  We encourage and support the provision of part-time, flexible training. We have announced plans to expand on the existing provision of part-time and flexible pre-registration nursing and midwifery diploma programmes by up to 200 places in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 and by up to 500 places in 2000–01.

  Psychiatric Wards
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the number of temporary staff employed on psychiatric wards; and if he will make a statement. [59440]

  Mr. Hutton
  None. The Government are committed to securing the mental health staff needed to provide high quality services and are therefore increasing training levels for new health professionals and investing in significant additional resources on new initiatives to improve recruitment, retention and return to practice of trained staff.

  Influenza Vaccinations
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to local health authorities about the categories of patients who are entitled to receive a free influenza vaccination. [59532]

  Ms Jowell
  Influenza immunisation is recommended on the National Health Service for all those in whom the disease is more likely to be a serious illness, so immunisation is recommended for:those with chronic respiratory, heart or renal disease, diabetes and those who are immunosuppressed
  those living in long stay residential accommodation
  from this year, all those aged 75 and over.

  The final decision on whether influenza immunisation is offered rests with the individual's doctor/medical practitioner.

  The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) wrote to doctors and nurses advising them of this extension in policy in a joint letter in August 1998 (Personal Letter/CM098/4 Personal Letter/CNO/98/6)

  563
  and a Health Services Circular (HSC 1998/140) was sent to health authorities. The Department has issued a poster and updated its two leaflets about influenza: 'What should I do about flu' and 'Flu vaccination', available from surgeries and health centres. Copies are available in the Library.

  Private Sector Surgery
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the surgical procedures carried out during the last quarter for which published data are available on NHS patients who had been waiting more than 12 months for surgery were carried out in the private sector at the cost of NHS trusts and health authorities. [59585]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mixed Wards
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer of 10 November 1998,Official Report, column 141, whether the NHS Executive has issued guidance to NHS trusts only in accordance with the Secretary of State's assurance in the House on 28 April 1998, Official Report, column 134, that he would put a stop to the creation of any new mixed wards in NHS psychiatric units. [59643]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Executive has recently issued guidance to health authorities and trusts about the elimination of mixed sex hospital accommodation, including psychiatric units. The guidance re-emphasises the importance of providing safe facilities for patients in hospital who are mentally ill and which safeguard their privacy and dignity. Guidance to the NHS on the use of capital allocations will ensure capital is invested to eliminate mixed sex accommodation.

  Physical Activity (Children)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Employment concerned with ensuring that all children and young people have the opportunity of at least one hour of physical activity per day. [59698]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department collaborates closely with the Department for Education and Employment to develop ways of increasing levels of physical activity among children and young people. As part of the healthy schools initiative, both Departments are working on plans to develop an active and safe travel to school challenge. This work complements the "Young and Active" report, which I launched in September, and which set out a framework for improving physical activity levels among children aged between 5 and 18.

  Mental Health (Leeds)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the Audit Commission's comparison between Leeds and other major cities in respect of expenditure per head on mental health services and (b) the recent net closure of eight acute
  564
  psychiatric beds in Leeds prior to the reprovision of community alternatives; and why there was not formal public consultation over the closure. [59763]

  Mr. Hutton
  Decisions about mental health care and the use of the increased resources made available by this Government are best taken at local level, because it is at local level that people's needs are best known and where services can be tailored to them. It is the responsibility of Leeds Health Authority to assess the health care needs of their population, to draw up strategies and commissioning plans in collaboration with local people, general practitioners and other organisations, and to secure a range of hospital and community health services to meet those needs.

  The Leeds Community and Mental Health Trust is currently developing a modernisation programme that includes a range of capital developments to reprovide mental health services in Leeds. The introduction of these schemes will allow the closure of the existing facilities which are outdated and in much need of replacement. The health authority has discussed its plans with the community health council.

  New-variant CJD
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the information collected under paragraphs 11(1) and 11(3) of Schedule 9 to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 allows his Department to trace other patients on the same operating list as the patient carrying the infective agent of new-variant CJD at Torbay; and if the hospital concerned has listed the employees involved in the operation in accordance with these paragraphs. [59978]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 16 November 1998]No. The patient's diagnosis was unknown at the time and no such Control of Substances Hazardous to Health record was kept.

  Sussex Ambulance Service NHS Trust
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons he did not re-appoint Mr. Martyn Long CBE DL for a second term as Chairman of the Sussex Ambulance Service NHS Trust. [60045]

  Mr. Milburn
  Mr. Long's application was considered alongside other possible candidates according to the Department's procedures for the appointment of National Health Service board members, details of which are available in the Library.

  It is made clear to all those invited to serve on National Health Service boards that the appointment is for a set term of office, and there can be no presumption of re-appointment.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued on how pharmacists should be represented in primary care groups. [60191]

  Mr. Milburn
  Primary Care Groups will need to draw upon all the experience and expertise of their stakeholders
  565
  to develop and implement local policies. Pharmacists are recognised as important stakeholders in the community.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 November 1998,Official Report, columns 87-88, concerning Primary Care groups, if he will set out the ways in which elected members of local authorities will have an enhanced opportunity to influence the development and implementation of health care arrangements. [60298]

  Mr. Milburn
  The local strategy for improving health and healthcare will be set through the Health Improvement Programme (HImP). The development of the HImP will be led by the health authority in partnership with the local National Health Service, relevant local authorities and the wider local community. This offers the opportunity for the local community and its leaders e. g., local Councillors, to influence the strategy. This approach will be underpinned, subject to Parliamentary approval, by new statutory duties of partnership between NHS bodies and local authorities to promote the health and wellbeing of their local populations.

  EC Health Council
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the outcome of the EC Health Council meeting on 12 November. [60471]

  Ms Jowell
  I attended the meeting of the Health Council on 12 November in Brussels, on behalf of the United Kingdom.

  The Council adopted its common position on the Commission's proposal for an injury prevention programme. The Council discussed the development of future public health policy and adopted conclusions which stressed the importance of better prioritisation and co-ordination of public health activities by the Community to complement action taken by the Member States. The Commission reported on progress in combating smoking within the Community and announced that it intended to propose measures on the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes and labelling of packets; it also intended to bring forward measures on smuggling, additives, and the prohibition of "light" and "mild" markings on cigarettes. Conclusions which stressed the need for a more focused approach were adopted on the European Union-United States Task Force. The Council agreed to continue to consider TSEs (Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies) at each meeting and asked the Commission to provide it with a detailed annual report on the issue. The Council noted a progress report on the draft Recommendation on limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields. A response to the Commission's report on the revision of the homeopathic medicines Directives was also agreed. The Council welcomed the recommendations of the conference held in Copenhagen on 9-10 September 1998 on "The Microbial Threat". It also discussed co-operation between the European Union and the World Health Organisation. The International Therapeutic Solidarity Fund—a French
  566
  Government initiative to provide anti-retroviral therapies to people with HIV/AIDS in developing countries—was also discussed. A discussion on the outcome of the conference on "Quality in Health Care" held by the Austrian Presidency on 24 July 1998 was held over lunch.

  Training Support Programme
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources he will make available to the Training Support Programme (TSP, Specific Grant) for local authorities in the next three years. [60472]

  Mr. Hutton
  The training support programme budget for 1998–99 is £35.45 million. It is set to rise to £39.0 million for 1999–2000 and there are planning figures of £42.5 million and £44.5 million for the two subsequent years. This provides a sound basis on which local authorities can plan their local expenditure.

  Joint Procedures (NHS and Personal Social Services)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 November 1998,Official Report, column 178, concerning National Priorities Guidance, what informal consultations were undertaken prior to its publication. [60297]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government sought the personal advice and views of a range of key people from professional, National Health Service and social services organisations prior to the publication of Modernising Health and Social Services: National Priorities Guidance 1999/00–2001/02.

  Continence Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current level of continence care provision. [60272]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 2 September 1998 we announced the details of the review of continence policy which involves representatives from the health service, social services and voluntary organisations. This review will lead to updated guidance which we plan to issue in Spring 1999.

  Betaferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation his Department has made of the recently published research into the beneficial effects of Betaferon; and what plans he has to issue revised guidance. [60271]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department has considered the results from the recently published research on treatment of multiple sclerosis with Betaferon (Beta-Interferon- 1 b). The research adds to the growing body of data about this medicine, but there are still many unanswered questions about its appropriate use in both relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. The Department will be commissioning new research to address this. When the results of the research are available, we will issue revised guidelines which will take into account this and all other soundly based research evidence.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated for injuries caused by fireworks in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [60265]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The DTI's annual census of firework injuries is conducted over a four week period taking in the run-up to 5 November and a few days afterwards. In the last ten years the number of people treated in Accident and Emergency departments in Great Britain during this period was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  960

  1988

  877

  1989

  800

  1990

  805

  1991

  723

  1992

  942

  1993

  1,058

  1994

  1,574

  1995

  1,530

  1996

  1,233

  1997

  908

  No reliable estimates of injuries outside this period can be made because the numbers involved are too small to be extrapolated from data in the Home Accident Surveillance System.

  DH: Childcare provision and cost to parents: 1996–97 and 1997–98

  Playscheme (cost to parent per child)

  Subsidised nursery (cost to parent per child)

  Childcare vouchers (value of vouchers)

  London

  24 place on-site holiday playscheme 5-12 years (£6 per day)

  25 subsidised places (50% of costs of £105-£169)

  Leeds

  40 place off-site holiday playscheme 5-14 years shared with Benefits Agency (£6.50 per day until 1/98, then £8.00 per day)

  30 place on-site nursery shared with Benefits Agency (£84.45 per week)

  NHSPA

  c.20 places taken up at off-site holiday playscheme (£5.50 per day)

  North Thames Regional Office

  c.22 x £25 vouchers, for those in post at 1/4/96, one per family per week 0-5 years

  South Thames Regional Office

  As above

  Notes:

  1. The Department' staff in London also had access to the Westminster holiday playscheme. Around 4 parents took up places in each scheme.

  2. During 1996–97 and part of 1997–98, the Department's staff had use of the Childcare Solutions telephone helpline. This provided information and advice on childcare in local areas free of charge and was used by 70 staff.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 November 1998,Official Report, column 33, what assurances his Department has received from the Israeli Government that no new building permits will be issued for Jewish housing units in (a) Gaza and (b) the Occupied West Bank. [59559]

  Child Care
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what childcare provision is made available by his Department for the use of staff; what is the cost to parents of this childcare; how many parents used the facilities in the financial years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and what proportion of total staff used these facilities in the financial years (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98. [59728]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department has made provision for subsidised nursery places and an on-site holiday playscheme in London, and an on-site nursery and a holiday playscheme, funded jointly with the Benefits Agency, in Leeds. Childcare vouchers are available to staff in North and South Thames Regional Offices of the National Health Service Executive. The NHS Pensions Agency provides a subsidy towards the cost of a holiday playscheme for its staff. The Department also provides a range of family friendly policies including 16 weeks' paid maternity leave; extended career breaks (up to 5 years); 5 days' paternity leave; and other measures to help staff balance work and family life including jobshare, part-time working, homeworking and term-time only working.

  The table shows the cost to parents of provision. Information on the use of facilities is not available in the form requested. The places available are set out in the table. The number of staff in post in the Department is 4,768.

  A review of the Department's current childcare provision is underway.

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received no further assurances from the Israeli government that no new building permits will be issued for Jewish housing units in Gaza and the West Bank. But the Israeli Cabinet endorsed the Wye River Memorandum on 12 November and we expect the Israeli government to abide by the letter and the spirit of the agreement, which prohibits either side from taking any steps to change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We have made it clear to Israel that we regard the initiation and encouragement of settlement activity as a violation of international law and an obstacle to peace,
  569
  and we recently informed them of our concern at the issuing of tenders for construction at Har Homa in East Jerusalem.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Israel on the implementation of the Wye Accord. [60163]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written twice to the Israeli Prime Minister since the Wye Memorandum was signed in Washington on 23 October to congratulate him on this achievement, and to stress the importance of swift implementation. Our Ambassador in Tel Aviv has also been in touch with key political contacts in Israel to express our concern at the delays in implementation. We trust that, following Cabinet approval of the Wye agreement on 11 November, full implementation will begin in accordance with the timeline established at Wye.

  Foreign Policy Centre
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the annual budget of the Foreign Policy Centre; what proportion is charged to public funds; and if he will list the source of private funding. [57585]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Foreign Policy Centre is an independent foreign policy institute. The Centre's annual budget and contributions are matters for the Foreign Policy Centre. None of the Foreign Policy Centre's budget is charged to public funds.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the proposed annual salary of the Director Designate of the Foreign Policy Centre. [57584]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Foreign Policy Centre is an independent foreign policy institute. The Director Designate' s salary is a matter for the Foreign Policy Centre.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the advantages of the policy input available from the Foreign Policy Centre relative to that from(a) his Department's (i) Policy Board, (ii) Policy Planning Unit, (iii) Research Department, (iv) High Commissioners, Ambassadors and overseas missions and (v) London-based desk offices, (b) his special advisers, (c) the intelligence services, (d) other Government departments, (e) the Royal Institute of International Affairs and (f) other academic institutions for the study of international affairs. [57590]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is established practice for Foreign Office officials and Ministers to have contact with a wide range of policy institutes and NGOs and to consider their views when developing policy. These contacts occur at all levels of the Foreign Office and are an important and valued part of the policy making process. Policy institutes and NGOs contribute to a wider public debate which can also influence policy. The nature of these contacts means it is not possible to assess the influence of one particular policy institute in isolation from other institutes.

  Russia
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has had with EU member countries about reducing illegal currency transfers from Russia to western banking institutions. [59276]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 November 1998]There have been frequent discussions of Russia's economic problems and how the EU might best assist Russia to overcome them at meetings of the General Affairs Council, most recently on 9 November. During these discussions co-operation with Russia in fighting organised crime, including financial crime, has been discussed.

  Through its TACIS programme, the EU funds training for Russian banking staff to help them identify evidence of money laundering and take action to prevent it.

  An existing EU money laundering directive requires member states to implement legal measures to prevent criminal funds from being laundered by their financial institutions.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what public access there is to European Council documents pertaining to the discussions after the Amsterdam IGC on interpreting the treaty negotiations relating to the opt-in to the Schengen Agreement by opt-out states. [59807]

  Ms Quin
  Members of the public may apply for access to any Council document under the provisions of Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993. Applications are considered on a case-by-case basis.

  The two draft Decisions identifying and incorporating the Schengen acquis have been made available to Parliament.

  EU Youth Forum
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on t`he meeting by a Minister from his Department with the European Youth Forum on 14 June; [59799]

  (2) what representations (a) he and (b) his Ministers have received from the European Union Youth Forum as part of its EU-funded lobbying activities. [59992]

  Ms Quin
  My predecessor, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), met representatives from the European Youth Forum on 14 June 1998 in the margins of the Cardiff European Council. The EYF briefed him on the conclusions of a conference which they had held from 11 to 14 June in Cardiff, entitled 'Fighting for our Future'. A central theme of the conference was youth and employment.

  People's Europe '98 Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of speakers at People's Europe '98(a) endorsed and (b) opposed closer European integration; and what measures he will take to ensure balance in future conferences. [60000]
  571
  Ms Quin
  Decisions on speakers for the People's Europe '98 conference were the responsibility of the organisers. At the Government's suggestion the organisers sought to ensure that a wide range of speakers from across Europe were invited, representing diverse points of view.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visit visas have been refused at the High Commission in Lagos; and what proportion of the total applications this represents, in each of the last four years, and in the current year to date. [60027]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is as follows:

  British High Commission—Lagos

  Year

  Number of non-settlement visas issued

  Number of refusals

  Refusals as percentage of total applications processed

  19981

  30,668

  5,877

  16.1

  1997

  27,101

  8,681

  24.2

  1996

  33,249

  7,963

  19.3

  1995

  23,787

  8,165

  25.6

  1994

  31,202

  10,232

  24.7

  1 1998 figures are from January-September

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if he will make a statement; [60076]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the computer systems in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies to which his Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if he will make a statement. [60078]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1109, in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government departments' and agencies' progress in tackling the bug. This also covered key organisations within the wider public sector. The information the hon. Member requests will be found in the copies of departments' plans which have been published in the Library. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Library and on the internet.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the problems which have arisen in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible for millennium compliance; if
  572
  he will make a statement on progress to date in tackling such problems; and what are the priority areas for remedial work. [60077]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The year 2000 problems which have arisen in the FCO are non compliant hardware, software and operating systems in the following:

  Office automation systems

  Business-critical database applications

  Telecommunications

  Embedded systems.

  All the above have been classed as high priority.

  The Agency for which the FCO has responsibility had a problem with its telecommunication. This is being corrected.

  Information on the FCO's progress in tackling these problems was given in the FC0's last quarterly update of its plan, which will be found in the Library. My right hon. Friend the President of the Council will announce the results of the next quarterly review shortly. The updated plan will be placed in the Library and on the internet.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60079]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The FCO plans to have all its business-critical IT and embedded systems compliant before the millennium either by correction or by replacement.

  The greatest risk has been identified as the limited time available to replace systems around the world. Contingency plans have been drafted to ensure workarounds can be implemented wherever replacements cannot be accomplished in time.

  As requested by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council, the FCO will have completed risk assessments, and will have initial year 2000 business continuity plans in place, by the end of January 1999.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) pursuant to his oral statement of 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 708, what evidence he received from (a) the CIA and (b) other sources, to support his statement that Saddam Hussein had imported specialist surgical equipment for cosmetic surgery on those around him; [60275]

  (2) what evidence he received from (a) the CIA and (b) other sources to support the statement he made at his recent press conference that Saddam Hussein had imported surgical equipment for breast enlargement operations. [60276]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Iraqi Government have submitted Distribution Plans of goods to be supplied under the United Nations "Oil for Food" programme which include Silicone breast implants (sizes 4, 5, 6 and 7), a Liposuction machine (worth over 16,000 USD) and
  573
  a teeth whitening laser worth (126,000 USD). These ignore the fact that the purpose of the "Oil for Food" programme is to provide essential humanitarian goods to those who need them in Iraq. The UN would not of course approve these items at the expense of more pressing needs. Saddam Hussein's perverse priorities are to provide luxury goods for his cronies rather than food and medicine for suffering children.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been sent to the Russian Foreign Minister about his objections to military action against Iraq. [60161]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made clear our own position on the use of military force in the Security Council and in public statements. We have discussed Iraq regularly with the Russians, among others.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the objectives of a possible air attack on Iraq. [60162]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The ultimate aim of our policy, including any use of military force against Iraq, has always been the full implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions.

  Burma
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to increase aid to the Karen refugees in Burma. [59551]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In recent years, the Government have channelled support for refugees on the Thai-Burma border primarily through the Burma Border Consortium. In 1998, the Department for International Development has provided over £250,000 for the Consortium. DflD is considering a request from the Consortium for further support in 1999.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to bring pressure to bear on the SPDC regime in Burma to implement a ceasefire and enter into political dialogue with the Karen people. [59552]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are concerned at the political situation in Burma and the plight of the ethnic minorities. We consistently exert pressure on the regime to enter into substantive dialogue with the different parties concerned to reach a solution and an end to fighting. Our efforts include support for UN involvement and a recent strengthening of the EU Common Position.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities exist on St. Helena for citizens to be able to have access to files relating to them. [59433]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 12 November 1998]St. Helenians have no right of access to files relating to them such as criminal records, benefit payments and passport applications. Public Servants are subject to open appraisal but do not have right of access to their files.
  574
  If my hon. Friend has any specific concerns, I would invite him to raise this issue with this office directly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Seals
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of each type of seal found in United Kingdom waters, the total weight of fish consumed by these animals each year and the weight of each prey species this represents; and of these prey species, which, and in what numbers, weights or quantities, are exploited by(a) commercial fisherman and (b) anglers. [59032]

  Mr. Morley
  1997 estimates (1996 for Northern Ireland) indicate UK populations of some 115,000 grey seals and 50,000 common seals.

  Based on 1985 diet data it is estimated that in 1997 232,000 tonnes of fish was consumed by grey seals and 55,000 tonnes of fish by common seals. The predominant prey species were sandeels, cod and whiting. A significant proportion of the fish taken by seals are likely to have been juveniles which, given their high rates of natural mortality, may not in any case have reached a size at which they would be available to either commercial fishermen or anglers.

  Mink
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of recent reports of the use of carbon dioxide gas for the gassing of mink in fur farms; and if he will ban the use of such gas as a method of killing mink. [59085]

  Mr. Morley
  A recent article (Veterinary Record, 26 September) concluded that under experimental conditions mink detect high concentrations of carbon dioxide gas and avoid them when given the opportunity to express a preference. It suggests that alternative methods of killing may be preferable on welfare grounds, but acknowledges that the degree of aversion to other methods of killing has not been studied. The matter needs to be considered at the European Community level, as the permitted methods of killing which include carbon dioxide gas, are specified in EU regulations. We shall ensure that this new report is considered by the European Commission: however, the Government are in any case committed to banning the farming of animals for their fur.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to commission research into the direct and indirect effects of releasing genetically modified organisms into the open. [59224]

  Mr. Rooker
  In addition to studies currently underway or about to be commissioned, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her on 12 November 1998,Official Report, column 316. We recently announced that the Government will be carrying out farm-scale evaluations

  575
  of the first commercial plantings of genetically modified crops for ecological effects along with commercial plantings of conventional crops.

  European Fund for Fisheries Enforcement
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the United Kingdom has been awarded in 1998 to date from the European Fund for Fisheries Enforcement; and if he will list(a) the projects that will receive assistance, indicating the amount of grant (i) applied for and (ii) received, and (b) those projects that were put forward but not accepted. [59557]

  Mr. Morley
  Information about Community assistance towards fisheries enforcement expenditure awarded to the United Kingdom in 1998 to date under the provisions of Commission Decision 98/439/EC is set out in the tables.

  Decisions on the eligibility of planned expenditure, the rate of Community financial contribution, and the conditions to which contributions may be subject are determined by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 18 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3760/92.

  Central Government Departments including Executive Agencies

  Total number of projects on which grant aid has been awarded

  Total planned expenditure (£)

  Total planned expenditure eligible for grant aid (£)

  Total grant aid awarded (£)

  10

  9,280,077

  5,367,054

  2,797,882

  Total number of projects on which grant aid has not been awarded

  Total planned expenditure (£)

  Total planned aexpenditure eligible for grant aid (£)

  Total grant aid awarded (£)

  13

  1,974,254

  0

  0

  Local Authority Fisheries Committees

  Total number of projects on which grant aid has been awarded

  Total planned expenditure (£)

  Total expenditure eligible for grant aid (£)

  Total grant aid awarded (£)

  7

  9,700

  9,700

  4,850

  Total number of projects on which grant aid has not been awarded

  Total planned expenditure (£)

  Total planned expenditure eligible for grant aid (£)

  Total grant aid awarded (£)

  19

  2,389,391

  0

  0

  Note:
  Amounts based on ecu exchange rate applied by Commission at time grant awarded.

  Sea Fisheries Committees
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what money has been allocated to each of the United Kingdom's sea fisheries committees for 1998–99. [59558]

  Mr. Morley
  Sea Fisheries Committees are committees of local government. They are funded by their constituent local authorities. No funds are provided directly by central Government.

  The Statutory Instruments establishing each committee specify the proportionate contribution that each constituent local authority has agreed to make towards its committee's costs.

  Meat (Hygiene and Inspection)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will publish comparisons of the extent to which the United Kingdom and other EU countries use(a) veterinary surgeons and (b) meat inspectors in the public health inspection of the meat slaughter process; [58449]

  (2) if he will publish comparisons of the different qualifications for (a) meat inspectors and (b) veterinarians involved in meat inspection in Britain and other EU countries. [58450]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Harmonised EC meat hygiene rules, which apply equally in all EU Member States, lay down detailed and specific requirements for the supervision of licensed abattoirs by official veterinarians (ie fully qualified veterinary surgeons). The rules also specify the duties and responsibilities of such official veterinarians, including in respect of ante mortem and post mortem veterinary inspections. Council Directive 78/1026/EEC provides for the mutual recognition of the qualifications of veterinarians applying in different EU Member States.

  The meat hygiene rules also provide for official veterinarians to be assisted in the performance of certain, specified, tasks by 'auxiliaries' whose qualifications must comply with the minimum qualifications laid down. In Great Britain the role of such 'auxiliaries' is performed by MHS Meat Hygiene Inspectors. My Department has no information on the qualifications of 'auxiliaries' employed on meat hygiene work in other EU Member States.

  Information obtained by my Department recently about the implementation in other Member States of the veterinary supervision requirements laid down in EC meat hygiene rules shows that supervision levels and frequencies vary between States as one would expect. It does not support the claim that supervision levels in Great Britain premises are significantly higher then in other member States. I have arranged for this information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish comparisons of the proportion of farm gate prices for meat in the United Kingdom and other EU countries that results from meat inspection. [58451]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The information requested is not available.
  577
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish comparisons of the quality and cost of meat hygiene standards across the EU. [58448]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Information about the quality and costs of enforcing meat hygiene standards in Great Britain is set out in the Annual Report and Accounts of the Meat Hygiene Service.

  It is the European Commission's responsibility to ensure that Member States comply with their Community obligations as laid down in harmonised EC rules. 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 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/vi/reports) and a list of such reports will appear in MAFF's Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report and BSE Enforcement Bulletin, both of which are published monthly.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to review the impact of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 within one year of its implementation date. [58237]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  In common with all legislation, we will keep the impact of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 under review.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the differences between the methods of implementing the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 in different EU countries; [58239]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the cost to consumers of compliance with the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations in 1998 in each EU Member State; [58235]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the cost of compliance with the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 in each Member State of the EU. [58241]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 implement in Great Britain the provisions relating to charges for meat hygiene/ welfare inspections of Council Directive 85/73/EEC (as amended) on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls.

  The level, method of calculation and compliance costs of such charges in other EU countries are matters for the relevant competent authority in each Member State. It is the European Commission's responsibility to ensure that individual Member States comply with their Community obligations as laid down in Directive 85/73/EEC.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment his Department has made of the cost to British industry of the implementation of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998; [58240]
  578
  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 on small and medium enterprises. [58232]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  A Regulatory Appraisal in respect of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 has been prepared by my Department and will be placed in the Library of the House. The Regulatory Appraisal includes an assessment of the likely compliance costs for business of the Regulations and the likely impact on small businesses.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received about the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 since they were implemented. [58233]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  My Department has received a small number of representations about the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 since they came into force.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the European Commission reasoned opinion document on which the interpretation of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 is based. [58238]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  No. The Reasoned Opinion is the formal legal document in which the European Commission has set out its case against the UK Government in respect of our failure to implement fully the veterinary supervision requirements laid down in EC meat hygiene rules. Such formal communications between the European Commission and Member State Governments are confidential and not for publication.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the effect on prices received by livestock farmers of the implementation of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998. [58242]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 relate to charges levied by the Meat Hygiene Service in Great Britain on licensed slaughterhouses, cutting plants and cold stores in respect of the hygiene/welfare inspections carried out in those premises. The prices received by livestock farmers for animals slaughtered in licensed slaughterhouses are a commercial matter for those involved.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the contingency plans drawn up by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies in relation to problems arising from millennium compliance including the embedded chip problem after 31 December 1999. [60141]

  Mr. Morley
  The primary aim of the Ministry's millennium programme is to ensure that effective countermeasures are implemented to prevent any Year 2000 date-related problems from occurring. However, a formal risk management methodology has been introduced in core-MAFF and its Agencies which will identify the need for contingency plans where countermeasure action may not be fully effective.
  579
  Risk assessment will be completed and initial contingency plans will be in place by the end of January 1999; these will be fully developed by mid-1999, with key elements tested in the same timescale.

  Non-departmental public bodies are being advised to progress contingency planning and their progress will be monitored.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the computer systems in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies to which his Department is responsible will be modified and tested in relation to the millennium computer problem by January 1999; and if he will make a statement; [60140]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of tackling the millennium computer problem including the embedded chip problem in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which his Department is responsible, separately identifying expenditure to date and future expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [60138]
  580
  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1109, in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government Departments' and agencies' progress in tackling the bug. This also covered key organisations within the wider public sector. The information the hon. Member requests will be found in the copies of Departments' plans which have been published in the Library of the House. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Library of the House and on the Internet.

  Rabbits and Rodents
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the annual economic loss sustained by the agricultural sector from the activities of(a) rabbits, (b) voles, (c) rats and (d) mice. [57923]

  Mr. Morley
  The damage caused by rabbits to agriculture is estimated at £40 million per annum. An assessment has not been made of the economic loss to agriculture caused by voles, rats and mice, but damage caused by small rodents can be considerable.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to deliver the Long Fox Annual Lecture at the University of Bristol on Wednesday 18th November, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Product Price Anomalies
2.36 p.m.
Lord Cadman Lord Cadman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the prices paid by British consumers for foodstuffs and other commodities, which are reported to be higher than those in other European Union member states, are consistent with the existence of a single market within the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the European Single Market is designed to provide for the competitive supply of goods and services across the Community. It cannot guarantee uniform pricing, although this may to some extent occur as a result of consumers being able to choose the cheapest source of supply where this is practicable.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that it is not only foodstuffs that are involved but also many other things, ranging from motor vehicles to beer and from rail and bus fares to the cost of money? Does the Minister agree that these anomalies, within what I have always taken to be a single common market, are likely to get worse and result in this country becoming the most expensive in the EC? Therefore, would it not be appropriate for the Government to start working towards achieving some convergence?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, prices are made up of many constituent parts and they vary because of issues such as the exchange rate, taxes, wages and costs. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that we are totally out of line in pricing across a very broad range of goods. There are certain areas involved. If the pricing is uncompetitive for reasons which are against the law, it will be examined and investigated by the Office of Fair
1118
Trading. There is no evidence to show that we are becoming the most expensive source of products in Europe.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in the spectrum between perfect competition at the one end and imperfect competition at the other end, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, at present, we are far closer to the end marked "imperfect competition" in the European Union as regards a whole range of consumer goods?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as I said in answer to a previous question—and I shall repeat it to my noble friend—if there is evidence to show that we are moving towards the imperfect competition end of the scale which strays from being imperfect to the state of being illegal, such matters can be challenged by the OFT. I should point out to noble Lords that the new Competition Act, which, if I may say so, was sensibly passed by this House, will give the OFT far stronger powers to pursue these cases. I believe that that is all to the good. Indeed, I hope to see us moved up to the more positive end of my noble friend's spectrum in the very near future.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as foodstuff is zero-rated for VAT in this country while in most countries of the European Union it is charged to VAT, can the Minister say why foodstuff is not a great deal cheaper in the United Kingdom than on the Continent?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, some foodstuffs are a great deal cheaper, but not all. As I said, if there were evidence to suggest any illegality in that respect, I am quite sure that the OFT would seriously consider the matter. Indeed, as noble Lords know, it is at present considering the profitability of supermarkets. If that is shown to be more than adequate due to any illegality, action will be taken over pricing.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say when imperfection becomes illegal?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I shall leave that matter to my legal friends rather than trying to identify any particular stance at this stage. I feel more comfortable leaving such matters in the hands of experts.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that The Sunday Times carried out a comparative analysis between Britain, France, Germany and Holland at a shopping-basket level in supermarkets and that, in every case, we were by far the most expensive? Indeed, in the case of the comparison with Holland, which also has sales tax, we were more than 25 per cent. in excess. Is that not evidence to suggest that there is something wrong with the pricing structure in the UK?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am aware of such surveys. I believe that the Express and the Standard have carried out a survey; and, indeed, the noble Lord may

1119
be correct to say that The Sunday Times has done so. If there is evidence to show that we are out of line in terms of the profitability of our major supermarkets due to some improper actions on pricing, no doubt the OFT will come to that conclusion. However, it is far too early to draw such conclusions. At this stage, I should also fall back on the answer that my noble friend gave last week to a similar question—namely, that these surveys are by no means statistically valid.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, the Minister has talked about statistics, but has he noticed a recent report which suggests that the average household in the UK has gone from spending 33 per cent. of its income on food to 10.9 per cent. at this time? Does the noble Lord agree that the British food chain is under greater surveillance than ever before and that food scares are almost a daily occurrence?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, if the noble Lord's statistics are correct—naturally I do not carry those in my head—and the percentage spend on food has dropped, given the fact that we are becoming a nation of bon viveurs, that would suggest that food prices are falling rather than rising. I regard that as extremely good. As regards safety in the food chain, we are trying to improve our performance and our vigilance on that safety That, too, is all to the good of the consumer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there can be no law applicable to these particular circumstances either in the United Kingdom or originating in the Community? Is he aware that only on Saturday last I succeeded in obtaining stewing lamb, which is the cheapest form of all meats in that field, for £4.59 per kilo, while the price available to the farmer for the whole animal was under £1? Can he reconcile that difference or does he agree that there is no law at all in this field?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, it is difficult to apply law to raw material cost within a system which has a long supply chain through to the retail outlet. It would be unwise of any government to try to opine officially on values, costs and prices within a chain. I agree with my noble friend as regards that matter. I hope that he had an extremely good luncheon of stewed lamb.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, apart from the current investigation that the OFT is carrying out on prices and profitability in domestic supermarkets, are there any plans to investigate prices charged by supermarkets on the Continent? I do not wish to add to the anecdotal or unscientific evidence from any of us as regards the things we have bought. However, from our home in the country we frequently travel to Calais. The saving gained on the purchase of just a few items more than pays the cost of the car journey and we have a super lunch in France too.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am not aware of any further study being undertaken into supermarkets abroad. If such a study is undertaken I shall inform the
1120
noble Baroness of it. If the consumer can find attractive prices abroad—there is evidence of that—goods will be imported into that market to compete against our own. That is the wonderful free choice that we have and the advantage that the European Union gives us. Long may it continue.

House of Lords Reform: Consultation
2.46 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will require the forthcoming Royal Commission on reform of the House of Lords to undertake a campaign of information and consultation with the general public.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government made clear that one of our main reasons for favouring the approach of the Royal Commission to consider long-term reform of the House of Lords is to enable the widest possible consultation and debate to take place within a structured context. Although obviously it is not for the Government to prescribe the exact procedure for the Royal Commission to follow, we would expect it both to inform and consult the general public on the issue of House of Lords reform.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that encouraging response. Are the Government prepared to commit the resources necessary for an effective public information and consultation campaign? In 1992 the Local Government Commission engaged in what was undoubtedly the most full and wide-ranging exercise in public consultation hitherto. Its expenditure was £15 million. This may not be a question that the Minister can answer directly, but will the Government be likely to encourage that kind of expenditure in this case?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am wary of the expression "public relations campaign" which I believe the noble Lord used and of the large sum of money which he mentioned. But I hope the House will be assured that we shall take appropriate action to consult public opinion.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I welcome the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for the idea of building a public consensus on the reform or the future of your Lordships' House. However, does not the noble Baroness think that it would have been much better to have appointed this Royal Commission immediately after the previous general election? There might even have been a chance that it could have made a substantial report by now and we could be considering a full reform rather than merely the half-baked stage one reform which the Government are at the moment pressing upon us.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not wish to trouble the noble Viscount with concern about language but I think there is a difference between consensus and

1121
consultation. I believe that I have committed the Government to appropriate consultation, and we shall certainly fulfil that. As regards the timing of the Royal Commission, the noble Viscount is well aware that from the time of the election manifesto we have always said that the stage one reform—as it has become colloquially known—is a stand alone piece of constitutional reform which we seek to achieve on its own. We see the second stage, and the organisation of the Royal Commission to inform that second stage, as being a sensible way to proceed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent report of the Electoral Reform Society in which it boasted that hundreds of its members had packed the public meetings of the Jenkins Commission? Will she ensure that the Royal Commission is protected from such unscrupulous exploitation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in my Answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I do not believe it is for the Government to dictate the arrangements of the Royal Commission, but I am sure that it will be sensible of previous examples.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: The Bishop!
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: Thank you, my Lords. Does the Minister agree that the recommendations of the Crick Report, Education for Democracy, would be well served by such a campaign because the campaign could then be not just about the reform of the House of Lords but about the whole question of representative democracy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, all of us who are interested in reorganising some aspects of the constitutional settlement and looking at the broader ways in which representational government can be improved are aware of the interesting suggestions of the Crick Report. It is not necessarily directly relevant to the work of the Royal Commission but, nonetheless, plays a valuable part in the general discussion on those issues.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, third time lucky and blessed by the Church. On the question of consultation, is the noble Baroness aware that a MORI poll on 1st November showed that two-thirds of the electorate oppose the Government's proposals to abolish the extant hereditary entitlement of noble Lords to sit and vote and their proposal to set up a wholly nominated Chamber? Is that not an expression of opinion to which the Government ought to defer?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should be very surprised if the noble Lord were seriously to suggest that the Government should defer to the results of any
1122
public opinion poll, however reputable. This Government are normally accused of paying too much attention to some aspects of polling, so I would be surprised if that were a serious suggestion.
In response to the noble Lord's question about a particular poll, I suspect that it is one of those instances where one needs to look at the nature of the question that was asked as well as the result.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when the Royal Commission will be appointed and whether that will be simultaneous with the publication of the White Paper? When is the White Paper likely to be published? Will it accompany the publication of a Bill following the Queen's Speech or may we expect it sooner?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, would not want me to pre-empt in any way the Queen's Speech next week. I repeat what my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and I both said about a month ago during the two-day debate in your Lordships' House on this question: the White Paper will be published in the context of the publication of the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there will be some anxiety centred on the machinery of consultation? It would be quite nice to be assured that Ministers will actually listen to the answers, instead of letting the public speak to empty air. It would also be comforting to be reassured that the answers will not be handled by a regiment of spin doctors, of whom we have had more than enough.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be comforted by my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in which I said that it was precisely because the Government were interested in wider consultation and views beyond the original proposition (which was simply that a committee of both Houses of Parliament should look at the issue) that we have established the mechanism of setting up the Royal Commission. Of course, we shall be extremely interested in how the Royal Commission seeks to proceed, but we would not wish to prescribe its way of working.

National Minimum Wage
2.53 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many employees who now earn less than the national insurance lower earnings limit of £64 a week will be lifted above this limit by the introduction of the national minimum wage; and what would be the annual cost of providing those that remain with the right to full contributory benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness bows of Heigham): My Lords, data from the Labour Force Survey indicate that about 900,000 people will be floated above

1123
the lower earnings limit as a result of the national minimum wage, assuming no change in the number of hours they work.
With regard to the second part of my noble friend's Question, I am afraid that it is not possible to make reliable estimates of the cost of paying contributory benefits to employees who remain below the LEL.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. If I understand her correctly, she says that something like 50 per cent. of the 2 million people who suffer from the fact that they do not receive contributory benefits will be lifted out of that position by the national minimum wage. That leaves 900,000 who will not be lifted out. What will the Government do about them? The Minister says that she does not know the cost. What is the attitude of the Government to the estimate of the cost made by the TUC recently, which, as I understand it, said that it would cost £250 million for the whole lot—that is, for the 2 million or so? Therefore, it would cost £125 million for the 900,000 who are left. Can the Minister tell me where we could do more good for less money?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the first reason why we cannot confirm or challenge the TUC figures is that we do not have statistics on that basis. The reason why most people are below the lower earnings limit is not so much because of low pay—although that undoubtedly exists—but because some people, especially married women, work very short hours. Someone could work four hours, for example, and be paid £15 an hour, but still be below the lower earnings limit. Therefore, it is not clear to me whether my noble friend is asking that people who work only one hour, two hours, three hours or four hours should nonetheless be entitled to the full range of contributory benefits. If that were the case, they would be better off out of work on contributory benefits than in work and earning.
The second reason why it is difficult to answer my noble friend's question—I have tried to find the answer to this, but cannot—is that at the moment many people who do not qualify for contributory benefits receive income-related benefits and those are household assessed, whereas contributory benefits are individually assessed. For both of those reasons, we simply are not able to confirm my noble friend's figures, much though I would like to be able to do so.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, although I welcome the fact that many people will be taken into the contributory benefit network, are the Government prepared to consider taking a further step and look at the possibility of moving from benefits which are based on contributions, in particular the state pension, to a system under which the state pension would be based on residence in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we shall be producing a pensions Green Paper by the end of the year. A whole range of such issues will be discussed in that. In practice, one qualifies for a state pension through one's national insurance contributions or, if one is a married
1124
woman, by virtue of one's husband's contributions. Alternatively, one can qualify for income support, which is higher than the state retirement pension level now. So, in practice, we already have universal state pensions such as the noble Lord describes.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that because many women tend to work part time for long periods, the laws in relation to contributory benefits discriminate against women much more than men? Is there not a possibility that that discrimination could lead to a possible future reference to the European Court of Justice?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand that the UK arrangements comply with EC law. The German equivalent of the lower earnings limit was tested in the European Court recently and was upheld.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the effect of the national minimum wage on new recipients of the national minimum wage will be an increased liability for tax and national insurance, and a loss of benefits, including housing benefit, does the Minister agree that the Treasury may very well be the main beneficiary of the national minimum wage, rather than the low paid? If the Minister does not agree with that analysis, will she find out whether the Government will be willing to publish some case studies of the net financial effect of those new recipients receiving whatever they receive as a result of the national minimum wage?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is certainly true that the national minimum wage should reduce people's reliance on means-tested benefits by something like £343 million a year. In other words, taxpayers will no longer subsidise the exploitative low-pay employer. That must surely be desirable.
The wider question is this. For far too long Britain has been a country of low pay, long hours and low productivity. The employers offering the lowest pay are those who also demonstrate the lowest productivity. With the national minimum wage our expectation is that for the first time there will be an incentive for employers to invest in people as well as plant, and thus raise the productivity of our economy, which is what we all need to see to face the future.

Constitutional Reform and the Channel Islands
3 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their plans for constitutional reform include modernisation of the relationship between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have no plans to change the existing constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe I have the most recent document on the constitutional relationship between the Channel Islands and the UK; it is dated April 1971. I refer to the joint memorandum by the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Does the Minister agree with the statement in the document that the British islands are an entity in the eyes of the world and that Her Majesty's Government will be held responsible internationally if practices in the islands overstep the limits of acceptability? Does he also accept that the picture reputedly given by the Edwards Report, of which I have seen a draft, is of an islands administration overwhelmed by the scale of the funds now passing through and severely under-staffed? Does he agree that that raises questions regarding the good governance of the islands and their relationship with the United Kingdom, which ought now to be investigated?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the latest paper that I have on the constitutional relationship between the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Her Majesty's Government was published in 1973. It is the report of the Kilbrandon Commission, which I commend as fascinating reading. We are responsible under international law for the islands' international relations and for their defence. They have a domestic competence and they have no representation at Westminster. The present relationship seems to work well.
The report produced by Mr. Andrew Edwards is to be published on Thursday. It is probably more appropriate if I comment on that report when your Lordships have had time to read and inwardly digest it.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government's support for the OECD document on so-called harmful tax competition poses a potential threat to the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, as does the campaign in Europe for tax harmonisation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the OECD document was drawn up in consultation with Her Majesty's Government. It includes a saving clause which relates to the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Channel Islands. Based on my personal knowledge over the past year and a half, I can say that relationships are good and harmonious because we do our best to maintain a co-operative and friendly relationship between the three islands and Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Minister add to the Written Answer that he kindly gave on 27th July regarding the date by which the European Human Rights Convention will be implemented in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man so as to ensure
1126
equal protection for all British citizens throughout the United Kingdom and the islands in regard to basic rights and freedoms? Is the draft legislation available? Please may we examine it and know when it is likely to be published and in force?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, all three islands have quite a good record in that context. The Attorney-General of Jersey raised with the then Home Office officials the possibility of enacting such legislation as long ago as 1992 and was told that the Home Office did not think it a good idea. The States of Guernsey issued a public statement on 22nd May this year anticipating that they would be able to submit a draft law to the Home Office for the usual pre-audit before the end of the year. In December last year, the Isle of Man made it plain that it intends to introduce legislation to give effect in Manx law to the ECHR.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not desirable that they should also mark and learn from it first?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as a member of the Kilbrandon Commission perhaps I may confirm that the people of the Channel Islands have democratic self-government while enjoying the full protection of the United Kingdom and with the advantage of being represented by the United Kingdom in almost all international affairs.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. As the noble Lord indicates, the islands have domestic competence and authority as to their own legislation, subject to the override that Her Majesty's Government have the residual powers in respect of the overall good governance of the islands. That was stated in the Kilbrandon Report and, I am happy to repeat, remains the true constitutional analysis.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, since the Kilbrandon Commission reported, the scale of offshore funds handled by the Channel Islands has altered astonishingly, and that that raises large questions regarding the future legal and financial relationship between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. There has been a substantial inflow of capital—international capital in particular—to the islands. That was one of the reasons why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary asked Mr. Edwards to carry out his review. He has consulted the islands widely and they have been extremely helpful and co-operative. The report will be hot from the press on Thursday of this week.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. I speak as the bishop who serves the two Channel Islands bailiwicks of

1127
Guernsey and Jersey, although of course that does not mean that I speak for them in this House. Will the Minister give the House an assurance—especially at this time of particular interest and attention in the light of the forthcoming publication of the Edwards Report itself rather than of leaks and drafts—that all those who speak either on behalf of the Government or as their representatives in any sense will be as well informed as the Minister has shown himself to be this afternoon on the constitutional position? Does he recognise that in the light of some comments made over the past months in another place and elsewhere, there is a need to offer some reassurance on these matters to the population of the Channel Islands?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, sometimes people speak from misunderstanding and sometimes from a desire to make mischief. When Mr. Edwards introduces his report to the wider public on Thursday, not only shall I be there, but there will be representatives from each of the islands. That is a good indication of the co-operation that presently exists and which we wish to see maintained, reinforced and continued.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Gilbert will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Territorial Army.

Alliance & Leicester plc (Group Reorganisation) Bill [H.L.] (formerly Girobank plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.])
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Message of 12th November 1998 be now considered; and that the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon tomorrow;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second Sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
1128
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon tomorrow and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second Sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered forthwith.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF A COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 88 as first printed for the Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ("a registered party, or").
2 Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("(2A) Each candidate shall declare that he is either—

(a) the candidate of a party (and shall name that party); or

(b) an independent candidate.

(2B) There shall be added together the number of votes given for each party's candidates in each electoral region.
(2C) The number arrived at under subsection (2B) shall be the number of votes for the party for the purposes of this Act.").
3 Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(5A) After the allocation of seats to the parties, the order of candidates in each list shall be such that the candidates are ranked in terms of the votes each received, with the candidate with the highest number of votes appearing first.
(5B) If two or more candidates have the same number of votes, their order on the list shall be determined by lot.").
4 Page 2, line 18, at end insert (", following the rearrangement required under subsections (5A) and (5B)").

ORIGINAL COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU TO WHICH THE LORDS HAVE DISAGREED
4A After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
Review of electoral system
(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons-

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

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

(2) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.").

FURTHER COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
4B The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, do not insist on their original amendment in lieu thereof to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments—
4C After Clause 2, insert the following new clause-
Review of electoral system
(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons-

(a) to review, in accordance with subsection (2), the operation of the system of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section 1 of this Act, and

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

(2) The review shall consider, in particular, how the ability of electors to vote for particular persons on a party's list of candidates might affect the results of an election.
(3) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.
(4) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.").
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do insist on their Amendments
1130
Nos. 1 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4C in lieu thereof.
When we discussed this issue last week I was able to point out the total lack of support that the closed list received from the Government Back-Benches both in this House and in the other place. Indeed, in this House the only vocal support for the closed list came from the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats—the message on the Back-Benches was rather different—thus justifying their newly-found places on various Cabinet sub-committees.
In your Lordships' House three Government Back-Benchers spoke entirely about the merits of whether or not your Lordships had the legitimacy to send the amendment back to the Commons. None of them defended the closed-list system. Indeed, they went further. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, started off by saying:
"I should make clear that I prefer the open list".—[Official Report, 12/11/98; col. 853.]
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said:
"I am not concerned about the issue of open lists and closed lists".—[col. 861.]
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, stuck to his principled position on the closed list and said:
"I shall continue to oppose closed lists".—[col. 858.]
All three noble Lords went on to say that your Lordships should not send this matter back to the Commons, but your Lordships disagreed and decided to do so.
One of the great advantages is that in another place yesterday two Government Back-Benchers broke cover and came out openly in favour of the closed list. These brave souls deserve a mention in this particular battle: Mr. Martin Linton of Battersea and Mr. Stephen Twigg of Enfield Southgate. Unfortunately these two brave souls were rather dwarfed by yet another four Government Back-Benchers voicing their dislike of the closed list. They added their words and voices to those that we heard the previous time, two or three of which I quoted to your Lordships when we discussed this matter last Thursday.
Let me draw your Lordships' attention to two out of the four voices that have emerged from the shadows and said "The Lords are right. We do not like the closed list either. We think it should be an open list". The first was Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, who had this to say yesterday:
"I feel very strongly about this matter. I speak tonight not because I believe that we are being asked to choose between an inadequate system and an even more inadequate system, but for a very different reason. I saw the effect of list systems on the European Parliament and the control that all political parties exercised. I explained time and again—wrongly, it now appears—that we would find it difficult to accept that system in Britain, because we had a genuine commitment to a constituency link and we believed that the individual was tremendously important in our system of government. I believe that very strongly".—[Official Report, Commons. 16/11/98; col. 705.]
Mrs Dunwoody said two things: one about the constituency link and the other about the individual. I accept that the constituency link will be broken by PR,

1131
but I acknowledge the Government's manifesto commitment to a system of proportional representation. In their manifesto they said:
"We have long supported a proportional voting system for election to the European Parliament".
I may not agree with that sentiment, but I accept it. Nothing I am asking your Lordships to do today, or have asked your Lordships to do on previous occasions, prevents the Government from honouring their manifesto commitment to have a proportional representation system for elections to the European Parliament. The important thing that Mrs Dunwoody said is that the closed list system—which is the one we are being offered—denies our belief that individuals are important. An open list acknowledges the importance of individuals. The individual candidate is important. The electors have a right to choose not just the party but also an individual within that party. That is important.
That view was taken up by Tony Benn—one of your Lordships' fiercest critics. I am pretty certain that he felt a bit uncomfortable with your Lordships being alongside him in this particular argument. He said this:
"I base myself on the simple principle that democracy will be destroyed if people cannot vote for and remove candidates, and if candidates are simply instruments of whatever may be a party's majorities and machinations when an election comes…The only person the electors can rely on is the candidate whom they have heard, argued with, listened to, voted for and can vote out. Give that up, and we not only wreck the European elections but begin to undermine the basis on which this House"—
the other place—
"comes to debate issues and ultimately to decide them".—[col. 687.]
The closed list system is also pernicious for the European elections. Before the last European elections, I was on government business in Paris and I met, two weeks out, a lady who was at the top of the list in one of the other European countries. I expressed surprise that she had taken a day out to come to Paris to have dinner with Transport Ministers; I thought she might be out electioneering. She dismissed me rather airily and said, "I do not need to electioneer. I am top of my party's list. I have no problem". That illustrates the problem.
I have read the Home Secretary's most recent defence of the closed-list system—as, no doubt, have most of your Lordships. I read his defence yesterday and his previous defences. One thought keeps going through my mind as I read his defences. It came to the top of my mind when I watched the Home Secretary last week. Is the Home Secretary keen on the closed list because he knows that next June it will result in an even lower turn-out than the low turn-outs we have come to expect in European parliamentary elections? That, allied to a dislike and distrust of party machinations which go to create the closed list, will actually bring PR into such public odium that Jenkins and all his work will be easily destroyed. That is a suspicion that keeps coming to my mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his usual eloquent way, has advanced three propositions in favour of the closed list. I have no doubt that he will
1132
tell us first about Northern Ireland. Yes, the closed list system was used to deal with the exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland. But is the noble Lord saying to your Lordships that the same exceptional and special circumstances apply here in Britain? The closed list was used for a deliberative forum with a specific agenda to bring very disparate parties into negotiation. Does the noble Lord think that such is needed in the European Parliament to bring disparate parties into negotiation?
My right honourable friend John Major made it very clear that the list system was not ideal. He used the words "not ideal" on 21st March 1996 in answer to a question from the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister, Tony Blair, asked his question in this way:
"As I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree, the solution on the election process is certainly not ideal".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/96; col. 499.]
If it was certainly not ideal for the Northern Ireland forum, how can it be ideal for the European Parliament?
Then there is the interesting idea that first-past-the-post is a closed list of one. A Member of the other place, Mr. Harry Barnes, who expressed his views against the closed list quite forcefully, said:
"We cannot have an open list of one, therefore we cannot have a closed list of one".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/98; col. 691.]
That is exactly the point. There is no comparison between the first-past-the-post, one-person-one-vote system and the list system.
The third argument that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has used to your Lordships is that only the party can be trusted to elect a balanced ticket with the various interest groups represented. That is an interesting lack of faith in Labour's own voters. There is not much "Trust the people" here. It is "Do not trust the people. Trust the Labour Party, trust the Liberal Democrat Party, trust the Tory Party. We are here to help you". One can almost hear the electorate being told that.
Mr. Austin Mitchell—a man whose European credentials are impeccable and whose devotion to first-past-the-post is certainly not good; he actually believes in PR—said this:
"We shall do well in the elections"—
This is about the Labour Party; this is Austin Mitchell ingratiating himself with his Front Bench to see if they will give him a job at long last—
"but we arc telling the electorate that they cannot make any choice—they must vote as the party wants them to vote.
That will produce a festering resentment, which will do us no good. It is a basic flaw in democracy…We should maximise choice. They will resent it if they feel that they cannot pick and choose within the list".—[col. 702.]
Let us look at the amendments that the other place have sent back to us. Talk about crumbs from the rich man's table! Yes, we can have a review—but there is no guarantee about what the Government will do if the review comes down against the closed list. Your Lordships had little faith in that last week. So now we are promised in the new amendment that the review will look in particular at the way the closed list operated. I

1133
cannot for a moment imagine what else the review was going to do other than look at the closed list. Was it going to look at the shape of the ballot paper; or at how the campaigns were funded; or at the ability of the electorate to place their cross? Really, this last offering is not even a crumb from the rich man's table. Yet, it does matter how electors place their cross. Do they place it against an individual name, sending their choice to be their representative in Brussels; or do they place the cross against the party and the party decides who goes to Brussels to represent the party in Brussels?
Much will be made of the undemocratic nature of your Lordships' House. But when matched against the totally undemocratic nature of the closed list system, there is no comparison.
Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I have studied with great care the debate that took place yesterday evening in the House of Commons, hoping not for the first time that I would find there some new and persuasive argument that would put me ad idem with so many of my former colleagues and present colleagues in the Labour Party here in the House of Lords. But I searched in vain. Indeed, the arguments were hardly put forward in terms of merit. They were put forward in terms of the Commons versus the Lords—the will of the House of Commons must prevail over that of the House of Lords. As a general principle, I agree with that without any trouble. However, on this occasion I think it has been used bogusly. It is not a true description of what is at stake.
What is at stake is whether, faced with the choice of two systems of proportional representation, which many of us dislike in any event, we should go for a system which greatly increases the powers of officials—of what I previously called the "selectorate"; whether we should deliberately, with our eyes open, do that in a period when, on the whole, centralised power is being challenged everywhere; and whether we should do that deliberately in this case in preference to a system which gives no such extra power to what is basically an unelected or very indirectly elected committee of officials who choose who are to be members of the European Parliament in the future.
Of course, I looked once again at the arithmetic of the last time we voted. When one looks at the number of votes cast by the Conservative Peers, whether hereditary or appointed, one reaches a certain total. That total, if they had had no other support from more independent sources, would not have enabled them to win last time. The Government would have won the vote if they had been faced with a combination of Conservative Peers, hereditary and appointed. The Government would have won the same vote on 20th October. But they did not win. It is bogus to describe this as being one of those classic conflicts between hereditary Peers dominating this House through the Conservative Party and the democracy outside. It is
1134
a false description. We owe it to ourselves to have at least a minimum of intellectual honesty and rigour. I cannot bring myself to support what the Government propose.
I want to go just one step further. I remain puzzled at the insistence of the Government and of the Commons. It is an amazing persistence. It is true that the Bill is now getting very near to the deadline. In a very short time we may actually play this game of ping pong once more, but the Session will come to an end. It may well be that the Government will lose the Bill. Why on earth should they take such a risk? Surely they do not invest such merit in a closed electoral system. The Back-Benchers can hardly bring themselves even to acquiesce in it, let alone to support it. Are they to risk the Bill for that? Good heavens, it is ridiculous. I have been scratching my head about it.
Under Article 190 of the Treaty of Rome we are committed to a European Parliament elected by a common procedure. Under the treaty we are required to harmonise our system with that of the European Union. It has not yet reached the point when that is an instruction but it is there in the treaty and sooner or later a regulation will come forward requiring us to make that alignment. For all I know, and for all the House knows, there may have been some tacit understanding between the Government and their European allies that they will bring forward such a procedure and bring the British system into alignment with that of the majority of countries in the European Union; or it may be that the Government, so anxious to establish their European credentials, have gone out of their way to make a gesture of good will, as they would see it, to our European friends and neighbours; in which case, I think it is bad judgment—I say no more—but it does not give any additional argument for the Bill in the form in which it has been presented to us.
So, with great reluctance, I have to say this to my colleagues. I am not persuaded. I cannot vote for what is proposed. If the Government do persist, they may well lose the Bill. But, need we be very sad about that? If they do lose the Bill, they will then find that they have already in being a system which, although far from perfect, is based on first-past-the-post and the constituency system which most of us in any case prefer.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long and I hope the House will excuse me for not having spoken at the Committee stage or the Report stage or at any of the three previous votes we have had. There are elements in the progress of the Bill which are somewhat reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes—the mystery of the dog that did not bark in the night. I shall come to that in a moment.
Perhaps I may give a brief summary of the position as I understand it. There have been four voting systems: first-past-the-post; the single transferable vote; the closed list; and the open list. Those four systems have been discussed interminably. On first-past-the-post, in their manifesto the Government made it clear that they wanted to bring in a system of proportional representation for the European elections, so first-past-the-post could not be considered. At this point

1135
I should like to take up the Conservative point of view because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, explained the situation very well at the Committee stage of the Bill on 24th June. The noble Lord stated:
"I want to make quite clear to the noble Lord"—
he was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham—
"and his friends"—
I guess he was referring to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches—
"that while I may decide to discuss the finer points of the myriad of proportional representation systems, that in no way removes my objection in principle to any or all of them. My firm view is that the first-past-the-post system is the simplest and the best system whereby people can elect representatives to Parliament".—[Official Report, 24/6/98; col. 268.]
That was succinct, clear and unambiguous.
Then we come to the single transferable vote system. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, proposed amendments to bring in the STV system at both Committee and Report stages. Our party is strongly in favour of STV, but the single transferable vote does not work well with an electorate of 43 million and just 84 seats to be decided upon, and therefore regretfully we were unable to support those amendments. The system does, of course, work well in general elections.
Then we come to the closed list. I want to make clear that for both the closed list and the open list the candidates are decided upon by the party. In our party we vote for the candidates. When comparing the two systems, there is no fundamental difference on this important point.
In the closed list system the electorate votes for the party. The names of the candidates are on the list, but electors cast their votes for the party and not for the individual candidates.
In the open list system there is also another method of voting. At Committee stage our party proposed a system known as the Belgian system. I will not explain it; noble Lords must know it inside out and backwards. That system would enable electors to vote for either a party or individual candidates. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, saw what he described as a small defect in the system, and indeed it does exist. In about three out of 24 elections carried out under this system someone low down on the list has received more votes than someone higher up on the list but has failed to be elected because of the way the quota is allocated. Because of that defect, when we divided the House on the proposal, the Conservatives—particularly the Front Bench—were regrettably obliged to sit on their hands.
All was not lost because the Conservatives put forward an amendment proposing the Finnish system, in which I think there is merit. Under that system one votes for each candidate, and many here have made a great deal of that point. If candidates appear in alphabetical order on the ballot paper or are randomly selected in a list system, electors can make a good selection if they know who all the candidates are, and so the system would work well. In practice, as I think almost everyone
1136
here knows, most people will not know the candidates by name and will therefore inevitably cast their votes from the top of the list of the party which they wish to support.
I should like to quote again from that well-known Conservative Party speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. What he said was important because he wanted to ensure that the system he was proposing would work well. He said:
"Alternatively, I suggest that the parties should be invited to place the candidates in the preferred order so that the top person would gain a slight advantage in the top position".—[Official Report, 24/6/98; col. 337.]
He thought that that would make a small difference and would at least meet what the parties required.
We now come to what I call the Sherlock Holmes element. With regard to what happened next Sherlock Holmes might have asked, "What was the curious incident about the vote on this amendment at Committee stage?" Watson might have replied, "But there was no vote". "Exactly", Sherlock Holmes would have said, "that was the curious incident; the matter was not voted upon". However, there was a reason for that. The noble Lord's reason was very simple: it was getting late; it was twenty to ten. Although the issue was very important, the noble Lord was not prepared to put it to the vote and so we could wait comfortably for the Report stage of the Bill, when the noble Lord again moved the amendment. At the end of the debate he declined to test the opinion of the House, on the grounds that many would perhaps not support him, which seems unlikely to me in view of what happened at Third Reading.
Two votes that should have taken place were not called for and we thus came to the twelfth hour—Third Reading. This is not the way that Bills should be amended if one is serious about amending them. We now realise that what the Conservatives wanted was not to bring in an open list system but to defeat the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, stated, if the Bill were lost, we should go back to the first-past-the-post system, which is what they wanted at the outset.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am that Back-Bencher whom the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, mentioned a few moments ago. I should like to inform him and the House that I was eager and willing to speak in the debate last Thursday but, out of courtesy to the House, because I thought that the House had probably heard enough by that stage and because I suspected that there were a few day return tickets that needed to be cashed in, I decided not to speak on that occasion. I am delighted this afternoon to have the chance to speak briefly in support of the Government's position on the Bill. I know that I speak not just for myself but for many Members of this House.
My interest is not as a candidate: I am not number one, three or 11 for a European seat on the 2nd June. My position is much less exalted. I have been for many years the elected chairman of the Northamptonshire and

1137
Blaby Euro-constituency Labour Party. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in his seat this afternoon. I am a fairly new Member of the House and I hope that the House will be tolerant if I inadvertently breach some of the rules of debate.
This debate is not about internal party affairs, although noble Lords on all sides have at various stages tried to make it so. Each party has chosen its candidates in its own way, and I dare say that none has been perfect—except as regards the Liberal Democrats, of course! The candidates are now in place and anxious to get on with it.
There are real disadvantages in the system advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I hope that the court will be gentle with me as I go through them.
Noble Lords: The House!
Lord Bach: I am glad that noble Lords are still listening to me. Of course, I meant to say, "the House".
It is possible that under this system a candidate might be elected who has received fewer votes than an unsuccessful candidate. That is bad in itself, but, for a party which supports first-past-the-post, it is the ultimate sin.
Secondly, under the proposed system party labels will be mentioned as part of the ballot paper, but there will be no mention of a party order of preference. We are talking about electoral areas which are regions of Great Britain with millions of electors, not about counties and not about cities, let alone constituencies or wards. How on earth will the electorate be able to choose sensibly in order—I emphasise that—from the ballot paper? This is not an attack on the intelligence and good sense of the voting public—I believe that they showed great intelligence and good sense on the 1st May 1997—but plain common sense. We all belong to clubs or organisations big and small that every year hold postal elections for, say, an executive committee. A list of names appears, sometimes with a short biography. But soon after we start to put down crosses we find that we are voting randomly and for the most stupid of reasons. We are not making a judgment about a candidate's abilities at all. How much more likely is that when dealing with regional elections with perhaps three or four million voters in each region? It will lead to chaos and unfairness.
Perhaps I may quote briefly from a publication entitled Counting on Europe by Professor Dunleavy, Dr. Hix and Dr. Margettes:
"Open list ballot papers are more complicated. The ballot paper will be much longer because all the candidates will have to be listed with tick boxes. People may feel obliged to look over all the names, a lengthy business in the South East region where with 11 seats there could be 40 or more candidates…some people such as the elderly, those who have difficulty reading, first-time voters, and people who are just attached to the existing way of doing things may dislike the ballot paper or find it confusing".
That major study of voting systems, carried out just after the 1997 general election, provides good survey evidence that British voters do not like complicated ballot papers with multiple names and tick boxes. They
1138
have a strong preference for simple, short ballot papers. All the evidence suggests that this would amount to a real injustice, not just to women or ethnic minorities but to those who are discriminated against because their surnames unlike mine are at the end of the alphabet.
I come to my third point which was dealt with so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his speech last Thursday and in his letter to the Daily Telegraph earlier this week. Each individual will be fighting against every other candidate including—perhaps specifically—members of his or her own party. Here I attempt to help the party opposite. This is a particular danger for the Conservatives where candidates who are selected clearly disagree with each other on their attitude towards Europe. For example, in my region the number one Conservative candidate is under the impression that the Second World War continues and that the Germans are our enemies to the death, while the second candidate is an ex-member of the European Parliament whose pro-European views make Sir Edward Heath look alike a Eurosceptic.
At Report stage on 12th October, just after I entered this place, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, moved Amendment No. 13 which proposed,
"the setting up of a commission within six months of the first election to be held under the Bill in order to report within two years on the merits of the electoral system that is proposed".—[Official Report, 12/10/98; col. 761]
He said nothing about an open list then. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, that did not arise until Third Reading.
Yesterday the Home Secretary in dealing with the amendment that is before the House today proposed a review within seven months, not two years, of the operation of the system of elections. The review will consider the ability of electors to vote for particular people on a party list and how that may affect the result of an election. The noble Lord has got his way and there is to be a review. That review has been strengthened since last week by a concession from the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord does not accept that, more cynical people than I may begin to wonder whether the motive behind all this table tennis between the two Houses is something rather different from the merits of the Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, got to his feet first; perhaps he should speak now.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, so far no Back Bencher on this side has spoken to the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has tabled a later amendment it may be useful to hear him at this stage.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I shall speak briefly because I have tabled an amendment that may not be called if the vote goes in a certain direction. I have listened throughout these proceedings to every word that

1139
has been said by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I agree with him. It appears that several noble Lords opposite and Members of another place on the Government Benches agree with what my noble friend Lord Mackay said. This is a terrible example of cronyism that we see very often under the closed list system. Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody who was with me in the European Parliament in the 1970s is right to point that out.
If one is at the top of the list one wins easily; if one kicks against the pricks during the Session of a Parliament one is pushed off the list or, as the French say, biffé de la liste and the party leadership has the last word on the matter. That is what we have seen happen in the Labour Party. With the greatest respect, we have not seen it in the election of candidates for the Conservative or Liberal Democratic parties. I again declare my interest in that I was elected as a member of the closed list in the London area.
It is very difficult to campaign in this system under an open list as proposed by those who see the individual as the main criterion. For example, in the London area there will be some 6 million voters and 10 candidates for each of the major parties. There will be perhaps 40 or more candidates seeking the votes of those 6 million voters. Each of those 40 candidates must go for that one cross and get the message across to the millions whom he hopes will elect him. How is this to be done other than to some extent on a party basis?
I know that we cannot have a closed list, which is abominable. My noble friend on the Front Bench is quite right. But if there is a possibility of a voter being permitted to vote for someone he knows, or knows of, or has read about, that is excellent. However, I believe that in 90 per cent. of cases—as emerges from those countries where lists of this kind exist, such as Belgium, Finland, Cyprus and elsewhere—the voter votes for the party. Rightly or wrongly, he takes the job lot or group. That is why the mixed list is, I believe, the least obnoxious of those that have been mentioned in these proceedings.
There are 187 types of proportional representation available for Parliament to choose from, but I believe that the mixed list is the one which works best. I do not relish the idea of campaigning with colleagues of one's own party, ostensibly on their side but secretly in rivalry with one's own party. I am sorry to say that but I know that that would happen. I hope that that does not come to pass. I have worked, I hope, as a colleague with the other nine members of my list and I should like to be able to do so, all for one and one for all, without trying to steal a march on the others whenever I get half a chance.
Therefore, I ask noble Lords to concede that my noble friend has won the argument good and proper in your Lordships' House and in another place. He has shown that the leadership of the party opposite has not put up a very good performance over the selection—the parachuting—of candidates into the ballot paper. I ask noble Lords to look at the practicalities of the matter. Most of the candidates for the three major parties are already selected—nearly 300. The party activists, I
1140
submit, do not relish the idea of going back to square one and starting on the first-past-the-post system which has been the law up until now.
We have carried the ball several hundred yards down the pitch, if I may use a rugby analogy. We have to decide now whether to go for the line or kick for touch. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will consider my amendment for the mixed list system. Though not perfect, it has a great deal of merit. However, on this particular Motion, I shall abstain.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I have had a somewhat rough passage.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have just had a Conservative speaker. I think we should now hear from this side and then perhaps from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, first we heard from the noble Lord on the Front Bench over there. We have had no Back Bencher—
Lord Carter: My Lords, I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I confess, from the outset, that I have lost count of the number of times we have discussed this issue. I must also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. There is not a great deal of difference between the government amendment defeated last week and the government amendment before us today. It is also fair to say, as I said on that occasion, that at least the Government had offered an olive branch—a review of the electoral proceedings to be conducted soon after the European parliamentary election. I regret that it was not possible for the national executive committee of the Labour Party to say that it would review its method of selecting candidates for future elections. That would have been an even bigger olive branch and would have been even better received within the Labour Party.
This Bill is probably one of the most bizarre ever presented to an assembly. It is worth mentioning that it appeared before the House of Commons last November, more than a year ago, and here we are, right up against the wire, still discussing what has now turned out to be the most controversial Bill the Government have put forward in a very long Session.
If the Bill receives Royal Assent, it is worth examining the impact. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party would gain a substantial number of seats within the European Parliament. There is even a chance that the Scottish nationalists and the Welsh nationalists would gain an additional seat. In fact, the only loser would be the Labour Party who, at the last European parliamentary election, won 62 seats. Although one cannot be totally precise, it is a certainty that Labour would lose between 22 and 25 of those seats. Additionally, there has been considerable turmoil in the party over the method used to select our candidates. The major support within the party for the

1141
method adopted seems to be from some members of the national executive committee and those candidates who are in a winning position as far as the ballot is concerned. It is difficult to find many other people who support either the closed list or the party's methods. If the Bill does pass, there will be major losses within the party. We will have a party that is rather split and somewhat angry.
However, if the Tories carry the vote tonight and the Bill is lost, Britain will revert to 84 contests in single member constituencies conducted under the first-past-the-post system. It will also mean that in the Labour Party the original rules will come back into play and the party members in each of those European constituencies will select their candidate by the traditional method. The NEC method of selecting candidates will have been killed. Labour will hold most, if not all, of the 62 seats it currently has and we will have a happy and united party. In other words, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that he has an interesting choice tonight as to whether or not to force his amendment to the vote. If he does, the Labour Party will be the undoubted winner and the party will greatly rejoice that the old system of selecting candidates is restored. I shall be very interested to see what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, does when the Question is put.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I suppose I am not the first Member of your Lordships' House to have been given a somewhat rough passage by the Government Chief Whip. Nevertheless, let there be no bad blood between us. I have the deepest respect, as I always have, for holders of his office.
Your Lordships will be doubly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, first, for an excellent speech. I have heard him speak many times and recognise him as a cogent debater, even though I have not always had the luxury of being able to agree with him. Your Lordships also have another ground for gratitude; namely that as I agree with him totally on this occasion, I have been able to shorten my remarks considerably. While I am on the subject of brevity, perhaps I may say that I know of no other word more generally abused in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. Perhaps I may delicately refer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, from the Liberal Benches. He also promised to be brief. I feel quite happy to give the same undertaking here, knowing that it will not bind me overmuch.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, if I could have his attention for a moment, bewildered me somewhat. First, he mentioned in passing that he was addressing a court. There is no court visible to me. The nearest I can get to a court is the Bench of Bishops. The noble Lord might care to apply himself to some occupants of the Bench of the right reverend Prelates for guidance and representation at a higher court. I suspect he will need it.
I do not mind very much what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wears. As long as he observes the rules of general decorum—and I am sure that we can be confident of that—I shall be perfectly comfortable. However, there are other issues on which I join in the fray with some eagerness; and this is one. I dislike very much indeed the idea of any political party handing me
1142
a sanitised list of approved candidates. It is a horrible idea. It is a considerable pleasure and privilege for me to find myself in warm agreement with Mr. Tony Benn. He made the point yesterday in another place that,
"Candidates are chosen by a selection process within their constituencies … If we get away from that principle, MEPs will always look to the party leader, not to their constituents".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/98; col. 685.]
As I have grown older I have found it easier to restrain the enthusiasm which I feel for political parties. In my declining years I should like to make this point: that for me political parties are the only thoroughly nasty things of which, in the interests of safety, you must have more than one.
I have thought hard about this issue. I have said this in your Lordships' House before in one of those dim, twilight hours when there is no one here to listen. I had the advantage of rehearsing it on that occasion; I shall therefore repeat it with, I hope, more polish. I know of no one who becomes more intelligent, wiser, more charming, nicer, more gracious, more anything favourable that one likes, when he wears a party hat than when he does not. I am the first to testify to the charm of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip. But when he wears a party hat, I have to be very careful of him. If the noble Lord has anything to say, I shall be pleased to hear it.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shore, is no longer in his place. I thought that he was absolutely right when he said that this occasion was not just another one in a long-running dispute between the two Houses. Much has been made of the defects of your Lordships' House, real or imagined. Very little has been said about those of another place which—let me use my customary restraint and moderation—falls somewhere short of being wholly immaculate. I hope that that will not give offence elsewhere. We in your Lordships' House have very little power. Those who sit in another place, who have to an extent been sanctified by a popular vote, have not earned anyone's gratitude or applause when they persist in handing over the power that they have been given by the people to party machines. Whips and all the myrmidons of spin doctors and the rest take over power which was given to people who sit in another place; and in my view they are greatly to be blamed for that.
I earnestly hope that this amendment will be passed, not out of any partisan, fractious wish to see the party which I sometimes support win a vote. This is not that kind of issue. It goes to the root of our whole system. When I hear the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and when I find people like Mr. Tony Benn with whom I do not regularly agree coming down as emphatically as they do against what the Government propose, I very much hope that the amendment will be carried.
4 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I was almost overcome to hear the encomiums that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, paid to our Chief Whip. Remembering the performance of my noble friend Lord Peyton (perhaps I

1143
may call him that) in the last Parliament, I am not sure that his Chief Whip will pay the same encomiums to him.
However, I must make a confession. I find it difficult to display the same enthusiasm and passion that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, or my noble friend Lord Shore can summon up about this matter. It is of course important, but to make the same speech, as I have heard them both do, time after time seems to me to require a degree of faith that I cannot summon.
I wish to make two observations: first about the issue; and, secondly, about the tactics of the Opposition. First, I have listened to the debates. I have voted only once, which demonstrates the degree of my enthusiasm; and I have read what happened in the Commons yesterday. If anything has been demonstrated by the series of debates, and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, it is that he can be guaranteed to prove that there is no system of voting in this country which will be fair and just—none at all. He admits that even the first-past-the-post system which some of us in our old age still support has its defects. Yesterday, in another place, I heard the Home Secretary demonstrate—I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, did not refer to it today—that under the amendment it would be possible for someone with a smaller vote to be elected against someone with a bigger vote from a different party. What system is that? Is that accurate or not? I understand that it is accurate.
Let us imagine a situation in which one of the parties (let us not name names) has half a dozen candidates, one of whom is so popular, so well respected, so well known, and can command so much audience that he gains a vote that is much larger than the rest of his colleagues. I refer, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Archer. By virtue of his own magic popularity, he can carry with him a series of third-rate candidates who otherwise would not have a chance. That is the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
We all know that the Cross-Benchers are the epitome and the residuary of wisdom and intelligence in this House. I say that because I do not want them to vote today. Do they think that they are doing a service to the cause of democracy by voting for an amendment which will elect someone with fewer votes than someone else from another party? The plain truth is—and here I am almost in line with the Cross-Benchers; and I repeat my first observation—there is not a perfect system. What has been proposed by the Opposition is certainly not a perfect system. I confess that I am not over enthusiastic about the system here, but we have to choose one system.
I come to my second observation as regards the tactics of the Opposition and I include my noble friends Lord Shore, Lord Stoddart and all the others whose enthusiasm I so much admire. What gives them the right to say—unelected as they are and accountable to no one—four times in a row, "We insist that you, the Government, and the Members of the Commons shall lose your Bill"? They have no right at all to say that.
1144
No, I am not giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Shore. He knows that if he were in the Commons he would be defending the right of another place against this House and all-comers as he did time after time when he was there. Apparently, he and other noble Lords are going to seek the opinion of the House this afternoon and will try to wreck the Bill.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, if they are not trying to wreck the Bill, why do they not withdraw their amendments? Why do they not accept the wish of the other place and of the Government which won the election? What right have they got to insist on their view against the elected Members of another place? They know that they have not. I have genuine admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and for the way in which he conducts himself. Indeed, if I were Leader of the Opposition I would begin to have some fears about my own position.
As regards tactics, of course the Opposition can carry the measure today and they can send it back again to the other place. It can force the Government to lose the Bill if it wishes to do so. But I believe that in the long run the Opposition will regret it. I do not believe that the Opposition Front Bench believes that it is carrying all its own people with it on this issue.
When one seeks reasons for its attitude, I believe it is the growth of a self-confessed hooligan tendency in the Conservative Party. Perhaps I may adapt the words of a forbear of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, about consultation, and repeat that I would as soon consult my valet as consult the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about political and parliamentary tactics. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition should take his party in hand. It is time it stopped playing games of this sort. It knows very well that in any other circumstances it would not persist in an issue which is not of fundamental constitutional importance. It is a second-level issue. We are faced with a series of opposing proposals on this matter and none of them is perfect.
I say again to the Cross-Benches: we have been promised a review to see whether we can achieve a better voting method out of this situation. It has been said that the Opposition will be consulted as I am sure, will all others including, no doubt, the Cross-Benches. In any other circumstances than these and with any other Opposition, it would have said, "Yes, we have carried the day three times. We understand that we are not going to win. We shall co-operate". Indeed it asked for the review and now it has been conceded the Opposition continue to object.
I have taken no real part in this matter, but I believe the time has come to stop playing games. The Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, should call off their troops and let us go forward. They can say to the Commons, "We still take the view that was taken by a majority in this House, but we do not insist on the Bill being lost and therefore we do not vote for this measure today".
4.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I have to answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, put to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, since he would not allow him to answer for himself. The right by which the noble Lord, Lord Shore, speaks and votes in this House is contained in his Writ of Summons to this House. That is his right and that is why he is using it as he should. I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that it is not this House that would lose the Bill. It is in the hands of the Government's business managers. It is up to them whether they lose the Bill or not. They may find that the Bill is not the perfected thing that they would wish, but they can still have it provided they compromise with this House on this one amendment.
As regards questions of constitutionality and whether hereditary Peers like my noble friend Lord Onslow should take any part in this or whether he should send his valet in his place, a new point was raised by a noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He was critical of my noble friends for not voting with him and his colleagues on their amendment. Would he really have accepted the votes of my noble friends who have inherited their peerages? Would he have thought it invalid if they had voted with him or are their votes only invalid when cast against him? It was a specious argument and we have heard many of them. I am well aware that the House is in no mood for any more.
As a former chairman of the Conservative Party I would regard the closed list system, as I always have, as a monstrously wrong and undemocratic system. If voters are faced with a list of Conservative candidates for the European Parliament they should choose from among them those whose opinions are closest to those of the voters. What is wrong with that? Why should they leave it to my successor, as chairman of the party, to do the job for them? The argument as regards the closed list has been knocked on the head already today.
Perhaps I may remind the House of this fact. I inherited in my party, defended and passed on to my successors, the principle that in any parliamentary or local authority election it is for the local people to make their decision on the Conservative candidate. If they do not like any of the so-called approved list candidates, they are free, as they always were, to introduce a candidate of their own. Central Office is duty bound to endorse him unless there is some ghastly fact against him such as being an undischarged bankrupt. That is the democratic system which we have. The closed list system would be entirely against it.
In his heart I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, knows that. He has all the enthusiasm for this measure which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, had for the beef-on-the-bone order. I was assured of my confidence in that view when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Williams, speak on this issue on Radio Four on the morning following the last vote in this House. The noble Lord is a lawyer. I noticed that throughout the interview both the volume and pitch of his voice rose steadily. He was a lawyer under pressure knowing he had a bad case, abusing the interviewer as there was no defendant.
1146
If the Government are defeated again today and if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, appears on the radio tomorrow morning, I would advise everyone to move their best glasses well away from the receiver. He no more believes in his case than do those on the Benches behind me or on the Labour Benches in the House of Commons. They know that this measure gives excessive power to the party apparatchiks. It means that a candidate or a sitting member will not have to worry whether he pleases his electorate; he has to worry only whether he pleases the "selectorate" of his apparatchiks. That is why the system is popular in continental Europe where they are long accustomed to the superior power of the political classes over ordinary men and women in the street. That is why this House should stay firm and why the Government must then decide whether they wish to keep the Bill or whether they wish to lose it.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it was the chairman of an American assembly who said, "Everything on this matter has now been said, but unfortunately not everybody has yet said it." I believe that the House is moving to a conclusion on this matter. I am pleased that we have had some vintage performances. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, and I have been on opposite sides of Common Market arguments for more than 30 years. It is interesting to note that those in the Labour pantheon who have been exhibited here today have a common theme in their attitudes towards Europe. But, of course, all decisions here are made on the highest of principles and personal motivation.
Perhaps I may say why these Benches have been consistent throughout. This Bill, if any Bill, is our Bill. It was not in the Queen's Speech. It was following persuasion by the Liberal Democrats that the Government brought forward the Bill to honour their manifesto commitment and ours to introduce a system of proportional representation for the European elections. That is an issue to which we have been committed by treaty for two decades or more. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shore, could have brought it forward if he had supported the attempt of the Callaghan government to introduce proportional representation almost 20 years ago. So let us be in no doubt about the political issue. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party are putting forward legislation which is four square with their manifesto commitments and has been supported, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan pointed out, successively in another place.
What we have seen from the Conservative Party is the unmasking of the guns. Almost all speakers have said that they are for first-past-the-post. I repeat that first-past-the-post was not the manifesto commitment of the Labour Party, not the manifesto commitment of the Liberal Democrats and not the wish of another place. I believe that it would be a constitutional outrage if this House used its unelected majority to thwart the wishes of the electorate expressed at the general election and those of another place elected through the democratic process.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, asked whether there was a hidden agenda. Listening to the debate and watching the Conservative ranks I wondered sometimes whether

1147
we were having a dry run for next year. When the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, started calling on his Writ of Summons to justify committing this constitutional outrage, I wondered whether next year the Writs of Summons would be dusted down to justify trying to thwart the elected government and their manifesto commitment.
Let us be in no doubt what has happened during the past few weeks. When the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was able to boast that he had come within two votes of those cast on the previous occasion on which we voted, I wonder how many independent voices we had heard and how dangerous was that Front Bench fingertip control over the hereditaries for this so-called independent House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I say to the Cross Benchers, "Do not be lured into a Conservative Party game." The noble Lord, Lord Bach, was right to speak about a court. I understand his mistake because the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is attempting a piece of grand larceny as regards this Bill. It has gone through every process of this House. We have brought it legitimately through the House and have argued our case. Some of the issues we have lost, but there is no doubt that the will of another place has been expressed clearly. The party putting the Bill through this House has the democratic mandate from the electorate for its manifesto and the approval of another place. I ask this House to pause before it sets a precedent which I believe would damage its reputation just when we are looking hard at how it should be reformed.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I speak with what I hope is an independent voice. I am not against the Government. I am not a Euro-sceptic. I am not, I hope, part of the hooligan tendency. I am even in favour of proportional representation.
I sat through the debate in your Lordship' House last week and listened carefully to everything that was said. I have listened carefully to everything that has been said today. I remain deeply unhappy about the principle of the closed list. It seems to me that it is at the heart of our democratic method that the individual voter should be able to express an opinion about an individual candidate.
I am well aware of the enormous complexity of proportional representation. I am well aware that there is no perfect system. I warmly support a great deal of what Her Majesty's Government are trying to undertake in their programme of legislation. I want to see the United Kingdom playing a full and vigorous part in European affairs. I would like to see us reaching the point at which we can present to this House and to the other place a system of proportional representation which carries conviction and wins general approval. However, I remain deeply unhappy about the closed list.
There are many imperfect systems. I believe that the closed list is one of the most imperfect. I remain unconvinced by the arguments of those asking us to resist the amendment. I propose to vote again for the
1148
amendment. I believe that we shall be doing the right thing by the democratic principles which have prevailed in this country for a very long time.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, your Lordships' House is a remarkable House and today again has been a true occasion for the connoisseur. I wish to offer a word or two about the profound heart of the matter and about where we are.
This House is a revising Chamber. It should not seek to become a dictating Chamber. The facts are that the vote was won by the Opposition with the votes of hereditary Peers on every occasion. There were 47 on 20th October; 29 on 4th November; and 58 on 12th November. The figures bear thinking about because they fail to meet what happened in another place. In February there was a government majority with the Liberal Democrats and others of 174. In March, it was 180. On 27th October, it was 207. On 10th November, it was 182. The last time we indulged in this "ping" they said "pong" by 187.
We have discharged our duty to ask the other place to think and think again. I want to put this gently and neutrally. I suggest to your Lordships that to insist further is to be abusive of our system. I believe that one should pay careful attention to what my noble friend Lord Callaghan said, bearing in mind particularly that he has made no secret of the fact on any occasion before your Lordships that he really prefers first-past-the-post and is not a devotee of any PR system. He rarely speaks in your Lordships' House. For my own part, I believe that I can say that I have never heard him make a contribution which has been without value and without deep thought. Sometimes he has spoken in a way contrary to what I should have hoped, but he never speaks without thought and considered weight.
I am sorry to say that the argument is rather over-egged. Perhaps I may quote, since that seems to be the habit these days, from Peter Riddell in The Times of 17th November of this year. He said:
"The open-list system has a number of disadvantages. It encourages candidates of the same party",
the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell,
"to compete against each other and may produce perverse results",
the point made by my noble friend Lord Callaghan,
"whereby some candidates can be elected with fewer votes than someone who fails to get elected".
That is incontrovertible. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, astute mathematician as he formerly was and presently remains, has never tried to dispute it. It is fact.
I continue with Mr. Riddell:
"A closed list allows parties to ensure that women and ethnic minorities have a better chance of being elected by putting them higher up the list. The choice is not straight forward and it is certainly not a grand matter of principle".
If it were a grand matter of principle, I should not be able to produce this little pamphlet which is headed "Here is your Euro-team. Conservatives in the European Parliament". It has a closed list of one to 10. The noble

1149
Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to it last time, but I believe that his point was insufficiently taken. He is number three.
What is said by those devotees of the grand principle which cannot be impugned, impeached or even questioned? I shall read it. It states:
"The number of MEPs elected from each party will be proportionate to the votes cast for that party in the region".
Well, well, is that a closed list or is that a closed list? That is what the Opposition are fighting on. Perhaps I may say to anyone who uses the word "bogus" about any argument that I may offer to your Lordships for consideration, bogus me no boguses.
This is an occasion for the connoisseur. My noble friend—we call each other that because we both mean it—Lord Tebbit presents himself as the champion of the ordinary man, one of the levellers and diggers of the English Civil War. You could have fooled me.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, talked about a sanitised list of 10 candidates. He always stood for election in Yeovil as a sanitised list of one candidate and so, nine times in 33 years, did my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney.
If you want to have a perfectly open system for parliamentary elections, we can do as they do in the United States and have a write-in list. We do not have that. Parties bring forward policies. Some people will disagree with some policies and must therefore opt to vote for a list which they partly support, or not. Parties must bring forward lists of candidates. There cannot be internal squabbling and fighting between the candidates, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, again said. A list is put forward for the electorate to decide upon.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is shrewd but his disability is that I always listen to him. I demonstrate that. He answered my argument about Northern Ireland by saying that it is only a deliberative Assembly. But that is normally what the European Parliament is described as. It forms no government.
I go on to what he did not deal with. The Government of Wales Bill has gone through the other place and your Lordships' House on a closed list for the top-up seats. That is excellent for Wales. My noble friend Lord Sewel and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will be able to remind me that a little time was spent considering the Government of Scotland Bill in your Lordships' House. What is the system for Scotland? It is a closed list.
I am sorry to say—and I do not say this with any particular harshness nor, indeed, is the pitch or the tone of my voice rising so that your Lordships' spectacles, if not your Lordships' drinking glasses might be in danger—this is not a point of pure principle. It is a device; it is a stratagem. All oppositions are entitled to deploy their devices and to manipulate their stratagems, but only so far. I can do no better for your Lordships than to repeat what my noble friend Lord Callaghan said. The game has been played for long enough. Our colleagues in another place were elected. Some of your Lordships disparage them. I never do because they have
1150
the courage to stand for election. They were elected. None of us was. This is now becoming a wholly improper abuse of power.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have certainly had an interesting debate. If I have done nothing else, I have brought before your Lordships an excellent performance of old skills honed over the years by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. To an extent, I suppose that his argument is enhanced by the fact that he believes quite honestly and openly that first-past-the-post is the best system.
However, he argued his case persuasively and cleverly as befits someone who managed to remain as Prime Minister for quite a long time without commanding a majority in the other place. Therefore, I was not in the least surprised that it was a clever performance and it certainly gave us all a lesson on how to perform in front of your Lordships. I shall read it with some care.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, clearly reads my speeches. Perhaps I may say to him that that is a temptation which I have so far resisted. I suggest that he joins me.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, came out of the closet and owned up to agreeing that the closed list is the best system. He asked us to be gentle with him and I shall be. He sang in harmony with Tony, and I do not mean Tony Benn but the other one. He said something interesting which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and the Minister also mentioned; that is, that somebody with a lower vote could easily be elected against someone with a higher vote. I am sure that the Minister accepts that that is true only between the parties' lists. Within the parties' lists with the open list system, the people with the highest vote will be elected. I accept of course that someone may be elected with a lower vote than somebody else on another party list, but that happens all the time when one compares one constituency with another. Nobody complains that he received 30,000 votes and was beaten while the chap next door won 20,000 votes and was elected. Nobody complains about that. That is a false premise. People will be able to understand the system. The ballot paper will not be too complicated. Noble Lords who think that should look at the German system.
My noble friend Lord Bethell explained why he does not approve of the closed list. He mentioned some of the problems which occur with the open list. On balance, I believe he would agree with me that the problems with the closed list are greater. He indicated the defects of the closed list from his experience in the European Parliament. I believe that my noble friend is trying to help the Government by suggesting another system which they may try. I must say to my noble friend that I am not happy with the Belgian system and neither is the Home Secretary. However, my noble friend has certainly given the Government some food for thought if they need it.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. "This is our Bill". I thought that let the cat out of the bag. I say to those on the Government Back-Benches, ye ken noo

1151
who has got you into this problem. But the noble Lord did not explain why the open list is not PR. I return to my point. The Labour Party's manifesto states:
"We have long supported a proportional voting system for election to the European Parliament".
Frankly, the open list is an election system to the European Parliament by PR. So I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who seems to be worried about it, that there is no problem in relation to the Government's manifesto.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford made it clear that individual voters should have some say. That is all we ask for in the open list. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I enjoy jousting—at least, I hope that he enjoys it because I certainly do. The noble Lord mentioned the Scottish and Welsh Bills. I did not like the list system as set out in the latter, but the fact is that both pieces of legislation have the majority of the Members of that parliament and assembly elected by the first-past-the-post system: the list only comes in for the minority for the top-up. Therefore, it is not the same as the European Parliament where everyone will be in the list system.
The noble Lord also said that the argument was over-egged. If that is so, why not accept the open list? I suggest to noble Lords that it is not just the majority in the other place that they should listen to; indeed, they should also heed the voices in another place. Those voices represent a very unhappy troop behind the Government on the issue.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit made the position clear: it is up to the other place. This Bill does not necessarily need to be lost if your Lordships agree with me today. The other place can come back—it is to be hoped—with a substantial compromise which might persuade us actually to accept it, instead of these rather meaningless crumbs of comfort that they think will buy us off.
The Government could also accept the open system which is consistent with their manifesto; indeed, they have the time to do so. I think that we should ask them to do it again and to come back, if they wish to do so, with something sensible. Alternatively, and better still, if they wish to accept that the open list is every bit as proportional as the closed list, perhaps they will accept the open list. I wish to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.
4.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 261; Not-Contents, 198.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ackner, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Addison, V.

Annaly, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ailsa, M.

Attlee, E.

Aldington, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

1152

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

Bell, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beloff, L.

Hambro, L.

Belstead, L.

Hampden, V.

Biffen, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Blaker, L.

Harlech, L.

Blatch, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blyth, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Bowness, L.

Haslam, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Headfort, M.

Brentford, V.

Hereford, Bp.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Higgins, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hogg, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Holderness, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Home, E.

Butterfield, L.

Hood, V.

Butterworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Cadman, L.

Hothfield, L.

Caithness, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnock, L.

Inglewood, L.

Chalfont, L.

Ironside, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Chesham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clancarty, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Jopling, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Coleridge, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kenyon, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Killearn, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Kimball, L.

Courtown, E.

Kingsland, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cox, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Knollys, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Cranborne, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cross, V.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Cuckney, L.

Leigh, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Limerick, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Liverpool, E.

Davidson, V.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Deedes, L.

Lloyd-Webber, L.

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Lowry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lucas, L.

Donegall, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Downshire, M.

Luke, L.

Dudley, E.

Lytton, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elles, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Erne, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Exmouth, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Flather, B.

Merrivale, L.

Fookes, B.

Mersey, V.

Forester, L.

Middleton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Freyberg, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Gage, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Gainford, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Monson, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Glentoran, L.

Montrose, D.

Gray, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Moran, L.

1153

Mottistone, L.

Renwick, L.

Mountevans, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Romney, E.

Moyne, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Munster, E.

Rowallan, L.

Napier of Magdoda, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Naseby, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Nathan, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Nelson, E.

Sandford, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Savile, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Norrie, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Northbourne, L.

Sharples, B.

Northesk, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Norton, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Slim, V.

Onslow, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Stair, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Palmer, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Palumbo, L.

Strafford, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Patten, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinfen, L.

Peel, E.

Tebbit, L.

Pender, L.

Teviot, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Thatcher, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Phillimore, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pike, B.

Vivian, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Waddington, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wakefield, Bp.

Plumb, L.

Wakeham, L.

Quinton, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Warnock, B.

Rathcavan, L.

Waverley, V.

Rawlings, B.

Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Wharton, B.

Rees, L.

Wilcox, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Renton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Calverley, L.

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ahmed, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Alderdice, L.

Chorley, L.

Alli, L.

Christopher, L.

Amos, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Annan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Avebury, L.

Crawley, B.

Bach, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Barnett, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

David, B.

Bath, M.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blease, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Desai, L.

Borrie, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bragg, L.

Diamond, L.

Brightman, L.

Dixon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brookman, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dubs, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Eatwell, L.

Burlison, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Burns, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

1154

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ezra, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Dorner, B.

Falkland, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mishcon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Molloy, L.

Geraint, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Goodhart, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Newby, L.

Goudie, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Grantchester, L.

Paul, L.

Gregson, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hacking, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Puttnam, L.

Hardie, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Razzall, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rea, L.

Haskel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hayman, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Healey, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Richard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rochester, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hollick, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sawyer, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hooson, L.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sewel, L.

Hoyle, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Ilchester, E.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Inchyra, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Strabolgi, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Islwyn, L.

Taverne, L.

Jacobs, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

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

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thornton, B.

Judd, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thurso, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Leathers, V.

Tordoff, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Uddin, B.

Lockwood, B.

Varley, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L,

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ludford, B.

Warner, L.

McCarthy, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Weatherill, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Whitty, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNally, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Maddock, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agree to accordingly.

The Territorial Army
4.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, with permission I will repeat a Statement made a few minutes ago in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a Statement about the future organisation and structure of the Territorial Army.
"When I announced the conclusions of our Strategic Defence Review on 8th July, I said that I was determined that the Territorial Army should become more relevant, more usable and better integrated with the rest of our forces. Since then, we have analysed how to put that vision into practice and engaged in detailed and widespread consultation with those most expert on the Territorial Army.
"The decisions I have taken will produce a tauter, stronger Territorial Army ready to play its part in facing tomorrow's crises. The changes are faithful to the design that I set out in my Statement on 8th July.
"We said we would consult widely, and we have especially with members of the TA themselves, and the TAVRAs. We said that we would listen, and we have, to the many representations that have been made by honourable Members and others. The final structure reflects many substantive changes from the initial proposals circulated for consultation.
"The theme of the SDR was modern forces for the modern world. The fact is that we no longer face a threat to our national survival, but crises and risks are still real and operationally demanding. We can expect little warning of trouble, and we are likely to have to go to the crisis, rather than have it come to us. This places a premium on the Armed Forces which are flexible and usable and ready to react. At the same time, however, we need to retain a foundation on which we could generate larger capabilities should a strategic threat to NATO ever begin to re-emerge.
"Tomorrow's Territorial Army will be central to both these needs, like the Royal Navy and RAF reserves, both of which will grow as a result of the defence review. The TA will no longer be a general reserve for general war in Europe, but a wholly integrated and vital part of a single capability—regular and reserve—for overseas deployment. We can achieve this by giving the Territorial Army clearly defined operational roles in support of expeditionary forces and structuring it accordingly. There will be a clear shift of emphasis so that we can use the whole of the TA, and not just part of it.
"We will make sure that the people who make up the units will be trained and available at the time we need them. At present most units are manned only to the extent needed to achieve low levels of readiness. This will change. More units will be held at higher readiness. The last government's decisions effectively limited most TA units to only 90 per cent. of their establishments. As a consequence the strength of the TA today stands at are around 54,000. This
1156
Government, though, will ensure that the TA of the future is fully resourced for its roles. The Government will be prepared to call up the TA in formed units if needs be in situations short of direct threat to the United Kingdom itself, like the Gulf War. What we are proposing is a radical shift away from the TA's traditional image as "weekend warriors" towards a new, more heavyweight role in the world after the Cold War.
"This is a change which will, I believe, be welcomed by the TA.
"I have set out details in a document I placed in the Library of the House over an hour ago; and both myself and my honourable friends the Ministers of State for Defence Procurement and for the Armed Forces have written to honourable Members with an interest, and those letters should have reached them before this Statement.
"The structure set out in our document will, first and foremost, enable tomorrow's TA to meet the operational demands that will be placed on it in future. Secondly, it will encompass a degree of insurance for the unexpected—that is, should a strategic threat to NATO ever re-emerge.
"But there are third and fourth elements to our proposals. These reforms will enable the TA to maintain a widespread presence throughout the nations, regions and counties of the United Kingdom. The Armed Forces must continue to be linked to the local and national communities they serve and the TA is, again, vital in achieving this. Many honourable Members have stressed the important role of the Territorial Army as part of the visible presence of the Armed Forces across the country, and as a source of practical help to local communities. We share these views and took explicit decisions to reflect them fully in our plans.
"Finally, in the forefront of our minds, and of many honourable Members', has been the need to secure and promote the cadets, and in particular to protect those units which share premises with the TA.
"I have made clear on many occasions my strong support for the cadets. They are not a recruiting organisation, but a self-standing and successful youth movement. But even so, whereas on average only 8 per cent. of today's regular Army have been in the TA, some 25 per cent. have experience of the cadets.
"Consequently, our aim has been to protect cadet units as far as possible from disruption during the transition to the new structure. In many cases, we will retain existing TA centres for cadet use, even when they are no longer to be used by Territorial Army units. I can assure the House that in no case will we dispose of a centre until alternative facilities have been provided for the cadets, although some temporary dislocation is inevitable. I have set aside up to £12 million to meet these needs.
"In addition, I will allocate £3 million extra to the cadets over the next four years. In the summer, I told the House that, to meet the requirements we envisaged placing on it, the Territorial Army would need to be about 40,200 strong.
"Following our detailed analysis and consultation, we have decided that a modest increase in that number is needed: the result will be a TA of 41,000—in other words, a reduction of some 13,000 on today's strength. To put this into perspective last year we lost almost that figure through natural wastage alone. In total only 87, of Britain's 455 TA centres will close outright. A further 27 will be retained for the cadets. Four in every five centres will remain.
"These decisions will fulfil both the country's operational need and the Armed Forces' role in the community that they serve and in which they live. This outcome is not some number determined by an arbitrary exercise in cost reduction, but is securely rooted in a thorough analysis of policy and military need. It has the full backing of the head of the Army, the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler and the whole Army Board. In this and in its operational justification, it is no different from the rest of the Strategic Defence Review.
"I know that some would have wished us to go further, and to maintain the reserves at much higher levels than we have proposed, just in case. But the nation just does not need such large numbers, and I cannot justify them either militarily or as a Minister spending the money of taxpayers.
"Nor is the self-esteem of the TA likely to survive if it has no real military purpose and is stuck frozen in some Cold War glacier. But we have not presumed that we can predict the future, nor that it will be a continuation of the patterns of the recent past. So the TA will continue to be a basis for the regeneration of larger reserve forces should the country ever need them.
"We have also taken pains to implement change in a way which is sensitive to the pride and commitment of volunteers, and to their regimental traditions and ethos. Tomorrow's Territorial Army will retain substantial, though reduced, numbers of infantry. In future, there will be 15 new infantry battalions and they will choose their own names. I am pleased to tell the House that all existing TA infantry cap-badge affiliations will be maintained at company level. Not a single cap-badge will be lost.
"Traditions in the TA Yeomanry will also be maintained, through a nationwide representation of Yeomanry squadrons. We will also ensure that the Yeomanry has a real job to do and strong linkages to the regular regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps. TA Yeomanry squadrons will have access to the same equipment as the regular counterparts, including the Challenger 2 main battle tank, and to the major armoured training areas.
"We have also reflected carefully on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Defence on the nuclear biological and chemical role of the Territorial Army. The SDR included the creation of a regulation unit—a joint Army/RAF organisation—to improve significantly our current capability in this important area. Under initial proposals, the TA Yeomanry would have contributed a single squadron to that unit. But I have decided, in light of the
1158
committee's observations, to retain two squadrons of TA Yeomanry devoted to the support of regular forces in this role. Tomorrow's TA structure will reflect a greater emphasis on specialists and units of the supporting arms and services than has previously been the case. These will provide, as now, the full range of combat and combat services support for a military deployment: signallers, artillery, air defence, logistics and engineers, and, of course, medical services.
"Both regular and reserve medical services were, I regret, neglected by the previous government. We will, therefore, seek to increase substantially, by over 2,000, the manpower available to the volunteer Army Medical Services.
"The Strategic Defence Review was also crucially about people. Volunteer service will be more demanding in future, and it will continue to provide rewarding opportunities unparalled in most other walks of life. There will also be opportunities to contribute to our new mission of defence diplomacy overseas. The TA of the future will be an enterprise to which we wish to attract the best. A new recruitment campaign will ensure that this message is clearly conveyed. But retention is just as important. In recent years, for example, up to a third of the TA's recruits have been leaving within a year of joining. That must change. There will, therefore, be a package of improvements to personnel management in the Territorial Army—in particular for individual members of the TA who volunteer for service in Bosnia and elsewhere abroad. We are overhauling antiquated arrangements for keeping track of individual TA members. A new reserves training and mobilisation centre will start training individuals for overseas deployments from April next year.
"We will improve education and training opportunities; and ensure through the provision of personal development records that the value of an individual's experience and training in service is recognised—to the benefit of the individual and, we hope, of his or her civilian employer.
"The Territorial Army has a first-class record of responding to the need for change. An essential part of the Army throughout this century, it has always had to be flexible in size and organisation. It expanded to meet both World Wars. Since then it has been disbanded, re-raised, reduced, and expanded again, to meet development in warfare and a changing threat.
"The changes I am announcing today will mean that, for the first time in many years, tomorrow's Territorial Army will have a clear role and purpose for the future. Tomorrow's Territorial Army will be better manned, trained, supported and integrated—able to meet the challenges of the world after the Cold War. In short, a Territorial Army fit for the future—both valuable and valued by the whole country. I commend these reforms to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am particularly grateful to him for his courtesy in briefing me this morning on the two documents setting out the proposed changes in the Territorial Army. The details of the changes and the cuts are given in full in these papers, which noble Lords will have the opportunity of reading. I believe that we in this House would be wrong in the limited time available this afternoon to pick up the problems, important as they are, of individual units and TA centres.
This House has been ill done by in the time given for discussion on defence matters—I must emphasise that in no way do I blame the noble Lord for that. We received some time for debate on the SDR before the Summer Recess, but no further time has been given. In another place there was a two-day debate on the SDR on the first two days when the House returned last month and, subsequently, a day on the Army. It may be that Members of the other place do not work as hard as your Lordships. This is the first real opportunity that we have had to discuss these serious matters. I hope the Minister will assure the House that there will be a chance for proper debate (welcome as it is, this is not such) and if possible before Christmas.
Since July, noble Lords, Members of another place and Territorials have been desperate for information on exactly where the cuts forecast in the SDR would fall. The comprehensive nature of the documents that we have now been given explains in part why it has taken so long. But they do not, I believe, make clear quite what is happening. We were told originally that the Territorial Army would be cut from 59,000 to 40,000. This last figure has now been revised to 41,200 from a total of 54,000. But what is the proposed cut? I was startled to find out from the Assistant Chief of the General Staff in the presence of the Minister this morning that, while the nominal roll is 54,000, the effective parade state is 32,900 and that, consequently, the reduction in numbers will be 13,000. I hope, and have been told, that achieving the reduction in numbers will be treated sympathetically; but to do it, as is planned, in six months will take some doing. Having said that, it is clearly desirable to complete the changes before next year's camp season. If the new numbers are to be so low, let us hope that they give the TA its full ration of time.
But is the cut in the infantry from 33 battalions and 16,000 men to 15 battalions and 7,100 men and in the Yeomanry from 2,100 men and seven regiments to 1,300 men and four regiments desirable? These cuts, and the cuts in other arms, seem to damage the capability of the TA to form a structure on which rapid expansion of the Army can be based in the event of an emergency. Paragraph 9 of the report states that these changes will,
"enable the TA to provide a framework upon which larger reserve forces can be built should the country need them".
I would suggest that that is exactly what the restructuring does not do. While the number of TA centres to be closed is fewer than we had been expecting, 87, it leaves large parts of the country without any real TA base at all. In the whole of North
1160
Yorkshire, for instance, there will be only one centre, at Scarborough, plus one for cadets only at Northallerton. I hope I am wrong, but it looks as if the Government are abandoning the TA in the country areas where it has traditionally been so strong, and concentrating on the cities.
In the Statement the Secretary of State proposes a shift from the traditional image of the TA as weekend warriors. TA personnel such as my noble friend Lord Attlee, who earlier this year spent six months in Bosnia, would deny that faintly pejorative description. But if it is justifiable it must be countered by the ability of the Territorials to act as formed units, which these cuts make more difficult. Camps may be interesting when at last the single Welsh battalion, two companies from the north and two from the south, at last get together. It may make the Highland Light Infantry seem like a Women's Institute.
The proposals to strengthen the cadets and to ensure that many of their headquarters which are closing for the TA itself remain open are welcome, as is the plan to spend £12 million to meet their needs. The Secretary of State has drawn attention to the number of recruits to the regular Army who come from the cadet forces. A considerable number, admittedly smaller, come from the TA but, when it has been resolved to increase the numbers in the regular Army, the Government are making it more difficult by cutting back the areas from which the recruits come.
The Secretary of State points out that the planned numbers have been increased from 40,000 to 41,200. That shows what heavy lobbying can do, particularly if it is done by Scots. I doubt whether this is the end of the lobby and, if changes have been made since the SDR, there may well be more. The decision to retain two squadrons of the Yeomanry for a nuclear, biological and chemical role must be right, but I can only hope that these squadrons and all other units receive the proper equipment to carry out their designated role—for instance, not only to get the Challenger 2 tank to train with, but the transporter to carry it.
I may be wrong, but I have seen no figures on the savings which these cuts will achieve. I hope that the noble Lord may be able to help us in this regard. It has been said that a TA infantry battalion costs the same as a single torpedo. If the savings are as small as we have been led to believe, are they worth it? The sociological benefits of the TA and the cadets are enormous and the hidden cost savings that they generate would seem to have been ignored. It is true that the role of the regular Army and the TA have changed enormously since the end of the Cold War, but they still have a role.
The SDR, we have been told, is Foreign Office led. I hope it is realised that times change and that there may be a new conflict where we need a strong TA to back up the regulars. The Secretary of State underlines the fact that the TA remains an essential part of the Army. I must express some doubt that this review will enable it to fulfil that role if matters go wrong. It is a long time ago, but let us remember the unreadiness of the TA in the 1930s.

1161
I have heard a comment from a Member of this House that the review is "better" than we might have expected. I believe it is still not good enough; and while I agree that it is desirable, almost but not quite above all, to get a move on, I hope there is still room for further improvements. The noble Lord the Minister has my sympathy, as he will no doubt be inundated with questions on individual units which he cannot be expected to answer off the cuff. Today there is not enough time and I again express my hope that we will "very soon", in the words of the noble Lord when we were looking forward last week to this Statement, have the opportunity for a comprehensive debate on all matters concerned with the defence of the realm.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement. It seems to us in many ways an improvement on the original proposals. We recognise, too, that the role of tradition has to be balanced against the post-Cold War needs of reserve forces, the absence of a threat to British national territory and the need therefore for reserves which are flexible and can be mobilised in a crisis, and which should therefore be maintained in a higher form of readiness. It is, I assume, the absence of a home defence requirement that most justifies the cut in the number of infantry battalions. We are all aware that a number of the infantry battalions were at a low state of manning and readiness. We hope that the number that we are now to have will be maintained at a much higher recruitment level and will therefore be much more combat ready. We also welcome the footprint of the territorial centres as set out in this report. It covers the country much better than many feared.
I hope that the Minister will not be too committed to the maintenance of cap badges in all instances. After looking through the report that he kindly gave me this morning, I think that both battalions, the 4th Gordons and the London Scottish, in which my father once served, have now come down to the level of platoons. I am not sure that each platoon should be entitled to maintain its own individual cap badge. We need to have a more flexible infantry—regular and reserve—and to move towards broader regiments, even towards a corps of infantry, without too many local, historical regiments of the type of "I want to serve in the regiment that my great-grandfather served in". That builds in a huge amount of inflexibility and is not helpful for future requirements.
I have three questions upon which I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me. First, there is very little in this Statement or in the document about aid to the civil power. That was one of the questions raised in response to the initial proposals, in particular in terms of civil emergencies and disasters. We have found territorial forces worthwhile in those sort of situations in the past. I am not sure that that has been entirely thought through. There is perhaps an overlap between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence in terms of civil defence which requires further investigation.
1162
The defence of the home territories nowadays is much more concerned with illegal immigration and drug smuggling on the coast. I have been struck by the extent to which cuts in naval reserves and coast guardforces, as well as cuts in land forces, have left very large areas of what is now the European Union's and Britain's external frontier entirely unguarded.
My second question is about the closer integration of reserves and regulars, which I welcome. I would urge the Minister to consider the possibilities of taking this further. It seems to many of us that, if we wish to have reserves in a high state of readiness, the more the volunteers in the reserves are able to have short periods of service with the Regular Army—the more people can move through periods of full time service for one, two or three years—the better the reserve forces will be supplied.
The third question concerns the educational role of reserve forces. There is reference in the Statement and in the supporting documents to the provision of NVQs and the provision of skills for the otherwise unskilled. For the cadets and the reserve forces, especially in our cities, this is one of the very useful functions in peacetime of reserve and regular forces. It is about the harnessing of the energy of the young—in particular the young who do not have very many skills—and the giving to them of a sense of real pride in what they have achieved. The American professional forces have begun to do this successfully with what otherwise would be the unemployed underclass in their cities. I hope that, in consultation perhaps with the DfEE, the Ministry of Defence will also consider that local reserve forces are part of a strategy of life-long learning.
We welcome these proposals very strongly, although with some reservations on all sides about particular units and particular parts of the country. But that. I suspect, is another debate.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am much obliged to both the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Lord, Wallace of Saltaire, for the extremely fair way in which they have greeted the Government's proposals in respect of the Territorial Army. I shall do my best to take on board the points they have raised.
First, with respect to the amount of time available for defence debates, I would welcome more time spent discussing defence in this House, as would the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. Unfortunately, as your Lordships are well aware, others of your Lordships are quite happy to spend a lot of time debating obscure constitutional matters at the expense of the time available for discussing the sort of matter we are talking about today.
This is not the first time that the state of the Territorials has been discussed in your Lordships' House, even in the short time that I have been a Member. If it is any help to the noble Lord, when I was last on my feet talking about the Territorials I said that I hoped very much that there would be a debate on SDR before Christmas. I still hope that that will be case, but the noble Lord knows that I can give him no assurances. I expect, the Lord willing, to be speaking in the debate

1163
on the Address on the Queen's Speech. We will have another opportunity of discussing defence and foreign affairs on that day.
As to the proposed size of the Territorial Army, it may help your Lordships if I go through, very briefly, the methodological process involved in arriving at our figures. I think your Lordships will be bound to concede when you have heard what I have to say, that it was in no sense a Treasury cost-cutting exercise. We started off with an attempt to reach the figure necessary for operational requirements. It was decided that we had a military requirement for 31,500 in the Territorial Army to fill 25,000 posts. I will repeat that. We had a military requirement for 31,500 to fill 25,000 posts.
We invited all our most distinguished former soldiers into the Ministry of Defence and exposed them to the thought processes and analyses that had led us to these conclusions. I am pleased to say that, without equivocation, not one of those distinguished and gallant former serving officers questioned the operational requirement. We thus started from a military requirement of 31,500. To this we added an OTC figure of 3,500 to bring us up to 35,000. The strategic defence review added a further 5,000 to the figure for non-operational reasons—reasons, I emphasise of footprint, links with the community and support for the cadets—bringing us up to 40,000. To that figure we have added a further 1,200 to take account of consultations with the TAVRAs, the chain of command, the individual arms and services. That is how the figure of 41,200 has been reached.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked me, in effect—I forget quite the language he used—how many of the Territorials were turning up and fulfilling in full their self-induced obligations. Out of the strength of the Territorials, last year some 32,000 were in a position to claim their bounty.
The noble Lord questioned the fact that we were trying to complete reorganisation in the space of some six months. He fairly acknowledged that we are trying to do it in that relatively short space of time to get it out of the way before next season's summer camps. A moment's thought among your Lordships will produce the realisation that it makes no sense at all to have people coming along to summer camps who, a few weeks later, will be released from the Army.
The noble Lord asked, quite fairly, whether the cuts in the infantry and the yeomanry are desirable. I repeat what I said a few moments ago. The operational requirement was for a figure much lower than the one we have reached on the basis of clear and unambiguous advice—for which of course Ministers accept responsibility.
The noble Lord said that there will be large parts of the country without a TA presence. I invite him and other noble Lords to look at the maps in the back of the first volume that we have distributed. Noble Lords will be able to judge for themselves exactly where the footprint will be. Even in those areas where it is apparent that a Territorial footprint may disappear—for example, in places in Scotland and Wales—it must be
1164
remembered that the regular services do have a presence. The links between the community and the Armed Forces is not being totally destroyed by the removal of Territorial units from a few places.
I emphasise again that four out of five Territorial drill halls will be maintained. We were at great pains to try to spread the agony as evenly as possible over the whole of the country. No one region has lost more than eight centres. Wales and Northern Ireland have been particularly well served. I think I am right in saying that they maintain about 85 per cent. of their current establishment whereas over the rest of the country the comparable figure is of the order of 70 to 75 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said that it shows what heavy lobbying can do that we have increased the figure from our original proposals. Well, it could be heavy lobbying; it is just the fact that we actually sat down and listened. We had a consultation exercise and we took account of the representations made to us. I am sure the noble Lord recognises that.
Although I came armed with a good many answers to questions, I regret that I cannot answer the noble Lord's specific question on tank transporters. I shall find out in due course. He asked about savings. We expect the annual cost of the Territorial Army to be reduced by around £70 million from now on. With respect to the reduction in the Territorial Army estate, about which we consulted the TAVRAs from start to finish, we assume that disposal will amount to more than £40 million after allowing up to £12 million for the relocation of the cadets. I hope that I have covered all the points the noble Lord raised.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we need a high degree of readiness for the Territorial Army. When he has had a chance to study the Statement he will find that we fully recognise that. I regret that I did not come armed with details of the units in which his father and his great-grandfather served. I do not propose to answer any questions on them this afternoon. There is an 84-page booklet with all the details. I have made no attempt even to memorise page one, let alone pages one through to 84.
The noble Lord raised three specific points. He asked about aid to the civil power. Of course we expect that the Territorial Army will still be in a position to provide aid to the civil power, but it will be doing that as part of the Army. We talk far too much in the Lords about the Territorial Army and the Army as though they are separate, often in a posture of semi-antagonism towards one another. They are the Army. When there is a civil emergency one needs the people who are already in uniform because they can get there quickest. That is not to say that the Territorial Army does not play an extremely valuable role. I shall pray in aid for the future the words of General Sir Michael Walker, C-in-C Land, in The Times on Saturday. He said that the Territorial Army will continue to help cope with local emergencies such as flooding. He listed a good many of its other jobs and said that the Territorial Army will be properly resourced for its task.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to cuts in naval reserves. I hope I misheard him because in point of fact both the Royal Air Force Reserve and

1165
the Royal Navy Reserve—I know that this will be welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Monro—will be increased by around 10 per cent. They are small and they are valuable and I am sure that the increases will be welcome to your Lordships.
The noble Lord said that we should try to take further the integration of the reserves into the regulars. That is the whole theme of my right honourable friend's Statement and the approach we have taken to the matter of the restructuring and "reroling" of the reserves. I can assure the noble Lord that we have his concerns very much in mind.
Finally, the noble Lord talked about education. As he will recall, that formed almost the peroration of my right honourable friend's Statement. We recognise the importance of education to the Territorial Army. I pay tribute to the Territorial Army which in various parts of the country has done better than the regulars in recruiting from ethnic minorities. That is something in which we can all take pride. It does not apply throughout the country because one does not find many members of ethnic communities north of Inverness. As it happens, that is down to the population distribution, but in city centres—for example, Bradford—it has done very well indeed. It is because of the fact that the parents of young men and women coming into the Territorial services recognise that they will get educational opportunities that recruitment has been so good. It is certainly our objective to see that process continued.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, one accepts that the reserves have to change in order to be flexible, modern and effective. One particularly welcomes the increase in the Royal Air Force Reserve and the Royal Navy Reserve. However, does my noble friend accept that the links between the military and the community are important? One welcomes the recognition of the role of the cadets, a matter in which I should declare an interest. Does my noble friend consider that the changes may well impel others to leave in addition to the substantial wastage that is normally experienced? In view of that, are the Government prepared to consider taking positive action to encourage recruitment and retention in those TA units which will remain, perhaps attracting transfers from those which will go, and to promote involvement in the cadet organisations?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend who is a great student of these matters. The points he makes are serious and important. When he studies again my right honourable friend's Statement he will see that my right honourable friend lays specific emphasis on the importance of retention. My noble friend raised the question of recruitment generally. We recognise that when a TA centre is closed recruitment in that area will be made more difficult. However, I hope my noble friend will recognise that some of the other steps we are taking will, we hope, improve recruitment. For example, for the first time in many years members of the Armed Forces will be allowed to wear uniform outside their establishments. That will raise the public perception of the importance and existence of the forces. I am sure
1166
your Lordships will be generous in giving credit to the Government for the recent initiative of my right honourable friend in inviting General Colin Powell to this country to instruct us in ways in which the American services have managed to recruit from ethnic minorities so that we can improve our performance in that respect. That will be another method by which we hope to increase recruitment.
I can think of nothing more important than retention. I remind your Lordships again that in the Territorial Army as it is presently structured we lose every year through natural wastage just about the equivalent of the reductions we are suggesting for the Territorial Army as a whole in the course of this review.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I served for a couple of years on the National Employers' Liaison Committee of TAVRA and since then I have maintained an interest in the TA. I am very reassured by what has been said about the contribution made by the ethnic minorities through their recruitment to the TA. I want to ask specifically about the London TA regiment and I hope I do not irritate my noble friend Lord Burnham on the Front Bench who asked us not to be specific about regiments. If that were to be disbanded, there would be a tremendous problem with the ethnic minorities. In the Regular Army the ethnic minority component is 1 per cent. whereas in the London regiment of the TA the ethnic minority component is 13 per cent. Indeed, in some companies, such as the company in Balham, the figure is 20 per cent. The work that the TA London regiment does in such areas is invaluable. I should like reassurance from the Minister that it will not be disbanded.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have no idea what effect the noble Baroness has on her noble friend Lord Burnham, but I am sure that nothing she said would ever irritate me! With regard to the greater London area, we envisage that the great majority of the TA centres—some 37 of the 46 centres—will remain in use by the Territorial Army. Two centres, in Dulwich and Hornsey, will be retained for use by cadets. Centres at East Ham, Finchley, Kingsbury and Blackheath will close. Of the four Middlesex centres, only that in Vicarage Farm Road, Heston, will be closed. The 600-strong London Regiment will comprise six companies of TA infantry in eight locations: Battersea (the headquarters), Edgware, West Ham, Fulham, Balham, Davies Street, Westminster (for the London Scottish) and Camberwell (for the London Irish), and the Parachute Regiment will retain a company at White City, with a detachment in Croydon. I hope that that goes some way to meet the noble Baroness's concerns.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, as a former sapper sergeant in the 53rd Welsh Division of the Royal Engineers, may I ask whether the Minister is aware of the contribution which the Territorials have made to the British Army? Their grand performance in action should not be in any way dismissed. I urge him to recognise that the sappers have left behind them a proud tradition for those who follow after. These young men today eagerly point out

1167
that they hope to be as good as the sappers who preceded them. This is very important and I urge my honourable friend to see that the respect and honour in which these young men hold their predecessors—some of them their fathers and uncles—and in which the Territorial Army is now held, will not be damaged.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving voice to sentiments which I am sure will be echoed in every corner of the House. The sappers have for centuries performed an invaluable role in the British Army and will continue to do so. I am confident, as I am sure noble Lords are, that the present generation of sappers will fully uphold the glorious traditions of their forebears. I believe I am right in saying that there will be a small reduction in the number of sappers in the future, but that is driven exclusively by our assessment of operational requirements and in no way represents any diminution in the respect that we have for those regiments.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, while I in no way disagree with the comments and questions of my noble friend Lord Wallace, the Minister will be aware of the representations made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford on behalf of 18 members of all parties in your Lordships' House about the lack of wisdom and foresight shown in seeking to combine the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Regiment of Wales. The reasons are entirely geographical—or perhaps territorial.
I have a map of Wales before me. It is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, pointed out, that a larger percentage of territorial centres are to be maintained in Wales. One has only to look at the map to see that they are all along the North Wales coast, in South Wales or in north-east Wales. There is a huge area in the middle with one small red dot. Communications between those areas make the situation very difficult. Experience shows that when one tries to combine headquarters, as I saw happen in the county of Powys, the cost of travel and of sustaining the relationship between the parts makes it not worthwhile. It would be better to maintain the two headquarters, with the staff establishment reduced to 60. I think I am right in saying that at present the establishment for the two headquarters is 200. If the number were reduced to 60—an enormous reduction—it would be far better for the efficiency of the Territorial Army to keep the two headquarters, would it not?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, whom I greatly respect in these matters, makes an extremely important point. This matter has been considered, and representations have been made to me outside your Lordships' Chamber on the points to which the noble Lord adverts. This was an operational decision, made in order to bring the TA into line with Army structures. I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord may be about North Wales co-operating with South Wales. Let us give it a try. If in the fullness of time we find that it does not work, as the noble Lord
1168
somewhat pessimistically predicts, the matter can be looked at again. For now, that is the decision, and I am sure that everyone in Wales will co-operate with it.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I declare an interest in that both my sons were cadets. Can my noble friend say something about the link between the TA and the cadets through shared facilities? Will the Government ensure that the position of cadets is well protected?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to repeat the message which I thought I had already delivered. The matter to which my noble friend refers is one of the highest priorities that the Government have had in this exercise. I vividly remember being instructed in these matters in your Lordships' House shortly after I arrived here as Defence Minister. I confess that, to my shame, I knew little about the Territorial Army or the Army Cadet Force. I learned a great deal, and it was clear what the sentiment of the House was. My colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, shares your Lordships' view of the Army Cadet Force. For that reason, no centre serving the cadets will be closed until another one is open. Some 25 centres—I believe that that is the figure but I am subject to correction—will be kept open just for the cadets. We shall spend up to £12 million on cadet premises, if necessary, and on an annual basis over the next four years some £3 million extra on the running costs of the cadets. I do not believe that we could make any clearer the message that the Government highly value the contribution of the Army Cadet Force.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, having been the president of a sea cadet unit, I shall read with interest about the changes that are to take place in the Territorial Army and the need to protect the Army cadet units. Can the Minister say what information will be provided in order to enable schools to explain the new arrangements for cadets within the Territorial Army proposals so that young people can still have confidence in taking up Army cadetships instead of sea or air cadetships?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have a nasty suspicion that the noble Lord is tempting me down somewhat controversial paths into declaring loyalties or preferences between one set of cadets and another. We shall do everything in our power to continue to persuade parents and school teachers of the value of young men and women entering the cadet forces. We believe that we have been fairly successful in that regard recently. Recruitment figures for the Regular Army show that only 7 per cent. of the Regular Army had a previous history in the Territorials while over 20 per cent. had a previous history with the cadet force.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the Statement, which I have now had the opportunity to read. I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the Statement. I believe that this is the correct way forward for the Territorial Army, but I suspect that the cuts are too deep. I should like to put one specific question to the noble Lord. I declare an

1169
interest in that I served in a squadron of main battle tanks and also in the Territorial Army. I note with interest that the Territorial Army will have access to Challenger 2 main battle tanks. These are very complex beasts. Can the Minister tell the House what is the likely detachment to be assigned to maintain these battle tanks? Will it come from the regular forces or the Territorial Army? If it is the latter I suspect that these main battle tanks will not stay on the road for long because there is insufficient time for the Territorial Army to maintain these tanks.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. I am not sure about the answer to the question. I believe and expect that those tanks will be maintained by the Regular Army. I emphasise that the territorials will have genuine use and access to these tanks, including firing their guns and driving them over training grounds, as is made clear in the Statement of my right honourable friend. To ensure that I have the position right as to maintenance, I shall write to the noble Earl to confirm the matter.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the Minister for saying that Northern Ireland will not suffer the same cuts as everyone else. I declare an interest in the Northern Ireland Battalion. It appears from the list of infantry battalions that two battalions, the Northern Ireland Battalion and the South-West Battalion, have been left with only two companies. Other battalions have up to five or six companies. It is considered that two companies are below the critical mass for any battalion to operate, let alone on its own. I believe that the Government should consider this matter to see whether perhaps by attaching other units to such battalions the numbers will constitute a critical mass to support the Regular Army.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his representations. I am sure that he speaks from very considerable knowledge. I do not believe that this is the occasion on which I should enter into discussion of proposals for individual units, but I undertake to write to the noble Viscount about the important point that he made.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I welcome the Statement which is much more encouraging than I had expected. It is perhaps coloured by the fact that Davies Street in London where I served for many years is to be maintained as a TA centre. I hope that the Royal Greenjackets will have a good role to play in the London Battalion.
I should like to raise one specific query that arises on page 11 of vol. 1. In the final paragraph there is a passage that slightly puzzles me:
"Both infantry and yeomanry will also provide opportunities for their members to train as combat medical technicians, to reinforce the expanding Army Medical Services in the TA".
Is it the understanding of my noble friend that there will be medical technicians within the framework of those battalions, or does it mean that there is to be some kind
1170
of secondment which suggests that there may be drainage from infantry battalions into the medical services?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I fully understand my noble friend's point about drainage from infantry battalions into medical services. I always thought that the proposal embraced the first of the alternatives that he put before the House. But I shall check to make sure that I have it right. For the assistance of noble Lords, my noble friend referred to page 11. The document is not page numbered; perhaps it should be. I believe that my noble friend is referring to the end of paragraph 11. I do not seek to score off my noble friend but to assist noble Lords. My noble friend touches on a very important point. Possibly the most difficult task that the Ministry of Defence faces as a result of these proposals is recruitment of the numbers that we want to the medical services. That will be a very challenging task for all of us. I want noble Lords to know that we recognise it.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, today's Statement is to be welcomed because it ends a very long period of uncertainty for the TA which has disturbed morale and affected recruitment and retention. It will take time for the new organisation to settle down. Will tomorrow's TA be given a period of stability in which to carry out this reorganisation, and can it look forward to a period without review and change and with confidence in the future as long as this Government are in power?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord tempts me to look a very long way ahead. Having said that, that is part of the objective of the Strategic Defence Review. The whole point of the review is to give the services as a whole the confidence to look a long way ahead. We are looking five, 10 or 15 years ahead with respect to our procurement programme. The noble and gallant Lord will be aware that we have obtained a three-year guarantee from the Treasury as to the sums of money that will be available to the Armed Forces. That is a guarantee that no former Defence Secretary has ever enjoyed. I re-emphasise that the review of the Territorial Army is not separate from the Strategic Defence Review; rather, it is an inherent part of it. As a result I hope that it will benefit from the period of stability that we envisage for all of Her Majesty's Forces for the next three years and, further, for the whole lifetime of this and following Labour Governments.

Scotland Bill
5.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ANOTHER LORDS AMENDMENT
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 119 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
32 Clause 31, page 15, line 38, leave out ("subject to subsection (2)").
33 Page 15, line 39, leave out ("Presiding Officer decides") and insert ("decision of the Presiding Officer under section 30(1A) is").
34 Page 15, line 42, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Such a decision of the Presiding Officer shall not be capable of being overruled by the Parliament.").
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
34A Page 15, leave out lines 38 to 44.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34A in lieu thereof. These amendments address what is to happen if the presiding officer decides that a Bill or part of a Bill is not within the legislative competence of the parliament.
During an earlier stage of the Bill your Lordships' House made clear that your Lordships were concerned that Clause 31 as drafted provided that the presiding officer could be overruled by the parliament if he decided that a Bill was outwith the competence of the parliament. Noble Lords argued that this would put the presiding officer in an untenable position and would weaken his authority. The House wanted to ensure that the presiding officer was not brought into conflict with the parliament in this way and argued, quite persuasively, that the parliament should not be able to overrule its presiding officer. The Government have listened to the concerns of the House and in these amendments do not seek to undermine them but to address a new anomaly that arises.
We do not think that we can leave Clause 31 as amended by your Lordships' House. It would mean that the presiding officer would have an unchallengeable power to decide questions of legislative competence. We believe that this is an uncomfortable and undesirable position for him or her to be in and these amendments seek to address that. The presiding officer has an important role. However, it is intended that he or she is to be politically impartial. These amendments help to preserve that neutrality. What we have provided for in these amendments ensures that the parliament has the benefit of the presiding officer's views as to the competence of the parliament to consider a Bill. The presiding officer is required simply to make a statement about the competence of a Bill. That is a view to which the parliament will no doubt want to pay particular attention. However, it will then be for the parliament to decide what to do. In some cases, it might decide that
1172
some is clearly ultra vires and reject the Bill at an early stage. In other cases, it may decide to amend particular offending provisions. If there is still concern at the end of the process, by which time the Bill becomes an Act—indeed, the question of vires could develop during the passage of the Bill through the parliament—as Members of your Lordships' House know, we have the provision that it is open to any one of the Law Officers to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is the main forum in which devolution issues, matters of vires, should be properly considered.
I do not believe that there is justification for leaving the presiding officer with the right of absolute veto from the start on what constitutes vires and ultra vires. I hope that noble Lords would agree that the question of vires is simply not the same as the Clerks of the Public Bill Office ruling amendments out of order (oh, that they would do it more often!) or Madam Speaker in another place deciding that a Bill is a finance Bill and should not be considered by this House. The question of whether a Bill falls within the competence of the parliament is on a completely different scale.
We are considering issues surrounding the devolution settlement. I am absolutely convinced that it would be entirely inappropriate to leave one person with the power to decide what legislation the parliament may or may not consider in an area which may raise difficult legal issues. As the Bill stands, this clause creates a dead end, quite at odds with the rationale behind the Bill, which is that ultimately matters of vires should be determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
We have built into the Bill a carefully thought-out mechanism for ensuring the resolution of disputes over the vires of a Bill of the Scottish parliament. Leaving the presiding officer with a veto would mean that these provisions would in many instances become redundant; they would not come into play at all. The presiding officer's view and judgment, if unchallengeable, would bring the curtain down on the question of vires at a very early stage. It would mean that the Bill could not be introduced if the presiding officer considered it outwith the parliament's competence. That is too much responsibility to put on any individual person, no matter how well advised—and I am absolutely confident that he would be well advised. I believe that that should rightly be a matter ultimately for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We should not seek to build in ways of preventing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from determining matters of vires.
In coming before your Lordships' House today we are setting in place a system 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 do that, we risk the interpretation of one office holder dictating the limits of the settlement where the law may be uncertain and subtle.
We took on board the points made by the noble and learned Lord at an earlier stage and by other noble Lords on the issue of the role of the presiding officer in

1173
deciding competence. It is better that he indicates his views, makes his statement and then the matter remains one for parliament to decide. If at the end of the process there is a real question of vires, we have the procedure that we have all accepted; that is, that it is open to any one of the Law Officers to move a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That would enable the whole business of the law around vires to be built up in a consistent and coherent way. I commend the Motion to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Sewel.)
6 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as one of those who moved amendments on this issue in Clause 31, perhaps I may say that I am happy with what has been said. There will be a distinct need for prior discussion on the issue of vires before it is introduced. However—I have used these words before—the opposition in parliament will pounce on anything which seems to be ultra vires, and I believe that we can leave this issue to the process of scrutiny.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not know how my noble and learned friend will advise your Lordships on this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord that ultimately it must be correct that, where there are issues of ultra vires they should be determined by the courts. During the passage of this Bill, we have been trying to reduce the number of sets of circumstances in which there is the possibility that the courts will be drawn into determining issues which may have a political character, even though they contain issues of vires. For that reason, it seemed to me that the amendments we tabled previously were desirable. However, I would agree with the Minister on a personal basis that the line now taken by the Government is certainly preferable to that originally contained within the Bill. Once the Scottish parliament is established, I hope that where the presiding officer has concerns about ultra vires, he will make a clear statement to the parliament at an early opportunity. I trust that the parliament will listen carefully to what he has to say, even if it cannot be bound by it. If that is followed through, the risk that we would wish to avoid—namely, a conflict between the parliament and the courts—would be kept to a minimum.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I too do not know what my noble and learned friend will say. Can the Minister, when he replies, give us an assurance that this will not load the Judicial Committee with even more issues to consider than it will already have? I know that noble and learned Lords who are likely to be on the Judicial Committee—they are not in their places this afternoon—are worried that the work is mounting up and that they have many other matters to deal with, as well as the affairs of Scotland. Therefore, it would be
1174
helpful to have a reassurance that this change, which on the face of it sounds sensible, will not mean that they will have more work than ever.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that at Third Reading we debated an amendment to what was previously Clause 30 which sought to provide that the presiding officer shall, on or before the introduction of a Bill in the parliament, decide whether or not in his view the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the parliament and state his decision. The Minister may recall that on that occasion I foresaw that as laying the foundation for tabling an amendment which forms the basis of Amendment No. 34A which your Lordships are now invited to agree.
The Government's resistance to the form of the Bill when it was last before your Lordships' House was that it would effectively give the presiding officer—the speaker—a veto over which Bills could be introduced to the parliament and which Bills the parliament could consider. Indeed, it was suggested by the Minister on a previous occasion that that would place the presiding officer in a most uncomfortable and undesirable position. I suggested then, and I still adhere to the view, that it would be perfectly possible for the presiding officer to exercise such a jurisdiction which would not have been an absolute veto, as the noble Lord suggested; being a judicially reviewable decision it would be subject to review by the courts.
What is now proposed is that the procedure whereby the decision of the presiding officer could be overturned by a vote will now happen with either the Scottish executive or the Scottish parliament choosing to ignore the decision of the presiding officer. It is instructive to look at the words in the amendment to Clause 30: that the presiding officer shall decide whether or not in his view the provisions shall be within the legislative competence of the parliament.
The effect of the proposed amendment is that it would be perfectly competent for the executive and the parliament to proceed in the face of a decision by the presiding officer that a Bill was ultra vires. It has been recognised by noble Lords that any such decision would be reached after the taking of legal advice. Therefore I have a concern that the Bill as it is proposed to be amended would still lay open the possibility of the presiding officer's authority being weakened because he was not in a position to enforce a decision which he had reached on a question of vires. As the Minister said, it is true that ultimately a Law Officer could refer the matter to the Judicial Committee for a determination of any devolution issues involved. But that may be many months down the line and if the Bill had been debated and, in a situation of some political controversy, agreed to, I venture to suggest that if at that stage the Judicial Committee ruled against the vires of the Bill matters would be much worse than they would have been had the Bill been vetoed effectively at an earlier stage.
This is an example where those of us who sought to improve the Bill have unfortunately had our ideas rejected. As my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said, the Bill as it stands is better than when

1175
it was introduced into your Lordships' House. I accept that if Amendment No. 34A is allowed, that will still be the position. However, I remain concerned that if the presiding officer reaches a decision, announces that to the parliament and is effectively then overturned, he will not command the respect that he should command. He will not command the respect which will ensure that the parliament operates in as sensible and responsible a way as possible.
Clearly it is not a matter on which it would be appropriate to insist on our amendments in the face of the views of another place. But I think it right that my concerns—I suspect that they may be shared by others—should be ventilated.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I am always sensitive and conscious of the workload of noble and learned Lords. One would not want the Chamber to be deprived of their valuable observations on many issues if they were overworked on other matters. I do not think that there is any chance of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council being overburdened with work. That is my understanding. I cannot give an assurance, but that is the projection: that they will not be overburdened.
Perhaps I may return to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. First, there is a real, genuine difficulty with the position that he adopts. It is this. One could have a presiding officer who took a very narrow view of the vires issue and ruled over a long period of time that a series of Bills was ultra vires. With a change of presiding officer, a similar Bill coming into play might be accepted and perhaps might then go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It upholds that it was within vires. That would mean that a series of Bills had been rejected on the ground of vires by one person without the possibility of test by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the body that was ultimately seen as providing the authoritative advice. I think that that in itself is unacceptable.
Secondly, we have to recognise that over, I imagine, a relatively limited period of time the advice that the presiding officer will receive from his advisers will be based on a developing body of law and decisions taken by the Judicial Committee. It is therefore a good idea to bring the Judicial Committee into play relatively early so that there is an authoritative set of decisions on which future presiding officers will be able to base their advice.
I ask the House not to insist on its amendments and to accept the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
128 Clause 89, page 43, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) he has asked an independent tribunal, established under subsection (9) of this section, to investigate and report on whether the person in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour,
1176
( ) he has received a written report from the tribunal, containing a finding that the person in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour and a statement of their reasons for so finding,
( ) he has laid before the Parliament a copy of the written report on the person in question,").
129 Page 43, line 22, at end insert—
("(9) A tribunal established for the purposes of this section shall consist of three persons selected by the First Minister from—

(a) the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary;

(b) peers of Parliament who hold or have held high judicial office as defined by sections 5(3) and 25 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876;

(c) members of Her Majesty's Privy Council who hold or have held high judicial office as so defined.").

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
129A Page 43, line 11, leave out from ("Minister") to ("resolves") in line 12.
129B Page 43, line 13, leave out ("on that ground").
129C Page 43, leave out lines 17 to 22 and insert—
("(7A) Provision shall be made for a tribunal constituted by the First Minister to investigate and report on whether a judge of the Court of Session or the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour and for the report to be laid before the Parliament.
(7B) Such provision shall include provision—

(a) for the constitution of the tribunal by the First Minister when requested by the Lord President to do so and in such other circumstances as the First Minister thinks fit, and

(b) for the appointment to chair the tribunal of a member of the Judicial Committee who holds or has held any of the offices referred to in section 94(2),

and may include provision for suspension from office.
(7C) The First Minister may make a motion under subsection (7) only if—

(a) he has received from a tribunal constituted in pursuance of subsection (7A) 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.

(b) where the person in question is the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk, he has consulted the Prime Minister, and

(c) he has complied with any other requirement imposed by virtue of any enactment.

(7D) In subsections (7A) to (7C)—
"provision" means provision by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
"tribunal" means a tribunal of at least three persons.").
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129A to 129C in lieu thereof.
The House will see that the Government have gone very far to acknowledge the concerns raised by noble Lords and noble and learned Lords in earlier debates. As the House knows, in this Bill we are setting out for

1177
the first time a clear statutory framework for the removal of judges of the Court of Session and the chairman of the Land Court in Scotland, thus trying to clarify the law in an important area. The provisions apply only in certain tightly defined circumstances. The procedures in the Bill only come into play where it is felt that a judge is unfit to hold office on grounds of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour. No one, least of all the judiciary, thinks it appropriate that such procedures should not be in place.
While we do not share the fears which have been expressed about the threat to judicial independence, we wholly agree with those who have stressed the importance of this issue. In opposing the amendments made in this House at Report stage, we argued that the Bill should contain the minimum safeguards but that the Scottish parliament should have as much discretion as possible to develop the procedures which will apply in Scotland for the removal of judges.
The debate in this House was seen by us as merely the beginning of the process of debate. That is still the case. In that respect we prefer the amendments which we have tabled to those adopted by your Lordships.
Your Lordships amended the Bill to write on to its face a tribunal composed exclusively of senior judges, specifically one whose membership was to be restricted entirely to Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and holders of high judicial office who were either Members of this House or Privy Counsellors. Those persons, it was proposed, should be given the task of reporting on the case for removing a judge and so acting as "gatekeepers" to the whole process.
The Government's Amendments Nos. 129A to 129C provide instead that provision shall be made for the First Minister to constitute a tribunal of at least three persons to investigate and report on the case for removal of a judge. The number within the tribunal reflects the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who is not in his place. However, I can also assure the House—it reflects another concern of that noble and learned Lord that there should be an uneven number—that if there are more than three there will be an odd number to avoid the difficulties to which the noble and learned Lord referred at an earlier stage.
The amendments ensure that the chairman will be a person who is eligible to be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The First Minister still requires the approval of the parliament before he may recommend to Her Majesty that a judge is removed, but he may not seek that approval unless the tribunal has reported that the person is unfit. The tribunal's report must be laid before parliament so that it is aware of the views of the tribunal.
The amendments also enable the Lord President of the Court of Session to request that such a tribunal be convened as we understand that that is the wish of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, who is presently the Lord President. We have also retained a provision that where it is desirable that the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk be removed, then the First Minister must also consult the Prime Minister.
1178
It is envisaged that the rules of procedure for the tribunal will be established under an Act of the Scottish parliament. That Act will also, if the parliament wishes, make other provision in relation to the membership of the tribunal. However, we expect that the tribunal itself would not be a standing body, but be convened on an ad hoc basis, given that that process is likely to be used very rarely, if at all.
Before laying these amendments, officials discussed them with the Lord President of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. I understand that he was satisfied with the proposals in these amendments.
The House will see that a key difference between the approach proposed by the Government and that adopted here at an earlier stage is that it leaves open a degree of choice about how the proposed tribunal should be constituted. In other words, it leaves space for the debate just begun in this House to be continued in the parliament. The removal of judges quite clearly is not simply a matter of private concern for the judges themselves. It is an issue of serious public interest. There are legitimate debates to be had on the question of composition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, recognised as much by admitting that there might be scope for lay involvement in any independent body charged with evaluating the case for removal.
This approach seems to us to strike an acceptable balance between providing a more detailed statutory framework on the face of the Bill and allowing scope for further reflection on this subject in the parliament itself. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129A, 129B and 129C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Hardie.)
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was one of the lay people who felt very strongly on this issue. The Government held their position so strongly right up to the vote and after saying that this House was wrong about the matter. That view was very mistaken. I believe that the people of Scotland will have cause to be very grateful to this House for bringing this matter so strongly to the Government's attention. The amendment changes somewhat the amendment tabled by this House, but for the better. I am extremely grateful to the Government for this notable U-turn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, since this Bill was first debated in your Lordships' House the important role the judiciary will play in implementing the Government's devolution settlement has been stressed on more than one occasion. Therefore, it is a matter of some surprise—I suspect also to a number of noble Lords it will be a matter of some regret—that at this very late stage there remains any dispute at all as to how the Bill may best provide for the appointment and removal of judges.
These ought to be non-political issues and yet, very late in the day, we are faced with a very welcome change of heart, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy of

1179
Lour has just said, on the part of the Government. The problem is that these amendments were tabled in another place recently. That left virtually very little time for those involved to digest them. More importantly, they have left no time at all for us to consult. When the amendments were debated in the other place recently, the Secretary of State said that it is not always wise to leap to a conclusion either way during the final few days of a Bill's passage through Parliament. Yet some noble Lords may take the view that that is precisely what is being expected today in more than one respect.
When the amendments standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, my own name and that of my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, were moved I made it clear that I was open to any suggestions to improve the composition of the tribunal and its role proposed in the amendment put forward and carried by your Lordships' House at Report stage. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has made clear, that was also the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
Therefore, I have to record a note of disappointment that the Government did not find it possible to consult with the Opposition about the detail of these amendments before they were tabled. It was quite clearly indicated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that there was consultation with the court and rightly so. But he will recall that at the very end of Third Reading when I raised this subject after the noble and learned Lord had made a statement, he said that amendments were to be tabled on the following day in the other place. Clearly, by that stage the practicalities of any proper consultation had passed.
As regards the details of the amendments, I would have preferred that the provision in (7D) set out at the foot of page 2 of the amendments should have been restricted to making provision by an Act of the Scottish parliament. I have some anxiety about that being made possible through subordinate legislation. As noble Lords will be aware, I am concerned that there are to be two forms of procedure for the removal of judges in Scotland whereas there is to be only one form of appointment. All Court of Session judges, the chairman of the Scottish Land Court, sheriff principals and sheriffs will have to deal with devolution issues. One suspects that in the early years of devolution it will be the lower sheriff courts where the bulk of the issues will first arise, however many ultimately reach the Judicial Committee. Therefore, it would have been helpful to have had the opportunity to comment on these amendments before they were tabled.
However, in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and some of his judicial colleagues, I suspect that I would be unable to persuade your Lordships to offer any further resistance. That would be inappropriate because the Government have moved a long way to meet the anxieties expressed at an early stage about Clause 89 of the Bill, as originally
1180
drafted. Therefore, I join with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour in welcoming what has happened at this late stage.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, I am sorry that certain of my noble and learned colleagues who took a greater part in this debate than I are not here to express their views about it. Speaking for myself, I offer mild congratulations to the Government on producing a formula which appears to be a not unreasonable compromise between the views expressed. I am sorry that there is no time scale for the appointment of the body, but as I have every confidence that it will never have to meet and will never have problems to resolve—such is the confidence that I have in the Scottish judiciary—I am content with the formula as it stands.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for their support for this amendment. I say to the noble and learned Lord that there may be transitional provisions brought in by order to cover the unlikely eventuality of there being an immediate need for the provision. Thereafter the Scottish parliament will deal with the matter.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that this is not a political issue. It is with regret that some may have interpreted his speech as political. The reason is that he is operating under a misunderstanding as to what the Government originally intended. Unfortunately, that misunderstanding was reflected in the media.
It is my fault if I did not make clear the position at an earlier stage. It has always been the Government's intention to put in place procedures. The sole issue was whether the matter should be left to the First Minister and the parliament in discussions with the Lord President, or whether it should be on the face of the Bill. We listened to that debate and we have come forward with this amendment.
As regards consultation, the senior judge, the Lord President—that is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry—was consulted before the amendment was tabled. With great respect, I believe it to be important that we carry the judiciary with us on such a matter. It is not a political matter and in those circumstances it is not necessary to discuss it with noble Lords opposite.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.30 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
215 Schedule 1, page 57, line 5, after ("constituencies") insert (-of the Scottish Parliament").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
215A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
215B That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 215, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 215A.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do insist on their Amendment No. 215 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 215A. For the convenience of your Lordships, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 216 to 220.
It is with a very heavy heart and considerable sorrow that I find myself here at the eleventh hour in the passage of this Bill asking your Lordships to insist on our amendment. I look back to the Second Reading of the Bill during what seemed a balmy summer and to the unalloyed joy I felt that the measure—that is, home rule for Scotland for which my forebears fought—should at last be coming to pass through the Scotland Bill. I now find it sad and extremely ironic that it is I who should be here to move the Motion.
I do not ask your Lordships to take this course lightly or without having thought about it considerably. I have indeed given great thought to the possible consequences. I am asking my noble friends and noble Lords from all sides of the House to support the Motion because I believe that the danger to the possible success—nay, the probable success; the almost certain success—of devolution by not accepting the amendment is far greater and graver than the danger to this Bill at this time.
I am aware that the arguments have been well rehearsed in your Lordships' House and in another place on a number of occasions. I wish to touch on them again. My first argument concerns the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It proposed 129 members of the Scottish parliament. That model was accepted both by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party and we both fought the election on that basis. We both had a manifesto commitment to that model and together we obtained an overwhelming mandate from the Scottish people.
However, the constitutional convention's proposal was already a compromise. The Liberal Democrats always favoured 145 as the number; it is the number advocated by the campaign for the Scottish parliament. I am indebted to members of that campaign for reminding me of that fact and for their considerable support since I indicated that I wished to insist.
Although we have always accepted that there should be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members to the Westminster Parliament as a logical consequence of devolution, the Labour Party at the time of the election did not accept that. Rather they came to the view at a much later date and when in office. It was only at that very late stage that Labour proposed a reduction in the number of Westminster MPs and simultaneously insisted that Scotland and Westminster constituencies should have coterminous borders. I believe that that is the only issue on which we disagree.
1182
Since Second Reading we have warned that we regard this as an extremely serious breach of the constitutional convention. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood made it quite plain that we regarded the issue as the most important in the Bill.
My second argument concerns the relationships between the various regions of Scotland. The constitutional convention argued long and hard about developing a system which sought as far as possible to satisfy the divergent views of the different Scottish regions. By and large, the model it proposed has successfully done that. There is real concern, particularly in the Highlands, that the supposed domination by Westminster will merely be replaced by a domination by Edinburgh. There is an equally valid concern in the central belt that hoards of tartan clad Highlanders will come down to dominate the Scottish parliament. The model put forward by the constitutional convention satisfies with delicacy the requirements of those two conflicting thoughts.
My third argument is a practical one regarding the working of the parliament. If in the beginning we need 129 members to make the Scottish parliament work, how can it continue to work when four years later its membership is reduced substantially to about 108? For example, if a government is to be elected on a 45/55 split of the vote, which is quite probable, with a membership of 108 the governing party will have 64 MSPs and the opposition 44. Out of those 64 must come the Scottish ministers, the assistant Scottish ministers, the private parliamentary secretaries, the chairmen of the committees and so forth. With pre-legislative scrutiny and all the work required for proper scrutiny in a unicameral system, will there really be enough people?
Those are my three main arguments, but I remind the House of three other arguments which are no less important. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, speaking on Report, drew attention to the fact that we are in the process of constructing a building designed and equipped for 129 MSPs. What a silly waste if four years later the number is reduced to 108 with a potential further reduction.
During the same debate, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie queried the morale of those elected on the first occasion to the Scottish parliament. Who will be the unlucky 20-odd and who will be the lucky 108? The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, responded, not flippantly but a little ungraciously, by saying that we should not legislate for the Scottish parliament on the basis of the morale of a few Scottish MPs. I disagree. It is extremely important that if this new exercise in democracy is to be successful we attract and encourage the very best people in Scotland to stand and, it is hoped, to be elected for the parliament. With that Sword of Damocles hanging over them, is it an encouragement for the best people to enter parliament? The point on morale made by my noble friend is one of substance which the Government should regard seriously.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Linklater made a very valid point about the requirement to have diversity in the Scottish parliament—to have ethnic minorities and

1183
a broad selection of women. She made the point very eloquently that the more you reduce the numbers, the less likelihood there is of having in the parliament a broad reflection of all shades which exist in Scotland.
There is a further argument which I deployed. If devolution works, I see no reason why further reserved powers should not move to Scotland. In that case, it is quite logical to suppose, with a successful devolution working well, that one might say that Scotland does not need to be represented by quite so many MPs at Westminster. It is perfectly logical to argue that Scotland should have less representation. If that were to take place, then automatically, because of that linkage, down goes the Scottish parliament again.
However, I am extremely glad that I read the Official Report of another place because there I saw one point which had escaped me. If the Jenkins proposals were to come into being, which must be regarded as a possibility, if not perhaps by everybody as a probability, it is probable that the number of Scottish constituency members would drop to 48. On the basis of 48 constituency members, that gives a total Scottish parliament of 85 members. The Government may argue that there is absolutely no difference between 129 and 108, although I suspect that most accountants would argue with them about that. However, if they are looking at a potential reduction from 129 to 85—some 44 MSPs—that really is substantial and of consequence. That follows, as day follows night, if these amendments are not accepted and the Jenkins proposals come into being.
What arguments have the Government put against that? There are two, the first of which is that coterminous borders are vital to avoid confusion. I shall turn to the Official Report of another place. The Secretary of State for Scotland, responding to your Lordships' amendments said:
"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 … By contrast … 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".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/98; col. 380.]
Earlier he said:
"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".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/98; col. 378.]
Put another way, the Government are saying that the Scots are too stupid to be able to cope with anything other than coterminous boundaries. I simply do not believe that. The Scots are some of the wisest voters in the United Kingdom. They have taken tactical voting to heart. There are Liberals who vote for the SNP to prevent another candidate getting in. Conservatives may vote Liberal to keep out a Labour candidate or Liberals may vote Labour to keep out somebody else. The Scots are extremely wily and they have manipulated the system more astutely than has been done in any other part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, to suggest that
1184
those canny Scots cannot work out where the boundaries are, is an argument which is as riddled with holes as a colander.
The practical building blocks of constituencies are local government wards. There is no difficulty in arranging those wards so as to create constituencies for Scotland which allow the numbers to be maintained at the proper level for Scotland and the numbers required for Westminster. There really is no argument there.
The other argument which I have heard—and it is the only other argument which the Government have put forward—is that the provisions were contained in the White Paper. As far as I am aware, there was no opportunity for Parliament, and certainly not your Lordships' House, to debate the White Paper. I stand corrected. There was. I cannot remember whether I took part in that debate.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, you probably did!
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the Minister is probably correct. Oh well, score one to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and move on.
I contend that when the White Paper was studied by Scots—and I am sure that a great many Scots did study it—they took the decision to vote on the referendum in Scotland. They did not decide to vote on individual paragraphs or details but, rather, they decided to vote on the broad proposal that they wanted devolution in Scotland. They looked to us in this House and another place to make sure that we got the detail right. I am sure that there are an equally large number of Scots who did not read the White Paper and for whom all of this has come as a very nasty surprise.
I believe that I have put the argument as cogently as I can. Nothing that the Government have said at any stage of this Bill has been able to refute it. However, there are two other arguments which I have no doubt the Minister will seek to deploy. They are the constitutional arguments.
The first is that the Bill will be lost. It has always seemed to me that there are three great parliamentary falsehoods. The first is, "We promise to consult". At an early stage of this Bill, my honourable friend in another place thought that that was precisely what the Government had said they would do. Nothing came of it. No consultation took place and nothing was put forward.
The second argument is, "This is a wrecking amendment". I do not seriously believe that anybody can describe this as a wrecking amendment. These are highly practical, sensible and reasonable amendments to which your Lordships clearly agreed. No one can seriously say that they are designed to wreck the Bill. It is the reverse: they will strengthen it.
The third argument is that it is so late in the Session that the Bill will be lost. The Bill will not be lost. The Government have already pencilled in time for it tomorrow. I do not believe that the Government can hold that gun to my head. That is a gun which should be held more properly at the heads of the Government's business managers.

1185
Another constitutional argument is that we are an unelected Chamber and we should not frustrate the will of the people. I take that far more seriously. I agree with both those statements. We are indeed unelected and the sooner this is an elected upper Chamber the better. I ask the Government to get on with that because they have my full support.
More important, it is quite clear from the huge mailbag that I have received and from the comments that I have heard that there is widespread, almost wholehearted support, for these amendments throughout Scotland. I do not receive a lot of mail but I have never received such a postbag and from such diverse sources. Somebody somewhere, rather uncharitably, gave out the telephone number for our Liberal Democrat Whips Office with the result that yesterday the telephone was jammed and no business took place. I do not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, of doing that, much as I should love to. We have received tremendous support from all quarters.
I know that there is sympathy throughout Scotland for what we propose and for what I am asking your Lordships to insist on. On Report I said that someone somewhere, I did not know who or where, was against this because it seemed to me that there was sympathy for this everywhere, including in the Scottish Office. A noble Lord somewhere suggested that the voice against my proposal must be No. 10. It certainly seems that this is a diktat from No. 10. If that is the case—and I have never seen it refuted anywhere—it is a clear abuse of democracy when one man can use a vast mandate in the other place to push through something that is clearly against the will of the Scottish people. I do not think that it is this House which is being undemocratic.
I do not have behind me legions at my command; indeed, only a cohort of committed believers. I seek through my inadequate advocacy to persuade noble Lords on all sides of the House to follow me into the Division Lobby. I wish that my noble friend Lord Steel were here to help because he would have done it far better than I can. At one stage I even wished that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, had done it as he has enjoyed such success. However, there are limits and I could not quite go that far.
In the final analysis, imperfectly as I have articulated the case, I submit that it is unanswerable. We may only have a cohort compared to the legions opposite and beside us, but perhaps I may remind the Government that we are a cohort which, like Blücher at Waterloo, has come to the assistance of the thin red line opposite on many occasions—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Thurso: All we ask, my Lords, is that the Government accept these reasonable, practical and widely-supported amendments. I do not lightly ask your Lordships to insist, because I understand the gravity involved. I have to tell the Government that, even at this late stage, I would not insist if they were to give me any concession. Indeed, my honourable friends in another place were actually under the impression this morning that they were going to be offered a concession which
1186
we would have been able to accept. However, I understand that the Government are prepared to take a gamble on the fact that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches may not wish to insist on the amendment. That is a very dangerous gamble to take.
As I said, if any concession were offered, I would not insist. However, in the light of that complete stonewall from the Government I shall have no option but to ask your Lordships to insist on this important amendment.
Moved, that the House do insist on their Amendment No. 215 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 215A.—(Viscount Thurso).
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I listened with great care to the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I believe that there are considerable merits in many of the arguments that he has put forward. I should mention that I am a prospective candidate for the Scottish parliament and also that I support the arguments on the subject put forward by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish at an earlier stage.
There are two key points involved. The first is that the reduction of MSPs by a substantial number from 129 to about 108 immediately after the creation of the Scottish parliament, or shortly thereafter, will mean a further upheaval and will be an unsettling start. However, there is also a key political point. The average size of constituencies in Edinburgh, for example, is about 51,000, but the average size in the west central belt is about 62,000. Therefore, if the Boundary Commission aims for parity, the Labour Party will effectively bear the brunt of the reforms which take place and the reduction in numbers. It may well be that the present stance of the Labour Front Bench is contrary to the political interests of its own party.
However, I believe that it would be wrong for the Conservative Party to seek to imperil the progress of the Bill at this stage when the House of Commons has rejected this particular amendment by a very large majority and when there has been a referendum result which has, by an overwhelming majority, shown what is believed to be the settled will of the Scots people.
The noble Viscount mentioned Blücher at Waterloo. I have to remind him that it was Wellington who, on the eve of the Great Reform Bill, said that he knew when it was necessary to withdraw. Although this Bill has not given rise to the same passions aroused by the Great Reform Bill, I believe that the Conservative Party would be wise to take heed of and follow the good advice of the Duke of Wellington on that occasion.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is most disappointing that this issue of the number of MSPs should be our final sticking point in the otherwise welcome and historic Scotland Bill. It is particularly galling that the Government have chosen this path, in the mistaken belief that the people of Scotland want or, worse, need to have the UK connection thrust down their throats. How the Government can believe that this issue of the Union is more important than the ability to carry out successful scrutiny of legislation is beyond comprehension.

1187
During the earlier stages of this Bill, the need for a second chamber was debated. It was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that the parliament would evolve sufficient stages of scrutiny to cover for its unicameral nature. It was the process of pre-legislative scrutiny that was held up as the solution to concern about depth of scrutiny. There can be no doubt that pre-legislative scrutiny will use up plenty of manpower—or MSP power—as the Select Committees set off to take part in the consultation processes, which, in this UK Parliament, would be thought of as being part of the White Paper stage of a Bill.
As there will be a presiding officer team of four and a Scottish executive of 18—and, no doubt, one or two others—the number of MSPs available for the pre-legislative task will be limited enough; namely, to a maximum of 107 Back-Benchers. That would be severely limited if there were to be only 86 available. The chances of there being a sufficient range of experience and interests becomes doubtful.
Scotland has sought home rule because the people found the old United Kingdom to be dominated by a majority from elsewhere. It appears that this desire to dominate is still deeply embedded in government thinking. It even extends to the advice given by the Cabinet to the BBC about whether we should have United Kingdom or Scottish news at 6 o'clock.
Further, this reduction in MSPs will not mesh in with the welcome electoral reform proposals of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The two different systems of representation will not mesh together. The Government's insistence on a reduced number of MSPs can also be portrayed as playing into the hands of the SNP, which can certainly offer generous and ample representation in a sovereign parliament. I have to support my noble friend's Motion.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I find myself in a very tricky position here for two reasons. First, I am an ardent devolutionist and have been since the 1970s. However, if I vote with the noble Viscount, I shall become an anti-devolutionist in some sort of weird way; that very much concerns me. Secondly, I am also very wary of the situation because of the Liberal Democrat viewpoint on it. An hour ago we heard the noble Lord, Lord McNally, say that under no circumstances should we have ping pong in this House. In other words, that we should not in any circumstances return the European Bill to the other place. But now we have the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, saying that we should do just that with this Bill. The former was speaking on a Bill which could not be lost under any circumstances, while the latter was speaking on this Bill which might be.
Therefore, it is a very worrying situation for the likes of myself. But one thing is crystal clear to me: there is one guarantee. There will be a major row if at the edict of this Westminster Parliament, which is seen as an English Parliament by many in Scotland rather than the British Parliament that it is, we take this right away and if the Government make the edict that we are to have fewer MSPs. Indeed, we will have a very serious constitutional crisis.
1188
On Second Reading, I said that what we give to Scotland we must not take away. I very much rely upon that argument to this day. However, to satisfy the West Lothian question it is now obvious, and I think generally accepted, that the number of MPs will have to be reduced. But at the same time the Government have insisted that the number of MSPs will have to reduce by the same ratio. At an earlier stage of this Bill I remarked—as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned—what a waste of money it is to build 20-odd offices too many in the new parliament.
If we are to reduce the number of MSPs almost immediately, what a waste of time it is voting the first time round. What an unseemly and unpleasant in-fight we shall have for seats. We have been told by the Minister that the Boundary Commission will take at least three years to report and let us know what it thinks. If the Boundary Commission cannot report before the first election, is a way out of this for the Minister to tell us that he would definitely allow the Scottish parliament to decide the number of seats for the second election? That would certainly be a way out of the problem as the measure would be seen to come from Scotland rather than from the English parliament.
This is a serious issue. After much thought I have decided to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, into his Lobby even though that goes against the grain in case we lose the Bill. However, he said clearly in his speech that there is time for the Government to come to their senses, and come to their senses they really must because it is vital that we let this parliament begin its life with sufficient strength and a determination to keep Britain together and the nationalists and the separatists under control. The only way it will achieve that is if the parliament is seen to be working by the Scottish people. If the Westminster Parliament is perceived to be taking away that right, the Scottish parliament will not work.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat I hope I may ask him a question. I very much welcomed his concluding words. But he said halfway through his speech that he thought the European elections Bill would certainly go through but was doubtful whether this Bill would do so if we insisted on this amendment. Will he explain why he is so certain, given the vote earlier today, that the European elections Bill will go through?
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, it is quite simple. As regards the European elections Bill, we shall have the European elections whatever happens. We may go back to the first-past-the-post system or we may have another system. Personally speaking I think we should have proportional representation as it has been outlined and that we should have an open system rather than a closed system. As regards the Scotland Bill, the whole of Scotland wants this measure and Scotland has voted for it in a referendum. We could be perceived as losing the Bill. Hereditary Peers such as myself and Conservative

1189
Peers such as myself could be perceived as preventing Scotland having the parliament it so desperately wishes to have.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I have always understood that anyone who insists on an amendment at a stage such as this in the passage of a Bill is risking the Bill. I was aware of that when I voted on the European elections Bill but I considered that it was the correct thing to do because of the nature of that Bill. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats are prepared to risk this Bill which, it is quite clear, the people of Scotland want. It has enormous flaws. One of the major flaws is the issue we are discussing. It is one of several flaws which will cause enormous trouble in the future. One dreads to think what row will arise when that which is inevitable comes about and the number of MSPs has to be reduced, and is reduced because of a decision at Westminster. I feel strongly about that. However, I think the Bill must become law with that flaw built into it. I am sorry about it but I would not dream of voting for the amendment at this stage because I believe it might well put the Bill at risk.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I have hopes that the Government may regain their senses. As my noble friend Lord Thurso said, it is absolutely ludicrous to elect 129 people to a new parliament with the risk of abolishing a third of them. That is appallingly bad for morale and it could risk the success of the whole experiment. It is nonsense. Furthermore, as regards the 129 Scottish MPs, considering the nature of the country and the wide miles we have in Scotland for the population, there is no question that we can do with much smaller constituencies than in the United Kingdom. It is a different situation altogether. I have hopes that the Government may be sensible and I shall listen with great care to what the Minister says. However, I think our case is irrefutable.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I, too, wish to support my noble kinsman. First, I reaffirm that we all wish the Bill to pass and we all want the parliament to work and to work as well as it possibly can. The fact that we are revisiting this issue yet again is a measure of just how much importance is attached to it. It is not just a question of the importance that we on these Benches attach to it—a total commitment from our earliest constitutional convention days—but also of the importance attached to it by the Conservative Benches who spoke long, loud and compellingly at Report in support of this issue. I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, speaking eloquently—as only he can, with the mastery of the Bill that he has—in clear support of this issue. Most particularly I believe that the Bill is wanted by the people of Scotland. It is blindingly clear to anyone who lives in Scotland, as I do, not just at weekends or holidays but all the time—we know this from opinion expressed in the street, on the media, in our postbags—how strongly people feel about this issue. I believe that my arguments to a large extent reflect the point of view of ordinary Scots.
1190
Why do people mind so much about this issue? I believe that the people of Scotland recognise that this number of 129 MSPs is needed. We need to retain the element of proportionality, the balance between the constituency member and the additional member. As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has acknowledged many times, that gives stability. It gives proper rural representation and representation of smaller groups. It avoids domination by the central belt which is as much of an anathema in Scotland as the notion of domination from Westminster. It is recognised that that number of people is needed to do the job. My noble kinsman explained that in good and fine detail. It is recognised that that number was painstakingly worked out in the constitutional convention based on the number of parliamentary constituencies. We acknowledge that.
It is also recognised that there is an understanding that the Westminster and Holyrood constituency boundaries do not have to be coterminous. We accept that the reduction of the number of MPs at Westminster is desirable and necessary, but this is a new system with new boundaries. The electorate are quite used to that. We have different boundaries for MPs, for MEPs and for local elections. It is a case of a new system and new boundaries. It really is not an argument that administrative convenience should prevail on an issue as vital as this. Nor is it acceptable for one minute to argue that the electorate will be confused and unable to understand this matter. I do not have to tell your Lordships that Scots do not take lightly to being patronised in this way.
I believe there is a real worry in Scotland about being dictated to by Westminster. There are already too many worrying signs in the south, and also a perception that this is an ever more controlling government. There have been headlines since the summer about Dewar being dictated to by Blair and other headlines along similar lines. These perceptions have been growing ever since. There is also a strong suspicion that many more members of the Cabinet are being dictated to from on high on this issue. That does not encourage confidence in Scotland.
There is a clear understanding that to reduce the number of MSPs in four years' time is hopelessly impractical and costly. It is a sign of poor management to plan a building for 129 members and then to scale down the number of members to around 100. That is poor practical, financial and man management. Everyone will be looking over their shoulders, as my noble kinsman pointed out, wondering whether they will be there in four years' time. The sensibilities of MSPs may not be of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, but this is not a way of encouraging confidence at the start of a new enterprise.
Why are the Government being so stubborn? I find it incomprehensible. They seem stubborn, refusing to change their minds—and that, of course, is a sign of weakness, not strength. Their arguments seem to boil down to coterminous constituency boundaries being essential and, if they are not, the electorate being terminally confused; and that the reduction to 100 MSPs is perfectly manageable for the job.

1191
To us in Scotland, those arguments appear condescending. They do not constitute a proper case. The Government appear deaf to the concerns and wishes of the Scottish people. I believe that the over-arching objectives, which should inform our thinking on this extraordinarily important Bill, should be to gain the confidence of the Scots in their MSPs; consistency in what is being offered; coherence and quality in what is being delivered; and clarity about the purpose and role of the parliament. Reneging on the original commitment made in the constitutional convention will undermine all those objectives, including the purpose of the parliament and the purpose of the Bill.
Finally, there will, I believe, be a serious political fall-out in Scotland. Scots will perceive this as another example of a controlling government who are failing to deliver on their promises. Anxiety will deepen and that anxiety can only play into the hands of those who argue for a complete separation from the UK—something none of us wants, ever. The "slippery slope" argument will possibly become more of a reality and, far from strengthening the UK, the political ties could loosen and we could find that the SNP will be laughing all the way to the political bank. Scots will also see that that will apply to all those, from whichever party or whichever side of this House, opposing the amendment. I believe that to do so is not just politically inept, but deeply dangerous. I urge your Lordships, from the bottom of my heart, to support the Motion.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am confused. Indeed, I am so confused that after this debate I shall telephone my doctor to see whether I can get an appointment because I think that I am hallucinating. I could swear that I heard a debate this afternoon in which the Liberal Democrat Benches were firm in their resolve that your Lordships' House should not question the Commons in any way, shape or form. Now, slightly different members of the same party are lining up to say that we should question the Commons.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, may I ask what the noble Lord is doing now?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not doing anything. I am just saying that I am confused by the Liberal Democrats.
We are considering a very strange proposition. We are now told that it is okay to throw a bit of the Scotland Bill back to the Commons, but it certainly was not okay this afternoon, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to throw what he described as "our" Bill back to the Commons. I presume that the Scotland Bill is not, in Liberal Democrat terms, "our" Bill yet the noble Viscount was trying to suggest that it was—at least as far as their membership of the constitutional convention was concerned.
My view is well known. I invited my noble friends to vote down this part of the Bill when the amendment was first put. I now have to decide whether to join the noble Viscount and send this part of the Bill back to the Commons.
1192
We had interesting Committee, Report and Third Reading stages in your Lordships' House. I suspect that they were more interesting than those in the other place. We have had a fair number of probing amendments; debates; and a thinking-through by all of us, including Government Ministers, of various parts of the Bill. More than 300 amendments have been tabled, largely by the Government in response to the debates.
Interestingly, through much of that probing, discussion and thinking-through of the Bill, we had one of three reactions from the Liberal Democrats. Usually, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and myself were accused—usually by our half-clansman, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—of wasting time, of boring for Britain—or was it for Scotland? I am not entirely sure—or of still being against the whole idea and still wanting to fight against devolution.
If I had tabled this Motion and suggested that your Lordships might like to join me in throwing this part of the Bill, and therefore the whole Bill, back to the House of Commons, the Labour Party's country cousins would have been the first on their feet to say that I had not yet learned the lesson of the last election and not yet taken on board the result of the referendum. I have taken them on board. My party has taken them on board. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas said, we have virtually all of our candidates in place to fight parliamentary seats. We are determined to do well in those elections and to play a full part in the parliament—and not in any way a negative part. Therefore, at this stage, I shall not give my opponents any ground at all for saying that my conversion is but skin-deep and that really, deep down, I should like to sabotage the Bill.
I shall not recommend that my noble friends support the noble Viscount. It is not that I do not think that the Government have become involved in a silly issue. To reduce the number of MSPs from 129 to 108 will not be easy. Frankly, it will not be easy to reduce Scotland's number of Westminster MPs from 72 to 58. Your Lordships have heard me talk on this before. That would mean carnage, largely in the Labour Party's backyard where the Boundary Commission has very kindly given piddling little seats of 47,000 electors in the case of Hamilton South and an average of 51,000 in the city of Glasgow. When that has to go up to 69,500 as it will—there will be real devastation in the Labour heartlands where, in some areas, two MPs will have to do although there are three now. There will be non-brotherly or non-sisterly squabbles about who could win. Dare I say it, "Why should I care?"? The blood will largely be on the Labour Party's carpet. The Scottish Nationalists will be one of the beneficiaries, like, I hope, my party.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and I have no intention of delaying the passage into law of this Bill. We have had a good innings on it in your Lordships' House. I believe that we have made considerable improvements. Frankly, I think that the Government could have gone a bit further on this and a number of other issues, but I am not prepared to have headlines in the Scottish press along

1193
the lines of, "Mackay's last-ditch stand against Scotland Bill". Mackay is not making a last-ditch stand. Thurso can have it alone.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, in addressing this issue, I recognise that we are returning to one of the more substantive matters that divide us across the House. I want to place on the record the fact that I recognise the contributions that noble Lords directly opposite and those on the Liberal Democrat Benches have made to the way in which the Bill has evolved and been improved during its passage through your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that I totally accept that he has been sincere and consistent on this question throughout. I recognise that he does not see, and has not tabled, this Motion as a wrecking provision. However, I ask him to reflect for a moment on whether there is a difference between intention and effect. I am convinced that the intention is not to wreck; but the possible effect is that it could. The noble Viscount ought to think about that.
After our debate earlier this afternoon, I do not wish to make a heavy point on the constitutional issue. However, this House sent the matter back to the House of Commons by way of an amendment that it made to the Bill. It gave the other place the time and opportunity to think again. Members there did think again, and decided not to agree with the decision of this House by 303 votes to 173. So we have done our duty on an issue where there was a difference of view across this Chamber and between the two Chambers. We gave Members of the other place an opportunity to reflect and reach another view. On reflection, they decided to remain with their original position. It would at least be wise and prudent to reflect on the implications of a further round of ping-pong between the two Houses.
Perhaps I may reply briefly to points made during the debate, and to the rather lurid account of the internal workings of the Government given by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. It is not something that I recognise. I can only say that she may be suffering from the effect of reading too many of her husband's articles. I caution and advise her against that.
The argument made by the noble Viscount was a strong one in that it is true that the figure of 129 was decided by the constitutional convention. The White Paper, upon which there was not only a debate in this House but on which the Government and the Liberal Democrats joined together in campaigning for and seeking the endorsement of the Scottish people at the time of the referendum, made it absolutely clear that the process would be that the reduction in the number of MPs at Westminster from Scottish constituencies would have an automatic effect on the size of the Scottish parliament. That was clearly spelt out. It was put before the people of Scotland at the time of the referendum and was endorsed by them; and the Liberal Democrats made their contribution in achieving that result. They fought on the issues in the White Paper, as we did.
The point was made that representation of the diversity and the regions of Scotland depends upon the parliament being a particular size. We can reduce
1194
the size of the parliament, but so long as the proportions coming from the various parts of Scotland remain the same, the integrity of the diverse nature of the parliament is protected. That diversity will not be undermined through a reduction in its size. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated, there might be a greater balance in the composition of the parliament through a reduction in its size.
Another argument is that the Jenkins Commission reported and therefore, as it were, all bets are off and we return to square one waiting for the report to be implemented. So, the commission has reported; but there is no indication as to whether any of the proposals contained in its report will ultimately be implemented. If they are implemented, that will be done on a timescale which, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will run beyond eight years. So there is plenty of time. Speaking hypothetically, if there is movement along the lines advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and his colleagues, it is some considerable way off. There is plenty of time and opportunity to adjust arrangements in Scotland to take account of that.
Let us now turn to the question of morale. For some reason which again I do not understand it seems that it is completely wrong to say that there is to be a reduction in the size of the Scottish parliament but at the same time say that it is absolutely essential that the number of MPs representing Scotland at Westminster ought to be reduced; that somehow one has an awful and damaging effect on the morale of members of the Scottish parliament but the other has no effect at all on the morale and general contentment of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster.
I return to a point that I made at an earlier stage. I have every sympathy for those who may be discomfited by the fact that the number of seats available to them is reduced—heavens above, I should quite like a few more seats to become available! However, that can never be a convincing argument for retaining the size of the parliament at any given level.
I return to the basic point. I do not think that the arguments advanced today and at earlier stages come anywhere near to undermining the Government's position. The strange figure of 129 seems almost to have been handed down, carved in stone—"It shall be 129, no more, no less". But it is not a magic figure. The figure came out of a process of discussion, and then building up from a constituency basis. The noble Viscount has already mentioned that at one stage the Liberal Democrats favoured a figure of 145. I was a member of the backroom group known as the constitutional commission. For my sins, I had responsibility for examining the electoral arrangements. I came up with a scheme that produced approximately 110. The number decided upon by the convention was 129, on the basis of using the parliamentary constituency building block. That is the constant unit that runs all the way through the deliberations and discussions. The Westminster parliamentary constituency is the building block for representation in the Scottish parliament, and that is added to through the top-up lists.

1195
Why do we want the Westminster parliamentary constituency to be the building block? The point is fairly made that it is possible for the two MPs to work effectively together. There is another, equally valid point; namely, that all Members of this House have frequently maintained their support for and commitment to the Union. If that is the case, wherever possible we want to embed the institutions of one regime in the institutions of the other. By maintaining that coterminosity of constituencies, we are embedding the electoral arrangements of the Scottish parliament in the electoral framework of the Union itself, which further strengthens the links between the two.
However, there is one argument that could have merit; namely, that somehow the reduction in numbers would have a major deleterious effect on the effectiveness and working of the parliament. It is an argument that has to be taken seriously. The difficulty with it is that we cannot give a definitive answer before the parliament has at least some experience of running its own institutions and structures.
In that context it is important to realise that the reduction in the size of the Scottish parliament is not something that will occur immediately or overnight. The Scottish parliament will have two full terms of operating with 129 members. That gives it both an opportunity to plan for the reduction and to see what the possible effects may be, in terms of its workings, of a reduction in size.
It might be of comfort to the noble Viscount that we recognise that during that period the parliament might take the view that a reduction in size from 129 to something more than 100 would seriously affect the way it operated. We recognise that through the system of pre-legislative scrutiny and the different ways of working that are being considered under the committee chaired by my honourable friend Mr. McLeish, it is possible that there may be arrangements that are totally innovative and require a significant number of people to operate effectively. If that came about—if the parliament took the view that its workings would be seriously undermined by a reduction in numbers—then it is open to the parliament to make representations to the Government of the day and to this Parliament. A thread that we have always accepted is that the electoral arrangements will remain reserved. It would be open to the parliament, in the light of experience—an experience which, by definition, we cannot have now—to say to the Government of the day, "Look, we think we have got a system which works well and effectively. It is in danger of being disturbed in a very deleterious way if this reduction takes place."
The Government are a listening government and are prepared to enter into discussion and debate and to formulate policies on the basis of experience. The opportunity would not be lost, at some time in the future—on the basis of practice—to reopen this question on the initiative of the parliament. On that basis, the Government cannot accept these amendments and would wish to oppose them.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks. I am grateful that he recognises that the last thing on earth I would ever wish to do is to put this Bill into jeopardy. I am grateful to him for recognising that my intentions are honourable. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this useful and interesting debate. I am sorry that so many noble Lords on the Benches next door now feel the need to retreat. I am not going to respond to them.
There are two points that I would like to make. First, with regard to the number of 129, the Minister mentioned that we were fixed to that one rigid number. I assure him that we are not fixed to that one rigid number. All we wish to do through the amendment is to give the Scottish parliament the power to decide. If it decided to come down, that is fine.
The other argument concerns the question that the Bill will be lost. I have thought long and hard about that. I believe that there is time and that it is appropriate for another place to consider the matter again.
7.34 p.m.
On Question, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 215 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 215A.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Alderdice, L.

Maddock, B.

Bath, M.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Newby, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Calverley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carlisle, E.

Razzall, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rochester, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Rowallan, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grey, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hampton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stair, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taverne, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Inchyra, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Leigh, L.

Thurso, V. [Teller.]

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ludford, B.

Wigoder, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNair, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Barnett, L.

Ahmed, L.

Blease, L.

Alli, L.

Borrie, L.

Amos, B.

Bragg, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Bach, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

1197

Burlison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Chandos, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Christopher, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Currie of Marylebone, L.

David, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Monkswell, L.

Desai, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dixon, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Donoughue, L.

Montrose, D.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dubs, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Onslow, E.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goudie, B.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Grantchester, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gregson, L.

Sawyer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hacking, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Hardie, L.

Sewel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hoyle, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thornton, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Tomlinson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Islwyn, L.

Uddin, B.

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

Varley, L.

Warner, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Judd, L.

Whitty, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kennet, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 215 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 215A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 215 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 215A.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
216 Schedule 1, page 57, line 9, at end insert—
(". The parliamentary constituencies to which paragraph 1(c) applies are those determined by the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995, or those Scottish parliamentary constituencies determined following a report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland under paragraph 3 of this Schedule, except a parliamentary constituency including either of those islands referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (b).").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
216A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.

LORDS AMENDMENT
217 Page 57, leave out lines 15 to 17.
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
217A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.

LORDS AMENDMENT
218 Page 57, leave out lines 18 to 37 and insert—
("Redistribution of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies
3.—(1) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall keep under review the representation in the Scottish Parliament and shall submit to the Scottish Executive a report either—

(a) showing the constituencies into which they recommend that Scotland should be divided in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof) to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 ("the 1986 Act") in so far as they apply to Scotland, or

(b) stating that, in the opinion of the Commission, no alteration is required to be made in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof) to the 1986 Act.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 81 of this Act, the rules in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act as they apply to Scotland shall have effect in relation to the redistribution of the parliamentary constituencies referred to in paragraph 1(c) above.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, the provisions of sections 3, 5 and 6 of the 1986 Act shall, in so far as they apply to Scotland, have effect in relation to the reports and the workings of the Boundary Commission for Scotland's review of parliamentary constituencies for the Parliament.
(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the provisions of section 4 of the 1986 Act shall have effect in relation to the draft of any Order in Council laid before the Parliament by the Scottish Executive for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland.
(5) References to the Secretary of State in the 1986 Act shall, for the purposes of this paragraph, be construed as references to the Scottish Executive and references to Parliament in the 1986 Act shall be construed as references to the Parliament.
(6) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall submit their first report under this paragraph to the Scottish Executive no later than 30th June 2005.
(7) In that report, the Commission shall also recommend any alteration in any of the regions which, in their opinion, is required to give effect to the rules in paragraph 7 below.
(8) If the Commission do not make any recommendation under sub-paragraph (7), they shall in the report state that, in their opinion, no such alteration is required.
(9) A report making a recommendation for an alteration in any region shall state the name by which the Commission recommend that the region should be known.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
218A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.

LORDS AMENDMENT
219 Page 57, leave out lines 38 to 43
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
219A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.

LORDS AMENDMENT
220 Page 57, line 46, leave out ("3(2)") and insert ("3(7)")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
220A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 216 to 220 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons numbered 216A to 220A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 216 to 220 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 216A to 220A.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
286 Before Schedule 7, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
PROCEDURE FOR SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION
General provision
1.—(1) Subordinate legislation (or a statutory instrument containing it) under a provision listed in the left-hand column is subject to the type of procedure in the right-hand column.
(2) This paragraph is subject to paragraphs 3 and 4.

Provision of the Act

Type of procedure

Section 2(1)

Type C

Section 11(1)

Type C

Section 14

Type D

Section 17(5)

Type J

Section 29

Type A

Section 33

Type I

Section 36

Type J

Section 52(2)

Type G

Section 54

Type I

Section 56

Type G

Section 58

Type G

Section 59

Type A

Section 61(5)

Type K

Section 64(3)

Type E

Section 67(4B)

Type K

Section 75

Type E

Section 83

Type I

Notes
The entry for section 54 does not apply to an instrument containing an order merely revoking an order under subsection (1) of that section.
The entry for section 75, in relation to an instrument containing an order which makes only such provision as is mentioned in section 75(3), is to be read as referring to type K instead of type E.
Types of procedure
2. The types of procedure referred to in this Schedule are—
Type A: No recommendation to make the legislation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft of the instrument—

(a) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament, and

(b) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Parliament.

Type B: No recommendation to make the legislation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Type C: No Minister of the Crown is to make the legislation unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Type D: No recommendation to make the legislation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Parliament.
Type E: No Minister of the Crown is to make the legislation unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.
Type F: The instrument containing the legislation, if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and of the Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of—

(a) a resolution of either House, or

(b) a resolution of the Parliament.

Type G: The instrument containing the legislation, if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
Type H: The instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of

(a) a resolution of either House of Parliament, or

(b) a resolution of the Parliament.

Type I: The instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Type J: The instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Parliament.
Type K: The instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.
Special cases
3.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the instrument containing the legislation would, apart from this paragraph, be subject to the type F, G, H, I or K procedure, and

(b) the legislation contains provisions which add to, replace or omit any part of the text of an Act (including this Act).

(2) Where this paragraph applies—

(a) instead of the type F procedure, the type A procedure shall apply,

(b) instead of the type G procedure, the type B or (as the case may be) C procedure shall apply,

(c) instead of the type H procedure, the type A procedure shall apply,

(d) instead of the type I procedure, the type B or (as the case may be) C procedure shall apply,

(e) instead of the type K procedure, the type E procedure shall apply.

4. If legislation under section 115(3) makes provision as mentioned in section 101(B1) then, instead of the type G procedure, the type D procedure shall apply.
5.—(1) An instrument containing an Order in Council or order tinder an open power which revokes, amends or re-enacts subordinate legislation under an open power may (in spite of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978) be subject to a different procedure under this Schedule from the procedure to which the instrument containing the original legislation was subject.
(2) An instrument containing an Order in Council under section 84 or 85 which revokes, amends or re-enacts an Order under either section may (in spite of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978) be subject to a different procedure under this Schedule from the procedure to which the instrument containing the original Order was subject.").
The Commons agreed to Lords Amendment No. 286, with the following amendment—
286A In paragraph 3(1)(b) of the Amendment, leave out ("(including this Act)").
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 286A to Lords Amendment No. 286. It all finishes with a whimper! It should not be me standing here—it should be my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale—because the words I shall use in relation to this amendment are quite simply that it is a minor and technical amendment. I beg to move.
1202
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 286A to Lords Amendment No. 286.—(Lord Sewel.)
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, had the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, been in her place, I am sure she would have used the words, "This is a technical and drafting amendment". It is entirely that and, in the spirit of consensus which we wish to pervade the Scotland Bill and the Scottish parliament in the future, we welcome the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

  Northern Ireland Bill
  7.45 p.m.
  Read a third time.
  Clause 6 [Legislative competence]:
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 3, line 39, leave out ("the Parliament of the United Kingdom") and insert ("Parliament").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have burdened the House with a great many amendments in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. I indicated that we would do so at the outset of our deliberations. This is not an ordinary Bill; nor has it been prepared in an ordinary timescale. The motivation for our main amendments has been to respond to points expressed in debate, here and in another place. and to those made to us by the parties in Northern Ireland which will have to operate the mechanisms we are setting up. I hope it will be agreed that we are right to be responsive in this way. We have also had to make a large number of adjustments to the technical workings of the Bill, but I hope that that will be thought right, too, because technical flaws could interfere seriously with the smooth operation of the novel institutions for which the Bill provides.
  Your Lordships have shown great forbearance. We have only a few more amendments this evening. All of them are technical with the exception of some further reinforcement of the safeguards for audit standards in the devolved institutions, which I hope will be welcome to your Lordships.
  I turn specifically to Amendment No. 1. It is purely a drafting amendment to align the practice in referring to Acts of Parliament with that elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Entrenched enactments]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 4, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
  ("(c) section 43(1) to (6) and (8), section 67, sections 84 to 86, section 95(3) and (4) and section 98.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 29, with which it is grouped, are technical. They represent a final tidying up of the arrangements by

  1203
  which the Assembly is prevented from encroaching on the main elements of the Bill, either by the subject matter of clauses being made an excepted matter or by the text of the clauses being entrenched under Clause 7; that is, protected against modification by the Assembly. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 4, line 10, at end insert—
  ("(3) In this Act "Minister", unless the context otherwise requires, means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 26 are purely a matter of drafting and move one final time our old friend the omnibus definition of "Minister", which would now occur in its rightful place where the expression is first used in Clause 7. It will be deleted from Clause 9, and the reference in the interpretation clause—Clause 98—is corrected.
  Amendment No. 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is an amendment to Amendment No. 3. I am grateful to him for the amendment, which I believe seeks to clarify the drafting in the definition of "Minister" in Clause 7. However, I believe that the amendment is not necessary. I believe that, as it stands, the definition is entirely clear. Amendment No. 3 amends Clause 7 to include a definition of "Minister" as meaning,
  "the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister".
  There can be no doubt who the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are; they are provided for in Clause 16. It is clear that the Bill's definition of a "Northern Ireland Minister" does not cover junior ministers.
  Clause 17 provides that the determination on the number of ministerial offices should cover,
  "the number of Ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers".
  The following clause, Clause 18, deals with how these offices are filled; namely, by the d'Hondt formula. The posts allocated by Clauses 17 and 18 are clearly the senior ministerial posts and are separate from the permissive provisions on junior Ministers in Clause 19.
  I do not believe that there is any doubt about the definition of "Minister" in the Bill, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will not feel it necessary to press his amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4:
  Line 4, at end insert ("other than those determined under section 19").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, had I had the benefit previously of hearing what the Minister has just said, I probably would not have put down the amendment. The Minister described the Bill as not having had an ordinary timescale. Since he has shifted the definition, it has not even had an orderly timescale, let alone an ordinary one.
  I do not yet understand exactly what a "Northern Ireland Minister" is. I am sure that the noble Lord can tell me. What kind of an animal is he? The noble Lord made clear many times in our proceedings on the Bill that the Government will not accept any amendment which seeks to alter the terms of the Good Friday agreement. I would be the first to agree with him that, since it was confirmed in a referendum in both the North and the South, that agreement was the expressed will of the population and that any unravelling—to use a word that the Minister has used in previous stages of the Bill—should be in response to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and not done arbitrarily from Westminster.
  The House will remember that the agreement states that executive authority is to be discharged on behalf of the Assembly by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and up to 10 Ministers with departmental responsibilities. The noble Lord described his amendment as a drafting amendment. It is in a sense a technical amendment in that it was introduced into Clause 9 as a definition which was required because the phrase "a Minister" appears in several places in the Bill and clearly ought to mean the Northern Ireland Cabinet, consisting of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the departmental Ministers, as the noble Lord has just said. The departmental Ministers presumably have a measure of control over junior Ministers appointed under Clause 19, which the Government inserted in Committee.
  The purpose of my addition to the government amendment is twofold. Its first purpose is to thank the Minister for the amendment brought forward on Report to make it clear that junior Ministers must be members of the Assembly. I regret that I was not in the Chamber at the time to hear what the Minister very generously said on that occasion.
  Secondly, it is surely right to exclude junior Ministers from the body which I referred to a few moments ago as the Northern Ireland Cabinet. Clause 22(1), for example, does precisely that: functions may not be conferred legislatively on a junior Minister. It seems to me imperative that any definition clause, which the government amendment is, should make it clear as soon as practicable in the Bill what is included and what is not.
  I take what the Minister said in respect of my amendment to the government amendment extremely seriously. Nonetheless others may wish to discuss the matter. I therefore beg to move the amendment.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for moving his amendment, if only because it gives us a chance briefly to discuss the role of the junior Ministers. I realise from his remarks at a previous stage of the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, believes that there is not yet a consensus as to what functions they should exercise or as to how they should be appointed but that

  1205
  it is clear that they will not have a major role. In my opinion, it is important to know what role they will have, and this is a chance to discuss that matter. It is one thing to say that the role of junior Ministers is still unclear; it is altogether something else to say that they are outside our consideration. They will be an important part of the machinery of government in Northern Ireland.
  I think the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, would agree that his Amendment No. 6 would be redundant if his Amendment No. 4 were to be passed.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, and vice versa; that is quite right.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am one of those who expressed some hesitation about the appointment of junior Ministers. The Northern Ireland Office has functioned for several decades with sometimes four, sometimes five, Ministers managing all the departments, and indeed more than will be the responsibility of the executive, at least in the initial stages, because the Northern Ireland Office has had responsibility also for security matters as well as for the departments which are to be devolved.
  Nevertheless, I am not against the appointment of junior Ministers, if that is what is required in Northern Ireland. I can see that it will help in the management of the Assembly—which will be difficult enough, given the complexities—to have some junior Ministers to help the 10 departmental Ministers who will be in charge.
  I take this opportunity to draw attention to the fact that, although we have been told by the Minister at frequent intervals that we have to stick to the absolute letter of the agreement, the insertion of junior Ministers into the Bill is a departure from that agreement. Of course, I understand that it departs from the agreement with the encouragement of the parties in Northern Ireland; it is a matter that was not thought of when the precise words of the Good Friday agreement were settled. But there have been a number of other matters of the same character that we have discussed in the course of the Bill. This is one place where the agreement is being "bent", which I think may be a more appropriate word than "broken".
  As the Minister said, Amendment No. 3 once again moves the definition of "Minister". The noble Lord described it as moving the definition to its rightful place. As I said on an earlier occasion, I believe that its rightful place is in the definitions clause, Clause 98, which contains every other definition that applies to whole of the Bill. There are some definitions which apply to only one clause, and I think it is sensible to have those in the clause to which they apply, but it seems to me that general definitions are much better put in a single interpretation clause. When so many other definitions are contained in Clause 98, I believe that this one should be there as well. However, I made that point earlier and it did not commend itself to the Government, so I shall not press it at this stage.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am not opposed to the appointment of junior Ministers provided
  1206
  there is a general role for them. Being rather cynical, I cannot help but recall the time when Stormont was flourishing, admittedly in its last decade, when certain Prime Ministers occasionally appointed junior Ministers but did not seem to have any jobs for them. My cynicism then took root. I felt that when the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he might have been, was in some difficulty with his own party, it was perhaps a temptation to appoint junior Ministers to ensure that a vote of confidence could be carried without having to rely entirely on Back-Benchers. I hope that my suspicion was not well-founded, but, as an outsider at that time, I am afraid that that was my perception.
  At present the Minister and his colleagues have the responsibility for two major departments and, if I may venture to say so, discharge their duties efficiently and well. We should therefore consider very carefully whether there is a need for duplication of responsibility which I do not believe would be in anyone's interests. I believe that the First Minister and ultimately the Secretary of State may be under pressure from those who feel that unless all of the tiddler parties are placed in posts, junior ministries and so forth, it will be difficult to keep the peace. Although that may be an unworthy thought, we may need to be prepared for such pressure being applied at a later stage.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I suppose that the nearest thing to a cabinet in the Bill is an executive committee set up under Clause 20. That does not include junior Ministers but only the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers; that is, those whose positions are established under Clauses 17 and 18. As to the role of junior Ministers, we shall have a greater opportunity to discuss that matter in the context of Amendment No. 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I do not wish to cut across the debate that we shall have then, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made reference to "tiddler parties". I do not endorse such a pejorative expression. The smaller parties will not necessarily have an opportunity to have ministerial posts. We have left it mainly to the Assembly, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to decide what is appropriate in the way of junior Ministers. That is why the powers to establish junior Ministers are simply enabling. I say no more than that; otherwise, I shall pre-empt the debate on the next amendment.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this mini debate that went rather wider than I expected in the context of this particular amendment. When the Minister sought to pre-empt my moving the amendment I understood him to say that the addition of,
  "other than those determined under section 19",
  was unnecessary because it was quite clear that in his amendment deputy Ministers were not included. Therefore, I am delighted to hear that I have got it right. The noble Lord indicates by a nod that that is so. In that case, I am delighted that my amendment is not needed. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment No. 4, as an amendment to Amendment No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
  8 p.m.
  Clause 9 [Scrutiny by Ministers]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 4, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Statutory functions]:
  Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 12, line 24, leave out ("(but not a junior Minister)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 has a very simple objective. It is so simple that it is almost self-explanatory. The House has just agreed in Amendment No. 3 that in this Bill "Ministers" as defined does not include "junior Ministers". Therefore, one cannot have it both ways. If "Ministers" does not include "junior Ministers" there is no need to exclude junior Ministers from this particular clause. I beg to move.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I regret that I cannot welcome Amendment No. 6 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. This amendment seeks to enable junior Ministers to have statutory functions conferred upon them.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, that is not so at all. The House has just agreed that the definition of "Minister" does not include "junior Minister". Therefore, functions are not being conferred on a junior Minister but only on what may be called a senior Minister. All that the amendment seeks to do, if I have correctly understood my noble friend, is to improve the drafting considerably.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am advised that there may have been a misunderstanding about the purpose of the amendment, in that it does not include junior Ministers. I am still not sure that I have completely understood the purpose of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, moved his amendment very briefly. I am not sure what he seeks to achieve. However, I believe that the purpose of this amendment, in the circumstances, is unnecessary.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is quite clear that the only purpose of the amendment is to remove from the Bill redundant words. I suggest that the Government are well advised to accept this helpful drafting amendment. From what the Minister said, he may perhaps have misunderstood the purpose of the amendment.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there has been some confusion in this matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, my intention is to tidy up the Bill and remove what I regard as extraneous words. I was reinforced in my belief by the response of the Minister when dealing with Amendment No. 3. However, given the way in which parliamentary proceedings work we do not have to make a decision on this matter tonight. The noble
  1208
  Lord and his advisers can reflect upon it and it can come back from another place. A great raft of amendments will come back. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cope can give me the exact number, but I believe that about 450 amendments have to be agreed to and discussed in another place. The Government will have ample opportunity to return to this matter if I am right in my assertion that these words are superfluous.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may seek to clarify matters. I regret the misunderstanding that has arisen on this particular amendment. As I understand it, the noble Lord wants to delete a term that he believes to be redundant. That would be so if the clause referred to a Northern Ireland Minister. However, the particular wording refers to "a Minister". Therefore, the words in brackets are appropriate to clarify what is meant.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am becoming even more confused. Presumably, the Minister was listening to the words that he uttered in dealing with Amendment No. 3 which state:
  "In this Act 'Minister', unless the context otherwise requires"—
  in this particular case it does not—
  "means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister".
  A Minister is a Minister is a Minister as defined in Clause 7 as we have just amended it.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I am not sure that he was correct in suggesting that this matter could be resolved in the course of this Bill going to the other place and returning to this House. If this amendment is not made there will be no opportunity for the other place, or this House at a later stage, to make it. If the amendment is made now and it turns out that it should not have been made, the other place can correct it and this House can agree to that correction. Therefore, I believe that we should make the amendment now and if necessary the other place can correct it. It is a very simple drafting amendment that brings this particular part of Clause 22 into line with the amendment agreed a few moments ago.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister wants to intervene before I finally sit down. I am very conscious of the fact that this is Third Reading.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I regret the misunderstanding that has occurred. The intention is that the Assembly should not be able to confer statutory functions on junior Ministers. If Clause 22 were silent on the matter—for example, as it is in relation to local authorities—the Assembly could confer functions. That is the point at issue. I still urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this places me in a rather difficult position. If, with the excision of the words,
  "but not a junior Minister",

  1209
  the clause allows legislative functions to be conferred on junior Ministers, we have made a glaring error in agreeing Amendment No. 3. However, I believe that there will be an opportunity for the other place to correct this matter despite what my noble friend Lord Cope said simply because the Bill has been amended so much. I am sure that if Ministers and their advisers decide that I am right they will find a way of squeezing it in somewhere. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 60 [Financial control, accounts and audit]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 31, line 25, after ("made,") insert ("an Act of the Assembly or other").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are amendments of real substance and represent a further strengthening of the protection for proper audit in the Bill. They reflect a helpful dialogue which has been going on between my colleague, Paul Murphy, and the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in another place.
  Amendment No. 8 to Clause 60 ensures that anyone other than the Comptroller and Auditor General who exercises auditing functions has the same freedom as the comptroller from direction or control by the devolved authorities.
  Amendment No. 9 to Clause 65 is intended to underpin the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland by ensuring that he cannot be removed unless two-thirds of the total number of Members of the Assembly endorse that proposition.
  Amendment No. 7 to Clause 60 is a matter of drafting and there is a related repeal in Amendment No. 39 for incorporation into Schedule 15.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Minister said, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are a useful strengthening of the Comptroller and Auditor General's position. I am not sure why Amendment No. 7 is necessary. It adds the words,
  "an Act of the Assembly or other"
  in front of the words, "Northern Ireland legislation". However, the words "Northern Ireland legislation" are specifically defined in Clause 98 as including acts of the Assembly. The amendment therefore seems to me redundant. The words to be inserted are simply unnecessary, given the definition in Clause 98 at page 55 of the Bill.
  While the Minister seeks to confirm what I say, perhaps I may say a word or two about the other two amendments. As the Minister said, these amendments reinforce the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I think that is desirable. In particular, the two-thirds rule, applied under Amendment No. 9, means not merely two-thirds of those voting but two-thirds of the whole membership of the Assembly. That is a slightly novel formulation in UK law; namely, that two-thirds of a legislative assembly should have to vote on an issue. However, I do not think that it is necessarily
  1210
  undesirable on those grounds alone and I support the reinforcement of the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General. My main reason for intervening, however, is to raise the point on Amendment No. 7.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I reinforce the point made by the noble Lord. Page 55, line 26 makes quite clear that Acts of the Assembly are included in the Northern Ireland legislation. Therefore, this is an issue of redundancy that we are seeking to "clean up".
  I support Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 most warmly. It is helpful to obtain for the Comptroller and Auditor General maximum independence from the Assembly. In that context I do not mind the somewhat high test of two-thirds of the Members rather than two-thirds of those present. If anything, that establishes an even higher standard of non-interference.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for some of the amendments. Perhaps I may clarify the position as regards Amendment No. 7. The amendment is necessary because paragraph 22(e) of Schedule 2 would otherwise prevent the Assembly from legislating on the matter. This interacts with paragraph 22 of Schedule 2. I think that it is necessary and that it clarifies the position. I hope that that is acceptable to the House.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 32, line 14, at end insert—
  ("( ) Persons (other than the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland) charged with the exercise of any function under subsection (2) or other like function conferred by Northern Ireland legislation shall not, in the exercise of that or any ancillary function, be subject to the direction or control of any Minister or Northern Ireland department or of the Assembly.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Audit]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 33, line 29, at end insert—
  ("( ) A recommendation shall not be made to Her Majesty for the removal from office of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland unless—

  (a) the Assembly so resolves; and

  (b) the resolution is passed with the support of a number of members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 69 [The Commission's functions]:
  [Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
  Clause 71 [Restrictions on application of rights]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 36, line 20, after ("tribunal") insert ("on the ground that any legislation or act is incompatible with the Convention rights").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 in Clause 71 are technical amendments which ensure that the human rights commission can bring proceedings involving non-ECHR issues. The final amendment provides that the Advocate General for

  1211
  Scotland is exempt from the restrictions, as well as the other Law Officers listed. He will, of course, be the United Kingdom Law Officer for Scotland after devolution.
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, these amendments all seem unobjectionable and welcome. However, perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter on Amendment No. 14 which adds the Advocate General for Scotland to the list of exempted persons. We wonder why the Government are not also adding the human rights commission and the equality commission to this list. It would seem to us perfectly right in principle to do so. I should be grateful if that could be clarified.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think I have understood the noble Lord's point correctly. We shall shortly be bringing forward the Fair Employment and Treatment Order to give effect to further aspects of the White Paper Partnership for Change. Among other things, the order will extend the protections available under the fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland to cover the provision of goods, facilities and services. I think that that is the point the noble Lord makes.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am dealing with Amendment No. 14 which inserts the words:
  "the Advocate General for Scotland".
  The amendment concerns the exemption to the victim test in Clause 71 so as to enable the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and the Lord Advocate to bring proceedings notwithstanding that they are not victims of breaches of convention rights. My point is that that has to be done, quite sensibly, because these are all Law Officers who are in a position, in the public interest, to seek to ensure compliance with convention rights and obligations. My question to the Minister is why one would not include the human rights commission as a law enforcement agency and, to the extent that it is relevant, the equality commission and give them standing to be able to bring strategic enforcement proceedings in the public interest, even though they are not individual victims of breaches of the convention.
  I hope that I have clarified my question. The reason it is important is that if we are to set up these new commissions, we need to use their skill and expertise to good advantage in the public interest. The matter should not be left only to Law Officers, it seems to me. The commissions themselves should have that strategic role and therefore should be exempt from the victim test in order to bring those proceedings.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I seem to remember that we discussed this in detail at earlier stages of the Bill. I am not sure that I am able to go into the same detail now as I did then. The point at issue is that the Law Officers need to be able to bring devolution proceedings, but in line with the policy to which Parliament has agreed in relation to the Human Rights Act, only victims should be able to bring ECHR cases. That is the point.
  1212
  As regards the noble Lord's further points, we exhausted them in earlier debates on the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 36, line 22, leave out ("in respect of an act").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 36, line 23, after second ("the") insert ("legislation or").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 36, line 26, after ("Ireland") insert (", the Advocate General for Scotland").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 75 [Statutory duty on public authorities]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 38, line 14, leave out ("in Northern Ireland shall in carrying out its functions") and insert ("shall in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is a matter of drafting. It concerns Clause 75 which deals with statutory equality duties. It brings Clause 75(2) into line with Clause 75(1) in making clear that it bites on public authorities in carrying out their functions relating to Northern Ireland. We are not of course seeking to regulate in the Bill what an authority with a remit extending elsewhere in the United Kingdom does outside Northern Ireland.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 76 [Discrimination by public authorities]:
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 38, line 38, after ("Ireland") insert (", including functions relating to the provision of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to seek clarification on an issue which may be important or may turn out to be trivial. Clause 76(1) makes it unlawful,
  "for a public authority carrying out functions relating to Northern Ireland to discriminate … on the ground of religious belief or political opinion".
  The problem arises because of case law. Unless it is made clear in Clause 76, it may be construed not to include functions relating to the provision of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public. In earlier debates, the Minister indicated, as he did a few moments ago, that it is the Government's intention by Order in Council to plug the gap by amending the fair employment legislation. Speaking for myself, I do not understand why that is the chosen method, or whether it will fill the gap. Clause 76 is a constitutional guarantee embodied in the Northern Ireland Bill. It applies to the functions of a public authority relating to Northern Ireland right across the board.
  I shall be grateful if the Minister can make clear whether the proposed amendment by Order in Council to the fair employment Act would have the same effect

  1213
  as my amendment. If it had absolutely the same effect, the fact that it is done by subordinate legislation under the fair employment legislation rather than by amending what will become this primary legislation of course will not matter. I am not moving the amendment to raise an issue of form; I am only moving it to raise an issue of substance. If one can have an assurance that the purpose of my amendment and its scope will be met by the introduction of subordinate legislation, I shall be entirely satisfied.
  On the other hand, if there is any gap between my amendment and what the Government intend, speaking again for myself, I should much prefer the Northern Ireland Bill to spell out on its face that it is unlawful for a public authority to discriminate on religious grounds where it is providing goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public in Northern Ireland. Otherwise there would be a serious gap in the protection given to the people of Northern Ireland against discrimination by public authorities. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a legal reading of the Bill. However, the provision of goods, services and facilities to the public must be implied by the Bill. Some public authorities' sole function is to supply a service. If it did not include goods and services without the necessity of specific reference, the clause would be in some cases totally ineffective.
  If we were to insert the words "including goods or services", would we not also have to insert them in Clause 75(1)? Otherwise it might be held that by comparison Clause 76 applied to goods and services and Clause 75 did not. That would not be satisfactory. I hope that the amendment is unnecessary. I agree with the purpose underlying it, wishing to include public authorities supplying goods and services in the clause. I hope that it is unnecessary to achieve that purpose.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I agree with him that it seems extraordinary if such provision is not covered. However, the reason that it may be held not to be covered is the curious reasoning of a majority of the Law Lords in the case of Re Amin under the Race Relations Act, holding that marketplace functions only were within the scope of that legislation, and not provision of goods and services by a public authority. It is only for that rather boring reason that I wish to ensure that what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, is intended to be reflected in Clause 75, and will be reflected in any consequential amendment to the fair employment legislation.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated why I was unwise to tread in these legal waters.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would add to the definition of "functions" in respect of which discrimination is banned,
  "functions relating to the provision of goods, facilities or services".
  1214
  We certainly want the kind of functions that the amendment describes to be covered by this provision. But it is our clear understanding that the clause as drafted covers all acts of relevant public authorities. The term "functions" in this clause is already wide enough to achieve the desired effect of the amendment.
  However, perhaps I may cover the point about the fair employment and treatment order which I mentioned earlier. That gives effect to further aspects of the White Paper, Partnership For Change. Among other things the order will extend the protections available under fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland to cover provision of goods, facilities and services. The difference between the forthcoming fair employment and treatment order and this clause is that the new order will cover indirect as well as direct discrimination.
  In this Bill we are simply re-enacting the relevant provisions of the 1973 Act. But the order to which I referred would clearly extend into indirect as well as direct discrimination.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down will he be so kind as to explain one matter? Will that protection against discrimination apply to public authorities as well as to private bodies? Will it apply to government and public authorities? It sounds as though it will. Perhaps I can have clarification on that.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, the answer is yes.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that is a most welcome announcement by the Government. It seems to me to fill an important gap. I express great appreciation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.30 p.m.
  Clause 77 [Unlawful oaths etc.]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 40, line 15, leave out ("department or authority") and insert ("authority (other than a Northern Ireland department)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a matter of drafting. It omits a duplicated reference within the clause to a Northern Ireland department. Without the amendment Northern Ireland departments would be included both in subsection 4(d) and subsection (5) of the clause. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 80 [Legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts]:
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 41, line 10, leave out ("or expedient").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to exclude the words "or expedient" from Clause 80(1) which states,
  "The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient".
  Besides being rather chilling, the word "expedient" in this context is also otiose. The word "necessary" is cast in subjective terms. The expression is, "he considers

  1215
  necessary". I believe that that is sufficient to encompass any acts of expediency that the Secretary of State may wish to commit. If the Minister does not agree with me perhaps he would like to speculate on what acts of expediency the Government might have in contemplation that go beyond a subjective analysis of necessity.
  Amendment No. 19 concerns the circumstances in which subordinate legislation might be issued to affect an ultra vires decision either by a Minister or by a Northern Ireland department. The reason for the amendment is to inquire—ultra vires what? Is the clause intended to affect decisions by a Minister that are ultra vires the reserved powers; or is it intended to affect decisions which are ultra vires other legislation such as European Community legislation, the Human Rights Act or certain categories of international obligation? Or is it intended to go even further than that and affect ultra vires in the general sense that it is used in administrative law? If it is the latter, then I express great concern; because it suggests that, for example, subordinate legislation could issue to change a court's decision that an act of a Minister was against the rules of natural justice.
  I have one final point to make in relation to Amendment No. 19. If subordinate legislation is going to issue in one or other of these circumstances, when will that act take place? I can quite understand that it might take place after a court has taken its decision. I put it to the Minister that it would be quite improper for it to issue during litigation. I say that because it is a well established principle in regard to the separation of powers, that the courts do not interfere in parliamentary proceedings and parliament does not interfere in judicial proceedings. I shall be most interested to hear from the Minister whether or not there is intended to be some constraint on the timing of the issue of any subordinate legislation that the Minister might consider necessary. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I agree entirely with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said. He has raised several important points which need to be addressed at this late stage in the passage of the Bill. I entirely agree with him that the words "or expedient" are unnecessary in Clause 80(1).
  I would like to explain why I believe it important, not merely on the grounds of drafting, that we do not put in more words than we need in that clause. As I understand it, the scheme of the legislation is, wherever possible, to leave it to the courts to resolve issues of vires and to avoid Ministers becoming embroiled in political disputes and using override powers to remedy ultra vires acts except where necessary.
  The way in which Clause 80 is drafted at the moment gives ample scope for discretionary powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, it does not say,
  "make such provision as is necessary … in consequence of"
  but,
  "make such provision as he considers necessary".
  1216
  That is a subjective discretion which will only be reviewed by the courts if the Minister takes leave of his or her senses. The words "or expedient" are a rigmarole or boiler plate statutory language, which one finds again and again in modern Bills. They are simply put in for the administrative convenience of the government of the day who say to themselves, "Let us shove in the words 'or expedient' in case there is some other reason that we cannot think of at the moment which might arise in the future and make quite sure that we have very wide powers indeed". Since this provision is expressed in subjective form, it is not necessary or expedient to include the words "or expedient" in the Bill.
  As regards the other points raised by the noble Lord. Lord Kingsland, again I entirely agree with him. We must be very careful to ensure that the way in which a Minister's override powers are exercised does not conflict with the rule of law and the judgments of the independent judiciary whether retrospectively or otherwise.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, we have had a thorough debate of the clause on legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts, to which these amendments refer, in Committee and on Report. The clause is based on Clause 107 of the Scotland Bill, which your Lordships have approved. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 would change aspects of the clause which correspond to the Scottish provisions.
  The first amendment would confine the Secretary of State's present power under the section to make provision she believes necessary or expedient, to solely that provision that she believes necessary. I believe this is a bad amendment because it creates uncertainty. There may be a range of steps that have to be taken in order to deal with the consequences of a finding of invalidity of legislation that has been widely relied on for years. It might be a point of endless argument among lawyers whether such steps were necessary, or merely expedient. The fact that the Scottish clause refers to expedient provision might lead to a particularly narrow view being taken of the scope of this provision, if it were amended. Such uncertainty might lead to us being unable to take steps in Northern Ireland that might be taken in Scotland, and provoke possible further litigation itself.
  An order under this clause is subject to affirmative resolution at Westminster, and we gave undertakings earlier of consultation with the devolved authorities if this clause was used when there had not been a court judgment. Those are substantial safeguards against any possibility of abuse. Neither do I believe it justifiable to confine the use of the clause to the cases set out in Amendment No. 19. Those are certainly the primary cases at which the clause is directed. But it is possible to envisage other kinds of cases, under other legislation, where a provision may be ultra vires, and hardship would occur unless the consequences could be ameliorated by an order under this clause.
  The clause may be something of a last resort, and other more conventional courses, like corrective legislation by the assembly, might well be more appropriate in many cases. But there may be cases

  1217
  where resort to this clause is the best solution. The affirmative resolution procedure is the safeguard for it. The Scotland Bill shows greater flexibility than the noble Lord proposes, and I believe we should have no less flexibility for Northern Ireland.
  Perhaps I may elaborate on the point made about subordinate legislation, which we discussed at Report stage. My noble friend Lord Williams said that the Secretary of State's power in that respect is judicially reviewable. That consideration would also weigh heavily on the mind of the Secretary of State if she sought to make legislation where action was pending in the courts. As I said before, we should recall that such orders are subject to affirmative resolution.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I asked in relation to Amendment No. 18 whether he would like to give your Lordships' House an example of a situation in which the Minister might consider that action was not necessary but was expedient. For reasons that I well understand, he did not proffer any such illustrations.
  As regards Amendment No. 19, I wish to press him on two matters. First, is he saying that Ministers can issue subordinate legislation to change the decisions of courts which have been based on ordinary administrative law, such as the principles of natural justice or the principles of reasonableness? If so, this legislation is going way beyond its terms of reference. Secondly, can he assure the House that if and when subordinate legislation is issued it is not issued while judicial proceedings are underway?
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, the answer to the first question is no. I shall turn to his second question in a moment. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, at the Report stage, there is a power judicially to review a decision by the Secretary of State. I would have thought that that would be a safeguard, particularly in view of the fact that it would weigh on the mind of the Secretary of State if she sought to make legislation while action was pending in the courts.
  The safeguard exists and I would have thought that if action were pending in the courts the Secretary of State would be unlikely to take such a step because of the possibility of judicial review. That goes a long way towards dealing with the noble Lord's point.
  As regards his request for an example of the difference between "expedient" and "necessary", I do not want to be tempted down that path and the noble Lord would not expect me to be. I am sure he will take the point that, given the difference between the Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation, if we were to go down the path of the amendment we would be left in an unsatisfactory position. For that reason alone, the noble Lord ought to accept the use of the word "expedient".
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is he aware that by retaining the words "or expedient", as he tends to do for Scottish reasons, the effect is to make judicial review almost impossible. If the word "necessary" were inserted and if a subjective discretion were included it
  1218
  would be possible. However, the safeguard of judicial review is diluted if the words "or expedient" are included. In view of what the Minister has just said, that is one good reason for accepting the amendment; to ensure that the courts have the power judicially to review the subjective discretion of the Minister where there is no necessity for using his powers.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure that I take the noble Lord's point. In view of the fact that the Scottish Bill refers to "expedient", the provision might lead to a particularly narrow view being taken of its scope if it were amended. Such uncertainty might lead to us being unable to take steps in Northern Ireland which might be taken in Scotland. I believe that in this respect it would be better to keep the two pieces of legislation in line, otherwise the wrong conclusions might be drawn as to the reasons for the differences between them. Given that the point was argued fully during debates on the Scottish Bill, I am reluctant to go further. I believe that the wording is proper. It coincides with what has been provided in the Scottish Bill and is therefore sensible.
  I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. He asked whether the Secretary of State could use the power unless something unlawful happened. That would ultimately be for the courts to decide. What the Secretary of State then does by way of subordinate legislation is rightly a matter for her judgment. I suggest that that distinction is the proper one.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he has been extremely generous in dealing with perhaps a record number of supplementary questions on Third Reading. On the other hand, the matter was unearthed in the Scotland Bill only on Third Reading. Therefore, there are good reasons for the fact that it has surfaced in this Bill only now. As regards separation of powers, the Minister almost met my question, but not quite. Can he assure the House that there will be no circumstances in which legislation will be issued to affect judicial proceedings before they are terminated?
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I believe that the answer to that is yes. I am reluctant to be 100 per cent. categoric, but I understand that the answer is yes.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.45 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
  Clause 81 [Powers of courts or tribunals to vary retrospective decisions]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 42, line 1, after ("(4)") insert ("or, where such notice is given to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, those Ministers acting jointly").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 make certain drafting changes in Clause 81, which concerns the powers of courts or

  1219
  tribunals to vary retrospective decisions. Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 make similar changes in Schedule 10, which concerns devolution issues. They clarify the drafting of the way in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are to act in such proceedings. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 42, line 8, leave out ("acting jointly").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 83 [Interpretation of Acts of the Assembly etc.]:
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("( ) The provision shall be read as narrowly as is required for it to be within competence, if such reading is possible, and is to have effect accordingly.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am encouraged by what the Minister said during our brief discussion of Clause 80. He suggested that it was important to keep closely to the Scottish precedent. I say to the noble Lord that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We have an interpretation clause in the Scottish Bill which I believe seeks to achieve the same objective as the interpretation clause in this Bill.
  The matter was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, at the Report stage. He claimed that there was great merit in the version in the Northern Ireland Bill. So which is it to be? Is it the case that the Scotland Bill ought to have taken its lead from the Northern Ireland Bill?
  At the beginning of this parliamentary Session we had only one rule of interpretation, laid down by the common law. Since then we have acquired three further rules of interpretation; one in the Human Rights Act, one in the Scotland Bill and another in the Northern Ireland Bill. Each one of those drafts seeks to achieve the same objective; that is to say, the objective of sympathetic interpretation. Where it is possible to interpret a clause or an expression so that it is intra vires it should be so interpreted. If that is so why is this simple and straightforward aspiration expressed in three different ways? It is likely to lead to much confusion when the judges get hold of it. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, again, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said. The problem is that one is playing curious games here. Sometimes it suits to follow the Scotland Bill and sometimes not; sometimes it suits to follow the Human Rights Act and sometimes not. However, the principles of interpretation which the courts must apply should be consistent as far as possible between the three devolution Acts and the Human Rights Act. This amendment has the virtue of seeking to make the legislation user-friendly and consistent. In my view, it is to be welcomed for those reasons.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I deal first with the point of whether in all respects we should replicate the Scotland
  1220
  Bill. Amendment No. 22 picks up a point the noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised at Report. I have written to him about it this morning, and placed a copy of my reply in the Library.
  The amendment would insert a provision borrowed from Clause 101 of the Scotland Bill in our Bill. As I have written to the noble Lord, I believe the transplantation is inappropriate. Though the Scottish clause and ours are drafted to achieve similar objectives, they reflect the different structures of the two Bills. The Scotland Bill has a general concept of devolved competence as respects subordinate legislation. Ours has a more restricted concept of invalidity under Clause 24 or 76. The drafting reflects that.
  But I assure the noble Lord that the two clauses closely resemble each other in effect. Both clauses are directed at possible readings of legislation; both require that where, of such possible readings, a broader one would lead to a finding that an Act would be outside legislative competence, or subordinate legislation invalid, and a narrower one would lead to a finding that it was within competence or valid, the narrower one is to be preferred.
  I hope that, in view of my letter and of what I have said, the noble Lord will not press his amendment. I hope too that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that, although there are instances where it is appropriate to replicate the Scottish legislation in our legislation, there are other instances where that is not appropriate because the structure of our Bill is different and has a different starting point from the Scottish legislation. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied with my answer.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. If I say that I am not as satisfied with his answer as he would like me to be, I hope he will not be offended. I have read the letter, a copy of which he has placed in the Library. It is a challenging document. I have sought to understand it. After the third reading, I think I almost succeeded.
  The fact remains that, although the contexts of the two Bills, of course, are different, a common-sense reading of the different way that the rule of interpretation is expressed in the different drafts is the same. Therefore, the point which the Minister has made is not relevant to the point which I am advancing. However, I recognise that he will stick to the point that he makes. He was extremely generous to me on my previous two amendments and in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 43, line 7, leave out ("in relation") and insert ("relating").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 27. Amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 27 in Clauses 83 and 98 are purely a matter of drafting to clarify interpretation and to ensure consistency within the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 98 [Interpretation]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 54, line 29, at end insert—
  (""the Commission" means—

  (a) the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, in section 40 and Schedule 5;

  (b) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, in sections 68 to 71; and

  (c) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, in section 73 and Schedule 9;").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an extremely minor drafting point. The words "the Commission" occur in three separate parts of the Bill and refer to three separate commissions—the Assembly Commission, in some clauses, the Human Rights Commission in others and the Equality Commission in others. There is no single definition. The words are defined in all three ways but they do not seem to me to be defined in a way which carries clearly across all the clauses.
  There are various ways in which that might be dealt with. I have proposed one in Amendment No. 24. Amendment No. 33, which is grouped with it, goes to the same point in relation to Schedule 5. I beg to move.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 24. I feel that there is an element of reproof or a slap on the wrist for the Government in relation to this, because there is some sloppiness in the Bill. There is a slightly ironic tone to this but I support the amendment. The words "the Commission" are used quite sloppily.
  However, I do not support Amendment No. 33 because the schedule itself is headed the "Northern Ireland Assembly Commission". Therefore, it is impossible to read it in any way other than that the commission in the schedule refers to the commission at the head of the schedule.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I support the amendment. Following on from the points made in our brief discussion on Amendment No. 16, I wonder whether it is possible to identify for the purposes of clarification the role which will be required of one of the two commissions in the campaign to find jobs for the elderly. It would seem to me that that is a fashionable initiative and it has blossomed since we began our discussions on the Bill many months ago. Of course, I have a vested interest but at the moment, I am not looking for any more jobs.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord's desire, exemplified in his Amendments Nos. 24 and 33, to do anything to make the interpretation of this Bill clear. But I am not sure the noble Lord's amendments actually help us in achieving that aim.
  I think, in fact, it is reasonably plain which commission is being spoken of at all relevant points in the Bill. In Clause 40, it is clear from subsection (1) that it is the Assembly Commission that is referred to, and that is also apparent in Schedule 5, the subject of the
  1222
  noble Lord's second amendment, No. 33, since the schedule is headed in capital letters "NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY COMMISSION". This is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred, and I thank him for that. There is equally no ambiguity in Clauses 68 to 70: it is clear that the Human Rights Commission is referred to; nor in Clause 73 is it unclear that we are concerned with the Equality Commission. I believe that in Schedule 9, to which the noble Lord's amendment refers, it is also clear which commission is involved, since the schedule opens with a reference to the Equality Commission.
  But, even if we were disposed to accept that the noble Lord's first amendment made things even clearer, I fear we must hesitate, because it is not comprehensive, and may therefore sow doubt. For example, it does not refer to Clause 74, which sets out the Equality Commission's functions, nor to Schedule 8, which sets out that commission's constitution.
  I believe, therefore, that the noble Lord's first amendment is flawed, his second is unnecessary, and I ask him not to press them. As regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I am sure that he can always make his case convincingly when that is necessary.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I shall not press this matter. The Minister has answered my question in part. As regards Clause 74, I did not include that because the words "the Commission" do not appear in it. The Equality Commission is referred to as the Equality Commission throughout the clause. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 27:
  Page 54, line 42, after ("includes") insert ("any provision of this Act and").
  Page 55, line 12, leave out ("9(3)") and insert (" 7(3)").
  Page 55, line 42, leave out ("or Bill") and insert (", Bill or subordinate legislation").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 101 [Short title and commencement]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 57, line 2, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) The following provisions shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—

  (a) sections 3, 55, 86, 93, 96 and 98;

  (b) paragraph 20 of Schedule 13 and section 99 so far as relating to that paragraph;

  (c) in Schedule 15, the repeal of section 31(4) to (6) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and section 100(2) so far as relating to that repeal; and

  (d) this section.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Amendment No. 28, we propose some slight adjustments to the commencement clause to bring into effect a number of provisions immediately on Royal Assent, rather than by a later commencement order.
  They include among the provisions to come into force immediately those for consequential legislation, and for the setting up of the north-south implementation bodies,

  1223
  orders under which will have to be made before the appointed day. They also include the provisions relating to the Stormont Estate. I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, these amendments are wholly unobjectionable. However, can the Minister give some indication as to the timetable for bringing into force by commencement orders the provisions relating to human rights? I have in mind, for example, Clauses 6, 7 and 24. The reason that I ask the question is that, from the moment that the new Northern Ireland Government and Assembly are operating under the Bill when it becomes enacted, they will be bound to comply both in their legislative and executive capacities with the convention rights and freedoms. The judges will then have to ensure that they interpret the executive and legislative actions compatibly with convention rights. Therefore, without giving away any official secrets, can the Minister give some indication of the timetable so that judges, practitioners and the general public in Northern Ireland know when the convention rights are to be triggered under the devolution scheme?
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, Clauses 6 and 7, which are to be found in Part II of the Bill, come into effect under the devolution order. That is also the case with Clause 24. However, if the noble Lord requires further details, I shall be happy to write to him giving more information.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister; indeed, he has been most helpful. However, can he say when he anticipates the devolution order is likely to be made, as that would meet my point?
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think that it would be more appropriate for me to write to the noble Lord. There may be a simple answer but he asked a number of complicated questions. I do not wish to mislead the noble Lord.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Excepted matters]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 61, line 1, leave out ("60") and insert (" 67").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Reserved matters]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 61, line 37, after ("and") insert ("the Republic or).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords. Amendments Nos. 30, 37 and 38 are government drafting amendments to the schedules. The amendment to Schedule 3 is consequential on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we accepted at an earlier stage, inserting a reference to "the Republic of Ireland" in Schedule 2 rather than "Ireland". The passage in Schedule 2 is one that takes out of the excepted category the surrender of fugitive offenders between the two parts of Ireland. Paragraph 9(f) of Schedule 3 makes the same matter reserved, and our amendment brings the drafting there into line.
  The amendments to Schedule 14 merely ensure that, for any determination by the First Minister and Deputy First Ministers-designate in relation to junior Minister to carry over from the shadow period, it must have been approved by the Assembly, just as it would have to be approved after the appointed day under Clause 19(4). I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I gave the Minister very short notice that I wanted to raise the following points. My concern is that nothing in the amendment makes it harder rather than easier to achieve the extradition of fugitive offenders across the Border, both north and south. My concern arises because of the controversial decision of the Supreme Court of Ireland in 1989 in the case of Ellis v. O'Dea. The Supreme Court made it clear that any UK warrant for the arrest of a fugitive wanted in Ireland for extradition to the United Kingdom would be invalid if it referred to the name of the state as "the Republic of Ireland".
  The reason given by the highest court in Dublin was that the name used in the UK warrant was incorrect because it was contrary to Article 4 of the Irish Constitution, which states that the name of the state is either Eire or, in the English language, Ireland. That case is reported in [1989] Irish Reports at page 530 and it is the judgment of the late Justice Brian Walsh which is particularly relevant. Unless the authorities in the UK and in Northern Ireland use the politically correct nomenclature in seeking the extradition of fugitive offenders in what I shall refer to as Ireland, my concern is that it will become harder rather than easier to achieve the extradition of such offenders.
  It goes without saying that nothing that I have said expresses a view one way or the other as to whether the politically correct designation from a UK or other point of view should be the Republic of Ireland or Ireland. Indeed, I am only concerned with ensuring that fugitive offenders can in fact be extradited from what I shall now call the Republic of Ireland.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I wish to congratulate and commend my noble friend Lord Monson on his tenacity in fighting this battle. It is not just one of pride or prejudice or, indeed, of anything else. During an earlier stage of our proceedings some weeks ago I pointed out that when the name of what is a republic was changed in 1948 to Eire or Ireland, the then Prime Minister Clem Attlee said, on being asked to respond, "Call yourselves what you like; you remain as you are." That was not an insulting remark and I am not insulting our neighbours in the south. I am simply saying that I imagine in British constitutional law that the correct title would be the Republic of Ireland. It was for that reason that my noble friend Lord Monson sought to make such a change.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his kind words. However, although I spotted the offending phrase in both Clause 1 and Schedule 2, I can only express some embarrassment at

  1225
  having failed to spot it in Schedule 3. Nevertheless, I am most grateful to the Minister for having tidied up the provisions.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has been consistent and the Government have now tried to respond to that. However, there is a problem; namely, whether they have responded to it in this particular context of the fugitive offenders in terms which will make it impossible for us to extradite people from Ireland or the Republic of Ireland who ought to be charged in the United Kingdom. To judge from the precedent of Ellis v. O'Dea, it is now a potential problem.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I also took the view—I think I said it at the time—that I considered there would be legal problems in our not calling it the Republic of Ireland. I did not know then what we have now been told. Although I still feel strongly that it should be the Republic of Ireland, I would be the last to wish to see a situation in which we were not able to carry out extradition in important criminal cases. Therefore I am in a difficulty. I must apologise for having confused the issue. My intention was to make sure that the legal situation was in our favour in terms of extradition and also to establish the fact that we are not talking about Ireland as a united country, which is what the political implication must be, but that we are talking about the Republic.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am also grateful for the alertness of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in having drawn attention to these matters and in having been persuasive in his advocacy of the point at issue. I shall deal specifically with the extradition point, which I think is the only one about which there are some doubts. Paragraph 9(f) of Schedule 3, to which the amendment relates, simply defines the nature of a reserved matter and so regulates the Assembly's power to legislate. The amendment does not bear on the terminology used in extradition documents which I understand has at times caused difficulty in extradition cases. The provision simply concerns the Assembly's power to legislate.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I must say that I am most grateful for the clarification. In order that we all know what is happening, does that mean that we are preserving the correct position under the British constitution of referring to the Republic of Ireland, just as the Republic of Ireland uses its terminology and refers to itself as Ireland? However, where necessary, warrants for extradition will defer to Irish parlance in order to secure the extradition of fugitive offenders so that nothing that we are now doing will in any way impair our ability to obtain the extradition of fugitive offenders from south of the Border and west of the Irish Sea.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, the answer is yes.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 61, line 39, after ("(c)") insert ("include matters relating to the prevention and detection of serious crime in the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and matters relating to any information. document or other article protected against disclosure by section 4(2) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, but").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to a new matter which we have not yet debated. The question is whether the Interception of Communications Act and the Official Secrets Act are to be transferred matters; that is to say, transferred now to the responsibility of the Assembly, or whether they are to remain excepted matters, or whether they are to be reserved matters. Schedule 2 which concerns excepted matters states that the Interception of Communications Act is to be an excepted matter and will always remain under the jurisdiction of Westminster except in the case of serious crime.
  Schedule 3 states that the subject matter of paragraph 17 to Schedule 2, which I have just summarised, is not to be regarded as a reserved matter because it is an excepted matter. However, that leaves out serious crime which, by default as it were, then becomes a transferred matter according to my reading of the Bill. This is a slightly complicated matter but what concerns me is that in respect of serious crime the Official Secrets Act, the Interception of Communications Act and so on should not be transferred now, by mistake as it were, having fallen through the holes between Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of this Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment because of its relevance for the future. The present agenda of Sinn Fein/IRA appears to include the abolition of the RUC and its replacement by a people's police. The Patten Commission has already been told publicly by Sinn Fein/IRA activists that the RUC must be abolished and that not one single RUC officer would be eligible to join a new police force. The only decommissioning it will discuss with the decommissioning commission is the withdrawal of the British Army from Northern Ireland and the abolition of the RUC. Since Mr. McGuinness has already recently said bluntly that there will be no decommissioning by the IRA because "the IRA says so", and has pointed out that the IRA was never a party to the Belfast agreement, it seems clear that its emerging agenda will be to devote its energies to its own kind of decommissioning.
  In those circumstances it is essential in my view that the Government should not lose their absolute control of every aspect of intelligence. Without intelligence they would be blind to the IRA's training, recruiting and targeting programme, let alone its profitable criminal activities. If the RUC is, at the same time, being steadily undermined and weakened, the situation must become dangerous. The RUC needs to be seen to be valued and supported in the interests of law and order. That includes retaining an effective capacity in every aspect of intelligence.
  I hope that we can be assured that the community restorative justice units being set up by the paramilitaries in nationalist areas and indeed loyalist

  1227
  equivalents—the Shankill Alternative, for instance—will not be allowed to set themselves up as a people's police and will not be allowed to usurp the functions of the RUC by dealing with petty criminals themselves and meting out their own punishments in a quasi-legal way. That could be the first move to the people's police and could create a situation which would be extraordinarily difficult for Her Majesty's Government. How could the Government share intelligence obtained from all kinds of sources with an organisation having that kind of background? I believe that it is very important that we retain full control of every aspect of intelligence.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord seeks to address in Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. I do not think that there is any difference between us in the intention of the provisions. However, I am advised that the amendments are unnecessary; indeed, they are harmful to the coherence of the drafting.
  Perhaps I may explain. Under paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, the subject matter of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and of the Official Secrets Act 1989 are essentially excepted, with certain matters carved out from those exceptions relating to the prevention and detection of serious crime. The reason behind that is that the criminal law and the prevention and detection of crime are reserved matters under paragraph 9 of Schedule 3. Therefore, to the extent that the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Official Secrets Act 1989 relate to criminal matters, they too should be reserved matters.
  However, the noble Lord is concerned that those matters will effectively become transferred matters because of the provision in paragraph 9 which excludes from the reservation of criminal matters those matters within paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. If that were the case, I too would be concerned. But I am advised that the carving out of certain matters from paragraph 17 means that they are not therefore "included within paragraph 17." Since they are not, they are caught by the general terms of paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 and become reserved. To make the suggested amendments would cast doubt on the same drafting elsewhere.
  With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord is reassured, and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, to the extent I needed it, I have the reassurance that the Minister and I want to achieve the same purpose. I am not thoroughly convinced by the argument about the drafting, but I shall not argue at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
  Schedule 5 [Northern Ireland Assembly Commission]:
  [Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
  Schedule 10 [Devolution issues]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 36:
  Page 75, line 36, after ("5") insert ("or. where such notice is given to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, those Ministers acting jointly").
  Page 76, line 27, after ("13") insert ("or, where such notice is given to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, those Ministers acting jointly").
  Page 77, line 29, after ("23") insert ("or, where such intimation is given to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, those Ministers acting jointly").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 14 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
  Page 89, line 24, after ("made") insert ("and approved").
  Page 89, line 31, after ("made") insert ("and approved").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 15 [Repeals]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 92, line 23, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 28(1).")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  9.18 p.m.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to speak for long on the merits of the Bill which we have considered at great length, albeit in a short span of time. It is, as we have made clear throughout, a Bill to give effect to the Good Friday agreement in the most effective way possible, with consensus where possible on any additions. I believe that it fulfils that purpose faithfully, more faithfully, indeed, as a result of the amendments your Lordships have accepted, deriving from points made in this House or another place or in consultations with the parties in Northern Ireland.
  I am well aware that we have asked your Lordships to consider a great deal of material—much of it very complex—in a short period of time throughout the passage of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Williams and I are deeply indebted to your Lordships for the courtesy, understanding and good humour displayed in facing those demands. I pay particular tribute to noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite who have had the particularly onerous and, in some ways, thankless task of probing and challenging all the proposals we have brought forward. Noble Lords concerned have been assiduous in discharging their responsibilities and on many occasions have given us rather more to think about than we could respond to on the spur of the moment. I am grateful for their understanding when some detailed points appeared particularly elusive.
  There have also been many distinguished and persuasive contributions from the Back Benches in all parts of the House, informed by the highest degree of expertise and always made with the moderation and thoughtfulness that characterises debates in your Lordships' House.

  1229
  We shall have to return to your Lordships from time to time with further subordinate legislation, much of it provided for by this Bill, to complete the arrangements for implementing the agreement under it.
  For the present, perhaps I may say that we are profoundly indebted to your Lordships for the commitment made to the consideration of the Bill and for the quality of the deliberations on it. I hope it will be acknowledged that we have responded to a substantial proportion of the points that your Lordships have raised during the various stages of the Bill.
  I am grateful for all the effort that has been put into the Bill. I pay tribute to my officials who worked very hard throughout the summer and during the Bill's passage to ensure that we were kept up to date in all respects. This has been a very full Session, and this Bill has been a key element. I hope and believe that it will appear in a few years' time to be another great milestone in the transformation of Northern Ireland and its prospects. Your Lordships have played a vital part in enhancing its capacity to achieve that. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Dubs.)
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long; however, it is right to say that with the passage of this Bill we have participated in the most extraordinary parliamentary event. It is barely recognisable as the measure that passed through the other place before the summer. It has been totally transformed. I dare say that we have dealt with more amendments than on any comparable Bill, including a number of amendments today which were far beyond the normal parliamentary experience at this stage. I cannot say that it has been an orderly procedure. However, I believe that all of us accept that it has been in a great cause and we have been prepared to bend our patience considerably in order to deal with it.
  In the context of patience, it is right for me, in turn, to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his courtesy, his tenacity and his incredible stamina during the Bill's passage. We thank him very much.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the Minister's kind words to those on these Benches. I reciprocate in thanking him for the way in which he has conducted affairs with his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
  As he said, the Bill has been based on the Belfast Agreement and has therefore had our support. We have co-operated with the Government as much as possible—though I have to say with a considerable amount of unease on two grounds: first, that it has sometimes seemed a very ramshackle way in which to reform the United Kingdom constitution; and secondly, at times there has been a feeling that the whole of the agreement has been in grave danger.
  On the first point, this Bill will leave the House in a very different form from that in which it came. Nearly 500 government amendments were tabled. Not all have actually reached the face of the Bill, because some were withdrawn before we even debated them. However, the
  1230
  vast proportion have passed into the legislation. That process has continued even this afternoon. Frankly, that makes us doubt whether the Bill is watertight even now. Obviously we hope that it is. But it has also become clear again this afternoon that devolution is proceeding on a most inconsistent basis across the United Kingdom. This Bill is on a very different basis from either the Scotland Bill or the Welsh Bill, which themselves differ, and no one has even attempted to answer "the English question".
  The second cause for our unease is the more serious. The Belfast Agreement was settled on Good Friday. It is now past Michaelmas and progress on implementing the agreement has been, to say the least, very patchy. The constitutional changes incorporated in the Bill and other legislation, and all that go with them, as well as the prisoner releases, have gone full steam ahead. But decommissioning has not started at all. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to give any further information about that.
  Without decommissioning, this Bill ought to moulder on the shelf and never be put into operation; and for that matter, I believe that the prisoner releases should also come to an end. We all hope that that will not happen and that all parts of the agreement will proceed so that the Bill can come into force properly. Otherwise, the bitterness and mistrust on all sides will be heavily reinforced.
  I honestly hope and pray that the agreement is implemented in all its parts, massively to the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is for that reason that we have supported the Bill throughout and done our best to improve it with the co-operation of the Minister, for which I am grateful.
  Lord Molyneaux: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly but sincerely say a word of appreciation on behalf of the Northern Ireland contingent in your Lordships' House for the patience and the courtesy shown by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I also thank his colleagues on the Front Bench for their supporting role, and others elsewhere. It has been a difficult operation. I noticed that during the final stages of the Scotland Bill earlier this evening the Scottish team said, almost as a boast, that they had dealt with some 300 amendments. We are coming to nearly double that number in our case.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his unfailing patience, courtesy and good humour in coping with the prolonged passage of this major and ever-evolving Bill. I would also like to thank him for the meticulous way in which he has answered in writing virtually every question asked of him in the course of our debates, and for the way in which he and the Northern Ireland Office have kept us so well briefed. I also pay tribute to those of his Front Bench colleagues who have been involved with this Bill and the Front Bench spokesmen of the two other main parties.
  In doing so I must enter one caveat—and I hope that noble Lords will not mind me doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—and I am sorry not to see him in his place; I had somehow expected that he would

  1231
  be—and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, are the most intelligent and best-intentioned of men. However, on 26th October in Committee they both, in quick succession, appeared to fall into a Republican trap. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said:
  "the problems described in"
  —the clauses dealing with discrimination—
  "occur in England and Wales but not to anywhere near the same extent and have not … brought about more than 3,000 deaths in a relatively short period of time".—[Official Report, 26/10/98; col. 1746.]
  Very shortly afterwards the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said,
  "the nub of what we are trying to do is to tackle the religious and political discrimination which has led to 3,000 deaths and untold other agony".—[Official Report, 26/10/98; col. 1747.]
  I hope that the words used there were slips of the tongue and do not represent the considered convictions of the Labour and Conservative leaderships respectively. As a small "u" unionist, I have never claimed myself to be wholly impartial, but I do not think that any impartial historian would agree that individuals place bombs in a bus station, blowing a dozen strangers to pieces, or drill through the knee-caps of their co-religionists, merely because they suspect that someone slightly less qualified than themselves has unfairly been promoted over their heads.
  We should remember the refusal of the nationalist leadership in the north to accept the authority of the state, the sustained bellicosity of De Valera and the Republicans in the 1920s and much of the 1930s; the subsequent irredentist claims in the 1937 Constitution; and the massive ethnic cleansing that took place in the south between 1920–25, leading to the expulsion of at least 105,000 people, most of them unionist civilians but many of them Catholics who had served in the Royal Irish Constabulary, the British Army or the Royal Navy. No impartial historian would deny that these factors have contributed to a very substantial extent to fear and tension in the north, paving the way for the subsequent violence later on.
  More than 29 years ago, on the 12th September 1969, in the wake of the Cameron Report, the Times commented:
  "The grievances—though real—are towards the bottom of the scale of human injustices—and are not getting worse."
  Indeed, some of those injustices, such as the restrictive local government franchise—which was no different from that pertaining in England and Wales up until 1945—had already been rectified by the Stormont Government, and other reforms followed on swiftly afterwards. So not for a quarter of a century has the small degree of discrimination remaining objectively justified as much as a broken finger. But cultural and national antipathies and suspicions, once aroused, have their own momentum.
  I hope, on reflection, noble Lords will agree that it is inadvertently playing into Sinn Fein's hands to suggest that almost 3,500 people have been killed, and thousands more have been knee-capped and otherwise maimed for life, because of some wholly unprovoked
  1232
  minor discrimination like jumping a council house queue that took place more than 25 years ago. I hope they will agree that green fascism, as it is called, and other less extreme forms of national sentiment on both sides of the divide are at least as responsible for the violence and probably much more so.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should make it clear that my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn is very busy at the moment dealing with the consequences of an earlier vote in this House. Perhaps I may also say that I am absolutely certain that he and I—and I am sure I can speak for the noble Lord, Lord Cope—would utterly condemn without reservation every single death, shooting and other injury that has been caused by terrorists in Northern Ireland. I say that without reservation and without equivocation.
  Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about decommissioning. The Government's view is that decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement. It is an obligation that must happen; and the question is not whether it is to happen but simply when. The only way to achieve decommissioning is by the full implementation of all aspects of the agreement by all the parties, including the Government. In taking this Bill forward, the Government have moved substantially in fulfilling their part of the agreement. We ask all other parties to the agreement to fulfil their parts.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

  Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) (No. 2) Order 1998
  9.31 p.m.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, before we commence our consideration of this draft order, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I inform the House that it was considered earlier today by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It was passed without comment and is detailed in Report No. 48, which is available from the Printed Paper Office.
  The effect of the draft order is that the Loyalist Volunteer Force will no longer be specified as an organisation individuals affiliated to which are ineligible for the benefit of the Northern Ireland Sentences Act 1998. That benefit is the early release of prisoners convicted of terrorist-type offences. If an organisation is specified, members of that organisation do not qualify for early release.
  The draft order shows that the organisations which remain specified are the Continuity IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) and the Real IRA. The draft order has come about as the result of my right

  1233
  honourable friend the Secretary of State keeping such organisations under continuous review. That review of our earlier judgment of the organisations to be specified has taken account of the ceasefires called by the LVF, the INLA and, more recently, the Real IRA.
  While we have concluded that no additional organisations should be specified, that conclusion remains under that continuous review. For example, we are seriously concerned by the continuing levels of violent paramilitary assaults and intimidation. Such cruel, arbitrary and brutal attacks—such putting of people in fear—has no place in any peaceful society.
  Once again, I call upon all political parties and all persons of influence to use that influence on the paramilitary organisations to bring to an end these unjustifiable activities once and for all. If we obtain evidence that such activities are being conducted by a paramilitary organisation which is currently not specified, then we will review that organisation's status. Obviously, if an organisation becomes specified, then prisoners who are affiliated to it become ineligible for the early release arrangements. Those already released on licence would be recalled if they became reinvolved in terrorist activity or remained supporters of the specified organisation.
  As to the organisations which are now specified in this order, the Continuity IRA has not declared a ceasefire and so must, of course, remain specified; the Real IRA called a complete ceasefire on 7th September—a welcome development but the worth of that ceasefire will have to be proved in word and deed over a longer period of time. It is obviously too early to remove from the list the organisation responsible for the Omagh atrocity. There were 29 dead, and hundreds injured. I can assure the House that, even if the Real IRA were to be despecified, anyone convicted of offences committed after 10th April will not be eligible for early release under the sentences Act, which applies only to offences committed before that date.
  The INLA, too, remains specified since we are not yet persuaded that its ceasefire is complete and unequivocal. The ceasefire was called on 22nd August and, like the Real IRA, the INLA needs to demonstrate by word and deed its commitment now and in the future to exclusively peaceful and democratic means to pursue its objectives.
  That brings me to the LVF. We are now satisfied that it has established a complete and unequivocal ceasefire and over a significant period of time—since May of this year—has demonstrated that that ceasefire is being maintained. Our decision that it should no longer be specified also recognises the significant contacts which the LVF has made, via an intermediary, with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
  As I have said, these issues are kept under continuous review, taking into account all the evidence available and all the factors prescribed in the sentences Act. We are working to ensure that, as the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland have indicated, there is no future for violence; it must be consigned to the past. The future
  1234
  must lie in peace; in following the democratic path; and in acknowledging other people's rights. Arguments can and should be settled through discussion and consensus, through the rule of law, not through perpetual distrust and recourse to arbitrary and brutal violence. I commend the draft order to the House.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister will recall that during the passage of the sentences Bill I was keen that the connection in the agreement between all its various parts should be spelt out more clearly in the Bill and carried out in practice. That did not happen in the Bill. It is not now happening in practice either, with the result that the prisoners have had no incentive to argue for decommissioning which seemed to me to be one of the main things that might cause it to happen.
  The order appears to allow LVF prisoners to be released without the LVF decommissioning, although I heard what the Minister said about its talking to the decommissioning commission. If the Minister can tell us anything about actual decommissioning by the LVF, how likely that is and on what kind of timescale, that would encourage me to support the order.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we support the order. I think it is right to offer the prospect to paramilitary organisations that, if they desist from violence and change their ways, they will be despecified. I am glad that, in taking this action with regard to the LVF, the Government have concluded that it will not be possible to apply the same reasoning for a long time to the Continuity IRA. I am sure the Government are right.
  Perhaps I may raise a point which was implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said some minutes ago. The situation in Northern Ireland is now becoming very acute. Unless we see the first step on decommissioning being taken very soon by the IRA, the whole process in which we in this House and, far more importantly, the people of Northern Ireland have invested so much hope will come seriously adrift.
  Under the Belfast agreement, decommissioning must be complete within 18 months from now. If republicanism in Northern Ireland is serious about a peaceful future, it must be in its interests that the first step on that 18-month journey is taken very soon. We in this House must make it absolutely clear to Sinn Fein and the IRA that, if the process is to survive, it is now time to demonstrate the good faith implicit in the agreement and to take the vital first steps which are so necessary to reassure public opinion in Northern Ireland.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who has got the matter exactly right. A united message must be sent to all terrorists, of whatever brand, that they must cease their activities and dismantle their capacity to continue terrorist acts.
  It is not clear as yet whether the LVF, with which we are concerned this evening, intends to dismantle its command and control structure in addition to giving up

  1235
  arms and explosives. Were it to do so, it would set a very compelling example to other terrorist bodies. However, the IRA has excluded itself, most notably through the mouth of Mr. Martin McGuinness, who only last week stated with all the authority of his unique position that the IRA would not do it. The chilling finality of that decision cannot be ignored. Despite all the concessions and rewards of the past seven months, the IRA has no intention of complying even in the remaining 17 months with the specific undertaking given by it and all the terrorist organisations under the Good Friday agreement. Yet it seems to many that Her Majesty's Government persist in building unsound structures that will end up as mere memorials to the folly of believing that the IRA will ever relinquish its capacity to threaten, force or blackmail democratic governments into maintaining that precious conveyor belt of concessions on the scale to which it has been accustomed.
  Surely, there must have been great disillusionment over the decision of Sinn Fein/IRA to force a nationalist Catholic football team to withdraw from a fixture to play a team from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. To their credit many young members of that Catholic team have bravely described how they were threatened by IRA gunmen. They were told that if they played in that league they would become victims of the knee-cap treatment which would mean that they would never play football again. What a signal to send to young sportsmen who are merely trying to improve the climate thought to be implicit in the Good Friday agreement.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to put two questions to the Minister. First, what is Noraid's current position in relation to the Continuity IRA? It was reported that the week after Omagh Mr. Galvin visited the Continuity IRA in Dundalk in order to discuss further funding. One wonders whether the Americans have taken that on board and done anything about it. The Americans have influence.
  Secondly, has the conspiracy legislation passed in September enabled us to act with the Garda to seize arms dumps that are known to exist in the Irish Republic now that the Republic has a part to play under the agreement in very many of the decisions of Northern Ireland? Is the counterpart of that that action of that kind will be taken? If we cannot persuade the IRA to give up its arms, surely we can take away the arms.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made in this short debate. I deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and other noble Lords about decommissioning. Noble Lords will be aware that there is no direct linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners. However, we have made it clear that decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement. We look forward to the LVF making a start on decommissioning in the very near future. This applies to all terrorist organisations.
  The Government see no reason why decommissioning should not start now. We have made it very clear that there must be decommissioning of paramilitary
  1236
  weapons. We are not in the business of setting new preconditions or barriers, as the Prime Minister said at Balmoral. The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act, together with the Northern Ireland Bill, with which we have just dealt, provides for the implementation of the agreement as an overall package of which decommissioning is an essential part. We cannot rewrite the agreement by introducing new pre-conditions. What would stop the other parties to the agreement from making new linkages and setting new pre-conditions? The best way to achieve decommissioning—the only way to achieve it—is by the full implementation of the agreement by all parties concerned. As I stated a few moments ago in the debate on the Northern Ireland Bill, the Government have played their full part in implementing the agreement. We call on all other parties to the agreement to do likewise.
  I was asked a question about Noraid. I am afraid that I am not able to give an answer as to whether Noraid is providing money for the purchase of arms by terrorist organisations.
  As regards the question asked on the emergency legislation passed in September, I do not believe that that is directly related to arms dumps or finding arms. Indeed, I am satisfied that we have long had the necessary powers to find arms, as have the Garda in the Republic. In the past few months the Garda has made many significant arms finds in the Republic and in the border areas. Indeed, it was not that long ago that they intercepted a car carrying explosives about to be brought over to England. So I think that the Garda has had successes. I am sure that they will continue to be assiduous in trying to identify arms. I believe that that is not directly related to the legislation we passed in September, which had a different purpose.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1998
  9.46 p.m.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two draft instruments before the House today are fairly modest in content but we see them as making a good start on the work ahead of us to further improve electoral procedures in Northern Ireland.
  Perhaps I may give your Lordships a little background information. In July last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the establishment of an internal electoral review to look into allegations of widespread electoral abuse and to consider electoral procedures. That review reported last month and has made a number of far-reaching and radical recommendations. The Government have given Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland public, the political parties and anyone else with an interest in these matters until Christmas to comment on the review's

  1237
  proposals. Elections are an excepted matter and it will be for the Government to decide on the way forward. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to encourage response to the review.
  I should also say at this point that the elections review concluded overall that elections in Northern Ireland are efficiently and fairly administered in very difficult circumstances, and that much of the credit should go to the Chief Electoral Officer. In the meantime, however, we believe that there are two issues on which we can make some progress. The order and regulations before your Lordships today tighten up arrangements for absent voting for local government, parliamentary and European elections. A subsequent order following the Northern Ireland Bill will do the same for Northern Ireland Assembly elections. Absent voters are those members of the electorate who vote by post or by appointing a proxy.
  The legislation before your Lordships will amend two areas. First, it will increase the scrutiny time available to the electoral office to consider all the absent vote applications. Secondly, it will tighten up the medical attestation statement that is required on the absent vote application form for a particular election when the reason for needing an absent vote is on health grounds.
  The elections review commissioned by my right honourable friend found cause for concern in the current absent vote application procedure. Insufficient personal information is requested; the application form can be photocopied and altered and there is a far lower standard of identification from that required of the voter at a polling station.
  Northern Ireland's Chief Electoral Officer has been concerned for some time that there is considerable potential for fraudulent absent vote applications. During the course of the Government's election review, the team commissioned an investigation into absent voting by comparing the applications for the May 1996 elections and the May 1997 parliamentary and local government elections. The application forms were sorted into wards and then put into alphabetical order by name. In the case of people applying for an absent vote in more than one of these elections, the signatures and reasons given on the form were compared. Where there was a contradiction, the applications were clearly suspect.
  Forty to 60 per cent. of those applications gave cause for concern. A further exercise has been carried out comparing the absent vote application forms for this year's referendum and Assembly elections. The results are not yet available but, when they are, a third and final exercise is planned comparing the results of the first two exercises.
  The concern about the potential for absent voting fraud in Northern Ireland is shared. All the political parties contributing to the review, some members of the public, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee report and the Forum Committee report expressed that concern. We have decided, therefore, that, rather than wait to move on the review recommendations as a whole, we can secure a couple of safeguards, one of which was employed in both the referendum and the
  1238
  Northern Ireland Assembly elections, and the other of which is already in use for applications for an indefinite absent vote.
  I turn in detail to the first of our changes. Today's legislation proposes to increase the time available for the electoral office to scrutinise the absent vote application forms. In 1996 the electoral office had about five working days for scrutiny. In 1997 that was changed across the UK, giving only three working days. That was particularly inadequate for Northern Ireland's somewhat unique needs. For the referendum and Assembly elections this year, the legislation allowed six working days. We propose to retain that timeframe with today's order and regulations.
  The effect of that increase is to shorten slightly the time allowed to make applications. I do not wish to give the impression that we are making life difficult for potential absent voters; quite the contrary. Let me emphasise that we are talking about one-off applications. That has nothing to do with those voters who are on the permanent absent voter list because of physical disability, nature of occupation, being a service voter or a difficult journey by air and sea to the polling station. It concerns those voters who, realising that there is an impending election, become aware that on this occasion they will not be able to vote in person. We endeavour to help as much as possible in such circumstances. For example, specifically to help the absent voting applicant, the chief electoral officer now sets up around 20 advice centres around Northern Ireland, which are announced in the local press before an impending election.
  Furthermore, when an election is impending, my department sends to every one of the 642,000 Northern Ireland households a clearly printed coloured leaflet advising voters among other things of their need to apply for an absent vote. Additionally, when the electoral office's canvassers are delivering and collecting the electoral registration forms to Northern Ireland households, the canvassers remind all households of the facility of an indefinite absent voters list.
  Moreover, the recommendations in my right honourable friend's electoral review provide for a computerised processing of absent vote applications to speed up the process and to make the procedure more straightforward and responsive for applicants.
  I now turn to the other aspect of today's legislation: the tightening up of the medical attestation required by a doctor, registered nurse or Christian Science practitioner. What today's legislation is dealing with is only the attestation by a health worker in the case of a physical illness. Current regulations for an application for an indefinite absent vote on health grounds require the health worker's statement to attest that the applicant has been seen by him or her in relation to the application. However, a one-off application for a particular election currently only requires the health worker to attest the applicant's reason to the best of the health worker's knowledge and belief. The review found that in some cases doctors have each attested dozens of

  1239
  individual applications at a level out of proportion with the overall patterns of application or ill health across the Province.
  The reasons why health workers may make false statements centre around intimidation where the doctor or nurse is forced into signing blank forms, or where the health worker is a party activist or sympathiser and gives a large number of blank, signed forms to party workers. In any event, the Government propose to make the medical attestation on the absent vote application form for a particular election the same as that for an indefinite absent vote application on health grounds. We believe that this change will discourage possible fraud and, where that fails, make subsequent prosecution easier.
  In conclusion, these are two relatively minor changes. But we believe that they will help to improve Northern Ireland electoral procedures and will give the Northern Ireland electorate a system in which they can have more confidence. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I support both the regulations and the order.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we support both orders. It is worth while saying that we are grateful for the Bradley Review. We shall respond to it. I believe that there are some useful recommendations on which this matter is based. It is good that the Government have tackled electoral malpractice both in terms of medical forms and absentee voter registration. The noble Lord implied in what he said that there is remaining the problem of voter intimidation. When the Minister responds I shall be grateful to hear from him what the Government intend to do about what is the most blatant threat to the emergence of civil society and the kind of democratic institutions that we have been debating over the past few hours in your Lordships' House. Intimidation is the greatest single threat.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I have no doubt that the extension from 11 to 14 days, giving three extra days in which to scrutinise applications, will be a great help. It may ease the pressure on the chief electoral officer and his hard-worked staff. An even greater easement would be the decentralisation of the process, making full use of the regional or constituency returning officers who remain in place, not to mention no fewer than 26 district council officers who are similarly qualified.
  I simply cannot understand why the chief electoral officer refuses to consider this sensible course, but then complains of the burden imposed on him. I know that he feels very strongly because, in company with the then Northern Ireland Minister, one Nicholas Scott, he fought
  1240
  to deny the people of Northern Ireland the right to holiday votes many years ago. So obviously at that time he did not want to be greatly troubled.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made. Clearly, intimidation is a criminal offence. Where there is evidence of it then the RUC will act accordingly. Whether we can find more evidence that intimidation is taking place is rather more difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the Bradley Review on administering elections in Northern Ireland is fairly comprehensive. I believe that, in the context of the review, we can take fully into account the points made by the noble Lord.
  As regards the decentralisation of procedures suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, we are consulting on the administration of elections in Northern Ireland. It would be appropriate for his points to be taken into account as part of that consultation process.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, tightening up on absent votes is one of the best ways to restrict intimidation. It is only through an absent vote that the intimidator can see the ballot paper and make sure that what he wishes to be done is carried out or that the threat can be carried out. However, in the secrecy of the polling booth it is much more difficult to practise intimidation.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. As I have said, intimidation is an offence and if we can gather evidence of it the RUC will act accordingly. But there may be other aspects of intimidation which it would still be worthwhile considering as part of the review. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his comments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Local Elections (Northern Ireland)(Amendment) Order 1998
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Marketing
  9.58 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage marketing and its contribution to business success.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the usual channels for giving us valuable parliamentary time at the end of a long and arduous Session to permit us to have this important debate this evening. I am sorry that as it is so late certain Members

  1241
  of the House are unable to fulfil their commitment to us. I thank all noble Lords who have given up their valuable time to take part in the debate. Last, but by no means least, I thank those who will be making their maiden speeches tonight. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we are very much looking forward to their speeches. I do not believe that any of us will forget the anxiety that we felt at the time of our maiden speech, but I can say that the ordeal is not as frightening as it might appear. The whole House will be wishing the maiden speakers well.
  I turn to the matter in hand. I have framed this Unstarred Question deliberately wide in order to enable us to have a truly wide-ranging debate on this most important subject: marketing and its fundamental importance to business success. I believe that it is the first time that there has been such a debate in this House. There certainly has not been one during the seven years I have been a Member. That is both sad and fairly predictable. It is sad because it indicates that the subject is not as highly regarded as, say, animal welfare or salmon fishing in Scotland. It is predictable because I believe that governments, of whatever persuasion, have never been persuaded of the value of marketing. I hope that things are changing.
  This Government have shown themselves to be brilliantly successful marketers in the utterly professional way they planned their marketing campaign to the electors in the spring of 1997. They developed a new product; they listened to their customers; they organised excellent research programmes; and executed—I use the word advisedly—a campaign which really worked. If they applied the same strategy and tactics to the re-energising of manufacturing industry there would be no deep-seated concern about current exchange rate levels or interest rates. Perhaps it is not too cheeky for my first question to the Minister to be phrased thus: do the Government intend to lay as much emphasis on marketing while in government as they did while preparing for government?
  The Government should be convinced of the benefits that accrue from good marketing. The Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister himself were marketers of considerable ability in their previous existence. That gives me reason to hope that marketing will play a pivotal role in all their discussions both here and in the EC forum. Making the best use of talents is so important; the DTI now has at least two Ministers with strong and proven marketing talents. When are they going to use them to endorse the importance of marketing in the business life of this country?
  Noble Lords speaking in the debate tonight have wide and varied experience in marketing. The wording of the Question accepts that marketing contributes to business success. I am sure that each one of our speakers tonight subscribes to that. However, many businesses still do not realise its importance. Is there any way that the Government, using their powers of communication and persuasion, can get the message across?
  Immediately I realise that I am laying myself open to the charge: "if marketers are so clever why can they not market the concept of the fundamental importance of
  1242
  marketing so that every business has it front of mind?" That charge is valid, but not universally so. Here I must declare an interest. As President of the Chartered Institute of Marketing I know that the institute is unswerving in its dedication to preaching the importance of marketing.
  The Privy Council has recently approved the granting by the institute of individual chartered marketer status, which entails the continual uprating of skills; in other words, continual education and lifetime learning. Those chartered marketers operate throughout the country and will certainly provide a collective impetus for improving marketing standards in business. Recent research indicated that some 44 per cent. of company directors would be very keen to employ chartered marketers as their marketing directors, reinforcing the view that it is essential to condition ourselves to lifetime learning and the continual uprating of skills.
  Possibly one reason marketing is not given as high a profile as it should is that there is a basic misunderstanding of what it really is. I know that there is no such misunderstanding in the minds of the contributors to tonight's debate, but, for the record, perhaps it will not come amiss to state what I believe to be a good definition of marketing. Marketing is the management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying customer requirements profitably; in other words, getting the right goods, at the right quality, to the right customer at the right time and at the right price. What marketing is not is finding ways of getting rid of products produced without due regard either to markets or to consumer research.
  Marketing is the cerebral research and analytical function which anticipates consumer and customer needs and puts in train the process to supply those needs. Input into design, engineering, production, distribution, pricing and selling should all be within the ambit of the marketing remit in business. I am not saying that marketers must be engineers or production managers but they must be there when the original decisions about the products are actually taken. Good marketing can help in those functions and, indeed, should so help.
  A recent study by the Wharton Business School in the United States showed that the top 1,000 most successful US companies laid serious and heavy emphasis on marketing. We honestly need such emphasis here. It grieves me that so few of our companies have marketing on the agenda at their board meetings. It should certainly have equal pegging with finance and personnel because, not to put too fine a point on it, without marketing, there will be no finance and personnel because there will not be a business.
  The message of the importance of marketing is slowly getting through to British companies but there is still a long way to go. For example, 49 per cent. of the top 200 companies in this country have a marketing director on the board whereas 88 per cent. of the top 200 companies have a finance director on the board.
  This country has an incredibly successful record in design and innovation. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that I read somewhere

  1243
  recently that some 40 per cent. of the current most successful products in the world have been designed in this country. That is not bad for a country with 1 per cent. of the total world population. But who has benefited from that incredible performance? No, it is not us, at least not for the whole of the 40 per cent. Our designs have been taken up and exploited by other switched-on, marketing-alert countries and their manufacturing and distribution companies. I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort that his department will do all in its power to ensure that a greater proportion of that undoubted talent is exploited here.
  We lead by example in so many international fields. There are thousands of examples of excellent, state-of-the-art marketing achievements in the UK. But business in that context does not necessarily mean commerce or manufacturing industry. It embraces all manner of services—the arts, education and sport, just to mention a few. We have speakers on those subjects this evening.
  The Government are committed to highlighting excellence as a means of encouraging by example. Will the Minister give a commitment that he will do all he can to ensure that marketing is highlighted? I make three suggestions. I should be grateful for a response from the Government because I have indicated already to the Minister that I shall make those suggestions.
  First, a White Paper on competitiveness is expected some time in the near future. As recently as 2nd November, the Secretary of State said:
  "Competition drives innovation, customer service, competitiveness. It underpins British business success".
  When he launches the White Paper, it would be great if he mentioned the fact that marketing underpins British business success, and it would be even better if he gave a massive push for marketing in the White Paper. I do so hope that that will happen. If it does, this debate will have been worthwhile.
  One of the Government's initiatives has been the establishment of Business Links. The Business Link movement recognises that it has insufficient marketing experience and is probably scratching around looking for such expertise. The Chartered Institute of Marketing proposes that a series of regional centres of marketing excellence, using the expertise of both the marketing faculties of regional universities such as Warwick, Cranfield, Strathclyde, Manchester and the London Business School, and the excellent facilities provided by the institute itself in Maidenhead could be the pivot around which Business Links could operate. I have not gone into that suggestion in any great detail but it would seem to be logical and probably efficient and effective. Thirdly, I should like to see that benchmarking of companies by the DTI is continued. It started in 1996, and I would make a very strong point about benchmarking those 1,000 companies from a marketing point of view.
  I am very conscious that we have but a short time for tonight's debate and that I am already running over my time. I am not complaining about that; indeed, it is
  1244
  marvellous to have the opportunity to debate the issue. I know that there are many interesting speeches to come, so I am sure that we shall have a constructive and memorable debate. I greatly look forward to hearing every contribution.
  10.9 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for instigating this debate and also the Members from all sides of your Lordships' House for the warmth of the welcome and the help that I have received since my Introduction last November. The noble Baroness has by no means been least among those who have given me help, succour and a great deal of encouragement.
  I should also like to take this opportunity to trespass upon your Lordships' time to say a particular thank-you to the Attendants and to the Doorkeepers. They have been my constant companions in the last year. One of my finer qualities is not, I am afraid, powers of direction. They have benignly and indulgently watched me go round and round in circles before shepherding me safely in the right direction.
  That warmth is something upon which I now seek to draw for comfort in making my maiden speech. Some may question why it has taken me so long to rise to my feet to speak. I am one of 12 children and my family would, if asked—in fact, they would probably volunteer to do so—assure your Lordships that I seem to have an innate inability to do anything at what is usually considered by others to be the proper time. I finished my degree at the age of 20. I was called to the Bar at the age of 21; became the youngest woman to take Silk at the age of 35 and last year became the first Afro-Caribbean and youngest person to be elected as a Bencher of Middle Temple. My family had come to fear that such undue haste and lack of appreciation for what is due to age had become a fixed and well-established feature of my character. But I can assure your Lordships that I rise now halt of limb and burdened with my ever-increasing years safe in the knowledge that, on this occasion, I am neither the youngest nor the first but in all probability one of the last of my vintage to do so.
  I welcome this opportunity to address the issue of marketing in the United Kingdom as we approach the new millennium. During the time I have been privileged to be a Millennium Commissioner, I have had the advantage and the joy of seeing at first hand the extraordinary skill and wealth of talent which is evident throughout our country. I have been struck by the quality and diversity of the contributions made by all sectors of our community.
  Britain is now a truly multi-cultural society benefiting from peoples who hail from every corner of the globe. That diversity has enriched and changed the nature of who and what can truly be described as British. We have an internal multifaceted customer base with whom to explore new ideas. Creating products which address the needs and tastes of our disparate peoples enables our industry to develop the skills and sensitivity with which to assist our entrepreneurs to meet the challenges

  1245
  presented by the global market. We already export approximately £1 billion-worth of goods to the Caribbean region alone and the market share is increasing. It has grown by 5.5 per cent. since last year and there is no reason to suppose that this should decrease. A similar picture of growth should be true of both Africa and Asia.
  As in all marketing, getting the image right is vital to positioning Britain itself in our rapidly changing world markets. Therefore, exploiting our internal markets, taking advantage of our diversity and the richness of our people and marketing that globally can do nothing other than enhance the value of our markets, the market share and indeed the good opinion in which this country is held. I note that my four minutes are up. I shall not trespass further upon your Lordships' time, notwithstanding the several sheaves with which I had intended to delight you!
  10.14 p.m.
  Lord Saatchi: My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to follow the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. If I may say so, it is easy to discern from that speech why she has risen so brilliantly in her profession. The crisp insights that we heard in her brief four minutes are, I hope, only a taste of what your Lordships' House can look forward to on many occasions in the future.
  When my noble friend suggested that I might speak in this debate as a practitioner in marketing, of course I said yes, but I knew at the time that I would approach this subject with some trepidation because I stand before your Lordships as one whose profession perches perilously somewhere along the continuum between perception and reality.
  At first glance there seems to be no answer to the question of whether what we do in marketing is rooted in perception or reality. All of us know that the sensations produced by the same object can vary with the circumstances. Lukewarm water will appear hot to a cold hand, and cold to a hot hand. Colours look different under a microscope. Even the sun in the heavens we see only as it was eight minutes before.
  What is real? After 2000 years of human progress it seems that the real nature of things remains as inaccessible as it was to Aristotle.
  "Fire burns both here and in Persia"
  he wrote,
  "But what is thought just changes before our very eyes".
  The decision he said, "rests with perception".
  Even the perception of physical objects cannot be relied on. The great philosopher Descartes said he could not be sure that the table at which he was sitting was really there because the only thing about which he could be certain was that while he was thinking that the table might not be there after all, it was definite he was there looking at it, because he thought he was.
  It was in the third dream of René Descartes on 10th November 1619, in the small Bavarian village of Ulm, that he foresaw a universal method by which all human problems whether of science, law or politics,
  1246
  could be solved by the same method: the method of reason. The dream pointed to the illumination of the whole of knowledge by systematic logical computation.
  As your Lordships know, scholars in the humanities have long sought a set of general, testable, explanatory propositions applicable to the whole area of collective human behaviour. Men of business have been quick to see the commercial merit in adopting as a "science" what is now known as marketing. Yet today people are suspicious of marketing and its handmaiden advertising, and it is easy to see why. When Descartes himself doubted the existence of the table at which he was sitting, or his own existence for that matter, he knew who to blame—the "demon" which deceived his reason so that he took false statements to be self-evidently true. Nothing, he said, escapes the demon's reach.
  Some people see advertising and marketing as these arch-deceivers—mind-altering substances on which more money is spent than on all the drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry put together. Yet today most people perceive themselves to be better off to buy advertised goods. Is that belief an illusion? Take detergents, for example. At first sight Ariel and Persil are similar products in different boxes. Therefore the levels of loyalty they command from their adherents must be irrational. The owners of these two brands, Unilever and Procter & Gamble, dominate the global detergent market with their images for these brands. That is proof, the critics would say, of the power of advertising to control the public mind.
  I cannot deny that the object of the exercise with these brands is to build their reputations so that their customers are loyal and will refuse all substitutes. However, it is precisely from the competition to create those image monopolies that better products and services emerge. Competition through advertising for the favour of consumers helps to create the pressure for innovation. That is why advertising, which is usually seen as a weapon that helps only the advertiser, makes one of its least recognised contributions to society. It is a two-edged weapon. It acts on the told, but reacts on the teller because it focuses such attention on his product claims that every effort has to be made to make them true.
  It is important to say that the thinking process—the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to the cerebral process—involved in developing marketing programmes has an excellent effect on the idea or thing being advanced. Its action is that of a threshing machine; it sorts the intellectual wheat from the chaff. I assure noble Lords that those thoughts arise from a process that is at least similar to the Darwinian method of scientific discovery: tests and refutations, selection by elimination, so that only the fittest theories survive. The result flows from a developed carefulness and attention to detail, a habit of being clear, a sceptical perusal of alleged facts—
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords. I think that the noble Lord has overrun his time.
  Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am describing the admirable qualities of scholarship which I see as

  1247
  typifying marketing. That is how marketing came to be the conspicuous feature of our age and why it deserves every support from our Government.
  10.21 p.m.
  Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge: My Lords, it is with a sense of awe and trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships for the first time. Although I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her pertinent comments, they have done nothing to alleviate that feeling. That is not to say I have been without due preparation. I am for ever grateful for the warm welcome, kind advice and sage guidance your Lordships have extended. I must also recognise the immense courtesy and assistance received from the officers and staff of your Lordships' House.
  One noble Lord explained how transition to this House should be made by relating the story of the Zen Buddhist who came to London and set himself up as a hot dog seller. After the first transaction, his customer turned back and said, "Hey, that was a £20 note. Where's the change?" "Sir", said the Buddhist, serenely, "change must come from within." I shall try to follow that advice.
  The opportunity to make my maiden speech by contributing to this important debate is much appreciated. The deregulated and liberalised markets we now work in at home and overseas place the customer, quite rightly, as the sole arbiter of business success or failure, with all the implications that has for competitiveness in terms of producing efficiency and value for money. It means that companies have to get to grips with their customers—both actual and potential—like never before. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, described what this means in practical boardroom and workplace terms. I am grateful to her for the articulate way she defined marketing. I would further observe that marketing is the process of achieving that ultimate business goal of marrying the willing seller to the willing buyer in the most efficient, cost-effective way possible. Every employee of a company should consider himself or herself a part of the total marketing effort.
  Marketing is different from other strategic methods because it is linked to long-term growth and development through the customer. By their very nature, marketing-based business strategies call for thoughtful investment for sustained (and sustainable) development and they have clear implications for employment, job security and broad wealth creation.
  Britain has a good number of world-class businesses, but there are also many—too many—under-performing companies. We must recognise, as other countries have already, the importance of marketing to future success. The agenda set by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has marketing, in the form of innovation, enterprise and investments, at its core. I am greatly encouraged by his policy initiative.
  My belief is that to translate policy intent into tangible success in every sector and at every level of business we need to install best-practice marketing as a
  1248
  vital characteristic—a hallmark—of British commerce and industry and especially to benefit the small and medium enterprise sector. The proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would contribute significantly to that objective, and I commend them to the Minister.
  I also support the suggestion of underpinning new enterprise policies with a government-backed programme for the promotion and recognition of world-class marketing in our commerce and industry. Much good work is being carried out to encourage greater competitiveness through marketing excellence by the Chartered Institute of Marketing and also by its fellow bodies, the Marketing Council and the Marketing Society.
  A partnership linking the powerful business momentum that those organisations are creating with equally powerful enterprise policies from government can, and, one hopes, will, bring about significant acceleration to Britain's drive for global competitive success.
  10.26 p.m.
  Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure for me to congratulate my noble friend Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge on his outstanding maiden speech. My only regret is that my noble friend was not given more time to elaborate on this topical subject.
  My noble friend's distinguished business career, particularly his chairmanship of British Airways and board membership of several of the top public companies in Britain, as well as his chairmanship of the London Development Partnership and his having previously been a board member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, makes him extremely well qualified to speak in this debate. We hope to hear a lot more from him in the future.
  I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for having given us this opportunity to have, as she described it in her letter to us, a constructive debate. As a consultant to Merrill Lynch, and having been an equities analyst and later an equities broker, I am always acutely mindful of the marketing mix of the "4 P's"—product, price, promotion and place. However, on such a broad subject, I wish to focus my few remarks on the value of British designs and brands.
  There is no doubt that the age of the global village is totally upon us, accentuated by the Internet, electronic commerce, the onset of the euro and global trading. As our goods and services become more accessible worldwide, Britain must obviously do everything it can to maintain its competitiveness.
  Being competitive on price is not enough. We need to look for new ways to compete. Never has there been such a need to focus on the ownership of intellectual trade marks and brands. These are important to the prosperity not merely of companies but of the British economy as a whole.
  While Britain has traditionally prided itself on the quality of its goods and services, there is unfortunately now evidence to suggest that this frequently equates with being expensive rather than providing value for

  1249
  money. I do not say that all British goods are expensive; obviously many goods and services in this country provide excellent value. But our negative reputation often precedes us. To counterbalance that, more needs to be done through effective marketing to enhance and promote the appeal of British goods and services.
  Although the Government have promoted incentives, quality standards, ISO 9000 quality management systems, and research and development in the fields of science and technology, they may possibly have failed to understand the value of true ownership of the revenue streams controlled by brands and reputations.
  Sadly, over the past few years the British economy has seen an unprecedented change in ownership of several of its well-known brand heritage, which includes the loss of such names as Rover and Range Rover to BMW, Holland and Holland to the French, and many other notable brand names. In a sense, the international community has seen Britain as a pantry of unexploited brand opportunities, ripe for the picking, to be exploited for the traditional English or British value that has such unique appeal. If British companies do not learn how the art of branding can add value to their products and services, they will fail, first, to capture the imagination and, secondly, to capture sales in competitive world markets.
  Good engineering and good functional design alone are no longer sufficient to bring a product to market successfully. Products have to be attractive, appealing, relevant, compelling and, most importantly, effectively marketed. With the Internet becoming the world's most accessible market place, the need for more effective marketing is increasing. I hope the Minister can give us some encouragement and say what measures the Government can employ to enhance and promote the appeal of British goods and services worldwide.
  10.31 p.m.
  Lord King of Wartnaby: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. I commend to you his remarks and those of the noble Baroness. Although too modest ever to admit anything of the kind, the noble Lord, to misquote Sir William S. Gilbert, is the very model of a modern marketeer.
  I have cause to know. I remember walking into an office in British Airways. On the wall was a large sign which read, "The Customer is King". Underneath a wag had inscribed, "He is also the Chairman". The point is that it was with the noble Lord as Chief Executive that British Airways was transformed from an ailing state-owned organisation into one of the most successful and profitable airlines in the world.
  The transformation was achieved by emphasising again and again and again the primacy of the market: the need—to quote the noble Baroness—to identify, anticipate and satisfy the requirements of the customer. It is as simple as that.
  The noble Lord's contribution, more than anything else, was to transform the quality of service we were delivering to a high standard our staff were proud of, our customers enjoyed and our shareholders—first
  1250
  government and then, after privatisation, the public—and the City reaped the benefit. Successful marketing is knowing what the customer wants and delivering it.
  In a slight aside, if I may, some of the marketing and spin doctoring in cool Britannia worries me. Our nation is going through the most major constitutional change since the Edwardian era. Many of the changes proposed at Westminster and around the UK look badly thought out but appear popular and seem to reflect the feeling of the times. I just wonder if all these changes are going to lead to a more stable and united Kingdom, or will they lead to division in a few years' time? The customer and the voter seem happy now, but will they be happy in the future?
  However, I had better drift back to the main thrust of my remarks, some of which I have deleted. In my lifetime I have seen introduced into general use the motor car, the aeroplane, the telephone. Each has widened the horizon of our lives. Today we stand on the threshold of a marketing revolution more far-reaching than those brought about by any of these inventions. We are in a new world of electronic communication and interactive digital television every bit as breathtaking as that beheld by Cortez when he first sighted the Pacific Ocean, silent upon a peak in Darien.
  It is vital for our future prosperity that we in this country understand and exploit the market opportunities which the new technologies are creating at a dizzying speed. This will not just happen. Government must give a lead. Our educational institutions, including the universities, both old and new, must play their part and ensure that our young people are prepared and equipped for this brave new world.
  I welcome the emphasis given by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the importance of the quest for greater competitiveness across British industry. It is imperative that we begin to close the gap in productivity growth between us and our neighbours and competitors.
  For these reasons I look forward to reading the forthcoming White Paper and I entirely endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness. We are indebted to her for introducing so timely a debate upon a subject of such importance to our economic well-being.
  10.36 p.m.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for introducing the debate and agree with her that marketing cannot be considered in isolation. The products and services being marketed have to live up to the promise of the marketing. Too often good marketing over-sells itself by promoting a product or service in an attractive and beguiling way, and the customers then feel duped when they find there is no substance. Then marketing becomes hype, and hype only does damage. The success of New Labour's marketing campaign, to which the noble Baroness referred, is due to the fact that we have a very good product.
  The main point I should like to make is the way information technology is changing marketing. The noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Marshall, touched on

  1251
  this point. Information technology is dramatically cutting the cost of access to and communication with customers. The most quoted example of this kind of marketing is Amazon Books, which is the most popular shopping site measured by volume of traffic. But what is the second most popular shopping site? The answer is Blue Mountain Arts. In researching this debate I found to my amazement that Blue Mountain Arts attracts some 6 per cent. of all Internet traffic in the USA. It provides greetings, thank-yous and invitations for every conceivable occasion. They are animated, pictorial or just words in enormous variety. But the creativity and innovation do not end there.
  The extraordinary thing is that they are all free. You just download from the website. Its income comes from advertising and providing information about the huge number of people who use the site. I do not know whether this is a marketing dream or a marketing nightmare, but the marketing implications are enormous.
  Understanding the new technology and media is probably the biggest challenge facing marketing today. Perhaps this is how business can start to cut its huge marketing cost base and so become more competitive. So I hope that the Government will continue with their IT For All scheme and nurture electronic commerce and marketing. I hope also that regulators will see that the price of high capacity land lines will be brought down. In the USA they are half the price of British lines.
  The Management and Best Practice Directorate at the DTI has an important role to play, not only in diffusing best practice but also in trying to close the huge disparities which exist in marketing skills from company to company. A report last week forecast that by 2003 5 per cent. of all global sales would be via the Internet. We want UK industry to have a large part of it.
  10.39 p.m.
  Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge: My Lords, I too am most grateful to my noble friend, Lady O'Cathain, for initiating this debate because it gives me the opportunity to highlight the revolution that has taken place in the business of sport.
  When I first played for England in Australia in the 1950s, black and white television was in its infancy. There was no coverage, no advertising, no sponsorship—just a crackling radio commentary for an hour at the end of the day. Who could possibly have envisaged that sport would become the major commercial activity throughout the world that it is today?
  Astonishingly, the sports media generate such substantial economic activity that sport has become one of the largest industries in the world, the eleventh largest industry in the US. In Britain, sport accounts for over 1.7 per cent. of GNP and employs half a million people—probably more.
  A real concern is that the United Kingdom is at a serious disadvantage compared to its international competitors for events such as the various world cup events we stage, the world swimming championships and, we hope, the Olympic Games. Other countries tax
  1252
  international sporting events more favourably, putting the UK at a serious disadvantage. Yet it is these events which provide the resources for sport and the international sports federations to reinvest in the development of their activity, much of which takes place at the grass-roots level.
  I appeal to the Minister to give fresh consideration to tax exemption on the profits of all international sports events; to apply VAT zero-rating on admissions to international sports events; and to provide exemption from "foreign entertainers withholding tax" for international sports events held in the United Kingdom. I am told that the cost to the Exchequer would, in relative terms, be minimal.
  I am sorry to have to say it, but sport continues to be the Cinderella of UK policy, playing second fiddle to the arts. The full potential of this remarkable marketing tool remains unfulfilled in the United Kingdom. Its power to promote Britain is enormous and will increase year by year. It should, I suggest, be a central plank in government marketing of the UK internationally.
  Happily, people still love coming to compete in, and watch, top-quality sport in the UK—provided the facilities for competitor and spectator are up to date. We have so much to gain if we give it our full attention and get it right. For example, the extremely successful Euro 1996 brought 280,000 visiting spectators and media, spending over £120 million in eight cities and surrounding regions and generating an extra 4,000 full-time equivalent employment years. The total economic impact of this event was calculated to be £195 million.
  Internationally, sport is a key part of the process of globalisation and the creation of a global culture. Britain has a unique place in all this and we must seize every opportunity. In conclusion, I say to the Minister that I can think of no better way of marketing this country than through our sport.
  10.43 p.m.
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, I have no doubt that, if one has a worthwhile product, or, in modern management-speak, a worthwhile customer proposition, marketing can make all the difference between modest progress and lasting success. I thank the noble Baroness who initiated the debate. I very much agree with her definition of "marketing". In the interests of time, I shall not repeat it, but I should like to add to it something that has not so far been mentioned. I believe that marketing includes every conceivable way in which the producer or marketer is in touch or communication with the customer. It is a matter of getting to grips with the customer, as the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, said in his maiden speech. Therefore, it includes not just the obvious forms of marketing such as paid-for advertising, promotional methods of all kinds and shop front displays but ensuring that there are well trained, helpful and pleasant staff on duty front-of-house and on the telephone who take a positive attitude to customer complaints from which they are willing to learn.
  Good customer service in every conceivable way is one of the most powerful competitive weapons that exists. No amount of fine words in expensively

  1253
  produced brochures will make up for delayed delivery, failure to answer inquiries or a defensive attitude to justifiable complaints.
  The Question of the noble Baroness asks what the Government can do to encourage marketing and its contribution to business success. She has listed a number of matters. I liked her comment about re-energising manufacturing industry and her suggestion that the White Paper on competitiveness to emerge in a week or two should place emphasis on marketing.
  If I mention just a few negative matters it is because of the shortness of time and not because I am in disagreement with the noble Baroness. It is the job of government to provide a framework so that marketing at home and abroad is honest, informative and does not amount to unfair competition and distort the marketplace to the disadvantage of the customer. The Government and agencies such as the Office of Fair Trading need to monitor whatever legal or self-regulatory rules are in place about misleading advertisements, the misuse of others' brand names and how price reductions and so-called bargains are offered.
  We have a system of mixed governmental and self-regulatory control of various forms of marketing. I do not suppose that anyone who has taken part in the debate, even if he has not spoken about this aspect of marketing, will disagree that the Government must provide some kind of framework. When in the next Session this House receives the Financial Services and Markets Bill no doubt it will debate where the line should be drawn between government regulation and self-regulation. It is most important that we get it right. Where that line should be drawn is a matter for debate. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister can say this evening on where in general the line should be drawn.
  10.47 p.m.
  Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said that this was the first time this subject had been raised in the time that she has been here. I believe that I am the longest serving Member of this House to speak in this debate. In the 22 years that I have been here this very important subject has not arisen and it is long overdue.
  I spent 48 years of my working life in marketing. I am still going strong. I began as a salesman and continued up the greasy pole until I decided to become independent. Since then I have been involved in marketing but always overseas.
  This is a vital subject. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain cited the success of the Labour Party campaign. I entirely agree. However, I believe that an even more remarkable success was that of the Liberal Democrats who managed by very cunning targeting to achieve a huge increase in the number of seats with a lesser number of votes. That revealed great skill in marketing for which they are to be commended, even though some of us did not necessarily want that to happen. Certainly the party to which I belong has a lot to learn from both those exercises, and I hope that they will do so.
  1254
  I turn to my own personal experience. I should like to cite two examples from a very different world. I spent some years of my life in the perfumery and cosmetic business. That is a business entirely concerned with marketing, almost exclusively. We did not have any "bean counters" on the board; they were confined to keeping the figures. We started from the top down.
  We worked out what product we wanted to sell and to whom. We then worked out, eventually, whether we could produce, package, merchandise and advertise it. If the cost price meant that it was not possible to produce the product, we forgot all about it and tried something else. The whole process depended entirely on marketing.
  We used advertising a great deal. I can recall having been a client of a number of companies which have subsequently been absorbed into the great Saatchi empire. However, I left that business some time ago. That is an example of how such matters develop.
  At the other end of the scale, when I was subsequently an adviser to a number of different companies, I found myself advising companies in the heavy engineering and manufacturing field. I found that they worked entirely the other way around. To a certain extent that point was reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. They had been somewhat conditioned by selling to nationalised state domestic enterprises—mostly monopolies—and tended to work from the bottom up, on a cost-plus basis. Therefore, when one tried to direct their attention to selling overseas, it was hardly surprising that their products were grossly overpriced and never sold.
  That is a good example of how one must work entirely from a customer oriented base. That point was brought out most cogently by the speeches of both noble Lords involved in their different capacities with British Airways. As my noble friend Lord King said about his friend and colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, British Airways has applied that concept intensively.
  To go back to the beginning, my noble friend Baroness O'Cathain stated that marketing is the key to business success. That is absolutely right. It is a subject in which the Government become involved at their peril. It is best left to the people at the sharp end who know what they are doing. Governments usually become involved in bureaucracy, which does not work in marketing, whereas political parties need it.
  Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, noble Lords who have spoken have been absolutely right to both congratulate and thank my noble friend Baroness O'Cathain for introducing this groundbreaking debate. Perhaps I may say also that we have listened to two most distinguished maiden speeches from speakers who both spoke of their awe and trepidation. I believe that the House is entitled to say that they are also—although too modest to do so—both entitled to speak with a certain pride. The House will look forward to distinguished contributions from both of today's maiden speakers.
  The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, made some criticisms in his speech with which I agree about our failures in the past. I intend to do likewise. However, it is worth reminding ourselves here in Britain that we

  1255
  have not always failed. Indeed, my noble friend Lord King of Wartnaby and the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, have each in their turn presided over one of the great marketing successes in the United Kingdom. I think that we should remind ourselves, too, that if one were to list the 50 major transnational corporations inside the European Union, the United Kingdom would have more names on that list than any other country in the Union. Let us not get into the usual business of knocking Britain. However, at the same time it is worth recalling that too often our failure to understand the importance of marketing has meant that we have let down British inventors, British innovation and British engineering skills.
  I give one example, of which the whole House will be aware. It was a British firm, Rover, which moved the old Land Rover, with which we were all so familiar, to being the Range Rover—a real breakthrough in the concept of motoring. Yet today that company does not enjoy the share of the market in those types of vehicles that that incredible concept which it pioneered rightly deserved. I believe that that was a failure of marketing.
  How can we improve our performance? Like many noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House I am reluctant to extend the writ of the Government into any field. I say that not just of this Government, but of any government. However, my noble friend Lady O'Cathain was right to draw our attention to the Chartered Institute of Marketing. If the DTI is able to work in partnership with the institute to help small and medium-sized businesses in the way my noble friend suggests, and to set bench-mark standards, that is the sensible way to proceed.
  Perhaps I may refer to the final secret of marketing, if there is such a thing. My noble friend Lord Saatchi gave us a lesson in that. I had the privilege of being in the room when my noble friend was appointed to market the Conservative Party in the mid-1970s. He will agree with me, as I think will noble Lords opposite, that the starting point in marketing is a good product and a good service. But then one has to tell the truth about that product and that service. Quite often those who have invented the product or made the service, as was the case with my party in the mid-1970s, are not the right people to convey that message to their fellow citizens. In that regard we have to be grateful to my noble friend. No doubt noble Lords opposite have others similarly skilled to whom they owe thanks for marketing their product.
  Finally, my noble friend Lord King of Wartnaby is right to tell the House that we stand on the brink of the information technology revolution. The whole House will be eager to hear from the Minister as to how the White Paper will reflect the importance of marketing to British industry; and the way in which we shall use that in the new information technology revolution which lies ahead.
  10.56 p.m.
  Viscount Thurso: My Lords, from these Benches I congratulate the two maidens. The brevity of my
  1256
  welcome is only matched by the sincerity, but with a time limit of four minutes one cannot pay too long a tribute. The noble Baroness is welcome and I am sure she will make a tremendous contribution to your Lordships' House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, for his kind breakfast this morning, which I very much enjoyed with 250 other people. I am sure he too will make a great contribution.
  I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness and congratulate her on bringing forward this Question in your Lordships' House. When I first saw the Motion for debate I asked myself what there was to debate. It is such a statement of the obvious that I wondered where the questions would come from. However, as I reflected I realised how sagacious and perceptive the noble Baroness had been. The debate has proved how much the subject needs to be aired. I am slightly shocked to find from the noble Viscount that in 22 years it has never been aired in your Lordships' House.
  Marketing is the key to business success and productivity. In this country we have the culture of the finance director. Perhaps alone among the many developed industrial countries, we look for our chief executives among our finance directors. I am constantly looking over my shoulder at my finance director wondering when he will take my job. But in America, for example, the chief financial officer does not necessarily become the chief executive officer. It is very much a route chosen in this country. It has a rather black and white balance sheet approach. We do not always see the longer term investment that is required by marketeers.
  When I first began in business as an apprentice commis in the Berkeley kitchens a long time ago, the Savoy Group had no marketing department. About three or four years later a gentleman was employed who was known as the business promotions manager, but no one knew what he did—except that he had a lot of free lunches. There was the press office, but its job was entirely to make sure that the press did not have too much access to customers of the Savoy. I am happy to say that the Savoy has moved a long way and, as I moved up in the company and on out of the company, I came more and more by sheer simple practical experience to understand the vital role of marketing. First came sales, but later I grew to understand the all-encompassing role that marketing needs to play in a business. Like any convert, I now display religious zeal.
  One or two of your Lordships may be aware of my current business. Marketing is right at the centre of it. It has pre-eminence over the finance department, much to the annoyance of my finance director. It is involved in our human resources department. I believe that the vision we have for serving our customers is so important that it is part of what we do in our recruitment campaign and it is an integral part of our training. Therefore, marketing and human resources work closely together. We research precisely what it is that our customers want and we continue researching to see whether or not we have satisfied their aspirations. The noble Lord, Lord King of Wartnaby, has already said that the customer is king. I have that very same motto in my office. That is the one rule that exists in my business. I believe that

  1257
  much of the success it now enjoys is due to the fact that we developed a vision for the business that was conceived out of our customers' wishes, which we have prosecuted irrespective of all other considerations.
  One of the anxieties that I have about British business is that on many boards—I am on a number of plc boards—we all talk the talk but when one gets down to a business one does not necessarily find that the talk is walked. I am not going to say anything about that, but I am employed by British Airways to lecture to its middle management on leadership skills. Sometimes what they say to me at those meetings does not always accord with what the boardroom might think they say. However, I shall leave it at that.
  In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness made one crack about the fact that salmon fishing appears to get more debating time in your Lordships' House than many other subjects. As one of the repertory company that appears in the House to debate salmon fishing with monotonous regularity, may I say to her that there is a link between salmon fishing and marketing: both share the same aspiration, which is to fish where the fish are and use the right fly.
  11.2 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join with others of your Lordships who have thanked my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for initiating this debate on what is a very important and clearly a most neglected topic. I was told recently that the convention of this House is that only the speaker following the maiden speakers is meant to thank them. I am absolutely delighted that so many of your Lordships have done so and I am taking the liberty of doing likewise.
  I speak as a longtime member of what was called the Institute of Marketing. I am just one very small example of the wide and diverse range of qualifications and experience of the real world outside the Palace of Westminster that especially abounds in your Lordships' House, and has abounded in greater amounts this evening.
  I began by teaching marketing techniques such as how to discover what the customers want and how to create empathy with a potential customer. The noble Lords, Lord Marshall and Lord Borrie, said how important that is. I taught how you managed to help the customer buy from you something that they want and not to go out and sell something that they do not want, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said. There is the need for the people producing a product to know how to promote it and the need to advertise it. There is also the need to help people to feel that it is something that they require. There are also the various methods of closing a sale; post-selling and helping the customer to believe that they made the absolutely right decision in buying your product. There is also the setting of personal goals and objectives and self-motivation. I believe that self-motivation is an important part of it and all good salesmen need a lot of motivation and re-motivation, especially after a bad day has lowered their confidence. I recall one very successful insurance agent who used to drive to work every day listening to
  1258
  tapes such as "How to influence people". When I asked him why he continued to do so, he said, "I need to pump myself up every single morning".
  Then disproving the aphorism that "those who can, do, and those who can't, teach", I set up my own very successful marketing business which operated in the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia. I have taken a few minutes of your Lordships' time to explain my qualifications because I would like to make one special point.
  Although it is absolutely true that good salesmen and marketeers are born, not made, just like accomplished musicians, carpenters, sportsmen or indeed members of many trades and professions, all those instinctive skills must have proper training and, equally, experience. Simply taking a young person, giving him a job in whatever area and telling him about the products on offer does not turn him into a salesman. Businesses which take the trouble to train their sales staff and supervise them can enjoy the dividends of the extra business that they will generate.
  However, small firms have neither the time nor the resources to take on the whole burden of training sales people, especially as no sooner have they done so any salesman worth his salt will take his expertise off to more lucrative opportunities. Therefore, there is a strong case for including marketing and salesmanship in the many commercial courses that are taught in our schools, colleges and universities. I very much hope that the Government will encourage all educational establishments to do so.
  Your Lordships will see that I am turning my pages quickly. I am afraid that the one thing I have not done in marketing is to tell people to keep to time. I have just noticed that I have taken four minutes and am only about half way through my speech.
  I conclude by saying that marketing is not simply the work of a sales person behind a counter. It includes the people who need the knowledge and skill to sell everything. Marketing includes making a product or providing a service, listening to customers, and carrying out research. It must not be forgotten that no matter how good the product is it needs to be sold. Perhaps the days are gone when you could say, in the words of Emerson, that if you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door. Someone may copy it and try to sell it cheaper than you unless you happen to be the better salesman.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are in favour of good marketing skills; that as part of their programme of education they will ensure that money is invested. That is what it will be; an investment in training people in all the skills of marketing, which are no less important than any other commercial skill, as noble Lords have said tonight.
  I hope that in due course we will hear about tax incentives for all manner of training and research and development. Investment is paid for out of profits and profits come from being competitive in the marketplace. The Government can ensure that British industry is

  1259
  competitive and has the money to invest by removing the impediments which take money out of investment budgets and simply add it to social engineering costs.
  11.8 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I gladly join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on choosing the topic for today's debate and on the way she introduced it. I also congratulate her on her appointment as president of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, to which she referred. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I was a member of the institute for many years. Indeed, I was a member of the Institute of Marketing and Sales Management before it became the Institute of Marketing and then the Chartered Institute of Marketing. The noble Baroness did well not only in the way she introduced the subject but also in the range of expert speakers whom she encouraged to take part. In particular, she encouraged two excellent maiden speeches from my noble friend Lady Scotland and the noble Lord, Lord Marshall.
  My noble friend Lady Scotland was right to draw attention to the marketing assets of diversity and, in particular, diversity in a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society. There are lessons for all of us to be learned from what she said.
  The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, played a key role in setting up the Marketing Council. He deserves our congratulations on that; his expertise was evident in his speech. I am only sorry that other noble Lords took away my chance to refer to the customer as king.
  Like the noble Baroness, I have been involved in marketing all my life. I was a professional market researcher and social researcher for nearly 40 years. In addition to being a member of the Institute of Marketing, I was also, many years ago, chairman of my own market research society and I am retiring as president of that society next week. Therefore, it cannot be said that I am speaking in any way for the market research business. But it is recognised as being one of the core disciplines in marketing more generally.
  I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her complimentary remarks about new Labour's use of marketing. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, referred to our key seats strategy, and that of the Liberal Democrats who, I think, copied it from us. We successfully targeted key seats and we used our effort, as he said, to fish where the fish are. It will be seen at the next election that the Labour Party will successfully build up customer loyalty which we intend to result in repeat purchasing.
  The answer to the noble Baroness's question is that the Labour Party itself, I understand, will continue to use those marketing skills which she praised so highly. But also—and this is a quite separate answer—the Government are keenly appreciative of the need for marketing this country in the most general, as well as in particular, senses. We understand what marketing is about and we shall apply it to government policies, making the correct and proper distinction between party and government.
  1260
  The Government want to develop a partnership with business. We need to do that because after all the Government are the biggest single business in the whole country. In his recent speech to the CBI conference, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
  "The partnership I want to build is one where business and government are clear about their respective responsibility. both to each other and the wider community".
  That does not mean that the Government are going to impose a nanny state on the marketing community in this country. There are contributions which government can make and I shall deal with those later. But we respect the professionalism of marketing and all the skills which exist in the marketing sector. As the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, said, we recognise that there are different jobs for marketing and government.
  However, my noble friend Lord Borrie was right also to draw attention to what is the key element of all of that. It is communication—taking notice of the customer and listening to the customer. Customer service, as he rightly put it. That is what we intend to promote in our own activities and what we intend to encourage business to promote in its activities.
  We recognise that marketing covers a wide range of specialist skills and disciplines. Successful businesses are closely integrated. The marketing function is no longer isolated or remote but it is the key driver. I do not know—and I do not think I very much care—what are the professional origins of those in boardrooms as long as they are good at their jobs. It may well be, as some have suggested, that we have too many people with financial backgrounds but I do not know many people with financial backgrounds nowadays who have not been steeped in marketing and respect for customers. Fundamentally, what makes a good manager—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, had it right here—is the respect for reason, for rational thinking and for rational analysis. That is what I believe marketing can contribute.
  It is certainly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, said, that we do have companies in Britain which are champions for marketing and whose marketing is both memorable and effective. If he will allow me to say "British Airways and Virgin" without drawing breath, I think he will understand the need that I have to be impartial in these matters. I am not convinced that we have underestimated the importance of product design and development. Indeed, that starts right from the very beginning.
  The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, referred to some of the failures of marketing. It is quite true that many UK businesses do lag behind the average performance of our strongest competitors in other countries. It is that difference between the best and the poorest which we must devote our attention to. One of the ways of doing so is the encouragement of professionalism in marketing. We have a strong private sector infrastructure supporting the development, status and professionalism of marketing; for example, the Marketing Council, the Chartered Institute of Marketing and the various specialist bodies, including the Market Research Society, representing the advertising and direct-sales sectors.

  1261
  Without those professionals, we recognise that we will not have the core skills to present our products effectively. That is why it is so important that we have the initiative of the chartered marketer with its emphasis on life-long learning and on quality control to which my noble friend Lord Borrie referred. After all, it is in the context and under the discipline of professionalism that we can do what the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, rightly said; namely, to tell the truth.
  I move on now to say something about the Government's support for marketing. This is not in any way a partisan analysis. I recognise the support given by the previous government—for example, the consultancy project initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, in 1988 which had a marketing consultancy strand which worked very well. There was also the "Managing in the 90s" campaign which ran from 1990 to 1997 which developed marketing workshops and disseminated best practice guidance and case studies. Therefore, I deny the contention made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that governments are not persuaded of the value of marketing. I believe that both this Government and the previous government have been.
  The noble Baroness referred to Business Links. Advice is now available to small and medium enterprises on marketing issues through this scheme. There are 85 Business Links now open with 240 outlets. They do not all have specialist marketing advice in-house, but they do have the ability and the responsibility to refer to local quality assured consultants such as the Chartered Institute of Marketing members. Of course, they also have access to training and development on marketing issues. We are supporting the Marketing Council's project "Grow with Marketing" in which a group of Business Links are working with the council to create marketing champions and thereby raise marketing expertise. We are working with project partners to see that this is taken up across the whole Business Links network.
  In answer to the second question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—in fact, she asked me three questions but I cannot deal with them in the right order—we are indeed very interested in her suggestion about developing links with local colleges and universities. The noble Lord, Lord King, also made a similar point in that respect. I shall be asking the Department of Trade and Industry to consider that suggestion.
  Reference was made to the DTI's UK Benchmarking Service. Companies using it are able to benchmark their marketing expenditure against the service's database. The answer to the noble Baroness's third question is that a specialist marketing module has been devised within the benchmarking index. It has been built up by the British Marine Equipment Council for use by its members using the service and is starting to be used more widely by some Business Links.
  Other government support for marketing is quite widespread. Under the DTI's sector challenge initiative, 186 projects have been given grants totalling £35 million for raising competitiveness. Some 64 per
  1262
  cent. of those specify the need for better marketing opportunities and marketing skills. There is a whole range of projects for marketing for exporters to which I do not have time to refer. I refer to the development of the DTI web site. My noble friend Lord Haskel was right to refer to the need to master electronic marketing. I refer to export promotion services more generally which include marketing scholarships to the best business schools in the USA and Canada.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, referred to the need for tax exemptions, in particular for sport. As noble Lords who listened to the debate on hotel accommodation last week will know, we are not very sympathetic to demands for tax exemptions in particular sectors. But, of course, where business support for sport is a business decision—in other words, it is designed to increase profits and market share—then it is a proper business expense and is recognised as such in our taxation system.
  For the future we are building on the Fit for the Future Best Practice Campaign. We are collaborating with the CBI on taking forward its ideas on that. That was welcomed in the pre-Budget report two weeks ago. The benefits to business of adopting best practice in marketing should be an important part of that campaign and therefore we welcome the discussions that have taken place between the Marketing Council and the CBI and hope this will lead to a strong, best practice in marketing message.
  As regards the competitiveness White Paper—here I come to the first question of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—of course I cannot anticipate what will be in the White Paper but I would be astonished if the Secretary of State did not stress the importance of our need to compete in today's competitive markets when he publishes the White Paper in due course.
  I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we can no longer rely on the motto that if you make a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door. We recognise the importance of marketing as a driver for competitiveness. We have some excellent exemplar countries and some world-class players in this field. We look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the Marketing Council, the Chartered Institute of Marketing and other professional bodies to encourage more companies to use marketing within their business strategy to achieve business success.

  City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
  A message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders:
  That the promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [H.L.] 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;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the Present Session;
  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 up the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That the Petition relating to 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;
  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;
  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;
  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;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  Regional Development Agencies Bill
  Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
  Returned from the Commons earlier this day with their disagreement to the Lords amendments insisted on, with their amendment in lieu not insisted on but with a further amendment proposed in lieu thereof.
  House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Hereditary Peers
  Hereditary Peers
  Kurdish Community, London: Response to Letter
  Kurdish Community, London: Response to Letter
  Parole Decision Making
  Parole Decision Making
  Central America: Debt Remission
  Central America: Debt Remission
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Health Council, 12 November
  Health Council, 12 November
  Training Support Programme Budget
  Training Support Programme Budget
  Airport Night Flight Restrictions
  Airport Night Flight Restrictions
  New Towns Pension Fund
  New Towns Pension Fund
  Street Furniture and Abnormal Loads
  Street Furniture and Abnormal Loads
  Burma: Refugees
  Burma: Refugees
  The British Council
  The British Council
  Closure of Diplomatic Posts
  Closure of Diplomatic Posts
  Sandline International: Ownership
  Sandline International: Ownership
  NATO
  NATO
  Caspian Oil Pipeline Routes
  Caspian Oil Pipeline Routes
  UNITA: Embassy Contacts
  UNITA: Embassy Contacts
  Human Rights Covenants: Ratification Records
  Human Rights Covenants: Ratification Records
  Intellectual Property, Scotland
  Intellectual Property, Scotland
  Scotland: Analysis of Standard Grade Results
  Scotland: Analysis of Standard Grade Results
  Northern Ireland: Arrests under PACE
  Northern Ireland: Arrests under PACE
  Northern Ireland: Prison Deaths
  Northern Ireland: Prison Deaths
  Northern Ireland: Analysis of A-Level Results
  Northern Ireland: Analysis of A-Level Results
  Northern Ireland: Analysis of GCSE Results
  Northern Ireland: Analysis of GCSE Results
  Mr. Francis McDonnell
  Mr. Francis McDonnell