Sitting of 19 October 1998

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

    Child Support Agency
    Maria Eagle: What representations he has received on the Green Paper on reforms to the Child Support Agency. [53466]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We published our proposals for reform of the Child Support Agency in July. The consultation period is not due to end until the end of November, but about 750 responses have been received so far. It is already clear that our proposals for a simple, straightforward and transparent service have widespread support.
    Maria Eagle: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I welcome him to his new position, as I think that this is the first time that he has appeared on the Treasury Bench since the reshuffle. I welcome also his ministerial colleagues, whose careers I am following with great interest. Has my right hon. Friend come across situations such as those in my constituency where self-employed absent parents who appear to be living wealthy lives seem to have received nil assessments from the CSA and are escaping maintenance? Will he devise a way to make sure that self-employed absent parents are properly assessed by the CSA?
    Mr. Darling: First, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her words of welcome. My ministerial colleagues and I will be glad to hear that she will watch our careers with great interest. Secondly, on her substantive point, it is a matter of concern to the Government that 1.8 million children are not receiving a penny in maintenance from their non-resident parents and, in particular, that there are self-employed people who have managed to avoid paying any money partly because of the assessment levied on them.
    In the short term, we have established a special unit within the CSA to deal with self-employed people. In the long term—as we made clear in the Green Paper—we are looking at using the tax system to provide a clear indication of what someone's liability for tax should be. I am concerned that people who have money and are due
    936
    money, pay money to their children. A central part of the reform of the CSA according to the new, simpler system that we propose is that, instead of spending 90 per cent. of our time making assessments and only 10 per cent. enforcing judgments, we will alter that balance greatly to ensure that people pay what they are due to their children.
    Mr. David Rendel: I join the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) in welcoming the Secretary of State to his new position. In doing so, I look forward to several months of constructive opposition from my party. Are the many supportive representations that he tells us he has received mainly on the ground that the over-complication of the present system is beyond belief? It is certainly causing enormous problems. Is it not true that, by simplifying the system, he may endanger himself, in the sense that the original system—introduced by the Conservative Government—was known to be unfair because it was so simple? Is there not a danger that, in the end, he may find that his own simplified system is more complicated? Is he prepared to listen to further representations from members of the National Association for Child Support Action when they visit the House on 18 November?
    Mr. Darling: That was certainly a complicated question, Madam Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I hope that he will be in opposition for longer than just a few months. With regard to his point about the formula, we believe that a simpler formula will be quicker to implement, and that therefore we will get payment far quicker than at present. The system will be more readily understood, will deliver money to the parent with care and will benefit the children themselves.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Given that the modern family tragedy is that most absent fathers do not pay child maintenance for their children and that, in turn, too many of those fathers are denied access to their children, will my right hon. Friend work with other Departments and agencies to produce a rounded family policy that will enable all the children in Britain—except in extreme circumstances—to be brought up by both their mother and their father?
    Mr. Darling: I strongly believe that someone is a mother or father for life and that contact with children should be maintained. However, I do not believe that there should be linkage between access and payment of sums due for the maintenance of children—they are separate matters. However, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that absent parents should be encouraged by whatever means are appropriate to maintain contact with the child for whom they are responsible throughout that child's life.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Secretary of State kindly direct me to the place in the Labour party manifesto where it states that the Government have plans to tax child benefit?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the fact that, in his last Budget, the Chancellor increased child benefit and he said that, if there were to be further increases, there was certainly a case for looking at taxation of the higher rate of child benefit, but the point

    937
    that most people will remember is that it is this party and this Government who have increased child benefit by a record amount. Most people support us in doing that.

    State Pensions
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: If he will make it his policy to uprate the state pension in line with the higher rate of earnings or the retail prices index. [53467]
    The Minister of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): We are committed to retain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision in retirement and to increase it at least in line with prices. We have already honoured that promise with last year's increase. A statement on uprating for next year will be made in due course.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that a strong earnings-related pension scheme is the necessary basis for both security in old age and the development of public-private pension partnerships? Does he further accept that, if the national insurance scheme and the Treasury grant had been combined with the restoration of the cut in employers' national insurance contributions, which was carried through by the previous Government, there would have been enough money to make pensions earnings related for the next five years at least?
    Mr. Denham: As I have said, a statement on uprating for next year will be made in due course, but my hon. Friend will recognise the substantial action that the Government have already taken to benefit all today's pensioners, through, for example, winter fuel payments, as well as taking and promising action to give greatest help to the poorest pensioners: those on income support and those who are entitled to income support but do not receive it.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Is the Minister of State aware that one group of British pensioners receives no uprate in its pensions—those living abroad in certain Commonwealth countries? As part of his pensions review, will he have another look at that injustice and see what can be done to rectify it?
    Mr. Denham: I am interested to hear the point that is made by the hon. Gentleman. There seems to be some confusion on the Conservative Benches as to whether this Government should be spending less or more on social security, but I make it clear to him, as I have done in correspondence to a number of people, that there are competing pressures and demands on the social security budget and it is unlikely, under the present circumstances, that that particular plea will receive priority.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Minister aware that many female pensioners were widowed before they reached pensionable age and were very grateful for the support that they were able to receive from widow's benefit? Does he agree that to replace a relatively simple-to-claim widow's benefit with an overlapping array of means-tested benefit would add to themisery and sadness of people at a very vulnerable time?
    Mr. Denham: May I make it clear that the Government have no intention of making any changes to the
    938
    arrangements for existing recipients of widow's benefit? In considering whether any reforms should be made to the system, I assure the House that they will be based on principle, that they will be fair to men and to women and that they will fit the modern world.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that there are some worries about the gap between the haves and the have-nots, particularly as evidenced by the recent study on households below average incomes? If he is looking at ways of getting extra help to low-income pensioner households and he is setting his face against linking real income with earnings, will he look at the possibility of getting extra help to the age cohorts at the elder end of the life span, so that we can get money to people who need it most, without the necessity of going through the bureaucracy of a means test?
    Mr. Denham: The statistics to which the hon. Gentleman refers are an indictment of the record of the previous Government. They back this Government's case that reforming the welfare system so that it gives greater support and greater opportunity to those who wish to enter work is the right way to proceed. He is right to say that we have said that we want to make a priority of assistance for the poorest pensioners, including those who do not receive their entitlement to income support, many of whom are women living alone and in the older group of pensioners. In addition to the substantial increase in the guaranteed minimum income for pensioners, which we will bring in from April, we will make additional efforts to ensure that those who are entitled to that support receive it.

    Pensioner Poverty
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What further steps he is taking to reduce pensioner poverty. [53468]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): One and a half million of the poorest pensioners will benefit from a significant increase in their income support from next April—three times the amount that would apply under normal uprating. We are also committed to continue winter fuel payments for a further three years beyond this coming winter. From next winter, every eligible pensioner household will receive £20.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the excellent teleclaims initiative, which helps people in my constituency to submit their pension claims in a more user-friendly and efficient way? Can he assure me that, when that initiative is evaluated, the voluntary sector—in particular, Age Concern and the citizens advice bureaux, which do excellent work in my constituency—will have a direct role in the evaluation of that scheme and others to combat the low take-up of benefits by some pensioners?
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the initiatives that the Department has been taking to increase telephone take-up. I strongly believe that the Department of Social Security can do far more to use the telephone to reach people in their own homes. The experience so far with the take-up of pensions, and the

    939
    pilot programme to which he referred, shows that only 1.3 per cent. of cases required any further action. Getting cases right first time not only means that pensioners get the money that they need, but saves valuable resources in the Department, so we certainly want that to be encouraged. We also want to ensure that the voluntary sector, including Age Concern, continues to work with us, as its advice is sometimes invaluable.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: The Opposition sincerely congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion, and indeed the Minister of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), on managing to survive the night of long knives.
    The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has done the House a service by reminding us of one set of fraudulent expectations that were carefully and cynically cultivated among pensioners by the Labour party during the previous Parliament, but were cruelly dropped as soon as Labour came to power. Is not the so-called minimum income for pensioners from next April another fraud on the pensioner? Of course, we shall all be delighted at any initiative that is designed to get pensioners to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, contrary to the impression that he just gave, not one pensioner will be entitled to a single additional penny as a result of that fraudulent initiative? All that is happening is that those who are entitled to means-tested benefits will have some of them repackaged under a new name. This Government will in due time learn the hard way that pensioners are not as stupid as they think.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is required to ask a question at Question Time.
    Mr. Darling: In the past 10 years, I have enjoyed many hours of exchanges with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on Finance Bills. I wondered where he had gone, but now I know. Frankly, putting this in the nicest possible way, he is talking complete nonsense. The Government have done more for pensioners in the past 18 months than the previous Conservative Government did in 18 years. This Government not only introduced the minimum pension guarantee, which is helping the poorest of pensioners, who lost out under the previous Government, but have cut value added tax on fuel to the lowest level that we could, have abolished the gas levy, which has meant that household fuel expenses have decreased for pensioners and, in addition, have introduced the winter fuel payment, which meant that pensioners got real help last winter with their fuel bills and will get it again this winter. The Opposition did absolutely nothing about that in the 18 years that they were in power.

    Pensioners(Torbay)
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: If he will make a statement on the results of the pensioners benefit take-up pilot in Torbay. [53469]
    The Minister of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): The Department has been running nine pilot schemes, of which Torbay is one, since April this year to
    940
    find the best way to provide more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. The pilots are only just being completed. We have commissioned an independent evaluation of them, which is being carried out, and the results are expected early next year.
    Mr. Sanders: I am afraid that we need to see the results before we can make any judgment. I hope that the Minister will agree that the Torbay citizens advice bureau, Torbay council, the Benefits Agency staff in Torquay and organisations such as Age Concern and Brixham Does Care should be congratulated on the part that they have played in trying to find the trigger points where pensioners come into contact with the Benefits Agency. Will he give me an assurance that, if the results show the pilot to have been a success, it will continue in my constituency and, more importantly, will be extended to benefit pensioners throughout the country?
    Mr. Denham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have visited those involved in the take-up pilot in Torbay, and I am more than happy to pay tribute to everyone involved—those in the voluntary sector, the local authority staff and our own staff—for their efforts. The whole point of the pilot exercises is to find the best way of identifying those pensioners who are entitled to income support but are not receiving it, and enabling them to make a claim. That is the basis on which we want to implement the increased benefit from next April.

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will make a statement about winter fuel payments for the coming winter. [53471]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): This winter, we will give almost 10 million individuals in more than 7 million pensioner households extra help towards paying their heaviest fuel bill. Details of those payments were announced on 30 July and I wrote to all hon. Members last week providing further information.
    Mr. Chope: That is all very well, but what are the Government doing to help those many pensioners who were expecting winter fuel payments last year and have not received them? My constituent, Mrs. Hinton, has been told that she will get her payment tomorrow. Many thousands of other pensioners are suffering, not only from that incompetence on the Government's part, but because of the failure of the new national insurance recording system—NIRS 2—in Newcastle, which is depriving many newly widowed people and pensioners of their entitlement based on a lifetime's contributions. The Government are not caring about those people.
    Angela Eagle: It is nice to see that the hon. Gentleman is so caring. It was the Conservative Government who ordered the NIRS 2 computer system. More than 10 million payments went out at very short notice last year, when the new scheme was announced, and less than 1 per cent. went to the wrong place or did not turn up; the hon. Gentleman is being very churlish. This year, we have set up a national helpline, the number of which should be in the letter that I sent him: it is 0645 151515

    941
    If any of his constituents have problems claiming the money that the Conservative Government never gave to pensioners to help them with their heaviest fuel bill—the Labour Government have committed nearly £1 billion for that in this Parliament—the helpline operators will be more than happy to help them.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: During the summer, when she read through the mountains of Department files and briefing notes from civil servants, did my hon. Friend come across any letters of apology from the Tories for imposing VAT on fuel for our pensioners?
    Angela Eagle: Funnily enough, I did not come across a single such letter, but I think that the Tories owe the pensioners of this country an apology for the appalling way in which they were treated in the 18 years of Tory power.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: I congratulate the Minister on her new position. Given that the policy was announced in July, why was it felt necessary to repackage it in October without providing any new money? Can she explain to pensioner groups in my constituency and throughout the country why the Government spent a sum that would have provided winter payments for the whole of Greater Manchester on a misleading advertising campaign that left an awful lot money—more than 1 per cent.—unclaimed in post offices, because people thought that it would arrive on the doorstep? Will she ensure that no more propaganda will be paid for by ratepayers and that money will go to pensioners as it should?
    Angela Eagle: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. It is important that he remembers that the information campaign is designed to ensure that pensioners know that the money is coming, so that if there is a cold snap they do not worry about turning up their heating. They know that they will get £50 help at the end of November if they are on income support and £20 by January if they are not on income support. No pensioner needs to worry about turning the heating up if there is a cold snap. The information campaign is to reassure pensioners that the money is on its way.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the progress that has been made on what is a serious issue for our society, but does the Minister's estimate of the number of pensioners on income support who are eligible to claim the £50 payment coincide with the estimate produced by Age Concern? There seems to be a difference and we must ensure that everyone who is eligible claims. On the subject of the special payments that may be made, are we to continue to rely on the geographical niceties of the various weather monitoring stations? Or will the wind chill factor—a great concern to people in my area of the north-east of Scotland—be taken into account?
    Angela Eagle: The hon. Lady asks about the number of pensioners who are entitled to income support but who do not claim it. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already explained to the House some of the pilot schemes designed to encourage people to claim. Any pensioners who are entitled to income support should claim it before
    942
    9 November, because that is the qualifying week for the payments. If they do not claim by then, they might lose out on the extra £50. Our estimates vary at between 750,000 and 1 million pensioners, but it is not possible to be precise. We do not quibble too much with Age Concern's estimate, and we join it in trying to persuade pensioners who think that they are eligible for income support to claim it at their local office. That will give them access to the extra £50 payment which will be paid by the end of November.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What new proposals he has to ensure that all pensioners share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation. [53472]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): One of the aims of the pensions review is to ensure that pensioners have an adequate income in retirement and that they share fairly in national prosperity. My hon. Friend will be aware that we intend to publish our proposals in the Green Paper on pensions later this year.
    Mr. Flynn: Although I recognise the many good things that the Government have done for pensioners, I would like the new Secretary of State to explain to us—following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—why the basic pension was not increased last year or this year by the increase in the rate of earnings? The money was in the kitty and the increase could have been made without infringing the promises made by the previous Government or by this Government. The basic pension is not a handout or a gift: it is paid for by personal contributions, which take into account the rate of inflation and are made for up to 50 years. The words stating that all pensioners shall
    "share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation"
    are taken from our manifesto at the general election. Will the Secretary of State now renew that pledge?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to the extent that the Government had a choice last year in the comprehensive spending review. Some £2.5 billion was allocated to pensioners and we chose deliberately to spend it on doing more for the poorest pensioners rather than spreading the sum thinly among all pensioners. The poorest pensioners have lost out in the past few years. The restoration of free eye tests, concessionary travel and the winter fuel payments will help all pensioners, but especially the poorest whom we were most concerned to help. That is why we took that decision and I believe we were right.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: I suppose that those most pleased with the minimum pension guarantee will be those who have done nothing to save for their retirement. Question 6 is about fairness. Can the Secretary of State confirm, for those who have saved for their retirement, that there are no circumstances in which they will be worse off than those who have not done so?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter that is inherent in any system that has a degree of

    943
    means-testing. There is nothing new about the point, as means-testing has been with us for many years under successive Governments of different colours. However, I do not agree that the help is going to pensioners whom the hon. Gentleman dismissed as somehow not deserving of any help. Through no fault of their own, many pensioners do not have sufficient means on which to live, and it is those pensioners whom we want to help the most, as they would otherwise face real difficulties.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: One group of pensioners who will not share in the prosperity of the nation are the ex-employees of H. H. Robertson in my constituency. Now that the Serious Fraud Office has completed its inquiries into that company scandal, will my right hon. Friend liaise with colleagues in other Departments on whether mechanisms can be introduced to protect pensioners from having money removed from their pension schemes in future, and to ensure that they are treated as preferential creditors, and not in the outrageous way that they have been treated in that outrageous scandal?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. He is right to raise the matter. We are looking into it, and the regime presently in place quite clearly has not been able to deal with that situation. I hope to be able to report to the House in due course on proposals to deal with the problem that money that should be available for employees is not available because of action that should not have taken place.
    Mr. Howard Flight: May I ask the Secretary of State about the position of people who have money purchase personal pensions, many of which are relatively small? In particular, may I ask about those who have already retired? As the Minister will know, one can delay buying an annuity until the age of 75. In view of the enormous rise in the cost of annuities, the fall in what we can get for our money and the weakness of markets, will the Government consider ending, or at least suspending, the age 75 rule?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I cannot say anything this afternoon, but the Government consider the point from time to time. I cannot make any immediate promises.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I say to the Secretary of State that I was pleased to hear him point out to the Conservatives that many millions of elderly people were quite unable to save for their senior years because of the nature of their employment? One example is trawler company fishermen who were never given security of employment. May I say that much more needs to be done for the many elderly people who do not take up the benefits to which they are manifestly entitled? Pilot studies do not go far enough. Does my right hon. Friend agree that every Benefits Agency office should be told that more needs to be done for elderly people in their areas?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did not put a proper question, a point that applies to Back Benchers as well as to Front Benchers. We must have brisk questions at Question Time.
    Mr. Darling: I shall endeavour to give a brief answer. My hon. Friend is quite right. Many pensioners are
    944
    entitled to benefits that they do not take up. I have said that I wanted far greater use of the telephone than previously because experience shows that that is one way in which to reach pensioners at home to persuade them to take up money that they would not otherwise receive. We have been conducting pilots because the reasons why pensioners do not take up their entitlements are quite complex. They are not as straightforward as people may initially have thought. I am anxious to ensure that we pool the evidence that we receive over the next few weeks so that when we embark on a national take-up campaign we can use the best techniques we can find to ensure that we deal with the problem highlighted by my hon. Friend. Far too many pensioners will sit at home in hardship this winter when they need not necessarily have to do so.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What steps he will take to ensure that medical tests for disability living allowance are objective and professionally conducted. [53477]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The conduct and quality of medical assessments that may be required in the determination of entitlement to disability living allowance are subject to close monitoring and regular and random audit against nationally determined standards specified in the Benefits Agency's contract with the SEMA Group, which provides medical services.
    Dr. Cable: I thank the Minister. Is he aware that, with the current climate of financial austerity at the Department of Social Security, there is much anxiety among the disabled that their allowances may be cut as a result of cursory examination by medical generalists without reference to general practitioners? Will he examine the shortage of doctors in this field to ensure that a proper service is available?
    Mr. Timms: Very specific medical quality standards on experience, qualifications and training are included in the Benefits Agency's contract with SEMA. All doctors undertaking examinations for disability living allowance must now be approved by the chief medical adviser on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am aware of some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised. We are satisfied that enough doctors are available and are determined that the standards to which they work should be of the highest possible quality. The assessments are vital to many people. We need to ensure that they are right and we are investing significant resources in ensuring that they are. As an illustration of our determination to secure the highest quality, we are working with the Royal College of Physicians on the first ever diploma in disability assessment medicine, which will be awarded for the first time next year, to raise standards in this important area.
    Ms Sally Keeble: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. I appreciate his comments, but I have two points. First, will he reconsider the position of children identified by schools as having general special needs without a specific need being diagnosed—children who are unable to work because of

    945
    a kind of general disability? Secondly, is enough advice provided to those who help people to fill in forms? Sometimes they are family members and have great difficulty in coping with the voluminous questionnaires that they are sent.
    Mr. Timms: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. She raises two important points. We know that there are particular difficulties for people who become disabled when very young because they cannot gain national insurance credits and so do not become entitled later in life to incapacity benefit. We are considering that in our current review. We are also aware of the need for those who advise disabled people to have access to the best possible information. We will do what we can to make progress on that.
    Mrs. Theresa May: I congratulate the Minister on his elevation to the Front Bench. I am sure that he is aware that on 12 September, as reported in the press, the Prime Minister wrote to Lord Morris of Manchester saying that the Green Paper on welfare reform did not put forward any proposal to tax disability living allowance and that that remained the position. Is the Minister aware that, to many people, that seems reminiscent of the position when the then Leader of the Opposition said in April last year that the Labour party had no plans to introduce tuition fees for university students and then, three months later, did so? Will the Minister clarify the record, put aside the carefully chosen words of the Prime Minister and say that the Government will not tax DLA for existing or future recipients?
    Mr. Timms: I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations and extend mine to her on her appointment. The Government's action on student support has been widely welcomed. The position on taxation of DLA has been made very clear and has been accurately reported. There are no plans to introduce taxation of those benefits. That remains the position. Her statement of the Government's position is correct.

    Pensions
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will make a statement on his Department's progress towards the introduction of stakeholder pensions. [53478]
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: When he expects to publish his proposals for stakeholder pensions. [53487]
    The Minister of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): We are developing a framework for stakeholder pension schemes, which will offer secure, flexible and value-for-money second pensions for people who do not have the opportunity to join an occupational scheme and for whom many personal pensions can be unsuitable. We will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year, which will include more details of our proposals for stakeholder schemes.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind the Minister that, on 15 December last year, he said that early this year, the Government would publish their review proposals on pensions? Is not that Green Paper an unconscionably long
    946
    time coming? Is not the delay even worse for those who read the Labour party's election manifesto of spring 1997, which said that low-wage earners and those with patterns of employment that were not fixed could expect a funded pension in their own right? It seems that that expectation has, along with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), gone walkies.
    Mr. Denham: The welfare reform Green Paper that we published in the spring said that the pensions Green Paper would be published later this year, and that is the timetable to which we are working. We are keen to get our proposals right, because no one—at least, no one on the Government Benches—has forgotten the introduction of personal pensions by the previous Administration, or the mis-selling that was a consequence of the failure to get the regulatory and legal system right. I do not believe that anyone involved in the provision of pensions begrudges the Government a month or two in which to do the work necessary to ensure that our proposals meet the needs that we have set out.
    Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister tell us the reasons for the delay in publishing the Government's proposals? Will he confirm that the delay stems not from him, but from the Treasury? Will he tell us why the Treasury blocked proposals, reliably reported to have been circulated by him and his Department, for a compulsory stakeholder pension scheme?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman refers to a series of myths of his own making. We set out the timetable for the reform proposals in the welfare reform Green Paper earlier this year and we are working to that timetable. What is different is that the current Government recognise the difficulties faced by people on low and modest incomes, or those who have intermittent working patterns, in obtaining a decent value-for-money pension. Instead of continually sniping, Conservative Members might better spend their time explaining why they did so little over so long a period to enable such people to get a decent pension.
    Mr. Frank Field: Are the Government planning a form of stakeholder pension that contains an element of redistribution, so that the poor can be made full members of the scheme; or will the Government be content to allow that most vulnerable group to be dependent on means-tested assistance?
    Mr. Denham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that we shall publish proposals later this year. He can be assured that we are concerned about the ability of people on low incomes to build up adequate pensions for their retirement.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given the tax increases that have taken place, especially the changes to advance corporation tax and the abolition of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts, what are the Government going to offer people who have an acceptable disposable income to induce them to take up a stakeholder pension?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the changes made by the Government in our early months

    947
    in office, including a large cut in corporation tax on major employers, were part of a package of measures designed to put the economy and the public finances on a sound basis. The Government and the country are now able to benefit from that action, because it created an environment favourable to long-term investment in the economy—the sort of long-term investment that creates the wealth from which future pensions can be paid. By creating that sort of stable environment, we create the conditions for a sound pensions policy in future.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will estimate the number of self-employed people who do not have any pension provision arrangements. [53479]
    Mr. Denham: In 1996, around half of all self-employed people were estimated to be contributing to a personal pension. A further 11 per cent. of the self-employed were not making contributions, but had contributed to a personal pension in the past.
    Mr. Loughton: Does the Minister agree with the recent report published by the Federation of Small Businesses which warned that any compulsory increase in contributions above the current 6 per cent. level would have a devastating effect on that area of the small business community?
    Mr. Denham: Evidence to the pensions review included quite a number of submissions calling for an extension of compulsion. However, those arguments were by no means unanimous—indeed, the arguments about compulsion are by no means one-sided. We promised to look seriously at all those arguments in the welfare reform Green Paper, and we shall do that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my officials and I have had meetings with the Federation of Small Businesses and that we are listening carefully to its concerns.

    Benefit Claimants
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What plans he has for guaranteeing a minimum payment of (a) benefits generally and (b) housing benefit to claimants within 24 hours of the claim. [53480]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We are committed to modernising the system of delivering welfare so that it is flexible, efficient and easy to use. The Department deals with more than 20 benefits and there are more than 47 targets measuring performance on the clearance of new applications. Those targets are achieved in 90 per cent. of cases, but I recognise that, in some cases, delays are long and difficult to explain.
    For housing and council tax benefits, local authorities are required by law to determine claims within 14 days of receipt of a properly completed claim form.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister examine the performance of the London borough of Southwark, which is delivering neither a modern nor an efficient housing benefit system? Some people wait not just for 14 days or a month but for a year, and there are tens of thousands of
    948
    unprocessed housing benefit claims. Pensioners are receiving summonses for eviction, as are single parents with young children, and the whole system appears to be on the verge of complete collapse. Will the Minister investigate the situation and undertake to report on it publicly and to the House?
    Angela Eagle: I am aware of the problems being experienced in Southwark. My officials have received a detailed report from the authority which confirms that there are delays. An action plan has been drawn up to clear the arrears of work that have been implemented. I have asked to receive reports from the authority so that progress on the action plan can be monitored by my officials. Southwark and the private contractors to whom it contracted the work are working together to improve the situation. I am told that the arrears of work have been reduced considerably and that the authority expects to make further progress on the work load until the situation returns to normal in November.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given the Audit Commission's recent criticisms of local councils, will the Minister publish a list of the 50 worst offenders with regard to the non or late payment of housing benefit so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can see for themselves how many Labour local authorities are in the premier league of incompetence and mismanagement in this important area?
    Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that most local authorities are Labour-controlled—the good and the bad.

    Pensions Review
    Mr. Steve Webb: When he plans to publish the results of his pensions review. [53482]
    Mr. Graham Brady: When the Green Paper on pensions will be published. [53492]
    The Minister of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): At the risk of repetition, as set out in our Green Paper on welfare reform, we will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year. There will then be a period of further consultation before final proposals are developed.
    Mr. Webb: When the Green Paper is finally published, will it drop the absurd pretence that the Government are guaranteeing pensioners £75 a week? Does the Minister recall writing to me during the summer and admitting that, even when the so-called guarantee is in place, half a million pensioners with weekly incomes below £75 a week will not get a penny from the so-called guarantee?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman might have done more to welcome the fact that income support will increase in April by three times the normal uprating. That means that the guaranteed minimum income, subject to the usual assessment, will be £75 a week for a single pensioner and £116.60 for a couple. That will be coupled with action to bring that benefit to pensioners who do not yet claim it,

    949
    but who are entitled to it. No Government have taken action previously in that form and on this scale, and the hon. Gentleman might have welcomed our initiative.
    Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly suggested that the Green Paper is on schedule and that it will be produced by the end of the year as originally planned. However, on 15 December last year, at column 11 of Hansard, the Minister committed himself to publishing the Green Paper in the first half of this year. As he is now already at least four months behind schedule, will he now commit himself to publishing the paper within the next month?
    Mr. Denham: We shall publish the Green Paper later this year. The hon. Gentleman should accept that we have inherited major problems from the previous Administration, including that of the large number of pensioners who do not receive the income support to which they are entitled. The previous Government refused even to admit the existence of that problem, let alone address it.

    Habitual Residence Test
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What changes he proposes in the habitual residence test. [53483]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I expect to bring forward our proposals for the future of the habitual residence test later this year.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that many British citizens who return to this country are caught by the rule introduced by the previous Government and suffer great hardship as a result of the way in which it is enforced?
    Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend's observation. The habitual residence test was introduced after the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) sang at the Tory party conference. The rule was intended to end benefit tourism, but 76 per cent. of those who fail the habitual residence test are UK citizens. We are examining the test in great detail to determine its future and find out what can be done to make it more effective. I assure the House that we shall make changes based on facts and cool reflection rather than bigotry and performances at the Tory party conference.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: What steps he has taken to improve the operation of the CSA. [53486]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We want a child maintenance service that is simple and straightforward to use and that parents can trust, but that cannot be achieved overnight, so in the meantime, we need to improve the operation of the current scheme while we discuss the radical changes that are proposed in our Green Paper.
    We want the Child Support Agency to reduce clearance times, eliminate backlogs of work and improve telephone contact with its clients. To that end, we have provided the agency with an extra £12 million to improve its performance in those areas.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I know that many people will benefit from those improvements. Will my hon. Friend consider the case of a family in my constituency in which both parents were absent and the grandparents took over the care of the children? The CSA, the local authority and the Benefits Agency were unable to help in that emotional situation. The CSA should try to improve its efforts to make absent parents pay. Will my hon. Friend include other agencies in the review? The grandparents in that case were told that, if the children had been taken into care and then fostered or adopted, the Benefits Agency and local authority could have helped. I find that unforgivable.
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend has made a serious point about what happens when neither parent is able to look after children. If he will give me the details of that case, I shall consider what can be done to assist those involved. We shall consider that issue in our response to the Green Paper.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister act quickly to reply to the strong criticisms made in the first annual report by the CSA watchdog, particularly those concerning instructing staff to respond more swiftly to queries and, when assessments have been revised, to process the revision as quickly as possible?
    Angela Eagle: I shall do that. The Government recognise that the system is complicated and difficult to administer. That is why we have published the Green Paper, which suggests radical reforms. I remind the hon. Lady that the previous Government asked the CSA to administer a system that is so complicated that staff must spend 90 per cent. of their time making assessments and can spend only 10 per cent. chasing up payments.

    Spending Targets
    Mr. James Gray: What estimates his Department has made of the increase in social security spending for each percentage point which the September retail prices index exceeds the target set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [53488]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Uprating of social security benefits based on the September retail prices index will not add to our prudent spending plans. I am currently reviewing the rates of social security benefits and I will announce the uprating of social security benefits shortly.
    Mr. Gray: That is all very well, but is not the right hon. Gentleman—who, in his previous incarnation as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so signally failed to achieve any savings in the benefits budget—ashamed of the fact that his budget will increase by £37 billion during the next three years, and that there is no likelihood that there will be savings of any kind anywhere in his budget?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman's difficulty results from the fact that he tabled his question before the summer recess; now that it is October, he has got things badly wrong. However, he might like to bear in mind the fact that, under the previous Government—whom, no doubt, he supported—social security spending was

    951
    increasing at a rate of about 4 per cent. a year. Under the present Government, it is increasing by about 2 per cent. a year.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place, but is not the fact that he is now in place and that his predecessor has gone an admission by the Government that they have completely failed on that agenda? My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) asked a specific question about the Government's failure to cut any costs. By their own figures, everything that they have done has raised the cost of social security. Does the right hon. Gentleman now accept that Library figures show that they inherited a budget that was falling—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, it was not."] Yes, it was. Do not those figures also show that the Government have turned the budget around, and are increasing it? What will he do seriously to reduce a budget that is rising, and costs taxpayers money?
    Mr. Darling: For the past hour, I have watched the hon. Gentleman pawing like a bull desperate to enter a china shop, and now here he is. He must face the facts that, under the previous Government, social security spending was rising at about 4 per cent. a year, and that inequality and exclusion increased nevertheless.
    The question that we must ask ourselves is twofold. First, what can we do to ensure that the money that we spend is spent to best effect—to provide security for those who most need it? Secondly, we must ensure that, in the proposals that we shall shortly bring forward, we implement principled reform of the welfare state, not for the next two to three years, but for the next two to three decades. I respectfully refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech that I delivered this morning—which he will, no doubt, have available to him shortly—which sets out the approach that the Government will take.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman has adopted his predecessor's habits; he avoids the real question. Although, at the time of the general election, Labour pledged to cut the costs, every single thing that the Government have done has increased those costs. Moreover, as growth is now falling to 1 per cent., the budget will increase by nearly £1 billion in addition to their previous increases. I therefore make the right hon. Gentleman an offer.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: What would they do?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Member for Bolsover is tossing his right hon. Friend a question, asking what the Conservatives would do. We would cut the working families tax credit, thereby increasing the budget dramatically. Why does he not do that now—saving us all money—and stop wasting our time?
    Mr. Darling: Now we at least have a policy from the Opposition, and it is to take away money that is being spent to ensure that work pays for hundreds of thousands of people for whom it has not paid in the past. This Government, unlike the previous Government, are determined to take measures that reduce the number of people who are out of work, including measures to make work pay. Therefore, we are reforming the tax and benefit system and have introduced the working families tax
    952
    credit. Those are examples of methods by which the Government are helping people get into work in a way that did not happen in the past.
    We are determined to ensure that the social security system and the welfare state are modernised to fit the country's needs, not only in the next two to three years, but in the decades ahead. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about reform, we shall look forward to receiving his support when we propose measures to do just that.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. John Healey: What plans he has under the proposals for reform of the Child Support Agency to ensure that maintenance payments from absent parents who are self-employed are enforced. [53489]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, those are some of the most difficult cases. We are considering basing the child support assessment on the most recent year's taxable income for self-employed non-resident parents. That information will be easy for non-resident parents to provide and should result in fewer disputed assessments.
    If the non-resident parent refuses to pay, prompt action will be taken to enforce payment—for example, by sending in bailiffs or deducting money from bank accounts.
    Mr. Healey: I was glad to hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier that the Government are considering the use of the tax system in the long term to clamp down on such absent parents. What would my hon. Friend say to a constituent from Rawmarsh who contacted me last week, whose husband left her with two kids and six months pregnant? He had a £25,000-a-year job, but within weeks went self-employed and has evaded any maintenance payments since. What encouragement can my hon. Friend give to that woman and many others like her that action will be taken in the short term, not just in the long term?
    Angela Eagle: In the short term, the CSA has piloted arrangements including specialist teams to deal with self-employed cases. We have evidence that that is beginning to show beneficial results. However, as I said earlier, such cases are some of the most difficult to deal with. We believe that in the medium term, dealing with them through the income tax assessment system is a more effective way in which to get to the truth in these matters.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will there be a Child Support Agency Bill in the Queen's Speech? If not, how do the Government intend to implement their new proposals?
    Angela Eagle: Madam Speaker, I am sure that you would not expect me to tell anyone in the House what was in the Queen's Speech. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are determined to reform the mess that the Conservatives left us when they left office, and that the promise made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that there would be a draft Bill next year will be fulfilled.

Kosovo
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, I wish to make a statement on recent developments concerning Kosovo.
In mid-June, in response to demands from the international community, President Milosevic gave an undertaking not to carry out repressive action against the civilian population. That undertaking lasted for barely one month.
By late July, the Yugoslav army and the Ministry of Interior police had commenced a widespread campaign of repression throughout Kosovo. During that campaign, they made no distinction between armed guerrillas and unarmed civilians. Whole villages were shelled, crops were burnt in the field and farm animals were incinerated in their barns. A quarter of a million people—a tenth of the entire population—have become refugees.
In September, Britain and France presented to the Security Council resolution 1199, which demanded that President Milosevic cease fire; withdraw his security forces; allow refugees to return to their villages; and make a rapid start to real negotiations on self-government for Kosovo.
Two weeks ago, Britain chaired a meeting of the contact group at Heathrow. That meeting sent Dick Holbrooke back to Belgrade with a mandate from all members of the contact group, including Russia, to secure an agreement that complied with the demands of the Security Council resolution.
Last Monday, NATO unanimously took the decision to authorise air strikes on Serbian military targets. The next day, President Milosevic gave his agreement to Dick Holbrooke on a settlement that commits Yugoslavia to full compliance with resolution 1199.
There can be no Member of the House who imagines that President Milosevic would have made such a commitment if the diplomatic efforts backed by the contact group had not also been backed by the credible threat of military action by NATO. His draconian steps to close the independent press to prevent it from reporting the agreements in full underlines his dislike of being forced into them.
A key concern that drove forward our efforts over the past month was the serious risk to the homeless refugees hiding on the hillsides of Kosovo. Our most immediate concern was to enable those refugees to return to sheltered settlements before winter. I am pleased to tell the House that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Red Cross have been able to return to their relief work in Kosovo, and that the latest evidence suggests that refugees have started to return to their settlements. Britain has already pledged £3 million to the international aid effort.
A central part of the Holbrooke package was the agreement by President Milosevic to a political framework to deliver self-government for Kosovo. This is the first time that President Milosevic has accepted the principle of self-government for Kosovo.
That political framework provides that the police in Kosovo will be under local control. There is a commitment to free and fair elections to a Kosovo
954
assembly and to communal administrations. These elections will be supervised not by Belgrade, but by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Belgrade has been pressured to agree to a tight timetable, which commits it to an agreement with the Kosovars on the central issues by 2 November.
The international community has no intention of leaving President Milosevic to choose whether or not he honours the commitments that he has given. That is why Belgrade has been obliged to sign two separate agreements on verification. The first agreement, with the OSCE, provides for the presence throughout the whole of Kosovo of 2,000 representatives of the international community. The agreement authorises them to verify the maintenance of the ceasefire; to monitor and accompany movements of the security forces and the police; to facilitate the return of refugees; and to supervise elections, the establishment of Kosovar institutions, and the development of a locally accountable police force.
The second agreement is with NATO, and obliges President Milosevic to accept daily overflight of Kosovo by NATO reconnaissance planes to monitor movements of the security forces and to verify compliance with the ceasefire. The agreement compels the Yugoslav authorities to switch off all relevant radar systems when NATO flights are taking place, and is a retreat from President Milosevic's position hitherto, which has been that NATO could have no role within Yugoslav sovereign territory.
The verification mission will not be armed because it is not there to enforce the agreements. The agreements do, however, enable both verification missions to report to NATO. The importance that NATO attaches to compliance by Yugoslavia was spelt out to Belgrade by Javier Solana, the Secretary-General of NATO, who said after meeting Milosevic that NATO
"will remain ready and willing to act"
if Milosevic does not meet his obligations.
In the meantime, NATO has maintained its air activation order while the two verification missions are put in place.
We also expect the Kosovo Liberation Army to abide by its commitment to honour a ceasefire. Over the weekend, there have been several breaches of the ceasefire by the Kosovo Liberation Army, including the murder of four policemen. Such continuing acts of hostility serve only the interests of those who wish to undermine the political process and return to war.
It would be a grave mistake to imagine that the Holbrooke package marks the end of the international community's pressure on President Milosevic. It is only the beginning of a process that will require the full commitment of the international community to achieve stability, security and reconstruction in Kosovo.
Britain is ready to play its part in making this agreement work. We have already committed ourselves to providing 150 members of the OSCE mission, with the expectation of a further commitment to a total of 200.
On Friday, I announced that a British Major-General with considerable experience in Bosnia would head the British contribution. He and the advance party are now already in Pristina.
We will also provide Canberra aircraft to the NATO air operation over Kosovo and will supply British personnel to the NATO unit in Macedonia, which will co-ordinate the two verification missions on the ground and in the air.

955
As the President-in-Office of the Security Council, Britain is taking a leading role in drafting a Security Council resolution that enshrines the commitments which President Milosevic has given and underwrites the agreements with the full authority of the United Nations.
I shall leave tonight on a tour of three of the neighbours of Yugoslavia to assure them of our continuing commitment to security and stability in the region. While in Macedonia, I intend to meet leaders of the Kosovar Albanians.
As I said last week at the Paris meeting of the contact group, the agreements are not perfect. International agreements rarely are perfect. There is, however, nothing to be gained by wasting our time wishing we had a different agreement. The reasonable approach must be for us to do everything we can to make this agreement work. It will take great effort by the international community to deliver on its contribution, and it will take heavy pressure on President Milosevic to ensure that he sticks to his side of the bargain.
Britain played a leading part within the international community in putting the pressure on President Milosevic that made these agreements possible. Britain is now demonstrating that we are among the first nations to make a practical contribution towards making a success of the agreements. We will not let up on our efforts until President Milosevic carries out his commitment to withdraw forces, and until the people of Kosovo can return to their homes without fear, can rebuild their villages in peace and can start to construct a self-governing Kosovo without repression from Belgrade.
Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for the modestly encouraging news that he has reported to the House. Does he not acknowledge that, if action had been taken along these lines in March or April, as I then urged, hundreds of lives would have been saved, hundreds of thousands of people would still be living in their homes and enormous suffering and anguish would have been prevented?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise for the inaccurate information that he gave this House on 14 July, when he told us that he had introduced a ban on flights into Britain by Serbian airlines? Is it not the case—as we discovered in September—that not only was that not true but that, as late as 11 September, Foreign Office Ministers were claiming that there were clear legal reasons why it was necessary to give 12 months' notice before implementing such a ban? Why was it that what were clear legal reasons on 11 September had mysteriously vanished five days later, on 16 September, when we were told that 12 months' notice was no longer necessary? Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that that ban is now, at last, in place?
On the agreement that has now been reached, what consultation took place with representatives of the majority Albanian population of Kosovo? Why was it that a deadline for implementation was imposed and then postponed for 10 days? Did that not give precisely the wrong signal to President Milosevic?
Is it the case that the NATO planning group which has been working on contingency plans for intervention should the agreement be breached has now been stood down? If so, why?
956
What can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about how the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitors will operate? Has a clear chain of command yet been established? Will he comment on today's worrying reports of large-scale Serbian troop movements in, but not out of, Kosovo, and the cancellation of refugee aid convoys? Will he undertake to keep the House informed of the progress, or lack of it, in the implementation of the agreement? What can he tell us about the action to be taken if Milosevic does not honour the obligations that he has made?
The agreement that has been reached is to be welcomed, but on the basis of "better late than never". We must all hope that it works, but it is certainly no cause for self-congratulation.
Mr. Robin Cook: May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what I take to be the support of the Opposition for the Government's line? I rather think he failed conspicuously to rise to what is a major international challenge, and I am glad that we managed to achieve more unity out of our 15 NATO colleagues than we can achieve with the Opposition in this Chamber.
Let me deal with the particular questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked. First, there were extensive consultations with the Kosovar Albanians: indeed, that is exactly why Dick Holbrooke went repeatedly to Pristina and why Christopher Hill, accompanied by our British ambassador, went to Pristina.
On the question of a deadline, I am not quite sure what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to as a deadline, but the decision that was taken by the North Atlantic Council on Friday was to extend the order authorising air strikes against Serbia. I should have thought that anybody who wanted to maintain pressure on President Milosevic would welcome the fact that that authorisation remains in force for a further 10 days and, indeed, would have denounced us if we had dropped it on Friday.
On the question of current troop movements within Kosovo, at present we have no independent corroboration, but we are urgently seeking information from our monitors on the ground. The difficulty of getting precise data on what is happening there instantaneously underlines exactly why it is so important that we get 2,000 monitors in with the right to be in every town and in every village in Kosovo in order that we can be sure exactly what is happening in terms of compliance with these agreements.
Finally, let me pick up the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment about delay in reaching this point. I dare say that, if the topic were not so tragic, his criticism would be comic in its hypocrisy. Many of us remember exactly how the last Conservative Government dithered for three years while Bosnia burned. The right hon. and learned Gentleman sat in the Cabinet for those three years, and the only reference to Bosnia that we have been able to find for that period is a statement that Britain should not take any more refugees from Bosnia. if the right hon. and learned Gentleman really wants a remedy for those three years of shameful delay, the best thing that he can do is support, not oppose, the Government's efforts to bring security and self-government to Kosovo.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I offer the Government my support for the agreement and the

957
statement that we have just heard? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the expression "better late than never" would have been a very accurate description of the last Government's actions in relation to Bosnia?
Does the right hon. Gentleman feel some concern about last week's statement by the president of the Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal, deploring the fact that the Milosevic Government are refusing to surrender three individuals against whom indictments have been made? Will he confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Mr. Milosevic must co-operate with the war crimes tribunal, as called for in the United Nations Security Council resolution of 25 September, and that any reports to the contrary are unfounded?
If the reports of continued use of military force today are found to be correct, what response does the right hon. Gentleman think NATO is likely to make? Finally, if the monitors are to be deployed on the ground without military protection, what is to prevent them from being subject to the same kind of intimidation as was found by the representatives of UNPROFOR during the Bosnia conflict?
Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his support in regard to the war crimes tribunal, about which he has written to me separately. The agreement with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which has been signed by Belgrade, states explicitly that the purpose of the OSCE verification mission is to verify full compliance with resolution 1199, which calls on Belgrade to co-operate fully with the war crimes tribunal.
The three individuals to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred have indeed been indicted. We want them to be surrendered, but we should be clear that they were indicted for offences relating to Vukovar in 1995, not to activities in Kosovo. Nevertheless, I assure the House that the Government will continue to take the most robust approach to bringing indicted war criminals to justice. I do not believe that there can be peace and reconciliation in the Balkans unless there is justice against those who have committed atrocity in war. We now have a majority of those indicted under arrest awaiting trial, and we shall continue our pressure to ensure that the rest are brought to trial.
As I am currently unable to corroborate precisely what movements are taking place in Kosovo, it would be wrong to predict what NATO should do in response; but President Milosevic should be well aware that that activation order is still in place, and the planes are still on the runway.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although there is unanimous horror at the repression, tragedy and bloodshed in Kosovo, NATO's threat to bomb Serbia is contrary to the charter of the United Nations which provides that only the Security Council can authorise military action? It is contrary to article 1 of the NATO treaty that commits NATO to the United Nations charter; it would be likely to trigger a Balkan conflict, and a restart of the cold war; and it is in marked contrast with the total neglect of the plight of the Kurdish people in north Cyprus, and their treatment by the Turkish Government.
958
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that NATO is not the international community, and that to talk as if he and the United States speak for the world is to undermine the authority of the United Nations itself?
Mr. Cook: The whole strategy of the past month has been built around a partnership between NATO and the contact group, which included Russia. It has also been based on Security Council resolution 1199, which was passed overwhelmingly by the Security Council and was voted for by Russia. We are seeking to obtain from President Milosevic compliance with that United Nations Security Council resolution.
As I said, I do not imagine for one minute that we would be this far forward with a commitment by President Milosevic to meet resolution 1199 if he had not believed that the threat of military action by NATO was credible. I vigorously regret the fact—as does my right hon. Friend—that we are dealing with someone in power in Belgrade who only understands the language of force, but, so long as that is the case, we are right to make it clear that we are not prepared to allow him to turn his back and to ignore the reasonable demands of the United Nations.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I am, perhaps a little improbably, vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Albania. Perhaps less surprisingly, I am on the all-party parliamentary group on refugees. When, during the Labour party conference, the Foreign Secretary referred on the "Today" programme to a string of Foreign Office successes throughout the summer, was he including Kosovo in the list?
Mr. Cook: Again, I welcome the reserved support offered by the Opposition on this issue. Throughout the discussion on Kosovo today and over the past few weeks, I have eschewed any talk of triumphs or victories. What should animate us all is the humanitarian crisis among the refugees in the hillside. I condemn as offences against humanitarian law the atrocities that occurred in the villages in which the paramilitary police took action. They should be of concern to all members of humanity. I would warmly welcome it if just one Opposition Member joined us in that concern.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, although President Milosevic has now agreed to a move towards some kind of autonomy, the Kosovar Albanians have not? The Kosovo Liberation Army wants complete independence. What pressure is being put on the exiled organisations that fund the KLA to ensure that attacks by the KLA do not undermine this process, and do not make it impossible for the OSCE to do its work?
Mr. Cook: I must correct my hon. Friend on one point: the stated objective of the Kosovo Liberation Army is not to achieve independence for Kosovo, but to forge a greater Albania. There is no place on the international map for a greater Albania—any more than there is for a greater Serbia or a greater Croatia. As I stressed in my statement, that is why the objective of our policy is to ensure that the elected, democratic politicians of Kosovo, and not the gunmen, are left in control of Kosovo.

959
Resolution 1199 calls on all members of the United Nations to co-operate in halting the funding and supply of weapons to the Kosovo Liberation Army. It is important that we put every possible effort into establishing law, order and security throughout Albania, because that country has provided a springboard for the KLA.
Through this agreement, we have provided a basis on which we can take forward a political process leading to self-government for Kosovo. If any force is needed to ensure that that agreement sticks, it should be force authorised by the international community. It should not be force provided by the Kosovo Liberation Army, which, far from making the agreement stick, would undermine it and pull it apart.
Mr. Michael Colvin: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Western European Union has been considering the establishment of a paramilitary police force to deal with situations such as that in Kosovo. Will he confirm that it is still Her Majesty's Government's policy to resist such a formation? The right hon. Gentleman said that once law and order is restored it will be up to the civil police to maintain it. If they cannot do so, troops—preferably under NATO command—will have to go in to give them the support that they need.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned humanitarian aid. Will he take this opportunity to congratulate those—such as Mr. Bernard Sullivan in my constituency, with his Operation Angel—who continue to take humanitarian aid to that beleaguered province of Serbia under particularly difficult circumstances?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate all those who have shown courage in taking humanitarian aid to those who most need it in Kosovo. Had it not been for the international humanitarian effort, there would undoubtedly have been many more casualties among the refugees over the past month. I particularly welcome the courage and dedication shown by the staff of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Red Cross in returning immediately to Kosovo without necessarily waiting for the removal of the authorisation of air strikes. It is important that they get on with their work as quickly as possible.
On Albania, I agree that we would look, and look positively, at any way in which we could assist the Albanian Government—it would have to be at their request—in securing law and order. There is a new Government of Albania, and we are in dialogue with them. If there are reasonable things we can do to assist, we shall consider them, but it must be with their agreement. Which agency provides that assistance is a matter to be considered then.
Mr. David Winnick: What would be the purpose of anyone in this House denouncing the crimes committed in Kosovo if those crimes could continue to be carried out by Belgrade? With the threat of force being applied, Belgrade knows what will happen if it continues its recent policies. Would it not be wise for any criminal dictator—whether in Belgrade or Baghdad—to bear in mind what is happening to Pinochet in this country?
Mr. Cook: I counted three separate international issues in my hon. Friend's question, and I congratulate him on
960
that. If he will forgive me, I will stick to the narrow question of Kosovo and Yugoslavia, which is quite enough to sort out in one statement. I strongly agree that there is no point in our lamenting the behaviour of President Milosevic in Kosovo if we are not prepared to show resolve in making it clear to him that the action is not an internal matter for Yugoslavia. It is a matter that concerns the rest of the international community, and we are therefore entirely correct in putting pressure on him. Secondly, if President Milosevic was convinced that he was doing the right thing in Kosovo, and that his regime had nothing to be afraid of, he could simply reopen the four newspapers and the independent radio station that he has closed and let the people of Serbia know the truth.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government had intelligence last year—not least within the Ministry of Defence—that there was likely to be violence in Kosovo? Will he explain why he has led the international community in setting its face against the aspirations for Kosovar independence, not least in the conclusions of the Cardiff summit? Does he agree that the delay in international action has radicalised the Kosovar people into supporting the Kosovo Liberation Army, while the moderates in Kosovo are now frankly politically irrelevant? Will he confirm that the KLA is not a party to the international agreements, and that the path down which we are going—with the use of unarmed international monitors—is likely to lead to us needing host-nation support from Serbia to protect the monitors from the KLA during the next six months?
Mr. Cook: I am not entirely clear what conclusion the hon. Gentleman draws for action by Her Majesty's Government. First, we never comment on intelligence reports, and I have no intention of doing so on such fraught circumstances as those pertaining to Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Secondly, it is absolutely plumb flat wrong to say that Britain led the argument against independence for Kosovo. There is not a country in the region that favours independence for Kosovo, and all three countries that I will visit this week would be deeply alarmed by independence for Kosovo because of its destabilising effect on the wider region.
On the question of the moderates being marginalised, that is precisely why we attach the greatest importance to the holding of free and fair elections in Kosovo to see who has the support of the Kosovar people. The last time there were elections in Kosovo was only three months ago. The KLA urged the people of Kosovo to boycott the elections, but 80 per cent. voted—and voted overwhelmingly for Doctor Rugova.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement and the robust position taken by the British Government over the agreement, may I say that I share his view that this is only the beginning of the process? That being the case, what consultations will take place with the Governments of Greece, Albania and Bulgaria over the implementation of the agreement? Does my right hon. Friend feel that there is enough in the agreement to create a political situation in the Balkans that will prevent further destabilisation?
Mr. Cook: I will visit Bulgaria later this week, when I will hold discussions with the Prime Minister and Foreign

961
Minister about how we take forward this agreement and about wider questions of Balkan security. We are, of course, in constant dialogue with Greece, which, as a member of NATO, was present at all the NATO discussions and contributed to them, but I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the important aspects of trying to achieve a stable, secure outcome is to put it in the context of the wider security of the Balkans.
What is particularly distressing about President Milosevic and one or two of the other leaders who came to power in the post-communist period is that they appear to imagine that, by rebuilding ethnically based nation states with large borders against their neighbours, they are joining the modem Europe. They are not. They are going back to an ancient Europe that the rest of Europe is leaving behind. We wish to see what ways there are of constructing a Balkans that recognises that the way forward is to bring down borders between us and to avoid building statehood on ethnic identity alone.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely important that the observers and monitors get out into the countryside as quickly as possible, and that they stay and take up place in the villages and hamlets around the countryside, so that they become, for the purposes of the next few months, part of the community, to ensure that these poor people are not further abused?
Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate what help could be given, perhaps via what was the Overseas Development Administration, to provide building materials? People are going to come down from the mountains and face increasing cold in houses that have been brutalised beyond anything that one can possibly imagine. What they need is the ability to build roofs. Money will not do them any good. They need building materials.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises two important points. I assure him that we agree with him on both. First, it is vital that the monitors should be able to go anywhere they want to in Kosovo. The urgent priority must be to verify that refugees are free to come out of rural high-lying areas and into the valleys and sheltered settlements.
Secondly, when the refugees do so, they will return not to their homes, but to homes that have been blown up by the Yugoslav army. It is therefore vital that, within the next month, they have an adequate supply of corrugated iron, cement and bricks, so that they can make those places habitable to see them through the winter. We agree on both those as being high priorities.
Ms Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever those on the Opposition Front Bench may say, the Kosovo conflict is amenable neither to quick solutions nor to clear-cut victories? Does he agree that the immediate priority must be to enforce the international agreement by whatever means are necessary to bring humanitarian relief to a quarter of a million refugees, to end the murder and mayhem and to allow a political process for a long-term solution to be put in place?
Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that there is no short cut to achieving a solution to the crisis
962
It will take us a long time to reconstruct Kosovo and it will take us some time to achieve the self-governing status that is provided for in the agreement, but although there is no short cut to it, I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we are determined to ensure that there is maximum momentum towards that goal. That is why the agreement has set up a very tight timetable for the early stages of that political process. I hope that, within the next few months, we will be able to put in hand successful free and fair elections in Kosovo, which should change the political reality.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I express the gravest reservations about the insertion of unarmed British personnel, especially British service personnel, in a region of such brigandry and banditry as Kosovo? Although I applaud the long-term objective, to which Mr. Milosevic has signed up, of free and fair elections for Kosovo, I shall believe it when it happens. May I also express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will not frustrate any vote by a democratically elected Parliament in Kosovo for independence, if that is what the Kosovo Parliament decides to do?
Mr. Cook: First, I am not sure that it helps to achieve understanding and reconciliation between the two sides to characterise Kosovo as an area of brigandry and banditry. Dr. Rugova is well known for his pacific approach to the political problems and for the long period during which he renounced violence as an objective. Throughout that period, he had the overwhelming support of people in the area to which the hon. Gentleman refers as one of brigandry and banditry. I agree that it is important to ensure that elections take place. The agreement lays down a clear, finite period within which they have to take place. President Milosevic has committed himself to holding the elections within nine months maximum, and I hope that it will be possible to achieve them in a shorter period. As to the hon. Gentleman's doubts about whether the elections will take place, they are to be initiated, supervised and established by the OSCE. That is the specific task of the 2,000 people on the verification mission and we will certainly give it a high priority.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Are there any plans to provide protection for the moderate Albanian leadership under Dr. Rugova, given that one of his closest associates, Mr. Ahmet Krasnigi, was assassinated by supporters of the KLA and that another, Mr. Sabri Hamiti, has been shot—although fortunately he survived? Unless the KLA is under firm control, its members may become agents provocateurs of a new conflict within Kosovo.
Mr. Cook: First, the agreement provides for the police in Kosovo to be under the control of locally elected politicians. Therefore, it is essentially for Dr. Rugova or whoever is elected by the Kosovo people to make the appropriate arrangements for protection and security. However, I would not disagree with my hon. Friend's central point, which is that there will be some people who will seek to destabilise the agreement for their own purposes during the coming months. It is important that we are all alive to the fact that those who seek to destabilise the agreement are neither acting on behalf of

963
nor representative of the majority of the Kosovar people, who would like to be able to return to their homes and construct a secure and peaceful Kosovo and to get on with the process of self-government.
Mr. John Randall: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful for the fact that NATO forces were not used against a sovereign country. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the unfortunate effects of events in recent days has been the strengthening of President Milosevic's position within Serbia and his closing down of an independent radio station and four newspapers when he was given the opportunity, because of the threats hanging over him?
Mr. Cook: I have heard the debate: it has been said that if we bombed it would strengthen President Milosevic and that if we did not bomb it would do so. The only appropriate course for NATO to take was to make a judgment on the basis of what was most likely to get an agreement out of President Milosevic. That we did and that agreement we have got. It is perverse to argue that President Milosevic is stronger and to use as evidence of that strength the fact that he has been obliged to close down four newspapers and half a dozen radio stations. That seems to argue not strength of position, but that he is only too conscious of his weakness and the extent to which he is vulnerable once the people hear the truth. Britain will continue to do everything possible to press for freer and more open media within Yugoslavia and we will be stepping up our support for the B92 radio station, to which we provide material help. Whenever we have the opportunity, we will give interviews to the independent media in Yugoslavia.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Would not the consequences of military action in the form of air strikes inevitably be that the KLA would use those air strikes to further its military and political objectives? With that in mind, should not President Milosevic be reminded of the fact that it might be better for him to do a deal now rather than face the consequences of that military action?
Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree that it was in Milosevic's own interest to resolve the situation and, frankly, to do it six months ago when he could probably have done so at a much lower price than it is necessary to extort from him now.
We have no intention of NATO being conscripted as an air force for the KLA. If we are obliged to take action, we shall do so on behalf of the people of Kosovo—and in particular to ensure that they can have democratically elected politicians ruling them, not the KLA.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Foreign Secretary said that he was hoping for understanding and reconciliation between the Serbs and the Kosovo Albanian community. Does he not think that extremely unlikely in view of the events not only of the past year but of the past decade, and especially since the Serbs decided to put aside the 1974 constitution that had given the people of Kosova a measure of independence? What support does the Holbrooke plan really enjoy in the Kosovar Albanian community?
Mr. Cook: As far as I recall it, my reference to peace and reconciliation was made to underline the importance
964
of bringing to justice those who have committed atrocities in the course of the conflict. I stand by that: I do not think that there is a prospect of peace and reconciliation if people do not believe that judicial process can be taken against those who commit atrocities against them and outrages against humanitarian law, and I would hope that that was not a contentious or divisive statement in the House. Of course peace and reconciliation seem a long way away in many parts of the Balkans, but it is important to encourage people to look forward rather than—as is too often the tendency in the area—looking back at past grievances, even unto the 14th century.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about free and genuine elections and self-government, but I wonder how President Milosevic defines self-government. What is likely to happen if the free and genuine elections lead to a genuine demand not for autonomy but for self-government? What value will the elections have if those in power refuse to uphold the rule of law?
Mr. Cook: First, let me stress that it will not be for President Milosevic to judge whether the elections are free and fair: that will be for the international community, through the OSCE. The proposals in the agreement secured by Dick Holbrooke in Belgrade are based on the package prepared by Chris Hill and negotiated in both Belgrade and Pristina. That is the package that we now expect to be implemented under the terms of the agreement.
Elections in Kosovo will be important in strengthening the hand of those who negotiate on behalf of the Kosovar people. Part of our difficulty in brokering negotiations over the past six months has been the difficulty in identifying people who can, with authority and without controversy, speak for the Kosovar people. The elections will help us to achieve that. To a degree, it is for the parties to the negotiations to decide between them what is an acceptable arrangement. We are determined that they should get on with the negotiations and, at the very minimum, honour the commitments in the contact group package.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Were all the hon. Members rising in the Chamber to hear the whole statement? I have the impression that one hon. Member was not.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I heard the whole statement, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman hear it outside, or in the Chamber?
Mr. Hancock: In the Chamber.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I will call the hon. Gentleman. I have to accept his word as an hon. Member.
Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to you for allowing me to ask a question, Madam Speaker. I was here, but I had to leave briefly to go to the surgery, for which I apologise to the House.

965
What commitments have been sought from the KLA and the Albanians who are currently fighting in Kosovo that, given the support that they might believe they have gained in the international community, they will not turn their attentions to the 25 per cent. of Macedonia's population that is Albanian, and cause problems in that country?
Mr. Cook: It is extremely difficult to get meaningful guarantees and commitments from the KLA, partly because it denies having any central command structure and partly because it appears to have some difficulty in passing messages throughout all its units. Last week it volunteered a unilateral ceasefire, and I very much regret the fact that the events of this weekend suggest either that that commitment has been broken or that there are elements within the KLA that are not aware that it has been made.
On the question of Macedonia, I will be there myself on Wednesday and will meet the President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. I will give a commitment to Macedonia and its territorial integrity and I hope that the presence of an additional NATO cell, deliberately sited in Macedonia, will provide a additional token of the international community's support.
Mr. Geraint Davies: For how long will NATO forces remain on standby? In particular, will they be available until the conclusion of the elections? One can imagine a scenario, if the elections do not turn out as the Serbians wish, in which the death of a Serbian in Kosovo sparks genocide or an invasion by Serbia.
Mr. Cook: The decision made on Friday by the North Atlantic Council extended for a further 10 days the authority given to military commanders to use force. Whether another extension will then be appropriate is a matter that can be judged in the circumstances. In particular, we will want to judge the extent to which the verification missions have been put in place and are able to get on with their job. However, in the past two months, NATO has made detailed and careful preparations for intervention and NATO's members have made a commitment to provide the force to carry out the plans. Those plans will not disappear with any cancellation of the authorisation order: they will remain in place to be activated. As the Secretary-General of NATO has said, we are ready and willing to activate them if necessary.

Points of Order
4.16 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement in the House about the Government's spending plans for the next three years. Two weeks ago, the Chancellor told the International Monetary Fund that the growth assumptions on which those spending plans were based were wrong. Has the Chancellor requested an opportunity to present to the House a revised statement of the public finances? Is it not a contempt of the House that the only revised growth figure published by the Treasury for 1999 has been contained in spin-doctor briefings to selected journalists?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is seeking to make a statement today. No doubt those Ministers present will have noted the Opposition's interest in the matter and the request for a statement, and will pass the Opposition's views to the appropriate quarter.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you explain to me the reasons behind one of the great mysteries of the order of business of the House? About 18 months ago, an omission was made in the prayers that we say in the House. We have also heard that the ceremony for the state opening of Parliament will be changed. Today, as a regular attender of Prayers, I noticed many changes, probably beneficial, to their form. Why are changes to the ceremonial of the House not debated by Members? Some time ago, about 150 Members expressed their unhappiness with the form of the oath that we are obliged to take. Is not it right that such changes should be discussed by hon. Members?
Madam Speaker: Along with my Chaplain, I thought that it was right to look at the prayers in the House, for which I have responsibility. At my request, the Chaplain brought some Members together from all parties to discuss the matter. Other Members were invited to submit their ideas and, indeed, I submitted my own. I thought that the prayers today were most appropriate to this modern age. I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman was at Prayers, although I know he often is. I hope that all Members will look at our prayers, because I think they will find them most appropriate.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Hardly a day goes by without Members of Parliament being lectured by the media on our duties and responsibilities. You may have seen some of those articles. I realise that your responsibilities only extend as far as this Chamber—you would not want them to go further—but would it be possible for you to apply your authority to remind the media that the House sits on other occasions, not only on Wednesdays between 3 and 3.30 pm? The media seem to be unaware of that fact.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that they are thanking the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),

967
Madam Speaker. I am sure that hon. Members who were present earlier for Prayers may have arrived with some doubts but would have found the changes quite acceptable. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that our Chaplain used to come into the Chamber, take one look at the assembled Members and pray not for them but for the people whom they represented. What is it about the present Parliament that makes it so necessary to pray for Members, which we did not do previously?
Madam Speaker: I thought it absolutely right to say prayers not only for Members of Parliament but for everyone in a decision-making capacity in this country. We have to safeguard the livelihoods of people in this country, as well as internationally, and it is right to remind ourselves every day of our responsibilities in that direction. I hope that Members will read the prayers carefully and agree with what I have said.

Orders of the Day

  Strategic Defence Review
  [First Day]
  [Relevant documents: Fifth report, on the Reserves Call-Out Order 1998, Etc. (HC 868); sixth report, on the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (HC 621); seventh report (also the eighth report from the Trade and Industry Committee), on Aspects of Defence Procurement and Industrial Policy (HC 675); and eighth report, on the Strategic Defence Review (HC 138-I).]
  4.20 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the conclusions of the Government's Strategic Defence Review (Cm 3999).
  Events in Kosovo have underlined yet again the fact that the modern world poses difficult and complex problems for the international community. They have also demonstrated that the British people are, by instinct and inclination, internationalist. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already made a statement about the situation in Kosovo, and, as he told the House, the crisis is far from over. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the international community are taking care to ensure that President Milosevic lives up to his undertakings.
  The House will join me in recognising the critical role played by the brave men and women in our armed forces, and the sterling efforts made by everyone in the Ministry of Defence who was involved in averting a humanitarian catastrophe in a benighted region of Europe. Two weeks ago, I met Royal Air Force personnel at Gioia del Colle air base in Southern Italy, who stood ready to take action against Milosevic as part of NATO's air operations. Let me tell the House that they did not relish their task, but they were determined to carry out their duty had Ambassador Holbrooke's mission failed. They, like the rest of us, will have applauded his success. Mr. Milosevic should be under no misapprehension that they stood ready to act if he failed to come to terms. They remain there primed for action should he renege on his agreements.
  That was the second time this year that I have had to contemplate giving orders to the men and women of our armed forces to risk their lives in action to face down the unacceptable behaviour of dictators who defied the collective will of the international community. In February, it was Saddam Hussein; today, it is President Milosevic. Tomorrow, they will be ready again. Our armed forces are a vital part of our armoury in helping to enforce the rule of law in an unstable world. Their response to the call in the Gulf, in the Balkans, in west and central Africa and elsewhere is a living demonstration of the policy that underpins the strategic defence review that I ask the House to endorse tomorrow.
  We as a nation are not prepared to stand idly by. When it matters, we want to make a difference, and we are prepared to take a lead in doing so. That is not a question of abstract philanthropy. We have international responsibilities that it is right for us to discharge, but we also have hard-nosed interests in a peaceful, stable, prosperous and democratic Europe, in a peaceful, stable, prosperous and democratic world. We will not achieve

  969
  this goal by staying at home and wringing our hands. That is why British forces are committed to operations in support of our interests, commitments and responsibilities in the Balkans, Cyprus, the Gulf, Africa and a dozen other places throughout the world.
  Wherever they are around the world, our armed forces can be proud of the uniform they wear. I am glad to tell the House that I have decided, following discussions with the Chief of the Defence Staff, to adopt a more open approach to the wearing of uniform in public. Our current policy requires service personnel travelling off base to be in civilian clothes unless they are in a military vehicle. We will shortly promulgate guidelines to allow service men and women to choose to wear uniform as they go about their normal business in our cities, towns and villages, subject to the local security situation. That will, I believe, enhance the public's awareness of the armed forces, and will be widely welcomed, especially by the services and communities with traditional service links.
  Of course, making a difference internationally will not always involve our armed forces. Difficult and complex problems require a multi-faceted response, and crisis prevention must always be better than crisis management. While it would be neither sensible nor realistic to involve British forces in every international crisis, our armed forces are a vital means for Britain to play its part in the international community. Without the ability to project, use and sustain an effective military capability in the world's trouble spots, wringing our hands is all that we would be able to do in some crises.
  The ability to make an effective military contribution is what counts. Past events in the former Yugoslavia and in Somalia have demonstrated graphically what can happen if armed forces are used ineffectively. They become part of the problem, not the solution. We would be asking our young men and women to take undue risks for uncertain gains, which I am not willing to do.
  I turn for a moment to the disgraceful leak of the strategic defence review White Paper in July, which I considered an affront to this House. I promised to report to the House the outcome of the inquiry that I ordered. I have done so fully today, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) which is now available to the House.
  After extensive investigations, it has not been possible to identify the individual who leaked the White Paper, which is a matter of the greatest regret to me. However, the House will wish to note that the inquiry concluded that it was leaked to the Opposition Front-Bench team and that subsequently copies were made within the House and made available to journalists. Conservative Members expressed much outrage at the leak, but I regret to say that, in spite of that, the Opposition Front-Bench team refused to speak to the independent investigators.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, back in the summer, the Conservative Front-Bench team promised to co-operate in every way possible with the leak inquiry? What assistance did he get with the inquiry from them?
  Mr. Robertson: I did not conduct the inquiry. It was conducted by independent investigators appointed by the
  970
  secretary to the Cabinet. I am as bemused as my hon. Friend that the Opposition Front-Bench team, who made such a fuss at the time, first agreed an appointment with the independent investigators but later refused to meet them.
  The leak was a gross discourtesy to Parliament, and, as Secretary of State, I apologise to the House once again. The House will draw its own conclusions about the way in which the White Paper subsequently found its way on to the front pages of the newspapers.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the Minister tell the House to how many inquiries into the leak of Conservative Government papers the Labour Opposition of the time gave any help? Was there a single inquiry instituted by a Conservative Government into the leak of Government papers that came into the possession of the Labour party in which the Labour party told the investigation who was responsible for the leak?
  Mr. Robertson: I am responsible only for the current Government. I cannot recall—perhaps you, Madam Speaker, will agree with me on this point—any previous leak of a White Paper in which Opposition Front Benchers received the document the previous evening, but did not indicate to the Government that it had been found.
  I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) to the occasion when, under the previous Government, the Daily Mirror received a leaked copy of the Budget the night before the Budget speech was due to be made. In the name of honour and decency, and to his eternal credit, the editor of that newspaper handed back the documents to the Government, because he thought that that was in the interests of the country as a whole. Had Opposition Front Benchers learned from that example, the people would have greater regard for them.
  The strategic defence review was launched to give Britain the means to make a difference. It does not commit us to being a world policeman, but it does enable us to play an effective part in international solutions where we choose to become involved.
  Let me make it clear: we were building on success, not on failure. Our armed forces have a record that is second to none. Their people and much of their equipment are still the best in the world, as are the civilians who work throughout defence—our fourth service. However, when in opposition, our view was that modernisation and enhancement were needed in key areas; that people had to be given higher priority; and that defence needed a coherent vision to revitalise it to meet the challenges of the 21st century. That analysis was fully confirmed as the review progressed.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Speaking of modernisation, will the Secretary of State comment on the article that appeared in The Herald today? It refers to fact that approximately 45,000 people who are serving abroad because of their involvement with the armed forces might not be allowed to vote in the Scottish elections next year. In the process of modernisation, can a system be introduced to allow those people to participate in the democratic process?
  Mr. Robertson: I, too, was interested to read that article this morning. It may well be that the problem has

  971
  to do with the fact that the rules applicable to local government elections apply to the Scottish Parliament elections that will take place next year. It is a matter of concern to me, and is already the subject of investigation.
  I am determined that all members of the armed forces, wherever they serve, at home or abroad, will have the right to vote in next year's elections, in the same way as they have the right to vote in general elections. Their future and the future of their country will be determined by those elections, and I am sure that they will want to vote. I doubt that many will want to vote for the Scottish National party, but time will tell. The electors in Scotland turfed out every Conservative Member of Parliament, and thereby proved their intelligence. I believe that they may go on to prove it again next year.
  Since I announced the outcome of the review to the House in July, it has gained good notices, both at home and as far afield as Los Angeles and Tokyo. One senior NATO official described the alliance's reaction to our proposals as "qualified rapture". I welcome that support, but I am aware that it is not enough to set the right course. What really matters is to see that course through. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, was right, in the Committee's admirable report on the review, to emphasise the importance of delivering on our commitments.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: In considering the review, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will address the position of the Territorial Army. I know that many representations have already been made on the subject, but I shall add my voice, because we in the north-east are in danger of losing up to 1,000 jobs. I understand that there is little value to be gained from transferring the headquarters from York to Edinburgh. When considering responses to the review, will the Secretary of State examine that issue so that we might retain the Territorial Army headquarters in York and also save some TA units in the Yorkshire area?
  Mr. Robertson: The future of the Territorial Army was considered as part of this review. The modernising and updating of our armed forces could not neglect the valuable role that the Territorial Army plays at present and will play in the future. That is why we not only made proposals in the review—which I stand by—but said that the eventual configuration of the Territorial Army would be the subject of detailed and widespread consultation throughout the country. We are undertaking that consultation at present.
  I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to express their views in the course of this two-day debate about individual TA units in their constituencies. We shall listen to those views, and also those expressed in the letters that we receive in the meantime. I want to ensure that the Territorial Army is usable, relevant and better integrated into the British Army. I want its value to the British Army to increase in the future as the role of the Army changes.
  As to the decision about the eventual location of the headquarters in York and Edinburgh, the Minister for the Armed Forces is considering that issue in detail, and will make a statement in due course.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: When the Secretary of State considers integrating the Territorial
  972
  Army into the Regular Army, will he bear in mind representations that were made to his hon. Friends, to me and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) when we participated in the armed forces parliamentary visits scheme during the summer recess? There are implications in terms of promotion opportunities for NCOs in the Regular Army, because many senior NCOs are appointed to assist Territorial Army units. Will the Secretary of State consider the possible negative impact on morale in the Regular Army if senior NCOs do not have the opportunity of being posted to TA units?
  While I am on my feet, will the Secretary of State also accept my representation not to close the TA unit in Camberley, which is one of the main homes of the British Army?
  Mr. Robertson: I note the hon. Gentleman's constituency point, and we shall also bear in mind his wider point. The matter has been raised with me as I have travelled around the country, and it is an interesting and potentially important point.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to morale in the Regular and the Territorial Armies. I believe that it is linked strongly to the role and the relevance of the Territorial Army today. If those serving in the Territorial Army do not believe that their roles relate to the world around them, morale is inevitably affected. That is one explanation of why the Territorial Army currently loses 30 per cent. of its new intake within the first year. We have had to address that issue while considering the future of the Territorial Army and how we can make it much more usable.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is considerable disappointment in the north of England that we are being asked to bear a disproportionate share of the proposed cuts in the Territorial Army. Will he undertake to consider carefully the representations on that point? I know that he will have received many of them.
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend's point is also made by others. He refers to an initial proposal that showed where changes in the Territorial Army might be made. We have listened to representations that have come from the north-east, Scotland, Wales and elsewhere about the ultimate configuration of the Territorial Army. We have laid out the principles on which we shall base the eventual decisions, and they were agreed with the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations throughout the country.
  We believe that the ultimate decision, which my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will announce in due course—he will expand on this issue at the beginning of tomorrow's debate—will be in the interests of both the Territorial Army and the armed forces as a whole.
  I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) one fact that we should bear in mind—the strength of the UK's Regular Army is 110,000, so a Reserve Army of 60,000 might be slightly disproportionate to the full strength of the British Army.

  973
  We are suggesting a figure that makes sense to the Army, the country and its defence. We hope that the ultimate configuration will be right.
  Mr. Mike Hancock rose—
  Mrs. Ewing rose—
  Mr. Robertson: I want to continue with my speech. The hon. Lady has already intervened. The Minister for the Armed Forces, will deal with this matter in greater detail tomorrow.
  I hope that, during the debate, my ministerial colleagues and I can demonstrate that we are already working towards the implementation of this review. The Minister for the Armed Forces will tomorrow set out the work that is being done to implement the vital policy for people on which so much depends, and he will also speak on the modernisation of the reserves. As I have said, modernising and strengthening the role of all the reserves—the Royal Auxiliary, the Air Force, the Royal Naval Reserve and the TA—means making them better trained, more usable and therefore more relevant. That is one of the most important initiatives in the review, and one in which I know the House is interested. We have not made decisions on the detailed implementation of the review, and when we have, I shall make a firm statement to the House.
  My aim today is to set out to the House the thrust of the review, and to respond to the important points made by the Select Committee on Defence and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, the Chairman of the Select Committee, has been here all along. He is not in his usual seat, but he has an eagle-eye view of what is happening, and he is watching the wastes as the debate takes place.
  I shall deal with some of the points made in the Committee's report, and I thank it for producing such a thorough and thoughtful assessment, much of which I agree with. The report has made an essential contribution to the wider debate on security, which I am keen to encourage. It has rightly highlighted several issues on which more work needs to be done. I am glad that the Committee has welcomed the review as
  "a positive advance in formulating a defence policy for the beginning of the new millennium".
  The Committee missed the target with one assertion—that the strategic defence review did not consider the wider security context for defence, and that we therefore now need another strategic security review. Let there be no doubt—the foreign and security policy framework on which the defence review was based was a comprehensive and Government-wide re-examination of the international and domestic context for defence now and well into the next century. The idea that the strategic defence review was a narrow exercise in examining defence only in
  974
  traditional terms might be a reflection of the way in which such work was done in the past, but it bears no relation to the way in which we now do business.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I shall give way to the deputy Chairman of the Select Committee.
  Mr. Colvin: In the context of what the Secretary of State has just said, is it not regrettable that the strategic defence review did not seriously consider two aspects that are exercising the minds of our European partners: the common and foreign security policy, and the need to try to find a European security and defence identity? No doubt many hon. Members are not keen on either of those important matters, but the review should at least have considered them, and made a straight statement about the Government's policy on them.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgable about this subject. The Government's view on the common foreign and security policy and how it relates to European defence was determined definitively at the Amsterdam summit and in its conclusions, which have now been passed into British domestic law. We have a comprehensive view of the role of the European Union and the Western European Union, and the European security and defence identity of NATO. It is now necessary to make sure that those roles and identities work, which the defence review has set about doing.
  We must make sure that the European security and defence identity inside NATO is operational, which is the big challenge for NATO in the lead-up to the Washington summit. The challenge for the Western European Union is to take on the tasks that it has been given by the Amsterdam treaty and effectively to use its new powers. The challenge for the European Union is relevantly to apply the common foreign and security policy to events in Europe where there is no need for the United States or Canada to become involved. Far from ignoring that crucial dimension, it has been at the very heart of our policy.
  One of the key recommendations made about our review by other foreign partners has concerned the way in which we have dealt with those critical issues for European countries, and found a solution. Many countries are following our example and our review process to find a better remedy for the future.
  We did not simply consider the foreign and security framework; we took a broader view of defence. The Committee rightly drew attention to emerging risks such as information warfare, the problems of dealing with so-called asymmetric responses to our conventional capabilities, and the challenges that are posed by new technologies. We dealt with all those issues in the review. The strategic framework will change, and this is not a static defence review fixed in stone for ever, so we shall, throughout Government, continue closely to examine those issues.

  975
  I do not want to dwell on what the review is not, because I want to remind the House what it is about—a robust long-term vision for defence.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I have been generous in giving way up to now, and I should like to make progress before doing so again.
  The review is about a new emphasis on what I have called defence diplomacy—making the most of opportunities to build mutual international understanding and confidence. It is about forces that have the greatest utility in dealing with today's risks but are robust against the widest possible range of eventualities tomorrow. They must have the ability to adapt should the world change, and be able to deploy quickly, operate effectively and sustain and support themselves in difficult environments. They must be usable and relevant across the crisis spectrum.
  In practice, that means a series of enhancements to build a capability fit for the next century. Those include capable joint rapid reaction forces with substantial firepower and protection, and the new strategic airlift and sealift needed rapidly to deploy those forces. They include also the vital logistics, engineering and communications assets required to support those forces once they are deployed. We shall add 3,000 personnel to the Army. We shall have a sixth deployable brigade for the Army, and we shall develop an air manoeuvre brigade centred around the awesome capability of the Apache attack helicopter.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the Secretary of State knows, 5 Airborne Brigade is readily deployable at a moment's notice, but the Select Committee has suggested that the new Airmobile Brigade will be infinitely less so. For example, one squadron of Apache helicopters may require 220 support vehicles. How quickly will the Secretary of State be able to deploy the new air mobile force, which is important for the policy projection that he has in mind?
  Mr. Robertson: That was considered in great detail during the review, and I am confident that our opinion, to which the Army strongly adhered, will be proved right in practice. We believe that the configuration that we are proposing makes the most sense in terms of readiness, deployability and the wider issues of sustainability. The new configuration for the Army will make it best able to deal with future threats and crises.
  Some people will always disagree. Some people can question any defence proposal. Plenty of people, retiring when still young, can express their views about these subjects in another House of this Parliament or in the newspapers, but the comprehensive view backed up by the General Staff in the Army was that this was the best way to proceed. That is the key authority for recommending the review's conclusions to the House.
  A significant investment is called for in enhanced medical support, including the acquisition of a 200-bed casualty-receiving ship and the creation of a new regular ambulance regiment. Between now and the year 2001–02 we shall spend an additional £140 million on defence
  976
  medical services alone. I am sure that every hon. Member recognises the folly of defence costs study 15, which led to widespread demoralisation in defence medical services.
  We also need a restructured, modern, relevant and usable Territorial Army. We need to extend our power projection capability by fitting all our nuclear-powered attack submarines for the Tomahawk cruise missile. There are plans for new, larger aircraft carriers and a joint Navy and Air Force unit to operate from them.
  We need a significant change to our procurement practices which, I am confident, will enable us to obtain, more rapidly and more cost-effectively than ever before, the equipment we need.
  Ms Diane Abbott: On procurement, my right hon. Friend must be aware that, in 1996–97, the 25 largest United Kingdom military projects had a total cost overrun of £3 billion. How can he use the results of modernisation research to modernise the management of military projects to ensure that such overruns do not occur?
  Mr. Robertson: Quite dramatically. I ask my hon. Friend to study the strategic defence review and to read the supporting essays—especially the essay on procurement reform. This is one of the most radical and dramatic changes to the way in which we purchase military equipment, and I believe that it will attack the roots of the problems that my hon. Friend identified.
  As a taxpayer and a representative of taxpayers, I find such cost overruns offensive. As someone in charge of the defence of the nation, I am embarrassed and offended that, over the years, we have wasted so much money on equipment that often comes too late to be used, and does not work when it comes. We must set about dealing with that, and that is precisely what the defence review sets out to do.
  It is one thing to set about putting new procedures in place, but another thing entirely to make them work. I am absolutely committed as an individual—as is my Ministry as an institution—to ensuring that we get to grips with the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has identified, and I believe that we have one of the best chances of doing so.
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
  Mr. Sayeed rose—
  Mr. Robertson: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Sayeed: Just on—
  Mr. Robertson: I will not allow a pleading game initiated from the Opposition Benches, however desperately hon. Members want to get in. I have a duty to the House of Commons—
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No. I will not give way, so the hon. Gentleman may sit down.

  977
  A policy for people is a key part of the defence review—a policy that will contribute directly to our military capability by looking after our most valuable asset.
  This is the first ever defence review to have the public and private support of the chiefs of staff. I suggest that it is the first ever defence review to increase, not cut, the strength of the Regular Army, the first ever not to abolish any Regular Army regiments, and the first ever not to abolish any Regular Army bands. I believe that that is some achievement.
  Modernising our armed forces has meant taking tough decisions. Modernisation is never painless, and the recognition by the chiefs of staff that force structures and equipment priorities had to change speaks volumes for their willingness to take the longer view. That longer view includes the recognition that, for the foreseeable future, most operations will involve some type of force projection, whether deterring threats to our allies in NATO, supporting peace and security elsewhere in Europe, dealing with dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic, or playing our part in humanitarian operations in Africa and elsewhere. However, that does not mean that we have ignored the possibility that direct threats to the United Kingdom could re-emerge. Flexible, high-capability forces, both regular and reserve, would be as essential in those circumstances as they are today.
  While large nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation remain in the world, our minimum nuclear deterrent remains a necessary element of Britain's security. Our work on information, asymmetric or unconventional warfare, biological threats, ballistic missile defence and other new technologies is designed to ensure that we shall not be taken by surprise if and when the threat starts to change.
  An area where work continues is the risk to British forces deployed overseas.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: The Minister must be aware that he and I have been in extensive correspondence on the nuclear issue since the review was announced. In the light of what he said about the state of the world that we have to live in, why did he feel unable to commit Britain to a no-first-use position on nuclear weapons?
  Will my right hon. Friend also explain his comment to the Defence Select Committee about the sub-strategic use of nuclear weapons, where it might be possible to use them if we felt that that was not likely to provoke a response? I had some difficulty in identifying which part of England or Britain might be considered a target that would not provoke a nuclear response if we were on the receiving end, and I wondered who might—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is far too long for an intervention, and the Secretary of State is conscious of the fact that many hon. Members are trying to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend disagrees with party policy on this issue. I know that, quite honourably, he takes a different view from the one that was expressed in the election manifesto on which he was
  978
  elected—and the draft election manifesto that was endorsed by more than 90 per cent. of Labour party members. He is perfectly entitled to do that, but it does not make him right.
  Instead of going into all the details now, may I give my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) a flavour of what the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, said in a letter to me, which I received in July, about the strategic defence review? He said:
  "your decision to reduce by one third the UK's stockpile of operationally available nuclear warheads … is an important step towards the general disarmament envisaged in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and at a time when developments elsewhere are subjecting it to considerable strain".
  He concluded:
  "Such decisions confirm the high opinion in which all of us here hold the contribution your country makes to international peace and security."
  Therefore, perhaps my hon. Friend should hold close to his heart the view taken by the Labour party in its manifesto before the most recent general election—which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Britain, as the election result shows—and consider it yet again.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Robertson: Not now, because of the time.
  Work continues on the risk that biological and chemical weapons pose to British forces deployed overseas. In July, in addition to announcing many measures that would immediately be taken to correct inherited shortfalls in our defensive capabilities against those weapons, I said that I had in hand a detailed review of the longer-term actions necessary to ensure a coherent UK response to these threats. I shall shortly report fully to the House on the conclusions of that review. In the meantime, I have agreed with the United States Defence Secretary that the United States and the UK should establish a formal programme of co-operation on the threat posed to our forces, especially by chemical and biological weapons.
  I am satisfied that the package produced by the Ministry of Defence meets Britain's security needs at a sensible price, and that the sums underpinning it add up. We have produced a more balanced, better focused and affordable programme.
  Meeting our 3 per cent. annual efficiency target is essential and will be a tough task, but our track record over the past year and a half is excellent, and I am confident that we shall again rise to the challenge. To help to ensure that, I have set up a team to look across all defence in order to encourage new thinking, co-ordinate progress and oversee implementation of the review as a whole.
  The Select Committee and others will, of course, scrutinise closely the process of implementing the review. Let me help them in their work by suggesting some of the key areas on which I too shall concentrate.
  We must deliver our "policy for people". The Select Committee is right to identify that as a major touchstone of the review's success, and the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), will have a good tale to tell tomorrow.

  979
  Joint service co-operation and integration will be vital to maximise the military output from defence, improve our ability to support the front line and release resources through harmonisation, standardisation and economies of scale. We are pressing ahead on the joint rapid reaction forces, and the other front-line initiatives. One of those is the formation of a joint Royal Navy/Royal Air Force Harrier force to be known as Joint Force 2000, the headquarters of which will form within RAF Strike Command in the near future.
  Likewise, we are making good progress on our plans for a joint logistics organisation. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), will have a little more to say on both those matters when he speaks later in the debate. He will also have something to say about the smart procurement initiative, on which I touched in answer to a question.
  In all this, I and my ministerial colleagues will be taking a direct role. We are determined that the atmosphere of openness and co-operation that characterised the SDR should continue throughout the implementation process. We must not pretend, however, that we can implement the SDR in isolation from our allies. Kosovo is a reminder of that, if we ever needed one. That is why our work in the modernisation of NATO's strategic concept will be so important in the run-up to the summit next year.
  We must work with our friends to turn European rhetoric into practical defence co-operation, enhance the UN's ability to conduct peace support missions, and maintain the multinational interoperability on which our continuing operational success depends. Will our task be easy? Certainly not. Will we achieve our objectives? Yes. Will the outcome be good for Britain's defence? I am certain that it will be.
  The real test will be our ability to deal effectively with the events that all Governments confront. Today's agenda—Kosovo, the Gulf, maintaining our engagement with Russia, dealing with the security consequences of economic crisis, Northern Ireland—will all be difficult enough, but perhaps the greatest test of the SDR will be its ability to deal successfully with the challenges that we cannot yet even predict or think about.
  I am confident that we have produced the right framework to achieve this. In the SDR, we have given the armed forces and all those who work in defence a robust vision for the next century. Together, we are now putting that vision into practice. At a time when Britain's armed forces are once again in the headlines as a force for good in the world, I am delighted to be able to commend our work and the motion to the House.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. John Maples: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes those aspects of the Strategic Defence Review which build on Conservative policy and which take forward jointery and rapid reaction capability; but deplores the proposed cuts in money, men, ships and planes; notes that, far from being foreign policy led, there are no clear foreign policy objectives, that defence spending between 1996–97 and 2001–2 will fall by £2,166 million in real terms with inevitable consequences for capability, that the Territorial Army is to be cut by almost one third, that the RAF is to have fewer planes and the Royal Navy fewer submarines and surface ships; seriously doubts that the planned replacements for aircraft carriers
  980
  will ever be built by a Labour Government; believes that the problems of over-stretch and morale have not been adequately addressed; and deplores the fact that the armed forces will be asked to do more in a dangerous world with fewer men and less equipment."
  The strategic defence review assumes that
  "there is no longer a direct threat to Western Europe or the United Kingdom"
  and that
  "the risks to international stability seem as likely to come from other factors: ethnic and religious conflict; population and environmental pressures … drugs, terrorism and crime."
  Only a dangerous optimist would expect that scenario to last for 17 years. For the time being, the assumptions are probably right. The east-west strategic rivalry that dominated the global security environment for more than 40 years has been fundamentally altered. It is tempting to assume that we now face no serious threat to our national security, that crises are somewhere in far-away countries and that, in the words of the White Paper, we can respond
  "where we can and when we choose".
  Did the end of the cold war really bring a new dawn of world peace? Some 38 countries now possess ballistic missiles. Many nations have some form of cruise missile. Several states have or are developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Potential adversaries still include large states with powerful militaries whose future is uncertain, like Russia, or whose intentions are unknown, like China. New traditional threats to peace have emerged: Kosovo, tensions between Iraq and the United Nations, nuclear rivalry between India and Pakistan, and the impending delivery of Russian air defence missiles to Cyprus.
  As a result of Richard Holbrooke's successful diplomacy, Kosovo has, I hope, ceased to be a potential source of conflict, but that is still far from certain. Will the Secretary of State ask one of his Ministers to tell us today or when winding up tomorrow what provisions have been made for the emergency evacuation of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe observer force? Does he think that a United Nations resolution is necessary to permit its evacuation by armed force—something that we all realise may become necessary?
  The Government's handling of Kosovo has been an object lesson in how not to do it. The fault has mainly been in the Foreign Office.
  "Speak softly and carry a big stick"
  was Teddy Roosevelt's advice on foreign affairs. "Carry a twig and shout" seems to be the motto of our student union Foreign Secretary. Bluster and bombast have characterised his handling of the situation since the spring.
  Like many others, I have lost count of the final warnings that he issued to Milosevic before going totally silent in mid-July. During that time, Milosevic reversed all the KLA gains and apparently murdered hundreds of people while making thousands of others homeless refugees. Milosevic knew that Britain did not at that time have international agreement for military action. He knew that NATO was not united and that there was little immediate possibility of a UN resolution. He had the measure of our Foreign Secretary, but the whole world now has his measure. Although I welcome the outcome of Richard Holbrooke's mission, I must say that the Foreign Secretary is lucky that the United States has rescued him from the consequences of his own belligerent rhetoric.

  981
  Britain's armed forces are taken seriously by the world. They are among the best, and threats to use them must not be made lightly. By sounding off before he had the support of our allies, the Foreign Secretary not only closed off some of his own options, but put NATO's credibility at stake.
  The list of potential flashpoints in the world is a long one: the Baltics, the Balkans, the Ukraine, the southern rim, Turkey and Greece, the middle east and south-east Asia. Rogue states such as Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq and North Korea pose a new kind of threat in an age of weapons of mass destruction. The situation in Russia could develop dangerously for the west. Our security is challenged by non-state organisations and individuals like bin Laden, perhaps armed with chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons. They pose a different, but no less real, threat than the Warsaw pact.
  The review has not dealt at all convincingly with the possibility of developing a ballistic missile defence. That may be feasible against a rogue state in a way that it never was against the Warsaw pact. The review says that any such decision would be premature and that we shall simply "monitor developments". However, the possibility of a missile attack on a west European country by a rogue state or terrorist group must be faced. The Select Committee says:
  "the SDR's reticence on this subject represents a missed opportunity."
  I agree.
  With all that as background, this is surely not a time to reduce our defence capabilities and to configure what we have as though its sole task will be to support peacekeeping operations and defend western interests outside the NATO area. Commitments cannot be predicted.
  I am concerned about the Government's apparent desire to act as a sort of global policeman, interfering in countries where we do not like the Government and generally being "a force for good". That seems to me to be a return to a sort of liberal imperialism, and I caution the Government about such an approach. It must sound deeply patronising to most of the world, as became apparent in India after the Foreign Secretary's ill-judged intervention there. Quite apart from that, we no longer have the military might to pursue such a policy.
  Recent conflicts have only too often demonstrated the damage and humiliation that can be inflicted on first-world armies by third-world tyrants, and how much easier it is to get in than to get out. The fundamental purpose of Britain's armed forces is, and should remain, to defend Britain's vital interests.
  The Government promised to modernise and reshape our armed forces. Many of their proposals build on what we began when we were in government—the concepts of joint operations and rapid deployment were started by us. We agree that the nature of modern warfare demands that we fight as a joint team. I am delighted that the Government will equip our forces with Eurofighter, Challenger 2, Apache and other projects, which were all begun by us.
  The new Navy-Air Force combat helicopter and Harrier commands, and the joint logistics organisation, are interesting ideas and we look forward to seeing how well
  982
  they work in practice. Similarly, I welcome the plan to form a 400-man nuclear, chemical and biological reconnaissance regiment, although I note that it appears to be solely to assist and defend deployed British forces. The review makes no mention of the possibility of an NCB attack on the United Kingdom. I am also delighted with the plan to build two new aircraft carriers and to equip them with a new fighter. When I responded to the strategic defence review in July, I expressed doubt that the Government would ever build them and was assured by the Secretary of State that they would. I was also asked by a senior naval officer—no doubt at the Secretary of State's request—to stop raising those doubts as it was very unhelpful. I thought for a moment that I was being a little too cynical—that is, until I saw the Ministry of Defence's contract bulletin of 9 September. That official Ministry of Defence document was issued six weeks after the review was published and it invites companies to tender for a project to refit the existing carriers. It says:
  "Studies are required to assess the affordability of the CVS class"—
  that is, the existing three aircraft carriers—
  "for conversion to operate and support … the Anglo-US joint strike fighter. If identified as the most cost effective option, the conversion would be expected to extend the operational life of the vessels for a period of 10 years from around 2012 to 2022."
  Where will the two new aircraft carriers be? It is distinctly possible that we shall not get them until 2022, so what price the Secretary of State's commitment now? He is actively considering extending the lives of the existing carriers well beyond the date when he told the House the new carriers would be in service. Clearly, there is absolutely no commitment to build the two new carriers. The Royal Navy has been comprehensively misled, and the House and the public have been misled.
  Mr. George Robertson: I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to the job, but does he accept that that precise notice in the contracts bulletin is routine practice and that, when the previous Government were in office, for every major procurement decision there was a sensible requirement to ensure, for value-for-money purposes, that every option was tested? For every procurement decision for which the hon. Gentleman was taking credit a moment ago, those options were all tested. Had they not been tested, the National Audit Office would have been on the Government in a flash to ensure that things were done properly.
  Mr. Maples: If it is only a formality, why was it not done before the Secretary of State gave the House a commitment to build the carriers? If he is examining the option to extend the lives of the existing carriers and goes ahead with that, he will be unable to build the new carriers. When the Secretary of State made a statement to the House on 16 July, did he know about that? If so, why did not he tell us? Why did not he tell us then that he was examining that option as an alternative to building the new carriers? If he did not know on 16 July, I presume that the idea came to him later. [Interruption.] This idea is important. It may not interest the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), but it interests many people outside the House. It is inconceivable that that option was not discussed as part of the review, so it must have been imposed on the Secretary of State after 16 July, probably by the Treasury.

  983
  There has been an uninvited guest throughout the SDR in the person of the Chancellor. His fingerprints are all over it. Just six weeks after the publication of the review, he is insisting on examination of the new option of postponing the new carriers for a further 10 years. As we suspected, the Government are not committed to new carriers, and I reiterate my belief that they will never be built by this Government.
  Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is an empty promise from the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "From the Government."] I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government made an empty promise to build two new carriers. According to the SDR, the in-service date for the new carriers is 2012, and there is no money in the MOD's long-term costings for those carriers.
  Mr. Maples: In the light of this debate, it is quite understandable that my hon. Friend should momentarily confuse the Government and the Opposition, but he reinforces my point. The good faith of the Secretary of State has been compromised and I seriously doubt whether our armed forces will believe such commitments from him in future—not because they do not trust him, but because they will now have realised that he is not in charge. The Chancellor is in charge, and the defence budget has become the Treasury's contingency reserve.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend spoke about the Treasury's fingerprints, but it has left footprints, if not boot marks, on the suggestion that £700 million will be raised from property sales. Does my hon. Friend know that the MOD has just frozen all the sales because it has not yet done its homework to find out what it can sell? Portland was about to be sold but has been taken off the market while the MOD tries to decide whether there is a better way to make more money from those sales.
  Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend may anticipate that, when we discuss the Territorial Army, I shall suggest that that is entirely what motivates the Government—the desire to raise money from the sale of premises.
  Mr. Tom King: As the Secretary of State keeps pointing at me as one of his predecessors—he seeks to draw comfort for his argument by so doing—I thought that my silence might be misinterpreted. I find the case that he made extremely interesting. The invitation has gone out to tender for the possible life extension of the existing fleet and the existing carriers, and the decision has already been taken to build new carriers. As the tendering process is extremely expensive for companies, have they been assured that their costs will be refunded? Have they been told that they are merely taking part in a Treasury exercise, or is it a serious invitation to tender, in which companies will be expected to carry their own costs and to submit the best price for the work?
  Mr. Maples: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The contracts tender document published on 9 September goes into elaborate detail about what is required. It says that indications of interest are required
  984
  by 6 November, so it was obviously thought that it would take companies a couple of months to respond. The Secretary of State should come clean—
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What does it say that it is for?
  Mr. Maples: I have already gone into what it is for—[Interruption.] All right, if hon. Members want it again, they can have it again. On 9 September, six weeks after the Secretary of State promised the House that the Government would build two new carriers, he issued invitations to tender for a refit of the existing carriers to extend their lives from 2012 to 2022.
  I know that the Secretary of State is not good at knowing where his own documents are, but if he wants this document afterwards, I shall give him a copy.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What is the source?
  Mr. Maples: It is a published document. I do not accuse the Secretary of State of having been careless with it.
  As the economy turns down and the Government's over-optimistic assumptions about public spending crash into reality, the Chancellor is to conduct further raids on the defence budget. Nothing could better illustrate where the Government's priorities lie and that the Secretary of State is not master in his own house. The only way that I can see of getting those new carriers completed is to build them at Rosyth—the Chancellor would at least have an interest in their construction. [Interruption.] When one catches the Government out blatantly misleading the Royal Navy and the House of Commons, one is likely to get a little carried away.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that he must watch where his parliamentary language is going. It is not in order to accuse a Minister of misleading the House, and the hon. Gentleman is skirting on the borderline of what is improper.
  Mr. Maples: While on the subject of the Chancellor's involvement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I was told that I was skirting on the boundaries of what was acceptable.
  On the Chancellor's involvement, let us digress for a moment on the little matter of the multi-million pound refit planned for HMS Spartan. There are five Swiftsure class submarines; two have completed refits, and one is due to be completed in 2000. Each refit has cost about £200 million, and the boats will serve, on average, a further eight years before being decommissioned. HMS Splendid was due for refit at Devonport in 2003. That refit has been cancelled and the boat will be decommissioned instead. That leaves us with HMS Spartan, which is due for refit in 1999. Guess where? Rosyth.
  Even though HMS Spartan will still be decommissioned in 2006, only four years after its refit, that refit is to go ahead. Forgive my cynicism, but I cannot help wondering whether the Government would be spending £150 million-plus on this refit for only four years of extra service if the work were being done at Devonport.

  985
  The Chancellor has not only raided the defence budget for £1 billion and forced the extension of the existing carriers' lives for 10 years, but has made sure that a major contract planned for his own constituency will go ahead when any rational consideration would have called it into question. If the Secretary of State thinks that I am being overly partisan, I am sure that he will have noticed that the Select Committee came to exactly the same conclusion at paragraph 229, which states:
  "We remain unconvinced"—
  that is diplomatic language for what I have said—
  "that a refit for HMS Spartan, to be completed only four years before her decommissioning, represents good value for money for the taxpayer."
  I must tell him that I have referred that matter to the National Audit Office. Perhaps he would like to rethink the decision before it asks for his files.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with the allocated programme commitment that was made by the previous Government and that this Government have had the decency to confirm? Does he believe that the previous Government's decision to award the Trident refit to Devonport was cost-effective, given the National Audit Office report? Was he, or has he been, chairman of the public affairs company that was involved in promoting Devonport's interests during that refit decision? Does he recall the previous Chancellor's decision, six weeks after defence expenditure was confirmed, to announce a further £646 million of defence cuts?
  Mr. Maples: I have absolutely no problem with the allocation of work, and I have no problem with HMS Spartan being refitted at Rosyth. If HMS Splendid were being refitted, I would have no problem with it being refitted at Devonport. What I have a problem with is that, when the previous Government made those decisions, HMS Spartan was to serve for a further eight years. It is now to serve for only four, but the Government are going ahead with a refit that will cost £150 million-plus, for four years of extra life. That seems to be a bad decision. The dockyard is in the constituency of either the Chancellor or the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire)— I am not quite sure which. With a boundary change, it has moved from one to the other, but both of them have an interest in it. This is a bizarre decision, and, were HMS Spartan to have been refitted at Devonport, I suspect that the contract would not have gone ahead for four years of extra service.
  Serious cuts in capability are planned in the strategic defence review. Defence spending between 1996–97 and 2001–02 is planned to fall in real terms by £2,166 million, or about 10 per cent. There are to be two fewer hunter-killer submarines, three fewer surface frigates and destroyers and fewer mine counter-measures vessels in the Royal Navy. There are to be fewer fast jets in the Royal Air Force and massive cuts in the Territorial Army. In this more dangerous world, we are to ask our forces to do more with less—less in the way of ships, planes and men.
  I am especially concerned at the proposed cuts in the TA. I note that the Select Committee agrees. It regards the cuts as misconceived and states, at paragraph 268:
  986
  "The cuts in the Territorial Army infantry, engineers and yeomanry are shortsighted. The Territorial Army are still a valuable resource as long term insurance against the unexpected, and re-roling should be considered before cuts. We urge the MoD to reconsider the level of cuts proposed."
  In all seriousness, I say to the Secretary of State that he has made a mistake. I hope that he will look at this again in the light of the proposals that are sitting on his desk or are about to land on it. I think that he is making a damaging decision.
  With a small professional Army of only 110,000 men, as we have at present, there should be a general reserve, not only to support the Regular Army, but to build on in time of crisis. If the armed forces are not to become a world apart, they need strong links with civilian society. The TA provides those links.
  Plans for TA cuts have been examined in extraordinary secrecy over the past few weeks. TA staff have been forbidden to talk to local Members of Parliament; a TA officer who gave me a modest amount of advice has been reprimanded for it; the Secretary of State banned all serving personnel from attending any of my "Listening to Britain" meetings; the Secretary of State—[Laughter.] If Labour Members think that those meetings are so unimportant, why did the Secretary of State go to the trouble of banning anyone working for the MOD from attending them?
  The Secretary of State, I suspect, has been shocked at the public hostility to his plans—no wonder he wants to proceed in secret—but we shall make sure that every TA centre that is threatened with closure knows about that threat and we shall fight those cuts in every town, every city and every county where the TA is under threat.
  Not only will the overall cut be damaging, but there appears to be a lot of political interference. Despite the Secretary of State's best efforts, I am glad to tell him that I have a copy of the new schedule, and a very interesting story it tells. A third of TA centres are proposed for closure, and that will end up with the TA being concentrated in cities and large towns with virtually no presence in rural areas. There will be only two centres in Norfolk and Suffolk, and only three in the highlands and north of Scotland. That is not a national footprint.
  The schedule refers to "Rundolph" house; perhaps that means Randolph house in Warley. I do not know whether it is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), but it must be close. I wonder how he engineered a reprieve, because in the first set of proposals it was designated for closure. Now it is, miraculously, to stay open. By contrast, the TA centre in my constituency, Stratford-on-Avon, which was to stay open in the first review, is to close. I did not know that I had offended the Secretary of State so badly as to bring this retribution on my constituents, but closing the TA centre in Stratford-on-Avon would be damaging—there would be no TA centre between Worcester and Coventry. I know that they are an awful long way from Scotland, but there is quite a long distance between the two. We shall be asking the Secretary of State, in the strongest terms, to reverse this change.
  The fingerprints of the Chancellor are all over this, too, because when he sprung his last-minute demand for efficiency savings on the MOD, more money was needed. The TA has—surprise, surprise—provided a pot of gold

  987
  that no one had thought about. Those cuts in the TA are driven not by strategic considerations, but by the desperate need to raise cash by selling off TA premises. Cuts in the TA will save about £70 million a year, which is a relatively small sum in the MOD budget, but sales of TA property will raise hundreds of millions of pounds, and that is what it is all about.
  The SDR seems to be more of a review of the management and configuration of our armed forces than a review of strategy or defence policy. There is little or no attempted rationale for the strategic stance adopted, and the Select Committee appears to share that concern. It says that the SDR is dominated by a vision of the United Kingdom as a force for good in the world, that that focus may had led to neglect of the level of insurance needed for home defence and that that may need rebalancing. I do not believe that the SDR's conclusions will last for long, and I expect that frequent updates will be needed to take account of the changing international environment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will deal with procurement issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) will deal with overstretch and personnel issues; I shall deal briefly with our relationships with our allies. Apart from defence of our overseas territories, are there any circumstances in which we would be prepared to act militarily without the support of allies, particularly the United States? At present, the answer seems to me to be a resounding no.
  There is much talk of a European defence identity, but such aspirations have been cruelly exposed in regard to both Bosnia and Kosovo. Both have shown that Europe is incapable of undertaking such operations on its own, without United States involvement. That is so even when France and Britain—the only European countries with expeditionary capability—are united, as they appear to have been over Kosovo.
  Those who talk loudest of such a European capability are often those with little or no capability of their own. The Maastricht treaty established a foreign and security pillar. We have tried to breathe an identity into the Western European Union, and have talked a good deal about common procurement; but is not the reality, in fact, American?
  Somewhat by chance, NATO reinvented itself in Bosnia, but, once again, under the leadership of the United States. The limits of the willingness of the new NATO to act have been tested again in regard to Kosovo. Probably rightly, we are reluctant to suffer casualties in pursuit of peacemaking, even if we will take the much lower risks involved in peacekeeping. Even the willingness of the United States to do that was severely shaken by its experiences in Somalia.
  I was amazed to read—perhaps the Minister of State will deny this when he speaks—that the Government are considering merging the WEU into the European Union, not for any good defence purpose but as a kind of Euro-sop, to make amends for not being in the first wave of the euro. If that is true, it is pathetic. Our country's defence alliances are apparently being played with like political pawns in the Government's never-ceasing quest for the good opinions of others, regardless of the nation's true interests.
  The WEU has a useful potential role, but not as part of the European Union: that would exclude Norway and Turkey, two vital NATO allies. History teaches us
  988
  that—in Henry Kissinger's memorable phrase—international stability can come only from equilibrium or domination. There is, as yet, no new world order but, if there is to be one, surely it will be American for the foreseeable future. Europe's role will be subsidiary, and should be supportive. While European co-operation at all levels is vital, the context for our defence partnership must be NATO, and cannot be the European Union.
  My primary concern remains that we are in danger of being over-optimistic about the threats that we may face. Conflict is the history of mankind, and history has not ended. We may not, thank God, be facing a massive nuclear exchange or a major tank war on the north German plain, but the threats that we face will be dangerous, challenging and unpredictable. The foreign policy agenda can change overnight. We shall continue to need first-class armed services, with the best possible equipment, if we are to be able to secure our national interests in the future.
  The reductions in spending and capability proposed in the strategic defence review are serious, short-sighted and Treasury-driven. There will be further instalments, and we can no longer have any faith in the Government's commitments to build new carriers. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I sincerely hope that we in western Europe will live in peace and security, without the need for armed defence of our vital interests, but history tells us that that is unlikely. When the day comes, the Government and the country will regret these cuts, and it will fall to a future Conservative Government to put our defences back on a sound footing.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: Any Stranger stumbling into this afternoon's proceedings will have the impression that the House is greatly divided on the issue of security. We have heard criticisms of the Government's nuclear policy; indeed, we have heard a number of criticisms from the Opposition. I must say that, as I have listened to speeches and interventions, my desire to be non-partisan has been sorely stretched, but I must fight to resist making more than the odd criticism myself. If I am going to be objectionable to the Government I should, in the interests of fairness, be objectionable to the Opposition as well.
  I spent a great deal of time between 1979 and 1997 fighting and, in virtually every instance, failing to achieve the objectives of the Select Committee on Defence, in resisting virtually every cut that was introduced from 1979 onwards. I would greatly object to the flogging off of Territorial Army centres, but that criticism should be seen in the broader context of the flogging off of the Ministry of Defence housing estate to a Japanese corporation.
  I must tell the Government that I am very unhappy about the reduction in our strategic submarine nuclear force from 12 to 10, but I was equally critical of the reduction from 29 to 12 by the Conservatives in the last few years. I also object to the reduction in the number of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32, as I objected to the cuts from 65 to "about 50" and then to "about 40". I wish to be reasonably even-handed in expressing my anger at the cuts that have been made.
  I believe that there is a consensus, despite the noise. As an Opposition Member, I was roundly condemned by a colleague when I argued for such a defence consensus.

  989
  If that colleague comes into the Chamber—he is not here at the moment—he may object as he did then, but I think that there is far more agreement on what has emerged as a result of the strategic defence review. I am, however, sick of reviews. I have seen more reviews than the theatre critic of the Evening Standard, and I do not want to see any more. Since I have been here, I have seen the Mason review, the Nott review, "Options for Change", the Rifkind mini-review, defence cost studies and the elongated strategic defence review. On behalf of the armed forces and the Defence Committee, I urge this and any future Government not to produce more reviews.
  I suspect that the Secretary of State slipped in a lengthening of the procurement life of our Invincible class carriers because, between now and 2022, there will be a Conservative Government. I suspect that, having seen what has happened to the elongation of the process involving HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, he is merely assuring the House that some alternatives will be available if any cuts are made. One of the principal arguments of the Defence Committee report is that we are watching carefully for any backsliding, under any Government, in regard to the future security of the carrier programme.
  I am pleased that some nice remarks have been made about the Committee's report. I have invited Walsall's consumer protection department to investigate the quality of the Defence Committee's three volumes and their price, as compared to the three rather thin volumes of the SDR. I must concede that the SDR is far prettier, that the paper is better and that the production is probably better, but, in terms of value for money, I urge those with money to spare to invest in our three volumes. If their enthusiasm persists, they can then turn to the SDR.
  I do have a criticism of the Secretary of State. Regrettably, the Defence Committee report did not attract great attention. If the Secretary of State was accusing the Conservatives of leaking the SDR, I only wish that the Conservatives on the Defence Committee had leaked our report; we might then have received rather more publicity than we did. If there are any Defence Committee leaks in future, I am afraid that I shall have to put my hand up. Having spent 14 months producing a scintillating report, I was rather unhappy about the indifference with which it was met.
  If I were a cynic or a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the Secretary of State or one of his advisers—no doubt in the Box—knew Kenneth Starr, because our report was produced on the same day as his. The subject of defence, however, does not secure the same universal enthusiasm as the behaviour of the President of the United States.
  I am proud of our report. We held more than 100 meetings directly, or almost directly, related to the SDR. During a hectic two weeks, when we had 11 sessions after the production of the SDR, we asked 2,476 questions—many of them very good questions. That, if not unique, is rather unusual in the history of Select Committees.
  We travelled, we invited Ministers to attend and they attended. The result was a testimony to the efficacy of the Select Committee system which, I am reluctant to say, is probably one of the weakest Select Committee systems in the western world. I recently went to Georgia in the
  990
  Caucasus. Its Defence Committee is more powerful than ours, although I am delighted that the committees of Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have less formal power than we do.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Chairman of the Defence Committee agree that it is a matter of some regret that, given the centrality of foreign policy to this review, the Foreign Secretary declined our invitation to give evidence to the Committee?
  Mr. George: I very much regret that, and I also regret that the shadow spokesman for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), refused my request to attend.
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman did not tell the Committee that.
  Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman is sorely provoking me. I urge him to keep quiet for the next 10 minutes or so.
  We produced a good report. Most people would argue that the SDR was necessary. Over the years, Governments of both persuasions have continually failed to match commitments and resources. Many of the cuts that were made under the previous Government were not preceded by the serious strategic analysis that has taken place over the past 12 months. We have had the most root-and-branch review of defence policy and the armed forces this century. However, I must take issue with the Secretary of State. The security and intelligence aspect of the SDR was less complete than I had hoped.
  The fruits of the Defence Committee's labour in the form of our report will, I hope, provide for a lively debate, and will help us create greater interest in defence issues among the public. It is sad that the quality press does not have a greater number of defence correspondents, and that there is far less interest in defence matters than there was 10 or 15 years ago. Perhaps that is the price of greater consensus. I hope that one day, we shall have not only a reasonable consensus, but a high interest in defence matters, and that the debate in the past 12 months and the post-SDR publication debate will produce a greater awareness of security issues.
  Our report was unanimous, which may seem rather strange given that the participants included my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen)—I am aware of parliamentary convention when I use the term "hon. Friend". We were occasionally close to having a vote, but we never had one. The strength of the report is largely due to the seriousness with which we undertook our task. Compromises were made, but I believe that our work will be appreciated.
  We generally welcome and endorse this report, and many of its conclusions and plans for the future. However, we have identified a number of critical weaknesses and omissions or partial omissions. One of our criticisms concerns the proposals for the Territorial Army. The previous Government made equally stupid proposals to reduce the number of infantry battalions, but after enormous pressure, there was an add-back of two mergers. Four regiments were going to be merged, but were saved. That that should have happened was obvious. I hope that Ministers will not take the view that those who

  991
  argue for a stronger Territorial Army are either cranks or in the pockets of their local TA. There are sound reasons for some intelligent add-back.
  The Secretary of State may ask where the money is to come from. Only 2 per cent. of the defence budget is allocated to the Territorial Army, and that is incredible value for money. We may remember how difficult it was for the previous Government to provide Steven Spielberg with 500 soldiers for his film "Saving Private Ryan". In the Normandy invasions, we had 21 divisions. This nation's desire to have a well-funded and sufficiently large professional Army has diminished, and we are not taking the opportunity to provide not just a greater footprint, but a greater capability for regeneration. I hope that the Government will reconsider, and I look forward hopefully to a more favourable announcement.
  Mr. James Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if the reasonable footprint for the Territorial Army were presumed to be one infantry company per county, it would require an add-back of only about 1,750 soldiers and a small increase in the amount of money that the Treasury would be sacrificing?
  Mr. George: I have not seen those figures, but I have no reason to doubt them. I hope that the Secretary of State will see sense. It would not be to the Government's detriment to say, "Okay, we recognise that there is a case, so let's add back." One of the many things that irks me somewhat is the fact that the Government, the Treasury, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence got together, produced a report, did a bit of listening and compromised, but once their decision was made, down went the flag and the thin red line formed a square. Anyone outside that who dissents from their view is fired on. It is not a weakness but a strength for the Government to listen to the arguments of the Defence Committee. If adjustments can be made, I hope that they will make them.
  The Territorial Army can play an important role. I fear that the Government's proposals on asymmetric warfare—terrorism, the use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, messing around with computers and kidnapping—are not the totality of the picture. What worries me is that asymmetric warfare is the weapon system of the dispossessed. Those are the poor man's and poor woman's weapons, and they will be used in the future. Even though the Government have said that there is no threat to our home base, more attention must be given to the matter of how we deal with asymmetric threats. Surely the Territorial Army will have a role to play, and that should be properly pursued and examined.
  The SDR provided a rigorous framework for the consideration of defence and security policy, and we welcome what has been produced. I would have liked the initial section of the SDR on the foreign policy baseline to be published, but many people objected to that. The treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam, which we signed, have enshrined the new relationship between Europe and NATO, the European Union and Western European Union. As a rabid Atlanticist, and as someone who is totally committed to NATO and not in the van of those who argue for a European defence identity that either directly or surreptitiously excludes the United States—the Government are not in that camp, whatever might have been said—I would have liked to see rather more about what we are doing about a European defence identity.
  992
  The Defence Committee intends to return to that matter in a forthcoming inquiry into NATO's new strategic concept.
  The Government were more open in this review than previous Governments were in earlier reviews, although openness is a relative concept. The defence review has built on what has gone on in the past, and the spin, twist or policy change is welcome. We now have forces capable of operating across a wide spectrum of locations and opportunities—from high-intensity conflict to peacekeeping or conflict prevention. I am pleased that the Government have said that there will be greater jointery, and that there has been a greater integration of the commands of the three services.
  The Committee is delighted by the establishment of the new post of Chief of Defence Logistics and is pleased that the Government have said that two supply logistical chains will be necessary. These developments must be welcomed.
  It is important that the carrier programme is on target. The Navy has given up a lot as part of the defence review. The Navy and other chiefs have had to accept some trade-offs. For the Navy, that means losing destroyers, frigates and submarines. There are enhancements in the form of Tomahawks, but the Navy is taking part in the hope that the carrier programme is continued and reaches fruition between 2010 and 2017.
  Frankly, despite what may be said, I cannot see the Ministry of Defence remotely wishing to backslide on the matter. However, I do not have the same high enthusiasm for the Treasury's motives. The Committee has decided to conduct an annual inquiry, which we may call the potential backsliding inquiry. We will know exactly what stages are necessary throughout the procurement of the two carriers. If those tasks have not been started, or completed, we shall know that some dirty work is afoot and we will shout as loud and as long as we can to expose it. I am confident that that will not happen, but there is a long time between now and 2017 or 2020. I hope that the younger Members of Parliament who are here will carry on the fight, should it be necessary.
  Mr. Gill: As well as being the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is the chairman of the all-party maritime group and therefore has a great interest in naval matters. Is it clear to his Committee exactly what commitment has been given up to allow the Government to reduce the number of surface ships, as they have done? It will not be lost on the Government that to keep one ship on a commitment requires at least one ship in refit, and perhaps one on passage. It follows that a commitment must have been given up. Is it clear what that commitment is?
  Mr. George: We could hire Uri Geller as an adviser on making things disappear. The Navy has not been highly enthusiastic about losing three frigates, but that is part of the compromise. Even though the defence review was a new approach, there are elements of old approaches. Losing three frigates will impose potentially a great strain on the sailors who remain. They will have to sail long and hard, and they may see even less of their families than they do at the moment. However, that was part of the deal. All the chiefs signed up for it—nobody went public. The compromise was generally acceptable.

  993
  Ten nuclear-powered submarines to cover all the oceans of the world—bearing in mind that three or four of those will be in refit—and 32 or 33 frigates and destroyers means considerable overstretch. I addressed a US navy in Europe dinner on Saturday, where I was compelled to admit that the statistics proved that we were no longer the largest maritime nation in the world. I am afraid that the figure of 32 frigates looks puny when one realises the range of tasks. I hope that the decision was made on sound grounds and that my anxieties are unfounded.
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. George: No, I am sorry. I have spoken for far too long. I wish to make a few more points in winding up.
  The question of the reserves has been misconceived. I hope that the package, which is finely balanced, will prove to be correct. The Committee spent considerable time looking at costings, and it would not require an enormous amount of wind to blow those costings off course. I hope that the Government's figures are sufficiently robust to survive what may happen. Many defence reviews in the past have been blown off course by war or—as may be more likely—economic circumstances. I very much hope that what the report has said on people will be delivered, and I think that the Government are sincere in their arguments. I hope that the overstretch we have seen in recent years will not recur, and that the Committee will look carefully at the matter.
  On procurement, it would be wonderful to have smart procurement, having had un-smart procurement over the years. I argued truculently a few years ago that the best use of the naval college in Greenwich would be to establish a theme park for War Office, Admiralty and MOD foul-ups—I did not use the word "foul-ups". However, at the end of my study, I realised that the site was not quite large enough. I hope that we shall not see in future the procurement foul-ups that we have seen in the past. The Government are right to argue that they should look in a new way at the procurement of weapons systems. As has been mentioned, the cost overrun is unacceptable. I hope that the MOD will get it right.
  Like every other defence review, the greatest area of vulnerability is the defence budget, which has reached an historically low level. Some hon. Members will dissent from what I say, but I believe that we have an obligation as Members of Parliament not necessarily to reflect public opinion immediately—although I suspect that public opinion is smarter than we are on the question of defence expenditure.
  I was a Labour Member in 1982—just before the Falklands war—and I recall looking at polling data which showed that defence did not figure among the 20 issues affecting the population. Within a couple of days, it was the top issue and, at the 1983 election, it was deemed to be the second most important issue. I urge hon. Members to go back to their history books to see what a dangerous world we have lived in, are living in and—unless history has come to an end—will be living in.
  Some may think that we can sustain a strong defence at a level of expenditure that is just over 2 per cent. I would argue that they are being excessively optimistic. During the last Parliament, the Defence Select
  994
  Committee—then chaired by my good friend the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin)—said that defence expenditure had fallen to such a level that, should it fall any lower, it would endanger the defence of the realm. If we wish our defence policy to be capable, any further cuts will be damaging.
  We may wish to say to our constituents that we will settle down to a comfortable existence within NATO, as is enjoyed by Denmark and Belgium which, when they wish, join in. If we wish to be a force for good in the world, that will not be enough. It is not immoral to use our armed forces around the world to save people from being killed, as opposed to going around the world killing people. That may be a necessary role for our forces, and I am proud that they will be capable of doing that.
  I urge all hon. Members to say that these should be the last cuts in defence expenditure, unless the Government have the guts to say that they will qualitatively change the nature of our armed forces. Perhaps the MOD was smart in making a pre-emptive strike against the Treasury by throwing money at it. I likened that to the villagers in "King Kong" hiding behind their stockades and sending out an occasional virgin in the hope that the monster would go away. [Interruption.] That may have been politically incorrect, but it was not meant to be.
  I strongly argue that enough is enough. This defence review has done a very good job in reconciling commitments and resources, and in genuinely providing a set of forces that can meet most of our objectives, but if we come back a year from now, the world economy is blown off course and the Treasury says, "Oh well, let us have a few more cuts," and two years from now, we go down from 12 to 10 to eight submarines, or we cancel this or that, I hope that we will at least have the guts as a Parliament to say that the public therefore cannot expect us to do things that they had hitherto demanded of us. The Defence Committee says, "Eight out of 10 for the Government on their SDR."
  When I made our presentation at the Royal United Services Institute, I said that we would be monitoring what is being done. I cited the words of a 1970s, early 1980s pop group, the Police, in which they said—as an aging rocker, I can recall the words—"Every step you take, every move you make, we'll be watching you."
  6 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road of the metaphor of the sacrificial virgin because I fear that I might not be able to escape the charge of political incorrectness as easily as him, but it is worth remembering that, when in his party the tide of opinion was substantially against nuclear weapons, he swam with great vigour against that tide. Perhaps that is a measure of his political correctness, rather than his incorrectness.
  I am sorry that he has just left, but I wanted to welcome the new Minister for the Armed Forces to these debates. He is rather more athletic than some of his predecessors, but I am sure that he will rapidly get the measure of our proceedings.
  At the same time, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), who was the Minister for the Armed Forces in his previous incarnation and, before that, the shadow Minister for the Armed

  995
  Forces. He made a notable contribution—sturdy and robust—and it is a measure of his sturdiness and robustness that he has gone to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and is apparently, even though he owns a Jaguar, doing his best to outlaw the use of cars of a particularly high cubic capacity. We shall certainly miss him from these proceedings.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), if he has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the eye of any other occupant of the Chair tomorrow, will deal with personnel and procurement. Today I want to deal with some of the general issues that the defence review has thrown up, and with the Territorial Army, because that is an issue on which there is great concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House—and rightly so.
  This defence review has turned out much better than could have been expected. Its reception was infinitely better than the Government could have expected. There is a curiosity, because the Secretary of State for Defence is unable to accept the public congratulations to which he is entitled. He cannot accept in public the plaudits of victory over the Treasury, because, to do so, he would have to concede that he has been engaged in a battle with the Treasury.
  That would be a concession that the so-called foreign-policy-led review was at the very least influenced by the Treasury, so there is no public laurel wreath for the victor, but we can perhaps present our own in private, which the Secretary of State can wear in private, along with his CBE from the Federal Republic of Germany.
  The defence review was memorable for its premature publication, but not for the clarity of the foreign policy objectives that the armed forces are being redesigned to support.
  I think that I heard the Secretary of State say that those on the Opposition Front Bench with responsibility for defence declined to co-operate with the inquiry into the leak. If that be so, I hope that they will reflect on that decision, because I suspect that, not only inside the House but outside, some people will find it a surprising decision, and will attribute it to base motives, in the absence of any other explanation.
  I had no part in those matters, but, if I had been asked to co-operate, I would certainly have done so. In a matter of the importance of the strategic defence review, it is the duty of all hon. Members to co-operate if an inquiry of that sort is set up.
  The reader of the defence review document requires to show much diligence to find the detailed references to foreign policy on which it is said to be based, but, in so far as the review places a premium on flexibility, mobility, joint operations and rapid deployment, it must surely be welcomed. It is not the objectives of the review about which I have reservations, but the hopes of their implementation.
  As the Chairman of the Defence Committee said, those hopes depend on defence spending. Defence spending as a proportion of gross domestic product will go down from 2.7 per cent. in 1998–99 to 2.4 per cent. in 2001–02, the lowest level in the history of the United Kingdom. When we look at the proposals in the defence review, it is clear that the savings depend on asset sales and efficiency savings.
  996
  Both are highly unpredictable, and can be blown off course by events entirely outwith one's control. Hazarding a proper budget for defence on the property market seems a fragile basis on which to rest so much that is good in the defence review. Obtaining 3 per cent. efficiency savings year after year will be more than challenging, as the Chief of the Defence Staff apparently described it to the Prime Minister. It will be miraculous if it can be done without affecting capability.
  Those of us with an interest in these matters know that the enemy of sound defence is the mismatch between capability and commitments. The enemy of morale in the armed forces is overstretch of men and women and equipment. All the Government's financial assumptions will require to be accurate if we are to avoid those last two.
  The Government still have time to rethink their proposals for the Territorial Army, which almost everyone with an interest in the matter, with the sole exception of the Ministry of Defence, believes to be misconceived and damaging to the defence of the realm. Why is it that, after nearly three months, the Government have not yet published and put into the public domain their detailed proposals? Is it true that there is a document circulating privately entitled "TA Restructuring", which sets out those detailed proposals? If so, why has it not been provided to the House of Commons?
  Do the Government realise that the prevailing uncertainty has caused much damage to morale? What financial savings precisely do the Government expect from their proposals for the TA? How much do they expect to realise from the sale of TA drill halls and properties? What calculation has been made of the effect on recruitment to the Regular Army in Scotland, for example, if the rumoured cuts in the TA are implemented?
  What account has been taken of the damage to the link between the military and the wider civilian community, which only the TA provides in so many parts of the UK? What assessment has been made of the value to the armed services in the minds of the public when there are disasters such as flooding, and TA units are visibly present and providing assistance? Are the Government seriously saying that there should be no TA engineers in Scotland? That is one of the rumours, based on leaks, of what the document contains.
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. and learned Gentleman has anticipated to a certain extent my question, but knowing of his interest in the RAF Leuchars command and the importance of RAF squadrons 236 and 237, which are based in my constituency and which played a major part during the flooding in Moray last July, does he accept that the Government are bringing forward proposals that will leave us with no engineers north of the M62?
  Mr. Campbell: We cannot assert with confidence that that is precisely what is proposed, because our information on the matter is based on leaks and reference to a document that is not in the public domain, but one has only to visit any of the TA engineers' units—I have one in my constituency: 76 Engineers—to see how committed they are. One has only to visit them to see their skills, which are available to the civilian community in times of disaster. From the Government's point of view, I should have thought that this was an enormous

  997
  opportunity to create and maintain good will, which will be squandered if they say that there is no longer any scope for engineer units in Scotland.
  Mr. Hancock: My hon. and learned Friend has made a strong case for Scotland, and I would be interested to know his opinion about the situation in Hampshire, which is interesting.
  If we are to believe the report that is supposedly circulating in the Ministry of Defence, no Territorial Army units will be based in Aldershot, the home of the British Army, 50 per cent. of all TA units will be done away with in Southampton, and the unit in Winchester, which was praised on both sides of the House in a defence debate a few months ago, is to go. There will be a sizeable cut in the TA in my constituency. So there will be a 43 per cent. cut in Hampshire, the home of the British Army.
  Is my hon. and learned Friend as optimistic as the Minister that there is still time to pull back from those horrendous cuts and the effect that they will have, not only on the morale of people in the TA but on the wider population they serve?
  Mr. Campbell: I use Scotland as an illustration simply because it is the area that I know best, and because there are two TA units in my constituency—76 Engineers and the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry. However, the lessons I derive from my personal experience seem to be applicable throughout the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that many hon. Members will want to draw on their personal experiences when arguing the general case for the Territorial Army, as my hon. Friend has done.
  What importance do the Government attach to the voluntary ethos of the reserves? Do they not accept that the TA provides a low-cost military capability by way of an insurance in what we know to be an extremely uncertain world? Is not the truth of the matter that the proposals for the TA are driven entirely by financial considerations?
  I suggest the following: the Government should postpone decisions on the Territorial Army for six months, open the books to public scrutiny and go back to the drawing board. As I said, there are two TA units in my constituency: 76 Engineers, based at RAF Leuchars, and the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry at Cupar. I have no doubt that other hon. Members have similar units at similar installations in their constituencies. Both those units have honourable traditions, and have made and continue to make a significant contribution to the life of the community and the defence effort. It would be a tragedy if they were disbanded. It would be bad defence, and also bad politics.
  One question affects Scotland in particular, but has consequences for the whole of the United Kingdom. It arises out of the fact that the defence review does not refer to or give any decisions about the level of senior officer representation in Scotland.
  Those who know Scotland will know that the Flag Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland, FOSNI, the Air Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland, AOSNI—the most difficult of acronyms—and the General Officer Commanding, Scotland, for the Army provide an
  998
  important link with the armed services in the United Kingdom. The point that has a general rather than a limited application is that, at a time of constitutional change, when defence remains the responsibility of Westminster, such links are a visible and necessary reminder that we are a united kingdom.
  The representational role played by those senior officers—for example during the general assembly of the Church of Scotland and the annual visit of the Queen—is sometimes inadequately understood outside Scotland, which is not simply a region of the United Kingdom but a part of it that has its own national institutions. By their representation at a high level, the services underpin those institutions.
  There should be no watering down of those links, and no reduction of the level of representation in Scotland. Proposals to reduce costs by altering the seniority of representation in any service in Scotland would give the impression of a weakening of commitment to Scotland. The Army, Navy and Air Force in Scotland should be visibly and administratively commanded in Scotland.
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that one proposal being considered by the review is to merge the second division of United Kingdom Land Command, which is headquartered in York, with the Scottish district. He has powerfully argued a good case for the retention of a land command major-general in Scotland for the 2,600 regular troops there. As a spokesman who represents his party on defence policy throughout the United Kingdom, does he believe that there is an equally strong case for retaining a major-general to command the 10,700 regular soldiers in the north of England?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in promoting the interests of his community and constituency, and I certainly do not stand in the way of that. I have no access to the detailed financial costings on which sensible judgments could be made, but, if the Government are hell-bent on proceeding with the proposals for the Territorial Army, their obligation to ensure that the representation of the Regular Army is maintained at visible levels is almost certainly enhanced.
  The Government should not be guilty of double distress—of reducing the TA throughout the country and also reducing the level of seniority of representation. We need both, and the essential link between the civilian and military communities is at grave risk of rupture unless the Government take a much more sensitive and—let us be overt about it—a much more political approach to the matters.
  The intervention of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was particularly apposite. I have recently done some research on the Scottish National party, because, as the House will know, there is soon to be an election in Scotland, and that party argues for an independent Scotland with an independent navy, army and air force. Those policies have been proclaimed from the correspondence columns of the Scottish newspapers, but not, apparently, until today, from the Floor of this House.
  I have checked, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will give the hon. Lady a warm welcome if she catches your eye. Since 1987, we have had a two-day debate on defence every year. To the best of my

  999
  researches, since 1987, the contributions made by SNP Members have been as follows: 18 October 1994, an 11-line intervention in column 156 by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), followed by a 10-minute speech on Rosyth in column 208; and, on 16 October 1995, when the hon. Lady joined us, she made a seven-line intervention in column 49 and, emboldened by that, an eight-line intervention the following day, in column 173.
  A party that argues as strenuously as does the SNP for an independent army, air force and navy ought to be a little more robust in explaining the details of its proposals on the Floor of the House. The Scottish nationalists should not be the Scarlet Pimpernels of defence debates. We should not seek them here or seek them there. Sir Percy Blakeney is a rather curious role model for the SNP. Those who know Scottish literature will know that Quentin Durward would have been rather more appropriate.
  I support an expeditionary strategy that has as its objective the fulfilment of the United Kingdom's treaty obligations, its responsibilities as a dominant member of international organisations, and the protection of its vital interests. Often, but not always, those will coincide with the interests of the United States of America, but there should not and cannot be an automatic assumption that that will always be the case. We must retain the right to exercise independent judgment.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who opened the debate for the Opposition, said that the United Kingdom was not the world's policeman, but the analogy is perhaps better expressed thus: if the United States seeks to be the world's policeman, the United Kingdom should not automatically be available as its special constable.
  The costs that go with an expeditionary strategy are not only financial but political, and there may even be costs in casualties. We should not lightly embrace such a strategy without accepting that, if we carry it through in all circumstances, there will eventually be a time when we pay with casualties.
  If we are anxious about public opinion, which obviously influences events, it makes little sense to press on with changes in the deployment of the TA or in the level of representation in parts of the country that will split the link between the civil and military communities.
  If we are to have an expeditionary strategy, we must provide the equipment with which to implement it. I support—as I believe the whole House now does—the commitment to Eurofighter, although we now have to call it Typhoon, which is rather difficult for those of us with some memory of the second world war. It is a rather different aircraft, although the name is the same.
  Heavy-lift capacity makes sense. I am intrigued to hear that we are to buy or lease C17s or the equivalent, because, as far as I am aware, there is no equivalent. I confess that the Secretary of State and I have been in a C17 together, on the ground at RAF Leuchars on Battle of Britain day. Without putting words into his mouth, it would be fair to say that we were both extremely impressed, although it was a pity that he had not brought his cheque book with him.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon gets rather carried away on the subject of aircraft carriers, but there is a central point in what he says that is sound and
  1000
  substantial: if the new generation of carriers were not built, there would be significant consequences for our expeditionary strategy. If, as the Secretary of State says, we have to be able to go to the crisis rather than having the crisis come to us, carriers are essential, especially if we believe that we may not be able to rely on host nation support. Even with a mid-life update, Invincible and her sister ships cannot be expected to run on for ever.
  The Government propose to order only two carriers, so they run the risk that one will not be immediately available at a time of crisis. The advantage of having three was shown towards the end of last year and through to February this year, when we were able to deploy a carrier to the Gulf immediately, and, in due course, to arrange for its replacement. A helicopter carrier, which is one of the alternatives being touted for use if one of the two proper carriers is unavailable, would not be an adequate substitute.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman has declared strong support for the Government, except where they are falling short. He seems to be asking for more expenditure on the TA, and on more and bigger aircraft carriers. I wonder whether he is in the van of a convoy of Liberal Democrats, or whether he is out there on his own. Why did his party have no separate debate on defence at its conference? Is it Liberal party policy to increase expenditure on defence?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman was out of the House for a bit, and we lost touch with his capacity for being partisan even in such simple exchanges as these.
  Mr. Maples: Patronising.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is trying to patronise me and my party. We had a three-hour debate on international affairs and defence at our party conference, so the hypothesis on which his question is based is wholly inaccurate.
  I believe that the current level of defence expenditure is right, and that there should be no more reduction. That is why I believe that, if the carriers can be accommodated within that expenditure, they should be, and that we should not make the marginal savings on the TA that have been proposed. To imperil our strategy for the sake of the sale of property or of efficiency savings would be extremely dangerous. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) can rest assured that, as long as I have any influence on my party's defence policy, I shall do my best to ensure that it is sound and makes common sense.
  When it was produced, I criticised the document for its inadequate consideration of our defence relationship with Europe, which is dismissed in about 20 lines. Lo and behold, there are some stirrings in the undergrowth. So many reports appeared in one day that they could only be the result of some efforts at briefing, and it now appears that the Government are considering how Europe can improve its defence capability—and about time, too.
  We need a Europewide defence review and a European security and defence identity that allows us to maintain an effective partnership with the United States—the bedrock of NATO—but is sufficiently developed to enable Europe to handle crises such as that in Kosovo.

  1001
  Of course we should be thankful for the contribution of the United States in present circumstances, but we should be ashamed that we need it.
  At the very least, it is essential that we discuss with our European allies how our defence can be better co-ordinated. We are already engaged in seeking to establish better co-ordination of the defence industry in Europe; to do the same for defence itself seems to me to have an inevitable logic. If we are to have the confidence to embrace common procurement and interoperability, force specialisation may not be far behind. Nothing would be worse for the defence of Europe than individual countries unilaterally abandoning particular capabilities and making unjustified assumptions that others will continue to provide them.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Campbell: No, I want to make some progress.
  Nuclear weapons were deliberately excluded from the review, which is entirely understandable in view of the embarrassment that unilateralism previously caused the Labour party; it was also absolutely necessary if Lord Gilbert was to be persuaded to join the Government: like old habits, old hawks die hard. The Government's policy, repeating that of their predecessors, is of minimum deterrence, regarding nuclear weapons as weapons of last resort. Those, indeed, are NATO's principles, but we expect a new NATO strategic concept in 1999, as part of the 50th anniversary celebrations, and that is bound to embrace a much-reduced reliance on nuclear weapons.
  The Government have made some welcome but minor changes in the United Kingdom's nuclear posture. We welcome the restriction on Trident to Polaris levels—first called for, if I may say so, by Liberal Democrat Members, but the Government can do more: they can abandon the Moscow criterion, which says that we can regard a system as valid only if it can penetrate all the defences around Moscow; that is far in excess of the classic definition of minimum deterrence.
  If the Government are, as they say, committed to our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, why do they give the impression that they are content to wait for progress between Russia and the United States? There are steps that we can take at no risk to ourselves to provide a productive and exemplary lead.
  The review's consequences are far-ranging and wide-reaching, and some very complex and difficult issues will need to be resolved. For example, the relationship between the Chief of Joint Operations and the single service chiefs is a complex and novel arrangement which we shall have to consider extremely carefully to ensure that it works as intended. The single service chiefs could simply become force providers, with a momentum towards the unification of armed services, and I would oppose that. It is wise to recognise that the new relationship may bring such consequences. I am pleased that the Royal Air Force is to remain a strategic service, although there are those who argued both before and during the review that it should become a support service.
  To be fair to the Secretary of State, he recognised that a proper analysis of defence requirements is a continuing exercise and cannot be simply a snapshot. The House will
  1002
  need to return to these matters, through the medium not only of the Select Committee but of the single service debates, which are frequently said to be under threat. I hope that, in the light of the importance of the review and its long-lasting consequences, we will hear no more talk of abandoning such debates, which give the House the opportunity to focus on the interests of a particular service and to make a critical analysis of the review's consequences for that service.
  In recent weeks, we have once again asked the men and women of all three services to be ready to face dangerous and unpredictable events. But danger and unpredictability are facts of life for every service man and woman, and we sitting comfortably here should never forget that. Part of the ritual of these parliamentary occasions is the expression of our support for the armed forces, but it should be more than ritual: it should be an affirmation of our admiration for them and a commitment that, as they do their best for us, so we will do our best for them.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Syd Rapson: Like the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), I welcome the new Minister for the Armed Forces to the Front Bench, although he is not in his place at present. I wish also to thank the previous incumbent of that post. I am a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, as are my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn). The four of us travel around the country and abroad, and, wherever we have met the Royal Marines, they have mentioned their great support for the previous Minister for the Armed Forces. I do not wish to detract from the other members of the team, because they also get a mention, but the previous Minister scored a hit with them. It is nice for a Labour Minister to have such support from the armed forces. They are sad to see him go, but they are pleased that his replacement is just as good.
  I wish to make one or two simple points. As the Member for Portsmouth, North, my interest lies especially with the Navy. We have our fingers crossed on the possibility that there will be only two aircraft carriers in the future, and I have had much correspondence on that point. It is a good idea to have two large aircraft carriers to deter aggression rather than to deal with aggression once it has started. If we could rely on that policy to run through, everyone would see the benefit of deterring aggression. That is worth pursuing, but we must have those two aircraft carriers.
  Mr. Hancock: I also represent Portsmouth, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is also concerned that, for long periods in the past few months, all three of the current aircraft carriers have been alongside in Portsmouth dockyard. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made the point that, if we are to have only two aircraft carriers, we must ensure that we are ready and prepared for every eventuality. Having only two may not be the answer to future problems.
  Mr. Rapson: I am sure that my Front-Bench colleagues can answer that point well later. I hope to visit HMS Ocean, which has just come on stream, in Antigua in a

  1003
  few weeks' time with the other three musketeers from the armed forces scheme, and I am sure that it will provide a good back-up.
  I worked for the Ministry of Defence as a civilian for 39 years before I became a Member of Parliament. I faced continual cuts in the defence budget. As a representative of Ministry of Defence employees, I oversaw the sad loss of 21,000 jobs in Portsmouth dockyard alone. In my establishment, I managed to avoid job losses, but unfortunately 200 jobs were lost after my election to Parliament.
  Mr. Maples: Under Labour.
  Mr. Rapson: The hon. Gentleman comments from a sedentary position, but I saw the continual undermining of the defence industry by the previous Government, through cuts made for financial reasons. Our own strategic defence review contains a hidden cut, because an efficiency saving is required which amounts to 30 per cent. over five years. Although everyone in the defence industry feels that they can work with that, it is still a cut, and people in charge will have to reduce staff numbers to save money.
  I am pleased with the strategic defence review, and grateful for the way in which it has been done. I also like the aim of having armed forces that will deter aggression. However, in the back of my mind I am still worried about the long-term future of people's jobs.
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. Is he aware that the size of the efficiency savings sought over the next four years will amount to the equivalent of 40,000 jobs lost, not 20,000?
  Mr. Rapson: I do not accept those figures. Other efficiency savings can be made. The view from inside the Ministry of Defence is that jobs need not be lost, because other efficiency savings can be made. We all know that there is still some fat to be trimmed.
  I am probably one of the House's foremost experts on repairing and maintaining helicopters. That is completely useless to anyone else, and no good to me now, but I have worked on every helicopter that has been in service.
  I look forward to the introduction of the first Merlin on 1 December. Unfortunately, I cannot go to Culdrose to see it, but it is a fantastic aircraft. As an engineer, I know that we overload aircraft, and the Merlin will have to be some aircraft to cope. However, we will have only the first batch of 44, because the second batch of 22 will not go ahead.
  Although I understand the need for efficiency savings, it seems stupid to have a range of aging aircraft, with the stores having to carry spares and equipment for each type, instead of one type that can do all the necessary jobs well. In the long term, that would lead to savings. The second batch of Merlin aircraft should be considered, because we need to get rid of some of the old aircraft.
  I was recently in South Armagh with the hon. Member for Lichfield, and we had to travel by aircraft because movement by road in the area was constricted. It would have been a disaster if we had been shot, because the parties' finances could not have stood the by-election expenses.
  1004
  We travelled by helicopter and, on one occasion, three aircraft broke down as we were waiting to be picked up. We ended up in an old Wessex, which was on its last legs, but I was prepared to repair it if it broke down. The services rely on all sorts of aircraft—the Lynxes, the Gazelles, the Sea Kings and the Pumas. They have had their day, and the Merlin would completely outshine them. I hope that we can concentrate on the Merlin and make it an aircraft worth having, so that other countries will be interested in obtaining it. That will enable us to make savings.
  I also wish to represent views on the airborne stand-off radar system—ASTOR. I shall blatantly promote one of the companies in the competition, because it is in my constituency. I admit a slight interest, in that the company gave me a free ticket to Farnborough and a buffet lunch. However, I assure the House that I was not bought by that bribe, and I reveal it only because I feel embarrassed about it.
  Lockheed Martin is based in the IBM buildings in Portsmouth, and its ASTOR programme has impressed me. The ASTOR team showed me the mock-ups of how the system will work. I was so impressed that I went into the subject in greater depth, and I found that the British engineering content will be retained. It is important to keep that expertise in this country. Some 2,000-odd jobs are tied to it, and they would be to the UK's benefit.
  British companies are involved in the scheme, and I am committed to encouraging the Government to consider, in their balanced way, the outstanding advantages of retaining jobs, expertise and efficiency in our country and helping those companies for the long term. They were the client contractors for the Merlin programme, and virtually saved it during the seven years for which they took that responsibility.
  I welcome the strategic defence review. It was long needed, and was based on foreign policy rather than cuts proposed by the Treasury. I applaud the Labour Front-Bench team for choosing to have two aircraft carriers, and I hope that they will be based in Portsmouth, which we claim as the home of the British Navy. I have asked for some suggestions to be considered when they are named. It is an affront, of course, for a politician, a democratically elected representative of the people, to suggest that the people should choose a name, but I have suggested that the carriers' names should have something to do with Portsmouth.
  We cannot have an HMS Portsmouth, because of the tradition that the name of a ship that has done something wrong, or sunk without credit in battle, can never be used again. Unfortunately, "HMS Portsmouth" can never again be painted on a ship, which is strange in this modern age. I hope that the powers that be will give the ships names that are something to do with Portsmouth, although I have suggested that they should be called the HMS George Robertson and HMS John Reid. Perhaps the HMS Gordon Brown would be even more to the point. I am afraid that John Spellar did not come into it.
  I should not like to have the American system of naming ships. They have an HMS Ronald Reagan, and I can think of a name cropping up by popular request from

  1005
  some quarters that would not go down well with the rest of us. However, there should be some public involvement in the naming of future ships.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: One constituency nearly adjoining that of the hon. Gentleman contains more Navy residents than the whole of Portsmouth. Perhaps Gosport would be a suitable name.
  Mr. Rapson: I never cease to be amazed at the opportunities that the hon. Gentleman takes to get in. Whatever the name, I feel that it is old-fashioned to have a small clique in a closed room picking names that are not always relevant. I hope that my argument will upset that method.
  Portsmouth has a great interest in the defence industry, but the strategic defence review has not resulted in many people coming to my surgeries to raise worries. Many shop stewards are pleased with how the review has gone. As a member of the parliamentary armed forces scheme, I have been able to live day in and day out with Royal Marines in the Arctic circle and Spain, among other places, and service people have been able to talk to us as friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley will confirm that they tell us the truth because they see us as friends. Mucking in together creates that camaraderie. They are comfortable with the review, and pleased with the position of the Royal Marines. We have had great feedback from them.
  All power to the elbows of the Front-Bench team. We need an amphibious fast reaction force, and it seems that we will get one. The review is the best that we could get at this time, and I hope that it will improve as people respond to it.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) on his speech. I am delighted to hear that he is a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. When I first came to the House, half its Members or more had experience of service in the armed forces, many of them as regulars. The numbers are down now to single figures. Similarly, at least half those on the Conservative Benches in those days had experience of farming and land owning, and those numbers, too, are down to single figures. If ever there were a case for the retention of the House of Lords, it is that the upper House still has enormous experience in both those areas. I am, however, delighted that the hon. Gentleman is on the scheme. I shall make a strong bid to have him placed on the Select Committee on Defence. He is a dab hand at repairing helicopters and he may recall that, during some of our recent visits to Bosnia, the American helicopters constantly broke down so that we had to thumb a lift from British helicopters, some of which he no doubt had a hand in maintaining during his time in industry.
  It is unusual to have a Select Committee report somewhat weightier than the White Paper into which the Committee was inquiring. That is precisely what we have here, however. The report runs to 177 pages of opinion and 551 pages of evidence. It is a magnum opus in Select Committee terms. I want to record the Committee's
  1006
  thanks to our staff who stayed on during August to prepare the report in time for hon. Members to take it to the beach with their buckets and spades so that they could be ready for our debate today.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, referred to the unanimity that the Committee managed to maintain. During our deliberations on the report, there was nearly a vote on the proposed aircraft carriers, but that arose over whether a newspaper cartoon might have been included in the report. There was a heated debate, as some hon. Members felt the cartoon to be appropriate while others thought that it was not right to include humour in a Select Committee report. I am afraid that the latter argument won the day.
  The cartoon showed one of the proposed new aircraft carriers with the First Sea Lord and the captain looking over the bows while, down below, there were three rows of oars sticking out of the sides, as if from a Greek trireme. It seemed to us to say a lot about the strategic defence review, which contains a great many promises, but raises serious doubts about whether money will be available to keep them.
  I shall pay the common courtesies of congratulating those concerned on the report before going on to what I hope will be regarded as constructive criticisms. The Secretary of State and his ministerial team can be congratulated on one of the finest governmental public relations exercises on record. Wide and intensive consultations took place, and there can be no criticism of the opportunities that many people were given to say what they thought. The question is whether those views were acted on, or whether the consultation process was no more than a PR exercise to soften us up for the report that would come after it.
  The down side of such wide consultation, lasting 13 months, was a heightening of press speculation on the outcome of the review. Rumour ran rife, some of it pretty daft. The detailed contents of the SDR were leaked 24 hours before the Secretary of State's statement to the House: that was a great pity, and we have heard today what he has had to say about it. The initial reaction to the review was one of relief, and of a feeling that it could have been worse. Many of the press stories turned out to be highly exaggerated.
  The fact that the defence budget now forms the lowest percentage of gross domestic product since the mid-1930s at 2.7 per cent.—and only 6.8 per cent. of total Government spending, 40 per cent. of which is on procurement—means that the Secretary of State must achieve his targets on efficiency savings, the sale of assets and smarter procurement to keep the Treasury happy.
  We were repeatedly told during the consultation period that, when the SDR was published, it would be foreign policy led. However, there was no foreign policy White Paper before the review, merely the Foreign Secretary's mission statement. The failure to produce a White Paper first was a serious omission.
  It has been remarked that the Defence Committee's report was published at the same time as the Starr report. A more unfortunate coincidence was the fact that the SDR was conducted during the Treasury's comprehensive spending review, which was published only one week after the SDR. The House is asked to believe, with no

  1007
  foreign policy White Paper and with the two reviews running concurrently, that it was not a Treasury-led exercise.
  It is difficult to fault the principal assumptions underlying the SDR. I say "principal" because some of the other assumptions are wrong. The centrality of the North Atlantic alliance to Britain's security; the importance of remaining a credible nuclear power; the confirmation of Eurofighter; maintaining the quality of our armed forces; the maintenance of a full spectrum of war fighting capability; and those key principles of war, mobility and flexibility—going to the crisis, not waiting for it to come to us, as the Secretary of State said—are all fine.
  I also welcome some of the new themes in the SDR such as the changes within the force structures and the move towards more joint force formations without creating a sort of purple single defence force. That would be a great mistake. It has been tried out in other countries and been unsuccessful. There is a welcome emphasis on personnel issues and management changes in the way in which the defence establishment operates. There is also the more explicit foreign policy focus in defence policy—although, alas, we did not see a White Paper before the review came out.
  If there is one area in which Ministers got the review seriously wrong, it is their plans for the Territorial Army. Every speaker has picked up on that. The heaviest force reductions fall on the TA. The plan to cut it from 56,000 personnel to only 40,000, and the recent leaks suggesting that the MOD sees the need for only 7,000 territorials, is dangerous and disastrous, as our report says. I was interested to receive letters from Territorial Army units where people have read the report and written to us saying that hon. Members do not need to elaborate on what we feel the Government have got wrong—we merely need to read out the conclusions of the report. I shall not do so, although it is a pity that we cannot do as the American Congressmen do. They can go to the lectern in the chamber, say that they want something put on record and the whole thing goes in. I draw the House's attention to the section in the Defence Committee report that deals with the TA.
  The Government's basic assumption that the TA's role is home defence, and that, because the British Isles are unlikely to be invaded in the near future, it can be cut to the bone, fails to take account of its role in supporting regular troops on active service. Those of us who have been to Bosnia to see our armed forces in action realise that the TA is an important part of those forces. Some 3,500 TA personnel have served in Bosnia, both in IFOR and UNPROFOR, often in specialist roles as engineers or medical services. They are a vital element.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right to say that many TA soldiers in Bosnia serve in specialist roles, but does he not fall into the Government's hands by suggesting that the TA's job is in specialist tasks such as medicine, gunnery and signals? The point about Bosnia is that there is almost no infantry battalion there that does not have up to a company of TA infantry soldiers serving in the front line as non-specialist infantry soldiers.
  Mr. Colvin: That is an important point. When the Government review their decisions on the TA, they should consider the experience of Northern Ireland and the Royal
  1008
  Irish Regiment. There, TA units serve alongside regular battalions as part of the same regiment. It works well. The Government must think again about the future of the Territorial Army. If there was one thing that they could have done to create uncertainty, damage morale, harm recruiting and weaken retention, it was to propose decimating the TA in this way.
  Reference has been made to local interests in the TA. I was at a community centre only last Friday where I met members of a local cadet force. They were seriously worried about what would happen to the TA unit on which their cadet force was based; it was going to go. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) noted that half the TA units in the city of Southampton, which I represent in part, are to go. That will seriously affect army cadet units and have a knock-on effect on recruiting. The Government must reconsider.
  Although some hon. Members have suggested that this was a Treasury-led initiative because the Treasury wants to get its fingers on the proceeds of the sale of TA headquarters units, I believe that many of them belong to trusts. If sold, the money would not come to the MOD or the Treasury.
  Although we are cutting our defence budget, our principal ally in NATO, the United States, has announced an increase of 10 per cent. in its defence budget. It is also recruiting reservists through the internet to fight computer hacking in high-tech cyber defence units to safeguard the Pentagon's information systems. On Saturday, The Daily Telegraph drew attention to the fact that the United States—having, like our previous Government, reduced its defence expenditure in the light of the collapse of the iron curtain and the new worldwide security scenario—is now seriously questioning whether it can cope with the diverse threats likely to arise today. The article states that there is
  "mounting concern that American capabilities have dwindled dangerously, leaving the country ill-prepared to meet dangers posed by rogue states, weapons proliferation and rising instability in the post-Cold War era."
  If the United States is having serious second thoughts about the way in which it has cut defence expenditure, so should our Government.
  While I am on the importance of high-tech, the internet and computer hacking, I note that that is one area in which the territorials could be called upon to help because they are more likely to have such expertise. A report to the Pentagon from a special commission set up by the President of the United States focuses on the vulnerability of America's information and telecommunication systems. It even warns about an electronic Pearl harbour. The report in Defense News of 12 October states:
  "There is no doubt that computer and communications networks have become the soft underbelly of America's entire economic and security system."
  Today, most nations operate, whether in the military or in the civil sector, on an international electronic infrastructure; therefore, an attack on that infrastructure is an attack on all countries. NATO should put that matter on its agenda for its next summit, to be held in Washington, where NATO's new strategic concept is to be discussed, because the notion of cyber-attack on security and defence computer systems is truly worrying. The SDR does not take on board the more radical implications of the revolution in military affairs of which the microchip and smart weapons are a part.

  1009
  I realise that we have a credible nuclear deterrent, but does that mean that we can ignore defences against long-range ballistic missile attack? The United States is having second thoughts on that in respect of domestic defence. From newspaper reports, I understand that it now proposes to withdraw from the medium extended air defence system proposal for ballistic missile defence in Europe, in which its partners are Germany and Italy. If the US is pulling out because it has to concentrate its efforts on home defence, I wonder whether the time has come for the United Kingdom to consider going into that programme.
  That leads me to the question of our defence industrial front. I congratulate the UK's industrialists on the way in which they have responded to the challenge of restructuring the European defence industry in order to compete internationally with the three giant American companies that have arisen from the US restructuring. I welcome the Government's lead in that respect and their establishment of the OCCAR body, which is doing a great deal to get commercial collaboration on major defence projects.
  The seedcorn of defence industries is research and development, which can be funded either from a company's profits on the sale of defence products, or by Government. Our Committee was concerned about the proposals for the privatisation of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, in part or in whole. From reading between the lines of the SDR, I gather that DERA might be privatised in part. In the long-term budgeting, provision is made for the receipt of about £250 million in year 3, which seemed to us to indicate the partial sale of DERA.
  Our Committee questioned the wisdom of that privatisation, because we felt that preserving DERA within the public sector would do a great deal to preserve its impartiality when carrying out evaluations and giving advice, and to win co-operation from other countries. There is a strong case in favour of companies in Europe collaborating and sharing their investment in research and development. From talks with Procurement Ministers at the Pentagon, I know that the United States, with fewer defence companies than it previously had, urgently needs partners in research and development and is willing to build on the two-way street of cross-Atlantic defence sales in terms of joint research and development projects with the United Kingdom.
  Since the SDR was published, there has been escalating violence in Kosovo and the collapse of the Russian economy. As the countries of the former Soviet Union struggle to maintain domestic peace and their new democracies, they will flood international markets with military hardware in the scramble for the dollars needed to get their economies in order. There have already been reports that Russia has entered into a new arrangement with India to supply it with arms; I have seen a report that Ukraine is about to sell more than 300 tanks to Pakistan; and both Russia and Ukraine are supplying intercontinental missiles to countries that we would regard as being potentially unfriendly towards the UK.
  The world is becoming increasingly unsettled. Britain's interests are world wide, as are those of many of our European partners. That is why I raised the question of
  1010
  the common foreign and security policy, even though I have severe reservations as to whether a European security and defence identity will ever emerge. The important point is that, whatever is done on those two fronts—incidentally, I strongly support the Government's decision in not merging Western European Union with the European Union—we must do nothing that will undermine the North Atlantic alliance, which remains the basis of Britain's and Europe's defences.
  In three years' time, our defence budget will be 4 per cent. less in real terms than it is now. If the savings from smarter procurement, greater efficiency and the sale of assets are not achieved, the cut will be 8 per cent. Such a reduction in our defence resources would not be acceptable to the House, or to the people whom we represent. When the Secretary of State prepares his annual defence White Paper, will he include a progress report on how his savings targets are being met? Will he confirm that those savings, especially those arising from the sale of assets, will be retained by the Ministry of Defence, and not grabbed by the Treasury? The defence of the realm is any Government's first responsibility and, in the final analysis, the new Labour Government will be judged on their success in meeting that responsibility.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that, although this is a two-day debate, many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. Unless speeches are shorter than they have been until now, many hon. Members will be disappointed.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Douglas Alexander: I rise to speak because of a strong constituency interest in the matters being debated. My constituency is home to 102 Field Support Squadron, Royal Engineers (Volunteers). As a result, I have taken a close interest in the strategic defence review, especially as it relates to reserve forces.
  The review has been supported by the chiefs of staff. It reshapes and modernises our forces on the basis of our foreign policy needs. The review was necessary and I support it. It addresses the changed realities of the post-cold war world. The Government have recognised that the Territorial Army should no longer be a force of last resort, to be used against a major conventional threat to the United Kingdom and our NATO allies; thankfully, that possibility has become more remote. As the review states:
  "the main contribution of Reserves should switch from being insurance against a struggle for national survival to supporting Regular Forces' deployments abroad, both with individuals and formed units."
  The SDR suggests that the TA will in future be able to contribute to our ability to project military power abroad in pursuit of our foreign policy aims. One of the consequences of that approach is that the TA will have to be able to provide support to a full range of military roles, such as signallers, artillery, air defence and, of course, engineering capability. Against such a backdrop, I am convinced that a strong case can be made for the retention of the Paisley Royal Engineers whom I represent, without in any way undermining the integrity of the new approach to the reserve forces outlined by the Government.

  1011
  The military engineering capabilities of the 143 men and women based in my constituency are ideally suited to meet the challenge of becoming more integrated into our regular forces' operations. The squadron, which has a proud 110-year history, including service in Norway, Iceland, the middle east and France, has in recent years supported the Regular Army in operations in Bosnia, Canada, Cyprus, Kenya and Northern Ireland. A brand new TA centre in Paisley is under construction and nearing completion at a cost of £2.5 million. It will provide a state-of-the-art facility that is ideally suited to allowing the engineers to meet the new challenges of greater integration with the regular forces.
  Yet there is a further aspect of the strategic defence review approach to the question of the Territorial Army to which I draw the attention of the House this evening. In the supporting essays to the review, the Government mention the vital work that reserve forces carry out in the civilian community. As an example of that vital work, the Government cite military aid to flooded areas. No one can over-estimate the importance of that work to my constituents. During the floods of 1994, which so badly affected Paisley, the 102 Field Support Squadron played a critical role in providing military aid to the civilian community in circumstances of great difficulty. Similar support was provided by the squadron to the citizens of Perth when the River Tay flooded. The squadron is regularly called upon to use its engineering expertise and equipment in support of humanitarian work. In recent years, the searchlights based in Paisley have been used in support of mountain rescue teams in Arrochar, Glencoe, Ben Lomond and Crianlarich. Those examples alone make a strong case for retaining such an engineering capacity in Scotland.
  I believe that there is a compelling military and civilian case for retaining the TA squadron in my constituency without undermining in any way the new role for the reserve forces that the Government have set out in the strategic defence review. I urge my right hon. Friends to bear in mind those considerations over the coming weeks as they undertake detailed work and consider how the review will impact on individual units and communities.
  7.10 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We heard today a nice speech by the hon. Member for Walsall, South or North—
  Mr. Blunt: Walsall, South.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Thank you. I am still getting oriented. I know where the hon. Gentleman comes from and I see a great deal of him in the NATO parliamentary assembly, where he rules the roost and bosses committees around. We know that he will always win because his arguments are full of good common sense.
  In that context, I sometimes wish that we would pay a little more attention to the reports prepared not only by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) but by others in that illustrious assembly. Some of those reports are regarded objectively by the world community as the best-informed non-classified documents anywhere on the subject of defence and its economics. I hope that, when we next debate Government defence policy—especially
  1012
  when we celebrate the 50th anniversary of NATO next year—we will recognise that parliamentary assembly, which has provided much information and performed many worthwhile duties over the years. It has tried to involve other countries through "Partnership for Peace" and comprises associate members from eastern and central Europe, including Russia. The Visegrad countries have become full members of that assembly, which I am glad to report will meet in Edinburgh this year.
  I admired the Select Committee report for its objectivity. It was fair and I think that the hon. Member for Walsall, South, the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, was also fair to the Government. We can agree with certain aspects of the Government's strategic defence review, but I shall turn later to the points of disagreement and to some of my suspicions about it.
  I begin by referring to the historical context within which the hon. Gentleman viewed the report. He made an interesting comparison with previous occasions when Governments have revisited the strength of our armed forces, dating back to Napoleonic times.
  Despite several unflattering comments, I should point out that I was not old enough to serve in the first world war. However, I grew up in the shadow of it. The report refers to a similar exercise conducted after the first world war to cut back the armed forces. That review proceeded and there was a mutiny in the Navy at Invergordon because the chaps were not being paid enough. Lloyd George decided eventually that the exercise could not continue and Winston Churchill persuaded the Government of the day to go no further because the armed forces were cut to the bone.
  We did not begin to pick up the pieces until the 1933 report. The Royal Air Force benefited particularly from its findings and was able to provide the aircraft that saved us from national defeat in the battle of Britain. Service morale was not particularly good and the rundown of numbers and equipment in our armed forces was appalling. I saw the soldiers returning from Dunkirk and joined their ranks two years later. It is true that we were not as well trained as we should have been and that we lacked good equipment. Any good equipment that we had was sent to Africa.
  I mention that point to emphasise that it is easy to cut resources. It is easy for Government bravely to grasp the nettle because they want to spend money on other things, assuming that they can turn on the tap again when they can afford to do so. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it is a gamble to assume that we can preserve the efficiency of our armed forces and the quality of their equipment and training and hope that it will be paid for with efficiency gains and the sale of property. It is a gamble to assume that, within a few years, we shall be able to rebuild the loyalty of our armed forces to the cause, their discipline and the respect that they have earned from the people of this country.
  Many hon. Members are present for this debate because they recognise the important links that exist with the Territorial Army. I recently attended a civic occasion in my constituency. It was a commemoration service attended by 100 or so TA soldiers. I talked to some of them and they were as keen as mustard. However, the regular officer who was in command said, "I don't think that I can do this next year. We will all be split up and the company will be reduced in number. It will be so

  1013
  spread out that I am not sure that I will be able to bring the men together." I think that we shall regret that consequence if we continue to assume that we are doing no harm to the TA and that it is only the front line that counts—when even that is being squeezed.
  We are so short of men in Bosnia that we must draw upon TA infantry, not just specialists. The strategic defence review goes even further: it says that we must think in terms of compulsory call-out. Some members of the TA will accept compulsory call-out willingly as part of their duties. Some will welcome it as a release from their normal day-to-day jobs; they joined the Territorial Army to serve their country. However, the review refers to individual compulsory call-out. The Select Committee draws attention to the fact that, if individuals with specialty knowledge are called out, they will wonder why they are being picked on and their employers will question the policy of cherry-picking. Employers will say, "These people have special skills that are useful to my company and, although I do not mind if they are called out as part of a group when the country is in danger or there is a particularly serious problem to face, picking out one of my best engineers or someone with specialist computer skills says something about the way in which we are financing our defence force." I fear that that will put too great a strain on Territorial Army volunteers in the same way that, if we continue in this manner, we shall put too great a strain on our regular forces.
  I do not wish to go into great detail, but I refer to a letter that I received from a person serving in the Green Jackets. He writes:
  "We have 23 per cent. of our battalion strength from the ethnic minorities against a Regular Army figure of less than 2 per cent."
  Yet do we not all recognise that we ought to aim for higher figures? We are doing so in the police force, so why not in the armed forces?
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that that is the case all over the English-speaking world? For example, the National Guard has been far more successful in attracting Hispanics and others for whom English is not the first language than the American regular forces.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: That is true. It is thought that people will be brought together into hybrid groups. I was in a regiment that was converted from anti-tank to gunners—the machine gun battalion of the Gordon Highlanders. One may ask why I joined that regiment. The war had finished; I was born in Glasgow, which made me a Glasgow highlander. I had never known such a fierce bunch. Whenever we went through a town in Bangalore and other British troops were around, they fought them almost to the death. Of course, they all drank too much, but they had fierce regimental pride. It was an honour to belong to that regiment and I would have gone anywhere with those lads. They were the cocky wee Gordons, the pride of them all; the rest were rubbish. It is such spirit that keeps alive people's loyalty to their regiment. They talk not about the Army but about their regiment. Far too great a strain is being put on that.
  I hope that we can make progress on ballistic missile defence, but the role of nuclear defence is just as important. I do not want to make mischief out of that
  1014
  because I know that it is a complicated subject, but it is dealt with in the essays in the second part of the strategic defence review. It says:
  "There is no 'silver bullet' which will provide a complete answer to the risks posed by chemical and biological weapons. What is needed is a balance of capabilities, to deter, counter, and defend against the use of such weapons."
  Nothing in the strategic defence review explicitly deals with what role, if any, British nuclear weapons are to play in determining the chemical and biological weapons threat.
  The only assurance that the UK gives concerning nuclear weapons is that we shall not use them against a non-nuclear state. However, if such a state is involved with another that has nuclear capability, it might be subject to nuclear retaliation. The International Security Information Service—to which I am grateful—points out that
  "one question for policy makers is why should aggressors who do not have nuclear weapons but who are contemplating the use of chemical and biological weapons be given an assurance that nuclear retaliation to such use is entirely ruled out?"
  I should welcome a comment on that today or tomorrow.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I can, perhaps, throw a little light on this matter. In the late 1970s, the Government signed positive and negative security assurances that committed us to giving assurances that we would not respond with nuclear weapons against countries that had non-nuclear mass destruction weapons, but no nuclear mass destruction weapons. I hope that my right hon. Friend is making the point—which I intend to emphasise if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that those assurances should be rescinded, particularly in the light of the fact that biological weapons have not been abolished, although that was supposed to have happened in 1972.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: That is an interesting point that must be followed up. The Secretary of State said that talks were going on with the United States to find out whether a policy can be developed to deal with that vexatious problem. In addition to the question of how we respond on that matter, there is the problem of the ballistic missile defence system.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the European defence identity. The House will be aware, as the Secretary of State informed us earlier, that there has been a great analysis of the manner in which the European defence manufacturing industries should work together and copy the Americans by providing more effective and efficient defence manufacturing. We should heed the report and take that wise step. The Government welcome that and there is no dispute in the House on that matter.
  The consolidation of European defence manufacturing industry is absolutely vital. The current structure is inefficient, today's markets are smaller and there is not as much money to spend on expensive weapons systems. I am also concerned about the growing technological gap between the European forces and our own, which makes it increasingly difficult to co-operate in important peacekeeping missions, let alone going to war. There are threats that European members of NATO could face that would demand our attention without us asking for, and expecting, American military support.

  1015
  The way in which the report is interpreted may be unfair, but it has led to speculation that its real intent is to prepare not only for a single defence market for manufacturing industry but for a European defence community responsible to, and run by, the European Union. The link between the WEU and NATO has been discussed, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) pointed out, if that move were made, the WEU would be no more and the relationship between Europe and NATO would be subject to change. That poses the question, whither NATO?
  I meet people from the continent who study those matters carefully, and most of them are NATO-oriented, as they are bound to be when they come to the North Atlantic Assembly. Representatives of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe are not as NATO-oriented and are able to view matters from another perspective. They recognise that there is a European Union and a Common Market and that it could move into the field of defence.
  Speculation on that issue has, in more than one responsible newspaper, encouraged the rumour that the Government, who for years have set an example in promoting international co-operation in defence, while simultaneously earning the reputation of being a member of the awkward squad in Brussels, might use that turn of events to get on-side with their European partners, particularly the French, and wave the green flag in favour of an EU common defence system. On 7 October, the Financial Times, which does not usually gossip, said that it thought that
  "the Government is shortly to recommend that the European Union should take on a defence capability `in order', in the words of an unnamed senior official, `to offset the damage caused by Labour's decision to stay out of the first wave of monetary union'."
  The Conservative party could be criticised for not joining the Common Market right at the beginning, so I am not making a party point.
  I do not know whether that speculation has any substance, but the forthcoming calendar of European high-level meetings suggests that there will be plenty of opportunity to add substance to the rumour, and it ought to be scotched. I would not put it past the Government, with their obsession with image, to take the opportunity to demonstrate that they are good Europeans. There are high stakes here and we can gain popularity with those European Union members who think that we drag our feet on co-operation.
  On 24 and 25 October, there will be informal meetings. One dreads those, because people get indiscreet on such occasions. Those meetings concern the future of Europe and will be attended by the EU Heads of State and Governments, including the Secretary and State and the Prime Minister. On 3 and 4 November, in Vienna, there is to be the first-ever meeting of European Union Defence Ministers. I wonder what mischief will be got up to there, especially as Austria will host the event. The Secretary of State will attend. This will be a flyer, will it not? It will be the first time that we have had anything like it. On 17 and 18 November, in Rome, the WEU ministerial meeting will take place. Thank goodness Lord Gilbert is in place; we shall see how he gets on in that crowd.
  I do not want to be mistaken, so I shall conclude. In my judgment, there are solid grounds for establishing a European identity which can, by working together, ensure
  1016
  agreement on our European priorities and our ability to meet them. In the WEU, we already have the mechanism to do things or suggest how we might be able to work together more effectively, and it is gradually developing a system described as separable from NATO but not separate, and capable of using NATO assets.
  Most European countries belong to the WEU and see it as an organisation that can, and should be, encouraged. The First Commission on the European Union recently published a report in which it said that it had
  "discussed … the development of WEU itself … it was again broadly agreed that WEU should be used as the vehicle for providing a stronger bridge between NATO and the EU."
  I attended a meeting in Florence, which was brought together by retired diplomats and a few generals. People thought that it was just a bunch of old buffers getting together, but they combined not only centuries of age but more than centuries of wisdom. I was interested to note that, in their draft conclusions, they said:
  "A common European security and defence policy must include … the capacity to execute missions of the WEU-Petersberg spectrum"—
  peacekeeping duties and so on—
  "as well as collective defence. Within this context, collective defence will remain NATO's core function, as NATO remains the essential forum for consultation among"
  the
  "Allies".
  And so say all of us.
  For NATO, that obviously means improving the co-operative relationships that it has established in Bosnia with the United Nations, the WEU and the OSCE. The hon. Member for Walsall, South attaches great importance to the value of OSCE as a means of following up the work that is done by NATO and the UN, when it is trying to bring about and consolidate the peace that has been brought, temporarily, as a result of military intervention. He is absolutely right to do so. The many interlocking institutions set up since the end of the cold war can cause confusion. They get in each another's way, add to the confusion and make it more difficult to preserve the peace. I have no experience of this, but it seems to me that, as we enter the new era of the post-cold war, we are starting to learn, from our experiences in Somalia, the Congo, Bosnia and Kosovo, which of those organisations can best carry out the duties that we consider could be laid on them.
  It seems to me that, in the end, if we are to think that the defence side is best accomplished by having a common European defence run by the EU, we are taking the most sensitive step of all. One cannot have an EU defence policy of the nation states of western Europe without first having a political union; and that seems to me to be a long evolutionary step to take. My judgment is that, if we want to move forward successfully into the next century, we should put our trust in the machinery that has shown itself to be adaptable. I would judge that adaptability of NATO, working with Europe through the WEU, to be possibly the best bet of all the measures that are suggested by those who think of alternatives, and I would go for it.
  7.33 pm
  Laura Moffatt: I am delighted to speak in this important defence debate, and specifically on the strategic defence review. It is a very important debate

  1017
  Some people say that it is not relevant—that it is not a sexy subject, that it is not worthy of too much of our time—but, obviously, hon. Members in the Chamber know that that is not so.
  Defence of the realm is a fundamental task of Government. It is vital for the House to address itself to looking after the well-being of our armed forces, the equipment that they need and the way in which the personnel are called upon to do the job. We are charged with the duty of ensuring that we examine those issues—on housing, health and family relationships—of ensuring proper progress with equal opportunities within our armed forces and of scrutinising equipment procurement and getting the best deal from the defence industry.
  The list of issues is endless. That is the very reason that the review has been such an amazing feat. There has been a great sense of openness, with a couple of notable exceptions—I am sure that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence would like to elaborate. We have embarked on what I believe to be an amazing review. More important is the scale on which the forces have been consulted. That makes this strategic review very special. It has been widely welcomed from many quarters. It has given me, as a new member of the Defence Committee, the opportunity to get to grips with the wider defence issues facing us today, in the preparation of our response to the SDR.
  In the short time allowed, it will be impossible to address all the subjects tackled in the SDR, so I shall concentrate on only three areas of concern that I should like to bring to the House's attention. I hope that the first will be properly remedied by the Government.
  There is little doubt that the Defence Secondary Care Agency was dealt an almost fatal blow by the previous—Conservative—Government. In its third report of 1996–97, on forces medical services, the Defence Committee concluded:
  "Staff shortages in the defence medical services are so serious that it is not clear whether it will recover".
  I saw the doctors, nurses and ambulance crew at work in Bosnia, and it is clear that the service must recover. Those doctors and nurses work alongside their national health service colleagues in peacetime, gaining the skills and experience that they need, but offer the added bonus of being able to mobilise in a crisis and continue their work in what can be very dangerous situations. I pay tribute to those reserve forces who work alongside their regular colleagues in delivering care wherever in the world it is needed. They should be nurtured and encouraged in their very special duties.
  I was delighted that the SDR recognised the need to strengthen the medical services, not only in the Secretary of State's welcome statement at the start of the debate, but in the introduction to the White Paper, which says:
  "the deep seated problems must be corrected".
  It is vital that we follow through with the necessary funds for this much-needed and much-admired service.
  My second concern was expressed by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), but I want to speak about the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. As a Member of Parliament in whose constituency are
  1018
  many jobs connected to the defence industry, I am committed to the agency's remaining independent. We should not have to operate without a strong defence industrial base on which our forces can rely. We must be able to equip our forces with the modern technology that they need. We have rightly witnessed the end of the production of anti-personnel mines, but many thousands of workers throughout the UK are involved in the very successful business of producing high-quality equipment to allow our armed forces to do their job on our behalf.
  Many of those companies have been through enormous change already. They welcome the smart procurement initiatives. They rise to the challenge of the giant United States defence companies. They are taking on the difficult task of restructuring the European defence industry and they are determined to modernise.
  I sound a word of caution about the public-private partnership of DERA. The Ministry of Defence and the defence industry must have complete confidence that evaluation and research are free from partial commercial pressure. It is essential to safeguard the integrity of the MOD in the task of procuring equipment. I ask that DERA remain independent.
  In conclusion, I raise an issue that is crucial to the Government. They have taken a lead in the strategic defence review, as they have on many others issues. They have shown openness and honesty. To declare our defence stance, particularly in relation to nuclear weapons, is a strength, not a weakness. The Government have published the number of warheads and the amount of fissile material, which demonstrates their openness. I urge the Government to take the lead and reduce the nuclear threat to humanity. As they have stated so encouragingly:
  "The Government wishes to see a safer world in which there is no place for nuclear weapons".
  That is a statement with which, I hope, none of us would disagree.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). I agree with what she said about the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the regular and reserve medical services. She and I have tabled an early-day motion to speak up for the reserve forces in the south-east, who are among the most threatened of all. Under the present plans, we would end up with almost the smallest proportionate share of the reserves.
  I congratulate the Government on one matter. I welcome the decision to look at the armed forces' opportunities in wider society, through what the press has labelled the GI Bill initiative and through the wider study of the problems from which armed forces families suffer in the civilian community. Sadly, the results on the latter score will be very modest unless there is a willingness, of which we have not yet seen any evidence, on the part of other Cabinet members to take action to give service families fair access to schools, health care and other public services.
  That one cheer, or half a cheer, takes me directly to my central criticism of the strategic defence review—that, in so many other ways, it has lost sight of defence as a national, rather than a narrowly professional, issue. It has lost sight of what armed forces are for.

  1019
  As I have said in the House before, I left my post as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to campaign against the defence posture of the previous Government and, in particular, to call for a strategic defence review. I would have been the first Member in the House to cheer if this defence review had been what it claimed to be. Many of us feel, however, that it has missed the point of what our armed forces are for. Our Select Committee report states:
  "The Government's manifesto promised 'a strategic defence and security review'… we are still awaiting the strategic security review".
  Rather defensively, the Secretary of State picked out a reply to that.
  The Government seem to have bought the line from their professional advisers that defence is the business of providing well-equipped professional units to carry out certain overseas tasks, providing they do not last too long.
  Let us take the Navy, first. I remember working a decade ago as secretary of the parliamentary maritime group to try to persuade the then Government to do something about the decline in our Merchant Navy. From a position a generation and a half ago, when we were the largest carrier by far in the world, we are now down to 1 per cent. of world sea trade. However, if we look back over the broad sweep of this century, the battle of the Atlantic—a battle on which the survival of this country as an independent democracy depended—was not won just by the courage and professionalism of the Royal Navy. The Merchant Navy had proportionately much higher casualties than the Royal Navy, and neither could have done its job without the reserves who were clearing mines around the ports from which they were operating, and without the largely civilian effort in breaking the Enigma code.
  More recently, the Falkland islands could not have been recaptured without the many merchant ships that supported that task force, even in such a very short campaign, yet today we have a Government who have so completely given up on trying to revitalies our Merchant Navy—I do not defend the record of the previous Government on this—that we have bought—
  Dr. Doug Naysmith: Can you tell us a single thing that you urged the previous Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not involved in the debate. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would use the correct parliamentary language.
  Dr. Naysmith: The hon. Gentleman says that he urged the previous Government to act to halt the Merchant Navy's decline. Can he tell us a single thing that the previous Government did which helped?
  Mr. Brazier: There were some changes in the tax arrangements for seafarers which, from memory, cost about £30 million a year. There were also some rather larger changes in capital write-offs for ships. It was too little too late and I do not defend it, but the present Government have so despaired of doing anything about the Merchant Navy that they have bought six ships to carry an expeditionary force—just six ships, at a time when highly effective mines, deployable from civilian vessels, are widely available and extremely cheap.
  1020
  That comes just a few years after we abandoned our reserve mine-clearing capability in the Royal Naval Reserve. We must never forget that mines are the poor man's weapon against the rich man's navy.
  The aim of defence should be to protect this country and its vital interests in short conflicts and also in long wars. It is nations that win wars, not just professional armed forces.
  Our two most recent conflicts, the Falklands and the Gulf, were short. They were fought over open terrain with little civilian population. Those conditions were ideal for high technology deployed by professional armed forces. That is the sort of war for which generals like to plan. Most generals like planning for the last war anyway. Predictions about the past are easier than predictions about the future, as Churchill once commented.
  Sir Robert Smith: With hindsight, had the generals planned for such a war? One never gets the war for which one has planned.
  Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my point. Recent history is littered with examples of conflicts in which terrain has frustrated a reliance on high technology. What did high technology do for America in Vietnam? What did it do for Russia in Afghanistan or, more recently, in Grozny? In each case there was a large, hostile civilian population.
  If we were to become involved in serious fighting in the Balkans—perhaps even in Kosovo—how many people believe that the magic wand of high technology would bring us a speedy victory? Air power and massed armour did not work for Hitler in the last war in the Balkans.
  Of course our professional armed forces are extremely important. I am the son of a regular soldier and I have family connections with all three regular services. However, they are not everything. The wider population, through reserve forces for all three services and through related industries, such as merchant shipping, civil aviation and our munitions factories, are vital to provide sustainability in a major conflict.
  With regard to the RAF, the Government have acknowledged that there is a growing shortage of fast jet pilots. In his testimony before our Committee, the Chief of Air Staff impressed us all with his grasp of the problem, but his recipes seemed to many of us to be unworkable. How many of us believe that there is a group of 18 and 19-year-olds out there who are willing to join the Air Force three years earlier, giving up going to university? How many people believe that RAF service will be more attractive to married pilots if there are even fewer turns at the desk jobs which give their families some sort of break from the long periods away from home, which are increasingly inseparable from squadron service?
  The RAF is in danger of becoming involved in a battle of attrition with the civilian airlines. In the long run, it can only lose that battle, even if substantial sums are thrown at the problem. It is a little like trying to stick band-aid plasters on an open wound. Instead of waging that battle with its civilian counterparts, we should do what has already been done in America—go with the grain of the aviation industry and construct proper air formations, allowing the RAF to continue to benefit from the skills of

  1021
  fast-jet pilots after they have moved their main employment to airlines. That would allow us to capitalise on the millions of pounds that it costs to train each of them.
  The armed forces must do what every other organisation in the civilian world is doing—make more, not less, use of part-timers, who are much less expensive. All the evidence from the English-speaking world is that part-timer sailors, soldiers and airmen work best in part-time units with reservist commanders because they alone understand how to balance military service with civilian employment. The initiative to recruit a handful of part-time reserve fast-jet pilots into the Royal Auxiliary Air Force will wither unless there is a proper reserve squadron structure and command opportunities for reservists.
  I draw a parallel with the Territorial Army, which has been mentioned in almost every speech today. The Secretary of State said earlier that he was concerned about the 30 per cent. turnover in our Territorial Army, to which I have referred in many debates. I have often pointed out that the figure is much lower in the US National Guard, and in Canada and Australia. In those countries, the Territorial Army's counterparts serve in formed units designed to work as formed units, almost exclusively commanded by reservist commanders. However, one organisation that has a much higher wastage rate than ours—nearly 40 per cent.—is the US Reserve Army, which is separate from the National Guard. It is based on the very model towards which our chiefs of staff are trying to drive the Territorial Army—service support oriented, and with units designed as gap fillers for its regular counterparts.
  America and Australia plan to deploy reserve combat units in action as formed units—the National Guard and the Australian Reserve Army. I have alluded before to the remarkable testimony which Brigadier Hammerbeck paid to the American National Guard artillery brigade attached to our division in the Gulf war. Incredibly, however, Ministers believe that British territorials should be used only for gap filling and supporting roles. Our pitifully small TA—less than half the size of its regular counterparts, although in the other countries that I mentioned, it is roughly equal—is to be still further reduced. Just as there was an exodus of the best people from the Royal Navy Reserve when its vessels were taken away and it became a gap filler, the same fate awaits the Territorial Army.
  Not only will there be far fewer combat units—fewer infantry and armour and fewer engineers—but who do Ministers seriously believe will join an infantry battalion that is incapable of training at battalion level because it is spread over such a large area? Does the Minister for the Armed Forces, who has just arrived in the Chamber, seriously believe that good-quality TA officers will spend 10 or 12 years sacrificing their families and careers to rise to the height of company commander, only to command a company that will be pressed to produce a platoon-sized turnout on a training weekend?
  With the reduction and emasculation of our remaining TA combat forces, how would we rebuild a substantial Army if, for example, the Balkans were to catch fire or the Russian threat were to re-emerge, or if, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, there were an NBC—nuclear,
  1022
  biological and chemical—threat from terrorists? Let us remember that it takes at least 10 years in peacetime to build volunteer units with their officer and senior NCO structures.
  On the subject of structure, I wish to say a word about the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations, which get so little credit for administering all three of the reserve services, and all three cadet organisations. They were established by Haldane, who was a Liberal but, I believe, one of the greatest Secretaries for War of all time. The aim was to ensure that the recruiting and administration of territorials, auxiliaries and cadets were kept local and close to the civilian population, rather than absorbed by an insensitive regular command structure.
  Those associations, whose membership is almost entirely ex-reservist, can draw on the many skills of their members, who are judges, accountants and property developers, to mention just a few, without being charged for those services. By being allowed to manage their own budgets, those organisations have proved far more successful than their civilian counterparts in the Ministry of Defence. I have seen evidence that that has led to jealousy and resentment among some civil servants, especially those who have so badly mismanaged parts of the armed forces estate. In many parts of the country, the cadets whom those associations look after are now the only uniformed presence.
  My county, with 3 per cent. of the population of Britain, has many thriving sea cadet units whose entire regular backup is one sergeant-major from the Royal Marines. Without the south-east TAVRA and its Kent county association, the sea cadets would wither, as would recruitment to the Royal Navy. More than two fifths of our fast-jet pilots began their service in the air cadets, and more than two fifths of all recruits to the Regular Army started as territorials or Army cadets.
  Instead of recognising the vital role of the TAVRAs, as the previous Government did, to their credit, this Government propose to place them in all but name under the command structure of the Regular Army. Quite apart from the fact that the Regular Army has nothing to do with the air and naval components, it means requiring a single TAVRA, corresponding to the relevant regular brigade, to provide a supposedly local presence from Berwick-upon-Tweed all the way down to north Lincolnshire. It makes a mockery of the local function of the TAVRAs. If the proposed changes to the TAVRAs go ahead and many TA drill halls are closed, the consequences for cadet forces will be devastating and the impact on regular recruiting is difficult to exaggerate. Recruiting may enjoy an Indian summer, with the recession coming, but where will it leave us in 10 years' time?
  As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government have lost sight of the principal purpose of defence, which is to provide for a sustainable defence capability for the nation as a whole in a dangerous world. In 1919, the chiefs of staff went to the then Secretary for War, Winston Churchill—indeed, they went over his head and lobbied the Cabinet behind his back—to try to persuade the then Government to disband the Territorial Army and focus Britain's forces on a small, highly relevant, all-professional expeditionary force. The world looked much safer in 1919 than it does today. Thank God

  1023
  that Churchill rejected that advice. In contrast, this Government plan to allow our elite professionals to march into the distance virtually alone.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who speaks with passion and conviction on this subject. I respect his concern for the well-being of the Territorial Army, about which he spoke with considerable authority.
  The hon. Gentleman may not agree with my view that the strategic defence review and its publication are a considerable landmark in the evolution of British defence and security policy. He and his hon. Friends may not agree with all its recommendations and conclusions, but there are two reasons why they should be more positive about the SDR.
  First, it provides us with a genuine basis for developing a new national consensus about Britain's defence policy. Its conclusions are sensible and balanced. It has correctly identified the major challenges facing the United Kingdom, and has tried to put in place the right configuration of forces to meet those challenges.
  It is a matter of regret that Conservative Members have tonight, and on other occasions, excluded themselves from that new national consensus. In short, the Opposition have at times been guilty of succumbing to temptation. They have postured their way through the debate, and have developed the art of naked opportunism to a considerable extent. Some Conservative Members, especially in their comments about the territorials, were guilty of irresponsible scaremongering. I hope that those mistakes will be corrected when the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) winds up for the Opposition.
  The second reason why the strategic defence review should be more broadly welcomed than it has been by Conservative Members is that industry and informed opinion have given it a warm welcome. The hon. Member for Canterbury, who is a distinguished member of the Defence Committee, rehearsed some of his concerns about the SDR, but it might be helpful to remind him of one of the central conclusions of the Defence Committee report, which I strongly welcome.
  Paragraph 406 states:
  "We join in welcoming it"—
  the SDR—
  "as a positive advance in formulating a defence policy for the beginning of the new millennium. It provides a coherent framework within which our Armed Forces can be structured, and it consolidates and advances the changes in our defence posture that have been in train since the fall of the Soviet Union."
  That is the conclusion of the Defence Committee, but people would never guess that from some of the contributions from Conservative Members.
  I shall also quote Gerald Segal, director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, who is respected considerably in the defence community. On 8 July, he said:
  "A cynical observer of previous British Strategic Defence Reviews could be forgiven for thinking these exercises are never strategic and rarely real reviews. But the SDR … is different. Britain now looks set to have a modern military prepared for the likely wars of the future … Some may wish to whisper it quietly, but the SDR will ensure that, at least for a generation, Britain will rank second only to the United States in deployable military power."
  1024
  Those are considerable endorsements of the Government's strategy, and I should like to add my own endorsement to those of many of the speakers in tonight's debate.
  I shall develop three issues, in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond positively. I am pleased that the review discusses the necessity for developing closer collaboration with the MOD and the defence industry. Listening to some Conservative Members in the debate and on other occasions, one reaches the perhaps reasonable conclusion that defence industry employment increased during the years of Conservative government, which were somehow a golden age for the defence industries of the United Kingdom.
  The truth, as most hon. Members know from reading the literature or from their experience in their constituencies, is that almost the opposite is the case. From 1980 to 1997, defence employment fell by 50 per cent., so Labour Members are not inclined to take lectures from Conservative Members about their commitment to defence. Many of our constituents have experienced exactly the opposite.
  The need for closer collaboration with the MOD and the defence industry is important, and I am glad that the SDR represents a step forward on that front. The smart procurement initiative will play a significant role in improving our procurement procedures, and the Government's commitment to developing a new defence diversification agency within the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is especially welcome.
  One of the tragedies of the past decade and a half has been the haemorrhaging of important skills from the defence industry; there was little support and encouragement from the then Conservative Government. In my constituency, 10,000 jobs were lost in the shipyard in five years, and there was little effective regional industrial policy to sustain the hugely valuable skill base in the Barrow and Furness constituency.
  The same pattern of industrial vandalism was repeated right across the country, with vital skills being lost and the Government of the day shrugging their shoulders, claiming that they were impotent, that trying to develop a strategy would be uncompetitive and so on. Those arguments were unconvincing then, and I am delighted that the Government do not subscribe to them.
  I hope that the proposals in the defence diversification agency Green Paper can be more broadly focused over time. I understand that, at the moment, the Government are primarily focusing the work of the defence diversification agency on existing DERA research sites. There is an obvious attraction in that—administratively, it makes sense—but the pattern of the past 15 years shows that job losses in the defence industry were not concentrated around DERA research facilities. They occurred in my constituency, in other parts of the north-west and in the south-east—right across the country.
  I should like the new agency to focus its attention on the need to develop much closer partnerships directly with the private sector—the defence companies themselves. There is no reason why we cannot have diversification initiatives in those constituencies that have well-established research facilities in the defence sector. They may be in the private sector—for example, those within GEC Marine in my constituency or the

  1025
  computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture facilities at the Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. yard in Barrow, which are among the best in the world.
  There is no reason why, with a bit more imagination, we cannot develop proposals that will allow the new defence diversification agency to develop new initiatives with the private sector in constituencies such as mine, and to take forward the diversification initiative much more extensively.
  A lot of comment tonight has been focused on the Government's commitment towards the Navy and, in particular, their decision to replace the Invincible class carriers. I am absolutely delighted by the cross-party support for the importance of the carriers and the replacement programme. It is clear from the thrust of the SDR that the emphasis in future defence policy will be on developing a more flexible and mobile—expeditionary—capability which recognises the important role of power projection. There is no question but that the Royal Navy can make a significant contribution to NATO, to the United Nations and to humanitarian work by developing and improving its amphibious capability.
  The shipyard in my constituency is constructing two of the new assault landing ships which will enter service in the new millennium for the Royal Marines. We have recently completed construction of HMS Ocean, the new helicopter carrier for the Royal Navy, as well, but a key part of that amphibious jigsaw will be the carriers, especially the ability to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence introduced the defence review to the House on 8 July, he made it clear that the Government had decided to replace the two aircraft carriers, and that the in-service date was expected to be 2012. That news was very welcome in my constituency and around the shipbuilding constituencies of the United Kingdom.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government remain committed to that time scale, that nothing has changed in the meantime, and that the firm statement that my right hon. Friend made to the House and the evidence given to the Defence Committee, which questioned my right hon. Friend and senior officers, remains the Government's position—those carriers will be replaced, with an in-service date some time around 2012.
  The other issue affecting the Navy is the strategic submarine nuclear fleet. Some hon. Members have expressed concern about the reduction of the SSN fleet from 12 to 10. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who chairs the Defence Committee, pointed out that the previous Government cut the SSN fleet by 60 per cent., from 28 to 12. On this score, we are again not inclined to take lessons from Conservatives about the need to maintain an effective SSN fleet. The point that has escaped some Conservative Members is that the new Astute class submarines, three of which will be constructed in my constituency, represent a significant enhancement of the capability of the Royal Navy's nuclear submarines.
  I am encouraged by the fact that the Government have said in the SDR that they want to procure the optional two further Astute class submarines. That is a significant decision, and, although the number of SSNs might be falling by two, the fleet will be significantly enhanced by
  1026
  the addition of five new Astute class submarines, especially because they will be fitted with the Tomahawk cruise missile. That is an extensive improvement in the capability of our SSNs.
  I understand that the decision to procure the additional two Astute class submarines is likely to be taken in 2002–03. There would be significant cost savings to the taxpayer and significant improvements in the efficiency of the SSN fleet if the Government reconsidered that timetable, and, perhaps with the industry, considered bringing the procurement of those submarines forward to 2001, rather than wait that additional 18 months or two years. I think that such an acceleration of the programme would give the taxpayer significant benefits, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will consult the industry closely about it.
  I want to say a little about the Territorial Army, about whose future many hon. Members are understandably anxious. I shall make two points, one about the Government's proposed reduction, and another quite separate point.
  The 4th Battalion the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, in my constituency—an excellent regiment, well led and well motivated, which performs extremely well against any measurable yardstick—contains members who serve on a full-time basis for the regular forces. I have mentioned the matter that I am about to raise in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but I should like to point out to my hon. Friend the Minister—I welcome him to the Front Bench; I am sorry that I did not do so earlier—that a member of a Territorial Army unit that enlists itself full-time with the regular forces is currently not entitled to participate in the Army's pension scheme.
  I do not think that acceptable or fair. It does not matter how long a member of the TA serves as a full-time soldier; he cannot have access to the Army's pension schemes. None of his service as a full-time soldier is regarded as pensionable.
  We are dealing with some difficult issues relating to the future of the Territorial Army. Some Conservative Members have expressed concern about the implications for future recruitment and retention. I think that one of the issues that we should consider very carefully is the whole service package that goes with enlistment in the TA. I hope that a way will be found to extend access to the Army's full-time pension scheme to members of the TA who serve on the front line in regular units, because I do not consider it acceptable for them to have no pensionable service.
  As for the review of the TA itself, I want to do as many other speakers have done, and make one or two comments about the TA in the county of Cumbria. I know that the unit concerned is also contained in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). As I have said, it is an excellent regiment. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the option of a two-company solution to the reform of the TA in my county. I am thinking of units based at Workington and my constituency, Barrow, with detachments at Carlisle and Lancaster. I think that that would be sensible.
  There are many difficult issues to address, and there are many strongly held views on what the Government are doing. Ultimately, however, we must work towards the best conceivable solutions—the best technical solutions,

  1027
  and the best wider solutions that will reinforce the connection between the Territorial Army and local communities. I have no doubt that, for the county of Cumbria, the new two-company solution—units based at Workington and Barrow, with detachments at Lancaster and Carlisle—represents the most viable future for the 4th Battalion the King's Own Royal Border Regiment.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I, too, welcome the Minister to his post.
  Does my hon. Friend accept that people in Lancaster may have a slightly different view of the future of the 4th Battalion the King's Own Royal Border Regiment? Does he accept that the view in Lancaster is that the headquarters of the battalion should be in Lancaster, and that there should also be a company in that city?
  Mr. Hutton: I recognise the strength of feeling that doubtless exists in Lancaster, and I am sure that, in due course, my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his own contribution. I certainly think that the battalion's headquarters should be in his constituency: I hope that will emerge from the review of the TA, and of the 4th Battalion in particular.
  Those are the key issues that I wanted to mention, but I want to make one last observation. I believe that, in general, the strategic defence review represents a sensible solution to a difficult range of problems. It provides a balanced configuration of forces, it correctly identifies the main security challenges we face, and it puts the right emphasis on the need to develop an expeditionary capability—the ability of our forces to project themselves significantly overseas in out-of-theatre operations. Essential to all that strategy, however, will be the decision to replace the carriers.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to the first debate of the new parliamentary Session. It has been an interesting debate, featuring constructive speeches. I want to add my voice to those who have said that the Territorial Army appears to be under a degree of stress in the SDR, because I think that it can make a significant contribution to our armed forces, especially as formed units.
  I shall restrict myself to one subject—the continuing crisis in the defence medical services. My starting point is the Defence Committee report of February 1997, which stated—on page xix of the preface—
  "We can only report to the House our firm view that the state of morale at all levels of the Defence Medical Services is lower than we have ever encountered in the armed forces."
  Another sentence was quoted earlier by the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). The report continues:
  "We conclude that the staff shortages in the Defence Medical Services are so serious that it is not clear whether it will recover. It is possible that the military ethos of medicine in the regular armed forces has been destroyed."
  Those are extremely strong words, which I must say that I helped to write. They stress the importance of medical service to the armed forces, and the stress under which they were then placed.
  The defence medical services are crucial. They save lives, they return people to the operating units, and they are, of course, crucial to good morale. That is why every
  1028
  ship carries a doctor or paramedicals, and why every four-man Army patrol—whether it be the SAS or patrols in Northern Ireland, as they then were—carries one man who is medically trained and has medical equipment.
  The fact is that we did reach the position referred to in the Select Committee report, and we must ask how we reached that position. I am convinced that we did so because we had been so incredibly lucky in our recent confrontations. In the Falklands, we had tragic losses, but, tragic though they were, they were light compared with the size of the operation in which we were engaged. In the Gulf war, we were engaged in a kind of technical electronic warfare. We were all able to see on our television sets the way in which bombs were dropped down chimneys and cruise missiles turned left at the traffic lights. It seemed, in a sense, a war without risk: a war fought with electronic machinery.
  Because of those two engagements—because of our incredible skill, yes, but also because of luck—it must have been quite difficult for defence planners and their Treasury equivalents, who monitor all Government expenditure, to justify large amounts of expenditure on the defence medical services. They must have felt that it was possible to save money. That is why the number of hospitals in the armed forces went from seven to five to three to one in five years; and that no doubt is why, while the armed forces were cut by 30 per cent. overall, the defence medical services were cut by 40 per cent.
  Some of the savings were no doubt projected to result from a change in strategy. It was decided that, although primary medical care was needed at the front or in ships, secondary medical care—because of the improvement in communications—could be carried out at home, in the United Kingdom, in civilian national health service hospitals. I want to make two points about that.
  First, it is impossible to guarantee that casualties can be moved away from the battle area: that is why it was necessary at Ajax bay in the Falkland islands to have a joint medical unit dealing with troops who were wounded there, as it was not possible to fly them back. Secondly, I am sure that, with the changing pattern of world danger, there will be more opportunities—which we should grasp—for free-standing medical facilities to be available to United Nations peacekeeping operations such as the one to which British medical forces contributed in Rwanda, without the contribution of other military forces at the same time.
  I maintain that the argument that we do not need such large medical forces is fallacious. Let me back that up by saying that, as recently as the Korean war, we were losing—through the United Nations side—2,500 casualties every month. We should also look back to the Kuwait-Iraq Gulf war, and think of the thousands of soldiers who were killed in the slaughter that happened with the Iraqi withdrawal. We should also think about the empty wards that were planned to deal with the casualties that we expected to come back from the Gulf. It was a daunting experience to visit local hospitals and to hear about the plans that were being made for hundreds of casualty evacuations to be treated in UK hospitals. We should not assume that defence medical services will not be needed for casualties—perhaps in considerable numbers—in a future conflict.

  1029
  We also need our medical forces to be sufficiently large to withstand attrition. The rather optimistic assumption was made in defence cost study 15 that there would be no loss of life and casualties among medical staff, which unfortunately cannot be the case.
  The crisis was recognised in 1997, but what has happened since then? Following defence cost study 15 in 1994, we established a core hospital for defence medical services. I am delighted to say that the Royal Hospital Haslar in my constituency was chosen, and there are military district hospital units at Derriford, Peterborough and Frimley. Those MDHUs were intended to provide the extra throughput and patient experience that doctors needed.
  Another development in the past year has been the recognition of staff shortages in the defence medical services. The independent Review Body on Armed Forces Pay recommended an increase of 5.2 per cent. for ranks of major and above and 4.2 per cent. for ranks below major. The Government said yes to that significant pay increase, and then phased it in, so that pay increases were below the level of inflation. That has had a negative impact on pay.
  A further development has been extraneous to the defence medical services: it has been the result of some rethinking within the national health service. It had been thought that a district general hospital would be viable with a patient catchment area of 250,000 people, but the new thinking is that such a hospital is viable only if it has a catchment area of 500,000 patients.
  That may be merely a matter of fashion. The closure of my local hospital at Gosport was proposed because it was thought that cottage hospitals were out of fashion, but suddenly, as we campaigned against the closure, it became fashionable to have community hospitals. Gosport hospital was expanded and became a community hospital, which was more fashionable than a boring old cottage hospital.
  As a result of those developments, there is a challenge to the Royal Hospital Haslar in Gosport, despite its being the designated core hospital. The nature of the challenge is clearly revealed in the business plan for the Defence Secondary Care Agency for 1998–99 and 1999–2001. On page 44, it says that the core hospital should work with the surgeon general
  "to establish the need for a core hospital and thence determine its essential characteristics."
  The Ministry of Defence is saying that one of the duties is to examine the need for a core hospital and to determine its essential characteristics. The timetable for implementation is that a paper should go to the chief of staff by the end of May 1998, and the document says that an action plan to protect Royal Hospital Haslar in the interim is necessary. Under risk assessment, it says:
  "Planning uncertainty worst option for all DSCA staff."
  That is exactly where we are: we have the worst option.
  Despite the fact that £35 million has been spent on Haslar in the past 10 years, that the medical defence college has moved in alongside, that doctors, nurses and other staff have been moved from the Cambridge hospital at Aldershot and from RAF Wroughton, and despite the concentration on Haslar hospital, we now find to our horror that the role of Haslar is under question.
  1030
  One of the reasons for the uncertainty is that defence cost study 15 recommended that Haslar should be increased from 230 to 300 or even 375 beds. That expansion has not occurred, so the studies of the economy of the hospital and the number of people who are treated give the impression that it is not efficient. A further factor is that the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority, which has a budget of £230 million, £7 million of which it has to offset against the facilities provided by Haslar, recognises that the difficult job of running medical services in that area is made more difficult by the complication of having a military hospital at Haslar.
  In its proposed reorganisation, the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust suggested that the Ministry of Defence might like to take two floors of an expansion of the Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham. The reply was required by the end of August, but reply came there none, so the trust has proceeded with its private finance initiative bid without the support of the Ministry of Defence, and without knowing what the Ministry wants. I wish the health trust well in its bid, but it would have been so much better if the Ministry of Defence had made up its mind before the end of August.
  The problem at Haslar derives from the fact that it is difficult to get accreditation of doctors as required by the royal colleges in all areas of medicine because of the insufficient critical mass of patients. For instance, ophthalmology is a single specialist faculty at Haslar.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: What my hon. Friend is telling us is seriously alarming. I was told that the Cambridge military hospital in Aldershot had to close because it was no longer likely to secure accreditation to the royal colleges. If my experience in Aldershot is anything to go by, my hon. Friend should beware, because this is clearly the harbinger of the closure of Haslar.
  Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a deeply concerning problem. After the decision, as part of the revision of medical services, to focus on one core hospital, that core hospital is now under threat. That threat must be resolved.
  An even better example of the difficulty in obtaining accreditation at Haslar is in vascular surgery. I am told that four specialists are required to provide a viable unit, and there is an insufficient throughput of patients for that at Haslar. Similarly—merciful though it may be—there is an insufficient throughput of cancer patients to provide accreditation in that area.
  What can we do about this? We must deal with the shortfall in patient throughput. The failure to expand Haslar has partly caused that problem. What is the way ahead? We must have a core hospital to retain the medical military ethos. People who choose to go into the defence medical services do so deliberately. They have a very special chosen role. Their skills are eminently transferable: they can walk away—many have done so. They can obtain higher remuneration outside the armed forces: they are better paid, and have a more relaxing life style.
  Exceptional measures are required to keep our medical forces in the armed forces. It is not just the phasing in of a 5.2 per cent. pay increase; the problem is much more serious. Defence medical staff have a unique role.
  I had the honour to speak at a Trafalgar night dinner at the Haslar hospital some years ago. It was moving to hear the message before battle given by Nelson to the fleet,

  1031
  and to hear the chaplain read the prayer before action—before the guest speaker had to speak to the assembled company. I served in the Air Force and in the Territorial Army—not in the Navy—and it brought home to me the need to preserve the best elements of tradition and comradeship, as well as sport and adventure, for medical staff in the armed forces.
  I have visited the military district hospital units which, on the face of it, can provide the training that the armed forces need. The people there told me that they were getting on quite well, but that it was not what they had joined the armed forces for—every one of them said that. We must cater for the special need for medical staff in the armed forces. We must confirm Haslar, and build on it.
  Some medical and surgical specialties are already fully viable. Others can be made so by providing incentives such as more attractive waiting times. I suggest that it could be possible to provide some support for transport and visiting. We need more cross-posting between Haslar and elsewhere in the civilian NHS. Some specialties will not be viable at Haslar, so links will be needed with other specialised units. Links are being developed with the burns unit at Odstock near Salisbury. Similarly, there must be more co-operation with Portsmouth, Chichester, Southampton, Winchester and other hospitals which are close enough for easy commuting to and from Haslar.
  The crucial point is the retention of Haslar as a centre of excellence. I have pitched my arguments on the basis of the importance of Haslar to the armed forces, as part of this debate on the strategic defence review. It is also true that Haslar provides much-respected facilities in my constituency. It is a much-loved hospital, with dedicated staff and superb facilities. Since it became clear that Haslar's future was not secure, I have received hundreds of representations, a high proportion of which came from former patients, who paid tribute to the treatment they received.
  Page 44 of the business plan states:
  "Paper to Chief of Staff by end May 1998."
  It is crucial that we resolve the issue quickly now. If it is not possible for Ministers to respond with an undertaking about the future of Haslar at the end of this two-day debate, we will be entitled to ask the Minister to agree to write or answer a parliamentary question—within, say, seven days—about the revised timetable if the chief of staff has not acted, as stated in the timetable for implementation on page 44 of the business plan. We are entitled to know what the changed timetable is. We must end the uncertainty, and confirm Haslar.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: When I made my maiden speech in the House six years ago, I was followed by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) who made some kind remarks on that occasion. I am pleased to follow his fine and informative speech in which he made some important points about the defence medical services—an issue in which I share an interest with him.
  I congratulate the Government on the strategic defence review. It has been extremely well received within the armed forces and by our allies. However, I would like to concentrate on two issues which matter in my constituency, City of York, and in my part of the country, the north of England—first, the decision to restructure UK Land Command, and secondly, the new role that the Government envisage for the Territorial Army.
  1032
  My constituency has been a garrison town since the Romans were there. The last time that England was successfully invaded, in 1066, there were two great battles. One was in the north of England—five miles outside my constituency—at Stamford Bridge, which we won and successfully defended England. The second, of course, was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), and had a different result. The military tradition in York and the north of England runs very deep. The north of England provides 39 per cent. of all the recruits for the British Army, yet there is little representation from the top level of the Army in our part of the country.
  The essays accompanying the strategic defence review confirm that the Army is considering reducing the number of districts and divisions in UK Land Command from six to three. I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who has received a number of letters on this topic from me in the three months during which he has been in his job. He kindly met me to discuss the issues, and I thank him for his courteous and careful response to the points that I have made. I also wish to thank my hon. Friend's predecessor as Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), who also listened to and weighed carefully the arguments that I made.
  There is a need to change the structure of UK Land Command, which was structured to deal with a threat from the east—from the Warsaw pact—which is no longer there. I am not sure that the three district and division structure is the right structure. I have a particular interest in the proposal to merge the Army's second division—with its headquarters in York, at Imphal barracks—with the Scottish district.
  When he speaks tomorrow, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to give the House the assurance that when he comes to make a decision on whether the merger of the second division and the Scottish district should go ahead—and, if so, whether the new headquarters will be in York or Edinburgh—he will make it solely in terms of what is best for the defence of the UK, both north and south of the border.
  The strategic defence review was foreign policy led. It has been successful and has been praised because of that. I hope that it does not degenerate into a domestic policy-driven set of decisions on the final unresolved questions, such as the land command structure and the disposition across the country of the TA.
  York has been shown to be the best location for a UK northern command in military terms because the vast majority of the soldiers who would come under the command of that northern division are in the north of England—most within a 100-mile radius of York. Although it is technically possible in an era of modern communications for a general to communicate and to issue orders electronically over great distances, in terms of building military morale and commitment it is important for a general to be seen out and about by the soldiers he commands. Logistically, it would be much easier if the commander of the northern division were based close to the majority of his soldiers.
  I have listened carefully to the arguments from Scottish Members for retaining a General Officer Commanding, Scotland—a major-general commanding land command troops in Scotland. There are not enough soldiers in

  1033
  Scotland to make up a division on their own. There are 2,596 regular soldiers and 7,084 TA soldiers—altogether, less than 10,000. However, there are important representational duties that the General Officer Commanding has in Scotland—as we have heard today, these include the Queen's visit and Remembrance Sunday.
  It has been pointed out to me that it would be wrong, or "unthinkable" as some Scottish Members have said—I see some hon. Members nodding—that Scottish soldiers from Scottish regiments could be put under the command of an English general based in York. I do not want to provoke cross-border conflict, and I accept the arguments. However, the respect that the Scots and their representatives in this House ask of the English and of English Members of Parliament as an important part of the maintenance of the Union needs to be reciprocated. The Union relies on a two-way traffic in respect, and we need respect from the Scots for English traditions, and for English military traditions in the north of England in particular. The Union will be maintained if there is healthy two-way respect.
  Ms Squire: May I assure my hon. Friend that every Scottish soldier, sailor or airman to whom I have ever spoken, while being proud to be Scottish, is also proud to be a member of Her Majesty's United Kingdom armed forces and recognises the contributions that all members of those armed forces make?
  Mr. Bayley: I welcome that comment, share it and reflect it. It is a sentiment that English soldiers have. We are a united kingdom and those who serve in our armed forces serve in the armed forces of the United Kingdom and are proud to do so. Sometimes they are posted in their own part of the UK, sometimes in other parts, but their commitment is to Queen and country, the whole country. However, if it is unthinkable that Scottish soldiers in Scotland could be put under the command of an English general in England, when there are some 2,600 regulars in Scotland, it should be equally unthinkable that the 10,700 regular soldiers who are based in the north of England should be put under the command of a general in Edinburgh.
  Like his counterpart in Scotland, the general officer commanding the 2nd Division, with its headquarters in my constituency, has important representational duties. We have an important north of England Remembrance Sunday ceremony at the cenotaph at York, in which the military contingents are led by the general. On the Queen's birthday, York is a saluting base for the north of England. The general represents the armed forces on that occasion, during royal visits and on other important state occasions in the north of England.
  There is only one general left in the north of England. Despite having less than 3,000 regular soldiers, Scotland has two generals. I am not saying that Scotland has too many generals, because there are 16 generals in London, with hardly more soldiers than there are in Scotland, eight in south-east England and 15 in the south-west, but there is only one in the north of England, the region that provides more recruits to the British Army than anywhere else in the UK.
  1034
  As part of the Army's recruitment strategy, the Army has a Keeping the Army in the Public Eye—KAPE—programme, but we will not keep the Army in the public eye if we remove the last remaining general from the Army's key recruitment ground. I accept the argument for a Scottish presence—a Scottish general in Edinburgh—but I say to Ministers: think carefully before abandoning the last general in the north of England.
  Last weekend, civilian staff who work at the headquarters in York launched a website putting forward the case for retaining a divisional headquarters in York. In the first 24 hours, that website received 600 hits—600 people logged into it to look at the information. Dozens of responses have come from people not just in the north of England, but elsewhere, saying that they believe that the case for retaining the York headquarters has been well made. If a formal proposal were made to close the north of England divisional headquarters, many more representations would land on all our desks and certainly on the desks of Ministers.
  There is one local issue that I particularly wish to put to the Minister. In 1995, the Conservatives decided to bring together all Army personnel functions into one centre, the Army Personnel Centre, based at Kentigern house in Glasgow. As a consequence, last year, 250 MOD civilian Army pay and records staff from York lost their jobs; the jobs moved to the Army Personnel Centre in Glasgow.
  On paper, there were convincing arguments about the administrative benefits of centralising. At the time the decision was made in 1995 and subsequently in 1996, the then Minister for the Armed Forces gave clear indications to me that it was the MOD's intention to find an alternative use for the 20,000 or so square feet of purpose-built office accommodation in York that the pay and records staff had used. We are still waiting for a single job to move in.
  I know, because I have put this point to both the Minister for the Armed Forces and his Labour predecessor, that there are still moves afoot to try to find alternative jobs to move in to the premises. It makes good common sense for the armed forces to do that because the offices cannot be let to some commercial user. They are within the security perimeter of Imphal barracks, which houses the divisional headquarters. It also houses the 15 Brigade headquarters and 2 Signal Regiment. It is not a site that is going to be got rid of by the armed forces and there is a huge amount of purpose-built modern office accommodation, which should be used and is a financial burden on the armed forces if it is not used.
  The Army Personnel Centre in Glasgow has just published its first annual report for its first full year in operation. Sadly, that report reveals that the new personnel centre has failed to meet some of its performance targets. One performance target was to have a single site fully operational by now, which it does not have yet. Another was to have a new management information system, which it contracted in from a contractor, but the contractor failed to deliver and the contract was terminated. The centre also had a target of reducing operational costs by 23 per cent. A 17 per cent. reduction has been received, so there is a £2.2 million shortfall.
  When the case was presented for the York offices to be closed and the jobs moved to Glasgow, the costings were on the assumption that the savings that the Army hoped

  1035
  for by the centralisation of the personnel centre would be achieved. They have not been. I know that the Minister is being presented with figures that argue for the removal of the divisional headquarters from York. He should look carefully at those figures. They will need to show substantial savings, which I know they do not, for the Minister to be sure that going ahead would actually provide savings.
  The Government are absolutely right to envisage a new role for the Territorial Army. Let me leave aside for a moment the important work that is done by the specialists, the medics, the linguists, the signallers and the engineers, and talk about the infantry soldier in the TA.
  Under the previous configuration, the TA was designed as a force to counter a threat from the Warsaw pact, a military alliance that no longer exists. It is clearly pointless and wrong to devote MOD resources to maintaining a force to counter a threat that is no longer there. I am glad that the Government have grasped the nettle and are proposing a new role for the TA, where its infantry arm will be slightly smaller, but better trained and better equipped to respond to the real defence threats that this country now faces.
  Since Aden, the first TA infantry unit that was deployed on active service overseas as a pre-formed unit came from my constituency of York. It was a detachment from the 3rd Battalion the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire. That unit, which has been followed by many other TA units since, is the model of the new TA that the Government are developing and which the strategic defence review envisages. There is a model in York and I hope that the Government will build on it.
  On 19 September, I attended a ceremony at Imphal barracks—the presentation of colours by Field Marshall Lord Inge to the 3rd Battalion Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire, which is the TA battalion of my local regiment. I was horrified to learn during the presentation that those colours were likely to be hung up within a few months because the battalion is likely to be wound up as a result of the changed role of the TA and the soldiers formed into a new regiment together with TA infantry soldiers from west Yorkshire. As a consequence, two of the three TA centres in York would close. Since York was at the forefront of demonstrating what the new role of the TA might be, I ask the Minister—I realise that hon. Members representing constituencies throughout the country have asked him similar things—to think about the contribution that York TA soldiers have made, and can and will make in the future, if he ensures that TA soldiers in York have a real new role and that any reduction in the numbers in York is proportionate to reductions throughout the country as a whole.
  8.50 pm
  Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) made a strong case for York and the surrounding area. He made two points that are germane to the review. One was on the importance of keeping the Army in the public eye, which can be achieved differently in different parts of the country. The Territorial Army is very much the remaining public face of the Army in the highlands, and it is facing a 48 per cent. cut, which I would call not a slight but a major cut. Secondly, in a
  1036
  good warning to Ministers, the hon. Gentleman asked how robust were the savings projected from some of the reorganisations. In the past 20 years, there have been many reorganisations, but the savings achieved have never quite reached the levels expected.
  The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said that the strategic defence review had been welcomed. Had it been completely revenue neutral, it would have been welcomed far more. The signs of cuts and the projected efficiency savings in the review make one worry that not all the consequences have been thought out. By their very nature, efficiency savings tell us that the review has not worked out how savings will be achieved but wants them to be there at the end of the day.
  The Ministry of Defence might take some time to consult the oil industry in my constituency, which has gone through a similar economic change. In the early days, the oil industry in the North sea was very much a cash-flow industry. It was a case of throwing money at the problem: the goal was to get the oil out of the ground and achieve the ultimate objective, regardless of the cost. Similarly, at the height of the cold war, defence was about achieving technical solutions and certain military advances regardless of the cost. During the oil industry's second phase, it realised that it had finite resources to spend and asked how it could spend them most efficiently. Much work has been done to turn the industry around, turning around the technology and driving home many efficiencies, finding effective new ways to work in the forefront of the industry's technology. To some extent, those lessons could be learned by and transferred to the Ministry of Defence, which is having to consider ways to deliver the same goals and objectives with a finite resource.
  There is real concern about the Territorial Army in the north of Scotland. In many areas, it is the last remaining military presence. It is the only means of bringing the public into contact with the military and maintaining the idea of a military existence. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, in the end it is nations that win wars, and not merely their forces. If we do not bind the wider community into the role of the military and give them an awareness of what it is about, we will have problems in a time of severe emergency when people wake up to the extra burdens on the community. Without such a presence, there will be recruitment problems. If a community has no awareness of the military, which is a different and distant way of life to many people outside—
  Mr. John Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about wearing uniforms in the community, which, as an ex-regular service man, is the best news that I have heard from a defence spokesman in 20 years? It was bizarre that the spokesman for the official Opposition did not refer to that point.
  Sir Robert Smith: I would happily welcome that statement in terms of presence.
  Mr. Robert Key: I will do so tomorrow.
  Sir Robert Smith: I think that the Opposition will welcome it tomorrow. I am happy to do so today. My

  1037
  limited military experience was in the Royal Air Force cadets. If we were using a warrant, we were not allowed to travel if we were not wearing our uniforms. Obviously, we created a slight presence.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: A substantial presence.
  Sir Robert Smith: I was slighter in those days.
  The wearing of uniforms will have an impact only if there are people in the area who can wear a uniform to travel about. That is the point that I was trying to make about the highlands, which the Government must consider seriously. The TA provides the majority of the uniforms in that part of the country.
  Interestingly, the Minister for the Armed Forces circulated ministerially endorsed planning assumptions for the reorganisation of the Territorial Army. In the four pages circulated, the only criterion underlined reads:
  "Geographical factors. Due attention should be given to the representation in the nations, regions and counties of the UK."
  When the Government consider the review of the TA, it is important that they also consider geographical factors and the fact that one cannot make the same cost assumptions in areas throughout the United Kingdom. In an area the size of the highlands and the north-east of Scotland, delivery per person recruited and used will be more expensive. Infrastructure support will be more difficult to provide. One cannot make the same assumptions in a sparsely populated area that can be made in a concentrated area.
  The Government continue to make a solid commitment to the cadet force. However, one must recognise that, if the Regular Army has no presence, the cadet force must fall back on the Territorial Army. If the commitment to the cadet force is 100 per cent. cast iron, one must again consider the cost assumptions carefully. For example, the TA centre in Laurencekirk is projected to close; however, the cadet force is to be maintained and, as it currently uses many TA resources, the savings there do not amount to real savings. What is the marginal cost of maintaining a TA presence? The Minister will have to consider that point.
  The hon. Member for City of York said that he thought that the cuts in the Territorial Army were okay as long as they were applied equally throughout the country. However, the feedback from each constituency seems to suggest that the cuts are too great and that they are not working there.
  There has to be a point at which one feeds back into the loop at the Ministry of Defence. It may be that the overall cut cannot be achieved and, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, there is no loss of face for the Government to say that they have considered the detail and decided that, when it comes to the crunch, part of the review cannot be implemented and the assumptions about how great a cut can be imposed must be changed at the centre.
  Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a reasonable footprint would be one infantry company per county throughout the United Kingdom? As I understand
  1038
  it, that would increase the number of TA soldiers required from the 7,150 projected in the review to only 9,000, so the cost would be very modest.
  Sir Robert Smith: Before agreeing to any details, we would have to consider the technicalities of how the counties would work out in the context of the highlands, where we have had regional government for so long and where the implications might be fairly serious.
  The Government talk a great deal about joined-up government, cross-departmental working and other such jargon. How much feedback has the Ministry had from other Departments, such as the Department for Education and Employment, about the effect of the TA cuts on their objectives of getting skills into the community and providing a more flexible work force and greater personal well-being?
  I have met people in the TA on exercise, and many felt that they could take the experience of team working back to their workplace and expand it there. The TA provides hidden benefits to the economy and to society. Has that been taken fully on board in consultation with other Departments and has the Ministry of Defence fully recognised that wider role in the community?
  The Government will not lose face if they say that, in the light of the technical realities on the ground, it is not possible to implement this part of the review without failing to follow the four pages of guidelines set out by the Minister for the Armed Forces in his assessment of how implementation should take place. I hope that the Government will reconsider their proposals and ensure that we have a TA that continues to thrive.
  As the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, a TA footprint on the ground provides an insurance policy, and once the drill halls are sold and the network in the community is closed, the ability to recruit and to kick-start the system again is lost. Much could be lost for the sake of a very minor part of the review.
  Has the Ministry of Defence ever found that a conflict that it was involved in fitted the model of its threat analysis beforehand? The TA is cost-effective and provides a lot of troops and flexibility for a little investment. It is worth preserving for the future.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), who made a very committed speech.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves great credit. The review is unique, because it has been open and foreign policy led rather than being a Treasury-driven cost-cutting exercise. It is the first ever to increase, and not cut, the size of the Regular Army and to enjoy the whole-hearted support of all the chiefs of staff, both in public and in private. It is an impressive piece of work, and its inclusiveness is unique.
  I wish to make some brief constituency points. In 1996, the work force at RAF Sealand in Deeside—the Ministry of Defence's leading electronic repair establishment—was market-tested under the previous Government's "Competing for Quality" strategy and won that market test with a very competitive in-house bid. It is successfully

  1039
  delivering a new and more efficient repair service under a service level agreement that is due to undergo competition again between 2002 and 2007. However, RAF Sealand is soon to be subsumed into the new defence aviation repair agency, which has the declared aim of being a trading fund by April 2001.
  The Sealand work force are looking forward to the new challenge and recognise that they will have to deliver further efficiency savings over and above those generated from the market test, but they would greatly prefer to do that as an integral part of the defence aviation repair agency family rather than under the threat of a further market test in 2002 or later. Does the Minister not consider it reasonable at this stage to lift the threat of additional re-competition that is hanging over that loyal work force and to allow them to participate on equal terms with everyone else in the new defence aviation repair agency trading fund? RAF Sealand is now 1,700 strong and is of great importance to my constituency's economy. It has earned a positive reply to the request that it makes through me tonight.
  On the subject of the airborne stand-off radar project, I hope that the Government will reassure me, and those of my constituents who are employed by Raytheon Systems, that the Ministry of Defence requirement for five ASTOR aircraft will be fulfilled. That capability is essential and is fully supported by the strategic defence review. ASTOR also has civil applications, such as monitoring oil spillages, natural disasters, smuggling and terrorist activities. The need for five aircraft is clear.
  I ask the Government to note that the Raytheon ASTOR team solution would provide jobs in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. In these uncertain times, those jobs would be a real boost for local communities. I remind the Government that the radar on the Raytheon ASTOR team's solution has been tried and tested, and I hope that Ministers agree that the Ministry and the Treasury cannot afford to take risks with such a key element of the ASTOR system. The platform that Raytheon would use—the Global Express—is widely recognised as the best aircraft. Raytheon also has the only proven radar in its advanced version, which currently flies on the U2 aircraft used by the United States of America.
  The future large aircraft is also mentioned in the review. Can Ministers confirm that no more than four short-term heavy-lift aircraft are envisaged in the review? What is the probable length of the lease and can Ministers guarantee that the lease will not turn into a buy? If a lease turned into a buy, it would prejudice the prospect of the 40 to 50 future large aircraft that are required to secure the desired share of the work for the United Kingdom, including work for my constituents at Broughton in making the wings of the aircraft.
  I ask the Minister to give a status report on the future large aircraft. We have a new Government in Germany. What is their position on the project? Are the French now supporting the project? Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assist our Government on that issue on the continent? Are the Germans still flirting with the idea of striking a deal with the Ukrainians, who now build the world's largest aircraft, the Antonov? My constituents very much want to build the wings of the future large aircraft, because that would assure the future of their jobs into the next century.
  1040
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the Territorial Army. The new large and impressive drill hall at Queensferry in my constituency should not be closed. Twice a week, I see 40 cadets drill and train, effectively and with good discipline, on those premises. That is youth work of the highest order, in a locality with unemployment, social distress and increasing crime and drug abuse.
  A Ministry of Defence document leaked to the Sunday Telegraph said that the drill hall was to close. It would cost as much to replicate it as would be saved by closing it. To close it would be nonsense. The public would not accept it, and the cadets and their fiercely supportive parents would not stand for it either. The hall also supports the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, North Wales police and countless voluntary organisations. My point for the Government is that, if it works, do not fix it. We have an excellent arrangement, and my constituency wants it to remain.
  Let me mention briefly, but sincerely, the 3rd Battalion Royal Welch Fusiliers TA. I want it to remain at its current strength. I gather that the official recommendation is to have one large battalion in Wales. That will mean headquarters in Cardiff—but there are already five headquarters in Cardiff. I ask for two small battalions in Wales. We need to retain our traditions in north Wales. There is a major unit headquarters in north Wales in Wrexham, and that means opportunities for our young people and for undergraduates from the universities and colleges.
  If the Government want to set north Wales afire, let them put the headquarters in Cardiff. If they want to excite the forces of nationalism in north Wales, let them put it in the headquarters in Cardiff. If they want to baffle parents and volunteers, then Cardiff it should be. Again I say, if it works, do not fix it. I hope that Ministers will hear my plea.
  My remarks are unashamedly constituency orientated. However, there are 3,600 British Aerospace workers, 1,700 RAF Sealand employees and 120 Raytheon employees in Deeside, and my constituency knows which way its bread is buttered. I want those establishments to prosper. Having more than 5,000 highly skilled and nationally important wealth-creating jobs gives Deeside a wealth-creating base in manufacturing and servicing that is unrivalled in Wales. I ask the Ministers to hear what I say.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who has spoken, as I shall, of constituency matters. The hon. Gentleman has a long, proud and continuous record of service to his constituents, and tonight's speech was no exception.
  The review is vital to Fylde, which is the home of British Aerospace's military aircraft division, where 6,000 people work on such projects as the Tornado mid-life update, Hawk final assembly and Eurofighter. Skilled teams of designers, engineers, technicians and electronics experts also work hard on such projects as Nimrod 2000 and the beginnings of development work on the future offensive air system. Fylde is also home to a large military barracks at Weeton where regiments come and go. They all serve in difficult parts of our military terrain, so Fylde knows what it is talking about on military matters.

  1041
  The heart of the review is a proper focus on the people in our defence industry and our armed forces, and I, too, shall focus on that. Keeping British Aerospace and the projects that matter to people there in business and keeping together its teams of vital experts are important parts of the outcome of the defence review. Before I turn to that, however, I want to reflect on two facts.
  The first has come up already tonight, and it relates to the cadet forces. I am the president of our Air Cadet Force, 2486 Squadron, which operates from temporary facilities at Lytham St. Anne's high school. The force hopes to find a permanent home, but in light of what many right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is worried about what is happening to the territorial forces. If the Government are interested in contributing to the development of young people, who sometimes come from the most difficult inner-city environments, they should know that the work of the cadet forces—particularly of the Royal Air Force—is vital. Without proper support, those young people will not have their enthusiasm and commitment properly recognised and rewarded. If the Government want top-quality recruits, they have only to look at those cadet forces. I put on record my sincere appreciation of the work of the chairman of our Air Training Corps squadron, Jackie Allen, and the officer in charge, Phil Massey, who give up a huge amount of their time to serve the interests of those young people.
  In debates such as this, in which we look forward, we sometimes forget those who have fallen in the past. I had the honour this year of being with my local Royal Air Force Association at the launch of its wings appeal. It had managed to persuade the RAF to bring a Spitfire to Warton. We had the remarkable symbolic sight of the older fighter juxtaposed with Eurofighter Typhoon to remind us that, without the sacrifice of those brave pilots in the second world war, we could not talk today about projects such as Eurofighter 2000. However, the efforts of George Wigan, Eric Barrowclough and Dennis Rowland, of whom the House will not have heard, have, with those of their colleagues in the RAFA, raised £4,500 in Fylde for the welfare needs not only of victims of the second world war but of service personnel sadly no longer in the RAF. The House would do well to acknowledge and remember their contribution.
  The Secretary of State has got away lightly this evening on finance. None of the projects that we have discussed, particularly in procurement, could be achieved without the necessary resources. It has not been one-way traffic with no one commenting adversely on the defence review. Defence Industry contains critical comment and states:
  "New Labour's widely praised plans depend on economic buoyancy."
  That was written before the truth that Conservative Members knew but Labour decided not to look at had became apparent: the economy has gone flat.
  I am surprised—perhaps I should not be—that the Secretary of State did nothing to reassure us that his budget in the defence review, which is for only three years ahead, is bombproof against further dawn raids by the Treasury. Having been in the Treasury, I strongly suspect that the knives are already out and being sharpened. The Government are already telling us that education and health will be the priorities. That is interesting language
  1042
  because the Secretary of State talked about priorities in defence but was not prepared to back it up by referring to solid cash.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jack: I must resist my hon. Friend's invitation. I hope that I am not being rude, but I have several points.
  On one project that has been secured, Eurofighter 2000, I have a question for the Government. We are delighted with the work of the previous Government in securing the project, and I am delighted that the present Government have seen it through to the production phase, but what will they do to support the industry in furthering the export prospects of this remarkable piece of technology? Thank goodness we got the dotted line signed before the German election.
  Much has been said about the technologies involved in various procurement projects. In a way, the defence review missed out. Kevin Smith, one of the managing directors of British Aerospace, in a recent edition of Defence Review, rightly noted:
  "We ought to have not just an MoD strategy, but a defence technology strategy for the UK."
  I hope that, before this debate is out, we can have an assurance that the Government will go into more depth about the technologies that we need for the future. If companies such as British Aerospace and their growing band of European partners are to be able to plan properly for their future, and if we are to keep together the vital teams of very clever people who hold the technology, they need to know what is required and to be able to plan accordingly.
  I have often felt that, in its own way, technology contributes to deterrence. The phrase I use to describe that is the deterrence of technology: if potential aggressors know that we have better systems, better kit and better people, they will think more than twice before deciding to have a go at us. Central to the question of retaining those talented groups of people, not only in BAe in my constituency, but throughout the United Kingdom defence industry, are projects such as the future offensive air system, which is in its infancy in terms of thinking, but which is utterly vital to the maintenance of a Europe-UK based technology pool that is at the leading edge.
  Much has been said about another crucial project: the so-called joint strike fighter project. BAe, together with Lockheed Martin and other partners, is straddling the Atlantic on that project, which is important to carrier-based activity and to other aircraft with short take-off and landing capability. However, vital though that project is, and although it has the potential to open access for BAe to some technologies currently denied it, at the end of the day, such new technologies are not of BAe origin. By contrast, in the case of the future offensive air system, many of the new technologies—for example, the development of more stealth capability from a European source—will be our technologies.
  It is that element that I regard as being absolutely vital, and I should be grateful to hear the Minister acknowledge that the Government distinguish carefully between the nature of the future offensive air system project and that of the joint strike fighter project. If we do not maintain technology bases within the United Kingdom and Europe,

  1043
  we shall be unable to attract the completion in terms of European partners in alliances that will be vital if we are to secure a technology and, subsequently, a manufacturing base for defence systems in Europe and so compete with the might of the big three manufacturers in the United States.
  We have to maintain an element of co-operation across the Atlantic and I congratulate BAe and the previous Government on their action in respect of the Nimrod 2000 project, which did exactly that. British airframe technology and British systems integration excellence were coupled with Boeing's maritime surveillance systems. That is good, but we have to tackle the central issue of maintaining a technological base in Europe and the United Kingdom.
  If the work, which I hope that the Government will continue to timetable, on the future offensive air system proceeds and a stealthier inhabited air vehicle becomes a real possibility, is there any chance that the arrival of such an air vehicle will affect the configuration of the final batch of Eurofighter Typhoon production? I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that tonight.
  One of the key elements in the debate has been smart procurement, but I remain somewhat sceptical that it will deliver the sort of savings mentioned. I was exposed to a civil aviation project, where Air Canada and Virgin negotiated with Airbus Industrie about a project on paper, the A340. They decided exactly what they wanted and, three and three quarter years later, on time, to specification and on payload, the aircraft appeared. That is in stark contrast to the C130J procurement programme currently before us: it is two years late and the product does not exist.
  I wonder whether the Government will adopt the procurement philosophy exemplified in the A340 project—that of a true partnership with industry—or whether they will find it difficult to change the culture within the Ministry of Defence. Will they get away from the current competition-based philosophy to one of trust and partnership with industry? If they do not, they will not achieve savings. I support strongly the suggestion made earlier in the debate that we should have a progress report on how smart procurement is working and on the progress of the savings. If the savings are not made in time, it will be the undoing of the Government's proposal.
  The future large aircraft project is vital for aviation in the north-west. That has been mentioned in the debate. I was struck by the endorsement in the report produced by Professor Philip Lawrence and Dr. Derek Bradman from the university of the West of England. The report was not sponsored by the industry, but it makes a compelling case regarding our future heavy-lift capacity and the future large aircraft. The Government should stand up and say that they will use smart procurement to secure that project and an Airbus-based new tanker fleet. Those projects are not at the margins of technology and the new smart procurement scheme could deliver the goods as far as the United Kingdom is concerned.
  Getting the review right is vital for my constituents, for the United Kingdom and Europe and for our contribution to world peace. If the Government get it wrong, they can only blame themselves that they have put another TSR2 on their doorstep.
  9.25 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: I have removed large chunks of my speech because time is very limited.
  I follow the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) in expressing concern that Britain should retain the lead in the avionics industry. However, the Treasury-led defence policy of the previous Government did the industry no favours and did not assist it in developing a technological lead, in procurement or in securing the future of Britain's defence industry as a whole. I have listened with amazement to some of the comments tonight from Conservative Members who seem to have forgotten completely that, in the early 1990s, the previous Government reduced armed forces expenditure by more than one fifth and cut force numbers by 29 per cent.
  I welcome very much the strategic defence review for which so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have called for so long. I welcome the level of consultation and involvement that is finally beginning to lift the iron curtain of the MOD at Whitehall. In the few minutes available, I signal my pride in, and praise for, the United Kingdom's armed forces. Whatever our differences, all hon. Members recognise our armed forces' reputation for professionalism and high standards, and are committed to maintaining that reputation throughout the world.
  Focusing briefly on constituency concerns, I welcome the stability that this Government have brought to Rosyth dockyard by confirming its allocated programme of refit. However, I ask the Minister, first, to consider immediately moving the Ark Royal from Portsmouth, where it has been sitting for months on end awaiting refit, to Rosyth as an early Christmas present. Secondly, will he ensure that, in the face of increasingly fierce competition for shipbuilding and refitting work among those with maritime interests, a more open and co-operative approach is adopted?
  I see that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is in the Chamber. Although I defend Rosyth's and Scotland's interests, I believe that the last thing that we need is to go down the road of separatism. I cannot believe that anyone would think that a separate Scottish navy, army and air force is credible.
  As to other matters affecting Rosyth, I have been lobbied by the MOD police who plead not to be reviewed yet again. They would like some assurance that that will not occur.
  I pay tribute to the Rosyth naval stores depot, which is due for closure but welcomes the 18-month staged approach which allows alternative training and education to be developed so that, hopefully, people can find other jobs.
  Recently, I made enjoyable visits to the Rosyth sea cadets and to the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service Rosyth association. I support the points that have been made about the importance of our volunteers and sea cadets.
  I welcome the stability and the three-year planning cycle that the review has brought to defence industry, the efforts that are being made to rationalise European defence industry and the commitment to a defence diversification agency. However, I share hon. Members' concerns that, if the DDA becomes part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA should keep its exclusive British rights to the best brains in the country and should not go too far towards privatisation.

  1045
  I applaud the review and I welcome the good reputation that our armed forces maintain in spite of the efforts of politicians.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Keith Simpson: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) spoke for almost everybody who has attended the debate when she reminded us that, whatever our differences, we have the greatest admiration for all the men and women who serve in our regular and part-time armed forces, the civil servants who support them and all those involved in British industry. They are regarded throughout the world as having the greatest reputation. Hon. Members must remember that, since 1969, 452 British service men have given their lives in defence of freedom and democracy, combating terrorism within the United Kingdom.
  We all welcome the opportunity to debate the strategic defence review. In his opening speech, the Secretary of State mentioned that the SDR had been welcomed by a senior NATO officer with "qualified rapture", which is an interesting expression. I suspect that those in the military expected that, with an incoming Labour Government, they would be like a patient who was to have his leg amputated, and they were therefore quite cheery when it was proposed to cut off only one foot, but in the post-SDR euphoria, many of them are beginning to sniff the touch of gangrene.
  The Government have made much of the review being open and having involved a great deal of consultation, which has been the case. However, many hon. Members know that we have had great difficulty in getting information out of Ministers. I was amused that in the review, Ministers point out that there have been many debates on the SDR. Those debates over the past 18 months were initiated by hon. Members: for example, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) initiated a debate on defence procurement; my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) initiated debates on the Territorial Army, and I initiated a debate on the SDR.
  Like the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), I should like to know when we might expect the single service debates on the Royal Navy and the Army. We had a single service debate on the Royal Air Force. Have the others disappeared down a parliamentary black hole?
  The Labour party manifesto referred to a defence and security review. So far, we have had the strategic defence review, but there has been no wider review of security policy. That point was made by the Select Committee and its Chairman. On countless occasions, I and other hon. Members have asked why, if the defence review is a foreign policy defence review, as the Government have continually argued, there has been no foreign policy baseline. What is wrong in publishing such a baseline?
  Many of us believe that, if the Government had had a foreign policy baseline, their policy towards Sierra Leone and the Balkans might have been more coherent. This afternoon, the Foreign Secretary might have been asked a very fair question: "What exactly is the Government's long-term strategy for the Balkans?" We do not know.
  1046
  The SDR was presented in one volume, with a separate volume of supporting essays and 41 separate fact sheets. Information must be sought among many documents. For example, there is no one detailed document on the defence budget, except for one page of four paragraphs on resources. Several hon. Members have pointed out that this appears to be an absurdity, given the importance of resources in terms of implementing the defence review. However, if one searched the press summaries, one did find some information on the costings of force enhancements not covered elsewhere.
  I should congratulate the Select Committee on Defence on extracting some costings on a wide range of policy areas, from efficiency savings to extra money required for welfare. Those cannot be found in any Government document. Obtaining information about the defence budget is rather like being an accountant trying to pin down Del Boy and Trotter and Sons on their family business—almost impossible.
  As the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), pointed out, between 1996–97 and 2001–2, defence spending will fall by £2.1 billion in real terms. That is not merely a debating point between the Opposition and the Government. I believe that most hon. Members realise that resources will be absolutely crucial for the Government in delivering the contents of their strategic defence review. They will be crucial to the major procurement projects that the Government have outlined.
  Resources will be crucial if the Government wish to acquire not just two carriers, but the type of naval and air support package that goes with them; if they wish to acquire at the same time future large aircraft; if they wish to acquire all the various equipment for the Army; and if they wish to acquire the unglamorous but absolutely crucial logistical effort that goes into sending an expeditionary force abroad. It is not carping criticism to have doubts about that; the matter is fundamental to our national security, even without taking into account the problems that will be connected with maintaining our high-quality personnel. I am afraid that, even if we have the kit, if we do not have the excellent personnel whom our armed forces have at present, we shall end up in the second eleven.
  Many of us believe that the strategic defence review has been about reducing defence expenditure and forces while maintaining our current commitments. Many observers have noted that our commitments have actually been expanded by things such as coercive diplomacy—to use the in phrase—and of course an expeditionary force capability. One is forced to conclude that our armed forces are being asked to do more with less. Moreover, if one talks to them, it becomes obvious that both regulars and reservists know that.
  The whole SDR is based on a deal struck with the Treasury on efficiency savings. The SDR report admits that resources depend on an expanding economy. Well—tragically—it is no longer an expanding economy, as many of our constituents know. Britain is teetering on the edge of a recession. As recently as a fortnight ago, the Chancellor admitted that he would have to adjust growth forecasts, perhaps to 1 per cent. or less. There is a potential black hole of about £36 billion in the middle of the public finances. It is a downturn made in Downing street, and it will challenge Ministers. [Interruption.] Ministers smile about that, but many hon. Members

  1047
  present remember the defence record of previous Labour Governments. The track record in the 1960s and 1970s was not good. Perhaps as in the case of the Healey and Mason reviews, the Robertson review will end up with the Secretary of State having to come back to Parliament in a year with supplementary defence estimates forced on him by Government policy. That brings no cheer to any hon. Member.
  The Ministry of Defence will have to implement the strategic defence review with restrictions on its budget. Rumours are already seeping out of the MOD that there is an interesting financial black hole in the long-term costing for 1999. Even with the projected efficiency savings, which have been described by the Chief of the Defence Staff as challenging, one is left in doubt whether the Ministry of Defence will be able to achieve its objective.
  It is interesting, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) pointed out, that just at the time when the Government are effectively cutting defence spending, the United States intends to increase its defence spending by 10 per cent. Our major ally recognises that its armed forces are likely to be busier in the next decade and that the weapons needed are much more costly.
  Several hon. Members have pointed out contradictions in the SDR. The SDR maintains that there is now no direct military threat to the United Kingdom, yet further on it states:
  "There is an increasing danger from the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical technologies."
  The Select Committee rightly pointed out that ballistic missile systems and other weapons of mass destruction, as has been recognised by the United States Government, will pose a threat to us and to our allies. I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the resources that he has allocated to that—an issue that we debated before Christmas, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) raised it in an Adjournment debate.
  The muddle in Government thinking and the imbalance between resources and commitments have been laid bare in the debate by hon. Members in all parts of the House who have mentioned their concerns about the Territorial Army. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, the hon. Members for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), for City of York (Mr. Bayley), for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) all expressed their fears about the Territorial Army.
  Ministers claim that the reorganisation of the Territorial Army is predicated solely on making it modern and more usable. That is just not true. No one would deny that the TA, like other parts of the armed forces, must be prepared to face the threats of the future. It cannot be preserved in aspic, merely as a museum piece. Having spoken to serving soldiers in the Regular Army, let alone the Territorial Army, I and many others have concluded that the real drive behind the reduction in the TA has been the need to find money to fund the Regular Army.
  1048
  The MOD has failed to follow its own logical policy on the TA. A year ago, according to initial MOD policy documents, the TA was to have been reduced to about 5,000. Many people in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy saw the logical conclusion of such a reduction. Now the TA is to be reduced only to 40,000. How do Ministers explain that range of figures? As many hon. Members have asked, what criteria have been used in the restructuring of the TA?
  There is a fight over resources, with the Regular Army fighting for every extra pound and Ministers having to respond to pressure to maintain a credible TA. We guess that about 150 TA centres will close to find savings, and about 20,000 TA soldiers, mainly from the infantry and the yeomanry, will be cut. The remainder will be cadre-ised into soulless holding battalions. If that happens, many of the remaining men and women who belong to them will leave the Territorial Army. The future of the TA has been subject to delays and leaks, which has had a major effect on the roll and on recruiting. The MOD is full of leaks—just like the SDR.
  Ultimately, the SDR has been not just about administrative reorganisation and foreign policy, but about making our armed forces do more with less. The Opposition welcome many aspects of the SDR in terms of continuity over matters such as jointery, the continuing desire to get better value for money from defence procurement. I say to the Front Bench, "Welcome aboard reality. You have been out of step for the past 20 years and you have now rejoined mainstream thinking on defence policy."
  The SDR, published in July, was a statement of intent. We shall now see a continual rolling defence review. I fear that, with the economy teetering on recession, the Ministry of Defence will be unable to manage its budgets and that there will be further cuts and possible humiliations. The Secretary of State will have to explain that to the men and women in our armed forces.
  The Opposition welcome parts of the strategic defence review, but regret the fact that the Government have not been open in publishing the foreign policy baseline and that Ministers have failed to accept that most of the determinants behind the defence review have been financial.
  9.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to the work of the new Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), who made considerable contributions to these debates from both Opposition and Government Benches. I understand that he is having some difficulty in adjusting to his new role, as, whenever he goes on a bus or train and sees someone in uniform, he or she fails to salute him. He was a good team player, and has been replaced by another excellent team player in the new Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson).
  As shown by a survey in The Sunday Times, which said that the Secretary of State was the fourth most powerful man in the country, defence is an important issue. As we heard today, the strategic defence review has set the scene for our armed forces in the next 15 or 20 years. It has laid

  1049
  down a framework which will guide the shape of British defence well into the next century. It thoroughly merits a two-day debate and a full report from the Select Committee.
  As usual in these debates, hon. Members have displayed considerable knowledge and interest. In closing the debate, I shall respond to a number of the points that were raised, although I fear that I shall be unable to respond to them all, and will have to deal with some in correspondence or tomorrow. Although I recognise the keen interest shown in reserves, most of the points on that subject will be covered by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces when he opens the second day of the debate tomorrow.
  I confess to some disappointment—no mention has been made of the 10 per cent. increase in the Navy and Air Force reserves.
  Mr. Brazier rose—
  Mr. Spellar: There has been no acknowledgement of the need to reshape the Army reserves for their role in the new strategic environment, ensuring that they are relevant, trained and equipped.
  Mr. Brazier: That is untrue.
  Madam Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) say that that was untrue? If so, I must ask him to withdraw that statement.
  Mr. Brazier: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I withdraw. The Minister may inadvertently have—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman was frustrated because he was not allowed to get in. I accept his withdrawal.
  Mr. Spellar: On the radio this morning, the shadow Opposition spokesman spoke about the use of the TA to fill gaps. That is important, but so is trying to avoid the gaps in the first place. It is ironic that the last big drops in TA membership took place precisely during the period when he was Economic Secretary to the Treasury. In the early part of this decade, TA membership went down from 86,000 to 59,000. Much as I should like to pursue that line, I must leave it to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. I will say a few words about the most important changes to our organisation that we shall be making as a result of the SDR.
  We expect future operations to be conducted increasingly on a joint basis, and, throughout the SDR, we have aimed to ensure that a joint approach forms a central part of all our defence activities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about our plans for a joint Navy and RAF Harrier force, and mentioned our plans to take forward jointery in the area of logistic support.
  On the joint Harrier force—Joint Force 2000—I am pleased to announce that the chiefs of staff have agreed that the force will form within RAF Strike Command under the command and control of a two-star Navy rear admiral. A one-star RAF air commodore, working to the
  1050
  rear admiral, will command the force on a day-to-day basis. We envisage that the headquarters will be operational in 2000, but our front line can operate only if the kit works. We have been making major strides in logistics.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister make it clear that future appointments to the joint Harrier force, and every other joint force appointment, will be on merit and not some sort of carve-up?
  Mr. Spellar: The service men involved would be extremely resentful of the implication that the appointments were not made on merit, but we will draw that to their attention. We absolutely deny that suggestion.
  We intend to form three new defence agencies to support the front line: a new defence transport and movements agency to manage all our strategic movement, including deployment for operations; a single defence storage and distribution agency; and a single defence aviation repair agency to undertake deep repair and overhaul of all fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft. The role of DARA was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) mentioned the role of the Navy repair organisation, which he served for so many years. I especially welcome his genuine feedback from the shop floor and from the Marines. Both those sites—Sealand and Gosport—and Perth and St. Athan will play a major role in the development of the aviation agency.
  In addition, we intend to form two joint force logistic headquarters to co-ordinate the provision of joint logistics support to deployed operations. To take forward the concept of joint logistic support, we are creating a new unified logistics organisation to replace the current separate logistics organisations of the single services. That will be controlled by a chief of defence logistics.
  The CDL's role will be to deliver to the front line joint, cost-effective support that is responsive and reliable. Such integration will provide for greater commonality of systems and approaches across the defence logistics area. That in turn will provide the opportunity for strategic management of all logistics support, thereby enhancing efficiency and cost-effectiveness—in short, achieving better, more effective support through the application of sensible processes and common practices.
  The first steps towards that goal have already been taken, with the appointment of the Chief of Defence Logistics (Designate), General Sir Sam Cowan, and his implementation team, led by a senior civil servant, Mr. John Oughton. I hope that there is no complaint about that from the Opposition. The team will be put into place by 1 April 1999, and the essential elements of the core headquarters will enable the CDL to assume budgetary and management control of the current logistics areas.
  By April 2000, it is planned to have a fully integrated defence logistics organisation providing logistic support to the armed forces. That will be a change of the greatest magnitude and a huge challenge, but it underlines our commitment to achieving greater effectiveness in delivering military capability while securing better value for money. I welcome the interest in that shown by the Select Committee.

  1051
  More detailed points were raised during the debate. First, the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) was interesting not so much for what it did say, but for what it did not say. There was no comment on why the Opposition did not co-operate with the leak inquiry or why they did not even turn up to it. Those points were put strongly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and there was no response at all from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon or from the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) in winding up.
  Mr. Maples: Will the Minister explain how the Opposition can leak a Government document?
  Mr. Spellar: The Secretary of State made it very clear that it had been established that a document had got into the hands of the Opposition, and that copies had then been made and leaked to the press. They refused the opportunity to go to the leak inquiry and give evidence: that was stated clearly by the Secretary of State, and there was no response from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister criticises Opposition Front Benchers. Does it occur to him that they were members of the very same Government who changed the criminal law to make silence capable of an adverse interpretation?
  Mr. Spellar: I think I remember that the phrase used so often by their spokesmen at the time was, "Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear."
  Equally misleading and wrong is the dead horse being flogged by the Opposition to hide their frustration about the widespread support for our decision to build a new generation of aircraft carriers. Those carriers were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) and the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
  Let me put the facts on record. First, there has been no change in the Government's commitment to this project. We need two large carriers to provide the Navy with a harder-hitting, more versatile platform for force projection operations, and we will make sure that the Navy has those two larger carriers.
  During the SDR, we looked at other options, including life extension of the current vessels, and concluded that none of them met our requirements satisfactorily. No one in the Navy, the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury—or the Chancellor—has re-opened, or queried, the SDR decision, so we are now in the process of implementing that decision. As part of that work, we are doing what the Ministry of Defence has done since 1992 to demonstrate to the House, the National Audit Office and the taxpayer that we have selected the most cost-effective solution to our requirements.
  We are comparing in detail the option that we have chosen with a "do nothing" option—abandoning carriers entirely—and a "do the minimum" option, which, in this case as in many others, constitutes a life extension programme. The contract bulletin simply asks for tenders to provide a study: we have a copy here. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon did not read out all of it.
  1052
  It talks of Invincible class
  "further special refit cost studies."
  It uses the word "studies," which deals with the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
  We are talking about a contract for a study. The MOD pays for the study, under the contract: I should have thought that was self-evident from the definition. It is standard practice, and it is unfortunate that the Opposition feel the need to engage in such scaremongering to hide their complete lack of any ideas.
  As I have said, these were prudent Government arrangements, nothing more and nothing less, and exactly what was done before. I hope that we can now lay that canard to rest. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk has nothing else to say, so it is not surprising that he wants to keep on. Oh dear, oh lor': the trip to Eastbourne obviously did not do the hon. Gentleman much good.
  A second myth propagated by the Opposition Front Bench was that decisions about the refit of HMS Spartan were made for constituency reasons. Here, too, the facts are fundamentally different.
  HMS Spartan will be a key part of our attack submarine force until 2006: she therefore requires a refit, which will provide more than four years' operational service. It will not be a full refit, but it will involve refuelling and essential maintenance. The full refit that was originally planned was part of the programme for Rosyth, agreed by the last Government as part of the sale of the dockyard. Cancellation would have incurred charges, with no benefit to the MOD or the taxpayer, in the region of £60 million—plus £30 million for earlier than planned redundancy costs. The reduced refits will cost less than originally planned, and meet our operational requirements.
  While on the subject of the Navy, I can reassure my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence that there has been no casting aside of peacetime tasks for the destroyer and frigate force. The Navy will be able to meet those tasks with 32 ships by managing the force more flexibly, so that deployments can be adjusted to match changing political and operational priorities. That will enable us to meet commitments in the Gulf, the Falklands and the Caribbean, and to provide a regular presence off west Africa and make regular deployments in the Asia-Pacific region.
  We conducted the review in a remarkably open and inclusive manner. I am confident that, when we return tomorrow, there will be a similar consensus on the good sense of our proposals. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will be talking about our policy for people and our proposals for reserves. That will show the work that has been undertaken and the strength of the defence review.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request by a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement tonight on the reports that 24 officers have been executed in Sierra Leone following courts martial? Twelve journalists are also under sentence of death, including a British national, Hilton Fyle, who is a former BBC correspondent. Given

  1053
  our considerable support for President Kabbah and his Government and our human rights policy, I am anxious that a Foreign Office Minister should clarify whether the United Kingdom Government have been able to make representations, opposing these executions and supporting clemency for those who are under sentence of death.
  Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that, at this stage, any Minister from the Foreign Office is seeking to make a statement to the House.

PETITION

  Former Firing Range (Salisbury)
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I wish to present a petition raised by almost 500 of my constituents from East Gomeldon, the Winterbournes and other parishes, which asks the House to urge the Ministry of Defence to clear a former range adjacent to their homes where more than 2,000 metal objects have been identified that were buried many years of ago, some of which might contain high explosives, phosgene or mustard gas. Since we began the petition, the Ministry of Defence has said that it will clear the ground, but it has not started yet and this is our insurance policy. The Journal of this House for 10 December 1640 records that a petition was found on Salisbury plain, brought to the mayor of Salisbury, sent by an hon. Member to the Committee on Petitions, which found it of no better consequence than to be burnt. I urge this honourable House not to burn this one, but to give it its support.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Whittle Colliery
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: In the quiet countryside of Northumberland, an environmental disaster is waiting to happen. It will happen around the middle of 2000 if nothing is done to prevent it.
  Immediately south of Alnwick, alongside the A1, there are two former pits, Shilbottle and Whittle, which, during my time as a Member of Parliament, employed 1,500 men. They produced coal that was famous for household use. The wife of my former colleague, the late Jo Grimond, told me that her coalman in the Orkney islands used occasionally to appear with a look of triumph on his face and say, "I've got you some Shilbottle coal, Mrs. Grimond." No one can have Shilbottle coal any more, because those pits have been closed.
  The two collieries are connected underground. In their flooded state, they are a single water system. Shilbottle closed in the 1970s, but Whittle remained open longer. It was closed by the Coal Board in 1987, and was re-opened under licence. It went through a series of financial problems, until it passed into the hands of a company called Stonegate Mining, which went into receivership.
  What went on immediately before final closure was a scandal. Men were sent underground without employers' liability insurance cover, and the mines inspectorate seemed powerless to stop it. There are men who are still unable to obtain compensation for injuries they received because the company is in receivership and there was no insurance. The receivers sold the surface assets to a non-mining company.
  In March 1997, the pumps were stopped because the electricity bill had not been paid. They had been pumping 1 million cu m a year to keep the water level down. When the mine was working, they pumped 3 million cu m a year. The Environment Agency identified the seriousness of the problem in its local Environment Agency plan for the area in July 1997, and immediately public concern grew. Water levels are rising by 9 cm a day, and it was accepted that the mine was likely to overflow on a very large scale early in 2000.
  Heavily polluted water would pour into the River Coquet through the Hazon burn and by other routes, destroying the entire ecology of a famous and beautiful salmon river with a rich variety of wildlife. As a site of special scientific interest, it would be destroyed. Very large costs would also arise because water is extracted from the Coquet for domestic supplies serving a large area. As the agency began further investigations, using boreholes, public concern grew.
  There was an additional concern about stythe—mine gas—being forced upwards by the water. There has been a tragic death in my constituency from stythe in the Widdrington area. We have debated the issue before, as the Minister knows well. I hope that he can assure us that this aspect of the problem is being watched carefully.
  Every level of local government became involved in the pressure for a solution. The county council organised some of the meetings, and the district council was very active. The local parish councils were particularly

  1055
  concerned. All sorts of local organisations and many individuals made representations to me of their concern, and I pay tribute to all their efforts and to the public bodies which recognised the urgency of the issue. We are all conscious of the fact that, for every day that went by, a million gallons of water were added to the flood level, with the water rising 3 to 4 in a day.
  It became clear that treatment of the water was the only feasible solution, although there were some technical arguments about the relative contribution of chemical and reed-bed treatments, and about whether a longer-term system could be devised which required less energy. A scheme has been identified, with capital costs of around £450,000 and initial running costs of £30,000 to £80,000 a year.
  On 16 July this year, the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), was interviewed about the issue on Radio 4. I was delighted to hear him say:
  "There's no question, action is going to be taken—no question whatsoever."
  He referred to the Strathclyde principle, under which the Coal Authority has moral obligations beyond its legal duties in cases of severe breakout of water. But it was still not clear who would be paying.
  The Minister for Energy and Industry, who is to reply to tonight's debate, issued a press release on 2 October in which he announced:
  "the Coal Authority will take the lead role in preventing pollution and … funding will be provided to ensure a scheme is in place in good time."
  That sounds fine, but there is a rather worrying line in the press release which refers to the Coal Authority, the Environment Agency, Northumbrian Water and other local groups, and says:
  "these organisations will now decide the best way of making provision."
  Is it clear that the Coal Authority will foot the bill? If not, who else? What if it does not agree that it should contribute? Are the Government guaranteeing, as the Minister implied on the radio, that the money will be produced on time without any doubt or delay? Delay, of course, would be utterly disastrous, but we are entitled to some reassurance. I want to know whose name will be on the cheque.
  Minewater flooding is a widespread problem in many parts of the north-east, and the British Geological Survey team has drawn public attention to it. There are other instances in my constituency. At Spittal, which lies across the Tweed from Berwick, we had serious flooding in the main street across from old mine workings in June this year. Large numbers of homes were flooded by polluted water, and there was a lot of damage to property, as well as a lot of distress to residents, many of them elderly.
  In the context of today's defence debate, I should mention that tremendous help was received by residents from soldiers—fusiliers from the local TA company—who were on the scene within 25 minutes of being called in. We will lose that kind of practical help if we do not have the TA in Berwick. Residents of Spittal and the council are now having enormous difficulty in getting anyone to accept liability for the damage caused by flooding, and for the cost of preventing it from happening in the future.
  1056
  It has happened before. It happened before the war; older people remember it. The Coal Authority denies liability. The water company whose sewers are involved does not accept it, either. The Environment Agency cannot seem to help. Meanwhile, the residents of Spittal, who have had to face flooding from both directions—from the sea and from the land—are left with the worry that flooding from the old mines might happen again. I appeal to the Minister to use his influence to ensure that the Coal Authority sorts it out.
  Returning to the issue of flooding at Whittle, I am grateful for the prompt response of Government—it needed to be prompt—and for the firm indication from the Minister for the Environment that it is going to be dealt with, but we need to know who is paying the bill, or at least that someone is going to pay the bill, and that the Government have underwritten a solution. Without action, the biggest environmental disaster in the country will be Northumberland's millennium experience. We need to be sure that it is going to be prevented.
  10.9 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick- upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on securing this debate. I thank him for his persistence and the clear and succinct manner in which he has raised the serious issue of minewater flooding. It is not only of local concern, but of national importance.
  In opposition and in government, we have made it clear that our concern for coalfield communities throughout the country relates to the legacy of mine workings in those communities. It is not surprising that the Government's actions to establish a level playing field on which the coal industry can compete, both here and in Europe, have attracted most attention in recent weeks and months. That is, perhaps, inevitable, but we have, I hope, also shown our determination to face up to the difficult legacy of former coal mining.
  Any of us familiar with coalfield areas will be familiar with the impact that coal mining can have on rivers and streams—a working mine, a spoil heap, a blackened river. When mining ceases, the picture changes, sometimes over a long period. The mine is abandoned, the pumps that once drew cleaner water to the surface to keep the workings dry are switched off and water begins to rise. As it does so, it often picks up mineral deposits, principally iron, but sometimes lesser quantities of manganese and aluminium.
  If the rising minewater surfaces and overflows into a river or stream, the iron within it generally turns the river not black but orange. The watercourse not only becomes an eyesore—not an amenity—but, depending on the severity of the pollution, loses much of the life within it. There are other repercussions—for example, if the watercourse is used as a source for abstraction by water companies.
  As the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, what I have described is exactly the situation that faces us at the former Whittle colliery, near Warkworth in Northumberland. Here we have a mine where the surface land and shafts were sold in the 1980s by British Coal to a private operator. Over time, it changed hands until, in 1997, the last owner went into receivership, the mine was abandoned and the pumps switched off.

  1057
  In due course, the Environment Agency raised concerns over the possible effects of that action—that contaminated water was rising through the workings and might eventually discharge into the nearby Hazon burn, a tributary of the River Coquet. The Coquet is a site of special scientific interest. It is home to a range of aquatic life, including salmon, otter and lamprey and, further downstream, is used as an abstraction point by Northumbrian Water. Therefore, it was unsurprising that the agency's worries led to a good deal of local concern from the right hon. Gentleman, the local council and other organisations that have raised the matter.
  The challenge was how best to deal with those concerns. To do that, a partnership of interested parties—the Environment Agency, the Coal Authority, Northumbrian Water, local councils and others—was put together. That partnership approach reflected the fact that Whittle was in private ownership. That is a different situation from others in which the Coal Authority was involved, as they were ordinarily linked to mines that were formerly owned and operated by the National Coal Board and by British Coal and are formally vested in the Coal Authority.
  At the same time, the situation at Whittle clearly had to be dealt with. The Coal Authority had found that a partnership approach had been successfully adopted at other sites; I mention Bullhouse in South Yorkshire. It was clear to that partnership that, before any action was taken, the agency's predictions had to be objectively tested by independent research to get the appropriate remedial action right. That research was carried out by the consultancy Entec UK Ltd., primarily with funding from the Coal Authority.
  Entec's findings, which became available for consideration by the partners in September, provided the necessary information on the status of the water within the mines, the rate at which it was filling the workings, whether and when it would overflow and the likely severity of any pollution. In the light of that, Entec's report set out the expected time scales, the options for treatment and the estimated costs of that treatment.
  With that information to hand, it is now possible for the Coal Authority, in liaison with the other partners, to take decisions on the most appropriate method of treatment and how it will be implemented. I understand that, in the light of the Entec report, the authority has identified various potential sites for the location of treatment systems. As at other sites, decisions on the precise method of treatment to be used will be for the authority to take.
  Typically, treatment at minewater sites involves the removal of iron deposits through aeration and filtration, followed by the passive absorption of further iron by reed beds, after which the water can be safely discharged to the watercourse.
  I shall now turn to a point on which the right hon. Gentleman sought specific reassurance. On 2 October, I was able to confirm that the Coal Authority would oversee implementation and that the Department of Trade and Industry would ensure that the necessary funds would be available to allow it to do so. The first estimates are that the capital costs of the treatment will be around £450,000, with annual running costs of between £30,000 and
  1058
  £80,000. That spend will not adversely affect the authority' s existing minewater programme. As a result of that action, any pollution of the River Coquet will be avoided.
  The Coal Authority has developed considerable expertise in dealing with minewater from coal mines, which it can bring to bear at Whittle. That expertise can be seen at first hand throughout the coalfield areas of Britain in the series of eight minewater remediation projects, including Polkennet in Scotland, where an overflow was prevented by the installation of pumps by the authority. Obviously, the authority's commitment does not stop there. It also carries out pumping to prevent pollution at a number of stations, notably not far from the right hon. Gentleman's constituency in Durham, where pumping protects the River Wear, and it has carried out feasibility studies on a number of other serious overflows with a view to treating them in the future.
  The authority has agreed a priority list of around 50 of the most serious minewater pollution problems with the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. So, all its research, preventive and treatment work is carried out in close co-operation with the organisations that monitor water quality and pinpoint potential problems. The authority spent more than £3 million on its programme in 1997–98 and expects to spend around £4 million this year. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman that a coherent programme is in place to prevent minewater pollution from Whittle, that funding is available to enable it to be carried out and that the key organisations are involved in the process.
  Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister, who seems to be assuring me that the Coal Authority not only will be able to fund the work, but will do so without detriment to the rest of its programmes. I hope that I should rightly take that to mean that the Government, however they provide funding to the Coal Authority, will make good the exceptional costs involved there so that the rest of the programme is not disrupted. If that is so, it is the clarification that I wanted from this debate.
  Mr. Battle: I think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman that reassurance. Such problems have to be tackled and we are determined that they shall be.
  We firmly believe in the "polluter pays" principle and we should always reinforce that. Having said that, it is fair to say that the legal framework for responsibility for pollution from abandoned mines is complex. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, it is an offence knowingly to cause pollution from an abandoned mine, and the Environment Agency has powers to prosecute those who do so. That statute was augmented by the Environment Act 1995, and after 31 December 1999 it will be an offence to permit pollution from an abandoned mine.
  In July this year, new regulations came into force setting out the procedures for those operators intending to abandon mines, requiring them, among other things, to give the agency six months' notice of their intention to abandon and to advise it of the measures being taken to avoid a pollution incident.
  In the case of both coal and non-coal mines it is the agency's responsibility to take a view on whether the Water Resources Act 1991 has been broken and, if so,

  1059
  whether to prosecute. I emphasise once more to the right hon. Gentleman the fact that not all abandoned mines produce overflows and that, where they do, the level of pollution can vary greatly in severity.
  The Coal Authority takes very seriously the problems posed by stythe or mine gas produced by former coal mines. The movement of water in former mine workings can push mine gas towards shafts and up to the surface. I understand that the Coal Authority has sought particular advice on the problem from the consultants who are advising on Whittle, and that the British Geological Survey has suggested the production of a hazard map, showing sites of potential overflows. As operational decisions on the minewater programme are for the Coal Authority and the agencies to take, it is for them to determine whether such a map would be useful.
  The position in respect of non-coal mines is somewhat different, not only because of the scale of former coal mining but because, unlike most mining and minerals industries, coal mines were publicly owned and operated. That is why, during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994, a commitment—he so-called Strathclyde principle—as made that the Coal Authority would seek the best environmental result in the area of minewater treatment that could be achieved within available resources.
  The Coal Authority has a programme to deal with minewater from abandoned mines within its ownership—ines owned and operated by the National Coal Board or the British Coal Corporation. I understand that the Environment Agency has spent £9.5 million since 1990 on research and treatment at the Wheal Jane tin mine in
  1060
  Cornwall and is monitoring the situation at the recently abandoned South Crofty mine, and that it has commissioned a report on the environmental implications of the end of commercial operations at the Grove Rake fluorspar mine in Weardale, County Durham.
  We take pollution from abandoned mines seriously, but it is important to keep the problem in clear perspective. Coal mining has been carried out in this country since Roman times, and more or less intensively for the past 400 years. Although overflows occur throughout the coalfields, the number of serious pollution incidents is amazingly low, given the scale of former coal mining. The priority list agreed between the Coal Authority, the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency includes about 50 sites with serious discharges. Other pollution incidents do not figure on that list, but they are relatively minor in scale and impact.
  The agencies are monitoring recently abandoned mines that have not yet produced overflows, and if they are felt to require treatment or preventive action they can be prioritised accordingly.
  I hope that I have been able to convey to the right hon. Gentleman the seriousness with which the Government take their responsibility to deal with the historical legacy of former coal mining and minewater pollution problems in particular. The Coal Authority will deal with the problem and the money will be available to allow it to do so. The pollution of the River Coquet from the Whittle colliery will be avoided.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the outcome of the inquiry into the leak of the Strategic Defence Review White Paper. [55672]

  Mr. George Robertson
  A copy of the Strategic Defence Review White Paper was leaked to the Opposition Front Bench and to the press on the afternoon and early evening of Tuesday 7 July. As soon as I learned about the leak, I asked the Cabinet Secretary to authorise an immediate and thorough investigation into how it came about. This inquiry has been conducted by two independent investigators. It has now been completed.

  I regret that, after extensive inquiries, the investigators were not able to identify the person responsible for the leak. They have, however, established the course of events on the afternoon and evening of 7 July with a high degree of probability.

  The investigators concluded that on 7 July a photocopy of the White Paper was sent by an authorised recipient within Government to the Opposition Front Bench; and that subsequently four copies were made within the House and made available to selected journalists. The first newspaper to receive a copy was The Daily Telegraph. Further copies went to The Times, the Financial Times and the Daily Mail, apparently in phased distribution because of the bulk of the document being copied. The investigators found no evidence to suggest that, in addition to the copy sent to the Opposition, a second authorised recipient sent copies to the newspapers.

  The investigation revealed some small weaknesses in the generally very successful procedures for the distribution of the White Paper. None of them was a likely cause of the leak. The necessary steps will be taken to ensure that these small errors are not repeated. In itself the leak was of no significance to national security. But I am naturally most concerned that someone working for the Government breached security in this way. Ten thousand copies of the White Paper were circulated under embargo in advance of its publication. It appears that only one of the authorised recipients did not respect its confidentiality.

  The leak was a gross discourtesy to Parliament; and I once again express my anger and my apologies for the fact that it occurred.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) of 28 July 1998,Official Report, columns 198–99, what public opinion research was undertaken in May in respect of the public presentation of the SDR; how much it cost; and what was the purpose of the research. [54667]
  882
  Mr. George Robertson
  My Department commissioned two items of public opinion research: a qualitative focus group study which reported in May 1998, and a questionnaire in an omnibus survey conducted over one week (28 May to 3 June 1998). The combined cost was £49,655.50. The purpose of the research was to explore the public's attitudes, feelings and knowledge regarding the key issues covered in the Strategic Defence Review. This was in keeping with the Government's declared objective of achieving a national consensus on the defence of the country.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment's evaluation of whether short-term exposure to mustard gas causes bone marrow depression and the resulting immunosuppression in the long term. [54539]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 7 August 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about DERA's evaluation of whether short term exposure to mustard gas causes bone marrow depression and the resulting immunosuppression in the long term.
  DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence sector (CBD) has not performed any research into either bone marrow depression or immunosuppression following short term exposure to mustard gas. However, CBD is aware from both the available literature on the subject and the experience gained through assisting in the clinical management of Iranian casualties in the UK during the late 1980s that bone marrow depression and severe immunosuppression can result from a single high does exposure to mustard, particularly after liquid exposure under occluded conditions.
  A total of four out of approximately thirty Iranian casualties treated in the UK developed bone marrow depression as a result of contamination of a large proportion of their body surfaces with mustard. This depression of their bone marrow and immune competency progressed rapidly and resulted in their deaths from overwhelming infection with a few days; such rapidly decreasing bone marrow function proved to be resistant to treatment with both blood and cell transfusions.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment's evaluation of whether short-term exposure to mustard gas causes chronic skin ulceration and scar formation. [55329]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the effects of short term exposure to mustard gas.
  I informed you in my letter of 20 August 1997, printed in the Official Report Col 660 dated 27 October, that DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence sector (CBD) has reviewed the available literature documenting the effects of short term exposure to mustard gas. In my earlier letter I explained that historical evidence from the

  883
  First World War, and more recent nursing of Iranian patients in the UK in the mid 1980s, indicates that short term exposure to mustard gas affects the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. The effects on the skin consist of reddening followed by blistering; similar effects are seen at the other affected areas. Once the blisters rupture, ulceration of the skin following; these injuries take a long while to heal.
  The long term effects of mustard exposure have most frequently been documented in people previously employed in the manufacture of mustard gas. In a study of 488 workers from the Okuno-jima war gas plant, 115 showed pigmentary skin changes and 22 showed evidence of basal cell cancer and Bowen's disease (pre-invasive cancer). Thus far, there has only been one report describing the long term effects of mustard exposure on the skin of war veterans. A group of Iranian solders were monitored for almost two years following exposure to mustard during the Iran-Iraq war of 1984–1988. Of the exposed casualties, 41% developed pigmentary disorders. No other clinical abnormalities have so far been identified.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment's evaluation of the effect on human health in(a) the long-term and (b) the short-term of exposure to phosgene. [55320]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about possible effects on human health of long term and short term exposure to phosgene.
  I informed you in my letter of 21 July 1998, printed in the Official Report Col 472 dated 21 July, that DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence sector (CBD) was undertaking studies to determine the short term effects of exposure to phosgene as part of an ongoing research programme. These studies are not yet complete.
  CBD's evaluation of the long term effects is based on information available from the First World War when phosgene was used extensively. Inhalation of the gas causes immediate irritation of the respiratory passages. The effects on the lung, which can be fatal, may not become apparent for two to six hours after exposure.
  If exposure does not prove fatal the lung usually recovers within a few weeks. However, the results of long term reviews of the health of First World War veterans exposed to phosgene have indicated that the incidence of chronic bronchitis and emphysema is higher in these veterans than in age matched control groups.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Women (Recruitment)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to encourage women to join the armed forces. [55359]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Armed Forces are committed to maximising career opportunities for women. In April this year, the number of posts in the Army open to women increased from 47% to 70%. Three quarters of posts in the Royal Navy are now open to women. Additionally, as part of the Strategic Defence Review, we announced that 1,300 posts filled by Royal Navy and Army personnel in specialists units attached to the Royal Marines would be open to women. In the RAF, women are eligible for 96% of all posts. Women are excluded 884
  from posts only where their presence would be detrimental to combat effectiveness, or for practical or medical reasons.

  All three Services welcome applications from women, and are making considerable efforts to encourage them to apply to join the Armed Forces. In particular, the Army regularly publishes recruitment advertisements and editorials in national and female titles. The RAF has published a recruitment brochure specifically targeted at female inquirers entitled "The World at Your Feet—Women in the RAF", and has recently run an advertising campaign featuring the most senior RAF female officer.

  Royal Ordnance, Bridgwater
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has come to a decision on the sale of Royal Ordnance, Bridgwater to a French company. [54920]

  Mr. Spellar
  The position remains as set out in my previous answer to the hon. Member on 19 December 1997,Official Report, column 383. The strategic implications of any joint venture between Royal Ordnance and an overseas company would be examined with great care as part of the consideration by the appropriate regulatory authorities.

  Medical Officers
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the restructured pay scales for qualified general medical practitioners and general dental practitioners in the rank of major. [54915]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The restructured daily pay scales for qualified general medical practitioners and general dental practitioners in the rank of major will come into effect on 1 December 1998, and will be:

  1 December 1998

  Pay scale

  Qualified general medical practitioners:

  On appointment

  131.51

  After 1 year in rank

  133.53

  After 2 years in rank

  135.55

  After 3 years in rank

  137.59

  After 4 years in rank

  140.45

  After 5 years in rank

  143.31

  After 6 years in rank

  145.05

  After 7 years in rank

  146.78

  After 8 years in rank

  148.51

  Unqualified general medical practitioners:

  On appointment

  106.09

  After 1 year in rank

  112.81

  After 2 years in rank

  119.59

  After 3 years in rank

  121.62

  After 4 years in rank

  123.64

  After 5 years in rank

  125.66

  After 6 years in rank

  127.70

  After 7 years in rank

  130.56

  After 8 years in rank

  133.43

  General dental practitioners:

  On appointment

  124.36

  After 1 year in rank

  126.38

  After 2 years in rank

  128.40

  After 3 years in rank

  130.44

  After 4 years in rank

  133.30

  After 5 years in rank

  136.16

  885

  1 December 1998

  Pay scale

  After 6 years in rank

  137.90

  After 7 years in rank

  139.63

  After 8 years in rank

  141.36

  Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what resources have been made available to the Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme for work from 1 September; what is the duration of Professor Harry Lee's contract; what is the total value of his contract; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the programme. [55421]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence has been running a Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) for Gulf veterans since Autumn 1993. In that time, over 2,600 patients have been seen by the Programme's physicians. A detailed paper covering the diagnostic results of the first 1,000 patients seen at the MAP has been submitted to an independent medical journal for publication. The MOD also plans to commission a thorough audit of the MAP later this year, focusing on all aspects of patient care and on the service it provides.

  Following an open competition, Professor Harry Lee took up his post as Head of the MAP on 1 September this year. He has been employed on a two year fixed term appointment which, as is usual with contracts of this kind, is extendable. The salary range for the grade at which Professor Lee has been employed—Principal Medical Officer—is £41,606 to £64,346.

  The annual cost of running the MAP is approximately Cm. This level of resources is appropriate to handle the current rate of new referrals to the Programme. Accordingly, no additional resources have been allocated to the MAP as a direct consequence of Professor Lee's appointment.

  The MAP currently forms part of the Baird Health Centre at St. Thomas' Hospital, London.

  Armed Forces (Homosexuals)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his consultations with the chiefs of staff on the treatment of homosexuals in the armed forces. [52218]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The issue of homosexuality and the Armed Forces will be reviewed in this Parliament, as part of the policy reviews undertaken in preparation for the passage of the next Armed Forces Bill due in 2001. The Government will form a view on the weight of the evidence, taking into consideration EC and national law as well as the views of the Armed Forces. We will then seek to establish the way forward in consultation with the Chiefs of Staff.

  Trident
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the explosive power of the nuclear warheads deployed on the Trident submarine system. [51884]
  886
  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: The 48 nuclear warheads deployed on each Trident submarine will have an explosive power one third less than the 32 warheads carried on each Polaris submarine under the Chevaline modification. Details of the explosive yield of our Trident warheads are covered by Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department expects to spend in each year from 1998–99 to 2000–01 on vehicle replacements. [54990]

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

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55260]

  Mr. Spellar
  Motorcycle parking facilities exist at a number of Ministry of Defence and Agency sites. However, records of the precise numbers and types of space are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The provision of parking facilities in general will be considered during the preparation of my Department's Green Transport Plans.

  Shipyards (Aircraft Carriers)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United Kingdom shipyards with the capacity to design and build the two larger aircraft vessels planned for service from 2012 as announced on 8 July. [55278]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are a number of UK Shipyards with the capacity to design and build the two larger aircraft carriers planned to enter service from 2012. These include VSEL at Barrow-in-Furness; Harland and Wolf Belfast; Swan Hunter Tyneside; and the ship construction yard in Birkenhead previously owned by Cammell Laird.

  The Procurement Strategy being developed for the acquisition of the carriers envisages a design, build and initial support contract being placed competitively with a prime contractor who need not be a shipbuilder. It is not, therefore, necessarily the case that the shipbuilder will be responsible also for the design of the new carriers.

  Naval Field Gun Crews
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the cost of each of the three Royal Navy field gun crews in each of the last five years; [55645]

  (2) how many service personnel have been involved and over what period in the field gun competition of the Royal Tournament in each of the last five years; and what was the cost of those personnel. [55646]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  887

  Gulf War (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for compensation from Gulf War service personnel and civilians his Department has received to date. [55649]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Up to 15 October 1998, my Department had received 116 claims for compensation arising from a variety of incidents from Service personnel and civilians following Gulf War service. These include claims relating to road traffic and other accidents which occurred in the Gulf region in 1990/1 and claims alleging medical negligence in the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In addition, at 15 October 1998, my Department had registered 1,736 current notices of intention to claim compensation from Service personnel, members of their families, and civilian Ministry of Defence employees and contractors in respect of illnesses allegedly arising from the Gulf War.

  Royal Tournament
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what injuries have been incurred by military personnel participating in the Royal Tournament in each of the last five years; and how many working days were lost through those injuries; [55650]

  (2) what was the total cost to his Department of support for the Royal Tournament in each of the last five years. [55647]

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

  Royal Navy (Undermanning)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships are currently undermanned; of which types; and to what extent. [55648]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The major ships of the Surface Flotilla all experience a degree of gapping which, on average, amounts to 5 per cent. of the full crew complement, and in the case of minor ships this average is 4 per cent. There are no submarines operating below their full crew complement.

  Military Satellites
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK's decision not to participate in the tri-national project to develop a military satellite. [55361]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the period up to August this year, the UK had been considering a range of procurement options, covering collaborative, National conventional, and Public Finance Initiative (PFI) options, for satisfying the Project Definition (PD) phase requirements for the next generation of UK military satellite communications, known generically as Skynet 5. The preferred option had been a collaborative programme involving France and Germany, known as Trimilsatcom.

  Following a thorough evaluation of the options by the UK, it was clear that Trimilsatcom would not meet the UK's requirements in an affordable way, and would not be ready in time to replace our existing satellites when
  888
  they went out of service. The assessment also showed that a National PFI approach had the potential to offer an affordable and timely solution. It was therefore decided that the UK would not proceed with the Trimilsatcom PD programme.

  Future Offensive Air System
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the timetable for the development of the Future Offensive Air System; [55352]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's evaluation of the Future Offensive Air System. [55351]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Future Offensive Air System, FOAS, will replace the capability currently provided by the Tornado GR fleet in the offensive support role in about twenty years' time. As confirmed in the Strategic Defence Review White Paper (Cmd 3999), a wide range of options to fulfil the FOAS requirement will continue to be examined, including manned aircraft, remotely piloted/unmanned air vehicles and cruise missiles. Feasibility studies into the various options are underway and are progressing well.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the timetable for the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter. [55353]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Joint Strike Fighter, JSF, is a US Department of Defense project. The UK is participating in the Concept Demonstration Phase of the US programme as a full collaborative partner, JSF being a strong contender to meet our Future Carrier Borne Aircraft requirement. First flights of the JSF concept demonstration aircraft are scheduled for the year 2000. Subsequently, a decision will be taken on whether to join the next phase of the US programme, or to follow one of the alternative options currently being studied. The Future Carrier Borne Aircraft is due to enter service around 2012.

  Training Exercises
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 July 1998,Official Report, column 444, what was the outcome of the review of his Department's training methods; and what is his policy on future defence exercises involving the shooting of pigs. [55396]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  UK military participation in the Danish Armed Forces medical exercises involving the use of pigs remains suspended pending the completion of our review.

  HMS Cromer (Submarine)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the remote-operated submarine abandoned by HMS Cromer has been replaced. [54923]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 17 March 1998, HMS Cromer was obliged to temporarily abandon her Remote Controlled Mine Disposal Vehicle (RCMDV) while assisting in the location of the wreck of a fishing vessel. As soon as HMS Cromer returned to base port her
  889
  RCMDV was replaced by a spare, in order to restore the warship's capability. As the original vehicle was recovered and will be returned to service shortly, it will not be necessary to purchase a replacement.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what disciplinary action has been taken concerning(a) the logs of and (b) the decision to abandon HMS Cromer's yellow submarine. [54922]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  None.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Cromer's remote-operated submarine was purchased and at what cost; and what it would cost to replace. [54924]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  HMS Cromer's Remote Controlled Mine Disposal Vehicle was purchased in 1996. As configured, the unit cost of a vehicle on this contract was some £230K. As the vehicle was recovered and will be returned to service shortly it is not necessary to purchase a replacement.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Cromer lost her yellow remote-operated submarine; what attempts were made to find it; when the decision was taken to abandon it; and if he will make a statement. [54925]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 17 March 1998 the Mine-hunter, HMS Cromer, dispatched a Remote Controlled Mine Disposal Vehicle (RCMDV) in an attempt to assist the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch in locating the wreck of the fishing vessel Margaretha Maria. In the process of making a positive identification of the wreck, the RCMDV became entangled in the sunken trawler's nets. Its location was confirmed but, as it could not readily be recovered at that time, it was temporarily abandoned to enable HMS Cromer to continue with each scheduled duties. The RCMDV was subsequently picked up by a trawler. The salvors have submitted a salvage claim but as yet no settlement has been agreed.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has settled the salvage claim in respect of the yellow submarine lost from HMS Cromer; and for what sum. [54921]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No settlement has yet been reached with regard to this salvage claim.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to purchase Allied Signal Incorporated upgraded gas turbine engines for the Chinook helicopter fleet; and when the Royal Air Force will lift the reduced weight limit on British Chinooks. [55467]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have no plans to upgrade the Allied Signal 712F engines fitted to the RAF's Chinook HC Mk2 fleet, but we are pursuing the procurement of minor modifications to improve commonality, thereby reducing spares holdings, with the 714A engines fitted to the eight Chinook HC Mk3 aircraft to be delivered to the RAF in early 2001.
  890
  The Chinook HC Mk2 was cleared to operate to its full flight envelope at an all up mass of 24,500 kg under an amended Controller Aircraft Release which was signed on 30 September.

  Training (Private Land)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many landowners, and in respect of what acreage, have withdrawn their consent to military training on private land since 30 April; and what impact this will have on man training days. [54912]

  Mr. Spellar
  Four landowners have withdrawn consent for military training to take place on their land since 30 April 1998. The total land area withdrawn was 6,376 acres and 650 man training days were lost. Two of these landowners have since reinstated permission for training to take place on their property. The continued withdrawal of the remaining land is not expected to have any lasting effect because military exercises have been rescheduled to take place elsewhere.

  Chevaline Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the specific plans for the dismantlement of Chevaline nuclear warheads are deemed to be covered by exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [55431]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Specific details of the programme to dismantle Chevaline nuclear warheads are classified as they could be used to provide insights into the UK's nuclear weapon production capabilities. The information was therefore withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Trimilsatcom Collaborative Programme
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to(a) United Kingdom public funds and (b) each of the two tri-national consortiums of the UK's participation in the Trimilsatcom collaborative programme with France and Germany; and what were the equivalent costs to (i) France and (ii) Germany. [55472]

  Mr. Spellar
  Expenditure by the UK Ministry of Defence on work specifically associated with Trimilsatcom initiative has amounted to approximately £3.0M. Of this sum, approximately £2.7M was spent on studies, and the information obtained will be utilised on future stages of the UK Skynet 5 national programme. The balance of the money was spent on the Joint Programme Office which was set up in Paris to manage the programme. While no definitive information is available, it is believed that expenditure by both France and Germany will have been of similar magnitude. The MOD has no knowledge of the expenditure by the two trinational consortia in support of their commercial bids for the project.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of his decision not to enter the project definition stage of the Trimilsatcom collaborative programme with France and Germany. [55471]
  891
  Mr. Spellar
  The cost to the UK of its decision not to enter the project definition stage of the Trimilsatcom collaborative programme with France and Germany is limited to those administrative costs associated with the Joint Programme Office, JPO, in Paris, which was set up to manage the project. These costs are currently estimated to be approximately £0.3M, of which approximately £33k is attributable to the UK's share of the direct costs of winding up the JPO.

  VC10 Aeroplane (Repairs)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work has been carried out since 1 May 1997 on XV.108; who instructed that the work be done; what was the nature of the work; and what was the cost of the work and on which departmental budget it fell. [55563]

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

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55174]

  Mr. Spellar
  The use of purchasing procurement cards was one of my Department's SMART procurement initiatives which was endorsed by the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) and we are implementing a pilot scheme.

  A number of sites in support areas have been selected to pilot the Government Procurement (GPC) cards, which will be used to purchase goods and services such as motor transport spares, office machinery, books and training courses. The GPC will not be used to buy major items of equipment.

  Cards will be issued under the Pilot scheme this month, and the scheme will be reviewed after three months. Introduction of the GPC across the Department will follow and will be based upon the experience gained from the Pilot scheme.

  Procurement Costs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 31 July 1998,Official Report, column 720, to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for which equipment items he estimates that overseas orders have reduced the procurement costs in each of the last three years; and what is his estimate of the savings. [55644]

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

  Buried Ordnance Clearance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will commence the clearance of buried ordnance 892
  in fields next to the Defence Nuclear Chemical and Biological Centre at Winterbourne Gunner; and if he will make a statement. [54918]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have written to the hon. Member and the operation to clear buried wartime ordnance at Winterbourne Gunner will commence in November. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 28 July 1998,Official Report, column 199, if he will list the names of the contractors holding nuclear materials owned by his Department. [54866]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am withholding the full list of contractors holding MOD owned nuclear material under the terms of Exemption Category 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, nuclear fissile material is held by the following contractors:

  British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Hunting BRAE Ltd.

  Rolls Royce & Associates Ltd.

  Royal Ordnance plc.

  AEA(T).

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60 birthday. [53058]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 July 1998, c. 451–52]: I regret that the response I provided to the hon. Member's question on employees over 60 contained an inadvertent error.

  My answer stated that civil servants have no formal contract of employment. Whilst this is correct for the vast majority of civil servants, following the formation of the Senior Civil Service on 1 April 1996, staff at that level have been provided with formal contracts of employment.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department expects to spend in each year from 1998–99 to 2000–01 on vehicle replacements. [54982]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers of 28 July 1998,Official Report, column 151, and of 31 July 1998, Official Report, column 620. Information on vehicle replacement costs will be available when property managers have reviewed their replacement policy in preparing Green Transport Plans. The first plans are to be completed by end March 1999.
  893

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental cost in terms of emissions if no new planning consents for gas-fired power stations are granted before April 2000; and if he will make a statement. [55239]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Environmental Appraisal contained in the Government's White Paper on Energy Policy, which was published on 8 October.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress on the Birmingham Northern Relief Road and projected completion of its various stages. [55314]

  Dr. Reid
  Progress on the BNRR depends on the outcome of the statutory challenge to the Orders for the Scheme, which was heard on 5 and 6 October. Assuming the decision is in the Department's favour, and there is no appeal, then the Orders for the scheme can be implemented. This should take about a year, with the road opening about three years after that.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers private water companies have to require customers to pay for water in advance under the Water Industry Act 1991. [55562]

  Mr. Meale
  Water and sewerage undertakers' powers to charge are provided under section 142 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which enables an undertaker to adopt such methods and principles for the calculation and imposition of the charges as appear to the undertaker to be appropriate. But these powers must be exercised within the framework of the regulatory system overseen by the Director General of Water Services.

  The long-established practice of water companies is to charge unmeasured bills in advance. Companies offer a range of payment options, of which payment in six-monthly instalments is the most widely used. Measured bills are paid in arrears.

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55255]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A summary of the spaces available for parking motorcycles is as follows:

  Department/Agency

  Number of spaces

  Secure spaces

  DETR (Central)

  211

  187

  DETR (Agencies)

  340

  161

  Government offices for the regions

  26

  24

  894

  Department/Agency

  Number of spaces

  Secure spaces

  A breakdown of the summarised information is as follows:

  (1) DETR Central

  Headquarters (Eland House)

  20

  20

  Headquarters (Ashdown House)

  15

  15

  Headquarters (Great Minster House)

  30

  30

  Headquarters (Hastings)

  20

  10

  Headquarters (Other)

  41

  41

  ASD (Hemel Hempstead)

  2

  0

  Highwood Pavilions (Bristol)

  0

  0

  Traffic Area Network (various)

  16

  16

  Procurement and Prequalification System Division

  12

  0

  Air Accidents Investigation Branch

  45

  45

  Construction Market Intelligence Division

  10

  10

  (2) Agencies

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  6

  0

  Driving Standards Agency

  189

  53

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  39

  16

  Highways Agency

  76

  72

  Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency

  20

  20

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  0

  0

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  10

  0

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  0

  0

  (3) Government Offices for the Regions1

  GO-North East

  0

  0

  GO-North West

  0

  0

  GO-Merseyside

  0

  0

  GO-Yorkshire and Humberside

  13

  13

  GO-West Midlands

  0

  0

  GO-East Midlands

  4

  4

  GO-Eastern

  2

  0

  GO-South East

  7

  7

  GO-South West

  0

  0

  GO-London

  0

  0

  1 The Secretaries of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Trade and Industry, and Education and Employment share responsibility for Government Offices in England.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55177]

  Mr. Meale
  (a) DETR (Central) is not currently using the GPC but plans to implement a pilot scheme using the Card and it is intended that the business case will be prepared by December 1998.

  (b) The Agencies are not currently using the GPC, but some have plans to implement the Card as follows:
  Highways Agency
  The Agency is not using the GPC at present, but plans to use it as soon as Visa have undertaken an evaluation in support of the agency's Business Case.
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)
  The Agency is not currently using the GPC; it has plans to introduce it although no specific date has been agreed.
  Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency
  The agency is currently using the GPC but intends to pilot its use by December 1998.

  895
  Driving Standards Agency
  The Agency has no plans to implement the GPC at present but may do so at a later date.
  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  The Agency is not currently using the GPC. It will be reviewing the benefits of using the GPC as a result of work being done by DETR and will decide by the end of 1998 whether to implement it.
  Vehicle Certification Agency
  The Agency is not currently using the GPC and has no plans at this time to do so.
  Planning Inspectorate
  The Agency is not currently using the GPC and has no plans at this time to do so. It is aware of its possible benefits and will continue to assess its suitability for use.
  QE11 Conference Centre
  The Agency is not using the GPC and has no plans to implement it.

  Gospel Oak to Barking Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with(a) Railtrack and (b) train operating companies concerning the electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking line. [55515]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Railtrack is investing £40 million on the North London Lines over the next 3 years, mainly to improve clearances and remove line speed restrictions, of which £2.9m is allocated for electrification work between now and 2001. Railtrack is considering AC electrification for the route between Harringay and Wembley, but electrification east of Harringay is not proposed at present.

  Bletchley to Bicester Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive proposals on the re-opening of the railway line from Bletchley to Bicester; and if he will make a statement. [55512]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Re-opening of this section of railway line forms part of the proposals received from the East-West Rail Consortium for a rail link from Ipswich/Norwich to Swindon. My officials, and those from the Franchising Director's office, are discussing with the Consortium the detailed business case for the project.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the operation of the standard spending assessment formula for Inner London; and if he will make a statement. [55519]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have received a number of representations about possible changes in Standard Spending Assessments and their effect in relation to authorities in Inner London and elsewhere. We are considering the arguments for and against the changes and expect to announce our proposals at the end of November or the beginning of December.
  896
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the latest ONS figures for change in population by county since the 1991 Census will be reflected in the standard spending assessment calculations for 1999–2000. [55426]

  Ms Armstrong
  We will announce our proposals on standard spending assessments around the end of November or the beginning of December. We have, however, received no suggestions that we should change the past practice of using the most up-to-date population estimates published by the Office for National Statistics. These are currently the mid-year 1997 estimates which were published on 27 August 1998 in the Population Estimates Monitor PPI 98/1 (corrected in September for four local authority areas and two health authority areas).

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will reform the area cost adjustment to the standard spending assessment for local authorities to reflect the specific costs they incur and the costs they meet arising from the general labour market pressures in their area, in time for the 1999–2000 financial year. [55427]

  Ms Armstrong
  A wide range of options for changing standard spending assessments were set out in the report of the Standard Spending Assessment Sub-Group. I recently met with the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government to hear their views on the 1999–2000 SSA Settlement. We are now considering the merits of all of the options for change, including possible changes to the area cost adjustment, and expect to announce our conclusions around the usual time in late November or early December.

  Virgin Railways
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what meetings have been held by(a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department with Virgin Railways to discuss their performance levels; and if he will make a statement. [55511]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director is responsible for overseeing train operators' performance levels. Following unacceptable performance levels, the Franchising Director has required all train operators to produce action plans setting out how they will deliver improved performance. He has also agreed improved Passenger's Charter compensation arrangements with Virgin Rail as part of the package of passenger benefits secured in exchange for his agreement to the acquisition by Stagecoach Holdings of 49 per cent. of the Virgin Rail Group.

  GTRM (Steve Hedley)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the dismissal of Steve Hedley by GTRM; and if he will make a statement. [55516]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No such representations have been received.
  897

  Rail Traffic
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the projects currently being evaluated for the re-opening of(a) disused, (b) mothballed and (c) freight-only lines to regular passenger rail traffic. [55513]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Proposals under consideration for developing the rail network to extend passenger services are set out in the Railtrack's 1998 Network Management Statement. Copies of the Statement have been sent to all MPs and placed in the Parliamentary Libraries. Further copies are available upon request from Railtrack.

  Detergents, Paints and Plastics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of British Chemicals' policy on compounds in detergents, paints and plastics announced in July. [55365]

  Mr. Meale
  A consultation document "Sustainable Production and Use of Chemicals" was published on 27 July, and the consultation will last until 27 October.

  The document seeks views on a range of proposals relating to environmental policies on common industrial and commercial chemicals. It addresses a number of key areas: European legislation on new and existing chemicals; eco-efficiency in the chemicals industry; research needs; streamlining procedures for addressing the risks posed by chemicals; and ways of improving the transparency of the process.

  A Seminar was held on 12 October to stimulate responses to the consultation. A copy of the proceedings will be placed in the House Library.

  Timber
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions pursuant to his Department's letter EE/p50/134/14/98 of 24 July what was the result of his Department's inquiries into permethrin timber treatments in Germany. [55364]

  Mr. Meale
  The Health and Safety Executive has obtained and considered a copy of the Study carried out by the Fraunhoffer Institute of Toxicology and Aerosol Research. The products tested were public hygiene insecticides which, where they are applied to surfaces, are formulated and applied specifically to create an exposed surface residue of active ingredient which kills insects when they come in contact with it. These differ from wood preservative insecticides which are formulated to penetrate the surface of the wood. Thus the study is of limited value for those considering the use of permethrin as a wood preservative in Great Britain.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he intends to give to the proposed regional development agencies to ensure equality of opportunity for women in relation to employment, training and access to managerial positions. [53476]
  898
  Mr. Meale
  Each RDA will be required, by its Financial Memorandum, to develop and implement an equal opportunities policy covering all aspects of its work, to be committed to and promote equality of opportunity, and, in the exercise of all its functions, to ensure fair treatment for all.

  Highway Authorities
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to amend the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to enable highway authorities to recover costs for time expended on dealing with(a) the issue of notice requiring the avoidance of unnecessary delay or obstruction by an undertaker executing street works, (b) the recovery of costs of a joint inspection to agree the apportionment of financial liability regarding permanent reinstatement, (c) the recovery of costs for time spent providing traffic management advice relating to street works and (d) the recovery of income lost during the suspension of on-street parking bays to facilitate street works by the statutory undertaker. [53764]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has no plans for primary legislation to amend the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. However items(a), (b) and (c) referred to in the question appear capable, in principle, of being met by regulations under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. We are willing to consider a reasoned case for making such regulations if one is put forward.

  We have already made regulations under the 1989 Act concerning item (d). Item 6 of Table 2 in the Schedule to the Local Authorities (Transport Charges) Regulations 1998 provides that a local authority may charge for costs involved in suspending the use of a parking place. There is, however, no power for local authorities to recover income lost while a parking place is suspended. A major reason for this is that motorists can generally be expected to pay to park at other parking places in the area, which would increase the occupancy rate at those places.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish his Department's analysis of PFI projects and the final data on the preferred deals. [55205]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department has not commissioned a formal analysis of PFI projects. General information is provided each year in the Department's annual report. The details of significant PFI deals are set out in Departmental press releases.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what timescale the Government intend to publish PFI contracts. [55203]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department will make available on request all new contracts, including PFI contracts, to which it is a party. Those parts of contracts for which there are legitimate reasons for confidentiality will not be disclosed, although I would expect this information to become available after a limited period. This is in
  899
  accordance with the Department's policy to make available contract documents which was set out in a statement by Lady Hayman on 23 July.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the commercial confidentiality restraints on the publication of the risk assessment in respect of the Government guarantee of the £3.8 billion loan to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link consortium no longer to apply. [55204]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As my right hon. Friend the then Chief Secretary explained in his answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 28, the Government's participation in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was assessed using a model of London and Continental Railway's future finances. The risk assessment was likewise based on that model, which will remain confidential until such time as disclosure would not affect the commercial interests of the company.

  Rural Schools
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the effect on Norfolk's SSA calculation of the introduction of a sparsity factor in relation to rural schools. [55028]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Ward Sparsity factor in the Education SSA calculations contributes approximately £13.422m towards Norfolk CC's Education SSA for 1998–99 of £270.064m.

  A120
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the start date for the A120 Stansted to Braintree road improvement scheme; and if he will make a statement. [55286]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This scheme is included in our Targeted Programme of Improvements listed in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". That means that the scheme will definitely start within the next seven years, subject only to any outstanding statutory procedures. Detailed decisions on the timing of the schemes have yet to be made.

  St. John's Wood Underground Station
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ascertain from London Underground what the cost was of the most recent refurbishment of escalators at St. John's Wood Underground Station; what will be the cost of the newly announced refurbishment; and why the work has to be repeated. [55333]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1990–91 and in 1995, major essential maintenance work had to be carried out simply to keep the escalators running. At the time, London Underground did not have the investment funds available for the sort of work now planned for the St. John's Wood escalators.
  900
  Between 1 December 1990 and February 1991, £50,000 had to be invested in one of the escalators to replace life expiring wiring and systems connected to that wiring and also to fit replacement brakes. This enabled the escalator to continue operating to safety standards.

  Between January 1995 and March 1995, £120,000 had to be invested on essential maintenance work on a second escalator. This work, to enable the escalator to continue running was, again, replacing life expired wiring and systems connected to that wiring as well as modifying the escalator controller. Had funds then been available for replacement, obviously London Underground's engineers would have preferred that route rather than the 'patch and mend' solutions which technical staff have been forced to implement over years of under-funding.

  The work that is now planned is, rather than a repeat of this refurbishment, virtually a full replacement of the two machines. At a cost of £2.3 million each, every part of the escalators is being replaced, the step chain, the motors, the panelling, the DC to AC power supply conversion and the wooden steps which will now be replaced with metal steps. Only the metal frames that support the escalators themselves will not be replaced.

  This is much more fundamental work than that carried out earlier in the decade and should keep the escalators running safely for another 40 years. The only closure necessary in the future should be for routine maintenance rather than the more fundamental work carried out in 1991–92 and 1995 or the almost replacement and rebuilding scheduled to be carried out now.

  Salisbury Transport Study
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funds he will make available for integrated transport and environmental schemes as part of the Salisbury Transport Study in(a) the current financial year, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01. [55297]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  An allocation of £250,000 was provided for 1998–99 for capital transport expenditure within the Salisbury package area. For 1999–2000, a bid of £2.844 million has been made by Wiltshire County Council for the Salisbury package, as part of the Transport Policies and Programmes (TPP) bids. These are currently being assessed and details of the settlement are likely to be announced in December. It is expected that bids for 2000–01 will be submitted in July 1999.

  Roads (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how he will include a bypass of Chicklade in his A303(T) road improvement west of Stonehenge; [55296]

  (2) how he will fund the A303(T) improvement at Stonehenge announced on 31 July; [55294]

  (3) if the A303(T) improvement at Stonehenge will include a grade-separated junction at Long Barrow Roundabout; and what are the reasons for this decision. [55295]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The scheme will be taken forward on the understanding that at least a third of the costs will be funded from Heritage sources. The precise
  901
  sources will be for consideration nearer the time but are likely to include contributions from the Heritage Lottery Fund and from English Heritage's receipts from a new visitor centre at Stonehenge.

  A grade separated junction to the west of Stonehenge at Long Barrow Roundabout will be one of the options to be considered at the detailed design stage in taking forward the Stonehenge proposals. A decision will be based on the five criteria used for the Roads Review.

  A series of studies was announced in the Roads Review to look at the problems on the trunk road network not addressed by the targeted programme of improvements. One of these studies will be the corridor London to South West and South Wales. Amongst its aims will be to consider capacity problems on the single carriageway sections on the A303, matters of safety, and the impact caused by seasonal traffic. This will include the section A303 through Chicklade. A decision on a bypass around Chicklade will be taken in the light of the results of that study.

  A14
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of(a) accidents, and (b) resulting (i) injuries and (ii) fatalities recorded on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon in each of the last two years. [55428]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Complete records are available only for accidents involving personal injuries. The Police do not necessarily keep statistics about damage-only accidents. The number of injuries resulting from Personal Injury Accidents (PIAs) recorded on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon in the last two full calendar years is:

  Year

  Total PIAs

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1996

  79

  0

  15

  107

  122

  1997

  80

  1

  14

  108

  123

  Total

  159

  1

  29

  215

  245

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the quantitative criteria on which he based his selection of projects for inclusion in the Roads Programme. [55430]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is included in a document entitled A New Deal for Trunk Roads: Understanding the New Approach to Appraisal. Copies are available in the Library.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the funding and resources of the Countryside Commission; and if he will make a statement. [54927]

  Mr. Meacher
  Since coming into power, the Government have undertaken a comprehensive review of countryside and rural expenditure. As a result of this review, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister 902
  announced, on 27 March 1998, Official Report, columns 289–91, the merger of the Countryside Commission and parts of the Rural Development Commission to create a new body to champion rural England and the English countryside. On 29 July 1998, Official Report, columns 246–47, I subsequently announced that the new agency would, in addition to the grant-in-aid it will inherit from the two existing agencies, be given almost £9m extra in 1999–2000. Part of this money will be used to cover necessary restructuring costs; the remainder will enable the agency to make an effective start by strengthening its work in promoting and conserving the natural landscape, supporting rural communities and promoting access to and enjoyment of the countryside.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what circumstances the Countryside Commission is obliged to take into account the assets of organisations to which it provides grant-aid when determining the amount of grant it allocates; and if it made such an assessment in respect of the grant to the CLA to promote the Access 2000 scheme. [55411]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Countryside Commission satisfies itself before offering any grant that the applicant organisation appears to be financially sound and has the capacity to manage the project to completion and to the standards required by the Commission's grant conditions. It made a full assessment in this case.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's current evaluation of the extent to which(a) short-term and (b) long-term exposure to organophosphorus compounds produces chronic illnesses. [55334]

  Mr. Meacher
  Organophosphorus (OP) compounds are toxic and on present available evidence it seems very likely that exposure to high doses can result in long-term ill health in addition to acute toxic effects. What is still questioned in some quarters is the long-term effect of prolonged low-level exposure, and research has been commissioned into this. The research is being carried out by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh. Its report is expected next summer.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the reviews and research into the effect of organophosphorus compounds on human health which his Department has initiated since 1 May 1997, indicating who is carrying out the research and when it is expected to be completed. [55335]

  Mr. Meacher
  Two such projects have been initiated since 1 May 1997 by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The first, an in-vitro investigation of the relative inhibitory effects of organophosphates (OPs) and carbamates towards pseudocholinesterase in human blood, is being carried out by HSE's Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) in Sheffield. This project began in August 1997 and ended in June 1998. The HSL report is expected later this year. The second, a study of sheep farmers to investigate the hypothesis that genetic
  903
  differences lead to variations in individual responsiveness to OPs, is due to begin in November 1998 and end in October 1999. The study is being carried out by the University of Manchester's School of Epidemiology and Health Sciences.

  Although not initiated within the timescale indicated, there is also under way a major 3-year epidemiological study by the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) in Edinburgh on the health effects of prolonged low-level exposure to OPs in sheep dippers. The IOM report is expected next year. This research is jointly funded by HSE, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health.

  Empty Dwellings (London)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) local authority, (b) registered social landlord and (c) private dwellings have been empty for (i) less than six months, (ii) less than one year and (iii) over one year in each London borough for the past five years. [55290]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mortgages (Insurance Protection)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact since October 1995 of private insurance protection in reducing mortgage arrears and re-possessions of owner-occupier housing; and if he will make a statement. [55291]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This Department has made no such assessment. However, DETR and DSS Ministers will be meeting the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers later this month to discuss their proposals to improve the cover and take-up of Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance.

  Household Waste (Greater London)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for dealing with the disposal of household waste in Greater London; what is the projected future use of(a) landfill, (b) incineration and (c) recycling in dealing with that waste; and if he will make a statement. [55289]

  Mr. Meale
  At present, decisions on the projected future use of landfill, incineration and recycling in Greater London are not for DETR but for the local authorities.

  However, we recognise that there is a need for a strategic lead on municipal waste in London. That is why we will be giving the new Mayor for London a statutory duty to prepare and implement an integrated municipal waste management strategy for London. The strategy will encourage use of the various recovery, treatment and disposal options in line with the waste strategy for England and Wales which will be published by the end of 1999.

  In the meantime, we are providing London Boroughs with up to £12 million under the Capital Challenge Programme to introduce kerbside waste collection schemes as part of an initiative to promote recycling
  904
  across the city. In the first 18 months of the 3 year programme, over 1 million homes have been brought into the scheme and the recycling rate has risen from around 5 to 11 per cent. The future use of landfill, incineration and recycling will depend on several factors, including the Mayor's strategy, efforts to reduce the amount of waste produced, efforts to promote recycling and find markets for recovered materials, and the availability of landfill.

  Bus Employees Superannuation Trust
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent in legal fees, to date, from public funds, in respect of the case of the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust(a) in defending the case of the Department of Transport and (b) by the Official Solicitor, and others, facilitating and supporting the case of the Trustees. [55603]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The then Secretary of State announced on 27 November 1996,Official Report, columns 271–72, that the Department was prepared to meet the legal costs of the NBC pension trustees, in order to pursue litigation in respect of the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust. Expenditure to date on meeting the legal, actuarial, and other costs of the litigation on the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust and the closely related litigation on the National Bus Pension Fund is as follows:

  (a) DETR costs: £131,000

  (b) NBC pension trustees (reimbursed by this Department through the Official Solicitor): £415,000

  This expenditure represents 0.5 per cent. of the original NBC pensions surplus (after tax) of £122 million.

  Transport (Women)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures in the New Deal for Transport will benefit women using public transport. [53473]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our New Deal for Transport will benefit women using public transport by putting a greater emphasis on better quality transport services; providing safer public transport through initiatives such as the Secure Station Scheme; improving the quality of the pedestrian environment; and promoting land use policies which encourage local services. These measures are in addition to the mainstreaming of women's transport needs throughout the development and application of transport policies and programmes through, for example, gender audit checklists for transport planners and operators and revised Planning Policy Guidance taking full account of women's transport needs.

  We are committed to improving transport services for women—the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Women's Issues considered the issue at its inaugural meeting.

  Area Cost Adjustments
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is(a) the level of area cost adjustment and (b) the proportion

  905
  of standard spending assessment comprising area cost adjustment for each local authority to which it is applied in 1998–99. [55284]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A table showing these figures for each local authority has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his plans to consult on possible changes to the calculation of area cost adjustments. [55285]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A wide range of options for changing standard spending assessments were set out in the report of the Standard Spending Assessment Sub-Group. We recently met with the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government to discuss their views on the 1999/2000 SSA Settlement. We are now considering the merits of all of the options for change, including possible changes to the area cost adjustment, and expect to announce our conclusions around the usual time in late November or early December.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact in the UK of Euratom Directive 96/29 on(a) radioactive waste management policy for low activity, short-lived waste, (b) the recycling of mildly radioactively contaminated metals and (c) the existing regulations covering exposure of nuclear industry workforce to radiation. [54865]

  Mr. Meale
  Council Directive 96/29 Euratom, to be implemented by Member States by 13 May 2000, constitutes an updating of earlier standards in the light of more recent knowledge and its impact will not, therefore, be great. It lays down basic safety standards for the protection of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation; this area is already well regulated and the strict international standards governing it are, and will continue to be, applied rigorously.

  The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 currently regulate exposures to ionising radiations in all industries, including nuclear. Since 1985, the exposure of nuclear workers has decreased considerably, and therefore, the impact of the Directive will be limited. Earlier this year, the Health and Safety Commission published a Consultative Document containing proposals for revised Ionising Radiations Regulations and supporting Approved Code of Practice in response to the revised Directive. The Health and Safety Executive is currently considering the responses.

  Consideration is being given to those aspects of the Directive implemented by the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA 93) and associated regulations which control the disposal of radioactive substances on non-nuclear sites. A consultation document will be issued in due course on the principles involved.

  "Access to the Open Countryside"
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many 906
  responses he has received to his consultation paper, "Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales". [55486]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has received over 2,000 formal responses to the consultation paper.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made to improve access to the countryside; and what plans he has for legislation on access to open land. [55020]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are considering carefully responses to the consultation paper, "Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales". We are examining all options, both statutory and voluntary, for achieving greater access. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Ministerial Visit to China
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his visit to China. [55031]

  Mr. Prescott
  The central theme of my visit to China was the environment. I was accompanied by a water industry trade mission and held talks with Zhu Rongi, Wu Bangguo and other senior Chinese leaders on climate change, water and other issues. All the talks were marked by warmth and goodwill, with excellent access to Chinese thinking on the issues we discussed.

  On climate change, we had a useful in-depth discussion. The Chinese confirmed they were committed to a range of policies whose effects would limit the rate of growth of greenhouse gases. They agreed to an informal dialogue on climate change and indicated a willingness to co-operate more closely with the UK in related areas. Further talks between officials took place last month. These exchanges are demonstrating the kind of trust between key developed and developing nations which is essential to keep the negotiations on climate change on track.

  The Chinese have accorded high priority to the provision of water and waste water services. They are suffering severe shortages, and climate change could make these worse. There is recognition at the highest levels that their aims can be achieved only with the help of the private sector and foreign expertise. Following my visit, I am exploring new ways in which we might assist the process, to help the Chinese learn from UK experience and to provide new opportunities for UK companies.

  During the visit, we achieved a major success on air services with confirmation that a new agreement between Britain and China would go ahead, opening Shanghai to British carriers for the first time and providing extra services to Beijing for British airlines.

  In other areas, I received confirmation of a freight forwarding licence for P&O.

  My visit and discussions laid the ground for my right hon. Friend's visit earlier this month.

  Advertising Structures
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make
  907
  a statement on his policy regarding the granting by highways authorities of licences under section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 for commercial advertising structures and private street signs, or other structures promoting a commercial or sectional interest, upon land having public highway or trunk road status. [55480]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A structure bearing an advertisement may sometimes constitute apparatus for the purposes of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Any decision about whether it is appropriate to grant a street works licence under section 50 of that Act in any particular case is entirely for the street authority (normally the highway authority) concerned.

  In the case of trunk roads in England, the Highways Agency, acting for the Secretary of State as the highway authority, does not permit advertisements on land having trunk road status, with the sole exception of small signs identifying the sponsors of environmental improvements, usually at roundabouts, for which section 50 licences are not used. Erection of these signs is granted under individual agreements between Highway Agency and the sponsor, and the design and content are subject to Highway Agency approval.

  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to implement a nationwide scheme of concessionary bus fares for pensioners; what impact this scheme will have on pensioners currently receiving travel tokens of a fixed monetary value; and if he will reimburse local authorities in full for the costs of implementing and administering the scheme. [55433]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our White Paper 'Transport: The Way Ahead' proposed a minimum concessionary fare scheme for pensioners of half fare for bus travel, with a maximum £5 per year charge for a bus pass. Implementation of this proposal will depend on Parliamentary time being found for the necessary primary legislation. There will be consultation with local government and other relevant organisations about what future arrangements there should be for token schemes and other aspects of the proposal, including finance.

  Water Charging
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will outlaw the practice of companies placing weekly water arrears payments on customers' electricity meters. [53913]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  However, I understand that the use of electricity pre-payment meters to recover water debts may not be consistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act 1989. My Department has written to the Director General.
  908

  Renewable Energy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to increase the share of renewable energy sources in United Kingdom energy consumption; [48894]

  (2) what Government incentives will be given to encourage the use and development of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. [48895]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are committed to a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources. At 30 June 1998, 235 projects, comprising 570 MW (declared net capacity) of renewables generating capacity had been commissioned under the four Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) Orders for England and Wales, two Scottish Renewables Obligation (SRO) Orders and two Northern Ireland NFFO (NI-NFFO) Orders. In addition a further 261 projects comprising 1177 MW of contracted capacity have been made in England and Wales under the fifth Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO-5) Renewables Order, which I laid in Parliament on 24 September 1998. The purpose of NFFO Orders is to secure additional generating capacity from renewables in order to help them enter the commercial electricity generating market. NFFO-5 is the first step in our new and strong drive for renewables. I have also launched a consultation document on arrangements for incorporating the development of offshore wind energy into the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) Order process.

  Fossil Fuel Levy support for renewables under NFFO was around £116m in 1997–98. Separately, the DTI's new and renewable energy programme supports research, development, demonstration and technology transfer activities (£11.1m provision for 1998–99). I have already reversed the planned cuts in the renewables R&D budget which the previous Government had made.

  Today about 2% of our electricity comes from renewables, mostly from large scale hydro. Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) Orders already laid or in train will add about 3% by around 2003 (equivalent to about a further 1000 MW).

  Within weeks of coming into office, I instigated a review to consider what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10% of UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010 and how renewables can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reductions. The review, which is nearing completion, is examining the status of all the new and renewable energy technologies and the UK industry and their future prospects in both the home and export markets. It has also been considering what further research and development, and demonstration is needed. I expect to announce the outcome of the review later this year.

  The use of energy efficient technologies is encouraged through a range of Government programmes, including the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, and support for the Energy Saving Trust. The Government will be seeking views on further possible measures within their consultation on climate change later in the year.
  909

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cytology laboratories in Northern Ireland are sending their cervical smears to other laboratories for interpretation. [55307]

  Mr. McFall
  None.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average time taken for a patient to receive the results of their cervical smear test; and what percentage take longer than the recommended four weeks. [55209]

  Mr. McFall
  The average time taken for a patient to receive the results of her cervical smear test is three weeks. Less than 10 per cent. take longer than the recommended four weeks.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for each health and social services board in Northern Ireland, what is the average time taken for a patient to receive the results of their cervical smear test; and what percentage take longer than the recommended four weeks. [55213]

  Mr. McFall
  The information requested is as follows:

  Health and Social Services Board

  Average time for results

  Percentage over 4 weeks

  Eastern

  2 weeks

  Nil

  Northern

  2 weeks

  Nil

  Southern

  4 weeks

  20

  Western

  4 weeks

  20

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which her Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55258]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There are no separate records maintained of the total number of secure motorcycle parking spaces at government premises in Northern Ireland and this information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. Motorcyclists are, however, able to leave their machines in all government owned car parks and to have there the same level of security for their machines as for motor vehicles.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what use(a) her Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings she estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans she has to expand use of the card by her Department and its agencies; and if she will make a statement. [55181]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government Procurement Card was formally launched in Northern Ireland on 2 April 1998 and a contract signed with Ulster Bank to provide full purchasing card facilities for all NI Government Departments and Agencies.
  910
  A pilot implementation is being undertaken by the Department of Health and Social Services, using the free consultancy available under the agreement to facilitate the introduction of the card. This should be completed by the end of October 1998.

  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what occasion she has met(a) relatives of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright and (b) the Scots Guards Association to discuss their case since 1 August. [55023]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1 August 1998, the Secretary of State has not met with the relatives of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright or the Scots Guards Association.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many candidates applied, in May 1997, for promotion to Civil Service Grade 7, and if she will provide a breakdown of the successful candidates by their religious background. [55542]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A competition for promotion to Administrative Grade 7 in the Northern Ireland Civil Service was launched in May 1997. The competition is a two-stage exercise with candidates deemed eligible at the end of Stage 1 to compete in individual Departmental competitions for promotion to Grade 7. A total of 414 candidates participated in the competition and, of these, 97 were deemed eligible to participate in Stage 2 Departmental competitions. Up until 30 September 1998, a total of 53 candidates have been promoted to Administrative Grade 7 following departmental competitions. The competition will remain open until July 1999. The community backgrounds of those participating, those deemed eligible to participate in Stage 2 competitions and those successful in obtaining promotion to date are as follows:

  Community background

  Number participating in the competition

  Number eligible to participate in stage 2 competitions

  Number successful to date (30 September 1998)

  Protestant

  265

  54

  28

  Roman Catholic

  134

  42

  25

  Not determined

  15

  1

  —

  Totals

  414

  97

  53

  Fraud
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she has taken in reported cases of(a) doctors, (b) opticians and (c) pharmacists who have defrauded the National Health Service; and if such incidents are reported to their professional bodies. [55532]

  Mr. McFall
  General medical, dental and ophthalmic practitioners and community pharmacists are independent contractors, whose contracts for services are with their respective NI Health and Social Services Board. Consequently, where cases of suspected fraud are detected, the responsibility for having these investigated lies with the HSS Boards. Following internal investigations, individual cases, where appropriate, are
  911
  referred to the police. In addition, each case is also considered for referral to the appropriate professional body.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of possible fraud have been identified in boards or agencies of the DHSS since 1995; and what steps were taken to investigate them. [55576]

  Mr. McFall
  The following table provides the information requested in relation to Health and Social Services bodies.

  No cases of possible fraud have been identified in respect of the Child Support Agency or the Health and Social Services Estates Agency.

  In the Social Security Agency (SSA) 8 cases of internal fraud have been identified since 1995 in relation to the administration of social security benefits. When internal fraud is suspected, a formal investigation is carried out in accordance with set procedures and under the direction of an Agency Director.

  As far as external fraud is concerned, a total of 43,581 cases of possible benefit fraud were identified in the Social Security agency for the tax years from 1995 to 30 September 1998.

  The Agency investigates all allegations of benefit fraud. Investigations are carried out by fraud officials and where evidence of fraud is found prosecution of offenders is considered.

  HSS bodies

  Year

  Total number of cases

  Number of cases confirmed as erroneous

  Action taken

  1995

  1

  —

  Officer dismissed

  1996

  2

  —

  1 No further action possible.

  Individual responsible not traced 1 Police investigation handled nationally

  1997

  6

  1

  2 Currently at court

  1 Disciplinary Hearing—officer resigned

  1 No criminal offence—referred to Disciplinary Committee

  1 Under police investigation

  1998

  9

  1

  4 under police investigation—one of which referred to General Medical Council

  3 under internal investigation— one of which referred to Disciplinary Committee

  1 Officer dismissed

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the report "Controls to Prevent and Detect Fraud in Family Practitioner Service Payments". [55578]

  Mr. McFall
  I welcome the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General "Controls to Prevent and Detect Fraud in Family Practitioner Service Payments". The 912
  report has been laid before Parliament and may be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. Parliamentary convention precludes me from commenting on the specific detail of a Northern Ireland Audit Office report at this stage.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of possible fraud have been identified in agencies of the DED since 1995; and what steps were taken to investigate them. [55577]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:

  1995–96: nil

  1996–97: 2

  1997–98: nil

  1998–99: (to date) nil.

  Recidivism
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many convicted prisoners released since 1 January 1997 have re-offended; what was the nature of their new offences; what illegal organisations they were associated with before their imprisonment; and what association they have with such organisations now. [55492]

  Mr. Ingram
  Statistical information in the precise form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am, nevertheless, able to provide statistical information on similar themes.

  The following table includes information on numbers of convicted prisoners released since 1 January 1997 and whether or not they were convicted of scheduled offences. It also includes information on the numbers of life sentence or Secretary of State's Pleasure prisoners released since that date and those who have had their life licence revoked.

  No information is routinely available on the overall reconviction of prisoners released since 1 January 1997; their reconvicted offences; or their current association with illegal organisations.

  Table 1: Numbers of prisoners discharged from sentences of immediate custody since 1 January 1997 according to scheduled1 or non-scheduled offences

  Offence type

  Number

  Scheduled offences

  898

  Non-scheduled offences

  1,490

  Total

  2,388

  Number of life sentence/SoSP prisoners released

  247

  Number whose licences were revoked

  0

  1 As listed in Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996

  2 All scheduled offences

  Notes:

  1. Releases up until 7 September 1998

  2. Excludes those committed and released from custody in default of the payment of fine

  3. A licence may be revoked if the Secretary of State considers that continued liberty would be a risk to public safety. In many cases, the licensed prisoner will have been charged with or convicted of a new criminal offence, but this is not required by law
  913

  Social Security Officers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers worked from each social security office during(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [55585]

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

  Letter from Chris Thompson to Rev. Martin Smyth, dated 13 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of officers employed in each social security office during the years 1995, 1996 and 1997.
  The total number of staff employed in each of our local social security offices and centralised benefit offices in the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 are shown on the attached table. The figures which include part-time and casual employees reflect the numbers of staff in post at 31 March for each of the years in question.
  I hope this information is helpful for your purposes.

  Staff figures for 1995, 1996 and 1997

  Total

  Social security and central benefit offices

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Andersonstown

  121

  115

  134

  Antrim

  75

  74

  85

  Armagh

  67

  68

  70

  Ballymena

  69

  75

  64

  Ballymoney

  53

  52

  44

  Ballynahinch

  30

  26

  25

  Banbridge

  47

  43

  35

  Bangor

  69

  71

  67

  Carrickfergus

  52

  50

  39

  Coleraine

  97

  102

  102

  Cookstown

  44

  44

  42

  Corporation Street

  162

  168

  175

  Downpatrick

  45

  46

  58

  Dungannon

  90

  83

  89

  Enniskillen

  95

  97

  82

  Falls Road

  122

  124

  80

  Foyle

  175

  184

  183

  Holywood Road

  110

  114

  101

  Kilkeel

  33

  32

  18

  Knockbreda

  88

  91

  80

  Larne

  59

  58

  48

  Limavady

  48

  50

  43

  Lisburn

  89

  88

  67

  Lisnagelvin

  58

  54

  53

  Lurgan

  74

  72

  53

  Newcastle

  36

  38

  37

  Newry

  124

  127

  126

  Newtownabbey

  76

  79

  64

  Newtownards

  68

  68

  63

  Omagh

  68

  75

  84

  Portadown

  55

  51

  60

  Magherafelt

  72

  80

  62

  Shaftesbury Square

  107

  106

  79

  Shankill

  71

  75

  53

  Strabane

  74

  68

  61

  Castle Court

  1,079

  1,092

  1,068

  Castle Buildings Pensions

  142

  116

  10

  Commonwealth House Child Benefit Office

  124

  130

  20

  Windsor House Child Benefit and Pensions

  0

  0

  259

  Belfast Benefit Centre3

  641

  675

  596

  Total

  4,709

  4,761

  4,449

  1 Pensions Branch was relocated to Windsor House

  2 Child Benefit Office was relocated to Windsor House

  3 The Belfast Benefit Centre provides "back office" benefit processing services for several London offices of the Benefits Agency in Great Britain

  914

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those who have accompanied (i) him and (ii) his departmental Ministers on overseas visits since 1 January indicating(a) the venue of the visit, (b) the purpose of the visit, (c) the names of those involved, (d) the job of those involved, (e) the reasons why they were included in the visit and (f) the cost to public funds. [53840]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 July 1998]: All overseas visits by Ministers are conducted in accordance with the principles set out in the Ministerial Code. Information is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, I can confirm that since 1 January 1998 I have been accompanied by officials and others on the following overseas visits:

  Date

  Place visited

  Purpose

  8–13 January

  Japan

  Bilateral visit

  20 January

  The Hague

  Bilateral visit

  4–7 February

  Washington1

  Bilateral visit

  20 March

  Bonn

  Bilateral visit

  24 March

  Paris

  Bilateral visit

  10–15 April

  Southern Spain

  Meeting with Spanish Prime Minister/Holiday

  17–21 April

  Middle East

  Tour in capacity as Presidency of the European Council

  1 May

  The Hague

  Bilateral visit

  2 May

  Brussels1

  Special European Council on EMU

  19 May

  Geneva

  50th Anniversary of GATT

  1–9 June

  Various European capitals

  Pre-European Council Tour

  17–18 June

  Strasbourg

  Speech to European Parliament

  30 June

  Frankfurt1

  Opening of European Central Bank

  1–15 August

  Italy

  Meeting with Italian Prime Minister/Holiday

  15–25 August

  France

  Meeting with French Prime Minister/Holiday

  26 August

  Republic of Ireland

  Bilateral visit

  21 September

  New York

  Addressing UN General Assembly

  5–11 October

  China and Hong Kong

  Bilateral visit

  1 Indicates that a Ministerial colleague accompanied me

  On each occasion, I was accompanied by Private Office staff and security and secure telecommunications staff who travel with a Prime Minister on an overseas visit. This is in line with the practice adopted by previous Administrations.

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the duties and responsibilities of the new Minister of State in the Cabinet Office. [54704]

  The Prime Minister
  My noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC will work with the Minister for the Cabinet Office in pressing forward the coherent formulation and implementation of policy across Government and the delivery of better services across the public sector. He will play a key role in ensuring greater co-ordination of policies across Government.
  915
  He will also lead in monitoring the overall performance of the Government in terms of specific policy objectives and policy outcomes, building on the Government's Annual Report published in July.

  My noble Friend Lord Falconer will answer in the House of Lords for those matters on which the Minister for the Cabinet Office answers in this House.

  Sudan
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors underlay his support for the bombing by the United States of America of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan; and what assessment he has made of the evidence that the factory produced materials designed to facilitate terrorist activities. [55308]

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he made of the United States evidence on the role of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory prior to giving support to the United States attack on the factory. [55440]

  The Prime Minister
  Our ally, the United States, said at the time of the strike against Al Shifa that they had compelling evidence that the chemical plant was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons materials. It is established practice under Section 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose or discuss information received in confidence from foreign Governments.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the evidence provided by the United States Government on the role of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in the recent attacks on United States embassies. [55441]

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what information was passed to his office, and when, by the United States prior to his endorsement of their air strike on Sudan. [55464]

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

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister in what quantity o-ethyl methyl phosphonothioic acid was identified in the Sudanese factory attacked by a cruise missile. [55456]

  The Prime Minister
  The Americans have said publicly that o-ethyl methyl phosphonothioic acid (EMPTA) was present in a soil sample acquired clandestinely at the plant and that this substance is not used in commercial applications; does not occur naturally in the environment; and is not a bi-product of another chemical process.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the Cabinet Committees on which the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) presently sits; [55460]
  916
  (2) what changes to membership of Cabinet Committees have been made since the Cabinet reshuffle. [55462]

  The Prime Minister
  I will make a statement shortly.

  Counter-terrorism
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date it was decided to include measures to address counter-terrorism abroad under the emergency legislation to deal with the security situation in Northern Ireland; what factors led to the decision to include such measures; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It had long been the intention of the Government to legislate against conspiracy here to commit terrorist and other offences overseas. We had made it clear that we would legislate as soon as the programme allowed. The decision to include the provision to make it an offence to conspire in the United Kingdom to commit offences abroad, in what is now the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, was taken once it was clear that anti-terrorism legislation would be brought forward following the bombing at Omagh.

  In the wake of terrorist activity abroad, including the bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in August, the Government concluded that it was timely and right to legislate in this way in order to underscore further our total commitment to defeating terrorism wherever it is plotted or executed. The Government's decision was subject to extensive explanation and debate in both Houses of Parliament on 2–4 September. I refer the hon. Member to the Official Reports of the proceedings. [55463]

  American Air Strikes (Sudan and Afghanistan)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact on British nationals in(a) Sudan and (b) Afghanistan of his support for American air strikes on those countries. [55507]

  The Prime Minister
  The British Government's determination to fight terrorism in all its forms, wherever it may occur and whatever its motivation, is well-known. So is our commitment to the rule of law and to the UN Charter. The Government of the United Kingdom will continue to vigorously support firm action against international terrorism. Terrorists must not be allowed to act with impunity.

  There are no reports of British nationals being directly affected as a result of or in reaction to the American action. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been advising against travel to Afghanistan since 1990 and to Sudan since 21 August 1998. On 25 August 1998 it advised British nationals in Afghanistan to leave immediately. On 27 August British nationals in Sudan were advised to leave unless they had a compelling reason to remain.

  There is currently no resident British mission in either country. The British High Commission in Islamabad reports that they are unaware of any British nationals resident in Afghanistan but knows that a small number have visited for short periods since 25 August. The British High Commission in Nairobi reports that there are at present approximately 180 British nationals in Sudan.
  917

  Anglo-American Relations
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with the United States Government; and when he next plans to meet President Clinton. [55509]

  The Prime Minister
  Having met President Clinton on a number of occasions, most recently in New York in September, I have no immediate plans to meet him again. However, we are in regular contact.

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister what responses he has received to the Government Annual Report 1997–98; and if he will place them in the Library. [55508]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received many constructive responses to the Government's Annual Report 1997–98 in the form of letters, faxes and e-mails to the No. 10 website. It would not be appropriate to place copies in the Library as those who replied did so on the understanding that their comments were in confidence. However, I plan to include a summary of the replies received in next year's Report.

  European Union (UK Presidency)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from other European Union countries on the representation of member states in the logo for the United Kingdom presidency. [55394]

  The Prime Minister
  A number of EU Governments commented on the logo. I am happy to say it was a considerable success.

  European Movement
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 1 May when his Office has held meetings with representatives of the European Movement; and if he will make a statement on the issues discussed. [55330]

  The Prime Minister
  My staff and I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals.

  Cabinet Meetings
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 31 July 1998,Official Report, column 604, if he will list those occasions when the Cabinet has met when Parliament was not in session. [55566]

  The Prime Minister
  Cabinet has met on a number of occasions when Parliament is not in session.

  House of Lords Reform
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) consultations he has held and (b) reports he has commissioned on (i) abolition of the sitting and voting rights of hereditary peers in the House of Lords and (ii) other reforms of the membership of the House of Lords; and when he proposes to take action on these issues. [55393]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will fulfil their Manifesto commitment to abolish the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords as a918
  self-contained measure, without further consultation. The Manifesto also made clear our commitment to a wide-ranging review leading to proposals for further comprehensive reform of the House. We intend to establish a time-limited Royal commission to undertake a full examination of the longer term issues. In the meantime we are committed to changing the way that peers are appointed to the transitional House to ensure that the process is modern, transparent and fair.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received calling for the Government to establish a statutory register of lobbyists; if he will list them; and if he will make a statement. [55202]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the rules governing the use of(a) RAF planes and (b) private charter flights by Ministers; if rules have changed since 1 May 1997; and if departments have to meet the full cost of such use. [55510]

  The Prime Minister
  The Ministerial Code requires Ministers always to make efficient and cost effective travel arrangements. This principle applies to the use of RAF aircraft and private charter flights. The rules have not changed since 1 May 1997. When Departments charter private aircraft for Ministerial travel they meet the charter costs in full. They also pay for RAF aircraft charges, which are calculated by the hour.

  Cabinet Office
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) of 28 July 1998,Official Report, columns 132–34, what new resources will be committed to funding the New Centre for Management and Policy Studies within the Cabinet Office; if the research the centre will commission will be published; and if the centre will be covered by the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [54867]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The cost of setting up the new Centre for Management and Policy Studies will be within the CSR settlement agreed for the Cabinet Office. My officials are continuing discussions on implementing the changes announced in the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Decisions to publish research commissioned by the Centre will be based on its appropriateness. The Centre is expected to abide by the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Timetable
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Council what progress he has made in proposals for announcing the annual parliamentary timetable in advance. [53590]
  919
  Mrs. Beckett
  The Modernisation Committee is considering proposals on the parliamentary calendar and I hope it will be able to report soon.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery Distribution Fund
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his current forecast of the percentage of the National Lottery Distribution Fund which will be given to each of the good causes in each year from 1999 to 2003. [55589]

  Mr. Banks
  The National Lottery Act 1998 provided for Lottery income for good causes to be apportioned as follows:

  Percentage

  Arts

  16⅔

  Sport

  16⅔

  Charities

  16⅔

  Heritage

  16⅔

  Projects to mark the Millennium

  20

  Health, education or the environment (New Opportunities Fund)

  13⅓

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that the arts, sport, heritage and charities are each guaranteed 16⅔ per cent. of Lottery proceeds for good causes after the current licence expires in 2001. He has also announced that, due to an increase in forecast Lottery income, these good causes will each receive £50 million more than previously forecast during the licence period, and that the New Opportunities Fund will receive an additional £400 million. This will require adjustments to the current percentage shares and the Government will lay an Order in due course, after consulting the Lottery distributors, to give effect to the necessary changes. When the Millennium Commission has received £2,017 billion, its share will go to the New Opportunities Fund.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his current forecast of the date on which the Millennium Commission will cease to receive income from the National Lottery Distribution Fund. [55590]

  Mr. Banks
  The Millennium Commission has been guaranteed a total income of £2.017 billion. When this is reached, its share of income from the National Lottery will go to the New Opportunities Fund. The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provided for the Commission's funding to continue until 31 December 2000. If it is necessary to extend the Commission's funding life beyond that date, the Government have the power by Order to do so. The Government are currently considering the implications for the Commission of the revised forecast of Lottery income and will make a further announcement in due course.

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many motorcycle parking spaces 920
  exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure. [55252]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department does not provide any formal motorcycle parking spaces. However, up to five motorcycles can be securely accommodated in one of our HQ buildings.

  A303(T)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money and from which budget head he will commit to the dualling of the A303(T) through the world heritage site at Stonehenge. [55293]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  At least one third of the costs will be funded from heritage sources. The precise sources will be for consideration nearer the time, but we envisage that this funding is likely to include contributions from the Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage's receipts from a new visitor centre.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55173]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department plans to implement the Government Procurement Card by the 1999–2000 financial year subject to the outcome of a consultancy exercise which is currently taking place to look at our current processes in order to establish an estimate of any savings. The Royal Parks Agency is also working towards its implementation, but no planned adoption date has yet been established.

  BBC
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will urgently review the regulatory role of the BBC Board of Governors; and if he will make a statement; [55277]

  (2) if he will add proposals for reform of the BBC's self-regulatory structure into his Department's Green Paper. [55276]

  Janet Anderson
  There are no plans to review the regulatory role of the BBC Board of Governors.

  The Green Paper on the future regulation of broadcasting and telecommunications was published on 21 July. It argues that the present system of regulation has sufficient flexibility to deal with developments in these markets for some time. Views are invited on when it will become necessary to make fundamental changes to the regime, and what regulatory aims, methods and structure might then be appropriate. Decisions on these broad issues must precede consideration of specifics such as the future regulation of public service broadcasting.
  921

  World Heritage List Sites
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what role his Department plays in ensuring the protection of sites listed on the World Heritage List outside the United Kingdom; which international bodies have a co-ordinating responsibility; and what liaison takes place between his Department and other departments in protecting such sites. [55416]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department liaises closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on current and possible future World Heritage Sites in the UK Overseas Territories. The protection of World Heritage Sites outside the UK and its overseas Territories is the responsibility of the countries concerned. My Department, by agreement with the Home Country Departments, represents the UK as an Observer at meetings of UNESCO's World Heritage Committee (which inter alia considers the protection of sites in accordance with the World Heritage Convention) and pays an annual subscription (£111,215 for 1998) to UNESCO's World Heritage Fund which is used to assist endangered sites. These meetings are also attended by the International Council on Monuments and Sites, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, who are the official advisers to UNESCO on cultural and natural heritage issues respectively.

TREASURY

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department expects to spend in each year from 1998–99 to 2000–01 on vehicle replacements. [54981]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer expects that his Departments will spend the following amounts on vehicle replacement in the years shown:

  1998–1999: £5.9m

  1999–2000: £6.1m

  2000–2001: £6.2m.

  Museum, Arts and Sport Funding
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 193, what proportion of the £290 million extra resources will come from savings made through cutting quangos. [54926]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been allocated £290 million extra resources over the next three years. Further details were announced and consultation papers were issued on 24 July, explaining that, in return for the additional funding, cultural, heritage, tourism and sports organisations will be expected to reform, cut bureaucracy including streamlining quangos and meet the Government's objectives of improving access and achieving excellence. Proposals were set out for new streamlined structures in the arts, in film and in museums and libraries, and to streamline the public body structure in the built heritage, tourism and sports. Final decisions will be made in the light of this consultation.
  922

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55166]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury and its agency, the Debt Management Office, introduced the Government Procurement Card in May of this year and it is now in its third month of live use. There are currently 41 cardholders. The potential savings made until the 23 July were in the region of £4,000 on 129 transactions with a value of £13,800. The departmental policy encourages anyone to have a card who needs to buy low value items for operational reasons.

  Childcare Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of the childcare tax credit element of the proposed working families tax credit; and how much of this expenditure will go to those who would otherwise be(a) non-taxpayers, (b) lower rate taxpayers, (c) standard rate taxpayers and (d) higher rate taxpayers. [55386]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest estimate of the cost of the childcare tax credit in the Working Families Tax Credit is £200 million in 2000–01, the first full year of the tax credit. Reliable estimates of the cost by the marginal rate of tax of the recipient are not available.

  Terrorism Reinsurance Premiums
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has authorised the Pool Reinsurance Company Limited to change the terrorism reinsurance premiums in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [55670]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have agreed that premiums in 1999 should, as in 1998, be discounted provided the good claims experience of the past two years continues.

  Therefore, from 1 January 1999, the premiums payable for all zones will be discounted by 85 per cent. The discount will be withdrawn if, in the course of the year, significant new claims are notified to Pool Re. This would affect subsequent new or renewed policies.

  In addition, other changes to the premium tariff will be introduced which should help simplify the administration of the scheme and reduce its costs.

  Arrangements for subsequent years will be determined in the light of experience.

  Despite the relatively low level of terrorist activity on the mainland recently, experience has shown that businesses in Great Britain would be well advised to maintain full insurance cover against terrorist damage. This applies whether it is bought through the Government backed arrangements operated by Pool Re or through the alternative arrangements that have been appearing in the insurance market.
  923

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the EMU preparation unit in his Department will have access to funds to print material for general distribution. [55341]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's communication campaign on the euro, which is managed by the Euro Preparations Unit, is aimed not at the general public but at ensuring that UK businesses, especially small and medium sized firms, are aware of the implications of the introduction of the single currency from 1 January 1999.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) of 16 June 1998,Official Report, column 135, if he will make a statement on the nature of his most recent discussions on the political implications of economic and monetary union with (a) EU colleagues and (b) hon. Members. [55390]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor continues to meet ECOFIN colleagues on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of matters relating to Economic and Monetary Union. Details of ECOFIN meetings are reported to the House.

  The House debated all aspects of Economic and Monetary Union on 30 April 1998, Official Report, columns 477–519, in advance of the EMU Special council meeting held on 1–2 May. On 21 July 1998, Official Repot, columns, 978–1022 the House held a further debate on EMU as part of an Opposition day debate.

  The Government recognise that membership of a single currency has important constitutional implications. We recognise that, to share a common monetary policy with other Member states represents a major pooling of economic sovereignty. But we believe that if the economic case for joining the single currency is clear and unambiguous, then Britain should be part of it. There is no constitutional bar to British membership of the single currency. Nevertheless, we have said that the constitutional implications of joining the single currency are such that any decision by the UK Government to join would require the endorsement of both Parliament and the British people in a referendum.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria will be used to select non-civil servants serving on the EMU preparation unit in his Department. [55344]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in November last year that the Euro Preparations Unit would be set up to raise awareness and encourage preparatory activity across the UK economy. The unit is staffed by officials from DTI, DfEE and HM Treasury as well as a secondee from HSBC Midland with extensive small business experience.

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55265]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are 22 motorcycle parking spaces at the Treasury's Headquarters Building in Parliament Street. All spaces are secure. No parking spaces 924
  specifically for motorcycles are provided at the Allington Towers office in Victoria, but space can be made available according to demand.

  Taxation Relief (Training)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action his Department has taken to introduce tax relief for employers who invest in training of their work force; and what proposals he has in this area. [55045]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Expenditure of employers on the training of their employees is already likely to attract tax relief. When calculating business profits for tax purposes, a deduction is allowed for revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Expenditure an employer incurs on training employees would generally satisfy this business expenses tax rule and qualify for a tax deduction.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action his Department(a) has taken and (b) proposes to introduce (i) grants and (ii) tax relief for workers on training courses. [55047]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The current position is that individuals can claim Vocational Training Tax Relief (VTR) on the cost of certain training courses. VTR is not restricted to those in work and benefits non-taxpayers as well as taxpayers. Where an employee's expenditure on job-related external training is not eligible for VTR, it may still qualify for tax relief under an Inland Revenue extra-statutory concession (A64) if the conditions are satisfied.

  The current scope of tax relief for individuals' training expenses is being reviewed in relation to individual learning accounts. Our recent consultation paper on the Learning Age (CM 3790) indicated that we are considering targeted public support, which could take the form of grants or tax relief, to encourage people to open individual learning accounts. Officials from the Inland Revenue, Department for Education and Employment and the Treasury are currently exploring options.

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action his Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to encourage more employee share ownership schemes. [55046]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are keen to encourage employee participation through share ownership. In this way, employees are able to share in the success of firms they work for and feel part of the common effort. The existing Inland Revenue approved share ownership schemes enable around 2½ million ordinary men and women to benefit directly, and in a tax-efficient way, from any increase in the value of their companies which their own efforts have helped to bring about.

  We remain committed to increasing employee participation through share ownership schemes, and all tax reliefs are kept under review. A tax break is not, however, the only way to encourage the spread of employee participation.
  925

  Arthur Andersen and Andersen Consulting
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government contracts have been awarded to Arthur Andersen and Andersen Consulting since 2 May 1997. [55157]

  Ms Hewitt
  No contracts have been awarded to either of these firms since the 2 May 1997.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has held with the Registrar of Friendly Societies regarding the transfer of its functions to the Financial Services Authority to ensure continued recognition of and sensitivity to the special features of organisations currently regulated and supervised by the Registrar; and if he will make a statement. [55220]

  Ms Hewitt
  Treasury officials have regular discussions with the Registry of Friendly Societies (RFS), the Building Societies Commission (BSC) and the Friendly Societies Commission (FSC), about the transfer of their functions to the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The FSA has also been working with them to develop the new regulatory structure and to ensure a smooth transition to a single regulator, when the Financial Services and Markets Bill becomes law.

  In the meantime, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced on 30 July 1998, Official Report, columns 410–11, the FSA plans to enter into contracts with the BSC, the FSC and, in relation to credit unions, the FRS to enable it to carry out functions on their behalf, from January 1999.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has held with the Financial Services Authority regarding harmonisation of the costs of incorporation of the different types of organisations regulated by the Financial Services Authority; and if he will make a statement. [55215]

  Ms Hewitt
  A draft regulatory impact assessment was contained in part 3 of the consultation document on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. This concluded that the creation of the single financial services regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), would mean savings for a significant proportion of authorised persons in compliance costs and regulatory fees. There would also be some efficiency savings due to co-location of the regulators.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has held with the representative bodies for credit unions regarding the development of a share protection scheme; and if he will make a statement. [55219]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Credit Union Act 1979 provides for credit unions establishing a share protection scheme, if they wish to do so, and officials from the Registry of Friendly Societies have held a number of meetings with representative bodies for credit unions on this subject—although the movement has not, so far, introduced such a scheme. A consultation document will be issued shortly on how credit unions should be regulated in the future.926
  This will seek views on whether or not credit unions should be included within the Financial Service Authority's Compensation scheme.

  Bootlegging
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been prosecuted for re-selling alcoholic beverages and tobacco brought in from France in the latest available year. [55357]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available in this form. However, figures are available for the number of prosecutions generated by Excise Verification Officers for the smuggling and/or illicit resale of alcohol and tobacco from the European Union; in the year ending 31 March 1998 there were 417.

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the euro will be legal tender in Britain after 1 January 1999. [55405]

  Ms Hewitt
  No. If, however, parties agree amongst themselves to settle transactions in euro they will be at liberty to do so: just as they can currently choose to deal in other foreign currencies.

  Economic Estimates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he has made to estimates for(a) growth, (b) unemployment and (c) inflation for (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [55381]

  Ms Hewitt
  New forecasts for growth and inflation will be published later this autumn as part of the Pre-Budget Report. These will take account of developments since the Budget forecast was published in March.

  Payable Tax Credits
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed abolition of payable tax credits on dividends from April 1999. [55652]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My hon. Friend the Paymaster General has this under review and will make an announcement as soon as he is in a position to do so.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if an estimate has been made by the Inland Revenue as to the likely ongoing running costs of ISAs compared to those of PEPs. [55535]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Inland Revenue published a compliance cost assessment for the individual savings account on 31 July. A copy is available in the Library.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how the Inland Revenue's figure for the start-up costs of ISAs being £250 million for the savings industry was derived and provide a breakdown of the costs incurred for new computer installation, staff and sales force retraining and administration. [55534]
  927
  Ms Hewitt
  The assessment reflects discussions with several potential managers, and comments received during the consultation process. Details of the breakdown of costs in the format requested are not available, since they were generally not known to this degree of precision by potential managers in the savings industry.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the current pensions mis-selling review what is the Savings and Investment Board's estimate of the likely total cost of the compensation that will be paid by the life assurance industry; what is the breakdown of this estimate between with profits and unit linked policies; and what proportion of the costs incurred by with profits policies the Savings and Investment Board has estimated will ultimately be met by policy holders through reduced future bonuses. [55536]

  Ms Hewitt
  The FSA estimates that the total industry bill for the pensions mis-selling review will be in the range of £8 billion to £11 billion. These figures were contained in the FSA consultation document, copies of which were placed in the Library in March. There has been no estimate made of the split between with profits policies and unit linked policies. Nor is it possible to predict what proportion of the estimated total cost incurred by with profits policies will be met by policy holders through reduced future bonuses, due to uncertainties about the ultimate cost to firms.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the sale of financial services through intermediaries, what is the Personal Investment Authority's figure for the proportion sold on commission and those sold by advisers taking a fixed fee. [55537]

  Ms Hewitt
  No such figures are collected.

  Customs
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes there were in the number of customs officers between January 1988 and January 1998. [55656]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise employed 26,654 permanent staff (including Fixed Term Appointees) in April 1988 and 24,112 staff in April 1998, a drop of 2,542.

  In respect of "Customs officers" engaged on operational duties (as opposed to VAT, Excise or non-operational staff), 7,754 staff were employed in the preventive (anti-smuggling and baggage check) and frontier customs functions in April 1998, and at the start of the present financial year Customs and Excise employed 3,990 staff in these functions.

  On the surface, this represents a fall of 3,764 in the numbers of "Customs officers". However, the figures for the two years are not directly comparable as some former frontier work has moved inland, a change in operational policy meant that more customs work is now undertaken by staff in specialist investigation and intelligence units and the Department's vessels have also been moved to a
  928
  specialist unit with its own permanent crews. There are no figures available for the number of officers employed on customs work in these areas.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the number and proportion of all families headed by a lone parent indicating how many children live in them, based on the most recent available figures; [55584]

  (2) if he will estimate the number and proportion of one parent families headed by a teenage lone parent (a) under 20 years and (b) under 16 years based on the most recent figures. [55583]

  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 John Fox to Mr. David Rendel, dated 19 October 1998:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary questions on lone parent families. I am replying in his absence.
  It is estimated that there were 1.6 million one-parent families with dependent children in Great Britain in 1996, with 2.8 million dependent children living with them. One-parent families formed 21 per cent. of all families with dependent children in 1996. Further details, including definitions, are published in Population Trends, 91, a copy of which is contained in the House of Commons Library.
  It is estimated that there were around 40 thousand one-parent families with dependent children headed by a lone parent aged under 20 in Great Britain in 1996, just under 3 per cent. of all such one-parent families. Estimates have not been made of lone parents aged under 16 because of the proportionately larger uncertainty associated with very small sample sizes.

  British Household Panel Survey
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what means tabulations of data from the British Household Panel Survey will be made available to hon. Members. [55638]

  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. Steve Webb, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking by what means tabulations of data from the British Household Panel Survey will be made available to honourable Members.
  The British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (formerly the ESRC Research Centre on Micro-social Change). The data are available from the Data Archive at Essex University. Further information on the BHPS, and details of research which has been carried out using the data, can be obtained from the Institute for Social and Economic Research (telephone number 01206 872957).
  Tabulations from the BHPS are regularly published in two annual Government Statistical Service publications: Households Below Average Income (the latest edition was published on 15 October 1998) and Social Trends. Data are also published in the ESRC Working Papers series. These publications and papers are available in the House of Commons Library.
  929

  Earnings (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees in Shrewsbury and Atcham currently earn less than(a) £3.60 per hour, (b) £2.50 per hour and (c) £1.50 per hour. [55243]

  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 Mike Pepper to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 19 October 1998:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question requesting information about the earnings of employees in Shrewsbury and Atcham. I am replying in his absence.
  Estimates of the percentage of employees in Shrewsbury and Atcham earning less than the hourly rates you requested are given below. I am unable to provide numbers because appropriate grossing factors for the New Earnings Survey (NES) sample are not available at very detailed levels of disaggregation such as parliamentary constituencies.
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey 1998, is contained in the following table.

  Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay-period was unaffected by absence—New Earnings Survey—April 1998 Parliamentary constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  £1.50

  £2.50

  £3.60

  All employees

  0.4

  1.5

  9.8

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey, Office for National Statistics.

  I will arrange for a copy of this letter to be placed in the Library.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made to his Department's estimates of the level of economic growth in 1997. [55485]

  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 John Kidgell to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 October 1998:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary question on changes to the level of economic growth in 1997. I am replying in his absence.
  The most recent data for 1997, published on 24 September 1998, show that gross domestic product (GDP) at constant market prices rose by 3.5 per cent. compared to 1996. Previous estimates published on 20 August 1998 showed growth in 1997 of 3.4 per cent.
  The quarterly path of GDP growth during 1997 shows quarterly growth rates of 1.0, 1.2, 1.0 and 0.7 per cent. in quarters 1 to 4 respectively. This compares with previously published estimates of 0.7, 1.0, 0.8 and 0.6 per cent.

  Registered Maternities
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers of registered maternities to women resident in(a) St. Albans, (b) Dacorum, (c) Watford, (d) Hertsmere and (e) Three Rivers local authority districts which took place in (i) Hemel Hempstead General Hospital, (ii) St. Albans City Hospital, (iii) Watford General Hospital, (iv) Mount Vernon Hospital, (v) Barnet
  930
  General Hospital, (vi) Chase Farm Hospital, (vii) Northwick Park Hospital, (viii) Luton and Dunstable Hospital, (ix) Stoke Mandeville Hospital, (x) Wycombe General Hospital, (xi) other NHS hospitals, (xii) RAF Halton Hospital, (xiii) other non-NHS hospitals, (xiv) at home and (xv) elsewhere for each of the last five years for which data are available. [55315]

  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 John Fox to Mr. Kerry Pollard, dated 19 October 1998:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on numbers of registered maternities. I am replying in his absence.
  The information requested would only be available at a disproportionate cost.

  Abortions
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women had abortions in each parliamentary constituency and what percentage of these were carried out by the NHS in the last year for which figures are available. [55538]

  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 John Fox to Mr. Phil Woolas, dated 19 October 1998:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on abortions by parliamentary constituency. I am replying in his absence.
  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.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that his Department's proposed freedom of information legislation includes a statutory right of access to information relating to the scientific basis for research involving animal experiments within the United Kingdom. [55346]

  Mr. Straw
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prevents the disclosure of information supplied in confidence in relation to applications for licences to carry out scientific experiments on animals.

  The Government are committed to review the need for all statutory bars to disclosure as part of the development of legislation on Freedom of Information. That legislation is likely to contain a power to repeal by Order specified existing bars to disclosure.

  It is too early to say, however, whether section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 will be repealed in this way.
  931
  In reaching a decision on this issue, I shall need to be satisfied that those who are involved in lawful scientific experimentation are not put at risk from the violent activities of some animal rights extremists, or that British science and industry is not damaged by the disclosure of information.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his Department's letter AP98 1/10/333 PO 13469/98 of 23 July, if he has forwarded Neil Boyce's report, Freeze-dried Mice, relating to the overbreeding of animals, to the Animal Procedures Committee; and if he will make a statement. [55363]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Neil Boyce's report was forwarded to the Animal Procedures Committee at its meeting on 23 July. The Committee is looking at the issue of overbreeding as part of its review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55254]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office Central London Estate provides designated areas within it secure car parks for some 50 motorcycles.

  Generally, there is provision for parking motorcycles at most offices and sites throughout the rest of the Home Office Estate (including those occupied by the Agencies). However, details are not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55180]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office is not currently using the Government Procurement Card (GPC), but it is being used in some agencies.

  The extent to which the non-agency Department uses the GPC will depend on an evaluation of its benefits compared with a policy of obtaining consolidated invoices from suppliers with whom we conduct a high volume of transactions. Our preliminary findings are that by reducing the volume of invoices the Department can achieve savings similar to those obtainable from the use of the GPC, whilst retaining the benefit of the detailed management information which our suppliers provide with their invoices.

  A pilot project to test the consolidated invoice option and its estimated savings began in August of this year and will conclude by March 1999. Further consideration will then be given to the scope for using the GPC in circumstances where its use would be the most cost-effective solution.
  932
  The position in the Department's agencies is as follows:

  The Forensic Science Service introduced a procurement card in April 1996, but have since adopted the GPC. Some 60 cards have been issued and account for an average of 300 transactions a month, valued at £50,000 producing savings in excess of £10,000 a month. Up to a further 10 cards are expected to be issued.

  The Prison Service is currently piloting the use of the GPC at three prison sites with a view to establishing a business case for possible implementation early in 1999. Full rollout would take approximately 18 months and would enable some 200,000 transactions a year to be processed using the card.

  The United Kingdom Passport Agency and Fire Service College also have the use of the GPC under consideration.

  Gaming Board
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the names, qualifications and experience of members of the Gaming Board appointed in the last 12 months; if he will list the(a) vacancies and (b) expected vacancies for the Board; and what arrangements are in place for filling them. [54862]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Mr. Robert Lockwood and Mr. Peter Dean were appointed as Gaming Board members from 1 January 1998 and 18 May 1998 respectively, with Mr. Dean becoming Chairman from 1 July 1998.

  Mr. Lockwood's background is as a licensing magistrate, Chief Executive of the London Red Cross and former local authority chief executive. Mr. Dean has a legal background, is the Investment Ombudsman and was Deputy Chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  All five Board posts are currently filled. One is expected to become vacant on 31 December 1998 and another on 31 August 1999. Both have been advertised and will be filled by competition.

  Child and Youth Workers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to strengthen the controls and procedures for vetting those employed and working directly or indirectly with children and young people; and if he will make a statement. [55453]

  Mr. Michael
  On 4 June 1998,Official Report, columns 304–05, I announced the establishment of an Interdepartmental Working Group on Preventing Unsuitable People from Working with Children and Abuse of Trust. The Group has made a good start on its work and has been asked to make recommendations by the end of the year.

  Prison Service
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Prison Service intends to take to encourage recruitment to the service from ethnic minority communities. [55323]
  933
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Secretary announced at the Labour party conference that he would be setting recruitment targets across the Home Office, with the aim that the workforce properly reflects Britain's multi-racial society.

  As an equal opportunities employer, the Prison Service is committed to increasing the numbers of ethnic minority staff which it employs at all levels, consistent with fair and open competition and with recruitment and promotion on merit. Latest figures for the year to 31 March 1998 indicate that 7.8 per cent. of prison officers recruited were from ethnic minorities—more than double the figure for any previous year.

  In the last few years, there has been considerable progress on measures taken to encourage ethnic minority staff. These include the following:
  as part of the guidance on devolved recruitment, governors have been encouraged to take positive action to redress the current under-representation of people from the ethnic minorities, such as the recent open day organised by prisons in the Doncaster area;
  competence-based job simulation and assessment centres for the recruitment of prison officers support the devolved recruitment of prison officers and are increasingly used for promotion at all levels;
  the Prison Service has provided placements for three Windsor Fellows this year, and continues to provide mentors from management level staff for ethnic minority undergraduates under the National Mentoring Scheme.

  As a result of many years of sustained outreach work, the Service has two members of ethnic minorities who successfully applied for the Accelerated Promotion Scheme in the last year.

  In August 1997, the Home Secretary established a monitoring group on the position of ethnic minority staff in the Home Office with the following terms of reference:
  "To examine the position of ethnic minority staff in the Home Office, the measures taken to ensure their full representation and employment and to reduce real and perceived disadvantage and to make further proposals for action".

  The Prisons Board is fully committed to the monitoring group and is carrying out a comprehensive review in the Prison Service. The review, which is now well underway, will lead to the development of a racial equality action plan which will recommend further measures to stimulate the recruitment of staff from ethnic minorities.

  In July 1998, the Prison Service set up a new Race relations group. Its purpose is to ensure that the Service's race relations policies are as good as they can be, and to check that they are operating effectively across all establishments. It will also help to monitor and direct the range of initiatives which are underway, in relation to both staff and prisoners.

  Administration of Justice
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to expedite the administration of justice. [54859]

  Mr. Michael
  This Government have a strong commitment to speeding up justice, particularly in relation to cases involving young offenders where delays have been scandalous in recent years. We aim to tackle delays 934
  throughout the criminal justice system and we have pledged to halve the time taken to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence.

  Ministers across Government Departments are co-operating in encouraging all agencies to work together to cut delays. In October 1997, comprehensive guidance was issued in the circular 'Tackling Delays in the Youth Justice System'. This was prepared by six Government Departments and set out good practice to tackle delay in young offenders cases and asked local agencies to set up fast-tracking schemes for persistent young offenders. Many have responded positively: for instance, fast-track schemes for persistent young offenders have been established or are planned in 160 Youth Court areas, compared with 12 a year ago.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 contains a number of specific measures for speeding up the system, including provisions to enable straightforward guilty pleas to be dealt with promptly; to improve case management in magistrates courts; and allowing indictable-only cases to start in the Crown Court. Before being implemented nationwide, most of these new procedures are being piloted in Tyneside; Croydon, Bromley and Sutton; Blackburn and Burnley; North Staffordshire; Northamptonshire; and North Wales. Piloting began on 30 September and will run for six months, except for the indictable-only procedure, for which the pilots will begin in January 1999 and will run for a year.

  To reinforce the effectiveness of the new procedures for case preparation and management, the Government intend to introduce overall statutory time limits for the prosecution of criminal cases, for which provision is made in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 but which has been improved through the Crime and Disorder Act. These time limits, which will also be piloted, will be tougher for young offenders than for adults, and tougher still for persistent young offenders.

  Anti-terrorist Legislation
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has held with(a) the RUC, (b) the police in Great Britain, (c) civil liberties organisations, (d) the Irish Government, (e) members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, (f) other hon. Members and (g) the United States Government, concerning the new anti-terrorist legislation. [55349]

  Mr. Straw
  There was some informal consultation with a number of individuals and bodies, including some hon. and right hon. Members in the short timescale for the preparation of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. I met the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana and the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Mr. David Veness, on 28 August. The consultation document on permanent United Kingdom-wide counter-terrorist legislation, to be issued later this year, will provide a further opportunity for comments on the provisions of that Act in the context of broader consideration of the future shape of legislation against terrorism.
  935

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make an announcement on the review of domestic violence policy. [53497]

  Mr. Michael
  Our intention is to do everything we can to give an impetus to policy on domestic violence and implement initiatives as soon as possible, rather than to conduct a formal time-limited review. To address domestic violence, we have implemented the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. We have issued guidance on the Crime and Disorder Act setting out our expectation that local crime reduction partnerships will identify the level of domestic violence in their area and incorporate a strategy for tackling it in their wider crime reduction strategy.

  We are now seeking further research evidence about domestic violence and improved statistics; and to publicise this and raise awareness of how domestic violence can best be tackled in future.

  Women have a more severe experience of domestic violence than men. Our policy is to reflect that fact in everything we do. Our policy is being developed in parallel with measures to address all forms of violence against women.

  Terrorist Prisoners
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are serving prison sentences in Great Britain for terrorist offences connected with Northern Ireland; how many of them are serving(a) life sentences and (b) other indeterminate sentences; to which terrorist group these prisoners belong and how many are in categories (a) and (b); how many he estimates will be transferred to Northern Ireland inside the next two years; and how many of those transferred will be eligible for release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. [55024]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Six prisoners convicted of terrorist related offences connected with Northern Ireland are currently held in prisons in England and Wales, none of whom is serving a life sentence or other indeterminate sentence. The Prison Service does not record centrally information on organisations to which prisoners may belong. One of the six prisoners has requested a transfer to Northern Ireland. This application is currently under consideration and it is not possible to speculate on the outcome. The eligibility of an prisoner for release under the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 is entirely a matter for the Sentence Review Commissioners.

  Traffic Officers
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that police traffic officers are given training in the collecting of evidence equivalent to that provided to CID officers responsible for investigating homicides. [55019]

  Mr. Michael
  We are keen to keep the training of police officers under review to ensure that they receive training in all the skills necessary to carry out their duties. I understand that National Police Training are planning to introduce a new course early next year on Policing Road 936
  Deaths in response to a demand from a number of forces for such training to be provided nationally. It is hoped that this course will be attended by both traffic and CID officers of the rank of inspector and above, who might be appointed to supervise such inquiries. The course is intended to provide a thorough grounding in all aspects of road death investigations and to raise awareness of the trauma likely to be caused by such incidents, both to victims and to police officers.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is also currently undertaking a thematic inspection of traffic related police duties, including the training of traffic officers.

  It should be remembered that decisions on the nature and extent of the training received by police traffic officers are primarily the responsibility of individual chief police officers. In most forces, if not all, the investigation of the scene of a serious road traffic accident is carried out by Road Accident Investigation Officers, who may be either police officers or civilian support staff, who use mathematical and physical theories and formulae to determine the speed and road position of vehicles at the time of collision. In general, police officers are skilled in managing the scene of a serious road accident and can call on specialist support skills, such as vehicle examiners, where necessary.

  If there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the deaths of road users, it is open to chief officers to bring in officers with the appropriate skills, if necessary by appointing a senior detective to serve as the senior investigating officer in order to direct and control all the necessary inquiries.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of males aged(a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18, (d) 19, (e) 20, (f) 21, (g) 22, (h) 23, (i) 24, (j) 25, (k) 26, (l) 27, (m) 28, (n) 29, and (o) 30 years or over (i) are currently in prison, (ii) have served a prison sentence or are currently in prison and (iii) have a criminal record. [55432]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the male prison population (excluding foreign nationals), by age, in England and Wales on 30 June 1998 as a percentage of the projected general population of England and Wales for the same date is given in table 1.

  Information on criminal careers is also published in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales" (Chapter 9 of the 1996 edition, CM 3764), a copy of which is in the Library. These analyses are based on a sample of those born in selected years.

  The proportion of males who have ever been sentenced to custody for those born in selected years between 1953 and 1978 is shown in table 2. Rates for the 1973 and 1978 birth cohorts are lower than for those born in earlier years and are consistent with the reduction in custody for these age groups in the late Eighties and early Nineties. The

  937
  proportion of males who have been convicted of a "Standard List" offence is shown in table 3. Rates for 1973 and 1978 are also lower than for those born in earlier years and the lower proportion who have a conviction in these age groups reflects the increased use of cautioning in recent years.

  Table 1: Male prison population1 in England and Wales on 30 June 1998, by age, as a percentage of the projected general population in England and Wales on 30 June 1998

  Age

  Percentage2

  16

  0.21

  17

  0.44

  18

  0.70

  19

  0.89

  20

  0.88

  21

  0.88

  22

  0.89

  23

  0.80

  24

  0.78

  25

  0.72

  26

  0.66

  27

  0.63

  28

  0.58

  29

  0.55

  30+

  0.16

  Total

  0.28

  1 Excludes foreign nationals

  2 Based on comparisons between the prison population in England and Wales on 30 June 1998 and the Government Actuary population projection for England and Wales in mid 1998

  Table 2: Estimates of the proportion of the male population who have served a prison sentence or are currently in prison for a standard list offence1

  England and Wales

  Percentage

  Year of birth

  Age

  1953

  1958

  1963

  1968

  1973

  1978

  16

  1.6

  1.3

  1.6

  1.4

  0.5

  0.2

  17

  2.4

  2.3

  2.6

  2.2

  1.0

  0.5

  18

  3.2

  3.0

  3.5

  2.9

  1.6

  1.0

  19

  3.8

  3.6

  4.4

  3.6

  2.3

  1.8

  20

  4.1

  4.1

  5.0

  4.2

  2.8

  —

  21

  4.4

  4.4

  5.6

  4.5

  3.5

  —

  22

  4.7

  4.8

  6.0

  4.9

  4.0

  —

  23

  4.9

  5.2

  6.3

  5.2

  4.2

  —

  24

  5.1

  5.5

  6.6

  5.5

  —

  —

  25

  5.3

  5.7

  6.9

  —

  —

  —

  26

  5.4

  5.9

  7.0

  —

  —

  —

  27

  5.6

  6.1

  7.2

  —

  —

  —

  28

  5.8

  6.3

  7.4

  —

  —

  —

  29

  5.9

  6.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  6.1

  6.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  6.2

  6.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  6.4

  6.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  6.5

  6.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  6.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  6.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  6.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  6.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  6.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  6.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 The standard list consists of all indictable and some of the more serious summary offences. See Appendix 5 of Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1996 (Cm. 3764) for further details

  938

  Table 3: Estimates of the proportion of the male population with a criminal record for one or more standard list1 offences England and Wales

  Percentage

  Year of birth

  Age

  1953

  1958

  1963

  1968

  1973

  1978

  16

  11.9

  13.4

  12.8

  10.6

  5.5

  4.1

  17

  14.9

  16.7

  16.3

  13.8

  8.7

  6.6

  18

  17.7

  19.7

  19.9

  16.7

  11.8

  9.9

  19

  19.9

  22.2

  22.8

  19.2

  13.9

  —

  20

  21.7

  24.3

  25.0

  21.2

  15.6

  —

  21

  23.3

  26.1

  26.6

  22.9

  17.2

  —

  22

  24.7

  27.4

  27.9

  24.2

  19.0

  —

  23

  25.9

  28.6

  28.9

  25.3

  19.8

  —

  24

  27.0

  29.7

  29.8

  26.0

  —

  —

  25

  27.8

  30.5

  30.7

  —

  —

  —

  26

  28.7

  30.5

  31.4

  —

  —

  —

  27

  29.4

  31.7

  32.1

  —

  —

  —

  28

  30.0

  32.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  30.6

  32.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  31.0

  33.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  31.5

  33.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  32.0

  34.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  32.3

  34.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  32.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  33.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  33.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  33.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  33.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  34.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 The standard list consists of all indictable and some of the more serious summary offences. See Appendix 5 of Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1996 (Cm. 3764) for further details

  Computers (Scanning)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in respect of the practice of HM Customs officials routinely scanning computer laptops brought into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [55459]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  HM Customs and Excise do not routinely scan laptops brought into the UK; Customs' anti-smuggling checks are guided by risk profiles and intelligence assessments, in order to concentrate their effort in the most productive areas and cause the minimum delay to the travelling public.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the practice of HM Customs officials routinely scanning laptops brought into the United Kingdom; what record is kept of information so gleaned and for what purposes; and what safeguards are in place to prevent the misuse of such information. [55461]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  HM Customs and Excise do not routinely scan laptops brought into the UK; Customs' anti-smuggling checks are guided by risk profiles and intelligence assessments, in order to concentrate their effort in the most productive areas and cause the minimum delay to the travelling public. The aim of checks on laptops is to detect indecent or obscene material, in particular material featuring children; no record is kept of any other information encountered. Officers regularly encounter private or commercial correspondence and similar material in the course of their duties and are bound by their normal duty

  939
  of confidentiality. Anyone misusing such information would be subject to Departmental disciplinary proceedings and, if appropriate, dismissal.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Buxton County Court
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve access to justice at Buxton County Court for people who have(a) physical, (b) visual and (c) hearing disabilities. [53390]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Court Service is currently undertaking an audit of all courts to establish what facilities exist at each location for people who have physical, visual or hearing disabilities. The audit is scheduled for completion in February 1999. Where requirements for additional or upgraded facilities are identified, these will be addressed, where reasonably practicable, according to priority.

  Royal Family
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review for possible release records relating to the Royal Family and Royal Household which are currently closed in the Public Record Office; and if he will make a statement. [53367]

  Mr. Hoon
  The 1993 White Paper Open Government (Cm 2290) stated that records relating to the Royal Family would be treated in the same way as all other records and closed for longer than 30 years only if they fell into one or more of the three criteria governing closure (para. 9.22). It also stated (para 9.28) that all Departments would, as resources could be made available, review all material currently withheld for longer than 30 years to see whether its sensitivity had passed and, if possible, release it. The review process is the responsibility of the Department where the records originated. This process is continuing.

  Shrewsbury County Court
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the effect on the legal aid budget of the closure of Shrewsbury County Court and the relocation of its work to Telford, Ludlow and Oswestry. [53392]

  Mr. Hoon
  No estimate of the impact on legal aid has been made. Any savings or additional costs to the legal aid fund are likely to be marginal since business will simply transfer elsewhere. Whilst financial implications are important considerations, the costs and practical implications of running a court, the public facilities, waiting times, workload levels and overall standard of service that can be made available over the area as a whole also need to be taken into consideration.

  External Legal Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the external legal advisers he has consulted since 940
  1 May 1997, indicating (a) the names of those firms used, (b) dates of consultation, (c) the cost of using each firm and (d) the areas of discussion.

  Mr. Hoon
  The only firm of external legal advisers consulted by the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1 May 1997 is Messrs Masons who have been retained since November 1996 to provide drafting and general legal advice on a contract for the provision of corporate and financial services and general legal advice on IT contracts for Crown and county courts. Advice has been provided on numerous occasions since 1 May 1997. The total cost since that date is £234,362. [55400]

  Possession Orders
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average length of time between the serving of a notice of seeking possession on the tenant of a local authority and the granting of possession where the application was successful(a) in England and Wales, (b) in the West Midlands County and (c) in Birmingham in each of the last five years for which records are available; and if he will make a statement on measures he is proposing to speed up the process. [55504]

  Mr. Hoon
  No figures are collected for waiting times for possession actions. Although there are no current plans to introduce measures to reduce the length of time the possession process can take, it is intended to consider this process in the second stage of the Civil Justice Reforms. No timetable has yet been fixed.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55175]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government Purchase Card (GPC) is not yet being used. The Court Service plans to introduce the GPC in one area later this financial year, and will assess the scope for further use next year. The Public Record Office will pilot the card later this month, and introduce it in June 1999 if that is favourable. The Land Registry will pilot in January 1999 and introduce it in April 1999 if the test succeeds. The Northern Ireland Court Service and the Public Trust Office are currently reviewing their procurement procedures, and will consider the introduction of the GPC.

  Personal Injury Actions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement concerning the implementation of section 10 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and section 1 of the Damages Act 1996 following the recent judgments in the House of Lords on multipliers in personal injury actions. [54863]

  Mr. Hoon
  Section 1 of the Damages Act 1996 came into force in September 1996. The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland decided not to exercise
  941
  the power conferred by that section until they had been able to consider what was said by the House of Lords in Wells v Wells and other pending appeals, in which opinions were delivered on 16 July. The section requires them to consult the Government Actuary and the Treasury before any exercise of the power. They are now doing so.

  Legal Aid Board
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Legal Aid Board has responded to the Lord Chancellor's request for advice on how best to achieve exclusive contracting of civil advice and assistance; and if he will make a statement. [55673]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board have responded to the Lord Chancellor's request for advice on how best to give effect to the Government's policy of exclusive contracting for civil advice and assistance. A copy of their report, and an exchange of correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of the Board, have been placed in the Library of both Houses. The Lord Chancellor welcomes the report and generally accepts the Board's proposals. They will provide an effective way of achieving the Government's policy of targeting quality assured services on people's priority needs for help with basic legal problems. In particular, the proposals will secure our objective of channelling a greater share of funding to the not-for-profit advice sector, and of opening up new ways of delivering advice to people, for instance when they cannot conveniently reach the adviser's office. These are only first steps, but are essential components in building the community legal service promised by the Government in our election manifesto.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department expects to spend in each year from 1998–99 to 2000–01 on vehicle replacements. [54984]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information is as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  The Court Service

  4,050,000

  1,551,000

  535,000

  The Lord Chancellor's Department HQ

  16,000

  32,000

  64,000

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  0

  0

  0

  HM Land Registry

  154,600

  175,000

  175,000

  Planned expenditure by the Court Service reflects a change in August this year from leasing vehicles to outright purchase.

WALES

  Cervical Smears
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cytology laboratories in Wales are sending their cervical smears to other laboratories for interpretation. [55305]
  942
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  One laboratory in Wales is currently sending cervical screening work to an adjacent laboratory on a temporary and short-term basis. This is due to end this month.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for each health authority in Wales, what is the average time taken for a patient to receive the results of their cervical smear test; and what percentage take longer than the recommended four weeks. [55210]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Health authority

  Average time taken (weeks)

  Percentage (longer than 4 weeks)

  Bro Taf HA

  3.5

  16

  Dyfed Powys HA

  3

  0

  Gwent HA

  4

  20

  Morgannwg HA

  3.5

  20.6

  North Wales HA

  3.75

  10

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average time taken for a patient to receive the results of their cervical smear test; and what percentage take longer than the recommended four weeks. [55206]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The average time taken in Wales is 4 weeks; and about 13 per cent. are over 4 weeks.

  Motorcycles
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55253]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There are several secure areas of the car park at my Department's head quarters in Cathays Park specifically dedicated to motorcycles. There is provision at other offices for motorcycling parking.

  Measures to increase the proportion of motorcycle users are being considered as part of the development of green transport plans for buildings occupied by my Department and its agency.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons motorcycles were not included in the policy document "Transporting Wales into the Future"; and if he will make a statement. [55399]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Chapter 3 of the transport White Paper "A New Deal for Transport—Better for Everyone" covers the role motorcycling can play in the development of an integrated transport policy. Paragraph 1.3 of our Welsh Transport Policy Statement "Transporting Wales into the Future" explains that the general policies set out in the White Paper apply equally in Wales. I did not think it necessary to repeat them all in the Welsh document.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result;

  943
  what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55167]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department does not, currently, use the Government Purchase Card. However, we have accepted the offer via the Treasury of a consultancy to undertake a cost/benefit analysis of the introduction of the card. A decision on whether or not to introduce the card will be made in the light of the consultancy report.

  Carmarthen-Aberystwyth Rail Track
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to safeguard the trackbed of the former rail link from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth; and if he will make a statement. [55514]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Preservation of disused railway trackbeds is a matter for the local planning authorities concerned, within the framework of planning guidance which encourages them to promote public transport opportunities, including the exploration of opportunities to re-open rail routes. I understand that the bulk of the land underlying the former railway line between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth was sold some years ago, although Rail Property Limited retain ownership of a number of railway bridges along the route.

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cash limit of the Dyfed Powys Health Authority for 1997–98; and what figure has been set for 1998–99. [54913]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The initial revenue cash limit authorisations for Dyfed Powys Health Authority were as follows:

  Financial year

  £000

  1997–98

  274,301

  1998–99

  283,391

SCOTLAND

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prescriptions for Temazepam(a) capsules and (b) tablets were issued in Strathclyde in each year since 1992 and in 1998 to date. [55164]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information for Greater Glasgow Health Board for the years 1992 to 1997 and January to June is shown in the table.

  Year

  Capsules

  Tablets

  1992

  112,712

  99,911

  1993

  67,401

  119,146

  1994

  41,312

  122,848

  1995

  20,356

  110,801

  1996

  1

  112,017

  1997

  0

  105,035

  January-June 1998

  0

  49,803

  944

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55171]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department began using the Government Procurement Card on a pilot basis in September 1998. The pilot is taking place in two executive agencies and three business areas in the core Department. The pilot exercise will help to determine what savings and other benefits might accrue from using procurement cards, and whether there is a case for expanding their use throughout the Department.

  Diffuse Pollution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals(a) to combat diffuse pollution and (b) to implement the recommendations of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency of 31 August 1998 on diffuse pollution, in relation to nitrate enhancement. [55475]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government are addressing the need to combat diffuse pollution, through the use of preventative and advisory approaches together with legislation. We are also exploring the use of economic instruments ("green taxes"). Our approach will be developed further when we come to implement the EC Water Framework Directive, which is at present in draft form. This will be a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  We are currently consulting on proposals for a statutory Nitrate Action Programme in the Scottish Nitrate Vulnerable Zone at Balmalcolm. The programme is specifically aimed at reducing nitrate use.

  Antimicrobial Resistance
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the replies by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), FP 060705 of 13 May and FR 021609 of 18 September, if he will list the Chairman and members of the UK Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance. [55544]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There is no UK Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance. My letter to my hon. Friend referred to an internal Steering Group of officials which has been set up by the Department of Health to advise Ministers on the terms of the Government's response to the House of Lords Report"Resistance to Antibiotics and other Antimicrobial Agents" and is considering other significant developments in the field of antimicrobial resistance.

  The Group includes representatives from the Public Health Laboratory Service, the Joint Foods Safety and Standards Group, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Medicines Control Agency, Office of Science and Technology and The Scottish Office.
  945

  Teacher Training
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reviews he has initiated into teacher training in Scotland since May 1997. [55013]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In February this year, the Government responded to a report on teacher education and training, prepared by Sir Stewart Sutherland for the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. As part of this response we set up a short term working group to look at two specific issues relating to initial teacher education in Scotland—quality assurance and arrangements for managing and developing the type and pattern of provision. I expect to receive a report from the working group within the next few months.

  In March we issued for consultation revised draft guidelines for initial teacher education courses in Scotland. These guidelines set out the requirements which

  Scottish Office funding to colleges in cash terms

  £ million

  College

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Aberdeen College

  11.804

  13.126

  13.591

  17.406

  17.310

  16.393

  Angus College

  2.637

  2.979

  3.308

  4.693

  4.767

  4.860

  Anniesland College

  3.520

  4.415

  4.292

  4.947

  5.099

  5.238

  Ayr College

  4.025

  4.531

  4.852

  5.650

  5.626

  5,767

  Banff and Buchan College of Further Education

  2.752

  2.960

  3.382

  4.548

  4.704

  4.638

  The Barony College

  1.258

  1.053

  1.589

  1.695

  1.324

  1.256

  Bell College of Technology

  4.887

  5.576

  5.937

  5.217

  4.762

  4.478

  Borders College

  3.644

  3.901

  4.086

  5.190

  5.229

  4.782

  Cambuslang College

  3.841

  4,018

  4.208

  4.840

  4.767

  4.489

  Cardonald College

  5.530

  6.213

  6.304

  8.479

  10.700

  10.252

  Central College of Commerce

  3.578

  4.268

  4.687

  5.148

  5.100

  5.225

  Clackmannan College of Further Education

  2.245

  2.489

  2.500

  3.076

  2.950

  2.956

  Clydebank College

  6.142

  7.006

  7.420

  7.949

  7.485

  7.602

  Coatbridge College

  3.533

  4.299

  3.807

  4.600

  4.582

  4.673

  Cumbernauld College

  2.303

  2.529

  2.874

  4.003

  3.508

  3.583

  Dumfries and Galloway College

  4.768

  5.166

  5.452

  6.280

  6.262

  5.842

  Dundee College

  10.471

  11.405

  10.911

  12.929

  11.785

  11.592

  Elmwood College

  3.084

  3.131

  3.170

  3.689

  3.517

  3.394

  Falkirk College of Further and Higher Education

  7.482

  8.332

  8.693

  9.816

  9.035

  9.237

  Fife College of Further and Higher Education

  6.217

  7.078

  7.681

  8.409

  7.613

  7.195

  Glasgow College of Building and Printing

  5.071

  6.189

  5.979

  5.937

  6.293

  7.101

  Glasgow College of Food Technology

  2.939

  3.491

  3.802

  4.240

  3.760

  3.776

  Glasgow College of Nautical Studies

  3.707

  4.140

  4.087

  4.318

  4.299

  4.531

  Glenrothes College

  4.480

  4.478

  5.068

  6.121

  5.931

  5.968

  Inverness College

  6.457

  6.893

  6.857

  8.006

  7.387

  6.852

  James Watt College of Further and Higher Education

  5.032

  6.189

  7.759

  9.757

  10.464

  11.810

  Jewel and Esk Valley College

  7.609

  8.117

  8.014

  8.321

  8.078

  8.003

  John Wheatley College

  2.785

  3.170

  3.494

  3.872

  4.025

  4.025

  Kilmarnock College

  4.201

  4.804

  5.337

  6.685

  7.032

  7.160

  Langside College

  5.216

  5.892

  6.988

  7.196

  7.434

  7.005

  Lauder College

  4.601

  5.225

  5.420

  6.530

  6.579

  6.489

  Lews Castle College

  2.058

  2.140

  2.391

  2.287

  3.037

  3.509

  Moray College

  4.335

  4.776

  5.154

  6.530

  6.250

  5.748

  Motherwell College

  6.358

  6.708

  7.378

  9.390

  9.840

  9.780

  North Glasgow College

  5.796

  6.766

  6.455

  6.682

  6.266

  5.909

  Oatridge Agricultural College

  2.085

  2.418

  2.114

  2.047

  2.017

  1.986

  Perth College

  5.166

  5.559

  5.917

  7.312

  6.962

  6.396

  Reid Kerr College

  6.978

  7.941

  8.210

  9.646

  9.703

  9.195

  Stevenson College

  9.642

  10.515

  10.260

  11.614

  13.832

  13.310

  Stow College

  3.233

  4.295

  4.468

  5.231

  5.306

  5.423

  Edinburgh's Telford College

  12.168

  13.408

  13.764

  14.932

  15.186

  15.340

  Thurso College

  3.437

  2.715

  3.096

  3.306

  2.898

  2.929

  West Lothian College

  4.795

  6.254

  5.324

  5.475

  5.096

  4.938

  946
  courses must meet if they are to be approved by the Secretary of State. We have carefully considered responses to the consultation and finalised revised guidelines will be issued very shortly.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount each further and higher education college in Scotland has acquired from the Scottish Office budget in each year since incorporation in(a) cash terms, (b) real terms at 1998–99 prices and (c) as a percentage of their total income. [55007]

  Mr. Dewar
  The total of recurrent grant-in-aid and funding in respect of bursaries, restructuring and capital projects made available to incorporated colleges by the Secretary of State, since incorporation, in cash and real terms (at 1998–99 prices) and as a percentage of colleges' total income is shown in the following tables.
  947

  Scottish Office funding to colleges in real terms at 1998–99 prices

  £ million

  College

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Aberdeen College

  13.395

  14.674

  14.783

  18.394

  17.812

  16.393

  Angus College

  2.992

  3.330

  3.599

  4.959

  4.906

  4.860

  Anniesland College

  3.994

  4.935

  4.668

  5.228

  5.247

  5.238

  Ayr College

  4.567

  5.066

  5.277

  5.970

  5.789

  5.767

  Banff and Buchan College of Further Education

  3.123

  3.309

  3.679

  4.806

  4.841

  4.638

  The Barony College

  1.428

  1.177

  1.729

  1.791

  1.363

  1.256

  Bell College of Technology

  5.546

  6.234

  6.458

  5.514

  4.900

  4.478

  Borders College

  4.135

  4.362

  4.444

  5.485

  5.380

  4.782

  Cambuslang College

  4.359

  4.492

  4.577

  5.115

  4.906

  4.489

  Cardonald College

  6.275

  6.945

  6.857

  8.960

  11.010

  10.252

  Central College of Commerce

  4.061

  4.771

  5.098

  5.440

  5.248

  5.225

  Clackmannan College of Further Education

  2.547

  2.782

  3.251

  3.251

  3.035

  2.956

  Clydebank College

  6.969

  7.832

  8.071

  8.400

  7.702

  7.602

  Coatbridge College

  4.009

  4.806

  4.141

  4.861

  4.715

  4.673

  Cumbernauld College

  2.614

  2.827

  3.126

  4.231

  3.610

  3.583

  Dumfries and Galloway College

  5.410

  5.775

  5.930

  6.637

  6.443

  5.842

  Dundee College

  11.882

  12.750

  11.868

  13.664

  12.126

  11.592

  Elmwood College

  3.499

  3.500

  3.448

  3.899

  3.619

  3.394

  Falkirk College of Further and Higher Education

  8.490

  9.315

  9.456

  10.373

  9.297

  9.230

  Fife College of Further and Higher Education

  7.055

  7.913

  8.354

  8.886

  7.834

  7.195

  Glasgow College of Building and Printing

  5.754

  6.919

  6.504

  6.274

  6.475

  7.101

  Glasgow College of Food Technology

  3.335

  3.902

  4.136

  4.481

  3.869

  3.776

  Glasgow College of Nautical Studies

  4.207

  4.628

  4.446

  4.563

  4.423

  4.531

  Glenrothes College

  5.084

  5.307

  5.513

  6.469

  6.102

  5.968

  Inverness College

  7.327

  7.706

  7.459

  8.461

  7.601

  6.852

  James Watt College of Further and Higher Education

  5.710

  6.919

  8.439

  10.311

  10.767

  11.810

  Jewel and Esk Valley College

  8.634

  9.075

  8.717

  8.794

  8.312

  8.003

  John Wheatley College

  3.160

  3.544

  3.800

  4.092

  4.142

  4.025

  Kilmarnock College

  4.767

  5.371

  5.805

  7.065

  7.236

  7.160

  Langside College

  5.919

  6.586

  7.601

  7.605

  7.650

  7.005

  Lauder College

  5.221

  5.841

  5.896

  6.901

  6.770

  6.489

  Lews Castle College

  2.336

  2.392

  2.601

  2.417

  3.125

  3.509

  Moray College

  4.919

  5.339

  5.606

  6.901

  6.431

  5.748

  Motherwell College

  7.215

  7.499

  8.026

  9.923

  10.125

  9.780

  North Glasgow College

  6.577

  7.563

  7.021

  7.061

  6.448

  5.909

  Oatridge Agricultural College

  2.366

  2.703

  2.299

  2.163

  2.076

  1.986

  Perth College

  5.862

  6.215

  6.436

  7.727

  7.164

  6.396

  Reid Kerr College

  7.919

  8.877

  8.930

  10.194

  9.984

  9.195

  Stevenson College

  10.941

  11.755

  11.160

  12.273

  14.233

  13.310

  Stow College

  3.668

  4.802

  4.860

  5.528

  5.459

  5.423

  Edinburgh's Telford College

  13.807

  14.990

  14.972

  15.780

  15.626

  15.340

  Thurso College

  3.900

  3.035

  3.367

  3.493

  2.982

  2.929

  West Lothian College

  5.441

  6.991

  5.791

  5.786

  5.244

  4.938

  Scottish Office funding as a percentage of total income The total income figure is derived from audited accounts, the latest complete set of which is for the year 1996–97

  Percentage

  College

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Aberdeen College

  64

  65

  67

  72

  Angus College

  68

  67

  62

  74

  Anniesland College

  71

  74

  69

  70

  Ayr College

  63

  64

  64

  64

  Banff and Buchan College of Further Education

  73

  76

  75

  75

  The Barony College

  49

  46

  54

  55

  Bell College of Technology

  48

  56

  60

  47

  Borders College

  74

  74

  73

  74

  Cambuslang College

  72

  73

  73

  76

  Cardonald College

  62

  63

  65

  69

  Central College of Commerce

  53

  60

  63

  64

  Clackmannan College of Further Education

  68

  70

  76

  80

  Clackmannan College of Further Education

  68

  70

  76

  80

  Clydebank College

  69

  70

  70

  69

  Coatbridge College

  71

  72

  72

  73

  Cumbernauld College

  70

  73

  76

  78

  Dumfries and Galloway College

  70

  69

  70

  70

  Dundee College

  73

  73

  69

  71

  Elmwood College

  69

  61

  57

  59

  Falkirk College of Further and Higher Education

  69

  74

  72

  70

  948 949

  Scottish Office funding as a percentage of total income The total income figure is derived from audited accounts, the latest complete set of which is for the year 1996–97

  Percentage

  College

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Fife College of Further and Higher Education

  53

  58

  61

  59

  Glasgow College of Building and Printing

  52

  55

  58

  55

  Glasgow College of Food Technology

  60

  69

  72

  73

  Glasgow College of Nautical Studies

  62

  64

  57

  56

  Glenrothes College

  59

  63

  60

  61

  Inverness College

  68

  69

  69

  71

  James Watt College of Further and Higher Education

  56

  61

  67

  68

  Jewel and Esk Valley College

  64

  69

  70

  66

  John Wheatley College

  77

  78

  78

  75

  Kilmarnock College

  67

  67

  68

  70

  Langside College

  71

  73

  71

  76

  Lauder College

  60

  58

  53

  50

  Lews Castle College

  65

  60

  61

  65

  Moray College

  72

  72

  71

  75

  Motherwell College

  63

  64

  64

  70

  North Glasgow College

  70

  73

  73

  76

  Oatridge Agricultural College

  51

  51

  49

  45

  Perth College

  66

  69

  70

  68

  Reid Kerr College

  70

  70

  71

  72

  Stevenson College

  73

  74

  76

  78

  Stow College

  54

  61

  66

  68

  Edinburgh's Telford College

  70

  71

  72

  71

  Thurso College

  73

  72

  65

  63

  West Lothian College

  70

  73

  71

  73

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list each of the further and higher education colleges participating in the University of the Highlands and Islands Project; when they signed contracts to participate in the project; and when these contracts(a) expired and (b) were renewed; [55002]

  (2) who appointed the current principals of further and higher education colleges in Scotland; and where each current principal of a further and higher education college was previously employed; [55003]

  (3) what powers (a) he and (b) the board of management from further and higher education colleges have to (i) appoint, (ii) approve or (iii) dismiss the principal and members of the boards of management from their further and higher education college; [55004]

  (4) if he will list the current members of the boards of management for each further and higher education college in Scotland indicating how their appointment met the criteria of being fully representative of local interests in accordance with the terms of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992; [55005]

  (5) how his Department monitors use of public money granted to further and higher education colleges in Scotland to ensure propriety in its expenditure; [55006]

  (6) what accounts have been presented to his Department by Moray College on the use of Scottish Office funding for further and higher education since the incorporation of the college; [55008]

  (7) what guidelines his Department has given to the principals and members of the boards of management of further and higher education colleges on expenses incurred by the principals and members of the boards of management; [55009]

  (8) what is the expected deficit for Moray College for the years (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; [55010]
  950
  (9) what guidelines his Department has issued to the principals and members of the boards of management of further and higher education colleges on employment and personnel appointment procedures, with particular reference to guidance on the employment of family members; [55011]

  (10) what guidelines must be followed by the boards of management of further and higher education colleges on the payment of performance-related pay and bonuses to college managers when the college is running a financial deficit; [55012]

  (11) if he will investigate the alleged link between adhesive arachnoiditis and the use of Myodil; [55037]

  (12) if he will fund the greater use of chronic pain management programmes for sufferers of adhesive arachnoiditis; [55039]

  (13) what reassessment of the "Higher Still" reforms has been made since May 1997; [55014]

  (14) what changes his Department has made to the requirement for young offenders to be tested for drugs; and what plans he has to require young offenders taking drugs to undertake treatment programmes; [55016]

  (15) how much money has been paid by his Department to Moray College for special needs education in each of the years since incorporation expressed in (a) cash and (b) real terms based on 1998–99 prices; and what audited accounts he has received from Moray College on how this has been spent on special needs education; [54999]

  (16) what procedures he has in place to ensure that money granted by his Department to further and higher education colleges for special needs education is spent properly; [55000]
  951
  (17) what (a) guidelines and (b) statutory procedures must be followed by the boards of management of further and higher education colleges when consulting staff and union representatives on management and staff restructuring within the colleges. [55049]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 12 October, a copy of which was placed in the House Library.

  Crime Victims
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes his Department has made to(a) the amount of information provided to and (b) the protection by law for victims of crime and vulnerable witnesses since May 1997. [55015]

  Mr. McLeish
  At the end of February we produced a general information leaflet for victims of crime, which explains the criminal justice process in simple terms and provides information about getting help. The leaflet is distributed mainly by the police, who are the first contact a victim or witness who reports a crime has with the criminal justice system. It is also available through Victim Support Scotland and Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  I am advised by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that, in January, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in conjunction with the Scottish Court Service launched a Joint Statement on Crown Witnesses, outlining the joint and individual responsibilities of procurators and clerks of court in relation to Crown Witnesses cited in court. The document introduced an undertaking that witnesses at court would be provided with an update on the progress of their case at least once every two hours.

  As at 31 March 1997

  Council

  Estimated stock

  Number of houses with rent arrears1

  Total rent arrears £

  Rent arrears as a percentage of 1996–97 rental income

  Aberdeen City

  30,305

  8,354

  1,314,613

  3.20

  Aberdeenshire

  17,218

  4,490

  666,484

  2.61

  Angus

  10,721

  1,428

  117,831

  0.89

  Argyll and Bute

  7,375

  3,146

  344,601

  2.59

  Clackmannanshire

  6,767

  1,750

  463,209

  4.64

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  2,115

  453

  130,502

  3.27

  Dumfries and Galloway

  14,588

  4,797

  556,007

  2.20

  Dundee City

  23,509

  8,277

  1,538,703

  3.58

  East Ayrshire

  20,142

  5,386

  768,475

  2.93

  East Dunbartonshire

  6,840

  1,445

  711,253

  6.63

  East Lothian

  10,817

  4,810

  629,792

  4.16

  East Renfrewshire

  4,591

  1,195

  258,438

  4.01

  Edinburgh City

  33,320

  17,025

  1,855.64

  2.62

  Falkirk

  23,170

  3,792

  949,005

  3.00

  Fife

  42,678

  10,993

  2,485,779

  3.92

  Glasgow City

  105,819

  56,482

  11,083,000

  5.33

  Highland

  20,097

  7,184

  1,031,656

  2.71

  Inverclyde

  13,427

  5,018

  1,523,861

  6.89

  Midlothian

  8,423

  2,867

  296,430

  2.98

  Moray

  7,821

  1,351

  201,764

  1.80

  North Ayrshire

  17,837

  8,766

  1,188,745

  4.45

  North Lanarkshire

  53,774

  19,219

  2,201,944

  2.60

  Orkney Islands

  1,049

  256

  49,568

  2.70

  Perth and Kinross

  10,702

  1,933

  180,453

  1.17

  Renfrewshire

  23,655

  6,982

  1,186,429

  3.33

  Scottish Borders

  8,609

  1,923

  272,265

  2.13

  Shetland Islands

  2,375

  637

  152,301

  3.59

  952
  The Lord Advocate's Department also refined and improved the information that is provided to child witnesses and, in March 1998, he launched two new information leaflets for child witnesses who are cited to court. One leaflet is aimed at children under 12 and one is for use by children between 12 and 16. The leaflets provide information about what the child can expect when coming to court to give evidence.

  A Scottish Office-led inter-departmental Working Group was set up in late 1997 to examine the issue of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. The Group's report will be issued as a consultative document on 2 November 1998.

  Spinal Treatment
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will fund the replacement of invasive procedures carried out in the course of spinal treatment with non-invasive practices. [55038]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Health Boards in Scotland are given an annual general revenue allocation and it is for the Health Boards themselves to decide on how best to deploy this funding in meeting the health care needs of their resident population.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown for rent arrears for each Scottish local authority indicating(a) the estimated stock on 31 March 1997, (b) the number of households in rent arrears, (c) the total rent arrears and (d) the percentage in each category of rental income. [55034]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The available information, taken from returns made by local authorities, is set out in the table.
  953

  As at 31 March 1997

  Council

  Estimated stock

  Number of houses with rent arrears1

  Total rent arrears £

  Rent arrears as a percentage of 1996–97 rental income

  South Ayrshire

  11,932

  5,369

  814,714

  4.38

  South Lanarkshire

  39,714

  10,841

  1,665,169

  2.48

  Stirling

  8,974

  4,520

  950,475

  6.20

  West Dunbartonshire

  15,685

  8,781

  1,575,786

  5.85

  West Lothian

  17,249

  8,956

  1,213,945

  4.85

  Scotland

  621,291

  228,426

  38,378,838

  3.75

  1 May include former council houses with outstanding arrears

  Police Funding
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total funding at current prices, made available or planned to Scottish police forces for each year from 1998–99 to 2001–02(a) from central Government and (b) via local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [54929]

  Mr. McLeish
  Grant Aided Expenditure (GAE) figures and budgets for the Scottish police forces for 1998–99 are shown in the table.

  £ million

  GAE

  Agreed budget set by police authorities

  Central

  31.559

  30.607

  Dumfries and Galloway

  19.353

  19.353

  Fife

  37.631

  36.028

  Grampian

  59.171

  59.171

  Lothian and Borders

  124.833

  124.833

  Northern

  36.465

  34.074

  Strathclyde

  328.336

  328.336

  Tayside

  53.652

  52.536

  Total

  691.000

  684.938

  The GAE levels for the police in Scotland for future years have been set as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  GAE

  1999–2000

  714.7

  2000–01

  741.9

  2001–02

  762.8

  Decisions have not yet been made about the split of the GAE for individual forces for these three years. Central Government pay police grant of 51 per cent. of actual expenditure up to the specified GAE limit. Local authorities meet the balance with the assistance of revenue support grant from central Government. The amount of revenue support grant paid on police expenditure is not separately identifiable because it is paid on the total eligible expenditure of each local authority.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each(a) liability, (b) undertaking and (c) contract with a value over £1 million of the United Kingdom Government that will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. [54928]
  954
  Mr. Dewar
  It is not possible to provide at this time a list of each liability, undertaking and contract with a value over £1 million which will transfer to Scottish Ministers. The items to transfer will depend on the situation pertaining at the time of transfer.

  Property will be transferred by subordinate legislation under the provisions of the Scotland Bill when it receives Royal Assent. Work is underway to identify the categories of property which will transfer. It is expected that the property transfer orders will be laid before Parliament in the Spring of next year.

  Beef and Sheep Premiums
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on delays in the payment of beef and sheep premiums to farmers. [54861]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Payments were made timeously, meeting established payment targets.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time taken for a patient to receive the results of their cervical smear test; and what percentage take longer than the recommended four weeks. [55208]

  Mr. Galbraith
  For the year ended 31 March 1998 the average reporting time for the results of cervical smear tests in Scotland was 17 days. Figures are collected only for the time from the date a smear test is received by the laboratory to the date the report is issued by the laboratory and does not therefore include the time it takes GPs, family planning clinics etc. to issue the results to patients once they receive them from the laboratory. For this reason, no information is available on the percentage of patients who take longer than 4 weeks to receive their results.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security many cases were raised by hon. Members with the Child Support Agency(a) in the 12 months from 1 May 1997 and (b) in each of the four previous 12 month periods. [53493]

  Angela Eagle
  In the twelve months to the end of April 1998, the Child Support Agency received 21,933 letters from hon. Members concerning operational issues. In the
  955
  previous year the figure was 18,473. During the same two year period, the number of cases on the Agency's books rose by around 300,000.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received from(a) organisations, (b) individual men and (c) individual women on the proposals in the CSA Green Paper. [53501]

  Angela Eagle
  The Green Paper sets out our proposals for a modern Child Support service. The Government want a wide debate on these proposals and welcome all views.

  Responses to the consultation exercise should reach this Department by 30 November. Up to the end of September, 741 representations had been received, including 34 from organisations, 649 from individuals, 36 from Departmental staff and 22 from hon. Members.

  It is not possible to state how many representations have been made by individual men and women since the gender of respondents cannot always be identified. Of the respondents, 119 gave a parent with care's perspective, 498 a non-resident parent's perspective and 124 were broadly neutral in their point of view.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is CSA policy to overrule divorce settlements which provide for higher maintenance payments than those calculated according to the CSA formula. [55498]

  Angela Eagle
  Parents with care who are receiving Income Support can be required to co-operate with the Child Support Agency in seeking maintenance unless they have good cause for not doing so. When a valid application is received the Agency is bound by law to assess child maintenance in accordance with the rules of the scheme.

  In many cases, the liability that results is substantially higher than that agreed in divorce settlements, but there is no provision for retaining an existing divorce settlement where the child support assessment is for a lower amount.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the extension of the New Deal to people with disabilities. [53494]

  Mr. Timms
  This Government are committed to removing barriers to work and providing active help to people with a long-term illness or disability who want to work. That is why we introduced the New Deal for Disabled People, funded by £195 million from the Windfall Tax.

  Over the next two years we will pilot a new Personal Adviser service in twelve areas which will offer support and advice to over a quarter of a million people on incapacity benefits. The first six pilots, to be run by the Employment Service, were launched on 28 September. A further six have been put out to competitive tender and should start early next year. In addition, we are testing ways of helping disabled people into work by funding a number of Innovative Schemes. 10 contracts to run schemes were announced in July and further contracts will be announced next year.
  956

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets for cost-effectiveness for the new deal for lone parents have been set with regard to the cost per job of the scheme. [53495]

  Angela Eagle
  The New Deal for Lone Parents aims to help lone parents improve their employability and move from welfare to work. The cost-effectiveness of the New Deal for Lone Parents will be measured by various methods including the reduction in lone parents on Income Support over and above what would have happened in the absence of the programme, and through performance targets. Independent research already shows that the New Deal for Lone Parents is having a moderate but marked effect on the number of lone parents moving off Income Support.

  A Cost Benefit Analysis of the New Deal for Lone Parents in the phase 1 prototypes will be available with the rest of the phase 1 evaluation results in Autumn 1999. It will look at the costs and benefits to the exchequer as well as performing an economy wide cost benefit analysis. The structure of the Cost Benefit Analysis for the phase 3 national roll out of the New Deal for Lone Parents is still in the planning stages. This will build on the Cost Benefit Analysis of phase 1, consider the resource implications of the programme generally, judge whether it is cost effective and explore its economic impact.

  Income Support
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spent on income support in the last three months; and what is the projected figure for 1999–2000. [53496]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is available annually. It is estimated that expenditure on income support will increase from £12.2 Billion in 1998–99 to £12.6 billion in 1999–2000. The figures are consistent with those set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper published by the Government on 14 July 1998.

  Social Security Spending
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual real terms rate of increase in social security spending since April 1998. [53498]

  Mr. Denham
  The average rate of real growth of spending on social security benefits over the rest of this Parliament is forecast to be 2 per cent. a year.

  Pensions
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the publication of the Green Paper on pensions. [53499]
  957
  Mr. Denham
  As set out in the Green Paper "New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare" (Cm 3805) we will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year. There will be a period of further consultation before final proposals are developed.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his assessment of the cost of re-linking the annual calculations of the state pension based on(a) a 1980 and (b) a 1998 base line. [53490]

  Mr. Denham
  If the basic State Pension had been uprated in April 1998 in line with the higher of prices or earnings movements since 1979, the net additional cost would have been £9.5 billion in 1998.

  If the basic State Pension had been uprated in April 1998 in line with the higher of prices or earnings movements over the preceding year only, the net cost would have been £130 million.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's assistance for pensioners. [53502]

  Angela Eagle
  The £2.5 billion package of measures we announced in July will help all pensioners, but particularly the poorest 1.5 million pensioners entitled to income support will benefit from an above-inflation increase next April and we will begin a programme of action to tackle the problem of pensioners' not claiming their income support entitlement. In addition, all pensioner households will receive an annual winter fuel payment of £20 and all pensioners will be eligible for free eye tests and concessionary travel.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of(a) single male pensioners, (b) single female pensioners and (c) married pensioners who are aged (i) 60 to 64, (ii) 65 to 69, (iii) 70 to 74, (iv) 75 to 79 and (v) 80 or above, who are failing to take up the income support to which they are entitled; and what is the total amount unclaimed in each category. [55636]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table. We recently announced a £2.5 billion package of help for pensioners. The package includes action to help pensioners get the Income Support to which they are entitled.

  Number of pensioners not claiming income support

  Category

  Number of non-recipients

  Total unclaimed (£)

  Single men 60–641

  20,000

  25,000,000

  Single men 65–691

  10,000

  5,000,000

  Single men 70–741

  10,000

  5,000,000

  Single men 75–791

  20,000

  5,000,000

  Single men 80+

  40,000

  25,000,000

  Single women 60–641

  30,000

  25,000,000

  Single women 65–69

  50,000

  25,000,000

  Single women 70–74

  110,000

  65,000,000

  Single women 75–79

  150,000

  90,000,000

  Single women 80+

  290,000

  250,000,000

  Couples 60–641

  50,000

  95,000,000

  Couples 65–691

  30,000

  40,000,000

  958

  Number of pensioners not claiming income support

  Category

  Number of non-recipients

  Total unclaimed (£)

  Couples 70–741

  20,000

  15,000,000

  Couples 75–791

  20,000

  15,000,000

  Couples 80+1

  30,000

  20,000,000

  Total

  880,000

  705,000,000

  1 These figures are based on small samples and should be treated with particular caution

  Notes:

  1. The figures for the number of recipients rounded to the nearest 10,000. The figures for amounts not taken up are rounded to the nearest £5 million. These estimated figures are based on the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey and are subject to some degree of error

  2. The age of the couple has been defined by the age of the oldest partner

  Welfare Dependency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to reduce the number of families dependent upon welfare. [53503]

  Angela Eagle
  We are determined to do everything we can to help those who can work to do so. That is why we want to modernise the structure of working age tax and benefits to create the right incentives, to reward work while at the same time provide security for those who cannot.

  The New Deal for Lone Parents offers a tailor-made service of help and advice for people who are bringing up children on their own to make the move from Income Support into employment. Around 4,000 lone parents have already used the New Deal for Lone Parents and gone on to get jobs. The final phase of the rollout of the service (to lone parents who were already on Income Support before April 1998) takes place on 26 October.

  The New Deal for 18–24 year olds gives young unemployed people real help and choices to improve their employability and their chances of fully participating in the labour market. By the end of August over 23,000 young people had found jobs and over 8,900 are improving their job prospects in other New Deal options.

  From June, we have introduced a New Deal for those aged 25 and over who have been unemployed for 2 years or more. This provides a £75 subsidy for employers who recruit people from this group and opportunities to undertake full-time education and training for up to a year while on benefit. From November, £129 million is being made available to pilot a further development of the New Deal approach over the next two years for people aged 25 and over, reaching the 12 and 18 month stages of unemployment and those unemployed for longer.

  The Chancellor announced in the budget a New Deal for the partners of the unemployed. Partners of the unemployed who are themselves out of work (90 per cent. of them women) have not had access to employment programmes on the same basis as the claimant unemployed. To address this imbalance, the Chancellor has set aside £60 million from the Windfall Tax receipts to ensure that partners over 25 have the option to receive the help they need to get back to work. Childless partners aged under 25 will be included in the New Deal for Young People.
  959
  The Working Families Tax Credit will be introduced from October 1999 and will guarantee working families a minimum income, above and beyond the level of the minimum wage. The new childcare tax credit will increase substantially the support available for childcare.

  From next April, the National Minimum Wage will begin to end the scandal of poverty wages without adversely affecting inflation or jobs.

  Our objective is to help people prepare for and get work as well as making work pay.

  Disablement Benefits
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in the review of disablement benefits. [53504]

  Mr. Timms
  We continue to review benefits for sick and disabled people, in the context of our broader programme of welfare reform.

  We will bring forward proposals for consultation in due course.

  Benefits
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he proposes to improve communication between his Department and local authorities in relation to the payment of(a) income support, (b) council tax benefit and (c) housing benefit when claimants move between welfare and work. [53505]

  Angela Eagle
  We recognise the need to modernise Housing Benefit and improve its delivery in ways which support the transition from welfare to work and transform the services provided to the public. We are testing ways in which staff from the Benefits Agency and local authorities can work across the boundaries of central and local government to deliver a more efficient customer focused service. We will make increasing use of new technology to help people through the system, including the move into work. We have already set up a project giving local authority staff on-line access to the Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance data they require for their administration of Housing and Council Tax Benefits.

  Scotland
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will assess the advantages of devolving responsibility for the administration of social security in Scotland to the Scottish Office. [53475]

  Mr. Darling
  It would be impracticable and inefficient to split responsibility for policy and administration of Social Security between Westminster and Holyrood. It is in Scotland's interest that the Social Security system covers the whole of the United Kingdom. Were Social Security spending to be devolved, the Scottish Parliament would have to find additional money to meet the substantial costs involved. These would have to be found from resources otherwise available for other priorities such as Health and Education.

  Mrs. H. Nasrin
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons he has not provided a960
  substantive reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, following his holding answer of 30 July 1998 with regard to Mrs. H. Nasrin, 58 Clitheroe Road. [55392]

  Mr. Darling
  A substantive reply was sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on 16 September.

  I have written today to all right hon. and hon. Members setting out targets for improving the Department's service in relation to correspondence.

  Pensioner Income Series
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the next edition of the Pensioner Income Series. [55642]

  Mr. Denham
  We intend to publish the 1996–97 Pensioners' Incomes Series on 26 November 1998.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will meet(a) the CBI, (b) the Institute of Directors and (c) other representative bodies to discuss the practice of employers paying staff offshore in order to avoid making payments to the National Insurance Fund; [55610]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost in each of the past 10 years to the National Insurance Fund of the practice of employers paying staff offshore; and what plans he has to limit this practice; [55612]

  (3) when he plans to meet the Chairperson and other directors of (a) Cable and Wireless and (b) P and O to discuss the payment of staff offshore and its impact on the National Insurance Fund; [55609]

  (4) what representations he has received from operators of services on the Channel Tunnel about competitors' practice of paying some employees offshore to avoid employees' contributions being paid to the National Insurance Fund. [55611]

  Mr. Timms
  We are aware of the increasing use being made of offshore employment contracts by British shipping operators as a means of avoiding employers' National Insurance contributions for British resident seafarers. The issue of seafarers National Insurance contributions is one of a number of matters being considered in the context of the Government's strategy for reviving the shipping industry as announced in the White paper on the Future of Transport.

  We have not received any representations from the operators of Channel Tunnel services about the use of offshore employment contracts by shipping operators; nor are there any plans to meet the CBI, the Institute of Directors or the Chairperson and other directors of Cable & Wireless and P&O about this matter.

  The information requested about the National Insurance Fund could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consideration his Department has given to taking the value of subsidised works canteens and refectories into account when assessing National Insurance contributions; [55604]
  961
  (2) what assessment he has made of the views contained in the First Report of the Low Pay Commission in relation to luncheon vouchers remaining free of National Insurance contributions; [55606]

  (3) what safeguards are proposed to ensure that the impact of bringing luncheon vouchers and other non-cash vouchers into Class 1 National Insurance liability will not result in such benefits being consolidated into pay for those whose incomes are below the proposed national minimum wage; [55608]

  (4) what assessment has been made of the impact on low-pay workers of the proposal to bring luncheon vouchers into Class 1 National Insurance liability; and if he will make a statement; [55614]

  (5) if the consultation timetable and procedure embarked on on 13 August in relation to the draft regulations to bring non-cash vouchers and luncheon vouchers into Class 1 National Insurance liability, meets the requirements of the Better Regulation Guidance advice published on 10 August. [55607]

  Mr. Timms
  We announced on 22 July 1997,Official Report, columns 789–90, at second reading of the Social Security Bill our intention to bring non-cash vouchers into liability for Class 1 National Insurance in the same way as cash vouchers. The key principles of the proposals are to bring about greater alignment of tax and National Insurance and to bring greater fairness in the National Insurance treatment of earnings. We are currently considering our response to the points raised in the public consultation which ran from 14 August to 14 September.

  We propose to continue to mirror the tax treatment of the value of subsidised works canteens and refectories.

  The First Report of the Low Pay Commission suggested that the national minimum wage should not include non-cash vouchers. We are considering this point alongside other issues in the consultation exercise.

  The vast majority of low paid workers do not receive luncheon vouchers and are therefore liable for National Insurance on all their earnings.

  An explanatory and financial memorandum and a regulatory appraisal covering non-cash vouchers were published alongside the Bill in July 1997. A copy of that regulatory appraisal accompanied the consultation paper on the draft regulations issued in August. The four weeks consultation period should not be looked at in isolation as Ministers' intentions to introduce changes to the National Insurance Contributions liability on non-cash vouchers were clearly suggested in the passage of the Social Security Bill. We shall in due course present the draft regulations before the Social Security Advisory Committee as part of the Department's legislative consultation process.

  Family Poverty
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy for tackling family poverty. [53481]

  Angela Eagle
  We have already taken major steps towards tackling poverty amongst families. The best path out of poverty is work, where that is appropriate. Our 962
  initiatives such as the New Deal for Lone Parents, the working Family Tax Credit, the Childcare Tax Credit and National Childcare Strategy will help families into work and ensure that work pays. For those families who may be unable to work, or whose opportunity to maximise their income from work is limited, we are increasing the child personal allowance and family premium in the income related benefits. And, from April 1999, child benefit for the eldest child will be increased by £2.50 a week.

  European Union (UK Presidency)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's work and achievements during the UK presidency of the European Union. [54281]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department's objective for Social Security business during the UK Presidency was to promote measures which facilitated legitimate social protection coverage for EU citizens living and working in another Member State. This supported the UK's overall Presidency objectives of promoting employment, completing the single market and making the EU more relevant to its citizens.

  Three Social Security measures were adopted by the Council in June.

  (1) The Supplementary Pensions Directive is a first step in protecting the occupational and personal pension rights of EU citizens living and working in another Member State. It requires: preservation of pension rights for people moving to another Member State; the cross-border payment of pensions to pensioners living in another Member State; and the facility for people to remain in their "home" scheme while working for the same employer on a short-term basis in another member State.

  (2) The existing Community provisions which co-ordinate statutory social security rights for EU citizens across the Member States—Council Regulation 1408/71—were extended to civil servants in special social security schemes, thus resolving an issue that had been under discussion in the Council for 7 years.

  (3) A package of miscellaneous amendments to Council Regulation 1408/71, designed to keep the regulations in good working order, was adopted.

  At a meeting of the Social Affairs Council on 7 April, the UK Presidency adopted Conclusions on the importance of proceeding with a wide-ranging review of Council Regulation 1408/71, to ensure that the co-ordination mechanism continues to meet the needs of today's citizens.

  Outside the Council, Departmental officials took the opportunity of the UK Presidency to launch initiatives to improve the effectiveness of EU-wide bodies in which the Department represents UK interests, including the Administrative Commission on Social Security (which oversees the operation of Council Regulation 1408/71) and the advisory board which supervises the Consensus programme of technical assistance to central and eastern European states. The Department also hosted the, bi-annual MISSOC (Mutual Information System on Social Security) conference in York in May.
  963
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each Ministerial visit made outside Great Britain in connection with the UK presidency of the European Union. [54282]

  Angela Eagle
  Visits related to Social Security business are set out in the following table. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, made the visits in his capacity as the Minister responsible for co-ordinating the Department's EU social security business.

  Date

  Place visited

  Purpose of visit

  23 September 1997

  Brussels

  Allan Larsson, Director-General of Directorate-General V of the European Commission (employment, training and social policy)

  8 October 1997

  Bonn

  Horst Gunther, German Minister for Labour and Social Affairs

  17 December 1997

  Strasbourg

  Padraig Flynn, European Commissioner for Social Affairs and MEPs on the European Parliament's Employment and Social Affairs Committee

  24 February 1998

  Vienna

  Eleonora Hostasch, Austrian Minister for Labour, Health and Social Affairs

  28 April 1998

  Paris

  Raoul Briet, Director of Social Security

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated total additional cost to his Department arising from meetings and events specifically connected with the UK presidency of the European Union. [54283]

  Angela Eagle
  The total additional expenditure was approximately £29,000, excluding the activities of the Ministers for Women.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55168]

  Mr. Timms
  Since 1995 this Department has obtained Corporate Purchasing Cards under an existing banking services contract. All DSS business units have now agreed to transfer to the Government Procurement Card (GPC). A business case for this was prepared in July 1998. Subject to business case approval it is planned to run a competition for the DSS requirement between banks in the Treasury's GPC Master Framework.

  Based on past experience in DSS cards like the GPC can improve the conventional order process and allow staff to achieve efficiency savings of about £10 per transaction. About 33 per cent. of DSS purchase orders are expected to be suitable for GPCs. The business case
  964
  indicates potential efficiency savings of about £1 million per year. The cards will save staff time and allow them to focus on higher value activity. The use of GPCs and related benefits and savings will be piloted in selected business areas. Subject to successful evaluation of these pilots general roll-out is planned for mid 1999.

  Funeral Payments
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made to the Social Fund in respect of the payment of costs for funerals by his Department since May 1995; and what plans he has to make further changes. [55044]

  Angela Eagle
  The Funeral Payment scheme has been amended four times since May 1995. Details of the main changes are set out.

  In June 1995, a £500 cap was placed on specified funeral directors' services, and the payment of reasonable costs for other specified disbursements was introduced. A new priority order reflected that the responsible person would be the surviving partner or, where there was no partner, a close relative or close friend. A contact test was also introduced to help determine whether it was reasonable for the claimant to have taken responsibility for the funeral costs where there was no surviving partner.

  In October 1996, a number of minor changes were introduced, including adding income-based Jobseeker's Allowance to the list of qualifying benefits; making provision for a fee or donation for a minister, but restricting the amount allowed to that laid down in the Parochial Fees Order.

  In April 1997, the scheme was simplified to allow the cost of a small number of specified items or services, plus up to £600 for other funeral expenses. The specified items included the necessary costs of a burial or cremation. A new "immediate family member" contact test was introduced where there was no surviving partner, to help determine whether it was reasonable for the claimant to have taken responsibility for the funeral costs. This change prevented payment if there were other immediate family members (parent, son or daughter of the deceased), and neither they nor their partner had been awarded a qualifying benefit.

  In November 1997, following a decision of the Social Security Commissioner, the provision was extended to allow a Funeral Payment where a funeral took place outside the United Kingdom (UK), provided it was within the European Economic Area. In such cases, the amount allowed would be limited to that which would have been awarded if the funeral had taken place in the area where the deceased lived in the UK.

  As with all areas of Government policy, this area is kept under review, but we have no immediate plans to make further changes.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each local authority in Scotland, for 1996–97, housing and council tax benefit expenditure relating to(a) good cause backdated awards, (b) exceptional circumstances awards and (c) exceptional payments, under Regulation 61(1),

  965
  indicating the percentage in each category as a proportion of overall housing and council tax benefit expenditure. [55035]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the tables. Regulation 61(1) does not relate to exceptional payments. Regulation 61(3) relates to Rent Allowance Exceptional Hardship payments. There is no equivalent Regulation for Rent Rebate or Council Tax Benefit.

  (a) Good cause backdated awards

  Benefit expenditure in category £

  As a proportion of overall benefit percentage

  Authority

  HB

  CTB

  HB

  CTB

  Aberdeen

  118,370

  24,524

  0.49

  0.33

  Aberdeenshire

  3,024

  84,770

  0.02

  1.65

  Angus

  2,177

  42,199

  0.02

  1.18

  Argyll-Bute

  100,057

  3,137

  0.76

  0.10

  Clackmannanshire

  18,954

  23,933

  0.27

  0.89

  Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

  12,788

  9,814

  0.40

  0.72

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11,984

  95

  0.06

  0.00

  Dundee

  40,969

  251,498

  0.10

  2.41

  East Ayrshire

  10,613

  3,416

  0.06

  0.06

  East Dunbartonshire

  13,578

  6,433

  0.18

  0.24

  East Lothian

  8,715

  109,861

  0.07

  2.69

  East Renfrewshire

  4,852

  950

  0.08

  0.04

  Edinburgh

  114,736

  784,687

  0.12

  3.11

  Falkirk

  16,575

  48,973

  0.09

  0.77

  Fife

  146,258

  6,307

  0.28

  0.04

  Glasgow

  381,606

  22,709

  0.16

  0.04

  Highland

  72,767

  101,146

  0.24

  1.09

  Inverclyde

  30,551

  6,256

  0.17

  0.12

  Midlothian

  5,707

  83,911

  0.06

  2.28

  Moray

  9,078

  4,743

  0.10

  0.18

  North Ayrshire

  40,818

  10,245

  0.18

  0.15

  North Lanarkshire

  24,189

  9,217

  0.04

  0.05

  Orkney

  10,578

  3,035

  0.54

  0.67

  Perth and Kinross

  63,062

  71,736

  0.46

  1.59

  Renfrewshire

  91,229

  5,387

  0.30

  0.06

  Scottish Borders

  28,933

  5,648

  0.25

  0.17

  Shetland

  1,288

  191

  0.07

  0.05

  South Ayrshire

  4,459

  27,366

  0.02

  0.51

  South Lanarkshire

  25,559

  0

  0.05

  0.00

  Stirling

  18,712

  27,938

  0.15

  0.82

  West Dunbartonshire

  42,373

  0

  0.21

  0.00

  West Lothian

  25,965

  147,194

  0.13

  2.25

  Source:

  1996/97 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Audited Subsidy Claims

  (b) Exceptional circumstances awards

  Benefit expenditure in category £

  As a proportion of overall benefit percentage

  Authority

  HB

  CTB

  HB

  CTB

  Aberdeen

  80

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Aberdeenshire

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Angus

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Argyll-Bute

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Clackmannanshire

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,561

  0

  0.01

  0.00

  Dundee

  27,232

  958

  0.06

  0.01

  East Ayrshire

  5,405

  1,261

  0.03

  0.02

  East Dunbartonshire

  4,781

  0

  0.06

  0.00

  East Lothian

  1,807

  0

  0.01

  0.00

  East Renfrewshire

  0

  16,823

  0.00

  0.76

  Edinburgh

  71,852

  893

  0.07

  0.00

  Falkirk

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Fife

  3,411

  0

  0.01

  0.00

  Glasgow

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Highland

  4,353

  0

  0.01

  0.00

  966

  (b) Exceptional circumstances awards

  Benefit expenditure in category £

  As a proportion of overall benefit percentage

  Authority

  HB

  CTB

  HB

  CTB

  Inverclyde

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Moray

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  North Ayrshire

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  North Lanarkshire

  3,343

  0

  0.01

  0.00

  Orkney

  58

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  814

  0.00

  0.02

  Renfrewshire

  2,072

  0

  0.01

  0.00

  Scottish Borders

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  South Ayrshire

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  South Lanarkshire

  27,478

  0

  0.06

  0.00

  Stirling

  602

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  West Dunbartonshire

  1,892

  0

  0.01

  0.00

  West Lothian

  0

  224

  0.00

  0.00

  Source:

  1996/97 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Audited Subsidy Claims

  (c) Exceptional payments under Regulation 61(3)

  Authority

  Benefit expenditure in category £ HB

  As a proportion of overall benefit Percentage HB

  Aberdeen

  3,401

  0.01

  Aberdeenshire

  814

  0.00

  Angus

  1,406

  0.01

  Argyll-Bute

  0

  0.00

  Clackmannanshire

  0

  0.00

  Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

  1,208

  0.04

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,128

  0.01

  Dundee

  11,390

  0.03

  East Ayrshire

  3,265

  0.02

  East Dunbartonshire

  11,267

  0.15

  East Lothian

  584

  0.00

  East Renfrewshire

  6,360

  0.10

  Edinburgh

  42,420

  0.04

  Falkirk

  7,338

  0.04

  Fife

  5,832

  0.01

  Glasgow

  48,217

  0.02

  Highland

  3,454

  0.01

  Inverclyde

  213

  0.00

  Midlothian

  2,304

  0.03

  Moray

  1,135

  0.01

  North Ayrshire

  4,985

  0.02

  North Lanarkshire

  1,381

  0.00

  Orkney

  211

  0.01

  Perth and Kinross

  175

  0

  Renfrewshire

  2,458

  0.01

  Scottish Borders

  1,003

  0.01

  Shetland

  0

  0.00

  South Ayrshire

  8,175

  0.04

  South Lanarkshire

  0

  0.00

  Stirling

  4,748

  0.04

  West Dunbartonshire

  675

  0.00

  West Lothian

  426

  0.00

  Notes>:

  1. Expenditure in categories (a), (b) and (c) above expressed as a percentage of overall Housing and Council Tax expenditure for each authority

  2. Expenditure under Regulation 61(3) is expressed as a proportion of total HB expenditure, although it only applies to Rent Allowance

  Source:

  1996/97 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Audited Subsidy Claims
  967
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown of the reasons for refusal given to the applicants whose claim for housing benefit/council tax benefit extended payments were refused in the period January 1997 to December 1997. [55317]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, of the 163,000 claims for extended payments made between January 1997 and December 1997 140,000 (85 per cent.) were successful.

  Notes

  1. Caseload figures have been rounded to two significant figures, percentages to a whole per cent.

  2. Figures refer to a benefit unit which may be a single person or a couple

  3. All figures are provisional

  Sources:

  1. Local Authority Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit quarterly Administration data returns January 1997 to December 1997

  2. Housing Benefit Administration returns 1997/98

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of raising the earnings disregard in housing benefit and council tax benefit for lone parents to(a) £30, (b) £35 and (c) £40. [55582]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Lone parent earnings disregard

  Housing benefit/council tax benefit cost (£ million)

  (a) £30

  15

  (b) £35

  30

  (c) £40

  45

  Notes:

  1. Estimates based upon 1995/96 Family Resources Survey data uprated to 1998/99 prices

  2. Estimates rounded to nearest £5 million

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55256]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available suggests that there are very few parking spaces on the general estate that are specifically designated for motorcycles. Invariably, most motorcyclists make use of car parking facilities or sheds where bicycles are secured. However, at the Department's major sites at Newcastle, Washington, Lytham and Preston a total of 29 secure motorcycle parking spaces are provided and a further 80 bays, in a secure environment, can be utilised for either motorcycles or bicycles.

  Jobseekers Allowance and Income Support
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for income-based jobseekers allowance and income support were withdrawn in the period January 1997 to December 1997. [55316]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available.
  968

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of organophosphorous compounds since 1 May 1997; which organisations are carrying out the research; and what is the timetable for its completion. [55338]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department of Social Security has commissioned no research on the impact of organophosphorous compounds since 1 May 1997. To ensure that policy is medically sound and based on the latest research, the Department's medical advisers regularly monitor the scientific and medical literature, and liaise with colleagues in other government departments, and in universities and research institutions. In June 1998, the report of the Official Group on Organophosphates was published by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This report contains a list of all research funded by Government Departments into organophosphates.

  Childcare Disregard
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to the Exchequer of the childcare disregard in family credit; and what proportion of that cost is in respect of childcare provided by grandparents or other relatives of the children concerned. [55388]

  Angela Eagle
  The annual expenditure in 1997–98 for extra awards made in Family Credit for formal childcare charges was £33.3 million.

  Information on the proportion of that cost which is in respect of childcare provided by grandparents or other relatives is not available. However, for the purposes of the childcare disregard, Family Credit claimants can claim for help only with the cost of "formal" childcare. Formal childcare is classified as that provided by registered childminders and nurseries and by out-of-hours clubs on school premises, run by school or a Local Authority, and schemes run on Crown property. In most cases care provided by grandparents or other relatives is likely to be informal childcare and would not attract a disregard.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Sample size 5 per cent.

  3. Expenditure figure based on an average of four quarters

  Source:

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors led to the decision by the Independent Tribunal Service to employ a customer services manager; and if he will make a statement on the nature of the customer relationship which applies in the case of a judicial body. [55402]

  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS). The President of ITS, His Honour Judge Michael Harris, will write to my right hon. Friend shortly.
  969

  War Pensions
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the war pension disablement disregard was set at £10; and what it would be at current prices if it had been increased in line with inflation since then. [55488]

  Mr. Timms
  The war pension disregard was set at £10 in April 1990. It would now be worth £12.75 if it had been uprated by the RPI. However, as the war pension disregard is applied to earnings related benefits it would, therefore, have been updated by ROSSI and now be worth £13.15.

  The £10 disregard is not the only disregard war pensioners may receive when claiming art income related benefit. There is also a total disregard of the whole of the supplementary pension of £54.70 per week awarded to "pre 1973" war widows (widows whose late husband's military service was completed before 31 March 1973 and who are not entitled to an attributable widow's pension from the Ministry of Defence), as well as a disregard of any mobility supplement and payment of war disablement pension based on the need for attendance.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of disregarding child maintenance for all(a) lone parent family credit and (b) working families tax credit claimants. [55581]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Cost (£ million per annum)

  Family Credit

  40

  Working Families Tax Credit

  40

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million and are at 1998/99 prices, benefit levels and caseloads

  2. Based on the May 1998 5 per cent. scan of the Family Credit Computer System

  3. Figures do not take into account the effect of the minimum wage

  4. Costs include a small element of spousal maintenance which it is not possible to identify separately on the Family Credit dataset

  5. Figures do not include couples

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of a(a) £10, (b) £15 and (c) £20 child maintenance disregard in income support. [55580]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is set out in the table.

  The estimated full year costs of child care disregard

  Disregard (per week)

  Cost (per annum)

  £10

  £100 million

  £15

  £140 million

  £20

  £170 million

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million and are at estimated 1999–2000 caseloads.

  2. There would be offsetting savings of around £20 million if the Child Maintenance Bonus were also to be abolished.
  970

  Luncheon Vouchers
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those people in receipt of luncheon vouchers as part of their contract of employment(a) are categorised as being low paid and (b) have incomes below the level of the national minimum wage. [55605]

  Mr. Timms
  According to the latest Family Resources Survey (1996–97), less than 1 per cent. of all employees responding to the survey had received luncheon vouchers from their present employer in the last six months. Of these employees, in the region of 2 per cent. had calculated hourly earnings below levels consistent with the national minimum wage. This is based on an extremely small sample size and should therefore be treated with caution. The independent Low Pay Commission have concluded that there is no standard definition of low pay.

  Pension Contributions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the distribution of ages at which employees first make second tier pension contributions to schemes other than the state earnings-related pension scheme. [55635]

  Mr. Denham
  At present the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the Department has commissioned the Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University, to carry out an analysis, using data from the Survey of Family and Working Lives, of how people are building up pension rights over their lifetime. This analysis is looking at the age at which people join occupational and personal pensions. This work is expected to be completed by the end of this year, and the report will be published as soon as possible thereafter.

  Households Below Average Incomes
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the latest figures on households below average incomes to be published; and if he will make a statement. [55664]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest figures in the Households Below Average Income series, covering the period from 1979 to 1996–97, were published on 15 October 1998, and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The figures bear out our belief that there is a need to tackle poverty by helping people into work, and by getting help to the poorest pensioners. By introducing the New Deals, the Working Families Tax Credit and the Guaranteed Minimum Income for pensioners we are making real progress in addressing this situation.

  The figures also show that the ever increasing Social Security Bill has had little impact on reducing inequality. This confirms our approach that welfare reform is required.
  971

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Wakefield will receive a reply to his correspondence of 8 May 1998, on behalf of his constituent Mr. Wright, from(a) the Disability Living Allowance Unit and (b) the Benefit Agency Medical Service. [55032]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Disability Living Allowance Unit and the Benefits Agency Medical Services is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 19 October 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when you will receive a reply to your correspondence of 8 May, concerning your constituent Mr. Wright, from (a) the Disability Living Allowance Unit (DLA) and (b) the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS).
  The Benefits Agency Customer Charter sets out targets for response to complaints. They are an acknowledgement within two working days and a full response within seven working days (twenty working days for BAMS). I am sorry, on this occasion, you have failed to receive the standard of service which you are entitled to expect.
  972
  Repiles to your letter were issued from the BAMS on 7 August 1998 and from the DLA Unit on 11 August 1998.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy on future levels of incapacity benefit. [55434]

  Mr. Timms
  We are committed to modernising benefits for incapacity and disability. The current system has failed to give severely disabled people the support they need, failed to encourage and help sick and disabled people to work, and failed to keep pace with social and economic change. We will announce our proposals for reforming Incapacity Benefit in due course.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the impact on public funds of reducing incapacity benefit by £15 per week on recipients. [55435]

  Mr. Timms
  We estimate that the impact on public funds of reducing all the rates of Incapacity Benefit by £15 a week in the current year would have been a reduction in the region of £950 million.

  Source:

  Based on the May 1998 caseload data from the DSS INCAP computer system.
  973

HEALTH

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sum from the money allocated to his Department following the Comprehensive Spending Review will be used to remove asbestos from buildings within the National Health Service. [51865]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Estates Agency collects information on backlog maintenance which is recorded in three categories: physical condition, statutory and non-statutory standards, together with fire safety. The cost of removing asbestos is contained within the statutory and non-statutory standards element.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced additional resources for the NHS totalling £17.7 billion over the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 187–211. Details on the allocation of these resources will be announced in due course. However, ultimately it will be for trusts to determine what proportion of their backlog maintenance capital allocation should be apportioned to asbestos removal, depending on local circumstances determined as part of their health and safety risk management strategies.

  Mental Health Act Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has assessed of the extent to which local authorities have been charging for section 117 Mental Health Act 1983 residential or domiciliary services; and if he will give guidance to those who have paid for such services. [54971]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not held centrally in the Department. Any individuals who think they have been wrongly charged for services provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 can seek legal advice and take legal action if so advised.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what number and percentage of people admitted to hospital were readmitted within 28 days of being discharged(a) in total and (b) for those people aged (i) up to 64 and (ii) 65 years and over in the last year for which figures are available; [54972]

  (2) what number and percentage of NHS trusts employ a hospital discharge co-ordinator or equivalent. [54975]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Aftercare
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospital aftercare schemes or hospital at home schemes exist within the NHS; and if he will provide a breakdown by NHS region; [54973]

  (2) what number and percentage of hospital aftercare schemes or hospital at home schemes are run by (a) NHS trusts, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) others. [54974]
  974
  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Vitamin B12
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the relationship between vitamin B12 and the control of fibroids and the consequences of hormone replacement therapy for fibroids. [54684]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department has not centrally directly commissioned or undertaken any evaluation into the relationship between vitamin B12 and the control of fibroids and the consequences of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on fibroids.

  The Government fund health and medical research through the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme (PRP), and the National Health Service Research and Development (R&D) Programme.

  The MRC is not currently funding any research directly addressing the problems of fibroids. It is supporting a major, long-term trial on the effects of HRT: this will include particularly close monitoring by general practitioners of participants at risk from fibroids, but is not specifically looking into the links between HRT and fibroids. Additionally, the MRC funds research into female reproductive biology, including menstrual problems, which is generally relevant to fibroids.

  The Department's PRP and centrally managed NHS R&D programmes are not currently directly commissioning any work in this area. Information is not currently available about other, devolved programmes, including whether any NHS providers are using service support costs funded from the R&D levy to support work in this area. Data are currently being collected and will be available during 1999.

  Cervical Screening
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to increase the take-up of(a) breast screening and (b) cervical cancer testing amongst women with learning disabilities. [54908]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are aware of the need to increase the take-up of breast and cervical screening amongst women with learning disabilities. Work is due to proceed in consultation with the Advisory Committees on Breast Cancer and Cervical Screening to develop good practice frameworks in order to improve equity of access for people with learning difficulties.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to announce the findings of the Cervical Screening Action Team; [55300]

  (2) if he will set out the terms of reference of the Cervical Screening Action Team; and if he intends to publish its report; [55299]

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to(a) receive and (b) publish the report of the action team convened by Sir Kenneth Calman on cytology services. [55140]
  975
  Mr. Boateng
  The Cervical Screening Action Team (CSAT) was set up in December 1997 to monitor action to improve the quality of and public confidence in the National Health Service cervical screening programme; consider what action should be taken to address staff resource issues for the cervical screening programme nationally; and identify any particular areas of the cervical screening programme where further action is needed. Members of the team included representatives from the Women's Nationwide Cancer Control Campaign, the relevant professional bodies and the National Co-ordinating Office of the cervical screening programme.

  The report of the Cervical Screening Action Team was published by the Chief Medical Officer on 24 August 1998. It noted the progress made so far, particularly in the areas of quality assurance and training. The team made a number of recommendations about further improvements in quality assurance; training of cytology and other staff; and information for women, the general public and health professionals.

  Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of recruitment and retention problems in cytology services. [55142]

  Mr. Milburn
  A research programme to assess future service needs and issues surrounding recruitment to and retention within the workforce involved in the provision of cytology services is to be commissioned. This will report to the National Health Service Executive through the National Advisory Group for Scientists and Technicians.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average time taken for a patient to receive the results of their cervical smear test; and what percentage take longer than the recommended four weeks; [55207]

  (2) for each health authority in England, what is the average time taken for a patient to receive the results of their cervical smear test; and what percentage take longer than the recommended four weeks. [55212]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not available centrally. Officials are shortly to begin a formal review of the information available about the cervical screening programme and data collection will be included as part of this review.

  Guidance issued by the national co-ordinating team for the National Health Service cervical screening programme state that at least 80 per cent. of women should receive their smear test results within four weeks of the smear being taken and 100 per cent. should receive their results within six weeks. As at 31 March 1997 (the latest information available), 77 per cent. of laboratories were reporting results within four weeks of the date of the smear test and 95 per cent. within six weeks.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cytology laboratories in England are sending their cervical smears to other laboratories for interpretation. [55301]
  976
  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  However, the National Health Service cervical screening programme has recently conducted a survey of laboratories in England. Of 180 questionnaires sent out, 114 have been returned. Preliminary results show that 16 laboratories send cervical smear slides to other laboratories for assessment.

  Pharmaceutical Wholesalers
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmaceutical wholesalers ceased to operate in each year between 1990 and 1998. [55182]

  Mr. Milburn
  The numbers of wholesaler dealers whose licences ceased are not available for the years 1990–1994. For subsequent years the numbers are:

  Number

  Year ending 31 March 1995

  77

  Year ending 31 March 1996

  131

  Year ending 31 March 1997

  78

  Year ending 31 March 1998

  73

  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmaceutical wholesalers were established in the United Kingdom in each year between 1990 and 1998. [55162]

  Mr. Milburn
  The numbers of wholesaler dealers licensed are not available for the years 1990 and 1991. For subsequent years the number are:

  Number

  Year ending 31 March 1992

  109

  Year ending 31 March 1993

  125

  Year ending 31 March 1994

  123

  Year ending 31 March 1995

  161

  Year ending 31 March 1996

  146

  Year ending 31 March 1997

  135

  Year ending 31 March 1998

  94

  Thalassaemia
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support his Department has provided for research into thalassaemia. [55505]

  Ms Jowell
  Research may be ongoing in individual National Health Service units but there is currently no central funding for research into thalassaemia from either the Department's policy research programme or the central NHS research and development programmes. The Medical Research Council, which is funded by the Office of Science and Technology, commissions most of the Government's research into bio-chemical and clinical issues. The Council is not supporting any thalassaemia research at present but it is always willing to consider
  977
  sound scientific proposals, in competition with other applications.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make public funding available to meet the costs incurred by parents choosing to travel to France to obtain the single measles vaccination for their children, following its withdrawal from the United Kingdom. [55503]

  Ms Jowell
  None. Single measles vaccine has not been recommended in the United Kingdom since 1988. Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine is recommended to protect against measles.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his Department's policy that parents who are concerned about the possible side effects of the MMR vaccination should have access to other forms of vaccination for their children. [55502]

  Ms Jowell
  The United Kingdom health departments are advised on immunisation policy by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, an independent expert statutory committee. The use of single vaccines in place of Measles, Mumps and Rubella is not recommended since there is no evidence that doing this has any benefit and it may even be harmful. This Department's policy is to ensure parents are provided with factual information about immunisation and that immunisation recommendations are backed up by sound scientific research. The administration of separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines instead of MMR is not supported by any studies into its safety or efficacy.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with Pasteur Merieux MSD to discuss the withdrawal of the single measles vaccination from the United Kingdom(a) before and (b) since the withdrawal was announced. [55501]

  Ms Jowell
  On 20 August 1998, representatives of Pasteur Merieux informed Departmental officials that they had decided not to supply unlicensed measles vaccine to the United Kingdom. Single measles vaccine has not been recommended in the United Kingdom since 1988.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contact he has had with the Pasteur Merieux Company concerning the withdrawal of general availability of the single measles vaccine. [55481]

  Ms Jowell
  Ministers have had no contact with Pasteur Merieux about this issue. On 20 August 1998, representatives of Pasteur Merieux informed Departmental officials that they had decided not to supply unlicensed measles vaccine to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the decision of some parents to take their children to other countries for the single measles vaccine. [55482]

  Ms Jowell
  Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine is readily available in the United Kingdom to protect children against not only measles, but also mumps and 978
  rubella, all of which are potentially serious diseases. Single measles vaccine has not been recommended in the United Kingdom since 1988.

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55264]

  Ms Jowell
  The majority of buildings and sites for which the Department has management responsibility have facilities for parking motorcycles either in the form of dedicated secure spaces (see table) or by other local arrangements such as use of space in car parks.

  Building

  Dedicated secure motorcycle spaces

  Richmond House, London, W1A

  8

  Skipton House, London, SE1

  10

  Wellington House, London, SE1

  0

  Market Towers, London, SE8

  4

  Eileen House, London, SE1

  10

  Hannibal House, London, SE1

  0 (but shares Skipton's facilities)

  Trevelyan Square, Leeds

  0

  Capital Drive, Milton Keynes

  0

  Premier Buildings, Lancashire

  0

  Bartholomew House, Birmingham

  0

  John Snow House, Durham

  1

  Maid Marion House, Nottingham

  0

  Hesketh House, Lancashire

  6 (covered spaces) + 30 open spaces

  Westward House, Bristol

  4

  J. Rothschilde House, Nottingham

  0

  Glenthorne YTC, Birmingham

  0

  Berkely Square, Bristol

  0

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55179]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department is about to begin a study which will identify the scope for introducing the Government Procurement Card in the Department. A decision about the use of the card will be made in the light of this work.

  Health Action Zone
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his announcement of a health action zone for Camden and Islington, how much money will be available for the project. [55520]

  Mr. Milburn
  Camden and Islington Health Authority has been invited to develop a full programme, with the expectation of being awarded second wave health action zone status from 1 April 1999, subject to a satisfactory programme being submitted. Second wave health action zones will receive a share of £15 million programme funding in 1999–2000. In 2000–2001, first and second wave health action zones will share £60 million programme funding.
  979

  Suicide
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young people in care committed or attempted to commit suicide, broken down by social services authorities, in the last monitoring year; and what recording mechanisms are in place in the Social Services Inspectorate to monitor such data. [55362]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under paragraph 20 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, local authorities are required to notify the Secretary of State for Health of all deaths of children who are being looked after by the local authority.

  Local authorities are also required under Regulation 19 (2) (a) and (c) of the Children's Home Regulations 1991 to notify the Department of the death of, or serious injury to, a child in a children's home.

  There is no statutory requirement for the cause of death to be identified although local authorities generally do provide it. Information on the number of attempted suicides is not held centrally.

  The Department's records show that two children committed suicide whilst being looked after by local authorities in 1997–98, the last monitoring year. One child was in the care of Somerset, the other in the care of the London Borough of Bromley.

  These notifications, along with others relating to incidents of child deaths and serious harm where abuse is suspected, are recorded on the Department's Child Protection Database. This computer database links the Department's Social Care Regions and the Social Care Policy branches and has been operational since April 1998.

  Spinal Treatment
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will fund the replacement of invasive procedures carried out in the course of spinal treatment with safer practices. [55041]

  Mr. Boateng
  Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the methodology of choice in the investigation of spinal conditions; however, we have no plans to replace invasive procedures entirely. For some patients unsuitable for MRI invasive procedures may remain necessary. It is for clinicians to use their skill, knowledge and experience to weigh carefully the likely benefits of any treatment or procedure against the anticipated risk for the patient and, following discussion with the patient, to exercise their clinical judgment accordingly.

  Adhesive Arachnoiditis
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will fund the greater use of chronic pain management programmes for sufferers of adhesive arachnoiditis. [55042]

  Mr. Boateng
  Multi-disciplinary pain management programmes have been shown to be effective. The funding of such services, including those for arachnoiditis sufferers, is the responsibility of health authorities in consultation with trusts and health professionals.
  980
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the alleged link between adhesive arachnoiditis and the use of Myodil. [55040]

  Mr. Boateng
  Arachnoiditis can arise from a number of causes. There are no plans to investigate links between Myodil and arachnoiditis: the association between the use of Myodil and the occurrence of arachnoiditis is recognised. The product information for Myodil contained a warning about the possibility of post-myelography arachnoiditis for many years.

  Social Services (Liverpool)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to ensure that the criticisms of Liverpool Social Services contained in the recent Social Services Inspectorate report are addressed. [55235]

  Mr. Boateng
  Ministers have agreed an action plan with Liverpool Social Services which addresses the main issues raised by the report of the Social Services Inspectorate/Audit commission Joint Review, published on 23 July 1998. Progress is being monitored by the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) and will be formally evaluated by SSI and the local auditors after six months.

  Cardiac Surgery (Bristol)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the terms of reference of the inquiry into cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary include the role played by his Department. [55229]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the terms of reference of the Public Inquiry into heart surgery in Bristol on 12 August 1998 as follows:To inquire into the management of the care of children receiving complex cardiac surgical services at the Bristol Royal Infirmary between 1984 and 1995 and relevant related issues; to make findings as to the adequacy of the services provided; to establish what action was taken both within and outside the hospital to deal with concerns raised about the surgery and to identify any failure to take appropriate action promptly; to reach conclusions from these events and to make recommendations which could help to secure high quality care across the NHS.

  It is for the Inquiry to determine how it meets the terms of reference. We have instructed the Department to cooperate fully with the Inquiry and to make available all relevant documents.

  General Dental Council
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what criteria he takes into consideration to ensure that the composition of the General Dental Council represents and reflects the public interest; [55196]

  (2) if he will increase the number of lay persons serving on the General Dental Council. [55197]

  Mr. Milburn
  In the consultation document A First Class Service: Quality in the NHS published in July we suggested that, for professional regulation to continue to enjoy public confidence, regulatory bodies must be open to public scrutiny and responsive to changing clinical practice and public needs. In this context we welcomed proposals from the General Dental Council to make a significant increase in their lay membership.
  981

  Taxol
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice is to be given to the National Health Service following the review by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee of the use of Taxol/cisplatin for ovarian cancer. [55347]

  Mr. Boateng
  An updated analysis of the survival benefit of using Taxol in combination as a first line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer was presented at the May 1998 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. This research indicates that Taxol given in combination with platinum increases life expectancy by around one year. In July 1998 the Standing Medical Advisory Committee considered guidelines prepared by the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology (JCCO) which take into account these latest research results. The JCCO guidelines were published in September and sent to Oncologists in the United Kingdom. A letter updating regional directors of Public Health in England on this issue was sent out by the National Health Service Executive on 18 August 1998.

  Hidradenitis Suppurativa
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action his Department is taking to raise awareness and educate(a) the public and (b) general practitioners regarding the skin disease Hidradenitis Suppurativa; [55227]

  (2) what action his Department (a) has undertaken and (b) is planning to take with regard to the skin disease Hidradenitis Suppurativa. [55226]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department has not and is not planning to undertake action specifically relating to Hidradenitis Suppurativa. However, the National Health Service provides a wide range of services for people with skin diseases. It is for the clinician to decide exactly what treatments are appropriate for patients with these conditions and it is the responsibility of health authorities to assess the health care needs of their population and to commission services, including the provision of care for Hidradenitis Suppurativa.

  Ambulance trust income per head of the population, by NHS region

  Region

  Population (000s in 19961)

  Aggregated ambulance trust income (£000) 1995–96

  Aggregated ambulance trust income per head2

  Aggregated ambulance trust income (£000) 1996–97

  Aggregated ambulance trust income per head2

  Northern and Yorkshire

  6,338

  85,511

  13.49

  87,977

  13.88

  Trent

  5,121

  54,958

  10.73

  57,770

  11.28

  Anglia and Oxford

  5,361

  51,754

  9.65

  53,370

  9.96

  North Thames

  6,934

  31,528

  34.55

  33,671

  34.86

  South Thames

  6,819

  48,654

  37.14

  51,825

  37.60

  South and West

  6,594

  69,634

  10.56

  72,472

  10.99

  West Midlands

  5,317

  51,116

  9.61

  53,363

  10.04

  North West

  6,605

  65,163

  9.87

  67,041

  10.15

  1 1991 Census-based resident population estimates for mid 1996

  2 Cross-boundary ambulance working arrangements, where they occur, have not been taken into account apart from the parts of North and South Thames regions served by the London Ambulance Service

  3 Large parts of North and South Thames regions are both served by the London Ambulance Service, rendering these calculations extremely difficult to interpret reliably

  982
  The provision of general practitioners' education is the responsibility of the relevant professional statutory bodies, such as the Medical Royal Colleges.

  Medicines (Children)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 1998,Official Report, columns 407–08, what steps he is taking to monitor the way pharmaceutical companies comply with EU guidance on the licensing of medicines in children; which companies have so far complied with this guidance; which products are being developed in accordance with this guidance; and when the application of the guidance will be extended to products already on the market. [55199]

  Ms Jowell
  When an application for a new medicinal product is assessed by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), the presence or absence of a paediatric section to the dossier is noted.

  Some companies have already complied with the guideline but neither the MCA nor the European Medicines Evaluation Agency keeps a list of those who do.

  The MCA does not hold information on those products which are being developed in accordance with the guidance. Companies are not obliged to reveal product development plans to regulatory agencies.

  The scope of the guidance applies to marketed products as well as to products in development.

  The guidance is not legally binding.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money per head was allocated for ambulance services in each health region in England in each of the last three years. [55478]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information given in the table shows allocations in the form of ambulance trust income per head aggregated by National Health Service Region. Copies of the figures for 1997–98 will be placed in the Library when they become available.
  983
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amounts of money allocated to each ambulance trust in England in each of the last three years. [55479]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information given in the table shows allocations in the form of ambulance trust income for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97. Copies of the figures for 1997–98 will be placed in the Library when they become available.

  NHS Ambulance trust income (£000) in 1995–96 and 1996–97

  Trust

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Cleveland

  6,297

  6,409

  Durham County

  7,257

  7,305

  Cumbria

  7,713

  8,070

  North Yorkshire

  7,771

  8,919

  Humberside

  13,106

  12,353

  Northumbria

  18,317

  18,620

  West Yorkshire

  25,050

  26,301

  Leicestershire

  9,309

  9,761

  Lincolnshire

  9,538

  9,786

  Derbyshire

  10,746

  11,533

  Nottinghamshire

  12,489

  12,968

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan

  12,876

  13,722

  Oxfordshire

  5,844

  6,135

  Royal Berkshire

  8,690

  9,295

  Two Shires

  11,222

  11,799

  East Anglian

  25,998

  26,141

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  14,407

  15,271

  Essex

  17,121

  18,400

  Surrey

  13,668

  14,574

  Kent

  16,525

  16,829

  Sussex

  18,461

  20,422

  London

  1,2n/a

  103,189

  Gloucestershire

  6,606

  6,805

  Wiltshire

  7,086

  7,215

  Dorset

  7,974

  8,159

  Avon

  10,041

  10,338

  Hampshire

  12,702

  13,143

  West Country

  25,225

  26,812

  Warwickshire

  4,716

  4,893

  Hereford and Worcester

  8,228

  9,348

  Staffordshire

  12,119

  12,605

  West Midlands

  26,053

  26,517

  Lancashire

  16,087

  17,001

  Greater Manchester

  24,589

  24,955

  Mersey Regional

  24,487

  25,085

  1 Not available

  2 LAS became a Trust in 1996

  Note:

  Most ambulance trusts receive income from a number of health commissioners. These figures exclude income received for non-patient services (charitable income, income generating schemes, education, training and research, etc)

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will judge the cost-effectiveness of new drugs and treatments. [55272]

  Mr. Boateng
  Our proposals for the appraisal process will shortly be published for discussion with interested parties. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will itself be responsible for developing the precise criteria to be applied in judging clinical and cost effectiveness, drawing on international experience and methodology and guidance on the methods of appraising effectiveness in public expenditure.
  984
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will take of royal colleges' recommendations in formulating best practices. [55271]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has yet to be established. However, the Government's reforms for health, including the establishment of NICE, are centred around a partnership between the health professions (including professional bodies like the Royal Colleges), the public, the National Health Service and the Government themselves.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has to ensure consistency in the response it receives on developing best clinical practices. [55274]

  Mr. Milburn
  The public and Government expect to see health services that are consistent with our research knowledge and best professional practice. The Government's proposals introduce a comprehensive National Health Service agenda for quality, with local duties to ensure quality, backed up by a new Commission for Health Improvement which will monitor clinical standards set by NICE.

  National Performance Framework
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if NHS staff satisfaction surveys will be incorporated into the National Performance Framework. [55247]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Framework for Assessing Performance focuses on outcomes for patients. The management and welfare of National Health Service staff is a direct responsibility of their employers at a local level. The results of staff satisfaction surveys will be used locally to provide benchmarks against which to measure and report local improvements in the quality of working life.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account he will take of existing customer satisfaction programmes in NHS trusts in drawing up the National Performance Framework. [55245]

  Mr. Milburn
  The national framework for assessing performance provides a basis for assessing National Health Service performance over six areas: health improvement, fair access, effective delivery of appropriate healthcare, efficiency, patient/carer experience and health outcomes of NHS care. Over time, the framework will be supplemented by a range of high level indicators over all the dimensions to support benchmarking and performance improvement. Results from the first national survey of NHS patients will be used to develop comparative indicators of patient/carer experience. These high level indicators can be supplemented locally, for example by indicators from health authorities or NHS trust surveys of patient/carer experience.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if additional funding incentives will be given to the best-performing health authorities based on the standards achieved in the National Performance Framework. [55251]
  985
  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper "The New NHS: Modern and Dependable" stated that:"… Health Authorities which demonstrate most progress against the targets and objectives agreed with the NHS Executive will be eligible for modest extra non-recurrent funding for local projects which support their Health Improvement Programme".

  Progress in implementing the local improvement programme will be considered across the six areas of the national performance assessment framework.

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the new national performance framework to tackle inconsistencies in health services will include abortion services. [55366]

  Mr. Milburn
  The national framework for assessing performance provides a basis for assessing the performance of the National Health Service across six dimensions: Health Improvement, Fair Access, Effective Delivery of Appropriate Healthcare, Efficiency, Patient/Carer Experience and Health Outcomes of NHS Care. The framework can be used to assess NHS performance at a number of levels—for example, by health authority or NHS trust, by client group (eg services for elderly people), or by disease area (eg cancer services). In reviewing local abortion services, health authorities, primary care groups and NHS trusts should seek to assess performance across all the dimensions of the framework to assess areas for improvement.

  NHS Staff (Rewards)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial rewards will be given to NHS staff who exceed quality standards set by NHS trusts. [55249]

  Mr. Milburn
  This is a matter for individual National Health Service trusts ensuring that any incentives for staff are based on efficiency and health gains as outlined in the Health Improvement Programme.

  National Survey of NHS Patients
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to break down the results of the National Survey of Patient and User Experience into individual health trusts. [55304]

  Mr. Milburn
  As stated in the White Paper "The New NHS: Modern and Dependable", the Government will be publishing the results of the survey at national and health authority level. In addition, consideration is currently being given to how information from the survey relating to individual NHS trusts can best be made available.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will undertake the National Patient and User Experience Survey; and what was the selection procedure. [55273]

  Mr. Milburn
  As announced on 12 August, a consortium led by Social and Community Planning Research, with Imperial College and Picker Europe Ltd. has been selected to undertake the National Survey of NHS Patients.

  The Department's requirement for this work was advertised in the European Journal of the European Communities in accordance with European Commission and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules on
  986
  public procurement on this scale. The contract award was based on the most economically advantageous bid in terms of technical quality, service delivery and experience.

  NHS Trusts (Clinical Governance)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure NHS staff are consulted on the implementation of clinical governance for each NHS trust. [55250]

  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper "The New NHS: Modern and Dependable" stated that local clinical governance arrangements should engage professionals at ward and clinical level. The consultation document "A First Class Service: Quality in the new NHS" (copies of which are available in the Library) set out in more detail our proposals on clinical governance. Further guidance on clinical governance will be issued later in the year.

  Consultants
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 July 1998,Official Report, columns 506–07, regarding consultants, if he will list the number of consultants by specialty and for each specialty their ratio to population in each shire county health authority. [55302]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested will be placed in the Library. The data have been calculated by aggregating the annual census figures collected from trusts within the geographical area covered by the respective health authorities. The tables will need to be interpreted with care as some trusts provide services to residents of other health authorities.

  NHS Staff (Process Management)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is planned to be given to NHS staff on process management and process improvement. [55246]

  Mr. Milburn
  Training on process management and process improvements is a matter for local employers and can have a role in the continuous professional development of health professionals.

  Professional Self-regulation
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure that professional self-regulation will be subject to public scrutiny under the proposals in the White Paper "A First Class Service". [55270]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government are committed to working in partnership with the health care professions, the National Health Service and patient interest groups to modernise the systems of professional self-regulation. We have already opened the dialogue with the regulatory bodies to find the best way to ensure that the legal framework is responsive to changing public expectations of greater openness and accountability.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the numbers of(a) day cases and

  987
  (b) in-patient admissions indicating the average lengths of stay of residents of (1) St. Albans, (2) Dacorum, (3) Watford, (4) Hertsmere and (5) Three Rivers local authority districts in acute, geriatric and maternity departments in (i) St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead hospitals, (ii) Watford and Mount Vernon hospitals, (iii) the West Hertfordshire Community Trust, (iv) East Hertfordshire/Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Welwyn Garden City, (v) North Hertfordshire/The Lister Hospital, Hitchin, (vi) the Luton and Dunstable Hospital, (vii) Stoke Mandeville Hospital, (viii) Barnet Healthcare Trust, (ix) Chase Farm, (x) Wellhouse Trust, (xi) Northwick Park Hospital, (xii) The Royal Free Hospital, (xiii) other NHS hospitals and (xiv) private hospitals for each of the past five years for which data are available; [55325]

  (2) if he will list the numbers of in-patient episodes of length (a) less than one, (b) 1, (c) 2 to 3, (d) 4 to 7, (e) 8 to 14, (f) 15 to 21, (g) 22 to 30, (h) 31 to 60 and (i) 61 days and over in (i) acute, (ii) geriatric and (iii) maternity departments in (1) St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead hospitals, (2) Watford and Mount Vernon hospitals and (3) West Herts Community Trust, for each of the past five years for which data are available; [55375]

  (3) if he will list the numbers of (a) day cases and (b) in-patient admissions and the average lengths of stay of (x) residents of (1) Hertfordshire local government districts other than St. Albans, Dacorum, Watford, Hertsmere and Three Rivers, (2) Greater London, (3) Bedfordshire, (4) Buckinghamshire, (5) Berkshire and (y) those resident elsewhere in acute, geriatric and maternity departments in (i) St Albans and Hemel Hempstead hospitals, (ii) Watford and Mount Vernon hospitals and (iii) West Herts Community Trust for each of the past five years for which data are available; [55374]

  (4) if he will list the numbers of (a) day cases and (b) in-patient admissions indicating the average lengths of stay for (1) acute, (2) geriatric, (3) mental illness, (4) people with learning disabilities and (5) maternity in (i) St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead hospitals, (ii) Watford and Mount Vernon hospitals, (iii) the West Hertfordshire Community Trust, (iv.) the Horizon Trust, (v) East Hertfordshire/Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Welwyn Garden City, (vi) North Hertfordshire/The Lister Hospital, Hitchin, (vii) the Luton and Dunstable Hospital, (viii) Stoke Mandeville Hospital, (ix) Barnet Healthcare Trust, (x) Chase Farm, (xi) Wellhouse Trust, (xii) Northwick Park Hospital and (xiii) The Royal Free Hospital for each of the past five years for which data are available. [55324]

  Mr. Milburn
  The available information requested has been placed in the Library. However, the Department does not collect information on activity in private hospitals.

  NHS Trust Chairmen
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chairmen of NHS trusts appointed since 1 May 1997 are retired(a) civil servants and (b) local government officers; and what has been the percentage change in the figures for (a) and (b) relative to the previous year. [55358]

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

  Former British Child Migrants
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to respond to the third report from the Health Committee of session 1997–98 on the Welfare of Former British Child Migrants (HC 755); and what discussions he has held on this matter with(a) the Australian and (b) the New Zealand Government. [55165]

  Mr. Boateng
  Officials in the Department have approached officials in the Governments of Australia and New Zealand through our High Commissions in Canberra and Wellington. The discussions are ongoing.

  The Department is considering the report of the Health Select Committee on the Welfare of Former British Child Migrants carefully. The Government will publish their response shortly.

  Infertility Services
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of access to investigation for infertility in health authorities. [55141]

  Ms Jowell
  No formal assessment has been made but we are aware of the annual surveys of the funding and provision of infertility services commissioned by the National Infertility Awareness Campaign. Like most National Health Service treatments, infertility treatment is funded through the general funding of health authorities, and decisions about the allocation of resources and about who should be eligible for treatment are the responsibility of individual authorities.

  The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) is shortly to issue the first two (of three) sets of clinical guidelines on the management of infertility. The guidelines will assist clinicians and health authorities in providing clinically effective infertility treatment. The Department will be issuing advice to the NHS to accompany the publication of the RCOG' s guidelines.

CABINET OFFICE

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much his Department spent on IT itemising(a) personal computers, (b) main-frame, (c) mini-computers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figures are available. [52893]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 30 July 1998,Official Report, column 502

  This answer is in respect of my duties when Minister Without Portfolio.

  2 Marsham Street
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the future of the former Department of the Environment building at 2 Marsham Street. [55201]
  989
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated October 1998:
  The Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, Peter Kilfoyle, has asked me as Chief Executive of PACE with management responsibilities for 2 Marsham Street, to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the future of this building.
  2 Marsham Street is a Government freehold property which until April this year was occupied by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). While it remains vacant, this Agency is responsible for its general upkeep to ensure it remains wind and watertight and is not subjected to vandalism of any kind.
  There is a possibility that Marsham Street will be used as temporary decant accommodation for another Government Department while its premises are refurbished. A decision on this is expected early in the New Year. If reuse of the building cannot be justified in Exchequer terms, the building will be demolished. This is expected to take some eighteen months following the letting of a contract.

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55266]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office, its Agencies and the Central Office of Information, for which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has Ministerial responsibility, have a total of 65 motorcycle parking spaces in their buildings, of which 61 are secure.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55172]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Cabinet Office has completed an assessment of the potential for using the Government Procurement Card (GPC) in the Department. It will be commissioning shortly a detailed study to determine the arrangements for the introduction of the card.

  (b) i. CCTA introduced the card on 1 October.

  The Buying Agency has no immediate plans to use the card for the small number of domestic purchases.

  It has actively encouraged acceptance of the card by the suppliers with whom it contracts on behalf of all government purchasers.

  The other Cabinet Office Agencies are at various stages of the implementation process for the GPC. The extent of GPC usage will depend upon the outcome of the trials and reviews being undertaken by each Agency.

  ii. The Central Office of Information will be introducing the GPC into an area this year on a trial basis. Further introductions will depend on the result of this trial.

  Government Policies
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those policies in which he has played a co-ordinating role; and if he will make a statement. [54685]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  My role is to assist the Prime Minister and Ministerial colleagues in the implementation and co-ordination of Government policy and its effective presentation. In accordance with the House's resolution on Ministerial Accountability of 19 March 1997, it is for individual Ministers to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and Next Step Agencies. I shall, of course, answer questions on my own responsibilities for the work of the Cabinet Office, including the Better Government agenda.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c) (ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [53867]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 30 July 1998]: The answers are as follows.

  a) None

  b) None

  c) i) None

  ii) None

  d) None

  e) The FCO is responsible for twelve non-departmental public bodies. These are:

  Britain-Russia Centre

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  British Council

  Commonwealth Institute

  The Great Britain-China Centre

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Diplomatic Service Appeal Board

  Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  Foreign Compensation Commission

  Intelligence Services Tribunal.

  The Government are committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to a minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective.

  Lockerbie
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposals which the United Kingdom and United States of America have made for the trial of the Lockerbie suspects in The Hague; and if procedures have been introduced to enable the Libyan Government to clarify the issues involved. [55309]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands continue to do all they can to take forward the initiative for trial of the two accused in the Netherlands, as announced on 24 August. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1192 has been adopted unanimously, the UK Order in Council made, the UK/Dutch treaty signed, and the site for the trial designated.

  The Libyan Government have sought and are obtaining clarification on a number of issues through the UN Secretary-General's Office—the channel specified in UNSCR 1192.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs where it is intended that persons found guilty in the proposed trial of the Lockerbie suspects at The Hague will be imprisoned.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In the event of the Libyans accused of the Lockerbie crime being convicted by the Scottish court in the Netherlands, they would continue to be held at the Scottish facility pending any appeal; subject to which they would serve the remainder of their sentences in Scotland. [55310]

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if witnesses participating in the proposed trial of the Lockerbie suspects at The Hague will be protected during travel to The Hague from arrest in respect of other alleged crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, signed on 18 September, makes clear that any witnesses attending the trial of the two Libyans accused at the Scottish court, in the Netherlands would be immune from arrest in respect of any offence committed prior to their arrival in the Netherlands. [55312]

  Sudan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the welfare of British nationals resident in Sudan. [55437]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Due to the withdrawal of UK staff from the British Embassy in Khartoum we are no longer able to provide consular assistance to British nationals in Sudan. All British nationals currently in Sudan were advised on 27 August to leave unless they have a compelling reason to remain. We are also still advising against all travel to the Sudan.

  Some British Nationals have chosen to stay in the Sudan. We are not aware of any who are in distress.
  992
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations gave to the Sudanese request for an early site inspection of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. [55439]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This issue has only been raised during informal consultations of Security Council members. The United Kingdom did not contribute to the consultations and no consensus was reached. We continue to encourage the Sudanese to sign up to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which requires members to be open to international inspections by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government first had evidence that chemical weapons were being manufactured in Sudan. [55484]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are aware of a number of reports, mainly from opposition groups, of Sudanese involvement in chemical weapons. We are concerned about these reports and will continue to monitor them.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what EU funding has been provided for the(a) yes and (b) no vote campaign in the Danish Referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty; through which bodies such funding has been issued and according to what criteria; what proportion of the cost has been borne by the United Kingdom; and what has been the cost to United Kingdom public funds to date. [55376]

  Ms Quin
  No EU funding was provided for political campaigning in the Danish referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty. There was therefore no cost to UK public funds.

  European Community Legislation
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 277, what proportion of European Community legislative acts which do not pass before the Council of Ministers do not fall into the category of detailed market management measures; and if he will list the categories they fall into. [55389]

  Ms Quin
  The majority of Commission legislation is made under specific implementing powers delegated to the Commission by the Council. In certain circumstances, proposed implementing measures can be referred back to the Council. The majority of Commission implementing legislation is concerned with detailed market management measures, in particularly in implementing the Common Agricultural Policy. Implementing measures which do not fall into the category of detailed market management measures cover a broad range of policies. Policy areas covered by implementing legislation are listed in the General Budget of the European Union (pp.500–517 of the 1998 Budget). This is published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (No. L44, 16 February 1998).

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1998,Official Report, columns 277–

  993
  78, on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 a Minister of his Department has intervened in the negotiations on Community legislative Acts being agreed outside of the Council of Ministers before that Act received final ministerial approval; on what proportion of occasions a Minister has rejected an agreement reached in this manner when presented with the final agreement; and what form of scrutiny by Ministers takes place during the course of the negotiations. [55398]

  Ms Quin
  Most Commission implementing measures are introduced under specific powers delegated by the Council of Ministers under primary legislation. Much of this legislation is of a technical and routine nature and does not involve Ministerial consideration.

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55263]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department has 25 motorcycle spaces at our offices in London and 17 at Hanslope Park (near Milton Keynes). The spaces are within either security controlled parking areas or security controlled grounds.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55178]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We plan to pilot use of the Government Procurement Card within the London-based procurement group of our overseas estate department in January 1999. Discussions have been held with several banks concerned with the scheme. Internal management information on volume and pattern of transactions with a value of up to £500 is being collated prior to an agreement with one of the banks being finalised. Guidelines to ensure satisfactory internal controls are also being developed.

  Once agreement is finalised the successful bank will need to ensure that the suppliers we use have the equipment necessary to handle the more sophisticated management information requirements of the Procurement Card compared with those needed for a personal use credit/charge card.

  Plans to roll out use of the card more fully and savings accruing from them will depend on our assessment of the results of the pilot.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Malaysia concerning the arrest and imprisonment of the Deputy Prime Minister. [55522]
  994
  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the case with the Malaysian Prime Minister on 21 September and the Malaysian Foreign Minister on 24 September. We have also consulted our EU partners, and the Austrians, as Presidency, issued a declaration on 2 October expressing deep concern about reports of physical mistreatment of Anwar and calling upon the Malaysian authorities to guarantee the rule of law and to respect the human rights of Anwar Ibrahim.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) contacts have been made and (b) meetings have been held by the High Commissioner and High Commission staff with human rights groups in Malaysia. [55521]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The High Commission has regular and close contact with a wide range of human rights groups in Malaysia.

  Malawi
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to encourage independent international monitoring of next year's presidential and parliamentary elections in Malawi. [55198]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The success of next year's elections will be important in consolidating multi-party democracy in Malawi.

  We have been monitoring developments in the run up to the elections, working closely with the Electoral Commission, and will continue to do so. We will encourage independent international monitoring should the Electoral Commission, and all political parties involved, agree that it is desirable.

  In the meantime, we shall be funding an adviser to the Chief Elections Officer.

  UNITA
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions his Department has taken to close the UNITA London office and ensure the removal from the United Kingdom of the UNITA representative Mr. Kandeya. [55228]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Officials have visited Mr. Kandeya's commercial premises and satisfied themselves that there was no sign of any continuing association with UNITA. The situation is being kept under review. As far as we are aware, there are no offices or premises being maintained in the United Kingdom under the name of UNITA.

  The Home Office have refused Mr. Kandeya's application for further leave to remain. Notice has been given that the Home Secretary intends to commence deportation proceedings against him. He has the right of appeal against this decision.

  EU Enlargement
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made by Austria's presidency of the EU on enlargement. [54858]
  995
  Ms Quin
  EU enlargement remains a key priority for the UK, and the EU. We welcome progress already made during the Austrian Presidency. The General Affairs Council agreed on 5 October to open substantive negotiations with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus on 10 November. Initially negotiations will focus on seven chapters of the acquis. We will continue to support the Presidency in its efforts to make further progress before the Vienna European Council.

  Meanwhile, the analytical examination of the acquis with those countries not yet in negotiations (Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia) continues. All the applicants are receiving pre-accession assistance within the targeted framework of the Accession Partnerships.

  The Austrian Presidency also organised a meeting of the European Conference at Foreign Minister level (for the EU, the 10 Central Europeans and Cyprus) on 6 October which agreed a number of actions in the fight against organised crime (especially child pornography) and regional cooperation on the environment.

  Israel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to Israel concerning nuclear disarmament. [55414]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to urge Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, in order to allay international suspicions about her nuclear activities.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) of 16 July 1998,Official Report, columns 248–49, if he is able to provide details of the assessment of samples taken from Iraqi warheads undertaken in France and Switzerland. [55452]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UN Special Commission has now received the final reports on the analyses of the Iraqi missile warhead fragments carried out in France and Switzerland. The results will be reviewed at a seminar of international experts in New York on 22 and 23 October, after which UNSCOM will report to the Security Council.

  Pakistan (Climbers)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department was first aware that two climbers were missing in North East Pakistan; what steps were taken to alert the Pakistan authorities and organise a search; on what date such a search began; when the first helicopter search was made; and for what reasons a helicopter search was not made earlier. [55483]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We first heard of the disappearance of the two climbers on 14 August, when Mrs. Lisette Rendle told the Department and the High Commission in Islamabad that Ian Rendle and Gordon Campbell had 996
  failed to catch their flight home. On 15 August the High Commission alerted local police who agreed to check all hotels and police posts on the climbers' itinerary.

  On 20 August the British Mountaineering Council confirmed that the two men were insured for any necessary searches and requested a helicopter search. The Pakistani Ministry of Tourism told the High Commission that the Ministry's helicopter was for rescue only, and not searches.

  The Ministry advised the High Commission to ask the Pakistani Army to search with one of their helicopters but warned that permission could take 15–20 days. The Defence Section of the High Commission submitted a request the same day.

  The Deputy High Commissioner called on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 22 August to reinforce the request for military help. The High Commission sent a further written request on 27 August.

  The High Commission made simultaneous inquiries with a private company about chartering a helicopter. This proved impossible as the company's helicopters were not equipped to fly at an altitude high enough to enable the search to be carried out.

  On 31 August the Government of Pakistan gave the Army authority to conduct a helicopter search. Bad weather and use of the helicopters for military purposes delayed the search until 8 September, and it then had to be abandoned because of low cloud. Bad weather again set in but the search was resumed and completed on 16 September. No trace of the two men was found. Two foot searches were also conducted, one from 22 August to 1 September and the other from 14 to 28 September. The High Commission acted with the families and tour companies to get these searches organised. Neither found any trace of the missing men. A third foot search is being organised at the families' request.

  Diplomatic Service
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the successful candidates for the recent recruitment of middle managers for the Diplomatic Service were(a) men, (b) women and (c) over the age of 40 years. [55001]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Of the 13 candidates successful at the Middle Managers Recruitment Board, 69 per cent. (9) were men, 31 per cent. (4) were women and 31 per cent. (4) were over the age of forty.

  President Hegdar Aliev
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit to the UK of President Hegdar Aliev of Azerbaijan. [55022]

  Ms Quin
  President Aliev visited the United Kingdom from 19 to 24 July 1998. The visit helped to strengthen the commercial and political relationship between the United Kingdom and Azerbaijan. President Aliev was granted an audience of HM The Queen, and paid calls on my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, and the President of the Board of Trade; three major oil contracts were signed with British companies, as well as other agreements.
  997
  Discussions with President Aliev also focused on the conflict in Nagorny-Karabakh, democratic reform and human rights in Azerbaijan.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Secondary and Further Education (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average size of A-level classes in(a) secondary schools and (b) further education colleges in (i) the West Midlands and (ii) Staffordshire in each of the last five years. [46304]

  Dr. Howells
  The average sizes of classes of pupils aged 16 and over taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools in the West Midlands and Staffordshire Local Education Authority (LEA) area are shown in the table. Information on the size of classes in further education colleges is not collected centrally.

  Average size of classes of pupils aged 16 and over taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools

  Position in January each year

  West Midlands LEA area

  Staffordshire LEA area

  1994

  10.5

  9.9

  1995

  10.3

  9.6

  1996

  10.3

  10.6

  1997

  10.7

  10.6

  1998 (provisional)

  10.5

  111.4

  1 Stoke became a unitary authority separate from Staffordshire in April 1997; the provisional figure for the Stoke LEA area in January 1998 was 9.0

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average amount spent per pupil studying A-levels in(a) secondary schools and (b) further education colleges in (i) the West Midlands and (ii) Staffordshire in each of the last five years. [46305]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is not collected in the form requested.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will undertake a Quinquennial Review of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. [43631]

  Dr. Howells
  In accordance with the Government's policy of quinquennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies, the Department will conduct a review of the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 1998. The first stage of the review will take the form of a 'prior options' study with the following terms of reference:to review the Higher Education Funding Council's functions and the likely need in future for those functions;
  to consider the powers, terms of reference, constitutional status, membership and activities of the Higher Education Funding Council for England; and
  to consider whether some or all of the functions of the Higher Education Funding Council for England can be performed through other means.
  998
  The second stage, depending upon conclusions from the prior options study, will involve a review of the system of financial management and control within the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  The review will take account of recent relevant studies, including the report of the Dearing Inquiry.

  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 164, what assessment his Department has made of the anti-discrimination legislation relating to disabled people in (a) Australia, (b) New Zealand and (c) Canada; and what visits officials from his Department have made to these countries to study the impact of such legislation there. [46405]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has not made a comprehensive assessment of the Australian Disability Discrimination Act, or of those parts of the New Zealand Human Rights Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act which cover disability discrimination.

  The Disability Rights Task Force, which I chair, is considering how best to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people within the context of our wider society. A recent discussion paper presented to the Task Force drew heavily on the approach to the definitions of disability and discrimination in other countries, in particular the Australian Disability Discrimination Act which was cited as an example in each part of the paper. This paper also included summaries of the relevant parts of the New Zealand and Canadian Human Rights Act. The paper is available on the Internet on www.disability.gov.uk.

  Officials have not visited these countries. The Australian Human Rights and Disability Rights Commissioner recently visited the UK to present a seminar on disability rights in Australia which was attended by officials and by several members of the Task Force. I myself met the Commissioner who also met senior officials working on disability policy.

  EU Social Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the transfer of responsibility for the European Social Fund to the Welsh Office; what are the proposed financial arrangements for the transfer; and if he will make a statement. [45457]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Following the announcement made by the former Secretary of State for Wales on 29 February 1996,Official Report, columns 1035–37, officials have been discussing the arrangements for transfer of the administration of Welsh European Social Fund programmes to the Welsh Office. Some functions have already been transferred and as soon as the financial arrangements have been agreed the rest will follow. We aim to have these arrangements completed as soon as possible.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what projects have received funds from the EU Social Fund in the Lincolnshire County Council area. [55342]
  999
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Projects that have received funding from the European Social Fund in 1998 are shown in the table. This shows that the amount of ESF funding allocated to projects in the Lincolnshire County

  1998 Applications—list of open projects with ESF approved amount for Lincolnshire

  Dossier

  Organisation

  Project

  Project reference

  Amount approved

  985211UK8

  Act

  Act/Centre Stage Rural Arts Outreach Worker

  A

  16,987.00

  980408UK5

  Boston College

  Developing Communications and Information Technology

  A

  21,937.00

  984253UK3

  Boston College

  Small Business Start-up Training for Ex-offenders

  A

  3,168.00

  984269UK3

  Boston College

  Vocational Training for Ex-offenders

  A

  3,168.00

  984303UK3

  Boston College

  Small Business Start-up Training for Young Ex-offenders

  A

  3,168.00

  984318UK3

  Boston College

  Vocational Training for Young Ex-offenders

  A

  3,168.00

  980411UK5

  East Lindsey District Council

  East Lindsey Environmental Study Centre

  A

  16,165.00

  985215UK8

  GFS Platform for Young Women

  GFS Platform Skegness

  A

  10,676.00

  984322UK3

  Grantham College

  Engineering (Modular Career Dev Prog)

  A

  14,450.00

  981289UK2

  Grimsby College

  Training for Hotel and Catering

  A

  83,725

  981290UK2

  Grimsby College

  Engineering Employment for the Unemployed

  A

  52,252.00

  981315UK2

  Grimsby College

  Training for Media, Entertainment & Music Tech

  A

  37,194.00

  981316UK2

  Grimsby College

  I want to Care

  A

  108,948.00

  981317UK2

  Grimsby College

  Hotel and Catering/Travel and Tourism

  A

  51,480.00

  981318UK2

  Grimsby College

  Media and Entertainment for Cultural Industries

  A

  97,466.00

  981324UK2

  Grimsby College

  Advanced Manufacturing Development

  A

  46,384.00

  981325UK2

  Grimsby College

  Tomorrows Manager

  A

  64,819.00

  981326UK2

  Grimsby College

  High Technology Training

  A

  16,899.00

  981327UK2

  Grimsby College

  Better Informed

  A

  13,299.00

  981328UK2

  Grimsby College

  Engineering Success

  A

  42,839.00

  984346UK3

  L.A.P.D.

  Moving Ahead

  A

  36,000.00

  984257UK3

  Lincoln City Council

  Access Programme for Unemployed People

  A

  34,873.00

  984348UK3

  Lincoln Self Build Project

  Lincoln Community Self Build:Training, Housing

  A

  14,586.80

  984351UK3

  Lincoln Voluntary Centre

  Lincoln Vol Centre Training and Access Network

  A

  85,773.00

  984260UK3

  Lincolnshire County Council

  Dual Initiative in Childcare & Employment (Dice) P

  A

  81,478.00

  980424UK5

  Lincolnshire Regional Access Centres

  Lincolnshire Access Network—Development & Delive

  A

  57,004.00

  985227UK8

  Lincolnshire Tec

  Business and Community Skills for Rural Areas

  A

  10,493.00

  981415UK8

  Lincolnshire Tec Ltd.

  Nu-form

  A

  38,817.00

  984363UK3

  Lincolnshire Tec Ltd.

  Lincolnshire Capacity Building Training Programme

  A

  12,000.00

  987106UK8

  Lincolnshire Tec Ltd.

  Respond

  A

  104,216.00

  987362UK8

  Lincolnshire Tec Ltd.

  Food Partnership

  A

  117,270.00

  987363UK8

  Lincolnshire Tec Ltd.

  Manufacturing Challenge II

  A

  72,090.00

  984357UK3

  Lincolnshire Training & Enterprise Council

  Lincolnshire Small Grant Scheme

  A

  35,500.00

  985222UK8

  Lincolnshire Training & Enterprise Council

  Countryside Job Bus

  A

  71,748.00

  982156UK8

  Lincolnshire Training & Enterprise Council

  Armed Forces Resettlement

  A

  20,587.00

  984225UK3

  Lincolnshire Training & Enterprise Council

  Lincoln Industrial Workshop

  A

  20,722.00

  984233UK3

  Lincolnshire Training & Enterprise Council

  Shaw Start 2 (Hartsholme Park)

  A

  18,900.00

  984234UK3

  Lincolnshire Training & Enterprise Council

  Urban Challenge

  A

  45,000.00

  984291UK3

  Lincolnshire Training & Enterprise Council

  Princes Trust Volunteers

  A

  23,400.00

  984310UK3

  Lincolnshire Training & Enterprise Council

  Engineering Training Centre

  A

  96,473.00

  980418UK5

  North Lincolnshire College

  Reskill

  A

  161,797.00

  980419UK5

  North Lincolnshire College

  Powerstart

  A

  199,109.00

  980420UK5

  North Lincolnshire College

  Tecstart

  A

  37,680.00

  980421UK5

  North Lincolnshire College

  Commcomm

  A

  38,847.00

  984356UK3

  South Holland Volunteer Bureau

  Voluntary Research Centre

  A

  12,255.00

  987249UK8

  The Growing Place Project

  Formulae

  A

  86,936.00

  2,241,746.80

  1000
  Council area so far this year is £2,241,746.80. This total excludes Objective 4 funding as the results of the 1998 application round will not be known until later in the year.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the 1997 National Curriculum assessment results in English, mathematics and science for seven, 11 and 14-year-olds aggregated at LEA level; and if he will make a statement. [27373]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The 1997 National Curriculum assessment results in English, mathematics and science for 7, 11 and 14-year-olds, aggregated at local education authority level, are contained in a number of tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  We have set challenging targets for 11-year-olds' attainment in literacy and numeracy by 2002. We have recently agreed local literacy targets with each LEA, and we will be agreeing later this year similar targets for numeracy. We want to share and maximise the use of National Curriculum assessment data. These data reflect the key role local education authorities have in supporting schools to raise standards.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much his Department expects to spend in each year from 1998–99 to 2000–01 on vehicle replacements. [54986]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department, together with the Employment Service (ES), is constantly looking at the efficiency and effectiveness of the vehicle fleet and replace vehicles only where there is a clear business need to do so. Following reviews of officially provided vehicles in both DfEE and ES earlier this year, more stringent requirements have been introduced for the use of vehicles. These are likely to result in a significant reduction in the need to purchase replacement vehicles.

  In DfEE we now expect to spend less than £250,000 during 1998–99 while ES will spend about Elm during the same period. The budget for future years has yet to be agreed and will be based on operational needs of both DfEE and ES. Early indications are that the allocations will continue to decline.

  EU Projects
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the merging of Youth for Europe and the European Voluntary Service after 1999, with reference to the continuation of projects designed to foster European identity. [55343]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Youth for Europe and European Voluntary Service programmes provide opportunities for young people to forge links with others in the Community who share their interests and concerns and thereby to gain greater understanding of other cultures and ways of life. Such activities contribute to the personal and social education of young people and to the development of responsible citizenship. The programmes are scheduled to 1002
  conclude at the end of 1999. The Commission has published proposals for a successor youth programme which would incorporate youth exchange and voluntary service activities and other measures. The Government are participating positively in negotiations with other Member States on the terms of the new programme which is intended to come into force in the year 2000.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the introduction of the Europass to record work-related training; and if the Europass will contain(a) a microchip and (b) a photograph. [55404]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Europass will be a voluntary community-wide document, recording periods of work-linked training undertaken in a Member State other than the one in which the training is based. It comes into effect on 1 January 2000. The period of training will count towards a course of training being undertaken in the home Member State. It will complement at European level national systems for recording vocational training.

  It falls to each Member State to implement the Europass. My officials are currently considering which agency is best placed to manage this process over the next 15 months.

  There is no requirement for the Europass to contain a microchip or a photograph when it comes into effect.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the function and purpose of(a) the Eurodesk and (b) the youth card network of the Youth for Europe programme. [55379]

  Mr. Mudie
  These are matters for the European Commission.

  Music Services
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's current policy towards safeguarding local education authority music services; and what changes his Department proposes to make. [55018]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government recognise the important contribution made by LEA music services; that is why we proposed new arrangements to safeguard them in our "Fair Funding" consultation document.

  We are considering the responses to this consultation and we will be making an announcement on the future funding of LEA music services in the near future.

  Schools (Gravesham)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for each of the schools in Gravesham, the amount of funding received in 1997–98 and for 1998–99 to improve security. [55322]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Kent Local Education Authority received £535,700 in 1997–98 and £445,458 in 1998–99 to improve school security. Information on amounts allocated to individual schools is not collected centrally.

  Primary Classes
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the primary schools in Cleethorpes constituency which have benefited from extra money to reduce class sizes. [55145]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Schools in the Cleethorpes constituency benefiting from capital allocations to reduce infant class sizes are:

  Coomb Briggs Primary: £55,178

  Elliston Infants: £70,682

  Healing Primary: £81,367

  Humberston CE Primary: £56,410

  Humberston Cloverfields Primary: £65,222

  Reynolds Infants: £65,222

  Stanford Infant and Junior: £65,222.

  Education Budgets
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for(a) Buckinghamshire County Council and (b) Milton Keynes Unitary Council since 1 May 1997, (i) the increase in money provided for non-HE and FE education under the SSA, (ii) the additional funding for non-HE and FE education provided in specific grants and (iii) the additional spending on non-HE and FE education allocated by each local authority. [55144]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Buckinghamshire

  LEA Milton Keynes

  Year-on-year education SSA change

  +7.8

  +3.2

  Year-on-year specific grant change

  +1.9

  +0.6

  Year-on-year education spending change

  -2.1

  +8.3

  Notes:

  1. All the figures show the year-on-year changes between 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  2. The education SSA figures take account of income from nursery vouchers in 1997–98.

  3. The specific grant figures show the year-on-year change in the total amount allocated through the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme in 1997–98 and through the Standards Fund in 1998–99. The figures therefore include the LEA contribution as well as the grant.

  4. The spending figures represent the year-on-year change in budgeted net revenue expenditure on education, adjusted for income from nursery vouchers. The figures have been derived from each authority's General Fund Revenue Account (RA) returns. They exclude expenditure financed by specific grants but include the LEA contribution towards such expenditure. The figures also include a pro rata share of certain heads of expenditure, notably capital expenditure charged to the revenue account, which cannot be attributed to individual services.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list each LEA area in order of the performance of its maintained schools at(a) A Level and (b) GCSE. [55476]
  1004
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The GCE A level and GCSE information requested in respect of LEA areas is shown in the table. The results relate to 1997 exams. The results for the 1998 exams will be published later this year.

  LEA area

  Ranking

  (a) GCE A level GCE A/AS point score per entry for pupils aged 16–18 entered for at least 1 GCE A/AS in 1996–97

  Buckinghamshire

  6.0

  1

  Camden

  5.9

  2

  Kingston upon Thames

  5.9

  2

  Somerset

  5.9

  2

  York, City of

  5.9

  2

  Bournemouth

  5.8

  6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5.8

  6

  Poole

  5.8

  6

  Sheffield

  5.8

  6

  Barnet

  5.7

  10

  Southampton

  5.7

  10

  Gloucestershire

  5.6

  12

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5.6

  12

  Havering

  5.6

  12

  Manchester

  5.6

  12

  North Somerset

  5.6

  12

  North Yorkshire

  5.6

  12

  Stockton on Tees

  5.6

  12

  Sutton

  5.6

  12

  Wiltshire

  5.6

  12

  Trafford

  5.6

  14

  Berkshire

  5.5

  22

  Hertfordshire

  5.5

  22

  Lincolnshire

  5.5

  22

  Surrey

  5.5

  22

  Essex

  5.4

  26

  Kent

  5.4

  26

  Lancashire

  5.4

  26

  Swindon

  5.4

  26

  Bolton

  5.3

  32

  Brighton and Hove

  5.3

  32

  Bromley

  5.3

  32

  Durham

  5.3

  32

  Northumberland

  5.3

  32

  Oxfordshire

  5.3

  32

  Westminster

  5.3

  32

  Wirral

  5.3

  32

  Bath and North East Somerset

  5.2

  40

  Bexley

  5.2

  40

  Darlington

  5.2

  40

  Devon

  5.2

  40

  Dorset

  5.2

  40

  Gateshead

  5.2

  40

  Isle of Wight

  5.2

  40

  Redbridge

  5.2

  40

  Shropshire

  5.2

  40

  West Sussex

  5.2

  40

  Bedfordshire

  5.1

  50

  Birmingham

  5.1

  50

  Cornwall

  5.1

  50

  Croydon

  5.1

  50

  Derbyshire

  5.1

  50

  East Sussex

  5.1

  50

  Hampshire

  5.1

  50

  Hillingdon

  5.1

  50

  Hounslow

  5.1

  50

  Norfolk

  5.1

  50

  South Gloucestershire

  5.1

  50

  Warwickshire

  5.1

  50

  Cambridgeshire

  5.0

  62

  Cumbria

  5.0

  62

  Ealing

  5.0

  62

  Enfield

  5.0

  62

  Hereford and Worcester

  5.0

  62

  Kingston upon Hull

  5.0

  62

  1005

  LEA area

  Ranking

  Leicestershire

  5.0

  62

  Newham

  5.0

  62

  Oldham

  5.0

  62

  Staffordshire

  5.0

  62

  Suffolk

  5.0

  62

  Walsall

  5.0

  62

  Waltham Forest

  5.0

  62

  Barnsley

  4.9

  75

  Bristol, City of

  4.9

  75

  Coventry

  4.9

  75

  Greenwich

  4.9

  75

  Leeds

  4.9

  75

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  4.9

  75

  Rotherham

  4.9

  75

  Wandsworth

  4.9

  75

  Wigan

  4.9

  75

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  4.8

  86

  Liverpool

  4.8

  86

  Northamptonshire

  4.8

  86

  Nottinghamshire

  4.8

  86

  Solihull

  4.8

  86

  Brent

  4.7

  91

  Calderdale

  4.7

  91

  Kirklees

  4.7

  91

  Leicester City

  4.7

  91

  Milton Keynes

  4.7

  91

  North Tyneside

  4.7

  91

  Rochdale

  4.7

  91

  Sefton

  4.7

  91

  South Tyneside

  4.7

  91

  St. Helens

  4.7

  91

  Merton

  4.6

  101

  Stoke on Trent

  4.6

  101

  Wolverhampton

  4.6

  101

  Bradford

  4.5

  104

  Derby City

  4.5

  104

  North East Lincolnshire

  4.5

  104

  Sunderland

  4.5

  104

  Doncaster

  4.4

  108

  Southwark

  4.4

  108

  Portsmouth

  4.3

  110

  Wakefield

  4.3

  110

  Lambeth

  4.2

  112

  Barking and Dagenham

  4.1

  113

  Middlesbrough

  4.1

  113

  North Lincolnshire

  4.1

  113

  Hackney

  4.0

  116

  Lewisham

  3.7

  117

  Tower Hamlets

  3.6

  118

  Islington

  3.4

  119

  Sandwell

  3.4

  119

  Luton

  3.3

  121

  Knowsley

  3.1

  122

  Tameside

  2.8

  123

  (b) GCSE Percentage of 15 year olds achieving 5 or more GCSE/GNVQ grades AC 1996–97

  Isles of Scilly

  61.1

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  59.7

  2

  Kingston upon Thames

  57.5

  3

  Sutton

  54.7

  4

  North Yorkshire

  54.0

  5

  Harrow

  53.4

  6

  Bromley

  52.7

  7

  Redbridge

  52.5

  8

  Barnet

  52.0

  9

  Gloucestershire

  51.6

  10

  Trafford

  51.6

  10

  York

  51.4

  12

  Bath and North East Somerset

  51.3

  13

  Solihull

  51.2

  14

  Surrey

  51.0

  15

  North Somerset

  50.9

  16

  1006

  LEA area

  Ranking

  Hertfordshire

  50.7

  17

  Poole

  50.7

  17

  Wiltshire

  50.5

  19

  West Sussex

  50.3

  20

  Stockport

  50.2

  21

  Dorset

  49.8

  22

  Hampshire

  49.4

  23

  Shropshire

  49.3

  24

  Rutland

  49.0

  25

  Cornwall

  48.8

  28

  Cheshire

  48.5

  29

  Havering

  48.1

  30

  Bury

  47.8

  31

  Camden

  47.8

  31

  Bournemouth

  47.6

  33

  Suffolk

  47.4

  34

  Oxfordshire

  47.2

  35

  Lincolnshire

  46.7

  36

  Richmond upon Thames

  46.5

  37

  Kent

  45.7

  38

  Cambridgeshire

  45.6

  39

  East Sussex

  45.5

  40

  Sefton

  45.0

  41

  Staffordshire

  45.0

  41

  Wigan

  44.8

  43

  Leicestershire

  44.7

  44

  Essex

  44.6

  45

  Norfolk

  44.6

  45

  South Gloucestershire

  44.6

  45

  Bexley

  44.5

  48

  Warwickshire

  44.5

  48

  Wirral

  44.5

  48

  Bedfordshire

  44.3

  51

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  44.3

  51

  Hereford and Worcester

  44.1

  53

  Hounslow

  44.1

  53

  Devon

  44.0

  55

  Isle of Wight

  43.9

  56

  Kensington and Chelsea

  43.9

  56

  Lancashire

  43.8

  58

  Cumbria

  43.5

  59

  Derbyshire

  43.5

  59

  Northumberland

  43.2

  61

  Swindon

  43.0

  62

  North Tyneside

  42.7

  63

  Dudley

  42.5

  64

  Enfield

  42.3

  65

  Northamptonshire

  42.2

  66

  Southampton

  40.9

  67

  Croydon

  40.4

  68

  Hillingdon

  40.4

  68

  St. Helens

  40.2

  70

  Brighton and Hove

  40.1

  71

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  40.1

  71

  Bolton

  40.0

  73

  North Lincolnshire

  39.7

  74

  Kirklees

  39.5

  75

  Gateshead

  39.2

  76

  Stockton on Tees

  39.1

  77

  Redcar and Cleveland

  38.4

  78

  Calderdale

  38.2

  81

  Derby City

  38.2

  81

  Ealing

  37.9

  83

  Wakefield

  37.9

  83

  Tameside

  37.7

  85

  Nottinghamshire

  37.6

  86

  Darlington

  37.5

  87

  Merton

  37.5

  87

  Leeds

  37.4

  89

  Rotherham

  37.4

  89

  Coventry

  36.9

  91

  Durham

  36.3

  92

  Oldham

  35.8

  93

  South Tyneside

  35.7

  94

  1007

  LEA area

  Ranking

  Rochdale

  35.5

  95

  Waltham Forest

  35.5

  95

  Birmingham

  35.3

  97

  Milton Keynes

  35.0

  98

  Wandsworth

  35.0

  98

  Sunderland

  34.4

  100

  Luton

  34.3

  101

  Westminster

  34.1

  102

  Doncaster

  33.8

  103

  Walsall

  33.8

  103

  Newham

  33.4

  105

  Wolverhampton

  33.1

  106

  Leicester City

  32.8

  107

  Bristol, City of

  32.1

  108

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  31.6

  109

  Portsmouth

  31.6

  109

  Barking and Dagenham

  30.9

  111

  Greenwich

  30.8

  112

  North East Lincolnshire

  30.7

  113

  Salford

  30.7

  113

  Stoke on Trent

  30.5

  115

  Hackney

  30.4

  116

  Liverpool

  30.1

  117

  Lewisham

  29.4

  118

  Hartlepool

  29.1

  119

  Bradford

  28.9

  120

  Barnsley

  28.6

  121

  Lambeth

  28.6

  121

  Middlesbrough

  28.5

  123

  Southwark

  27.2

  124

  Sandwell

  26.9

  125

  Haringey

  26.7

  126

  Manchester

  26.3

  127

  Tower Hamlets

  25.7

  128

  Islington

  24.9

  129

  Knowsley

  23.4

  130

  Kingston upon Hull

  21.4

  131

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55259]

  Mr. Mudie
  The number of motorcycle parking spaces in DfEE HQ sites is 30.

  Number

  Darlington

  6

  London

  13

  Runcorn

  3

  Sheffield

  8

  Total

  30

  The spaces at the London HQ offices can be designated as secure as these are in an underground car park. Other HQ parking facilities are monitored by CCTV.

  The Employment Service (ES) does not keep records of motorcycle parking spaces at its 1,200 properties which cover a wide range of locations. Where a need is identified, and it is feasible, spaces are made available for staff use.

  New Deal
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the delivery of the New Deal Programme by(a) the Employment Service and (b) TECs. [54864]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Employment Service is responsible for the delivery of the New Deal across Great Britain with a distinct lead role for specific private sector providers in some areas. In every area partnerships of key local bodies play a vital part in the development of delivery of New Deal. TECs play a role to varying extents in each of those partnerships in England and Wales.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the contracting procedure in the voluntary sector option of the New Deal. [54854]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Voluntary Sector Option contracts are for three years with an annual break clause. Contracts for this sector may guarantee a minimum volume of participants. 158 main contracts have been signed with the Voluntary sector. We are working closely with the sector continuously to improve the contracting procedures.

  Training Courses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the advantage of introducing shorter, employment-specific, training courses in the New Deal. [548531

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  New Deal is designed to meet individual need, and to contain the widest possible range of help to enhance employability. Employment specific training is available through each of the New Deals, which are all being rigorously evaluated.

  Transport Costs
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if(a) grant-maintained and (b) locally managed schools are permitted to use money from their school budget to provide transport for children to school. [55281]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Yes, in both cases.

  Cambridge University
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has held with the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University about measures to widen access in respect of undergraduate admissions. [55527]

  Mr. Mudie
  The issue of access has been raised alongside discussions about future funding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has welcomed initiatives being taken by the University to attract applications from a wider range of potential students.

  TECs and Chambers of Commerce
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued
  1009
  to TECs and chambers of commerce about future applications for mergers; and if he will make a statement. [55151]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Government have announced that they will not be taking any further decisions on applications to merge from the TECs and Chambers of Commerce, until they have completed their consultation on the future rule of Training and Enterprise Councils and had time to consider the outcome. The only exceptions were those applications that had been formally received by Government for approval at the time this moratorium was announced.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of applications for mergers by TECs and chambers of commerce(a) received, (b) approved, (c) rejected and (d) awaiting ministerial approval to date. [55152]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Government have received a total of 18 applications to merge from TECs and Chambers of Commerce of which two have been withdrawn by the merger partners; 16 merger applications have been approved; no merger applications have been rejected; and no merger applications are currently awaiting ministerial approval.

  Prince's Trust (Exhibition)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department has considered making an application for an Exhibition relating to the Prince's Trust to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [55543]

  Mr. Mudie
  I understand that the hon. Member is sponsoring a parliamentary exhibition on the Prince's Trust next week. I recommend that hon. Members visit the exhibition to learn about the excellent work of the Trust, which works with the Department in a variety of areas ranging from study support to secondment of officials.

  Eleven Plus
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make secondary schools responsible for the payment and administration of the eleven plus examination; and if he will make a statement. [55021]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  LEAs and schools which test pupils for selective admission by ability will continue to make their own arrangements for administration and payment of costs.

  Child Care
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of children aged(a) 0 to 4, (b) 5 to 10, (c) 11 to 12 and (d) 13 years or above whose child care during the hours of parental employment is provided primarily by a grandparent or other non-parental family member. [55387]

  Ms Hodge
  Estimates of the number of children in the relevant age bands whose child care during the hours of parental employment is provided primarily by a grandparent or other non-parental family member are not 1010
  available. The British Social Attitudes Survey conducted in 1994 by independent researchers at Social and Community Planning Research asked working parents about their child care arrangements. The survey found that, in families where the youngest child was aged less than 5, 21 per cent. of children were cared for by relatives other than parents. Where the youngest child was between 5 and 12 years old, 18 per cent. were cared for in this way.

  We know that many parents prefer their children to be cared for by relatives whilst they are at work. This is why our National Childcare Strategy seeks to improve support for such carers.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to improve child care. [53474]

  Ms Hodge
  The Green Paper "Meeting the Childcare Challenge", which was published in May, sets out the Government's plans for a National Childcare Strategy to raise the quality of care, to make child care more affordable, and to make it more accessible.

  The range of tasks envisaged in the National Childcare Strategy can be achieved only by drawing on the commitment and expertise of a wide range of partners with local knowledge and experience. We are therefore setting up in each English local authority area an Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership to take forward the local planning to implement the strategy.

  Last week I announced the launch of the 1999–2000 planning guidance for the partnerships and informed each about the funding available to them from the Department for child care development next year. The partnerships are currently assessing the local demand for child care and the supply of places available to meet it and will be going on to produce plans to begin filling the gap between the two. These plans will be sent to the Department by 1 February 1999, for approval prior to delivery from 1999 onwards.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has parallel plans for Wales.

  Supported Placement Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each year since 1993–94(a) the number of places supported by his Department in the supported placement scheme, (b) the cost per place to the Department, (c) the annual percentage increase in funding to placement sponsors and (d) the annual percentage increase in annual earnings of those supported by the scheme. [55572]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have set out the answers to the hon. and learned Member's questions in the table.

  Year

  (a) Number of SPS places

  (b) Cost per place (£)

  (c) Annual % increase in funding

  1993–94

  7,461

  13,480

  16.4

  24,310

  24.1

  1994–95

  7,748

  4,420

  127

  24.1

  1995–96

  8,036

  4,530

  2.5

  1011

  Year

  (a) Number of SPS places

  (b) Cost per place (£)

  (c) Annual % increase in funding

  1996–97

  8,191

  4,610

  1.8

  1997–98

  8,448

  4,680

  1.5

  1 Local Authorities

  2 Voluntary Bodies

  Information on the annual earnings of supported employees and the annual percentage increase is not collected from supported employment contractors and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost to the Department and to its contractors. However, it is one of the fundamental conditions of the Supported Employment Programme that sponsors will, in placing disabled people with host employers, ensure that disabled people are paid the same wages as non disabled colleagues doing the same work.

  Inner London Education
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the funding for colleges of further education in Inner London; and if he will make a statement. [55517]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations about funding. The further education sector, including Inner London colleges, will benefit from the additional £255 million for 1999–2000, announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the ethnicity factor in the school funding formula for Inner London; and if he will make a statement. [55518]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government have received a number of conflicting representations regarding the ethnicity factor in the education Standard Spending Assessment formula. Decisions as to the formula for 1999–2000 will be announced later this year.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55176]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department for Education and Employment plans to implement the Government Procurement Card (GPC) on a pilot basis before the end of 1998. As the Department and its next steps agency, the Employment Service, already make extensive use of national contracts and electronic invoicing, DfEE will want to evaluate the pilot before considering full roll out of the GPC.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to prevent age discrimination in the workplace. [55154]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Our plans are given in the report of the consultation we carried out earlier this year on age discrimination and employment. The report, "Action on Age", was published on 13 August and a copy has been placed in the Library. We are developing a draft code of good practice with key partners, including the TUC, Age Concern, Institute of Personnel and Development and the CBI. It will cover recruitment, selection, promotion, training, redundancy and retirement. It will be issued shortly for wider consultation and a final version published early next year.

  PE Teachers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the sports which trainee physical education teachers specialised in to gain their qualifications in the last year for which figures are available. [55403]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not available in the form requested. 1,644 students entered physical education Initial Teacher Training in England in 1997/98; however, the Department does not collect information on the sport in which these students specialised.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many qualified physical education teachers there are in English schools. [55377]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There were some 26,000 full and part-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in 1996/97 who had a post A level qualification in physical education. Similar information for primary schools is not available. However, primary teachers are trained to deliver the whole primary curriculum including physical education.

  Primary Schools
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to assist small rural primary schools. [55146]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We fully recognise the important contribution made by rural schools and have made it clear that under both the existing arrangements for deciding statutory proposals and those coming into force in September 1999 there will be a presumption against the closure of rural schools. Our educational policies are designed to assist all schools in raising standards, including small rural primary schools. Smaller infant class sizes will mean that all children get the best start at school, and the new information and communications technology we are supporting will be of particular help to rural schools in opening up new possibilities for enriching children's learning and overcoming rural isolation. The National Literacy Strategy, which began in schools this term, and the National Numeracy Strategy, to be implemented from 1999, are designed to raise standards in all primary schools.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kakadu National Park
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from the Mirrar peoples of Australia in respect of the proposed development of the Jabiluka uranium mine in the Kakadu National Park. [55413]

  Clare Short
  I have received no such representations.

  Government Purchase Card
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what use her Department is currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings she estimates are being achieved as a result; what plans she has to expand use of the card by her Department and its agencies; and if she will make a statement. [55216]

  Clare Short
  We do not use the card at present but my Department is looking into introducing the Government Purchasing Card later this year for purchases in the UK. We are also considering a pilot operation of the Card overseas.

  It is not yet possible to say what savings would result from use of the Card.

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which her Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55262]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development has six dedicated motor-cycle spaces at its 94 Victoria Street headquarters all of which are in a garage block under the scrutiny of cameras and custody guards. The Department also has three dedicated spaces at its East Kilbride Headquarters which are relatively less secure.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what progress has been made on the setting up of a UK National Commission for UNESCO; and what role the(a) Department for Education and Employment, (b) Department of Trade and Industry, Office of Science and Technology and (c) Department for Culture, Media and Sport will have in selecting appropriate non-Governmental members of the Commission; [55231]

  (2) if she will list the Government departments which participate in UNESCO's activities and on what matters; [55230]

  (3) how many (a) officials, and (b) NGOs have attended UNESCO-related conferences on the United Kingdom's behalf since the UK rejoined UNESCO; and what encouragement she has given to groups outside Government to participate in these conferences. [55232]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to my letters of 7 August 1998.
  1014
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the(a) contribution made by and (b) benefits obtained by each Department which has participated in UNESCO's activities since the UK's resumption of UNESCO membership on 1 July. [55292]

  Clare Short
  Since the resumption of UK membership of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the financial costs of which are borne by my Department, a range of Government departments have contributed to activities of specific interest to them. We will be publishing a strategy paper in 1999 outlining our priorities for our work with UNESCO.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer of 15 June 1998,Official Report, column 98, in relation to the Cikampek to Padalarang toll road project in Indonesia, what expenditure has been (a) allocated and (b) incurred by her Department to date; what impact the delay to the project will have on the effectiveness of her Department's support for the project; and if she will place in the Library copies of the project appraisal, monitoring and evaluation reports completed to date. [55225]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to my letter of 16 August 1998.

  China and Vietnam
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her visits to China and Vietnam. [55030]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to my letter of 7 August 1998.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the welfare of British aid workers engaged in relief work in Sudan. [55436]

  Clare Short
  The Security Unit of the UN Operation Lifeline Sudan is responsible for co-ordinating security procedures for all relief workers operating in southern Sudan. British NGOs active in Sudan are content with the support provided. Since February we have contributed £300,000 to the Unit.

  Britain has also contributed to the drawing up of a code of best practice in the management and support of aid personnel. This includes a commitment to the protection and well-being of aid personnel working in difficult and dangerous operations. Agencies seeking emergency funds for Sudan (or elsewhere) are asked to stipulate how they apply Code standards. Many of the NGOs offer advice and counselling as necessary to staff working in difficult circumstances such as those in southern Sudan.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been spent to date on advertising relating to the millennium bug problem. [46146]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: The total media spend by Action 2000 from launch of its advertising and publicity campaign in mid July to end of September has been £3.76 million.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will take steps to require listed companies to disclose their plans for the millennium compliance of their computer systems and associated contingency plans; and if she will make a statement. [50049]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have no plans to do so.

  In March, the Urgent Issues Task Force, a subcommittee of the Accounting Standards Board, published an abstract on accounting and disclosures in relation to Year 2000. The abstract (UITF abstract 20) explains that entities should disclose (a) the risks and uncertainties associated with the Year 2000 problem; if no such assessment has been made it should be stated, and (b) general plans to address Year 2000 issues relating to business and operations, and if material, their relationships with customers, suppliers, and other relevant parties.

  Although no legally binding abstracts issued by the UITF are authoritative. Abstract 20 has been endorsed by the Stock Exchange who have drawn it to the attention of all listed companies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Software Reliability Unit at City University, London, about computers at nuclear power plants failing to recognise the year 2000. [54682]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government have received no such representations. I understand, however, that Professor Bev Littlewood of the Software Reliability Unit at City University, London, and a member of the Health and Safety Commission's independent expert advisory body on nuclear safety matters, the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (NuSAC), has suggested that NuSAC consider the implications of the century date change for nuclear safety at a forthcoming meeting of the committee. This is, of course, a matter for NuSAC to consider.

  All UK nuclear operators have initiated major programmes of work to address the century date change problem. These programmes are being closely monitored by the UK's independent nuclear safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which has made it clear that it is satisfied with the actions being taken by operators. Operators anticipate that all essential work to address the problem will be completed by the end of April 1999.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the extent and cost of the current Get Your Business Ready for the Bug awareness campaign; if he will include a leaflet in telephone bills to businesses; and if he will make a statement on progress on awareness. [55148]
  1016
  Mrs. Roche
  The cost of the current Action 2000 advertising and publicity campaign to end of September was £3.76 million, made up as follows:

  £000

  Outdoor posters

  720

  National press

  1,220

  Regional press

  120

  TV

  1,700

  The reach and frequency achieved were:

  Outdoor Posters: seen by 51.5% of ABC1 adults on average 27 times.

  National Press: seen by 96% of businesspeople with responsibility for 10–300 employees on average 13 times.

  Regional Press: seen by 6.4% of ABC1 adults on average 2.6 times across UK.

  TV: seen by 84.2% of ABC1 adults on average 4.5 times.

  A number of free channels of communication to businesses via key influences have been used by Action 2000 with the following results:

  Barclays Bank has included Action 2000 leaflets with bank statements to reach over 400,000 business customers.

  NatWest Bank sent a message on all statements to 300,000 business customers highlighting the Millennium Bug and Action Line number. This was followed by a special letter about Action 2000 and giving Year 2000 advice to 500,000 business customers.

  BT published an article in its business customer magazine 'Talking Business' with a circulation of 160,000 copies.

  West of Scotland Water will include an Action 2000 leaflet with the water bills of all 27,000 business customers.

  Thames Water will send a letter to 170,000 commercial customers signposting Action 2000.

  Cable and Wireless will include leaflets in a mailing to 170,000 business customers.

  British Midland are distributing flyers in Business Lounges and check-in desks at UK airports on an on-going basis.

  The third phase, its 'state of the nation' survey is presently being completed, and the results will be announced by Action 2000 on 22 October.

  Oil Exploration (Sudan)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the United Kingdom companies involved in the exploration for oil in Southern Sudan. [51773]

  Mr. Battle:
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: To the best of our knowledge there are no British companies exploring for oil in Southern Sudan although we understand that two companies, Weir Pumps and Allen Power, supply equipment to the major exploration consortium in Sudan headed by CNPC of China.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed in textile finishing(a) in 1979, (b) in 1989, (c) in 1995 and (d) at the latest available date. [49622]
  1017
  Mr. Battle
  The number of people employed in the textile finishing industry were 23,500 in 1989, 18,800 in 1995 and 19,900 in 1996. Data for 1979 are not available on the same basis.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Annual Production and Construction Inquiries (PACSTAT).

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total output of grey unfinished cloth in Britain for each of the last 10 years for which figure are available. [49616]

  Mr. Battle
  This information is not available from official statistics.

  Foresight Panels
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes have been made to the remit of Foresight panels since 1 May 1997. [50018]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: None. Panel activities are currently based on action plans developed in the early part of last year and for the most part published before 1 May 1997. These focus in particular on action to engage business at all levels, including SMEs, and to promote cross working between Panels. This, in turn, is one of a range of initiatives designed to raise the profile of the Foresight Programme, both generally and within Government under the overall direction of the Ministerial Foresight Group. The progress report published in June describes the advances which have been made since the Foresight Audit was carried out last summer. Copies of the progress report are available in the Library of the House.

  Decisions on the scope and structure of the next round of Foresight will be taken shortly. The proposals currently out to consultation suggest, however, that there should be a new focus on themes relevant to quality of life as well as wealth creation and that issues such as education skills and training and sustainable development should be on the agenda of all Panels. The proposals also underline our intention to broaden the basis of participation in Foresight, in particular by encouraging contributions from young people and from individuals, SMEs and organisations with specialist expertise to offer.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants in her Department(a) have a degree in science and (b) have held a position using that expertise. [50895]

  Mr. Battle
  Systematic and reliable data in the form requested are not available for the Department as a whole.

  However, there are currently 27 staff within the Department's Fast Stream grades who have science degrees, of whom 23 have held positions where this expertise is likely to have been relevant to the content of the post.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked the Chief Executives of the Agencies of the Department to reply to my hon. Friend direct.
  1018
  Letter from Peter Joyce to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 19 October 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the number of staff in the Insolvency Service who (a) have a degree in science and (b) have held a position using that expertise.
  I regret that the information held centrally by the Service on its staff is not maintained in a form which would provide details of those who have a science degree except at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from David Hendon to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 16 July 1998:
  You asked the President of the Board of Trade, how many civil servants in her Department (a) have a degree in science and (b) have held a position using that expertise. I have been asked to answer that question in respect of the Radiocommunications Agency.
  I am afraid that the Agency does not have available comprehensive data that would allow me to identify which of its staff have science degrees. I can inform you, however, that the Agency has 45 engineering staff with engineering degrees of various types. In addition, there is a small number of generalist administrators with a science or engineering degree who may find their specialist expertise relevant to some extent to the particular work the Agency does.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated July 1998:
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service to your question of 15 July 1998 to the President of the Board of Trade concerning civil servants who hold a science degree.
  We have no information readily available about the numbers of staff in the ETS with science degrees.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated July 1998:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about civil servants in her Department who have a degree in science and have held a position using that expertise.
  A total of 217 of the 750 Patent Office permanent staff have degrees in science—ie in science, engineering or mathematics. Of these 207 are professional patent examiners who make use of their expertise on a day to day basis either in examining patent applications or in a supervisory capacity. Most of the remaining 10 staff with science degrees have at one time or another been patent examiners and are now in supervisory positions elsewhere in the Patent Office dealing, for example, with procurement contracts. For completeness I should add that we also have a small number of graduates in science-related subjects such as geography, botany and environmental studies who do not make use of their expertise on a day-to-day basis.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated July 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the number of civil servants with science degrees.
  More than half of the staff in this Agency hold technical qualifications of one sort or another, but we have no readily accessible reliable data on the number with science degrees.

  Letter from John Holden to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated July 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding the number of civil servants with a degree in science and would respond as follows:

  (a) 15 employees have a science degree.

  (b) One who has previously held a position using that expertise.

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what capacity Dr. Douglas Graham is employed by UKAEA; and what is the nature of his duties. [50255]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 14 July 1998]: Dr. Douglas Graham is employed by the UKAEA at Dounreay as the Waste Strategy and Studies Department Manager in the Waste Studies Group. He is responsible for waste strategy and studies for the waste management group, including studies of technologies and waste treatment, and managing the investigation of records.

  Encryption
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 27 April 1998,Official Report, column 26, if it is her intention, as part of her proposals to regulate the use of encryption on public networks, to impose the escrow of encryption keys for data which comprises patients' personal medical information. [51793]

  Mrs. Roche
  No. The proposals we hope to bring forward in relation to secure electronic commerce will set up a voluntary licensing regime for organisations offering cryptography services to the public. It would be only those organisations seeking licences to provide confidentiality services that would be required to keep copies of the encryption keys of clients.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list for(a) her Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (A) fuel types and (B) engine cubic capacities; and how

  Replacement

  Engine cc

  Fuel type

  Owned

  Leased

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  1994

  Diesel

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2500

  Diesel

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  As regards the type of replacement vehicle; it is envisaged at this stage that the vehicle due for replacement in 2000/01 will be of similar type. At the time of replacement, reliable alternative technology would be considered.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  In response to your Parliamentary Questions concerning vehicles owned or leased within the Department of Trade and Industry, I can confirm that in the Companies House Agency:

  1 We own a solitary 2 litre diesel Ford Transit panel van in Companies House colours and bearing the CH logo.

  2 There are no plans to replace this vehicle in the period 1998–2001.
  1020
  many vehicles are expected to fall due for replacement in each of the years (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000 and (3) 2000–01. [49230]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Disaggregated information in the form requested is not available for the core Department and the other bodies listed in the National Asset Register, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I have asked the Agency Chief Executives to reply to the hon. Member, as they have their own management responsibility for assets.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated July 1998:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your question to the President of the Board of Trade about vehicles that are owned or leased.
  The Patent Office does not own any vehicles. We lease one 2500cc diesel-engined van which is due for replacement in the period 1999–2000 and, as yet, have made no decisions on whether it will in fact be replaced or by what type of vehicle.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service to your question of 23 July 1998 to the President of the Board of Trade asking how many vehicles owned or leased will be replaced by vehicles using petrol, diesel, gas, electric batteries or other.
  The vehicles which are due for replacement in 1999–2000 will be considered for replacement only if replacement provides the most cost effective means of travel for the Employment Tribunals Service. At the present time the vehicles are not expected to be replaced.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated July 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your questions about; i) vehicles owned or leased by the Agency and, ii) what type of vehicle will be any replacement.
  The information you requested on vehicles owned or leased is set out in the following table:

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to your question about vehicles due for replacement by The Insolvency Service.
  The Service has no vehicles and no plans to acquire any so that the issue of replacement does not arise.

  Letter from David Hendon to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me in my capacity at Chief Executive of the Radiocommunications Agency to reply to your two Parliamentary Questions 97/4281 and 97/4630 about the number of vehicles owned and leased by this Agency, and the Agency's vehicle replacement programme.
  The Agency is responsible for the management and enforcement of the radio spectrum. Vehicles carry large amounts of specialist equipment; most are saloon cars but there are also mobile laboratories and off road vehicles.
  1021
  The information you requested is set out in the following table:

  Replacement due

  Engine cc

  Fuel type

  Owned

  Leased

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  1700

  Diesel

  15

  —

  2

  5

  7

  1800

  Diesel

  42

  —

  7

  2

  —

  1900

  Diesel

  33

  —

  10

  11

  7

  2000

  Diesel

  7

  —

  5

  3

  —

  2300

  Diesel

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2500

  Diesel

  16

  —

  1

  3

  1

  4000

  Diesel

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3500

  Petrol

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  119

  0

  25

  24

  17

  Notes:

  1. All 66 vehicles being replaced between 1998/99 and 2000/01 will be with diesel models

  2. Not all the Agency's vehicles will be replaced during the three years in question

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52614]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Disaggregated information in the form requested is not available for the core Department and the other bodies listed in the National Asset Register and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I have asked Agency Chief Executives to reply to the hon. Member as they have their own management responsibility for assets.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated July 1998:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your questions to the President of the Board of Trade about vehicles that are owned or leased.

  Replacement due

  Engine cc

  Fuel type

  Owned

  Leased

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  1994

  Diesel

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2500

  Diesel

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  As regards the type of replacement vehicle; it is envisaged at this stage that the vehicle due for replacement in 2000/01 will be of similar type. At the time of replacement, reliable alternative technology would be considered.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  In response to your Parliamentary Questions concerning vehicles owned or leased within the Department of Trade and Industry, I can confirm that in the Companies House Agency:

  1 We own a solitary 2 litre diesel Ford Transit panel van in Companies House colours and bearing the CH logo.

  2 There are no plans to replace this vehicle in the period 1998–2001.
  1022
  The Patent Office does not own any vehicles. We lease one 2500cc diesel-engined van which is due for replacement in the period 1999–2000 and, as yet, have made no decisions on whether it will in fact be replaced or by what type of vehicle.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service to your question of 23 July 1998 to the President of the Board of Trade asking how many vehicles owned or leased will be replaced by vehicles using petrol, diesel, gas, electric batteries or other.
  The vehicles which are due for replacement in 1999–2000 will be considered for replacement only if replacement provides the most cost effective means of travel for the Employment Tribunals Service. At the present time the vehicles are not expected to be replaced.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your questions about; i) vehicles owned or leased by the Agency and, ii) what type of vehicle will be any replacement.
  The information you requested on vehicles owned or leased is set out in the following table:

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to your question about vehicles due for replacement by The Insolvency Service.
  The Service has no vehicles and no plans to acquire any so that the issue of replacement does not arise.

  Letter from David Hendon to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Radiocommunications Agency to reply to your two Parliamentary Questions 97/4281 and 97/4630 about the number of vehicles owned and leased by this Agency, and the Agency's vehicle replacement programme.
  The Agency is responsible for the management and enforcement of the radio spectrum. Vehicles carry large amounts of specialist equipment; most are saloon cars but there are also mobile laboratories and off road vehicles.
  1023
  The information you requested is set out in the following table:

  Replacement due

  Engine cc

  Fuel type

  Owned

  Leased

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  1700

  Diesel

  15

  —

  2

  5

  7

  1800

  Diesel

  42

  —

  7

  2

  —

  1900

  Diesel

  33

  —

  10

  11

  7

  2000

  Diesel

  7

  —

  5

  3

  —

  2300

  Diesel

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2500

  Diesel

  16

  —

  1

  3

  1

  4000

  Diesel

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3500

  Petrol

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  119

  0

  25

  24

  17

  Notes:

  1. All 66 vehicles being replaced between 1998/99 and 2000/01 will be with diesel models

  2. Not all the Agency's vehicles will be replaced during the three years in question

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department expects to spend in each year from 1998–99 to 2000–01 on vehicle replacements. [54987]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Information in the form requested, which is not held centrally within the Department, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I have asked Agency Chief Executives to reply to the hon. Member as they have their own financial responsibility for vehicles.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on expected spend on vehicle replacements.
  During 1998–99 the Patent Office expects to spend £3840 on the lease of the diesel-engine van which it uses. It is possible that the Office will incur similar costs in following years but, as yet, it has taken no decision on whether to replace the van in 1999.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  In response to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning how much his Department expects to spend on vehicle replacements, I can confirm that in the Companies House Agency there are no plans to replace vehicles in the period 1998–2001.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service to your question of 31 July 1998 to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry requesting how much the Agency expects to spend in each year from 1998–99 to 2000–01 on vehicle replacements.
  We will review whether there is a continued need for the use of the three vehicles leased by the ETS before they are due for replacement in 1999–2000. No decision has yet been taken on this matter.

  Replacement due

  Engine cc

  Fuel type

  Owned

  Leased

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  1700

  Diesel

  15

  —

  2

  5

  7

  1800

  Diesel

  42

  —

  7

  2

  —

  1900

  Diesel

  33

  —

  10

  11

  7

  2000

  Diesel

  7

  —

  5

  3

  —

  2300

  Diesel

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1024
  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to your question about expected spend on vehicle replacements by The Insolvency Service.
  The Service has no vehicles and no plans to acquire any, so that the issue of replacement does not arise.

  Letter from B. A. Maxwell to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 12 October 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me in my capacity as Director of the Radiocommunications Agency, Executive 3, to reply to your Parliamentary Question 97/4916 about expenditure on Agency vehicle replacements in each year from 1998/99 to 2000/01.
  The information you requested is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1998–1999

  402,000

  1999–2000

  455,000

  2000–2001

  342,000

  Most of the above vehicles will be saloon cars but there will also be two mobile laboratories and five off road vehicles.
  In order to set this answer in context, I thought you might welcome a copy of the answer to your previous questions and it is attached.

  Letter from David Hendon to Mr. Paul Burstow:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me in my capacity at Chief Executive of the Radiocommunications Agency to reply to your two Parliamentary Questions 97/4281 and 97/4630 about the number of vehicles owned and leased by this Agency, and the Agency's vehicle replacement programme.
  The Agency is responsible for the management and enforcement of the radio spectrum. Vehicles carry large amounts of specialist equipment; most are saloon cars but there are also mobile laboratories and off road vehicles.
  The information you requested is set out in the following table:
  1025

  Replacement due

  Engine cc

  Fuel type

  Owned

  Leased

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2500

  Diesel

  16

  —

  1

  3

  1

  4000

  Diesel

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3500

  Petrol

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  119

  0

  25

  24

  17

  Notes:

  1. All 66 vehicles being replaced between 1998–99 and 2000–01 will be with diesel models

  2. Not all the Agency's vehicles will be replaced during the three years in question

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 October 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about our expected spend on vehicle replacements.
  I expect NWML to be replacing its car under the present leasing agreement in March 2001. Under the present leasing agreement the payments are set at £2,588.00 plus VAT per annum and every effort will be made to obtain the best possible rate of renewal.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the current status of(a) Companies House, (b) the Employment Tribunals Service, (c) the Insolvency Service, (d) the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, (e) the Patent Office and (f) the Radiocommunications Agency in respect of Investors in People. [49968]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: Responsibility for Investors in People in the Department's Agencies lies with the chief executives. I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. Member in respect of Investors in people in their respective agencies. This will also update the answer given by the then Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Minister for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), on 15 June 1998, Official Report, columns 97–98.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply, in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), to your question on the current status in respect of Investors in People.
  The Employment Tribunal Service is committed to training and developing all staff and has made a written commitment to meeting the Investors in People standard and will be seeking formal assessment in October 1998.

  Letter from David Hendon to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 17 July 1998:
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if she will make a statement on the current status of (a) Companies House, (b) the Employment Tribunals Service, (c) the Insolvency Service, (d) the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, (e) the Patent Office and (f) the Radiocommunications Agency in respect of Investors in People. 49968
  1. I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to respond to the above Parliamentary Question.
  2. The Agency made a formal commitment to achieve IiP in August 1996. It has just had its trial assessment and is on course for its target of full assessment in January 1999.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. David Chidgey, dated July 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding the current status of Investors in People.
  1026
  Companies House committed itself to progress towards IiP accreditation some 18 months ago. An initial diagnostic survey was undertaken at the start of our programme and steps taken to address issues which this raised.
  Companies House has subsequently had several reviews to measure our progress towards the IiP National Standard and will have a full pre-assessment in the Autumn of this year. If this shows that the Agency is close to meeting necessary standards, the intention would be to undertake a full assessment later in the year.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. David Chidgey, dated July 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me as Inspector General and Chief Executive to reply to your question about the current status of The Insolvency Service in respect of Investors in People (IiP).
  The Insolvency Service formally committed to work towards accreditation in June 1996 and is looking to assessment and recognition by December 1998, within the timescales set out by the Government's Development & Training White Paper.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. David Chidgey, dated July 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the status of IIP at NWML.
  NWML was assessed in March 1998, but recognition was deferred. The proposal is to apply for re-assessment towards the end of the year.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. David Chidgey, dated July 1998:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your question to the President of the Board of Trade about the current status of Department of Trade and Industry agencies in relation to Investors in People. The position is that the Patent Office is currently being assessed for Investors in People status and I hope that we will shortly be accredited as an Investor in People.

  Internet
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role her Department is playing in the development of Internet technologies for small and medium-sized businesses. [52907]

  Mrs. Roche
  Many recent studies have emphasised the crucial importance of new technologies to the competitiveness of smaller firms. Within DTI, we have a comprehensive package of programmes to encourage greater awareness and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), including the Internet, by both business and individuals in the UK. The ISI Programme for Business places particular emphasis on offering access and awareness opportunities for SMEs at locations throughout the UK, and on fostering the development of innovative multimedia products and services, frequently involving Internet technologies,
  1027
  through award schemes such as the Multimedia Demonstrator Programme and Information Society Creativity Awards.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of charges for local telephone calls on the development and use of internet services. [54643]

  Mrs. Roche
  Competition is already delivering lower call charges in the UK and, with liberalisation across the European Union, this is spreading across Europe too. The charging of services should not necessarily be regarded as a disincentive to access the Internet. It is not unusual in countries where there is no usage charge for people to be unable to access the Internet because some users remain permanently connected. Internet Service Providers have only a finite number of modems to which customers may connect, so customers who remain permanently connected can block access by others. Having a modest charge for the local telephone call required to connect to the Internet should therefore inconvenience only those who remain connected for long periods even when not actively using the Internet. In turn, this should help ensure that the majority are not prevented from accessing the Internet for extended periods of time.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52666]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Full parking facilities for cycles are available for the Department and each Agency as shown in the table.

  Location

  Parking facilities

  Departmental HQ buildings

  All offices

  Departmental buildings outside London

  All offices

  Employment Service Agency

  11 out of 29 offices

  Insolvency Service

  14 out of 33 offices

  NMWL

  Yes (one office)

  The Patent Office

  All offices

  Radio Communications Agency

  6 out of 22 offices (but all could provide storage if required)

  Companies House

  All offices

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52667]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The proportion of staff cycling to work is set out in the table. Measures to increase that proportion are being developed in the context of the preparation of the Department's green Transport policy.

  Location

  Percentage

  Departmental HQ buildings

  4

  Departmental buildings outside London

  4

  Employment Service Agency

  3

  Insolvency Service

  3

  NMWL

  19

  1028

  Location

  Percentage

  The Patent Office

  1

  Radio Communications Agency

  2

  Companies House

  2

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 27 July 1998,Official Report, column 55, if he will make a statement on the security reasons prohibiting the leaving of bicycles around his Department's offices. [53903]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The proximity of my Department's offices to the Palace of Westminster and to other sensitive locations requires us to take a number of precautions such as this.

  Diesel
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what incentives he is providing for United Kingdom companies to produce ultra-low sulphur diesel. [53561]

  Mr. Battle
  At the last Budget, the Government increased the duty differential between ULSD and conventional diesel from one to two pence per litre.

  Post Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when he expects to implement the EU Postal Liberalisation Directive; [53983]

  (2) what plans he has to lower the £1 threshold for the postal monopoly. [53975]

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effect of the EU postal liberalisation directive on the position of the UK Post Office. [54469]

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to lower the Post Office's current £1 monopoly threshold. [54244]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to reduce the Post Office's current monopoly threshold; [54210]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the EU's postal liberalisation directive. [54452]

  Mr. Mandelson
  (holding answer 31 July 1998): EU Directive 97/67/EC, the "Postal Services Directive", sets out a common framework for postal services in the countries of the European Union.

  The Directive will not require major changes in the UK but the Government will need to modify the Post Office monopoly and introduce some other amendments. Officials in my Department are discussing with the Post Office the precise arrangements which will be necessary. The final proposals will be announced later this year.

  The Government must transpose the directive into UK law by February 1999. We expect to do this through secondary legislation using the European Communities Act 1972.
  1029
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his policy for the future of the Post Office. [54852]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Work on the Government's review of the Post Office is proceeding apace, and we will announce our plans as soon as we are ready to do so.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Governments' policy on business competitiveness. [54070]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The issue of business competitiveness is being considered within the context of the Competitiveness White Paper which I intend to publish later this year.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current membership of the competitiveness working party for encouraging innovation; when it last met; what matters were discussed; and when it will next meet. [54505]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: The Competitiveness Working Party for Encouraging Innovation is chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry and has the following members.

  Bevan Braithwaite OBE, Chairman, TWI

  Dr. Peter Doyle CBE, FRSE, Director, Zeneca Group plc.

  John Golding, Chairman, Hewlett-Packard Ltd

  Anthony Greener, Joint Chairman, Diageo plc

  Jan Hall, Partner, Spencer Stuart and Associates Ltd

  Dr. Sue Ion, Director, Technology and Operations, BNFL

  Stephen Lusty, Managing Director, Airmaster Engineering Ltd

  Sir Roy McNulty, Chairman, Short Brothers plc

  Dr. George Poste, Chief Scientific and Technology Officer, SmithKline Beecham plc

  Professor Sir Gareth Roberts, Vice Chancellor, Sheffield University

  Jonathan Sands, Managing Director, Elmwood Design Ltd

  Dan Sequerra, Chief Executive, Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

  John Sorrell, Chairman, Interbrand Newell and Sorrell, and Chairman, Design Council.

  The Working Party last met on 13 July to discuss improving the competitiveness of UK industry through innovation. Discussion focused on the importance of the exchange of best practice.

  No date has been arranged for any further meetings of the Working Party.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on the impact of legislation on competition in the media. [54857]

  Dr. Howells
  During the passage of the Competition Bill, the Department has received a number of representations concerning the Bill and pricing practices in the newspaper industry. These representations have been from members of the public, newspaper companies and members of both Houses. The Department has also received a small number of representations regarding the 1030
  newspaper merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and also general representations on individual merger cases involving the media.

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53056]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 July 1998]: The normal retirement age of staff in the Senior Civil Service is 60, as it is for staff in Pay Band C (senior managers) and Pay Band B (junior and middle managers). Staff in Pay Band A (administrative and support staff) have a normal retirement age of 65. The headquarters of the Department currently has 445 men and 694 women in this Pay Band.

  I have asked Chief Executives of the Department's Agencies to reply to the hon. Member separately.

  Letter from David Hendon to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply to the above Parliamentary Question with information about the Radiocommunications Agency.
  The Radiocommunications Agency currently employs 50 men and 72 women whose Terms and Conditions of Employment permit them to retire after their 60th Birthday.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) to your question of 24 July 1998 to the President of the Board of Trade asking how many staff were employed on contracts which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday and how many staff aged over 60 were employed within the ETS.
  On the 1st January 1998 the ETS employed 161 men and 372 women whose contracts permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. Of these nine men and nine women were aged over 60.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated July 1998:
  In response to your Parliamentary Question concerning contracts of employment permitting staff to retire after their 60th birthday, I can confirm that in the Companies House Agency we have:

  A) 249 men

  B) 581 women.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated July 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your questions about the number of men and women employed by the Agency who have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday, and the number of men and women employed by the Agency who were over 60 on 1st January 1998.
  Consistent with the Departmental policy, the right to retire in NWML after 60 is linked to grade/range. Staff in Band A (ranges 1–4) have a reserved right to be retained after their 60th birthday on the condition that their performance has been satisfactory. We currently employ 3 men and 12 women in ranges 1–4.
  One female member of staff over 60 years was employed by this Agency on 1st January 1998 on the basis of the reserved right for her grade/range.
  1031
  Letter from Peter Lawrence to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 27 July 1998:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question which asked to provide (1) the number of (a) men and.(b) women employed by the Patent Office who have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday and (2) the number of (a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years who were employed by the Patent Office on 1 January 1998. The information is in the table attached which relates purely to the Patent Office.

  Patent Office staff who have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday

  Serving grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Al

  33

  25

  58

  A2

  50

  39

  89

  A3

  100

  62

  162

  Total

  183

  126

  309

  Staff aged over 60 years employed by the Patent Office on 1 January 1998

  Serving grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Al

  1

  2

  3

  A2

  0

  2

  2

  A3

  0

  1

  1

  C2

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  1

  6

  7

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated July 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your questions about 1) how many people within The Insolvency Service have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday and 2) how many people aged over 60 years were employed by The Insolvency Service on 1 January.
  The Insolvency Service currently employs 447 women and 244 men whose contracts of employment permit them to retire after their 60th birthday.
  On 1st January 1998, 8 women and 22 men aged over 60 years were employed by The Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by (i) his Department and (ii) his Department's agencies on 1 January. [53061]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 July 1998]: On 1 January 1998, there were 42 men and 27 women aged over 60 years, employed in the headquarters area of the Department.

  I have asked Chief Executives of the Department's Agencies to reply separately to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Hendon to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply to the above Parliamentary Question with information about the Radiocommunications Agency.
  The Radiocommunications Agency currently employ 8 men and 5 women who at 1 January 1998 were aged over 60 years.
  1032
  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 19 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) to your question of 24 July 1998 to the President of the Board of Trade asking how many staff were employed on contracts which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday and how many staff aged over 60 were employed within the ETS.
  On the 1st January 1998 the ETS employed 161 men and 372 women whose contracts permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. Of these nine men and nine women were aged over 60.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated July 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your questions about the number of men and women employed by the Agency who have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday, and the number of men and women employed by the Agency who were over 60 on 1st January 1998.
  Consistent with the Departmental policy, the right to retire in NWML after 60 is linked to grade/range. Staff in Band A (ranges 1–4) have a reserved right to be retained after their 60th birthday on the condition that their performance has been satisfactory. We currently employ 3 men, and 12 women in ranges 1–4.
  One female member of staff over 60 years was employed by this Agency on 1st January 1998 on the basis of the reserved right for her grade/range.

  Letter from Peter Lawrence to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 27 July 1998:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question which asked to provide (1) the number of (a) men and (b) women employed by the Patent Office who have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday and (2) the number of (a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years who were employed by the Patent Office on 1 January 1998. The information is in the table attached which relates purely to the Patent Office.

  Patent Office Staff who have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday

  Serving grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Al

  33

  25

  58

  A2

  50

  39

  89

  A3

  100

  62

  162

  Total

  183

  126

  309

  Staff aged over 60 years employed by the Patent Office on 1st January 1998

  Serving grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Al

  1

  2

  3

  A2

  0

  2

  2

  A3

  0

  1

  1

  C2

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  1

  6

  7

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated July 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your questions about 1) how many people within The Insolvency Service have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday and 2) how many people aged over 60 years were employed by The Insolvency Service on 1 January.
  The Insolvency Service currently employs 447 women and 244 men whose contracts of employment permit them to retire after their 60th birthday.

  1033
  On 1st January 1998, 8 women and 22 men aged over 60 years were employed by The Insolvency Service.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated July 1998:
  In response to your Parliamentary Question concerning the number of staff employed aged over 60 on I January, I can confirm that in the Companies House Agency there were:

  A) 12 men

  B) 33 women.

  CD Piracy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce measures for the protection of the British music industry against CD piracy over the Internet. [53595]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 July 1998]: United Kingdom copyright law already protects music and other material which is transmitted over the internet, and the UK is supporting work at EU and international level to ensure comparable levels of protection elsewhere. The Government are working closely with the music industry on this issue and on action against CD piracy more generally. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for wider issues concerning the music industry, whilst my Department is responsible for copyright legislation.

  Trade Fair Support Scheme
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the funds extended by his Department under the Trade Fair Support Scheme in each year since 1990. [54163]

  Mr. Wilson
  The total amounts spent by my Department on support for UK firms at trade fairs abroad in each of the years were:

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  15.9

  1991–92

  12.6

  1992–93

  13.2

  1993–94

  14.0

  1994–95

  17.1

  1995–96

  19.9

  1996–97

  19.4

  1997–98

  15.5

  Joint Venture Funding
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if non-defence companies are eligible for Joint Venture Funding. [54407]

  Mr. Wilson
  Yes. In principle any firm involved in exporting for the UK can apply to be part of a supported group at a trade fair abroad.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the value of the joint venture funding support provided in each of the last two years to United Kingdom companies attending overseas trade fairs exhibiting military, security, police and paramilitary services or products. [54406]
  1034
  Mr. Wilson
  The value of the grants paid by my Department under the terms of the Trade Fair Support Scheme to UK firms exhibiting at trade fairs in the Safety, defence, fire and security and associated equipment, including civil defence, sector is as follows:

  £ million

  Expenditure in year

  1996–97

  1.4

  1997–98

  1.2

  My Department does not maintain records of grants paid towards the cost of exhibiting particular products or services.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c) (ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [53852]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 30 July 1998]: My Department is currently responsible for 40 non-departmental public bodies and 7 tribunals, all of which are listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1997". Since 1 May 1997, my Department has abolished one non-departmental public body—the Advisory Committee for the Joint Environmental Markets Unit—and established one new non-departmental public body—the Spectrum Management Advisory Group. Approval has also been given for the merger of the LINK Board and the Teaching Company Scheme Board. Responsibility for one executive body, the Policyholders' Protection Board, has been transferred to HM Treasury.

  Privatisation (Advertising)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the advertising budget for each of the privatisations since 1979. [54542]

  Mr. Byers
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table shows the cost to the Government of advertising in each privatisation or secondary sale since British Telecom in 1984. Information on advertising budgets and advertising costs of earlier sales is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Advertising costs in privatizations

  Share offer

  Year

  Costs (excl. VAT) £ million

  BT1

  1985

  9.7

  Britoil

  1985

  3.0

  Cable & Wireless

  1985

  2.2

  1035

  Advertising costs in privatisations

  Share offer

  Year

  Costs (excl. VAT) £ million

  British Aerospace

  1985

  1.7

  British Gas

  1986

  21.4

  British Airways

  1987

  2.8

  Rolls Royce

  1987

  1.6

  BAA

  1987

  4.9

  BP

  1987

  18.3

  British Steel

  1988

  4.9

  Water

  1989

  17.3

  Regional Electricity Companies

  1990

  20.6

  Generating Companies 1

  1991

  8.1

  Scottish Electricity Companies

  1991

  5.3

  BT2

  1991

  14.7

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  1993

  1.1

  BT3

  1993

  11.9

  Generating Companies 2

  1995

  8.0

  Railtrack

  1996

  4.4

  British Energy

  1996

  4.1

  Companies (Trademark Names)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the procedure to be followed by a foreign company applying to register a trademark name currently used by a British company. [54709]

  Dr. Howells
  The procedure for registering a trade mark in the UK is defined by the Trade Marks Act 1994. Anyone can apply for registration, but any applicant must be using or intend to use the mark in the United Kingdom. However, a mark is registered only when the Trade Marks Registry has established that there is not a conflict with earlier marks. Where conflicts with earlier marks are identified it may be possible for the application to proceed to registrations by use of the provisions in Article 37 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. These provisions include restricting the goods and/or services for the mark applied for, or demonstrating honest concurrent use of the mark applied for with the earlier mark.

  Further information on the trade mark application process is available from the Trade Mark Registry1 at the Patent Office.

  1 Contact: Raol Colombo, The Patent Office, Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport, NP9 1RH Telephone+44(0)1633 811001 Fax+44(0)1633 811405 e-mail: trademarks@patent.gov.uk

  Insider Trading
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has to order(a) BT and (b) other phone companies to disclose records of telephone calls made by an individual under investigation by his inspectors for alleged insider trading. [54440]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: Under section 177(3) of the Financial Services Act 1986 inspectors appointed to investigate insider dealing can require information, including documents, from any person they consider may be able to assist their investigation. This will include information from telephone companies.
  1036
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if inspectors' reports of alleged insider dealing carried out under the Financial Services Act 1986 are passed to the Public Record Office; and when they can be released for public scrutiny. [54439]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: Reports of insider dealing inspections are not passed to the Public Record Office and are not published. There are strict legal restrictions on disclosure of all information obtained in such inspections.

  EU Directives (Costs)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the cost to United Kingdom businesses which will arise from(a) the Parental Leave Directive, (b) the Works Councils Directive and (c) the Part Time Work Directive. [54246]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: Compliance Cost Assessments were attached to the Explanatory Memoranda submitted to this House and another place on 28 October 1997 (in relation to the Parental Leave and European Works Councils Directives) and 17 March 1998 (in relation to the Part Time Work Directive).

  We shall be carrying out further analysis to refine these estimates. The Government consider that these measures will benefit employers and employees alike, and will not impose under costs or burdens upon business.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the costs of the(a) Parental Leave Directive, (b) Works Council Directive and (c) Part Time Work Directive to British business. [53974]

  Mr. Mandelson
  (holding answer 31 July 1998): I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given today to Question 54246 from his hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist manufacturing industry. [54658]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The best way that Government can assist industry as a whole, including manufacturing, is by providing macroeconomic stability. This Government have put in place a credible framework for macroeconomic policy to deliver low inflation and sound public finances which are the necessary basis for high and sustainable levels of growth and employment. In addition, my Department is working in partnership with industry, including manufacturing companies, to improve the competitiveness of our firms in domestic and overseas markets.

  Aerospace Industry (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people within Gloucestershire were employed by the United Kingdom aerospace industry in each of the last five years. [54641]
  1037
  Mr. Battle
  This information is not available. Although the Office for National Statistics collects data on employment in aerospace businesses in Gloucestershire as part of the Annual Employment Survey and Annual Census of Production, the figures cannot be released because they would identify particulars of an individual undertaking, which are confidential under section 9 of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947.

  Manpower
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings Ministers in his Department have had with Manpower since 1 February; and on what matters. [54395]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, private sector organisations, trade unions and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. But they must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation, or allow improper influence on policy. It is not our policy to make information on meetings or their content public.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he will take in respect of his possible involvement in a regulatory role in respect of corporate sponsors of the New Millennium Experience Company Limited. [54397]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: As the hon. Member will be aware I wrote to him on 6 August enclosing a copy of the Press Notice regarding the BA/AA Alliance and my responsibilities for the New Millennium Experience Company. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Action 2000
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate Action 2000 has made of the number of businesses in(a) each region and (b) in total, which have yet to take action against the millennium bug. [54125]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: Action 2000 do not undertake monitoring on a regional basis. The research is aimed at providing a picture of the current state of UK preparedness by relevant sectors, size of business and other factors.

  The results of the second wave of monitoring carried out on a national basis under Action 2000's quarterly 'State of the Nation' research programme, primarily targeted at businesses with 1–500 employees, were announced by Action 2000 on 21 July.

  The findings showed that 29% of the total had yet to implement a formal Year 2000 programme.
  1038
  Awareness of the Millennium Bug is 100% but the Action 2000 research shows that there is a 'reality gap' between being aware and comprehension of the potential impact.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what budget Action 2000 has allocated for poster board advertising in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [54124]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: Poster advertising to date has incurred a total spend of £670,000 net media cost.

  The business packages for poster advertising purchased with the contracting companies have been targeted at industrial parts/sites and important commuting routes in order to maximise coverage against a key target audience identified by Action 2000.

  At present no further activity utilising poster sites is planned for this or the next financial year until a full evaluation of the impact and response has been carried out.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what budget Action 2000 has allocated for poster board advertising(a) in each region and (b) in total. [54126]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: The poster packages purchased by Action 2000 were targeted at business areas and key commuting routes. The total allocation of spend to date on this activity is £670,000 net media cost.

  Regional breakdown of that spend is:

  Percentage

  London

  47

  Midlands

  10.5

  North West

  10.5

  Yorkshire

  7.5

  Scotland

  7.5

  Wales and The West

  4.5

  Southern

  4.5

  East of England

  3

  North East

  3

  Northern Ireland

  1

  South West

  0.9

  Border

  0.1

  Export Forum
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with (1) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (2) the Department for International Development about the impact of the Export Forum's recommended target markets on their policies with regard to (i) development and (ii) democratisation in(a) Eastern Europe, (b) Africa and (c) South America. [53463]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: Although the Department works closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development it has had no discussions with either on these issues. The Export Forum's recommendations for target markets related solely to their

  1039
  potential for the promotion of exports and had no bearing on the government's policies on development and democratisation.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has(a) to close the nuclear reactors at Chapelcross and Calder Hall and (b) to replace them with new reactors. [53756]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: The future operation of the Chapelcross and Calder Hall nuclear power stations is a matter for their owner, British Nuclear Fuels plc, subject to meeting the relevant regulatory requirements. I understand from BNFL that they intend to operate these stations for the 50 year lifetimes approved by the regulator, subject to it being safe and economic to do so, and that BNFL currently have no plans to build any new nuclear power stations.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to support the development of the British manufacture of wind turbines. [54848]

  Mr. Battle
  Under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) the Government are supporting the commercial development of wind energy in the UK. At 30 June 1998, there were 55 wind projects operational, comprising 132 MW Declared Net Capacity. In addition a further 69 wind projects, comprising 368 MW of contracted capacity will be developed in England and Wales under the NFFO-5 Order which I announced recently.

  As part of my current New and Renewable Energy Policy Review, I am considering both the status of the UK wind industry including its prospects in both the home and export markets and its potential contribution to meeting industrial and employment goals, and the need for further research and development. I expect to make an announcement later this year.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of his Department's publications have been made available in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print in 1997–98; and what percentage of the total number of publications this represents. [54272]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: Comprehensive information on the number of documents published in alternative formats is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the Department of Trade and Industry has produced a publication entitled "Read Me" to provide guidance to staff about making publications available to the general public in alternative formats.

  The Department also has a range of information about its policies, programmes and publications on the Internet (www.dti.gov.uk). It is possible to print all DTI pages from the Internet in large print. The pages are also available in audio to those who have access to a Talking Computer.

  Electricity Industry
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many section 36 planning applications for clean coal technology power stations in England are under consideration. [53669]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: None has been submitted by any power generators.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) gas-fired electricity generators and (b) the offshore gas supply industry if the present policy on new consents for gas-fired power stations continue beyond the electricity regulator's target date of April 2000 for the completion of market reforms; and if he will make a statement. [55238]

  Mr. Battle
  On 8 October, the Government published their White Paper Conclusions of The Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation (Cm 4071), which sets out the Government's broad energy policy, including radical reforms to the electricity market and, in the interim, a new stricter policy on consents for power stations. These reforms will bring greater competition to electricity generation and lower prices for consumers. Paragraphs 8.8–8.11 and 10.30 of the White Paper refer respectively to the possible impact on the offshore industry of the policy and to the fact that the interests of the promoters of particular new power generation projects will be one of the factors to be taken into account when applying the new consents policy.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what date he estimates that emissions from clean coal technology in power stations will be reduced to the level of gas-fired power stations. [53319]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: Although commercial clean coal plant can be made to operate to a very high environmental standard, as shown by a number of advanced supercritical plants now in operation around the world, as well as a number of gasification plants at the demonstration scale, for reasons of basic chemistry and economics, it is not practicable to match all the emissions to the levels of natural gas-fired plant.

  The table illustrates the differences in emissions between a commercially available combined cycle gas turbine plant with 55% thermal efficiency and those of a potential commercial clean coal plant with an assumed efficiency of 42%.

  Emissions

  Clean coal plant with 42% efficiency

  Combined cycle gas plant with efficiency of 55%

  CO2

  800g kWh-1

  360g kWh-1

  SO2

  600mg kWh-1

  0

  NOx

  600mg kWh-1

  less than 300mg kWh-1

  Note:

  Lower levels of emissions of SO2 and NOx are possible with more advanced coal plant now at the demonstration stage and which are expected to become commercially available over the next few years.

  Source:

  PowerGen plc.
  1041
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has evaluated of the cost of fitting FGD technology to all existing United Kingdom coal-fired power stations currently without FGD. [53310]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: The cost of fitting Flue Gas Desulphurisation equipment (FGD) to coal fired power stations is very site specific, but approximates to around 10% the cost of new plant. There is also a number of different technologies that could be used depending on the level of sulphur removal required. If a limestone-gypsum process was used the estimated costs would probably lie within a range of £80–£100 per kw. Assuming an average cost of £90 per kw, it would cost some £1.8 billion to fit FGD to the remaining 20GW of UK coal fired capacity. These costs exclude the additional running costs associated with coal fired plant subsequently fitted with FGD.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has received about the progress of the complaint to the European Commission against discrimination in favour of coal-fired generation in Spain and Germany. [53668]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: The UK Government formally complained to the European Commission in September 1997 that state aid paid to the Spanish coal industry is distorting, or is likely to distort, competition between producers in the single market. We argued that a subsidy of 1 peseta per kilowatt-hour for Spanish electricity plants using Spanish coal should also be available for the use of UK coal if discrimination between ECSC coal producers was to be avoided. We understand the European Commission broadly share this view, and we are pressing the Spanish Government for confirmation that the subsidy will be available on a non-discriminatory basis in respect of all ECSC coals.

  In the case of Germany, we drew the Commission's attention in September 1997 to the possibility of distortion against UK anthracite in the German power station market. Formal complaints against German state aid for power station anthracite were subsequently submitted by Consolidated Coal and Evans and Reid (the agents for Tower Colliery) and by RJB Mining in respect of state aids for German coal production more generally. In June 1998 the Commission approved state aid of DM 10.4 billion for German coal production. I understand that RJB Mining is lodging an appeal to the European Court against this Decision.

  Boardroom Pay
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his proposals for the public utilities to link boardroom pay to consumer performance standards will include linkage with the protection of vulnerable consumers; and if he will make a statement. [54057]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: The Government's proposals for encouraging a direct link between boardroom pay and consumer standards (set out in their response to the consultation on the Green Paper, A Fair Deal for Consumers: Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation) will require price-regulated utility
  1042
  companies to disclose the nature of any links between the pay of the directors of the regulated business, and the service standards attained by that business, and if there is no such link, that fact. The proposals do not involve Government determining the nature of these links, which will be for individual regulated companies to decide.

  Minimum consumer performance standards are set for utility companies by the regulators following public consultation. These standards are concerned mainly with standards of service to all consumers, although a small number relate to the disadvantaged. Obligations to provide special services to the disadvantaged are generally imposed by the regulator through licence conditions, enhanced in some areas with voluntary industry initiatives. Licence conditions can be enforced in the event of a breach.

  European Health and Safety Reports
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response his Department has made to the reports of(a) the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin) 1997 and (b) the Bilbao European Agency for Health and Safety at Work 1997; and if he will deposit in the Library a list of all programmes initiated as a result of (a) and (b). [55345]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The various reports of the Dublin Foundation do not require a formal Government response, but are used by the Department to inform its policies. Details of the Foundation's activities are provided on its internet website at http://www.eurofound.ie. Matters concerning the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work are largely a matter for the Health and Safety Executive, which is sponsored by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the conclusions of his review of renewable energy. [54030]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: I am currently considering options for the future development of renewables alongside other ongoing reviews. I expect to make an announcement later this year. In the meantime I announced the fifth Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO-5) Renewables Order in England and Wales on 24 September 1998. 261 projects comprising 1,177 MW of capacity have been contracted under NFFO-5.

  At 30 June 1998, 235 projects, comprising 570 MW (declared net capacity) of renewables generating capacity had been commissioned under the four Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) Orders for England and Wales, two Scottish Renewables Obligation (SRO) Orders and two Northern Ireland NFFO (NI-NFFO) Orders.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on research into renewable energy technologies in each of the last five years. [55282]

  Mr. Battle
  Spend under the DTI New and Renewable Energy Programme, including research, development,
  1043
  dissemination and demonstration in each of the last five years (covering expenditure agreed before 1 May 1997) is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  1993–94

  25.2

  1994–95

  19.1

  1995–96

  18.1

  1996–97

  114.8

  1997–98

  110.9

  1 These figures allow for the payment and recovery of VAT

  Since coming into office, I have reversed the planned cuts in the overall programme budget set by the previous Government, increasing provision for 1998–99 by £2 million to £11.1 million (net). Beyond 1998–99 expenditure will depend on the outcome of the current policy review.

  EPSRC commitment, through the General Engineering and Engineering for Infrastructure, the Environment and Healthcare Programmes, by financial year, for research into renewable and clean electricity generation is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  1993–94

  1.576

  1994–95

  0.506

  1995–96

  1.935

  1996–97

  2.338

  1997–98

  3.114

  The figures for both the DTI New and Renewable Energy Programme and EPSRC include research into fuel cells—considered to be a clean generation technology.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to commission research into renewable energy technologies using the extra funding announced for the research councils in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [55283]

  Mr. Battle
  The current New and Renewable Energy Policy Review, which is considering the need for further research into renewable energy technologies, is taking account of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is currently developing a new managed programme in "Renewables and New Energy Technologies". The programme is taking account of the progress of the Government's current New and Renewable Energy Policy Review. It is likely to cover fuel cells, photovoltaics, energy storage and recovery, and research into other renewable energy sources. The programme is due to be launched in 1999.

  EU Auto Oil Programme
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress in adoption of the EU Auto Oil Programme. [54671]
  1044
  Mr. Battle
  The Directives on passenger car emissions, light commercial vehicle emissions and fuel quality, all of which are part of the EU Auto Oil programme, were agreed and adopted on 17 September 1998 and will be published in the Official Journal in due course.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responsible for implementing these directives in UK law.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what arrangements will be put in place to monitor(a) how long individuals remain on the national minimum wage and (b) the average annual wage increment for people previously receiving minimum rates; [54899]

  (2) what arrangements will be put in place to monitor the numbers of employees receiving the minimum rate of pay set out in the national minimum wage. [54898]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  In her statement of 18 June 1998,Official Report, columns 507–19, announcing the Government's response to the Low Pay Commission's recommendations, the then President of the Board of Trade announced that the Government will be asking the Low Pay Commission to monitor and evaluate the introduction and impact of the minimum wage.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the statements by the Bank of England about the inflationary implications of the minimum wage. [54455]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: The Bank of England is fully aware of the Government's labour market policies, including the National Minimum Wage. Any statements by the Bank on those policies are a matter for them. The Government do not believe that the decisions they have taken on the National Minimum Wage will have an adverse effect on inflation.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 59, on departmental transport arrangements, what further changes he has made. [54018]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: My Department is working towards the target announced in the White Paper 'A New Deal for Transport', that all headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  Recent activities have included the drafting of a Green Transport Plan, the undertaking of a Travel to Work survey, arrangements for provision of a DETR speaker to all Property Centres on Green Transport Plans, registering with the Cyclists' Touring Club's "Post a Pot-Hole Campaign" and carrying out a traffic survey in the main car park in 1 Victoria Street building.
  1045

  Henly and Dennis Groups (Merger)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer to the Office of Fair Trading the proposed merger between the Henly Group and the Dennis Group. [55313]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 13 October 1998 that he had decided, in accordance with the advice given by the Director General of Fair Trading, not to refer the proposed acquisition of Dennis Group plc by Henlys Group plc to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  National Broadband Strategy
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce a national broadband strategy. [55275]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government set out their strategy in this area in the policy statements 'Our Information Age' and 'Broadband Britain' which were published in April. The latter dealt specifically with the issue of lifting the broadcast restrictions from BT and other Public Telecommunications Operators. On this issue and in our Information Age strategy, more generally, we are committed to encouraging investment in both advanced communications infrastructure and new services, and ensuring widespread access to services at affordable prices. To ensure that we keep pace with these issues we have also launched a Green Paper reviewing the regulatory framework for telecommunications and broadcasting in response to digital convergence. I also expect, later this year, to launch a consultation on the use of significant additional radio spectrum for the delivery of broadband services which will help address those areas of the country currently with limited competitive provision. Just as important as provision of broadband is uptake and use. We promote this through our Information Society Initiative Programme for Business which now has 60 regional and local Support Centres. I have also relaunched the IT for All programme with £2.75 million of additional money, and now 2,700 access sites across the country.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to have a handling arrangement in place to deal with claims for compensation against British Coal with regard to vibration white finger. [55487]

  Mr. Battle
  Following the Court of Appeal judgment handed down at the end of July, my officials, in conjunction with external advisers, have been considering how best to effect the court's findings in the comprehensive draft handling arrangements for the more than 25,000 claims involved. Our proposals on one of the most critical issues have been sent to the solicitors representing the mass of claimants and early discussions are expected to follow.

  We are keen to reach agreement as rapidly as possible on handling arrangements which are fair to all concerned and sufficiently robust to be able to process such a large group of claims.
  1046

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in consultation and negotiation on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if he will make a statement. [53902]

  Mr. Wilson
  At the recent OECD Ministerial meeting (27–28 April 1998), it was agreed that negotiations should continue, seeking a successful and timely conclusion; no deadline was set but I foresee work continuing until the next Ministerial in May 1999, including a period for assessment and further consultation.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry reported to the Commons Select Committee on European Legislation on the negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) on 8 July and undertook to keep the Committee informed of further developments in negotiations.

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 357–58, if he will indicate the exact (a) quantities, (b) origins and (c) types of nuclear materials withdrawn permanently from safeguards; and if he will list those occasions when nuclear materials were put directly to military uses. [55444]

  Mr. Battle
  As part of the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) the Government initiated a process of declassification and historical accounting for defence fissile material production. Linked to this will be a study of data on past withdrawals from safeguards to determine what additional information on these withdrawals can be made public. In addition, as indicated in the announcement of the SDR, information on future withdrawals of nuclear material from safeguards will be published from time to time.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) of 16 July 1998,Official Report, column 282, what research his Department has carried out into the ways of safeguarding vitrified plutonium; and what assessment he has made of safeguards applied by (a) the International Atomic Energy Agency and (b) Euratom. [55451]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has not undertaken detailed examination of the safeguards aspects of vitrification as an option for disposal of separated plutonium (UK experience has, to date, been in respect of using separated plutonium in the manufacture of MOX fuel and the measures necessary to safeguard the kind of facilities which are involved). We have, however, contributed to more general international studies, involving both the IAEA and Euratom, of safeguards issues associated with the disposal of irradiated fuel in geological repositories; i.e. issues not dissimilar to those raised by the vitrification option for disposal of separated plutonium. The output from these studies is being assessed by the international safeguards inspectorates.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantities of uranium the Energy Resources of Australia company proposes to import into
  1047
  the United Kingdom; how much has been imported to date; and what is the role of Euratom in respect of such imports. [55418]

  Mr. Battle
  The companies concerned regard information on the quantities imported as commercially confidential. I am satisfied that there is a reasonable expectation that disclosure of this information would harm their competitive position and that, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, the information requested should be protected from disclosure.

  The role of Euratom is set out in the Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of Australia concerning transfers of nuclear material from Australia to the European Atomic Energy Community which was signed in 1981 (Cmnd. 8799). Under the terms of the 1957 Euratom Treaty the uranium imported, like all civil nuclear material in the UK, is subject to Euratom Safeguards. In addition the imports are notified to the Euratom Supply Agency which monitors the supply of nuclear material to the Community.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority changed the name of its decommissioning and radioactive waste management programme from Drawmops to Safer; and when he expects to respond to the report by Arthur D. Little consultants on the programme, published on 19 August. [55419]

  Mr. Battle
  The UKAEA announced the change in name of its decommissioning and radioactive waste management programme from DRAWMOPS (Decommissioning and Radioactive Waste Management Operations) to SAFER (Safe Environmental Remediation) in December 1997 via its staff newspaper "Nucleus". The change of name is for UKAEA internal purposes; the DTI and other government Departments refer to this programme as the UKAEA Nuclear Decommissioning programme.

  The response, in the form of an implementation plan, of the DTI and the UKAEA to the report by Arthur D. Little consultants on the programme was included with the full evaluation report, released on 19 August 1998. Publication arrangements were set out in the DTI press releases P/98/646 and copies of both the summary and full reports are available in the House library.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there is currently any Japanese highly enriched uranium spent fuel on site at BNFL's Sellafield plant which is due to be transferred to the United States of America; whether any further Japanese highly enriched uranium spent fuel is due to arrive at Sellafield on its way to the United States of America; and under what agreement this temporary storage of Japanese spent fuel at Sellafield takes place. [55491]

  Mr. Battle
  For many years it has been US policy that high enriched uranium fuel supplied by the US for research reactors in Japan and other countries should, when spent, be repatriated for safe management. BNFL have had contracts to ship the spent fuel from Japan (and elsewhere) to the US. This reactor fuel forms part of larger shipments of other material destined for Sellafield 1048
  and for operational reasons has been taken there in preparation for transhipment to the US. There is at present no fuel of this sort at Sellafield nor are any shipments scheduled (though they may take place in future). This and all other activities at Sellafield are regulated under the Nuclear Site Licence granted by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much highly enriched uranium spent fuel owned by foreign customers remains on site at Dounreay; how much is due to be transferred to the United States of America; and what is the condition of this spent fuel. [55490]

  Mr. Battle
  I have asked the Chairman of the UKAEA for this information and his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will extend the date of implementation for the Working Time Directive to 1 January 1999 to allow employers more time to implement the framework for compliance. [55370]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Regulation implementing the Working Time Directive came into force on 1 October in line with the Government's timetable announced in February.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist employers with the additional costs incurred as a direct result of the Working Time Directive. [55369]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are adopting a broad range of policies with the central aim of boosting the competitiveness of UK industry. Implementation of the Working Time Directive should help competitiveness through combating stress and absenteeism by ensuring that workers receive proper rest, and so reducing costs to industry. The CBI estimate that £25 billion was lost in 1996 due to absenteeism. The London School of Economics also suggest that current staff turnover levels cost employers up to £1,800 million per year. The Working Time Regulations should assist in reducing such figures.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the definition of the term continuous employment under the Working Time Directive. [55340]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Any worker who has worked continuously with their employer for 13 weeks will be entitled to 3 weeks' annual leave. Continuous employment is considered to be a period of time in which a worker has a contractual relationship with the employer.

  Silver (Lion Mark)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the EC Commission on the use of the lion mark for British silver; and what proposals he has in respect of the future use of the lion mark for British silver. [55348]
  1049
  Dr. Howells
  During negotiations on a Commission proposal for a directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of Member States relating to articles of precious metal, my Department has consistently sought to ensure that the lion mark can continue to be struck on Sterling silver. Because single market rules now require the United Kingdom to accept a wider range of standards of finenesses for silver, I am, however, proposing to amend the Hallmarking Act to require that the fineness of silver articles be shown millesimally (as is already the case for gold) to aid consumer understanding. However, where requested, the UK assay offices would continue to strike the lion on Sterling silver alongside the figures "925".

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the maximum cost-per-job offered in grant under regional selective assistance was in 1997–98 in England. [55425]

  Mrs. Roche
  The maximum cost per job offered was £15,000.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the criteria to be used in the review of assisted area status; how the review will be conducted; who will be consulted; and if he will make a statement. [55288]

  Mrs. Roche
  On 30 July I launched a 3 month period of public consultation on the criteria and the geographical units which should be used in drawing up the new Assisted Areas map. In making a decision on both the geographical units and the criteria to be used, we shall be looking particularly at ways in which we can best target areas where regional industrial assistance is both needed and is an effective policy response. The consultation period finishes on 30 October and we shall listen carefully to views expressed. No decisions have yet been taken on the criteria to be used.

  4,800 copies of the public consultation document were produced. The document has been given a wide circulation to local authorities, business support organisations, Regional Development Agencies, rural development bodies, employers' and employees' organisations, academics, research bodies, members of the public and other interested parties. The document is also available on internet and, to date, 145 people have accessed the site.

  The review will be conducted in accordance with the Commission guidelines.

  Agenda 2000
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Agenda 2000 reforms to EU structural funds. [54855]

  Mrs. Roche
  Discussions are continuing between Member States and the Commission on the reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds.
  1050
  The Cardiff Council at the end of the UK Presidency set a deadline of March 1999 for agreement on the Agenda 2000 package. The UK will make every effort to ensure that this deadline is met.

  Under the UK Presidency, we reached agreement on a number of principles for making the administration of the Funds simpler and more effective.

  In the discussions starting again this autumn, the UK will continue to seek an outcome that is fair and affordable to all future and existing Member States, but particularly the UK.

  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when Lord Sainsbury of Turville(a) took up his duties as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at his Department, (b) relinquished his business responsibilities and (c) divested himself of his beneficial shareholdings; [55280]

  (2) what arrangements he has made to ensure that there can be no conflict of interest between the ministerial duties of Lord Sainsbury of Turville and his business connections and shareholdings; and if he will make a statement. [55279]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Lord Sainsbury issued the following statement on 31 July that answered these questions:"When I was appointed as a Minister in the DTI on 28 July, I was still Chairman of J. Sainsbury plc and the owner of a major shareholding in the company together with a variety of lesser financial interests.
  In order to avoid any actual or potential conflict of interests with my Ministerial responsibilities I have arranged my private interests, in consultations with the Permanent Secretary.
  I resigned as Chairman of Sainsbury's yesterday, and prior to that date saw no official papers. I now hold no other company directorships.
  I have today created a blind trust into which I am placing all my shareholdings, including my shares in Sainsbury's. Overseas trusts, the income of which I am a beneficiary, are being treated similarly. I have today exercised my options over shares in Sainsbury's which have been sold.
  The size of my shareholding in Sainsbury's means that I shall retain, and know that I retain, a beneficial interest in that company via the blind trust. I shall therefore stand aside from decisions or discussions having any specific effect on the company, including eg competition decisions concerning the company or questions of planning policy, and my officials have been instructed to keep issues giving rise to potential conflicts away from me. On generic issues such as competition policy or corporate governance, I shall have to use my judgment, as have Ministers in the past, to decide whether the issues at stake involve the possibility of particular advantage for Sainsbury's, and whether I therefore need to stand aside.
  Ministers are not involved in decisions on individual science projects in accordance with the long established Haldane principle, such matters being for decision by the Research Councils; and Research Councils funding goes to universities and scientific institutes rather than firms. The wider science issues with which I shall be dealing are generic, and I am advised are unlikely to lead to potential conflicts of interest. In the event of such a potential conflict, decisions would be taken by the Secretary of State or another DTI Minister."

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 29 July 1998,
  1051
  Official Report, column 355, if he will list the scientific and industrial organisations consulted by his Department about the impact on the United Kingdom science base and the competitiveness of the United Kingdom's science-based industries of the increasing burden of regulation on applications for research and development projects involving animals. [55380]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department of Trade and Industry has not consulted any organisation specifically about the changes to the regulations in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and its impact on the UK science base and industry.

  The Home Office, who lead on this regulation, has received a number of representations on this subject. Both Ministers and Civil Servants have been in discussion with individual companies and representative associations on this matter and will continue to do so.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 23 July 1998,Official Report, column 610, on the export of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia, how many export licences were granted for each of the ancillary equipment controlled under each type of the entries; and when each type of those licences was granted. [55224]

  Mrs. Roche
  In my answer to my hon. Friend on 23 July 1998,Official Report, column 610, I stated that a number of licences were issued on 2 January 1996 and on 22 November 1996 covering the export to Indonesia of Hawk aircraft and ancillary equipment, and that the export of that ancillary equipment was controlled under entries ML4, ML5, ML10, ML15, ML16, ML18, ML22 and PL5017 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended.

  Seven licences were issued on each date, covering Hawk aircraft, weapons systems and spares: four covered equipment controlled under entries ML10, ML15, ML16, ML18, ML22 or PL5017; two covered ancillary equipment controlled under entries ML4, ML5 or ML10; and one covered Hawk aircraft and ancillary equipment controlled under entry ML10.

  Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the application of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 to the issuing of licences by United Kingdom companies for production overseas. [55217]

  Mrs. Roche
  A UK company does not require a licence under the Export of Goods (Control) Order to allow production of its products in another country. If, however, in order to enable the production to go ahead the company needed to supply controlled technology from the UK, it would need a licence. The export of most specialised components of controlled goods is also controlled.

  Government Purchase Cards
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what use(a) his Department and (b) its agencies are currently making of the Government Purchase Card; what savings he estimates are being
  1052
  achieved as a result; what plans he has to expand use of the card by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [55170]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My Department plans to introduce the Government Procurement Card through Company Barclaycard November 1998—initially in four pilot areas. Assuming a successful pilot, full roll out throughout the Department is planned from February 1999 onwards. Consultants undertook a study in the Department in the summer of 1998 that indicated that process savings of up to 53 per cent. could be made by adopting the card for minor purchases.

  Of the Department's agencies, the Radio-communications Agency will introduce the GPC if the planned pilot demonstrates the value of doing so. The other agencies are awaiting the results of the central Department's adoption of the Card to assess its potential use in their areas.

  Trade (China)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Davies report on China trade promotion. [55474]

  Mr. Wilson
  Implementation of the main recommendations of the report on China trade promotion is now well underway:from 1 September the renamed China British Business Council (CBBC), under its new President Sir Charles Powell, began the task of identifying key sectors of business on which to focus the main thrust of our trade promotion effort;
  the CBBC is in the process of identifying a new Chief Executive, with the aim of appointing a suitable applicant before the end of the year;
  a major conference will take place on 8 December to assess the results of the recent visit by the Prime Minister to China, and how these can most effectively be followed up;
  during his visit the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Michael Heseltine to head the British side of the new China Britain forum;
  the Prime Minister secured the agreement in principle of the Chinese Government, to the opening of a new British Consulate in Chongqing which will further enhance our commercial and diplomatic efforts in inland China.

  These steps, and others currently being considered by the Government and other interested parties, are aimed at helping more capable British companies, in particular SMEs, to benefit from the continuing opportunities in the Chinese market along the lines recommended in the Davies report.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number of notified redundancies in each of the last three years among(a) 18 to 24, (b) 25 to 35, (c) 36 to 54 and (d) over 54 year olds. [55153]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  This information is not available as employers notifying of prospective redundancies under the statutory duty are not required to specify the ages of those employees who may be affected.
  1053

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55267]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Dedicated spaces which can accommodate a flexible number of motorcycles are provided in two locations on the Departmental estate where car parks are small. In all other locations there is ample space within car parks to meet demand on the Departmental estate without dedicating spaces for the purpose of motorcycle parking. All of the Department's car parks are secure.

  Arbitration
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the role of(a) trade associations and (b) the Office of Fair Trading in respect of the referral of disputes to arbitration. [55586]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  A number of trade associations offer consumers who have unresolved complaints with their members the option of using arbitration to settle the matter.

  The Director General of Fair Trading encourages trade associations and others operating voluntary regulatory systems to adopt independent dispute resolution mechanisms to deal with such complaints and advises consumers of the existence of such schemes. He has no formal role in the referral of specific individual disputes to such arbitration or Ombudsmen schemes.

  Use by consumers of arbitration schemes is optional. The consumer may decide to litigate. There are advantages of both arbitration and litigation and it is for consumers to decide which option suits them best.

  Business Links
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to disseminate best practice amongst Business Links. [47143]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: The Business Link Network Company Ltd., together with the Business Links and National Partners, has developed a Good Practice Campaign to build upon the activity already taking place. The campaign is expected to be launched in the summer.

  The methods for dissemination of the resulting best practice include Best Practice Champions, workshops, case studies and the BLNC' s Intranet site.

  British Coal
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's policy on the use of the proceeds from the sale of British Coal land and assets. [52448]

  Mr. Battle
  The net proceeds generated from the sale of British Coal's land and subsidiary undertakings were retained to help meet the Corporation's liabilities. The disposal programme was effectively completed by March 1998.
  1054

  Millennium Dome (Sponsors)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the total level of sponsorship funding for the Dome's contents which has been contractually agreed; and if he will list the sponsors and the sums involved. [50736]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) have identified over £100m of sponsorship, from companies such as BT, BSkyB, Manpower, Tesco, Marks and Spencer, BA and BAA. Negotiations on the detailed contracts between these companies and the NMEC are at an advanced stage. The unique scale of this project, including the sponsorship target, inevitably means that both sponsors and the NMEC are breaking new ground and careful and detailed work is therefore required before contracts can be confirmed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the cattle cohort cull, indicating(a) his original estimate of the number of animals to be slaughtered, (b) the number slaughtered to date and (c) the number remaining to be slaughtered; and if all of (c) have been identified. [51927]

  Mr. Rooker
  With regard to the estimate of the total number of animals to be slaughtered under the cull, I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on 19 March 1998,Official Report, columns 727–28, when a forecast of 80,000 to 85,000 animals was provided.

  The selective cull is progressing very well, with well over 74,000 animals slaughtered in the UK. The cull of animals in Northern Ireland is already complete.

  The number of animals which will ultimately be slaughtered under the cull depends on a variety of factors, including: the proportion of animals in the voluntary cohort year which are offered up for slaughter, and the number of animals sold out of their original herd which, when traced, are found to be already dead. Accordingly, while it is difficult to estimate the number of animals still to be slaughtered under the cull, it will be considerably less than the remaining 12,000 animals identified as being eligible for slaughter.

  Cereal Seeds
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of British cereal seed were used in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [52773]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry does not collect statistics on the tonnage of cereal seed used in the United Kingdom but the majority used for sowing is produced in this country.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of imports to the United Kingdom of cereal seed comes from the USA; and if he will make a statement. [52771]
  1055
  Mr. Rooker
  In 1997, only 0.027 per cent. of cereal seed imported into the United Kingdom came from the USA. This figure, which is calculated on the basis of volume, includes imports of common wheat, meslin, barley, maize and sorghum seeds. The import of cereal seed into the United Kingdom from the USA is an extremely small proportion of total imports of cereal seed and has not fluctuated significantly in recent years.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the use of British cereal seed in the United Kingdom. [52772]

  Mr. Rooker
  The use of British or imported cereal seed is a matter for individual growers. I welcome the fact that the majority of cereal seed for sowing used in the United Kingdom is produced in this country.

  Growth Promoters
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of carcases in abattoirs are checked to ensure that antibiotics, coccidiostats, medical substances and growth promoters are not present in quantities above the maximum permitted levels. [54664]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) is responsible for the surveillance of veterinary residues under Council Directive 96/23/EC. This requires Member States to carry out large scale sampling, on-farm and at slaughterhouses, to look for a wide range of veterinary medicinal products including antibiotics, coccidiostats, medicinal substances and growth promoters. Member states are required to take samples amounting to fixed percentages of animals (0.275% of cattle, 0.05% of pigs, 0.05% sheep, and for poultry 1 sample per 200 tonnes of dead-weight production, of which 90% are taken from abattoirs). The actual number of samples to be taken in a given year is determined by the number of animals slaughtered in the previous year, or which the Competent Authority forecasts will be slaughtered during the year, so that, within prescribed confidence limits, Member States can be satisfied that the results obtained are representative of what is happening nationally.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that meat from animals reared on growth promoters is labelled as such. [54666]

  Mr. Rooker
  The use of hormone growth promoters in food producing animals has been banned in the European Community since 1988. Any third country which permits the use of growth promoting hormones is required to guarantee that no animals to which they have been administered and no meat from such animals will be exported to the Community. Imports must be certified accordingly and Commission inspectors verify compliance with all the requirements.

  Antibiotic growth promoters used in animal feed act in the gut of animals and are not absorbed. Residues would not therefore be expected in meat. Antibiotics used in veterinary medicine are all subject to a period of withdrawal before treated animals may be slaughtered for human consumption, or their products are marketed, to ensure no residues are present.
  1056
  Given the above information, I do not believe it necessary to consider labelling.

  Pigs (Artificial Insemination)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amendments to Schedule 6 of the Domestic Pig AI Regulations he is proposing to control the use of on-farm AI to reduce the risk of disease spreading through the movement of unlicensed semen. [54827]

  Mr. Rooker
  Schedule 6 of the draft Pig Artificial Insemination Regulations sets out revised controls on the unlicensed supply of porcine semen. The proposed controls would be more stringent than those currently in place. The Schedule received mixed reactions from the Industry at consultation and will be considered further when work on the draft Regulations is resumed.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the review of the Domestic Pig AI Regulations has not been completed. [54826]

  Mr. Rooker
  The review of the Artificial Insemination of Pigs Regulations was suspended on 14 April in order to allow the temporary re-deployment of staff to work on the lifting of the EC beef export ban. The work has not yet been resumed.

  Alternative Crops
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what programmes of support his Ministry is currently making available for the development of alternative crops. [54828]

  Mr. Rooker
  This year, we have increased grants for the establishment of short rotation coppice near the UK's first biomass-fuelled power station. The Ministry has promoted alternative crops at agricultural shows, seminars, workshops and through a dedicated Website. Expenditure on strategic research and development totals £1.1 million annually.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons he has not requested that alternative crops are afforded the same treatment under the IACS payment scheme as existing comparable crops under Agenda 2000. [54830]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission has undertaken to produce a report on non-food and energy crops within the context of Agenda 2000. The Government are considering their approach towards this.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department expects to spend in each year from 1998–99 to 2000–01 on vehicle replacements. [54988]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry expects to spend just under £1.5 million in 1998–99 on vehicle replacements. Following the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review, plans for future years have yet to be finalised.

  Organophosphates
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of humans in trials involving organophosphates. [55029]
  1057
  Mr. Rooker
  The Government do not require data from trials carried out on human volunteers to be submitted by applicants for pesticides approvals or veterinary medicines licences.

  Applications for marketing authorisations for human medicines require data from trials in human volunteers; however regulatory approval is not required prior to undertaking such studies.

  Any trials that are carried out in the UK are subject to two levels of control. First, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 (made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974) apply as they would to any workplace activity. Second, good practice in respect of ethical standards is set down by the Helsinki Declaration and guidance from the Royal College of Physicians. Under these guidelines, studies require the approval of an ethics committee which takes full account of the rights of the volunteers.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's current evaluation of the extent to which(a) short-term and (b) long-term exposure to organophosphorus compounds produces chronic illnesses. [55336]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are advised by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) in relation to pesticides, and by the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) in relation to veterinary medicines. On current available evidence it seems very likely that exposure to high doses of organophosphorus compounds can result in long term ill health (in addition to acute toxic effects). The range of effects is described in paragraphs 2.4 to 2.6 of the Official Group on OPs Report to Ministers (copies of which are in the Library of the House). What is more open to question and now being reassessed by our advisory committees is the long term effect of low level exposure.

  As part of this reassessment the Government have invited a specialist sub-group of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) to consider a range of issues surrounding short term and long term exposure to OP compounds in general, including what evidence exists that chronic illness arises from long term exposure to OPs. The sub-committee has already begun its task.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the reviews and research into the effect of organophosphorus compounds on human health which his Department has initiated since 1 May 1997, indicating who is carrying out the research and when it is expected to be completed. [55337]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since 1 May 1997, we have commissioned a study at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency on the dose effect profiles for OP sheep dips on brain electrical activity and cognitive performance in non-human primates. This is due to be completed in May 1999.

  As part of the national arrangements for the review of existing approved pesticides, the regulatory Departments responsible for pesticides announced on 13 May 1998 the start of a review of those organophosphorus and
  1058
  carbamate pesticides approved for agricultural use. The first stage of this review is expected to be completed by January 1999.

  The use of OP sheep dips was last reviewed by the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) in February 1997. The VPC confirmed earlier advice that, provided they are used safely and in accordance with manufacturers' instructions, there is no scientific justification for withdrawing them from the market.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to expedite the proposal for the establishment of a loan guarantee scheme under EAGGF Measure 3.1; what obstacles regarding the state aid criterion in this matter have been raised; and if he will make a statement. [55222]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have recently received a draft outline proposal detailing how the proposed loan guarantee scheme under the Objective 5b Programme for the South West region would operate. This is currently being considered by officials. If it is decided to proceed with the Loan Guarantee Fund Parliamentary approval will be required, as will the formal clearance of the Fund as a State Aid from the European Commission. The agreement of the Commission will also be required to amend the Single Programme Document (SPD) for the South West to enable the Loan Guarantee Fund to be included within the Objective 5b Programme.

  Rural Communities (Job Losses)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the net job losses in rural communities resulting from the BSE crisis. [55036]

  Mr. Rooker
  In March 1997, UK Agriculture Departments and HM Treasury commissioned an independent study from DTZ Pieda Consulting to assess the economic impact of BSE on the UK economy. The study was completed in March of this year and a copy of the published report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The report did not separately identify rural employment impacts, but concluded that, whilst the potential for job losses across the economy was high, actual job losses as a result of BSE were limited. Some 1,000 net job losses (less than 0.5% of the jobs involved in the meat production process) were identified in the 12 months following the outbreak of the crisis. The shift in demand to substitute meats, and the provision of subsidies and compensation payments, both helped to retain jobs. However the report drew attention to the likelihood of future adjustments as the crisis support measures are gradually withdrawn.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Commission's progress on the pooling of milk quotas. [55033]
  1059
  Mr. Rooker
  Pooling of milk quotas would presumably involve over-production of milk by some member states being netted-off by the under-production of others. This is not provided for in the European Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals on the reform of the CAP dairy regime and there is little evidence of any enthusiasm for such a measure amongst member states.

  BSE
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his most recent estimate of the total cost to public funds of the BSE crisis. [55017]

  Mr. Rooker
  The current estimated cost of the BSE crisis is £4.6 billion over the period 1996/97 to 2001/2002. About 45 per cent. of this sum will be reimbursed by the European Community.

  Farmers (Compensatory Payments)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an application to the EU for compensatory payments to farmers for the effects of the current value of sterling. [55223]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government fully recognise the effect that the recent strength of sterling is having on the agricultural industry. The EU agrimonetary rules permit the UK to pay compensatory aid within a maximum ceiling to offset the income effects of revaluations of the sterling "green" rate. Following sterling revaluations in 1997 and 1998 about £165 million of aid is currently available to the UK, most of which is payable only to the cereal and beef sectors. The operation of the UK's EU budget abatement means that even paying the EU-reimbursed element of this aid carries significant public expenditure implications for the UK exchequer. Broadly speaking, the UK exchequer would bear around 71 per cent. of the costs of the £118 million EU-reimbursed element of this aid, and 100 per cent. of the costs of the £47 million national element making up this package.

  It is against this background—and a tight position on public spending—that we have to take decisions about agrimonetary compensation. In recognition of the special circumstances facing the livestock sector, we announced on 18 December 1997 a one year, one-off package of aid to the beef and sheep sectors worth £85 million. This aid has provided substantial additional assistance to this sector.

  My colleagues and I continue to keep the situation under review and are listening to the representations being made by the farming unions.

  Cyber Fish
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has conducted on the(a) ethics and (b) economics of the cyber fish developed by a Norwegian scientist to lead fish into stationary nets. [55242]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF has not undertaken any research into the ethics or economics of cyber fish, nor has it plans of doing so.
  1060

  Fisheries
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) of 17 March 1998,Official Report, column 539, for what reasons the derogation in respect of the 6 and 12 miles limits will continue after 2002; and if he will list those Governments who have indicated they do not support extension. [55401]

  Mr. Morley
  It is clear that other Member States share our interest in protecting inshore fleets and therefore value the restrictions on access within 6 and 12 mile limits. None has indicated that it will not support the continuation of these provisions beyond 2002 and the European Commission has confirmed that it expects them to be maintained. There was unanimous agreement the last time they were renewed in 1992.

  Green CAP
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the expansion of co-financible activities for a green common agricultural policy in accordance with Corn (97) 620. [55327]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission's report of December 1997 on the implementation of agri-environment schemes within the European Union (Corn (97) 620) made a number of suggestions for the strengthening of agri-environment programmes both in financial terms and in terms of quality. It notes that these should be considered in the context of the proposals arising from Agenda 2000.

  Under the UK Presidency, Member States agreed that agri-environment measures should remain an important part of the CAP reform process, and also began detailed consideration, as part of the Agenda 2000 process, of the Commission's proposal for the future development of agri-environmental and rural development policy. This has brought together amended measures from nine existing Council regulations and aims to be the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. The proposed rural development regulation will allow Member States to prioritise their requirements for environmental action, structural adjustment, diversification and other measures in support of rural communities. The Commission propose the allocation of an extra 180 million ecu (£124.2 million) for agri-environmental measures. Such measures will be a compulsory element of development plans drawn up under the regulation.

  In England, the results of the Comprehensive Spending Review for MAFF, which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 29 July 1998, Official Report, columns 341–45, established measures to sustain and enhance an attractive and accessible countryside as a key priority for MAFF. We will continue to expand the areas under agreement under the major agri-environment schemes.

  In the long term, we would like to see the Common Agricultural Policy reformed to phase out production linked support, allowing European farming to develop into a competitive industry that can survive and prosper in increasingly open markets. We would wish to see part

  1061
  of the savings from a reduction in production support diverted to measures which will protect and enhance the environment and help the rural economy adjust, particularly in more fragile rural areas.

  Pigs
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to press the European Commission to introduce measures to limit the growth in pig numbers in the European Union. [55489]

  Mr. Rooker
  None, as I do not believe that it would be in the United Kingdom pigmeat industry's best interests to do so. However, in response to representations from the UK and other Member States the Commission have extended and increased export refunds for pigmeat, and introduced a private storage aid scheme.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) private pet owners and (b) commercial dog and cat breeders were prosecuted, and on what charges, under anti-rabies quarantine legislation in each of the last five years. [55470]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on the breakdown of prosecutions between those of private pet owners and those of commercial dog and cat breeders is not held centrally. The number of prosecutions under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 reported to this Department by local authorities in each of the last five years is:

  1993: 53

  1994: 71

  1995: 64

  1996: 66

  1997: 50.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 30 July 1998,Official Report, columns 621–30, if he will make a further statement about progress on genetically modified crops. [55675]

  Mr. Rooker
  In my statement on 30 July I reported fully on the background to MAFF's non-enforcement of regulation 11(3) of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982. I stated then that I intended to put in hand immediate action to remove the requirement in regulation 11(3) to provide replicated trials data which is redundant and serves no useful purpose. I also indicated that we were considering urgently how the position of varieties already added to the National List or currently in tests and trials without replicated trials data should be regularised.

  A formal consultation on the revocation of regulation 11(3) was launched on 6 August, and a further consultation was launched on 17 September setting out proposals for the regularisation of varieties already added to the National List or currently in tests and trials. The proposals contained in the 17 September consultation would have regularised the position of varieties already added to the National List, but would have continued to
  1062
  require replicated trials data, albeit submitted after applications had been received, from tests and trials carried out prior to the date of application.

  However, in the light of representations received during the consultation process we concluded that there are no good reasons for differentiating between the treatment of varieties already on the National List, and those that are only part way through statutory tests and trials. Accordingly, we therefore issued revised proposals on 8 October which would revoke the requirement to submit replicated trials results (as already proposed in the 6 August consultation), and permit Ministers to determine all applications not yet determined by the date the regulations come into force, notwithstanding the absence of replicated trials data. These proposals are fully in line with the comments of the Court of Appeal that the position ought now to be resolved speedily and decisively across the board. The Court of Appeal also said that it would seem surprising if at least the possibility of retrospective amendment were not to be considered.

  This latest consultation will end on 30 October, following which Ministers will give careful consideration to the views expressed by respondents before deciding on the final form of the amending Statutory Instrument. In the meantime the data requirements of regulation 11(3) are being operated. (Copies of all three consultation documents have been placed in the Library of the House).

  So far as genetically modified varieties are concerned controls are addressed under separate legislation, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the regulations made under it. Genetically modified varieties are not accepted into National List tests unless they have been given the appropriate consents under this legislation.

  In my statement I also spoke of the need to ensure that organic farmers are not adversely affected by the introduction of GMO crops. I said that MAFF and DETR would be working with the farming community and representatives of organic farming to ensure that the expansion of organic farming was not compromised by the introduction of genetically modified crops. The Government's aim is to promote dialogue between the organic and GM sectors so that practical steps can be taken to avoid problems.

  This commitment is being taken forward in a number of ways. MAFF is commissioning research on the factors affecting the likelihood and consequences of gene transfer between genetically modified and organically produced crops and factors influencing the probability of such transfer. This research is being commissioned so that those concerned with defining and regulating organic crop production are able to draw on relevant data and information.

  Cattle Tracing System
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made at the British Cattle Movement Service since the launch of the computerised Cattle Tracing System for Great Britain on 28 September. [55676]

  Mr. Rooker
  The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) launched the new Cattle Tracing System for Great Britain on 28 September 1998. As of 14 October, the BCMS has issued 120,666 passports and processed
  1063
  26,520 notifications of cattle movements. The BCMS has also dealt with over 50,000 calls to the local call rate Helpline since it opened on 1 July 1998.

  Passport production peaked on 10 October when 23,747 passports were issued. The busiest day for the Helpline was 29 September when 1,914 calls were received.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the objectives of the forthcoming consultation exercise on genetically-modified organisms; and if it will include consultation about(a) genetically modified organisms in human food
  1064
  products, (b) genetically modified organisms in animal foodstuffs and (c) labelling of products derived from genetically modified organisms. [53386]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The public consultation exercise will seek the views of the general public on advances in the biosciences, including genetic modification. It will not initially focus on any specific area such as health or food, but will ask for views on the information available on genetics and its applications. We will seek to explore the way that people use this information to inform their judgments relating to risk and trust. For example, we expect to explore the role of Government, industry and others in the public perception of the biosciences and seek views on how effective current mechanisms are.

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.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick
The Right Honourable Norman Stewart Hughson Lamont, having been created Baron Lamont of Lerwick, of Lerwick in the Shetland Islands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord St. John of Fawsley and the Lord Lawson of Blaby.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
Mrs. Margaret Lucy Sharp, having been created Baroness Sharp of Guildford, of Guildford in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Thomas of Walliswood and the Lord Goodhart.

BBC World Service
2.47 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had in the past two months with the BBC on the future of its Overseas Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the BBC World Service makes an invaluable contribution to promoting respect and goodwill for Britain. We want it to continue to flourish and to build on its outstanding reputation for objective news and comment. We have been in regular discussion with the World Service over recent months, in particular on implementation of the results of the comprehensive spending review announced in July under which the World Service will receive an extra £44 million over the course of the next three years.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Would she not agree that there has inevitably been some anxiety about the circumstances surrounding the departure of a former managing director, Sam Younger? Can my noble friend assure the House that in her discussions with the BBC she is emphasising that, in so far as Foreign Office money is supporting the Overseas Service, the overriding priority is to maintain the objectivity to which she referred so that it can truly be a reliable source of reference for the world and that gravitas and dependability are other essential qualities in all that the BBC does?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government are committed to the success of the World Service. We are committed to the maintenance of the high quality of its output and to its continuing pre-eminence among international broadcasters. My noble friend referred to the departure of Mr. Younger. The BBC's Board of Governors recently appointed Mr. Mark Byford as the new World Service chief executive. He appointed Mr. Younger. We look forward to working with him. I have already had a brief meeting with Mr. Byford. I look forward to further fruitful meetings with him in the next few weeks and months.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact and value of the BBC World Service in areas of conflict, given the way in which the World Service adapts its language services according to international developments? I refer, for instance, to its increase in Serbian and Albanian broadcasting hours and to the deal whereby the World Service will be broadcast on FM in Jakarta. Does the Minister agree that the value and flexibility of those language services are extremely important?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. She focuses particularly on the Balkans. I understand her reasons for doing so. It is a strategically important area for both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the World Service. The Macedonian service opened in 1996, joining the existing Albanian, Croat and Serbian services—the noble Baroness referred to the latter—and now operates for an extra 15 minutes a day. We understand that the World Service is also contemplating opening a Bosnian service. We welcome that.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, given that the World Service's internet service in Mandarin and Cantonese is now being blocked by the Chinese authorities, how do the Government plan to help the World Service to use the on-line effectively?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are aware that students and young professionals in China are particularly keen to use internet services. The World Service's Mandarin and Cantonese internet language services are very important and we shall continue to do what we can to ensure that they reach those for whom they are destined. It is important to realise that the BBC's internet pages are extensively used, with over 20 million hits a month. We shall be doing all we can, both bilaterally in discussions and with the World Service, to ensure that that figure continues to rise as fast as at present.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the BBC's Bosnian service will differ from any other service broadcast to Yugoslavia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the point I was endeavouring to make is that the BBC World Service looks to its resources and tries to match those to the needs that it must meet in terms of its language services. The BBC is currently considering providing a

1169
service in Bosnian, which does not exist at the moment. We hope to help the situation in the Balkans by being able to broadcast in the languages needed.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, "Bosnian" is not a distinct or separate language.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister remind the BBC that in English language broadcasts on the Overseas Service it is even more important than on our domestic broadcasts that the announcers speak in accents as clear as those of the noble Baroness and that the BBC should guard against either incomprehensible dialects from the outer edges of the United Kingdom or the sloppy estuary English used by some of us nearer to home?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in all broadcasting, as in your Lordships' House, it is the clarity of communication that matters. However, that is not to say that accents different from mine are not clearly understood in many different parts of the world whether they are regional accents from this country or the accents of people from other parts of the world who speak English.
Lord Newby: My Lords, if I may address this House in a Yorkshire accent, may I ask whether the Minister agrees, that one of the great strengths of the World Service is that by embracing the new technologies, and particularly the internet, it is able to reach a number of countries, including, I believe, Malaysia, where it was impossible for the BBC to have wide radio broadcast facilities, and that by using those new technologies to good effect, the range of people with access to the World Service can be extended?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the use of the new technologies. However, we should not overlook the fact that the "older technologies", if I may put it that way, also widen the range of the BBC World Service. We can all take satisfaction from the figures and from the fact that the World Service audience is almost twice the size of that of its nearest competitor, "Voice of America", and is well ahead of "Deutsche Welt" and "Radio France International". In that respect, the World Service is a market leader. Another important factor is that not only does it broadcast in 44 languages at the moment but also its English output is re-broadcast by 1,000 local radio stations around the world. That is a significant contribution.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and in relation to the people of Scotland, does my noble friend accept that one of the English expressions that the Scots clearly understood came from the noble Lord when he was Secretary of State for Employment and said, "Get on yer bike", and that that is why there are no Tory MPs left in Scotland?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is braver than I to take on my noble friend in that regard.

NATO: "Open-Door" Policy
2.56 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will define the phrase "Open Door" policy in relation to the nations of Central Europe which have applied to join NATO.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the phrase "Open Door" policy is shorthand for NATO's enlargement policy. As the Prime Minister said in another place on 9th July 1997 following the NATO summit in Madrid,
"NATO leaders agreed that they expected in the years ahead to extend further invitations to nations willing to take on the responsibilities of membership, whose inclusion would serve the interests of the Alliance and enhance overall European security".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/97; col. 938.]
That remains our policy and applies to applicants from central Europe.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive Answer which will give great encouragement to the nations of central Europe, not least, the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Will the noble Baroness assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will give urgent consideration to the views of Mr. Brzezinski, who in a recent article suggested that at the Washington summit in April 1999 one nation from the north of central Europe and one from the south of central Europe—Lithuania and Slovenia, respectively, which are the nations that have most readily matched the criteria for entry—should be admitted as soon as possible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the alliance has not made any decision about whether to issue further invitations at the Washington summit to which the noble Earl referred. We believe that NATO's priority should be the successful integration into NATO of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, both politically and militarily. There are no special cases. However, the noble Earl will recall that the Prime Minister also said to the House of Commons on 9th July 1997 at col. 937 after the Madrid summit that applications from Romania and Slovenia were being,
"especially closely considered even though there was no consensus to invite them on this occasion".
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that the WEU Partnership for Peace arrangements can serve as a satisfactory staging post for those member states in Europe which feel disappointment but which cannot sensibly be assimilated with the urgency that they want?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Partnership for Peace arrangements provide what my noble friend described as a sensible "staging post". As well as the WEU, a number of bilateral activities particularly engage the United Kingdom. I refer, for example, to our bilateral defence relationships with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania which are excellent, as the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, has reminded us on a number of occasions. The WEU is acting as an essential part of the development of those nations which have made applications and which are waiting to see what happens in relation to the open door policy not only next year but on a longer-term basis.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent steps to recognise the position of the Russian speaking minority in Latvia and in other Baltic states are extremely helpful in bringing about a peaceful integration of the Baltics into the Western structures with the support and agreement of Russia? Does the Minister accept that it is vitally important to maintain close relations with the Russians through Partnership for Peace in order to make that possible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Baroness has said. We are particularly pleased to see the recent changes in Latvia in relation to Russian minorities. As I described a moment or two ago, the United Kingdom has undertaken a number of bilateral activities in relation to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We are enormously encouraged by the activities of all three of those Baltic states in trying to ensure the integration of their Russian minorities. That obviously helps not only in relation to NATO applications but also in relation to their EU membership which is going forward.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government keep the phrase "open door" under continuous review because it suggests that anyone at any time would be welcome? For instance, we could start with the Congo and go on with Myanmar if the door were really open.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is a difference between having an open door and inviting someone to step through it. We have made it perfectly clear who is invited to step through it at the moment. The criteria upon which such invitations are put forward is that enlargement for NATO's political and military cohesion should continue and should enhance European security and stability. Those are the basic criteria which will be considered in relation to the open door policy.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, as regards NATO and European Union future membership, does the Minister support the policy that the nations supposedly in the second wave such as Bulgaria may still come in as soon as they meet the desired criteria, democratic and economic conditions, regardless of their position on the list?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that in relation to NATO we
1172
also wish to ensure that there should be proper integration of the first wave of applicants. That is what is important. It is not just a question of the numbers; it is the cohesion of NATO itself which will be of great importance. The first objective must be the integration of the three applicants who have already been invited. Thereafter, decisions will be taken in the light not only of what the noble Baroness says but also in the light of the effect of inviting further applicants in terms of European security and stability over all.

Prison: Sentencing Alternatives
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the conclusions of the 3rd Report (Session 1997–98) of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Alternatives to Prison Sentences (HC 486–I).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government welcome the report of the Home Affairs Committee's inquiry into alternatives to prison sentences. We believe that the courts should have available to them an effective range of sentencing options. The committee's report is a valuable contribution towards realising that. The Home Secretary and I are considering all the recommendations carefully. When we have done so we shall publish our response before the end of this year. Many of the recommendations endorse action which the Government are already taking.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as I shall raise these issues in a wider context tomorrow night I shall not bother the Minister for much longer today. However, on the face of it, his reply could be encouraging or it could mean nothing at all. I look forward to the debate tomorrow.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is definitely not nothing at all. It is encouraging.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the prison population, which was 40,000 in 1993, has now increased to over 65,000? In the same period the offending rate, or the rate at which offenders have been sentenced to imprisonment, has risen from about 44 per cent. to 60 per cent. in the Crown Court and from about 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. in magistrates' courts. Does the Minister consider that a non-custodial alternative should play an important part and that the courts should re-examine their sentencing guidelines?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is quite right. There has been an unprecedented rise in the prison population over the past five years. However, I am happy to tell your Lordships that for the first time since I have been answering these Questions the rate of increase has recently slowed down. It peaked at 66,517 at the end of July. However, last

1173
Friday it was 65,980. I endorse entirely what the noble Lord says. We have to be extremely scrupulous in looking at alternatives to imprisonment. I believe that that is an important theme which underlies the Crime and Disorder Act.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that in many cases prison is a perfectly proper sentence, certainly for serious crimes, and that it plays an important part as a deterrent in any crime prevention strategy? Does he also agree that this House should not give the impression that we care more for the welfare of the criminal than for that of the victim?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I absolutely agree. I believe that the protection of the public is at the heart of any government's duty. The important question is to ensure that we have effective public protection. The noble Lord's point about victims is another important theme in the Crime and Disorder Act where reparation orders are available. We should bear in mind also that the ultimate protection for the public is a reduction in crime. That depends on public confidence in the range of sentencing alternatives available and those which are used.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the rate of crime has gone down or up during the period that the prison population has gone up?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the rate of crime as such varies. Some crimes have increased and some have decreased. It is difficult to find a causal connection between imprisonment and the rate at which a particular crime is committed. Different factors affect different crimes. I can see the semaphore from my noble friend Lord Tebbit—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I refer to my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I repeat that some crimes have increased and some have decreased.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, will the Government pay particular attention to the committee's recommendation that Ministers should give more publicity to the work of the Probation Service and the other activities touched on in this admirable report?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is indeed an admirable report, as I sought to say earlier. I believe the noble Lord refers to Recommendation 29 which states that we ought to inform the public fully what alternative remedies are available. I have started to do that by attending probation officers' conferences and by talking to probation officers. I have endeavoured to persuade the media to tell the full story of what is available for public protection and the reduction of crime.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, the Minister referred to public confidence. Given the fact
1174
that the report refers to evidence which shows that even under the more effective community programmes re-offending rates are still unacceptably high, what steps are the Government taking to reassure the public that it is safe to increase the use of such programmes for a wider group of offenders?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, again, one comes back to the philosophy behind the Crime and Disorder Act. One has to recognise that we must stop young offenders much earlier than they have been stopped in the past. We wish to have programmes which intervene at a very early age. I believe that everyone who has ever answered questions on this subject from this Dispatch Box—and I see the noble Baroness there—will recognise that early intervention is the key to many of these problems. There is a job of public confidence to be undertaken and it is a duty of the Government to discharge that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, have the Government taken any steps towards implementing the recommendation of the Chief Inspector of Prisons that Immigration Act detainees should be held in special detention centres and not in Prison Service establishments? Has the Minister noted that, according to figures he recently gave in answer to a Written Question, there are almost 500 Immigration Act detainees in our prisons? As one possible way of reducing those numbers, will the Minister consider the use of electronic tagging for Immigration Act detainees rather than detention?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord makes two interesting points. The second is certainly a matter to be considered. We must bear in mind that applicants who are detained are extremely difficult to control and do not have roots in this country. The matter is not as simple as dealing with questions of bail for those who are resident in this country.
With regard to the first part of the question, I believe the noble Lord will remember that as soon as Sir David Ramsbotham's report was published it was accepted by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that while punishment is obviously essential in many circumstances, what matters most in the end is the rehabilitation of the criminal and that therefore what happens in prison is central to our considerations? Does he not agree that there is too much indication that very often prison simply produces hardened criminals?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course, but one cannot necessarily simply have blunt propositions put as alternatives. Some people will have to be detained in prison for long periods of time because it is necessary to protect the public. However, it must be borne in mind that 99.9 per cent. of criminals will one day be released and it is expensive folly and a waste of both human and financial resources not to give them the opportunity of a better and more constructive life when they come out of prison. That is an important aspect of public protection.

Manchester United: BSkyB Bid
3.12 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the Office of Fair Trading report on BSkyB's bid for the ownership of Manchester United Football Club plc.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the statutory deadline for the decision by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on whether to refer BSkyB's proposed acquisition of Manchester United to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is 2nd November. We expect to receive the advice of the Director-General of Fair Trading on the merger in time for the Secretary of State to make a decision by that date.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I quote:
"Football, the people's game, is being too driven by money and not enough by the sporting spirit".
Does not that statement by the Prime Minister, since when football has become even more money-driven, alone justify at least a reference to the MMC? Manchester United was built by supporters whose loyalty is second to none, not least that of its 40,000 season ticket stakeholders and 100,000-plus members. Are their views being adequately consulted? And what is being done to inform ordinary shareholders that they have the right to reject the offer and can do so simply by ignoring it?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting the important point that, when an offer is made, shareholders have the right to accept or refuse it. As to the question of the fairness and spirit of the game and the results, I have to try to remain objective, despite my title. It would be invidious of me to comment on the performance of Manchester United and its fans.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord would agree that control or influence over a large portion of the modern communications network is the key to immense power and influence and that Mr. Murdoch's share of this network has been growing steadily over recent years. Are the Government not becoming a bit nervous about that, and do they not feel that the point has been reached when, in the words of a famous, long-ago Motion, it ought to be diminished?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the Government are always fully aware of developments in commercial areas which are highly germane to the economy. As the noble Lord is probably aware, there have been two examinations of Mr. Murdoch's capacity
1176
in the wholesale supply of information through the networks. The Director-General of Fair Trading has commented on those, the last time as recently as 1996.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest, not as a shareholder but as a supporter of Manchester United and, therefore, of the plc. Can my noble friend tell us what kind of considerations the Secretary of State will take into account, on either side of the argument, as to whether the matter should be remitted?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the main elements that the Secretary of State will take into account are those which are generally influential to fair competition and the interests of the consumer. In this case the consumer—the stakeholder, the fan will be very much in people's minds, even if it is Manchester United that is involved.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, will the Minister think it satisfactory, when the contract between BSkyB and the Premier League comes to an end in 2001, if at that time BSkyB is competing with other television companies to televise football games and is also well represented, through ownership of Manchester United, on the other side of the negotiating table?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the question as to the position in 2001 is extremely hypothetical. First, we want to see what the court says about the agreement between the Premier League and its television contacts, which is currently under investigation. When we have the result of that investigation we may see whether it leads to interest in the second stage, which my noble friend has outlined.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the real interest that the Government would have in this case would be the television interest, in particular if the arrangements under which the Premier League clubs negotiate en bloc with the television companies, in particular BSkyB, are held unlawful by the Restrictive Practices Court? Will he confirm that, notwithstanding the date of the OFT recommendation on this occasion, once we have the Restrictive Practices Court decision, the Government will look at the issue again?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am sure that, as always, the Government will take into account any decision of the court in looking at the structure of the industry as a whole. I repeat my answer to the previous question: let us await the decision of the court on that inquiry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that, if the Government give the go-ahead to this takeover, takeovers of other major clubs will follow quickly, and football and control over it as we know it will cease to exist, and a monopoly will be created at the top of the game?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am sure that, if similar cases arise, it will be possible for them to be

1177
investigated in much the same way. I believe it will always be regarded as a legal question over which we have a certain amount of control.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Kosovo.

Scotland Bill
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sewel, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2 to 20,
Schedule 2,
Clause 21,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 22 to 92,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 93 to 107,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 108 to 116,
Schedules 4 and 5,
Clause 117,
Schedules 8 and 9,
Clauses 118 to 124.—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Status of Northern Ireland]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, after ("shall") insert (", subject to subsection (3),").
The noble Lord said: I should first point out that there is a mistake in the grouping. Amendment No. 2 should not be grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 3; it stands
1178
separately. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3 to which Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment. Ever since 1972 successive British governments, be they Labour or Conservative, have decreed that straightforward majority rule will no longer do.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. It is impossible for Ministers to hear what is being said when noble Lords are speaking when leaving the Chamber.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I should start again. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 3 to which Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment. Ever since 1972 successive British governments, whether Conservative or Labour, have decreed that straightforward majority rule in Northern Ireland will no longer do; nor will majority votes on most issues henceforth be regarded as conclusive. Every abortive assembly and proposed constitutional arrangement since then has had elaborate checks and balances incorporated to ensure that minorities have substantial blocking powers at their disposal.
The Good Friday agreement takes matters much further. For better or worse, it positively institutionalises the notion that Northern Ireland is composed of two utterly distinct and separate communities and lays down that virtually no new legislative steps, however trivial, may be taken without the support of the majority of each of the two communities through the medium of their elected representatives. This principle runs like a golden thread through the 83 clauses of the Bill but with one vital exception. It fails to embrace Clause 1, which covers the most important issue of all: nationality and national identity. On this issue, as matters stand, all that will be needed to detach the Province from the United Kingdom and annex it to the Republic of Ireland is a 50.001 per cent. vote in favour, possibly on a low turn-out, with no real guarantee against personation and intimidation and no evidence whatsoever of cross-community support. Therefore, demographic changes could lead to the Province being incorporated into the Republic against the fervent wish of every single member of one of the two communities.
When similar objections regarding border polls have been raised before there have been two responses. The first is, "Well, we will keep our options open and cross that bridge when we come to it. After all, a border poll is indicative or advisory rather than binding". However, Clause 1 is drawn specifically so as to exclude any procrastination or fudge. The second response goes something like, "When it comes to the crunch many Republicans and Nationalists will be reluctant to leave the United Kingdom after all, mainly for financial considerations". Really? Lavish EU subsidies mean that the south is now very much richer than it used to be. More importantly, if one had predicted a dozen years ago that within five years the "evil empire" (the Soviet empire) would collapse and all the countries of eastern and central Europe and most of Soviet Asia would be free, and that within a little over five years apartheid would collapse, with hardly a shot being fired, and a

1179
multi-racial government would be elected on the basis of universal suffrage, people would have regarded one as stark raving mad. Yet both of those events have occurred. The attitudes and patterns of five or 10 years ago are no guide to what may happen five or 10 years hence.
In a nutshell, the provisions of Clause 1 as drafted are both unfair and very unwise. I deal first with unwisdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, pointed out in an article that I quoted at Second Reading, to try to push 1 million people into another state against their will is dangerous folly. Even the possibility of it would make them much more edgy and volatile in the next few tricky years than would otherwise he the case. Considerations of this kind lead wise governments to stipulate that where strong resistance is anticipated a majority of well over 50 per cent. of those voting must be obtained before major constitutional, or quasi-constitutional, change is set in train. Examples are the Scottish devolution proposals of 1979 and the Belgian referendum of 1950.
Our spiritual leaders take the same line. Although obviously there is no question whatever of bloodshed or even the mildest fisticuffs, so strong is resistance in some quarters to the Anglican-Methodist unity proposals that the established Church has decreed that unity must be delayed until 75 per cent. of the Synod votes in favour of it. So far this has not happened.
I remind the Committee that five-sixths of the island of Ireland is available to those who wish, as is their right, to spurn everything British. Is it not only fair for the remaining one-sixth of the island to continue to be a haven for those who wish to remain British and live in a British environment until such time, if it ever comes, as half of them change their mind? There is nothing remotely extreme or radical about these amendments. On the contrary, they remove an anomaly and bring the clause into line with the worthy and fair-minded principles of bi-communal consent which underpin the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Committee begins its deliberations on the very large number of amendments from all parts of the House perhaps I may be forgiven for taking a moment to express congratulations to Mr. Trimble and Mr. Hume on the award to them of the Nobel peace prize. The efforts of both well deserve the award of that prize and it is symbolic of the efforts of many other people as well. One can only hope, as Mr. Trimble has himself pointed out, that it does not turn out to be a premature award.
The Government have proposed over 200 amendments. They include a number of new delegated powers and alterations to the existing delegated powers in the Bill. Therefore, I took the liberty to suggest a day or two ago to the noble Lord the Minister that the amendments should be seen by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in addition to its report on the Bill as it stands. These are sweeping amendments which include new order-making powers and should be looked at so that noble Lords can have the benefit of the advice of that committee at least in the later stage of their debates.
1180
I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the other two amendments grouped with it. I very much sympathise with the efforts of the noble Lord to get a triple lock on the potentially momentous change in the status of Northern Ireland. The three parts of the lock are: the people of Northern Ireland and the referendum referred to in the Bill; the United Kingdom Parliament, which is also referred to in the Bill; and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Unfortunately, this is not what the agreement says. We have been told frequently and have come to accept that it is extremely difficult to vary the agreement, which is complicated and has involved long negotiations with many people over a number of years, even if we wished to do so in a small way. This is not a small change but a big change. Therefore, it is difficult to support the amendment at this stage much as one may wish to do so.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said earlier—probably no one heard because of the mass exodus—that Amendment No. 2 had been wrongly grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 3. I intend to move that amendment separately. Amendment No. 2 should be grouped with Amendment No. 225.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In that case I shall reserve my remarks on Amendment No. 2 to a subsequent point and conclude there.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to support this amendment strongly. We have to remember that the IRA spokesman, speaking in Dublin in early September just before the recall of Parliament, said, after confirming that there would be no decommissioning and refusing to say that the war was over:
"If the objective conditions exist for violent conflict, then such conflict will occur".
That is IRA speak for "we haven't gone away". They said that though they were concerned at the slow pace of movement, they were confident they would achieve their objective—a united and independent Ireland.
Martin McGuinness told the BBC today that the decommissioning issue was entirely a matter for General John de Chastelain; that Sinn Fein-IRA made their position clear at the talks; that decommissioning was not part of the peace process and only the Unionists were trying retrospectively to make it a precondition. He said that he would, far from talking to the Prime Minister about decommissioning, be telling him that the agreement was in default by four months.
Against that background of arrogant intransigence—which he can afford since the IRA have their prisoners out now—it seems to me that it is more than ever necessary for the Governments to offer all the strong reassurance they can to the people of Northern Ireland that they are sticking to the agreement. Part of that would be for the Irish Government to act at once to

1181
enact the necessary legislation to abrogate Articles 1 and 2 of their constitution. The agreement expressly requires each government to notify the other of:
"the completion of the requirements for entry into force of this agreement. This agreement shall enter into force on the date of the receipt of the later of the two notifications".
It is up to the Government of the Republic of Ireland to ensure that there will be no delay. But, more than that, it is essential to reassure the Assembly, and particularly the Unionists, that they have so acted given Sinn Fein-IRA's somewhat triumphalist behaviour and their glaring lack of good faith over ending punishment beatings and their failure to give any hope, even now, to the families of the disappeared. Those are actions well within the power of Sinn Fein-IRA, whatever they may say about having no arms themselves to decommission.
I am, incidentally, concerned about the meaning of two sections of Article 3 in the agreement which appear on page 4. What extra-territorial jurisdiction is in question, and why will subsection 5, though to be omitted, still have the force of law?
Unless David Trimble can point to the fact that the Irish Government are not only fully and formally accepting Northern Ireland's decision to choose to stay in the UK but have relinquished the claim which would require a united Ireland, I do not see how he can hope to carry the majority of people in Northern Ireland with him in whatever action he deems necessary to create an assembly visibly committed to peace, giving the necessary proof of commitment and spelling out that we are at present talking of two separate entities: the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, as part of the UK by its own choice. Sinn Fein-IRA must not be allowed to fudge this, nor to put through a major constitutional decision without clear thinking about what we and they are doing.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: I wish to support Amendment No. 3 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. In the Bill, as it is written in Clause 1, it seems an extraordinary, simplistic and peremptory way to say goodbye to part of the United Kingdom. It does not say how large the majority must be. It could be one. It is more than likely, as in the recent past, that there will be substantial electoral fraud. The very least that could be done is that the position after the vote should be looked at. I believe that the proper authority to look at that will be the Assembly, who will know what is going on and know what has taken place. To merely state that,
"the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament",
does not give her any authority to make a judgment on the way that the vote has been taken or the way it has gone. Therefore, it is entirely proper to give the Assembly the job of considering the vote and approving of it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: We have a great many amendments so, in the spirit of getting through the business in the time allotted to us, I shall be very brief. I do not support this amendment because it cuts across
1182
Section 1(1) of the Belfast agreement and therefore goes further than I think is proper for this House to attempt to do.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I warmly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Amendment No. 3 simply restores the power which resided in the parliament of Northern Ireland as set out in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. When Stormont was abolished, with it went the constitutional guarantee. It was replaced after a fashion by the border poll which was a clear-cut question which asked, "Do you wish to remain within the United Kingdom or do you wish to join in an Irish republic?"
As I understand it, with devolution now about to be restored, the Bill does not restore in any tangible or convincing way that constitutional guarantee because anything resembling the recent referendum does not meet the need for voters to settle the question one way or the other. In that referendum they were asked to approve what started life, and ended in a slightly more condensed but not improved form, as a document of 65 pages. There simply has to be a clear-cut opportunity for all the citizens of Northern Ireland, whatever their viewpoint, to answer the question. There must be a cast-iron assurance that any future referendum—that is if the Government reject this amendment—will be a straight "Yes" or "No" question and answer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for some clarification. Of course, I would not support this amendment, for the reasons that have been given. Those were the reasons put forward in relation to the previous Bill which I supported.
It is true that there is no express provision in the arrangement—I do not think that the arrangement has yet been signed by all parties to it—that there should be decommissioning. I am not surprised that it is suggested that it was not part of the agreement in the sense that there was no reference to it, but was it not part of the background to the whole arrangement? Was that not why these negotiations were so difficult to conclude, and is that not why concessions were made on all sides, with the concept of decommissioning being accepted?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am slightly suspicious of this amendment, for the simple reason that it gives the power in the new subsection (3) of Clause 1 for the Assembly to second-guess the electorate of Northern Ireland. Given the circumstances of Northern Ireland, which certainly exist now and are likely to exist then, I think that that would be a bad thing.
Lord Dubs: First, I concur wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said about his delight that David Trimble and John Hume have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I am sure that has caused a great deal of pleasure on all sides of the House.
We tabled a large number of amendments to this Bill last week, as we warned the House we would. I appreciate that your Lordships have been given a great deal of work to do in preparing for today's session of

1183
the Committee and, indeed, the subsequent ones. I hope that we may have lightened the burden slightly with the written explanation of the first half of the amendments which I sent to some of your Lordships towards the end of the week, along with the offer of a briefing meeting. Indeed, a copy of that letter was also placed in the Library. If the letter were thought useful, I should be happy to repeat the exercise for the later amendments.
On one other preliminary matter, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has written to me to express the wish that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will have an opportunity to examine the amendments we are proposing and report on them to the House. The chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, QC, has let me know that the committee intends to report on these amendments next Wednesday, 28th October, which will give the House good time to digest the committee's observations before Report stage.
The report of the committee on the Bill as it stands, published last week, proposes that the negative resolution procedure should attach to order-making powers in the Bill; namely, those in Clause 70 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 6. I am grateful to the committee for its report. We have already put down an amendment to make the relevant change to Clause 70. I can tell the Committee that we propose to do the same in respect of Schedule 6.
We start off this Committee stage with a discussion of perhaps the single most significant aspect of the agreement. The resolution in the agreement of the old dispute about the constitutional status of Northern Ireland opens the way to advancing beyond the conflicts that have so complicated the affairs of Northern Ireland, of the island of Ireland, and of relations between all the peoples of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland.
I say right away that the effect of the amendments would be wholly to subvert the provisions of the agreement on the consent question, and we simply cannot accept them. Clauses 1 and 2 of the present Bill, along with Schedule 1, were set out in the agreement, along with the amendments to the Irish constitution that represents the reflection in its law of the consent principle. Clause 1 provides that Northern Ireland should not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of the people voting in a poll; but that if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of the United Ireland, the Secretary of State must put before Parliament proposals to give effect to that wish, agreed with the Irish Government.
The Secretary of State may by Schedule 1 order the holding of a poll at any time, subject to a minimum interval between polls of seven years; and she must make an order if it appears likely to her that a majority of those voting would express a wish to form part of the United Ireland. Any such order is by Clause 78 subject to affirmative resolution in this House and another place.
1184
Those are the provisions of the agreement. I confine myself to Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, expressed a wish to deal subsequently with Amendment No. 2. Those amendments insert another, wholly new, condition to a change in constitutional status; namely, a cross-community vote in the assembly. There is nothing to suggest such an extra condition in the agreement, and it cannot be imagined that the agreement would have been concluded between the parties with such a condition. I have to say, therefore, that those who propose this amendment are effectively rejecting the agreement, whether or not that is their intention.
What we must hope is that the two communities in Northern Ireland will increasingly find ways of working together co-operatively and for the greater good, whatever the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The agreement offers the best hope there is of developing such co-operation. But if these amendments were accepted, there would be no agreement, and no such prospects.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He indicated that there might appear to the Secretary of State the possibility of change. How is that appearance to be judged? Would it be, for example, by an opinion poll?
Lord Dubs: The Secretary of State would have to make a decision in the round, based upon all the evidence available to her. I do not think it appropriate for me to indicate precisely the way she would make her decision. I believe that she would look at all the facts. Opinion polls might be helpful. Other forms of expressions of opinion by people in Northern Ireland would be helpful. She would take an overall view and we would then go through the process I have indicated.
We shall deal with Amendment No. 2 later. I believe that Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are contrary to the spirit and the letter of the agreement; and we cannot support them.
Lord Hylton: Before we leave this part of the clause, can the Minister tell us what progress is being made by the Irish Parliament in modifying Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution in accordance with the agreement?
Lord Dubs: I am not aware of the exact timetable to which it is working. All I know is that the Government in Dublin are totally committed to playing their part in all aspects of the agreement over which they have control; and in due course such a change will take place.
Lord Monson: I am most grateful to my noble friends Lord Cooke of Islandreagh and Lord Molyneaux for their support. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right. I was trying to achieve a triple lock. We have heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Minister that we cannot proceed anywhere on these amendments because of the agreement. It is the agreement itself which is at fault.

1185
We all know why that should be: why the agreement did not incorporate this fair-minded safeguard—I doubt whether anyone can describe it as unfair. It is because Sinn Fein/IRA would not wear it for one second. Shortly after the agreement, Mr. Martin McGuinness was quoted as saying exultantly words to the effect that the agreement brings us much closer to a united Ireland. Mr. McGuinness knows precisely what he is talking about. He has been working all his adult life towards a united Ireland in ways not all of which can be detailed here for the sensitive ears of Members of the Committee.
I suspect that the British Government and possibly the Irish Government too are not happy about the clause as it stands. They know the consequences if, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, wrote, a million people are pushed into a united Ireland against their will. The Government are crossing their fingers and hoping that somehow it will be all right on the night. I can go no further with the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, after ("of') insert ("the Republic of").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 225 to Schedule 2 which is consequential. The purpose of the amendment—I do not believe that it can possibly contravene the Good Friday agreement—is to substitute accuracy for inaccuracy.
Clause 1 and Schedule 2 set out important relationships between two legal entities, two sovereign nation states: the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. "Ireland" may be everyday constitutional shorthand for the Republic of Ireland but everyday conversational shorthand has no place in an Act of Parliament. To substitute "Ireland" for "the Republic of Ireland" is like substituting "the Iberian peninsula" for "Spain"—the only difference being that it is 350 years since Spain last claimed jurisdiction over the whole peninsular rather than the 85 per cent. to which it is entitled.
Undoubtedly unionists—I use the word broadly to include all shades of unionism—in Northern Ireland will see this usage as reintroducing Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution by the back door: in other words, effectively asserting the Republic's right of jurisdiction over the whole island—not of course that Articles 2 and 3 have yet been repealed or seriously modified.
It will doubtless be argued that in the Good Friday agreement Her Majesty's Government were persuaded to substitute "Ireland" for "the Republic" as a goodwill gesture to the Republic. That is fair enough. However, we are not discussing today an international agreement but a Bill destined to become an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Surely no other nation has the right to dictate the wording of an Act of Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The phrase "Government of Ireland" in the Bill may be thought to be the correct legal terminology in the Republic of Ireland. They are in the habit of referring to themselves as the
1186
Government of Ireland. So far as it concerns them, it is the official title of their organisation. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it does not seem to me that we have necessarily to use their legal terminology in our Act of Parliament. It seems to me offensive to describe in an Act of Parliament the government of which we speak as being the Government of Ireland with the implication that it is the only legitimate Government in the island of Ireland. None of us accepts that. Certainly the United Kingdom Government do not accept it and never have, and I do not think that this Parliament should bow easily to that suggestion. It seems to me that there is no need to use the Irish legal phrase in a British Act of Parliament.
The case is even clearer on Amendment No. 225. The amendment deals with the question of extradition between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In that case it seems to me positively misleading to speak about people being extradited to or from Northern Ireland and to or from Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland. For the Bill to be clear, therefore, the words "Republic of should be inserted when we come to that point.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. Those of us who deal with Northern Irish affairs have schooled ourselves to refer to the Republic of Ireland. It will become an important issue when we move on to Strand Three of the Good Friday settlement which deals with the council of the islands and the relationships between the various parts of what used to be called the British Isles. It will be absolutely essential in that context to have clarity between the various parts that make up the council of the islands. I ask the Government to consider the amendment sympathetically, for that reason if for no other.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I too share those reservations because I can quite see how the term could create difficulties in, for example, an extradition application, particularly where a third foreign country was involved.
We are all aware of the fact that the Irish Republic—and I make no criticism of it—has over the years given itself various titles. In 1948 Clement Attlee, then Prime Minister, was asked to comment on a new title which was the word, in Irish, "Eire". His reply, typical of the man, was, "Call themselves what they like, they remain what they are." I am not being discourteous in repeating Clement' s brief summary of the situation, but I think we should be reasonable, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has been reasonable, and let the Irish Republic term itself as it wishes, as it did when signing the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985. Noble Lords may not be aware of the fact that the British and Irish governments signed two different copies with two different titles on the cover page. They were in effect signing two different agreements, to meet with the sensitivities. Even then, it did not call itself the Government of Ireland.
Lord Fitt: I too have sympathy with the amendment. I do so with the experience of having been an elected member of Stormont. Since the partitioning of Ireland

1187
and the setting up of the two states, there has been great controversy about the names of the two states. Many a time I made a speech in the old Stormont and referred to Northern Ireland as the six counties. I did that deliberately to be provocative. Others on the Unionist side referred to the state as Ulster. It actually was not Ulster; it was only six counties of the nine counties of Ulster. In the Republic it was "Eire". When first I was a member of the Irish Labour Party, the unionist newspapers referred to me as being a member of the Eire Labour Party. That was to make it sound foreign.
There was never any great argument about Articles 2 and 3 until—it has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux—I had handed to me on 15th November 1985 the two copies: the Irish copy of the Anglo-Irish agreement and the British copy. On the face of the British copy it said, "This is an agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Republic." Factually that is correct. It is the terminology used to describe the two states. The Irish version said, "This is an agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland". It was the first time I had seen terminology relating to the state which did not include the words "the Republic of''. It is a bit late in the day, therefore, to object to the terminology.
It is offensive to the majority of people in Northern Ireland to see reference to the Government of Ireland. Factually, it is the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Government of Northern Ireland. It appears, however, that this was agreed in the Belfast Agreement. I wonder if in international circles, for example, at the United Nations, the Republic of Ireland is referred to as the Government of Ireland or is it specifically in relation to the Northern Ireland end of the agreement? That in itself would be a contradiction.
I believe there is justification for the Government including the words, "the Republic of Ireland". This may be against what was negotiated in the Belfast agreement; but the term "Government of Ireland" produces a highly emotive situation where the majority of the population of Northern Ireland see Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution as laying claim to the state of Northern Ireland. If that offensive connotation could be removed, it would be far better in relation to finding an agreement in Northern Ireland.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for providing us with Notes on Clauses. I read that paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 deals with,
"International relations, including treaties, the making of peace or war and neutrality, and connected matters".
but that among three exceptions is,
"(a) the surrender of fugitive offenders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland".
If it is thought desirable to express the meaning by the use of the words "the Republic of Ireland" in Notes on Clauses, it is a little difficult to see why it is not similarly thought to be right in the Bill itself. It rather looks as though the Government have flinched from
1188
saying "between Northern Ireland and Ireland" in the Notes on Clauses, for reasons which lie behind this amendment and every speech that has been made in support of it.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: Surely it is very simple. This Bill is in error. Ireland, when referred to, means the island of Ireland. There is no such thing at present as the government of the island of Ireland. Ireland cannot therefore be referred to as having a government. I believe that the amendment corrects mistakes of drafting.
The Earl of Balfour: I did not think I would hear in your Lordships' House so many varied descriptions of the southern part of Ireland. If the amendment as drafted is not acceptable—and I think there should be a correct definition of the Government of the Republic of Ireland—can I suggest "the Republican Government of Ireland?" That at least would cover it another way.
Legislation must give the correct name. From what I have heard, I am not satisfied that the words as used in the Bill, "the Government of Ireland", correctly describe that independent country.
4 p.m.
Lord Dubs: Amendment No. 2 would substitute the words "Government of the Republic of Ireland" for "Government of Ireland" in Clause 1(2). This language was part of the agreement itself, and on that basis alone I would not favour changing it. But in any event, it actually represents the welcome disappearance of one small but significant difference in practice between the British and Irish Governments that the resolution of the consent question in the agreement has made possible. Hitherto, the Irish Government have referred to themselves, and generally been referred to in international circles, as the "Government of Ireland". We, however, have called them "Government of the Republic of Ireland". Similarly, while the proper name of this state is the "Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", the Irish have used solely the name "Government of the United Kingdom".
With the agreement we have aligned our practice. We will call them by the name they favour, and they will use the name for us that we favour. Since the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is no longer a matter of disagreement between us, we can put an end to the argument about names. The agreed terminology appears at the head of the international agreement that is annexed to the Good Friday agreement between the parties. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will not press the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Perhaps before the Minister sits down he will address Amendment No. 225, which is different. He cannot rely on the argument that it is

1189
built into the agreement. A draft clause in the agreement supports his contention as regards Amendment No. 2, but not Amendment No. 225.
Lord Dubs: I believe that the point at issue in Amendment No. 225 is the same and I would use the same arguments against it. I did not respond to the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I believe that it was simply a mistake in the Notes on Clauses—there can be no other explanation. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his diligence and on having unearthed the point, but it was a mistake.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I return to Amendment No. 225. It relates to the surrender of fugitive offenders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It does not refer to the Governments; it does not refer to the Government of the United Kingdom or the Government of Ireland. It refers to two places; one place called Northern Ireland and another place called, in the Bill, Ireland. A different case is being made out for Amendment No. 225 from Amendment No. 2.
As regards Amendment No. 2, I accept that the Minister and the rest of us, to a degree, are stuck with the words which appear in it and which were in a draft clause. However, as regards the amendment to Schedule 2, it does not refer to the Governments but to two places: Northern Ireland and, my contention and that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the Republic of Ireland.
Lord Dubs: I understand the point that the noble Lord makes, but I still believe that it would cause confusion rather than clarification if we pursued his argument. I do not believe that there is any ambiguity, but I will consider the points that have been made.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Fitt, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and my noble friend Lord Molyneaux for their support. They all supported the amendment from different angles and all gave different but equally persuasive reasons why the matter ought to be looked at again.
I accept that the word "Ireland" was used in the Good Friday agreement. However, as I maintained in my opening remarks, I do not believe that what was agreed on Good Friday can have any bearing on the wording of an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. It does not contradict or go against the agreement in any way.
If one looks up Ireland in any year book, one will see that it is subtitled "the Republic of Ireland", the equivalent being given in Irish. If one is talking about France in a philosophical context, for example, one refers to La France. On the other hand, if one is talking about France in a legal context one talks about La République Française. That is what appears on stamps and coins. The same principle should apply here.
In view of the large level of support that I have received, I may well return to the matter on Report. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Devolution order]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 18, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 83(4) to (6) of this Act,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 215 and 219. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the changes to the United Kingdom constitution march stride by stride with the comparable changes to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland. That is the intention of the Belfast agreement. It was made clear in the agreement and has since been made clear time and again by Ministers and others. Most recently, the United Kingdom Parliament and the parliament of the Republic of Ireland sat on the same day during the Recess to pass the emergency legislation following the Omagh bomb. A great deal was made in this House and elsewhere of the two Parliaments moving ahead on the same day. It was held to be symbolic—and it was symbolic—that the two Parliaments moved together. Indeed, so far as we were concerned the whole event was symbolic because the powers granted in the Bill have not been used and the case then made out for the urgency in passing them has evaporated slightly. But that comes as no surprise to those who heard the debates in this House, which made clear that the powers were of that character.
Ministers have constantly talked about all parts of the process moving together. The Bill makes a fundamental change to the constitution of the United Kingdom and it should move with the fundamental changes to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland. I understand that the necessary legal moves have been made within the Republic, in particular the holding of the referendum, so that the change to the constitution of the Republic will be triggered automatically by the exchange of agreements which take place in accordance with the last part of the Belfast agreement. I refer to the agreements signed by both Governments under the names they respectively go by, which appear in the final pages of the Belfast agreement. It provides that the amendments are to be made in the two jurisdictions and that such legislation shall have been enacted as may be required to establish the institutions referred to in Article 2; they are the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. Once those have moved forward, each Government will notify the other in writing of the completion of the requirements for entry into force of the agreement, and it then automatically enters into force.
On reflection, my amendment may have been drafted a little too widely because some parts of the Bill need to move forward before the constitutional changes can take place in either jurisdiction. The point I was addressing in these amendments is that I believe the changes to be made to our constitution should not come into force except at the same time as that of the Republic of Ireland. I am not seeking to make it a pre-condition.

1191
I think we should move together. My amendments do not say that this cannot come into place until the Irish changes are in place; they say that these changes cannot "come into force" they say before they come into force in the Irish legislation, and that specifically leaves open the prospect of them both coming into force together. That is what I would like to achieve. Perhaps Amendment No. 4 should be drawn a little more narrowly to make it clear that I am only going for the constitutional changes in the first clauses of the Bill. That is the purpose that lies behind this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I would support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, because on Good Friday, and since then, much has been made of the principle of reciprocity between the two governments as a principle binding on the two governments, on the political parties and on the terrorist organisations. Apart from the two governments, I think it is correct to say that none of the others signed the agreement. They may have assented, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, but we are entitled to call in aid our old friend of long standing, "Solomon Binding". I am in full support of the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, perhaps with some very minor refinements made at Report stage.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I think it will be interesting, when the Minister replies—and it would reflect upon my own attitude towards this amendment—if he were to give us some sense of progress in the Irish Republic as regards their obligations. When we are trying to move as it probably is not quite enough we did on security matters, closely in step and reciprocally, to say: "That is up to them". I think it would be of great interest to Members of the Committee to hear what their projected timetable is.
Lord Skelmersdale: I observe in Article 4 at the end of the agreement that it says in paragraph 1(c):
"Such legislation shall have been enacted as may be required to establish the institutions referred to in Article 2 of this Agreement".
Of the legislation referred to under paragraphs (a) and (b), the first is British legislation and the second, which is germane to this particular amendment, says that,
"the amendments to the constitution of Ireland, set out in Annex B to the section entitled Constitutional Issues' of the Multi-Party Agreement shall have been approved by Referendum".
In my book, that is not quite the same as legislation. I think that my noble friend Lord Cope, and indeed all of us, would wish to know exactly what is the progress of the legislation in the Republic of Ireland to back up the referendum, and whether it is appropriate. It certainly seems to me to be within the context and understanding of the agreement to have such amendments as this in place.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord's amendments make the commencement of the Bill conditional on a number of developments relating to the Republic of Ireland. Essentially they now concern amendments to Articles 2
1192
and 3 of the Irish constitution. The resolution of the constitutional issue embodied in the agreement and in the changes to British and Irish constitutional law set out in the Bill and in the amendments to the Irish constitution are obviously of the greatest significance. It has been the constitutional issue that has been at the heart of the political division in Northern Ireland.
The amendments to Articles 2 and 3 have already been approved by an enormous majority at a referendum in the Republic. The point at which this and other key aspects of the agreement come into force is settled. The provisions are somewhat involved, but it may be helpful if I summarise them.
The British-Irish agreement, which is attached to the Good Friday agreement, will come into force on an exchange of notes between the two Governments. That agreement provides that the amendments must come into force on that event. The amendments are themselves so cast as to permit this. This date will, as is made clear by the same international agreement, be the same as that of the creation of the north-south bodies; and, as the "Implementation" section of the Good Friday agreement sets out, that will also be the day that the assembly assumes its legislative and executive powers. It will be on that day also that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State makes a commencement order covering Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill, and Schedule 1.
So all those steps will happen on the same day. I hope the noble Lord will be content that there will be absolutely parallel action here. I believe that the spirit of this amendment is met, but a statutory provision appears unnecessary. In any event, this Chamber will have an opportunity to reflect whether sufficient progress has been made with the agreement before it comes into force because the devolution order made by my right honourable friend under Clause 3 must be approved here and in another place. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, could possibly clarify something? Is he saying that Articles 2 and 3 can be modified overnight, as it were, without going through any legislation progress in the Republic? That is what I have inferred from what he has just read out.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure that I would feel competent to comment on the basis of legislation in Ireland, but I understand that that is the case. The position is that—
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord this. As I understand Article 4, the Irish Government is only committed to the referendum before the statement which says:
"Each Government shall notify the other in writing of the completion … of the requirements for entry into force of this Agreement."
It goes on to state:
"Immediately on entry into force of this Agreement, the Irish Government shall ensure that the amendments to the Constitution … set out … take effect."

1193
I think we are concerned because that sounds as if only after the agreement has been agreed formally will they have to play their legislative formal constitutional part. I think that is what worries us.
Lord Dubs: The position as regards Dublin is that the Irish Government have already legislated to achieve the amendment of Articles 2 and 3. An Act was necessary to make provision for the referendum held on 22nd May. That Act made all the necessary provision, subject to the outcome of the referendum, to achieve the desired result. In other words, the legislation there took place first and it will come into force on the date agreed, subject to approval by the referendum. That approval did of course take place.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: There is a further complication. An application is now before the Supreme Court in Dublin asking it to rule that the Act dealing with the referendum is out of order because it conflicts with another part of the Irish constitution. Until that has been before the Supreme Court, we will not know what will happen.
Lord Dubs: I cannot possibly comment on that, but we need to act in good faith on the assumption that the Irish Government will fulfil its part of the agreement and we intend to fulfil ours. The Irish Government, as I said, have in fact taken the necessary action to give effect to the amendment of Articles 2 and 3.
Lord Fitt: The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be aware—indeed, he just referred to it—that one of the most emotional aspects of the constitutional position in Northern Ireland was the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The Unionist majority, or the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland, whatever term is used, regarded that particular section of the Act as a guarantee. I think it was Section 75, which I will quote from memory:
"notwithstanding any other thing contained within this Act, all matters, persons, places, and things remain under the supreme jurisdiction of the United Kingdom Government."
Those emotive words, in the minds of Unionists, gave them a guarantee of their position and that was one of the really big issues that was debated during the referendum.
Many people in Northern Ireland who voted against the agreement—I cannot quantify them—voted "No" specifically because of the repeal of that section of the Government of Ireland Act. So one can see how emotive it was, because the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland felt concerned about all the guarantees that they had been given by the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the Ireland Act, 1949 (under a Labour government); and particularly by the emotive words contained in Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. They regarded this as their bulwark against any attempt to put them out of the United Kingdom. Given that it has such emotional significance to the Unionist majority, every effort should be made by the Irish Government to do away with Articles 2 and 3. If Section 20 of the 1920 Act is repealed while Articles 2 and 3 remain in the
1194
constitution of the republic, that will do nothing but engender fear within the larger community in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government should take that on board and realise how significant those two articles have been.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am far from being an expert on the constitution or law of the Republic of Ireland, or for that matter of anywhere else. I am not a lawyer. However, as I understand it, the legislative events in Northern Ireland have made the change in the republic's constitution—the abolition of Articles 2 and 3—conditional on the other factors in the agreement attached to the Belfast agreement coming into play. It is conditional. Should all this process collapse at some point, the changes in the Irish constitution will not therefore come into force. It would be most unfortunate if through this Bill we were to set up a situation in which the changes to our constitution set out in Clauses I and 2 of the Bill, and in particular the changes to the Government of Ireland Act, to which, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has rightly said, a great deal of importance is attached, were to come into force or to be put into law unconditionally. At the moment, that seems to be where we are heading. The republic's change is conditional; our change is unconditional, except on the passage of this Act.
The Minister relies on the fact that this provision will not come into force until an order is made by the Secretary of State. He actually said, if I heard him correctly, that such an order appointing the commencement day would need to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. I am not sure that is correct. It is true that Clause 3 requires a resolution of each House of Parliament for the commencement of Parts II and III of the Bill, but this provision is in Part I of the Bill. It therefore falls under Clause 83:
"The remaining provisions of this Act (except Parts II and shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint".
I do not think it would require approval in either House of Parliament, let alone both.
Of course, it still requires an order by the Secretary of State to come into force. What the Minister is asking us to accept is that the Secretary of State will not make us such an order until these other things have happened. We are relying on the word of the Secretary of State. I do not wish to cast doubt on that but we will wish to give further consideration to this point. In any case, as I said in my opening remarks, I think that, on reflection, Amendment No. 219 is too widely drawn. In those circumstances, unless the Minister wishes to comment further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Transferred, excepted and reserved matters]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 6, which follows it.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert—
(""excepted matter" means any matter falling within a description specified in Schedule 2:
"reserved matter" means any matter falling within a description specified in Schedule 3;
"transferred matter" means any matter which is not an excepted or reserved matter.").
The noble Lord said: I had some difficulty in understanding Amendment No. 6, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, although he then explained it in writing to me, for which I am grateful. Excepted matters would be defined as those not reserved or excepted, and transferred matters defined as those not reserved or excepted: one would not know which matters were excepted and which transferred, and Schedule 2 would no longer appear to bear on the matter. As the amendment stands, it would undermine the Bill technically.
What the noble Lord suggests is that, rather than list all excepted matters in the Bill, we should list all transferred ones. That sounds quite simple but I do not believe it is right in principle, quite apart from which it is technically an extremely complex proposition.
The present model, in which excepted and reserved matters are listed, and transferred matters are all the remainder, is that which is followed in the previous Northern Ireland constitutional legislation. The agreement was prepared against the background of that legislation. It is also the model followed in the Scotland Bill. The Government of Wales Act proceeds on a different basis, it is true, but that is in the context of a different system of devolution entirely, where powers of primary legislation are not devolved. I believe, therefore, that, on the principle, the model we have followed is the right one.
Apart from that, however, it would be technically an extremely complex and time-consuming process to produce a list of all the transferred matters. The present schedules, even though they are based on the 1973 division, have required much work to bring them up to date, as will be evident by the number of amendments to the schedules which we have been obliged to bring before your Lordships. To define all transferred matters would delay the Bill very seriously. So, even if we had been persuaded, as I fear we are not, that it was right in principle, that would be a formidable objection to the noble Lord's amendment. I ask him to withdraw it.
The noble Lord's other two amendments, Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, seek to prevent any transferred matters becoming reserved matters. I think it is indeed unlikely that this would occur in any significant way. The agreement envisages in certain circumstances that matters such as policing and criminal justice may become transferred. It does not envisage any other transfer. Nevertheless, one can envisage circumstances in which, on a much lesser scale than these two weighty topics, it may be sensible for matters to change category. It is the nature of the model that we have chosen, in which excepted and reserved matters are enumerated, and transferred matters are defined as everything else, that new subjects of legislation arise in
1196
the transferred field. That happened on a number of occasions during the life of the 1973 constitutional legislation—which as your Lordships may know has continued on the statute book, albeit overlaid by the provisions for direct rule since 1973—and a number of new matters for legislation were by Act of Parliament subsequent to 1973 made reserved. I think the provision does no harm, since it can only be given effect if there is general agreement in Westminster and in the Assembly. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
We are ourselves proposing a technical amendment in this clause, slightly altering the definition of excepted, reserved and transferred matters. The present definitions of excepted and reserved matters are simply,
"the matters specified in Schedules 2 and 3".
This might be taken to suggest that transfers in the future from the reserved to the transferred category can only operate on whole paragraphs or sub-paragraphs of that schedule. That is not our intention. We intend that any matter that falls within the reserved field, whether it is expressly mentioned in Schedule 3 or merely falls within one of the descriptions there, should be capable of transfer, if there is the general agreement required by Clause 4.
In this context I ought to expand on some remarks I made last week which indeed bear on the question of future transfers of matters that, as the Bill is cast at present, are reserved. During the course of the Second Reading debate I referred to the abortion law in Northern Ireland being a matter of criminal law and hence currently reserved in Northern Ireland terms. Any reform of the law along the lines of the 1967 Act would fall into that category, though of course many of the issues around the topic relate to social and health policy.
I said also that as and when it was deemed appropriate to do so, some reserved matters, which may include criminal justice matters, could be passed to the Assembly. That will have to be considered in the light of the reviews envisaged in the agreement. I should make it clear that I cannot give any guarantee about when such transfers might be made or what might be part of any transfer of responsibility.
Any change in the status of reserved or transferred matters can be made under the Bill only with the agreement of the Assembly based on cross-community support and after the approval of an appropriate resolution of each House here at Westminster. Which matters are transferred must be matters for decision at the time. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Both the Minister and I are seeking to alter the wording of the first part of Clause 4. As the Minister said, he is making relatively minor drafting alterations to express the matters in better "legalese". I certainly support what he wishes within the context of what he is trying to do.
However, I wish to make two other points relating to the same matter. First, as the Minister rightly said, Amendment No. 6 is concerned with the question of how this whole process should be set up. As the

1197
Minister rightly spotted, it is a paving amendment. I have not attempted to work out in full and to table all the consequential amendments which would be required. I accept entirely from the Minister that they would be extensive.
But the point which lies behind the amendment is quite simple. The Bill as drafted means that certain specified powers are to be retained permanently by Westminster: those are the excepted matters. Other powers are to be retained temporarily at Westminster but will be transferred in the future and they are described as reserved matters. The third group—everything else—is to be transferred automatically now. Those are described as the transferred matters but they are nowhere defined except as matters which are not excepted or reserved.
That seems to me to be the wrong way to proceed. The Welsh model is the better one to follow in this case. Responsibilities which are to be transferred, either now or at some future date, should be listed in the legislation, leaving everything else to be retained by Westminster. In that way, the Westminster Parliament clearly remains the sovereign Parliament dealing with any matter which is not given specifically, either now or at some later stage, to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The first reason for saying that is the range of government amendments to this Bill at this stage. There is a huge number. Those are matters which the Government, in their wisdom in the summer, did not think of transferring or where the definition has been refined. Amendment No. 5 refines the definition because the Government had not quite got it right. I am quite sure that there will be other matters which we have not yet thought of and further refinements which may be required. That is a reason for retaining any powers not stated specifically in Westminster rather than having them go to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Secondly, there will be new topics which have not yet emerged into public debate or, in some cases, not arisen at all which will emerge in the next few years. We expect this legislation to last for many years as the basis of government in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that science will move on and new matters will come to concern us. There are listed in Schedules 2 and 3 some words which, perhaps, we would not have recognised 10 or 20 years ago.
Lastly, in the United States, one runs across arguments about states' rights: what are the rights retained by the states and what are the rights which go to Washington, to the federal government, the Senate and the Congress? The individual states make very clear that the United States is a federation and that powers not given specifically to Washington remain with the states. That is a federation. That is almost the definition of a federation. It is certainly one definition although, as we are discovering, there is more than one possible definition of a federation.
However, we are not seeking to set up a federation here. We have a situation where Westminster will remain the sovereign Parliament. Those are my points in relation to Amendment No. 6.
1198
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are different and address a different point. The Bill permits the Secretary of State to lay an order moving a matter between the reserved and transferred categories in either direction provided that the Assembly has passed, with cross-community support, a resolution praying that that should happen.
In relation to any matter which is to be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly—that is, which ceases to be a reserved matter and becomes a transferred matter—it is right that the Assembly should ask for those powers to be given to it. But it seems to me that there may be cases, particularly if the Assembly becomes deadlocked at some stage in the future, when it is desired to take back powers from Northern Ireland. An example of that may be law and order if that has been transferred in the meanwhile. It may be desired to take those powers back from Northern Ireland to Westminster. It may be impossible to achieve agreement on that on a cross-community basis with the very elaborate voting system which is being set up. It would then be impossible, under this Bill, for the powers to be taken back to Westminster and exercised here by the Westminster Government and by this Parliament.
It seems to me that that is a risk. It will be fine if the Assembly runs smoothly and there is cross-community support for everything for many years and generations to come. But if that is not so at some point—and we need to think about that contingency although none of us wants it—the Secretary of State should have the power to lay an order without the consent of the Assembly withdrawing powers back to Westminster so that those matters can be dealt with here.
Of course, such an order, if laid by the Secretary of State, would require under the Bill—and I think it is right that it should—the approval of both Houses but not the approval of the Assembly. I commend my amendments to the Committee.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The former parliament of Northern Ireland was always fully aware of where exactly the dividing line was. Over all those years of its existence, there was never any doubt, friction or dispute with the sovereign Parliament. But we are embarking on a new and extremely complicated form of devolution which is different from that which has been granted to Scotland and Wales. Therefore, in alliance with the Minister, I emphasise the need for continuing examination of what we are setting about throughout the remaining stages of the Bill.
In this very difficult field, none of us should take a step-trench attitude. We should do our best to try to look to the future and avoid unnecessary complications, particularly as there can be confusion in the minds of the Northern Ireland Assembly as it looks across the channel to Scotland on the one hand and Wales on the other. It sees those assemblies being given different powers and some of those powers are subsequently modified. That three-way traffic in devolution is something which must be handled extremely carefully and sensitively.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on Amendments Nos. 7 and 8

1199
are particularly interesting because the central dilemma with which he and the Government are wrestling is the question of what happens if people make the wrong decision, in the views of Westminster and Whitehall, when power has been devolved to them. In the case of Northern Ireland, where we are establishing a sensitively balanced new body, the considerations are not the same as they are in Scotland and Wales. We must acknowledge that. We are in a period of trial, making a tentative disposition and hoping to get it right. Can the Minister say in what circumstances he imagines the Secretary of State wanting to take powers back from the Assembly that have already been granted?
Lord Dubs: It is important to keep this whole arrangement as simple as possible. If we were to go down the path suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, we would have to produce an extremely long list of transferred matters. It may be so long that it would be unhelpful and indeed confusing. I need only to think of the list of responsibilities of my two departments—the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland—to realise what a long list one would need to cover all those matters.
Surely it is much clearer and better to do it in the way envisaged by the Bill; that is, to have a short list of items and transfer everything else. That has the merit of clarity and simplicity. Indeed, I also draw the attention of the Committee to the powers of the Westminster Parliament, which will remain. Clause 5(6) says,
"This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Northern Ireland".
Therefore the supreme power of Parliament will not be affected by the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked a question which is so hypothetical that I would get into serious trouble if I tried to give him more than one example. The one example that comes to mind is if there were to be a change in the powers of the European Union in Brussels. If those powers dealt with issues which at the moment are transferred, that may well have an effect. Given that we would have only one negotiating stance in Brussels through the British Government, it would be difficult to allow a Northern Ireland Assembly to continue with the powers it now has in relation to matters which would then come closely under Brussels.
I should not have fallen into that trap. The noble Lord smiled so charmingly that I succumbed. I can assure him that there are other examples, but I shall not give him any more.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not believe that the noble Lord addressed Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 in relation to what happens if we want to take back powers and the Assembly is deadlocked due to the cross-community arrangement. It would be impossible for the Westminster Parliament to recover any powers. Is that sensible?
Lord Dubs: I drew attention to Clause 5(6) which says that the United Kingdom Parliament still has powers.
1200
At some point we must have confidence in the Assembly and its relationship with the Government in order to make it run smoothly. If we assume that everything will go wrong, we will not give the new Assembly the chance to go ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is heading into areas where he assumes that everything is doom and gloom and therefore we must have a contingency plan for every disaster. I do not believe that that will be the case. I am more optimistic.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am optimistic about the Assembly; I am optimistic about the whole thing. But that does not mean that one does not need to have regard to what might happen if our optimism proves to be misplaced.
One cannot design legislation totally on the basis of optimism with no regard for what happens if it goes wrong. If I was in the Treasury and we designed tax legislation in that way, we would have an awful lot of trouble. However, I must not draw myself down that road.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is correct because there did not seem to be any such powers in the 1920 Act; at least, if there were, they were well concealed. At that time two major crises developed in the security field and the only remedy then was for the Westminster Parliament, in the shape of the then Prime Minister, to lean on the Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland. At that time there were two, one following the other and both suffered the same fate. They had to carry out what in fact was the clawback power and pretend to be implementing those powers. The result was that both Prime Ministers were demolished within a matter of weeks.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In some circumstances one may be able to lean on a Prime Minister or First Minister and Deputy First Minister. But this is a question of trying to lean on the Assembly as a whole. What is more, because cross-border voting would apply, it would be much more difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, pointed out in his example, it did not work anyway and the two Prime Ministers lost their power.
It seems as though I shall have to rely on Clause 5 which says that the powers of the United Kingdom are not affected. Quite how that will play against a specific arrangement for the withdrawal of orders in the courts, I cannot anticipate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before I move that the House do now resume so that my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean can repeat a Statement being made in another place, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to comments and questions for clarification.

1201
Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Kosovo
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Kosovo which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I would like to make a Statement on recent developments concerning Kosovo. In mid-June, in response to demands from the international community, President Milosevic gave an undertaking not to carry out repressive action against the civilian population. That undertaking lasted for barely one month. By late July the Yugoslav army and the Ministry of Interior police had commenced a widespread campaign of repression throughout Kosovo. During that campaign they made no distinction between armed guerrillas and unarmed civilians. Whole villages were shelled, crops were burnt in the field and animals were incinerated in their barns. A quarter of a million people—a tenth of the entire population—have become refugees.
In September Britain and France presented to the Security Council Resolution 1199 which demanded that President Milosevic cease fire; withdraw his security forces; allow refugees to return to their villages; and make a rapid start to real negotiations on self-government for Kosovo. Two weeks ago Britain chaired a meeting of the contact group at Heathrow. That meeting sent Dick Holbrooke back to Belgrade with a mandate from all members of the contact group, including Russia, to secure an agreement which complied with the demands of the Security Council resolution.
"Last Monday, NATO unanimously took the decision to authorise air strikes on Serbian military targets. The next day President Milosevic gave his agreement to Dick Holbrooke on a settlement which commits Yugoslavia to full compliance with Resolution 1199. There can be no Member of the House who imagines that President Milosevic would have made such a commitment if the diplomatic efforts backed by the contact group had not also been backed by the credible threat of military action by NATO. The draconian step to close the independent press to prevent it reporting the agreements in full underlines his dislike of being forced into them.
"A key concern which drove forward our efforts over the last month was the serious risk to the homeless refugees hiding on the hillsides of Kosovo. Our most immediate concern was to enable those
1202
refugees to return to sheltered settlements before winter. I am pleased to tell the House that the UNHCR and the Red Cross have been able to return to their relief work in Kosovo and that the latest evidence suggests that refugees have started to return to their settlements. Britain has already pledged £3 million to the international aid effort.
"A central part of the Holbrooke package was the agreement by President Milosevic to a political framework to deliver self-government for Kosovo. This is the first time President Milosevic has accepted the principle of self-government for Kosovo.
"The political framework provides that the police in Kosovo will be under local control. There is a commitment to free and fair elections to a Kosovo assembly and to communal administrations. These elections will be supervised not by Belgrade but by the OSCE. Belgrade has been pressured to agree to a tight timetable which commits it to an agreement with the Kosovars on the central issues by 2nd November.
"The international community has no intention of leaving President Milosevic to choose whether or not he honours the commitments he has given. That is why Belgrade has been obliged to sign two separate agreements on verification. The first agreement, with the OSCE, provides for the presence throughout the whole of Kosovo of 2,000 representatives of the international community. This agreement authorises them to verify the maintenance of the ceasefire; to monitor and accompany movements of the security forces and the police; to facilitate the return of refugees; and to supervise elections, the establishment of Kosovan institutions and the development of a locally accountable police force.
"The second agreement is with NATO and obliges President Milosevic to accept daily over-flight of Kosovo by NATO reconnaissance planes to monitor movements of the security forces and to verify compliance with the ceasefire. The agreement compels the Yugoslav authorities to switch off all relevant radar systems when NATO flights are taking place and is a retreat from President Milosevic's position hitherto that NATO could have no role within Yugoslav sovereign territory.
"The verification mission will not be armed because it is not there to enforce the agreements. The agreements do though enable both verification missions to report to NATO. The importance which NATO attaches to compliance by Yugoslavia was spelt out to Belgrade by Javier Solana, the Secretary-General of NATO, who said after meeting Milosevic that NATO,
'will remain ready and willing to act',
if Milosevic does not meet his obligations. In the meantime NATO has maintained its air activation order while the two verification missions are put in place.
"We expect the Kosovo Liberation Army also to abide by its commitment to honour a ceasefire. Over the weekend there have been several breaches of the ceasefire by the Kosovo Liberation Army, including

1203
the murder of four policemen. Such continuing acts of hostility serve only the interests of those who wish to undermine the political process and return to war.
"It would be a grave mistake to imagine that the Holbrooke package marks the end of the international community's pressure on President Milosevic. It is only the beginning of a process which will require the full commitment of the international community to achieve stability, security and reconstruction in Kosovo.
"Britain is ready to play its part in making this agreement work. We have already committed ourselves to providing 150 members of the OSCE mission, with the expectation of a further commitment to a total of 200. On Friday I announced that a British Major-General with considerable experience in Bosnia would head the British contribution. He and the advance party are now already in Pristina. We will also provide Canberra aircraft to the NATO air operation over Kosovo and will supply British personnel to the NATO unit in Macedonia which will co-ordinate the two verification missions on the ground and in the air.
"As the President-in-Office of the Security Council, Britain is taking a leading role in drafting a Security Council resolution which enshrines the commitments which President Milosevic has given and underwrites the agreements with the full authority of the United Nations. I shall leave tonight on a tour of three of the neighbours of Yugoslavia to assure them of our continuing commitment to security and stability in the region. While in Macedonia I intend to meet with leaders of the Kosovo Albanians.
"As I said last week at the Paris meeting of the contact group, the agreements are not perfect. International agreements rarely are perfect. There is though nothing to be gained by wasting our time wishing we had a different agreement. The responsible approach must be for us to do everything we can to make this agreement work. That will take great effort by the international community to deliver on their contribution and heavy pressure on President Milosevic to stick to his side of the bargain.
"Britain played a leading part within the international community in putting the pressure on President Milosevic that made these agreements possible. Britain is now demonstrating that we are among the first nations to make a practical contribution towards making a success of the agreements. We will not let up on our efforts until President Milosevic carries out his commitment to withdraw forces, and until the people of Kosovo can return to their homes without fear, can rebuild their villages in peace and can start to construct a self-governing Kosovo without repression from Belgrade."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. For the time being
1204
the very grave threat of NATO air strikes has been averted and the US envoy, Richard Holbrooke, is to be congratulated on his intense diplomacy in bringing about an agreement with President Milosevic which commits Yugoslavia to full compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1199.
As advance members of the British contingent to the OSCE team of international observers arrive in Kosovo to begin the process of monitoring Serbian compliance with the UN demands to withdraw its forces, I should like to press the Minister for further details on the latest highly disturbing news from Kosovo. Overnight news reports state that a regular Yugoslav army unit has moved into Drenica in response to the murder of the four Serbian police officers referred to by the Minister. A Western official reportedly described the deployment as a "battalion-sized task force" and commented that the situation was "very serious".
On the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning, the Secretary of State for Defence said that those reports, which have described heavy shelling, were as yet unverified. What verification have the Government since sought and received concerning this Serbian Army deployment? Given that the unit involved is reported to be based in Kosovo, can the Minister tell the House whether this activity is a breach of the Holbrooke/Milosevic agreement to withdraw troops to pre-March levels? Moreover, what pressure is being put on the KLA to honour the ceasefire, which has already been breached?
These reports further damage the paper-thin veneer of optimism in the province, where Javier Solana, NATO's Secretary-General, said on Friday that from the information he had at the moment compliance was not a reality, and where Richard Holbrooke remains deeply cautious. What can the Minister tell the House about contingency plans should President Milosevic once again break his promises to the international community? Given that the Foreign Secretary welcomed the Holbrooke package as a,
"vindication for the strategy of diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force",
can the Minister confirm that the 27th October deadline really will be the last warning, first promised to the Kosovar Albanians by the Foreign Secretary in June? Does the Minister agree that if a pressure for diplomatic strategy is backed by a threat of force, that threat must be credible? How grave a threat to the peace accord do the Government consider the recent statement of the KLA to be, in which the KLA rejected the Holbrooke package? What consultations were held with Dr Rugova, the leader of the Democratic League of Kosovo, and other representatives of the majority Albanian population in Kosovo, prior to the announcement of the Holbrooke/Milosevic agreement?
Regarding the OSCE monitoring task, what evidence is there that the presence of the 2,000 unarmed OSCE monitors will give ethnic Albanian refugees the confidence to return to their homes and will ensure that Serbian forces no longer threaten the civilian population? The Minister referred to signs that some at least of those thousands of refugees in the hills who are currently exposed to the onset of a bitter Balkan winter

1205
feel secure enough to return home to the towns and villages that they fled in fear of their lives. I would be grateful to the Minister if she could tell the House on what scale that return has begun.
Finally, I turn to a subject which was close to the hearts of many of your Lordships when we last considered this issue: namely, the UN resolution and a new UN resolution. Can the Minister give further details of the agreement by contact group members last week in Paris to seek a further UN Security Council resolution to strengthen the peace agreement? Will this resolution use the strong language of "air strike diplomacy"? If so, can the Minister confirm that this is acceptable to Russia, which has consistently opposed the use of force and furthermore threatened to veto any UN Security Council resolution authorising such action, and to governments such as the Ukraine who are genuinely concerned that air strikes without a UN resolution would significantly strengthen the hand of communist parties in Russia, the Ukraine and former CIS countries? For the sake of over a quarter of a million refugees in the region, what assurance can the Minister give everyone that the Holbrooke package is not merely a question of crisis averted, problem postponed?
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Foreign Secretary in another place. We on these Benches congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the powerful initiative that he has taken with regard to Kosovo. Having said that, I echo some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We on these Benches fear that we may be looking at a fragile agreement. I hope the noble Baroness will comment on the following points.
We understand that by the end of this month some 2,000 unarmed civilian monitors will be deployed in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Kosovo region. We also understand that that deployment is not likely to be completed before the 27th October deadline. What protection might those monitors demand should they be threatened either with violent action or with the possibility of being taken hostage, for we understand that significant parts of the region are returning to violence and to conflict between the KLA and the Serbian forces, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said?
Is the Minister aware of the statement made by John Sandrock, the head of the initial logistics team, who said,
"We are unarmed and can operate only in a benign environment. We will not penetrate an area where there is any hostile action"?
However, it is precisely areas where there is hostile action that most desperately need to be monitored in order to ensure that the agreement is being maintained. Is the Minister aware that already several of the bases of the agreement are not in the public domain? For example, it is not possible to get hold of Mr. Hill's statement about the basis for autonomy proposals. There are rumours that these do not even go as far as the autonomy that Kosovo enjoyed in 1989. Is the Minister aware that it is not possible at the moment to obtain the
1206
full text of the Holbrooke/Milosevic agreement, and that this puts great difficulties in the way of those of us who wish to ask questions about these statements?
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the only military protection for the 2,000 civilian monitors to be deployed by the beginning of next month is air cover. As we understand it, that air cover is already to be announced and indeed the flight schedule is to be given in advance to the Serbian authorities with a week's notice. Therefore the only protection the civilian monitors have is the possibility of armed action being taken should there be interference with their activities. This is the area that most concerns us. We understand that only two out of seven battalions have been partially withdrawn and that in the past 24 hours two UN convoys have been blocked. There is no information about the way in which the monitors will interact with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and with the humanitarian agencies.
We believe there is a real danger that the Achilles' heel in this agreement will lie in the failure to protect civilian monitors and to enable them to do a job. What reassurance can the Minister give us that the undoubted good intentions of this Government will be carried out on the ground and that we shall not again see what President Clinton so eloquently described as the cemeteries of Mr. Milosevic's broken promises throughout the former Republic of Yugoslavia?
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their welcome of the Statement, although I understand that that welcome is to some extent qualified by their concerns and doubts about the agreements before us. I add my congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to Mr. Holbrooke on the undoubted hard work and commitment that have gone into negotiating the agreement which has been reached with President Milosevic.
Both speakers asked a series of questions and pressed me for further details. I shall do my best to answer the many questions which were put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned the activities on the ground in Kosovo in the past 24 hours or so. The noble Baroness mentioned her concerns about these. We are aware of the reports of movements out of barracks by armoured units of Serb security forces and of overnight reports of the shelling in the Drenica region. The Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission (KDOM) is investigating these reports, as the noble Lord indicated. We have also been in touch again with the UNHCR this morning. I can confirm that the UNHCR decided not to send two convoys today along the road to Komorane, which is near the Drenica region, because of the reports of shelling. Other aid convoys are, however, proceeding normally. We do not have any independent confirmation of the shelling. As regards military movements, one company size unit of the security forces has been observed moving along the road towards Komorane and to Lapusnik where the KLA attack of 17th October occurred in which the Serbian policemen were killed.

1207
A second Serb armed force has been seen moving northwards from Pristina away from the area of recent tension. I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue to work closely with the KDOM in monitoring the situation on the ground in advance of the full OSCE verification mission. We shall take extremely seriously any confirmed violations of the ceasefire no matter who is committing those alleged violations.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, expressed deep caution about what will happen next and asked about the 27th October deadline. NATO will consider on 27th October what to do in relation to the ACTORD. I stress to the House that the implementation of that has only been suspended. It is because of the serious doubts and worries that there are bound to be, given the history of President Milosevic, about his ability and willingness to stick to the agreement made. Meanwhile, we shall be pressing through the United Nations for the strongest possible wording in relation to the Holbrooke agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked specifically about that point. Noble Lords would expect a great deal of behind-the-scenes activity to press for that wording. Negotiations will go ahead with the full force and robustness of Her Majesty's Government behind them.
The noble Lord asked also about the position of the KLA. It is important to remember that the ceasefire applies to the KLA as well. The KLA is not an entirely united force. Different parts disagree with each other. However, President Rugova was consulted about the Holbrooke agreement and has welcomed the OSCE advance party presently arriving in Kosovo.
The noble Lord asked about Russian support. The Russians supported Resolution 1199. We hope that the Russians will be willing to consider robust wording in relation to the discussions that are presently under way.
The noble Lord asked what assurance I could give that this was not "crisis averted, problem postponed". I cannot give an absolute assurance. The position is that we have done our best in the negotiations. As my right honourable friend's Statement in another place has made clear, this is not a perfect agreement. It was the best that could be negotiated. I am bound to say that it was the best that President Milosevic has been willing to say about the position in Kosovo for a very long time: with his commitments to withdrawing his troops and to free and fair elections within the next nine months; with his commitments on the rights of self-government for Kosovo. Those are statements that we have not heard previously. No one can know. No one trusts President Milosevic. That is why the ACTORD is only suspended; that is why we are seeking the fullest possible robust wording through the UNSCR.
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions on the position in relation to monitors on the ground. I know from the debate that took place in this House last week that there has been considerable anxiety on that point. Perhaps I may remind the House that there have been monitors in Kosovo since April of this year and the number has reached 45. None has been taken hostage. However, that does not imply any complacency on our part. The point was specifically addressed in the
1208
agreement made with President Milosevic. A specific guarantee of their safety has been sought and attained. The leader of the Kosovo Albanians has also welcomed their arrival. Therefore it is to be hoped that there is no difficulty from that side. This issue will also be pursued in the UNSCR which is under discussion in New York today.
I would say in reassurance, not only to the noble Baroness but to other noble Lords who are concerned about this point, that planning in NATO and nationally in terms of measures to protect the force and to arrange for their extraction if necessary is going ahead. This is a very sensitive area. The noble Baroness will understand why I am hesitant on this point. I hope that the House will not press me for further details but will accept my assurance that the point she raised is naturally a matter of considerable concern and that planning has gone into that side and the possible difficulty that might arise.
The noble Baroness mentioned a statement by Mr. John Sandrock. I assure the noble Baroness that the OSCE monitors have the right to go anywhere at any time in Kosovo to pursue their mandate, not only in relation to the ceasefire, not only in relation to the withdrawal, but also on the strengthening of institutions such as the police force, which is an important part of the agreement that has been secured. I remind the noble Baroness that there will also be over-flights to monitor what is going on.
The noble Baroness asked about the basis of what was happening with Ambassador Hill on the political track. The Serbian government have undertaken to reach agreement on the political track by 2nd November. Ambassador Hill is presently on a mission, if I may so describe it, of shuttle diplomacy between Belgrade and Pristina. He reports that his most recent contacts with the Kosovo Albanians have been particularly positive. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance. The Albanian negotiating team has been very constructive in looking at Ambassador Hill's proposals.
The noble Baroness said that the documents are not presently available. She is of course right; the documents are not in the public domain. I inquired about this matter because I believed that noble Lords would ask me about it and whether it was possible to have the documents placed in the Library of the House. I cannot presently give that reassurance because the documents are not in the ownership of Her Majesty's Government. However, I assure the House that I will press to ensure that they are in the public domain as soon as possible. I recognise how important it is for the whole House that documents of that importance are readily available. I hope that I have answered the majority of the questions put to me by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
5.16 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. However, she mentioned that the Foreign Secretary is to visit countries neighbouring Yugoslavia. Will she tell the House which countries those are? Is he to visit Greece,

1209
which has claims against Albania in regard to what is known as Northern Ipiros? Secondly, will the noble Baroness take this point on board? The Yugoslavs are not a light-hearted, easy to deal with group of people. They are capable of—if I may say so, being married to one of them—considerable obstinacy. The effect of threats will be to harden support for Milosevic rather than undermine him. Is it thought that air strikes could or would achieve anything other than to unite all the Serbs behind Milosevic?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the threat of air strikes has been enormously effective. It has brought President Milosevic to the point of making an agreement the basis of which seemed unattainable even some two or three months ago. I am as happy as anyone in this House that that threat has been averted, albeit temporarily until a further meeting of NATO on 27th October. We can all rejoice in the fact that the air strikes are not taking place and that there is the possibility of a peaceful settlement.
The noble Lord makes the point with considerably more authority than I can in regard to the Yugoslav national personality and the possibility of hardening support. It is clear that President Milosevic is only too aware of how far he has had to back off as a result of the threat of NATO air strikes in so far as he has dealt with his own local media in the way that he has. He is not willing to have the full extent of his backing off made evident to the people in Belgrade and elsewhere.
The noble Lord also asked which countries my right honourable friend will visit. I understand that he is leaving this evening and is to visit Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the British Government, with their determination and leadership, deserve a great deal of congratulation for what has been achieved so far? Does she also accept that many of us in this House will wish to express our profound good will to the verifiers as they undertake their dangerous and exacting task? Can my noble friend say a little more to the House about the further resolution to support the operation which is being sought from the United Nations? Surely it is imperative that the Russians are brought on board. Were the Russians to dissociate themselves from the resolution, let alone veto it, the authority of the operation would become questionable in the eyes of some around the world.
Secondly, I understand that for security reasons my noble friend cannot go into details, but does she agree that now the presence on the ground is so extensive it is essential that there is a readiness to put a military presence on the ground, if need be? The presence of unarmed civilians going about their work in such large numbers could become a complicating and inhibiting factor for the exercise of air intervention.
Finally, and perhaps most important, can my noble friend assure us that, with the extreme conditions of winter approaching, which she so well described, and the vulnerable position of these wretched people in their flimsy accommodation, we are satisfied that, should
1210
they not feel able to return to their homes, alternative arrangements are in hand to ensure that they receive all possible support and protection, not just against the enemy but against the winter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his congratulations to the British Government. I shall ensure that they are conveyed to those of my colleagues who deserve them, not only Ministers but the many senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials who have striven night and day to ensure that we have agreements which have at least taken us forward. I shall not make any great claims or sound complacent. I believe that your Lordships have understood the significant worries that must remain in dealing with President Milosevic. This exercise has been remarkable for the amount of contact, co-operation and partnership that Her Majesty's Government have had with other groups, including the contact group, OSCE, NATO and the United Nations. We are dealing with a very complicated set of agreements and understandings brokered in a number of different fora.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the further resolution. I believe that I have said all I can about that. The wording is under discussion in New York today. It will, we hope, go as far as possible to reflect the Holbrooke agreement in as robust language as possible. It is extremely important that it commands the widest possible support from colleagues in the United Nations, and that includes our Russian colleagues.
The noble Lord talked about what he believed to be the essential element of ground forces. It is important to remember that the verifiers are there to verify and monitor; they are not there to enforce the agreement. That is why there is the suspension of the ACTORD until 27th October. At that point a further decision will be taken in NATO on the basis of whether enough progress has been made with the undertakings so far entered into by President Milosevic.
My noble friend asked about the extreme conditions of winter. We have been overwhelmingly conscious of the terrible humanitarian disaster which would have been visited on some 50,000 Kosovars who have been sheltering in the hills and countryside had there not been some kind of ceasefire and the possibility of returning to their homes. There is some limited evidence that a return has started. It is very early days; we are talking about only two or three days into the agreement. We shall monitor the position carefully over the next few days. The aid workers, those of the UN, the Red Cross and others, have been able to start their invaluable work in ensuring that they bring what relief they can to displaced persons in Kosovo. It will, of course, be very important that the monitors are able to continue to see that the aid gets through to those who need it. The importance of averting that humanitarian disaster was the basis on which NATO looked at the possibility of air strikes.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help further those of us who seek to understand what will constitute compliance and what

1211
will constitute breach. I believe that there is general appreciation of the point she made about the sensitivity of NATO contingency plans for extraction; I certainly would not expect those to be made public. However, some of us agree with the point raised by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby about the publication of the agreements. I have difficulty in knowing exactly what is the Holbrooke agreement and whether such a piece of paper actually exists. We are told that we cannot have the Hill proposals, which I would have thought were about political arrangements. I confess I have difficulty in understanding why they have to be secret.
I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the detail of what is contained in "the agreement", whatever that constitutes: first, with regard to the jurisdiction of the international criminal tribunal and whether an agreement by President Milosevic to accept the jurisdiction of the tribunal and to allow investigators, prosecutions and indictments is incorporated in that agreement and therefore would be incorporated in a new Security Council resolution; and, secondly, what the criterion will be for breach regarding the withdrawal of military forces and police.
The phrase used in Resolution 1199 was,
"the withdrawal of security units used for civilian repression".
I am reliant on a commentary by NGOs. The commentary says:
"The agreement allows some 19,000 Serbian military and police forces to remain in Kosovo".
I do not know whether that is a translation of what has been described as the March levels. I hope that the Minister can understand that some of us have difficulty with regard to knowing what is a breach. Can she clarify what will be in the Security Council resolution, or what the Government would like to be in the Security Council resolution? She made a point about the British Government not owning these documents. Journalists appear to have access to a great deal more information than Members of this House have. Perhaps I may press her further on that point.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thought I had made my position clear about access to these documents. I believe that such documents ought to be in the public domain. It is not in my gift to put them in the public domain, but I have undertaken to the House that I will do what I can to ensure that your Lordships have access to them as quickly as possible—if it is possible. My hands are not free on this issue, but I shall do what I can in relation to the points which the noble Baroness raised.
There are three points here: the Hill negotiations, the United Nations Security Council resolution and the contents of the Holbrooke agreement. It is difficult for me to discuss in greater detail than I already have either the Hill negotiations or the negotiations taking place in relation to the United Nations Security Council resolution, for the simple reason that we are negotiating. It is not sensible to broadcast negotiating positions when one is still trying to persuade colleagues to come to a certain point of view. I do not believe that the noble
1212
Baroness can sensibly expect those involved in such negotiations to expose their full negotiating position. Further, Ambassador Hill is negotiating on those issues with different parties as between Belgrade and Pristina. The position is not straightforward because of the number of parties that must be consulted, for example Mr. Rugova and the KLA. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the KLA is not entirely united in this respect. A number of matters must be taken into consideration in these very difficult negotiations. I do not believe that we strengthen the hand of negotiators if we demand to know everything that they are talking about before they are in a position to reveal such matters themselves.
As to the political track negotiations, we hope that those will be open to some kind of public scrutiny by 2nd November. The noble Baroness asks what is the Holbrooke agreement. To help the noble Baroness a little further, Mr. Milosevic has committed himself to full compliance with UNSCR 1199: a ceasefire; the withdrawal of heavy weapons and the return of the Serbian security forces to pre-March deployment; full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, so that those who have committed atrocities can be brought to justice; and genuine political processes to sort out the very dispute that lies at the heart of this conflict. The Serbian statement commits Belgrade to seek agreement with those elsewhere in Kosovo by 2nd November. But, important as anything else, the deal means that aid will be available on a humanitarian basis to avoid the catastrophe that so many people feared. President Milosevic has agreed to full access for the humanitarian agencies.
We are not complacent about it. We recognise that real progress has been made in respect of these issues but that there is a need to sustain it. That is what we shall be monitoring over the next nine days or so until the 27th October. That is what NATO will look at when it meets again on that date.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, when repeating the Statement, my noble friend referred to the fact that Milosevic had accepted the principle of self-government for Kosovo. What has he accepted? Is it a different principle or a different interpretation on the part of the KLA?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, President Milosevic has accepted that there will be free and fair elections within nine months, a Kosovan assembly and a police force that is somehow not subservient to Belgrade. I believe that in three very important respects there has been a major breakthrough in relation to self-government. However, negotiations will continue on the political track, and that is what Ambassador Hill will be pursuing in his discussions up until 2nd November.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say a little more about Russia's position? Is it possible that this agreement would have been in place

1213
much earlier, and therefore probably many lives saved, if Russia had taken a more constructive and positive attitude? Is there any evidence available to Her Majesty's Government to show that Russia has supplied or sold arms and equipment to the forces at the disposal of President Milosevic?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, to deal with the last point raised by the noble Lord, I do not have any information. It is very difficult to deal with the hypothetical realms into which the noble Lord tempts me to enter. The "what if'' scenario is neither here nor there at the moment. We are where we are. Russia agreed with the rest of the contact group on 8th October that Mr. Milosevic had not complied sufficiently with UNSCR 1199. The Russians supported the return of Dick Holbrooke to Belgrade to secure full and lasting compliance and joined with the rest of the contact group in endorsing the negotiating track that is being pursued by Ambassador Hill. Therefore, we have enjoyed a degree of co-operation from the Russians on this issue, which perhaps surprised one or two people. We shall try to maintain the maximum possible agreement with the Russians in pursuing the United Nations Security Council resolution which is under discussion in New York today.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, some difficult and dictatorial regimes have made use of civilians as human shields, as Saddam Hussein did during the Gulf War. The Serbians also captured United Nations servicemen at an earlier stage in the conflict in Bosnia. Can the Minister explain to the House the views of the Government about the risks to the 2,000 civilians who may possibly be exposed to such use, which in turn may detract from the value of the air threat that so far has proved so useful?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add a great deal to what I said to the noble Baroness Lady Williams who raised a similar point. Perhaps I may recap. Her Majesty's Government and others have been acutely aware of the possibility of the use of civilian and military monitors as a human shield. It was for that reason that a specific guarantee was sought and gained by Richard Holbrooke from President Milosevic in the agreement that we have been discussing. The issue is being pursued in relation to the United Nations Security Council resolution which is being discussed today. It is in the agreement. Further reassurance is being sought through the United Nations Security Council.
Without trespassing on the patience of the House, I should like to refer again to one matter on which I touched earlier. There has been planning in NATO and nationally on measures to protect monitors and to arrange for their possible extraction from Kosovo if that proves necessary. I ask noble Lords to consider whether it is wise to draw me further into details on this point.
1214
I put it to noble Lords that it is not in the interests of the monitors to enter into further public discussion of the issue.

Northern Ireland Bill
5.37 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 5 [Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 42, after ("as") insert ("Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and at the same time speak also to Amendment No. 10 in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 9 is a very minor matter in comparison with some of the great issues of principle with which we sought to deal earlier in Committee. The amendment proposes that legislation passed by the Assembly should be known as Acts. My amendment proposes that they should be referred to as Northern Ireland Acts. In other parts of the Bill they are referred to as Acts of the Assembly. That appears to be the accepted designation elsewhere, although not for some reason in this clause. That makes them distinct from Acts of Parliament passed by this Chamber and another place, although presumably it may give rise to confusion with Acts of the Welsh Assembly and other legislation. It is rather confusing. My modest suggestion is that this legislation should be known as Northern Ireland Acts to distinguish them from Acts of Parliament.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining his amendment. I think in fact that ambiguity will in practice be avoided. Legislation on the Northern Ireland statute book has generally been cited with the words "Northern Ireland" in brackets after the name of the enactment. So the 1974 Assembly passed an instrument called the Financial Provisions Measure (Northern Ireland) 1974. The same method of citation is still used for subordinate legislation on the Northern Ireland statute book. We envisage the convention applying to Acts of the new Assembly.
Nevertheless, it is true that the Bill refers here merely to "Acts", while otherwise it refers to "Acts of the Assembly". If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, I shall ask whether the drafting here could properly be expanded.
I turn to our own amendment, Amendment No. 10. It is intended to put beyond doubt that an Act of the Assembly, so long as it is otherwise within the bounds set by the Bill, can modify anything in an Act of Parliament, or in any legislation made under one. That is implicit in the Bill, and we at first thought such provision unnecessary. But, on reflection, we now believe it best to put the matter beyond doubt, particularly since there was such a provision in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, and it is

1215
possible that an inference could be drawn in the future from the omission now of such a provision that we intended something different.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving further consideration to the point I made as a result of Amendment No. 9.
I am in sympathy with what the Minister seeks to achieve in Amendment No. 10, but I would like to suggest that this amendment is in the wrong place in the Bill. I am sure the noble Lord will be well aware, as will other noble Lords, that subsection (6) is taken from the Government of Ireland Act and is regarded as being of the greatest importance by many in Northern Ireland It does indeed implement a specific reference that the Westminster Parliament's power to make laws for Northern Ireland would remain unaffected. To qualify that by adding Amendment No. 10 at this point reduces the symbolic effect of the subsection.
I suggest that it would come better after Clause 5(1); that is, in line 42 on page 2 of the Bill, which says that the Assembly may make laws. Amendment No. 10 says:
"but an Act of the Assembly may modify any provision made by or under an Act of Parliament in so far as it is part of the law of Northern Ireland".
It is logical to put the provision there. By leaving the provision as it stands, it makes that symbolic point. After all, it was important enough to be quoted by the Minister only an hour ago or thereabouts, just before the Statement intervened, as being of significance. I think that it remains a significant subsection which should be left unmodified. Therefore, the Government's Amendment No. 10 would be better placed earlier in this clause. I should be grateful for the Minister's views on this matter.
Lord Dubs: I understand what "the Minister" is saying. It is a question of where in the Bill to place the particular view expressed in Amendment No. 10. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that Amendment No. 10 is good and important to have on the face of the Bill. We are not taking anything away from Clauses 5 and 6 by inserting Amendment No. 10 where we are doing so. It is not derived from the Government of Ireland Act. Therefore, despite his wish to have it in a different place, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that Amendment No. 10 is a useful amendment and should be on the face of the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not objecting to it being on the face of the Bill, but I think that it modifies the effect of subsection (6). I do not see how that can be doubted. I am not objecting to this phrase being included, but I should be grateful if the Minister would give at least some consideration to whether it might be better placed in a different position, as I have suggested.
As regards Amendment No. 9, I am satisfied. A little flattery gets one a long way. It is some time since I have been called a Minister in a Chamber of this kind. I am most grateful for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert ("but an Act of the Assembly may modify any provision made by or under an Act of Parliament in so far as it is part of the law of Northern Ireland").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Legislative competence]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 22, leave out first ("matters").
The noble Lord said: In this group are to be found Amendments Nos. 11 to 14—and 15 and 16 which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley—and Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 30.
Essentially, the government amendments are very largely technical, intended to clarify drafting, and bring about consistency, which is plainly desirable.
There are one or two which I should touch on in a little more detail. We propose to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 9, by which it would have been possible for the Assembly to overrule a decision of the presiding officer about whether or not a provision of a Bill would be within legislative competence. As the Committee knows, noble Lords disapproved of the comparable provision in the Scotland Bill and, accordingly, we think it appropriate to bow to the will of the House, as always, and therefore take out subsection (2) of Clause 9.
We also propose to omit Clause 6(3) about reading Acts of the Assembly so as to be within legislative competence. There is a technical deficiency there. We shall want to bring forward a better form of words later—I think it is likely to be longer.
Amendment No. 11 is purely drafting; Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are purely technical. Clause 6(2)(e) might at the moment suggest that to show that a provision of an Act of the Assembly was outside legislative competence, it would first be necessary to show that it was not incompatible with convention rights, which would be a perverse requirement.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 29 are purely of a drafting nature. Amendment No. 22 is to tighten the drafting of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 are intended to rule out the possibility of amendments being made to a Bill by the Assembly at what one might call third reading. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may indicate her consent to a Bill before that stage. The Attorney may indicate that he does not intend to make a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Quite plainly, those provisions could not stand if the Assembly was free then to alter the nature of the Bill. Amendment No. 30 is purely a matter of drafting, making it plain that subsection (3) as well as subsection (2) of Clause 13 qualifies subsection (1).
The distinct amendments are those that I indicated in the name of the noble Lord; namely, Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. We do not favour them because they would rob the Assembly of flexibility in its capacity to legislate. They would reduce the range of provision beyond the transferred field that the Assembly was able to make with the consent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The definition of ancillary provisions comes from the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Therefore, the system in Northern Ireland is well familiar with it. Without such a definition, the Assembly might find that the reasonable provisions it wished to make as respects excepted matters, in the context of a legislative scheme about transferred ones, were beyond its competence; or as respects reserved matters, they would be subject to parliamentary control in accordance with Clause 13.
We think it is right that the Assembly should be able to fill out legislative schemes within the areas devolved to it with provisions that can reasonably be seen as useful for making it effective. The control of the Secretary of State is necessary, we believe, given the present pattern of devolution because ancillary provision might touch on sensitive areas to do with police and criminal justice, for instance, which remain within the control of the United Kingdom authorities for the present, as the noble Lord himself indicated on earlier amendments.
But we do not want to circumscribe the freedom of the Assembly unnecessarily. We would not want the uncertainty that would come from enabling the Assembly to make particular provisions if it were necessary for making others effective, but not if it were merely expedient for the purpose. We would not wish to deprive the Assembly of the power which seems, first, valuable, and, secondly, unobjectionable, of legislating incidentally to, or consequential on, provisions within its principal sphere.
I commend the government amendments to the Committee. I hope that it has been helpful for me to have indicated the Government's attitude to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Broadly speaking, we support the amendments, most of which are fairly minor drafting improvements. I wish in particular to speak in favour of Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 which limit the ability of the Assembly to overrule the decision of the presiding officer as to whether or not an issue is within the remit of the Assembly.
It seems to me desirable at this early stage when the institution is establishing itself that its presiding officer is given all reasonable latitude. It is difficult enough to be Speaker of another place, but to be presiding officer of this new institution will be a great challenge. I do not say that because the present Presiding Officer is a some time Member of these Benches, but because it is a difficult job. Those amendments strengthen somewhat his authority and that is highly desirable.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I accept the amendments moved by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that, noble Lords having persuaded the Government on the question of the presiding officer, it is wise of the Government also to put the provision into the Bill. The Minister sought to say that the Government always did what this House requested. I think that goes a little far.
1218
However, in this instance the Government have stepped, as it were, from one Bill to another in a perfectly proper manner which I support.
As the Minister explained, Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 standing in my name relate to how far the Assembly's competence goes beyond the power strictly given to them. There is no difference between us that the Assembly should be able to enforce the provisions that it is making. The question is whether we should go further. For matters to be considered expedient, incidental to, or consequential on, goes rather wide. Many issues can be regarded as consequential on something else. The provision opens potentially a wide door.
The noble Lord the Minister said that the provision was subject to the Secretary of State. I had not spotted that the Secretary of State was to be able to rein in the Assembly in this way. I am not sure what the noble Lord meant. He may have been referring to Amendment No. 17 or some other provision which I had not appreciated bore on this part of the Bill. If the noble Lord can help me on the matter, I may be able to agree with him, or go a little further along his line of argument.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his customary courtesy in giving way. I sought to say that the proposed scheme which underpins the Bill is to have a control by the Secretary of State, for instance, touching on sensitive areas to do with police and criminal justice, which I specified earlier. Equally, when one devolves power to an assembly of this kind, the Welsh assembly or the Scottish parliament, one needs to trust the assembly with the right to fill out legislative schemes in the areas devolved to it.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, limit unnecessarily the ability of the Assembly. His amendments take out the word "expedient" but leave the power to legislate where necessary. They take out entirely matters which are incidental to, or consequential on provisions. We believe that if one is to trust an assembly to legislate, one should give it the tools reasonably so to legislate. That is why we think that it is better to leave the drafting in its present form. I hope that that is of assistance.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Am I right in thinking that it is Clause 7 which gives the Secretary of State the leverage?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In view of that, I shall not move my amendments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may say a word about Amendment No. 14 which leaves out subsection (3). It is clearly right because subsection (3) does no more than state what the law states without any statutory necessity. The doctrine is that there is a strong presumption in the present circumstances that an act is regular. I use the word "act" in the general sense, not as

1219
meaning a statute. Anything done is presumed to be regularly done; and therefore subsection (3) is unnecessary.
I intervene only because I may have misheard the Minister. I understood him to say that a different form of words to the same effect would be inserted later. I venture to submit that that is unnecessary because the law already takes care of the situation. It is true that the rule of law is generally expressed in Latin, but since the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is not in his place, perhaps we can get by on the English words. Otherwise the Minister will have it readily at the tip of his tongue. I hope that he can reassure us that this provision disappears and will not reappear differently phrased.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble and learned Lord is right. I stated—in English, not in Latin—that we were going to think about redrafting. But before any redrafting occurs, bearing in mind the helpful and instructive seminars we had on the Government of Wales Bill, I shall bear in mind the noble and learned Lord's cautionary words.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("not incompatible with any of those rights but") and insert ("incompatible with Community law;
(ea)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, leave out line 28.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
("(5) Her Majesty may by Order in Council specify functions which are to be treated, for such purposes of this Act as may be specified, as being, or as not being, functions which are exercisable in or as regards Northern Ireland.
(6) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under subsection (5) unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The package of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 17 is intended to clarify the Northern Ireland Assembly's powers to regulate sea fisheries. The scheme it sets out is, with the necessary amendments for our different context, the same as the one put to your Lordships in the Scotland Bill. The Assembly will be able to regulate sea fisheries inside a Northern Ireland zone defined in Amendments Nos. 210 and 214, but not beyond it, other than in respect of Northern Ireland fishing boats, because Amendment No. 244 makes regulation of sea fisheries outside the Northern Ireland zone, except in respect of these boats, an excepted matter. But within those limitations, there
1220
will still be cases where the Assembly's writ must run outside Northern Ireland. To avoid any doubt, Amendment No. 17 provides for an Order in Council, subject to affirmative resolution, to specify when functions are exercisable in or as regards Northern Ireland. We shall later have other consequential amendments to propose to Clause 72.
In putting forward these amendments, I emphasise to your Lordships that these powers allow the broad thrust of regulation and licensing of sea fisheries to continue, without imposing additional bureaucracy or disturbance on the fishing industry. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand the purpose of these amendments. As the noble Lord the Minister has said, it is to transfer fisheries matters in part to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The problem with them is that most of the important decisions in connection with fisheries are taken by the European Community by agreement. This brings us to the question of who will represent the Northern Ireland fishing interests when such matters are discussed and negotiated at the Council of Ministers. These matters, along with agriculture, are some of the most contentious and difficult negotiations that ever take place in the European Union, and that is saying an awful lot. There are some very difficult matters which have to be dealt with at the Council of Ministers, but fishing and agriculture are among the most difficult.
The present position is that UK Ministers will negotiate fish quotas, total allowable catches and matters of that kind. There is no question but that the United Kingdom will be involved in those negotiations. The United Kingdom is the body which is the member of the European Union, and will remain so. Northern Ireland will not become a separate member, nor is it desirable that it should. The UK Ministers will deal with the negotiations and will be answerable to Parliament for the decisions they have made and for the way in which the negotiations have turned out. I am sure they will consult with the Northern Ireland ministers, as they will with Scottish representatives, before they go and do their deals; but they will need to do their deals in the middle of the night and in the small hours of the morning, without benefit of immediate consultation at that time, unless they take a Scottish and a Northern Ireland representative with them. The UK Ministers will not be able to answer to the Northern Ireland Assembly, or indeed to the Scottish parliament or anywhere else but only to the Westminster Parliament.
This matter came up in some detail on a number of occasions in the Scotland Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, speaking for the Government, was quite clear about it. He was clear that Scottish ministers would report to the Scottish parliament and UK Ministers would report to the Westminster Parliament. He also said:
"Scottish ministers and UK Ministers will agree the UK line on negotiations in Brussels".—[Official Report, 28/7/98; col. 1434.]
I am sure he meant that, once this Bill has been enacted, Scottish ministers, Northern Ireland ministers and UK Ministers would agree on the line insofar as it affects

1221
Northern Ireland interests, if these are to be transferred. At the stage that he was speaking this amendment had not been put down and there was not a proposal to move fisheries questions to Northern Ireland. I am not criticising what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said on that occasion; he was quite right at the time, but the situation has changed as a result of these amendments. The position will now be even more complicated for UK Ministers.
This makes one wonder whether it is sensible to move the responsibility for fisheries matters to Northern Ireland. I realise that it is a matter of great importance to Northern Ireland, as is agriculture. One could use the same arguments about agriculture, and I am not proposing that agriculture should not be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. There is this difficulty, however: that all the important matters affecting fisheries inevitably happen in Brussels and Luxembourg, at the meetings of the Council of Ministers. It is important that the Government and the House understand that, at the time when we consider transferring fisheries matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lord Dubs: I am happy to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, question. It is clear that our negotiating position in Brussels will be taken by the United Kingdom Minister, that is to say the Westminster Minister, whether it be at Agriculture Council meetings, Fisheries Council meetings or at other council meetings in Brussels. We shall certainly be following the Scottish example in Northern Ireland practice. UK Ministers will continue to negotiate on behalf of the Northern Ireland sea fishing industry. Northern Ireland ministers will have an opportunity to contribute to the United Kingdom negotiating position, however, and they may on occasions be invited to attend the Council of Ministers for appropriate discussions. Indeed, I have on occasion been to agriculture meetings in Brussels where the subject at issue has been of direct concern to Northern Ireland, but the responsibility for our negotiating position was, of course, with the senior MAFF Minister present.
As regards giving effect to Brussels measures, the present Northern Ireland Order in Council procedure has often been used and the Assembly would have that responsibility in future. The position is therefore clear. The negotiating position in Brussels is clear and then, to give effect to these measures, the Assembly would have to pass such measures as appropriate.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister how paragraph 17 of strand two of the agreement bears on all this? It is about the British-Irish Council and it reads:
"The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings".
1222
Can I take it that what he has just said would not lead to the issue of fisheries also being put to the British-Irish Council? It seems to me that that would cause immense complications.
Lord Dubs: These are fairly complicated matters and in some cases they might be a little hypothetical.
It is quite possible for there to be co-operation through the North/South body between Northern Ireland and Dublin. I think that is the point of paragraph 17 on page 13 of the Belfast agreement. The responsibility for this country's negotiating position, however, will still be that of the MAFF Minister, or whatever other Minister is appropriate. Clearly the Dublin Government would have its own Minister doing that, but that does not mean that there could not be co-operation and discussion. The views expressed through such a North/South body would clearly be listened to, both by the appropriate Minister in Dublin and by the appropriate Minister in London. That is different from who is responsible for negotiating for each country.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Scrutiny by Presiding Officer]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 20:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2),").
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("be outside") and insert ("not be within").
Page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Scrutiny by the Judicial Committee]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("Judicial Committee") and insert ("Constitutional Court").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to know that this group of amendments deals with the constitutional court. My noble friends and I have notified the Government that we shall not move them today, although we shall return to them on Report, by which time the Report stage of the Scotland Bill will have gone through your Lordships' House.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) If he notifies the Presiding Officer that he does not intend to make a reference in relation to a provision of a Bill, he shall not make such a reference unless, after the notification, the Bill is approved as mentioned in subsection (2)(b).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Stages of Bills]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert ("but not amended").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 45, at end insert ("but not amended").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh Lord Cooke of Islandreagh moved manuscript Amendment No. 26A:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

REGULATORY APPRAISALS
(".—(1) Standing orders shall include provision for securing that a regulatory appraisal as to the likely costs and benefits of complying with a Bill is carried out.
(2) If the regulatory appraisal indicates that the costs of complying with the Bill are likely to be significant, then standing orders shall provide that—

(a) appropriate consultation (including consultation with representatives of business) is carried out, and

(b) the regulatory appraisal is published, before the Bill is introduced in the Assembly.").

The noble Lord said: I apologise for the late introduction of this amendment, which proposes a new clause after Clause 11. It suggests that a cost-benefit analysis of a proposed Bill to come before the Assembly shall be made in order that the costs of implementing it can be assessed against its likely benefits.
I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Committee because it will help the Assembly to judge the cost of a Bill. It might propose a Bill which would incur substantial costs on businesses without there being any benefit. I believe that the amendment will help the Assembly to judge the value of the Bills it is studying. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I sympathise with my noble friend, who I know worked diligently in consultation with the various interest groups concerned, up to and during the weekend. Despite the reputed advance in technology, I am afraid that the screens did not work as they ought to have done. Consequently, he is sincere in his apologies for springing the amendment on the Committee. I warmly support it.
The Members of the Assembly, unlike their counterparts in Wales and Scotland, are already elected and are showing commendable enthusiasm in various ways in tackling outstanding problems, particularly as regards industry, commerce, finance and allied subjects. It would be of enormous assistance to them to be able to provide convincing arguments, if only in the face of exorbitant demands, and to give an analysis of the cost of any measure to the taxpayers, the funds attributed to
1224
the Assembly, the block grant and so forth. More important is the cost to industry, in particular the new industries which one hopes will come on stream as a result of the widespread representations made by the all-party team which spent the past week in the United States of America. Its utterances have so far been optimistic. Given the sparse details available to me, I believe that there is a fair and even chance that the team will be rewarded for its endeavours. The amendment is another way of assisting it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord has suggested a good new clause which is designed to encourage employment. Regulations make it difficult for small businesses to create employment. In a previous government I was Minister responsible for small firms, but I have long taken an interest in the problems of small firms and continue to do so.
The difficulty with regulations as regards small firms is that there are so many. Each may be acceptable individually, but the combination makes it difficult for small firms to continue satisfactorily in business. A large business may have specialists ensuring that it complies with fire and planning regulations and so forth. It may also have people looking after its tax affairs and the complications of PAYE. Other people will look after the employment situation, ensuring that it does not fall foul of regulations relating to dismissing and hiring people, minimum wages, hours of work and so forth. The poor small businessman must deal with all those regulations in addition to trying to run his business. That is why the amendment is so important.
In one sense, we are taking it a week or two early because a week today the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is to be introduced into the House. He heads the Deregulation Task Force which so far as I can tell is doing an extremely good job. But I know how difficult the job is; his predecessors found it difficult, too.
It is all very well to make regulations which are essential in modern life, for which people press and which experts can examine in detail, but it is the poor old businessman who must try to put them into practice. Therefore, it is extremely important that the new Assembly should not rush off with all its new powers and start regulating all over the place in order to solve the small problems which arise, particularly those of the individuals it represents. If the Assembly does that it will be bad for unemployment in Northern Ireland: there is no doubt in my mind about that. That, in itself, would be extremely damaging to the prospects of peace because it is economic success, employment and so on which is important. It is going to be difficult enough in the future in all conscience without having additional regulations.
It seems to me, therefore, that this proposal that a regulatory appraisal should be carried out on the costs and the benefits of complying with this legislation is an extremely good one and I support the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Members of the Committee know that the noble Lord, Lord Cooke,

1225
keeps an eye on the interests of business and commerce in Northern Ireland in a very painstaking way. Therefore I, for one, take the intention of this amendment very seriously. However, it is very widely drafted because it applies to all Bills, and the compliance of the citizen with a Bill which might have nothing at all to do with business will be difficult. His concern is, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, that businesses, and particularly small businesses, are not faced with costs of compliance out of all proportion to the benefits achieved. I think it is admirable, but my concern with this amendment is that it is widely drafted so as to apply to all legislation and not simply that which may have an effect directly on business.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says, but when he replies I hope he will make it clear that, in the new Assembly, it ought to be imperative that there are feet on the ground in terms of regular consultations with business in a way that is particularly important at this stage when we are in such need of investment so as to be able to generate a less dependent economy in Northern Ireland. I am not confident as to whether this is the right way to do it, but I applaud the sentiment and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Dubs: I appreciate the intent of this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. The CBI have written to us about this and I replied only this morning. I would warmly endorse the desirability of the Assembly paying close regard to the implications for business and employment of any proposed legislation, but that is very different from binding the hands of the Assembly as to how it should, in assuming its responsibilities, take account of these matters. I do not believe we ought to bind the Assembly.
Indeed, if we were to do so, we could all imagine other groups which would also argue for their interests to be protected in a similar way on the face of the Bill. I do not think that is the right way forward. If we have confidence in the Assembly we ought to allow it to legislate on behalf of Northern Ireland, whether it is on behalf of business or employment or, indeed, on behalf of any other matter within its responsibilities. I would add that even if we were to go down the path suggested by the noble Lord—which I have clearly indicated that we do not want to do—we would still have to look at his amendment because, for example, it would not allow for urgent cases which might come along. It might slow the pace of things.
Clearly, we have said all along that we are giving effect to the agreement in legislation and there is no reference in the agreement to such a mechanism as has been suggested. Noble Lords have heard from us on numerous occasions that we are seeking to give effect to the agreement, supplementing it only as necessary to permit it to work efficiently. Where we have done so, it has been by general agreement of all the parties in Northern Ireland. In the absence of any reference in the agreement to a matter such as this, I believe that it is much better left to the Assembly. It can well adopt the arrangements suggested by the noble Lord if it wishes.
1226
I think that that is the best way forward. In the circumstances, I would ask the noble Lord whether he is willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: I find it hard to believe that every clause in this Bill was part of the agreement as such. I was glad of the support of the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Cope, because there is no doubt that Bills have been passed in this Chamber and in another place which have involved vast costs on industry and agriculture without any substantial benefit. Provisions such as this, I think, would be helpful to the Assembly. With consultation I would suggest that this might perhaps be amended so that it would be narrower in its scope and would not interfere with everything that the Assembly might do. Perhaps that could be looked into by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Submission by Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("be outside") and insert ("not be within").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Parliamentary control where consent given]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [First Minister and deputy First Minister]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("within") to ("elect") in line 19 and insert ("a period of six weeks beginning with its first meeting,").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 address concerns raised during Commons stages of the Bill about the impact of a vacancy in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister posts. As the Bill stands, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister need to make decisions jointly. If one of them ceases to hold office the other automatically does so. This is followed by a new election for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. In the meantime, however, there is obviously a vacuum at the centre of the devolved government. These new provisions will prevent such a vacuum by enabling the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to appoint alternates from among the Northern Ireland Ministers to exercise functions during their absence through illness, incapacity, and so on, or during a vacancy.
Under these amendments, if either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister post fell vacant the other would too, but the alternate and the remaining post-holder

1227
would continue to exercise the functions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly in a caretaker capacity until a fresh election had been held.
Amendments Nos. 31, 34 and 35 clarify the Bill's provisions, making it clear that the Assembly is to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister within six weeks of its first meeting or, in the case of a mid-term election, within six weeks of the vacancy. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may raise a question here. Thinking in terms of this Parliament and a period of about six weeks—for example, we rise at the end of July and return on the 5th October—I think that this period will be more than six weeks. I wonder whether the Minister might reconsider his time-scale a little.
Lord Dubs: I should tell the noble Earl that the intention is that the Assembly is to elect a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister within six weeks of its first meeting or, in the case of a mid-term election, within six weeks of a vacancy. I do not think that six weeks is too short a period. After all, when there is an election here we deal with things very quickly indeed; so I think that this is a fairly reasonable proposition.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand the reasons for all this. In particular, I think that Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, provide essentially for what is to happen during a vacancy when there is a vacuum. As the Minister has set out, an alternate is to be designated by the person who exercises one of these two great offices. I am not quite clear whether the intention is that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should give notice in writing of an alternate at the start, when they first take office, which they could subsequently alter, so that the alternate is, as it were, standing by all the time in case the First Minister or Deputy First Minister falls ill or something else happens to him.
I can see that that might be desirable in some ways, but it is a novelty as far as concerns the British constitution that we should have an alternate named and standing by waiting for someone to fall ill. It is a common enough occurrence on the stage. An understudy is appointed and hangs around in the wings. But it is more of a novelty in the constitution.
I am more concerned about the question of six weeks. Like the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I think that there may be times in the year when it is more difficult for the Assembly to fulfil this injunction either when it first meets or, for that matter, when one or other of these Ministers falls ill, or whatever it may be. Let us suppose that the assembly fails to carry out the election successfully in the course of those six weeks. Who will be in breach of the Act? Is it an offence not to have an election within six weeks; and if so, who will go to prison or who will find himself in court on the ground that it has not been done in the six weeks? One cannot arrest the Assembly for the breach, and, in any case, I do not think there is any provision for it being an offence. Therefore, I am not sure that it is an effective provision just to say that it must happen by Act of Parliament within six weeks if there is no sanction. In practice, of course, it would have to keep going until it had settled
1228
the matter and found a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I am not sure that it is effective to write the law in this way.
I have another point which relates to subsection (7) of Clause 14. It states:
"Where the offices of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are vacant"—
that is to be altered to "become vacant". Why does it not say:
"Where the offices of the First Minister or the deputy First Minister".
After all, only one of them needs to become incapacitated, or to resign, or whatever, to trigger the need for an election—the need, first of all, for the alternate to do his stuff for a time but then, subsequently, to have an election. It seems to me that, in the way in which these amendments alter Clause 14, the word "and" in line 37 ought to be "or". I make that suggestion not as a manuscript amendment but as a point for the Minister to consider between now and Report stage. It would make the drafting of other parts of this rather complicated clause easier.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Although about 40 years ago I spent three-and-a-half years merely as Under-Secretary at the Home Office as a link between the Stormont Government and the United Kingdom Government, I have not previously spoken in the debate. But now we have before us the suggestion that there should be an interregnum—a vacuum—of six weeks without a head of government or deputy head of government. I think that is much too long. To have a period as long as six weeks without someone bearing the responsibility—it has to be borne—must be carefully considered. I ask the Government to think again about it. I agree with everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley.
Lord Fitt: On reading this clause, my mind goes back to the Sunningdale executive. It had a cabinet which was called the executive. The First Minister—the chief executive—was Brian Faulkner. I was the deputy executive. We did not hold any offices. All the other departments were run by the various Ministers whom we had appointed, which meant that we had a kind of roving commission to try to hold the thing together. In this case there is to be a maximum number of 10 departments. The Deputy First Minister and the First Minister will have departments. Therefore, if one of them were to be incapacitated he could, under the provision, appoint someone to act in his absence. That Minister would then have the responsibility of his own department and also the responsibilities of First Minister or Deputy First Minister. Those could be onerous responsibilities, depending on how long the situation lasted.
Furthermore, party politics being what they seem to be, it would appear that there are to be three Official Unionists and three members of the SDLP, constituting as they do the main parties in the executive. It is likely that if the Deputy First Minister were to be

1229
incapacitated, he would want to appoint as the person who would act as his deputy someone from among the other two Ministers of his own party. The same would apply to the Official Unionist, David Trimble. The responsibility of trying to run two departments for six weeks may prove very onerous.
I wonder whether the Minister has taken into consideration the point that in making these appointments difficulties could arise. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have been in America doing what they can to attract investment into Northern Ireland. The two of them could not be away at the one time. Therefore, it will frequently be the case that they will want to appoint someone to hold their office in their absence. It may be that the only time that they will travel abroad will be when the Assembly is not sitting, but there may be occasions when they will have to go abroad when the Assembly is sitting. Has the point been taken into account that holding two ministerial offices may prove rather onerous for one individual?
Lord Skelmersdale: I suspect that when I come to read the Official Report I shall find the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in introducing the amendments totally self-explanatory. However, as I heard them, I am afraid that I did not quite follow what he meant. My interest is in Amendment No. 33. If the amendment is agreed to, subsection (6) will read:
"If either the First Minister or the deputy First Minister ceases to hold office, at any time, whether by resignation or otherwise, the other—

(a) shall also cease to hold office at that time".

However, despite the fact that he has ceased to hold office, he,
"may continue to exercise the functions of his office until the election required by subsection (7)".
In other words, what is the alternate Minister to be doing if he does not exercise the functions of whatever office he ends up being put in to as a result of these arrangements?
Lord Renton: I think one should bear in mind that he may not be able to exercise his functions. That is why he may have felt obliged to resign.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to my noble friend. That, too, most certainly.
Lord Dubs: I did not think that what was a very simple proposition would cause quite so much debate. Perhaps I may deal with the various points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked what would happen if no election took place for the First Minister or Deputy First Minister within the six-week period. If the Assembly fails to make such an election within six weeks, it will be dissolved and the Secretary of State then sets the date for an extraordinary election. That is not unreasonable. Six weeks is a sufficiently long period to deal with a matter of importance to the government of Northern Ireland.
1230
The noble Lord asked also why there was the word "and" in line 37 and not the word "or". Clause 14(6) makes clear that if one office falls vacant, the other office holder automatically ceases to hold office. Therefore, by definition, there cannot be a single vacancy. Either both offices are filled or both are vacant. That is because, under the agreement, an election can be held only for both posts jointly. Therefore, the drafting of Clause 14(7), in the light of Clause 14(6), seems to be correct and accurate.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that a six week interregnum period was too long. The amendments prevent an interregnum in the case of a mid-term vacancy. There will be people in place exercising the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting in a caretaker capacity until a successful election is held to replace them. After an Assembly election, it will clearly want to move to an election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister as soon as possible. But Ministers from the previous administration will remain in office until such an election is held.
We do not wish to demand an election of the First Minister or Deputy First Minister within a shorter period if failure to do so in the appointed time would trigger a new election for the Assembly. Therefore, we are trying to achieve a balance between maintaining good government but ensuring that there is a time period and if that is exceeded, a new election for the Assembly would be triggered. I believe that those arrangements are reasonable, bearing in mind that in the case of our own government there have been occasions in the past when there has been something of an interregnum and uncertainty has continued for some time. We have achieved the right balance between the two arguments.
Lord Renton: I have listened extremely carefully to the Minister, but I am still perplexed as to what would happen if the First Minister falls seriously ill and for that reason has to resign. His deputy is then out of office also and there would be a period of six weeks in which there was no leadership. What is to happen in that time?
Lord Dubs: First, it will be a period up to six weeks and may well be a much shorter period. Secondly, that is where the role of the alternate would come into play. Clearly, if the First Minister, prior to his illness, had indicated who the alternate was to be, then if he fell ill and was no longer able to carry out his functions, the alternate would be in place. There would also have to be one for the Deputy First Minister. That is for a short period only until a new election is held.
Lord Fitt: Perhaps I may repeat my question to the Minister. If the Deputy First Minister is ill and is incapacitated, he would then be able to appoint another Minister to carry out his functions. Would that Minister then have two offices, two ministries? Would he have the functions of the office of the Deputy First Minister and the functions of his own office? How long would it be possible for that situation to continue, because it would be an extremely onerous responsibility to carry two departments for any period of time?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: The maximum period for which that situation could pertain could be six weeks and may well be shorter than that. After all, in the real world, people would not wish that situation to continue for six weeks. I believe that even in the summer, the Assembly members would be recalled and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would be elected extremely quickly. It is not a difficult situation. There may be something of a problem but not a serious one.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps the Minister would clarify one point for me. If, for example, the Deputy First Minister were to fall ill and appoint an alternate, as these clauses suggest, the First Minister would also have to resign at that point. They would both resign together, as has been explained. The First Minister would not necessarily have to appoint an alternate. He could continue for up to six weeks to exercise his functions, or would he also have to appoint an alternate?
Lord Dubs: I hope that I have got this right because these questions are becoming rather technical. For the six week period, the First Minister, in the situation described, would stay in office but within that period, and not later than six weeks, there would have to be an election for both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Therefore, if the First Minister wished to continue, he would have to stand for re-election, along with the Deputy First Minister.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Is there any difference and, if so, what, between holding an office and exercising the functions of an office? If there is no difference at all, why cannot the one who remains fit and active just continue until the election takes place? Why does he have to cease to be the Deputy First Minister but then carry on exercising his functions of acting Deputy First Minister, or whatever he is to be called, for the necessary period until the election takes place? It seems very odd to make him resign if he is to continue doing the job.
Lord Dubs: We are talking about a period of up to six weeks. It is not a long period. It is simply to ensure that functions can continue. Clearly, we must allow for a number of different situations. One is when the First Minister or Deputy First Minister wishes to resign. Another is when they may be temporarily incapacitated or permanently ill and no longer able to do the job. There are many situations in which they may no longer to continue. We must try to allow for all of them. But it is only a maximum of six weeks. It may well be only one week. It is a temporary device to cover the situation.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The Minister used the phrase "in the interests of progress and continuity". Given that the opinion of most of us would be that there should be seamless continuity, it does not seem to make sense that because one person is ill or, God forbid, one happens to get killed, continuity then goes out of the window. There is confusion and turmoil and the whole
1232
process must be rehashed. It is almost as though the two of them are compelled by law to enter into a sort of suicide pact.
Lord Dubs: My understanding is that the idea of having both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister elected together is to ensure that there is a broad basis of support across the Assembly for those two posts. We do not want to have a person who has the support of only one part of the Assembly because the other Minister is in post and there is a division between the communities in the Assembly. We do not want that. We want the Assembly to act as effectively as possible with cross-community support. The method of electing a First Minister and Deputy First Minister seems the best way in which to ensure that.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Yes, but the Minister would be the first to admit that many people have been taken by surprise by the degree of co-operation and understanding between the two main blocks in the Assembly as it stands at present. Surely to goodness, the members would act with common sense and a sense of good will. If a Minister from either group were to be incapacitated, surely that same group would be accorded the choice of providing a successor to their own man. It is not a question of any one block grabbing both seats. There would be a generous concession that if the deceased, injured or sick person belonged to that group, that group should nominate the successor of that post.
Lord Dubs: This method worked well after the Assembly elections, bearing in mind the speed with which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were elected in shadow or designate mode. We have a method here which will stand the test of time. With all due respect to the noble Lord, some of his objections are rather theoretical. It has already been shown that the method works in practice and it will work in the future. We are dealing with a very short period of time during which there may be a need for an alternate. That is all.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have one last concern in relation to the appointment of an alternate. The amendment says that,
"The holder of the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister may by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer designate a Northern Ireland Minister to exercise the functions of that office":
in other words, to be the alternate. Is it expected that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will name an alternate on day one in office? Are they able then to give another notice saying that they withdraw the first notice because they do not want A to be the alternate, they want B to be the alternate? Apart from anything else, the alternate may cease to be a Minister and even in the best regulated parties there are shifts of opinion which lead to reshuffles and differences of opinion about people. The First Minister may wish to issue a second notice. I cannot see any provision for that, but it may be implied by the words of the amendment.
Lord Dubs: Let us apply a bit of logic and common sense to this. Clearly there may be situations when the

1233
alternate might die and a new name has to be put forward. Common sense suggests exactly what the noble Lord said; that is, that it is implied that if the First Minister or Deputy First Minister wishes to change the name of the alternate in each case they would be able to do so. That is my understanding. If I am mistaken, I shall quickly inform the noble Lord.
Lord Skelmersdale: Apart from the fact that I asked about Amendment No. 33 and paragraph (b), the Minister may like to think a little further about his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
Amendment No. 33 deals happily with resignation, and as far as I can judge the opinion of the Members of the Committee, we all understand that situation. But the amendment goes on to say, "or otherwise". By definition "otherwise" must refer back to Amendment No. 32:
"during any absence or incapacity … or during any vacancy in that office arising otherwise than under subsection (6)(a)".
I should have thought it was clear in the Bill that there would be an alternate under those circumstances. If for one reason or another the one is unable to perform the job, then the other is also ruled out of court and alternates have to appear in both positions. That makes my confusion even greater. Notwithstanding the fact that there is an alternate on the scene—indeed, two alternates—the original First Minister or Deputy First Minister who has not disappeared may continue to exercise the functions of his office. I repeat, what is the alternate to do?
Lord Dubs: I am not totally clear what the noble Lord's confusion is. The amendments seem to spell out the position. Amendment No. 33 says, "By resignation or otherwise". "Otherwise" could be by death or exclusion through the processes contained in other parts of the Bill, and by that one of the Ministers would be out of office. However, the other would cease to hold office but continue to exercise the functions of that office. In the case of the Minister who had resigned, died or whatever, the alternate would exercise the functions of that office for a period up to six weeks. It is straightforward. If I have not understood the noble Lord's point, I regret that, and perhaps he would care to make it clearer.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall try. We are talking of two people, A and B, and their alternates, C and D. If for any reason A is unable temporarily to fulfil his office, he may nominate C. But at the same time, through that action according to the Bill as about to be amended and as I read it, B also has to go and he has D as his replacement alternate. However, I am not sure why D is there because B can continue to exercise the functions of his office notwithstanding that he is no longer either Deputy First Minister or First Minister.
Lord Dubs: I still believe that Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are clear. For example, if the First Minister were to resign, the Deputy First Minister would go on exercising the functions of the office until the election was held for both posts, and that would be within a
1234
six-week period. The Minister who resigned would be replaced by an alternate for the period up to six weeks when the election was held. That ensures continuity of government and I should have thought it was plain.
If a Minister is temporarily unable to carry out the functions of his office, he can nominate an alternate. But the other Minister loses office only if there is a vacancy in office A. Is that not clear?
Lord Skelmersdale: The Minister asked me a question. What he said is certainly clear but I shall have to study it carefully in Hansard to see whether it meets with what is in the Bill as amended. I do not believe that is so, but I shall check up. Perhaps there could be some consultation with the Minister or his advisers to satisfy me that the Bill, as about to be amended, is correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No, 32:
Page 7, line 28, at end insert—
("(4A) The holder of the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister may by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer designate a Northern Ireland Minister to exercise the functions of that office—

(a) during any absence or incapacity of the holder; or

(b) during any vacancy in that office arising otherwise than under subsection (6)(a):

but a person shall not have power to act by virtue of paragraph (a) for a continuous period exceeding 6 weeks.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 7, line 35, leave out from ("office") to end of line 36 and insert ("at any time, whether by resignation or otherwise, the other—

(a) shall also cease to hold office at that time; but

(b) may continue to exercise the functions of his office until the election required by subsection (7).").

Page 7, line 38, leave out ("are vacant") and insert ("become vacant at any time").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 38, at end insert ("within a period of six weeks beginning with that time").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Perhaps we could come back to Amendment No. 35 at Report stage and ask the Minister to think carefully in the meantime about what has been said in relation to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
MINISTERIAL OFFICES
(".—(1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may at any time, and shall where subsection (2) applies, determine—

(a) the number of Ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers; and

(b) the functions to be exercisable by the holder of each such office.

(2) This subsection applies where provision is made by an Act of the Assembly for establishing a new Northern Ireland department or dissolving an existing one.
(3) In making a determination under subsection (1), the First Minister and the deputy First Minister shall ensure that the functions exercisable by those in charge of the different Northern Ireland departments existing at the date of the determination are exercisable by the holders of different Ministerial offices.
(4) The number of Ministerial offices shall not exceed 10 or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order provide.
(5) A determination under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments deal with a technical but highly important part of the Bill—the workings of the d'Hondt formula for appointing Ministers. Some Members of the Committee will have had the benefit of a brief guide to this system, including a worked example in a letter I sent out recently. A copy is in the Library.
The new clause in Amendment No. 36 sets out the circumstances in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may make a "determination" setting out the number of ministerial posts and the functions exercisable by their holders. These determinations need to be approved by the Assembly on a cross-community basis.
The First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be able to introduce determinations when they choose but will have to do so if legislation has been passed creating or dissolving a Northern Ireland department, since it would clearly be wrong to create a new department without ensuring it has a Minister in charge. In addition to new determinations which set out what we might call the "machinery of government", the Bill also needs provision for the d'Hondt formula to be re-run within the existing framework of departmental responsibility.
The amendments to Clause 15 itself set out the circumstances in which the d'Hondt formula is re-run. As Members of the Committee who have been attending these debates will know all too well, the d'Hondt formula is a means of allocating posts proportionally, based on party strengths in the Assembly. The formula will obviously need to be re-run after every Assembly election to take account of changed party strengths. In addition, the amendment provides for re-runs in other circumstances; for example, when a party is excluded from office leaving its seats vacant or when a party's period of exclusion comes to an end and its entitlement to hold office has to be accommodated. The Assembly will also be able to set out other circumstances in its standing orders when d'Hondt could be re-run.
The other amendments deal with technical issues, such as what happens when a party declines to provide a nominee for a post to which it is entitled.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 deal with how to define "S", which is the figure in the d'Hondt formula reflecting the number of seats the party has in the Assembly. The revised definition defines "S" as the number of seats a party held at the first meeting of the Assembly. It therefore does not take account of subsequent changes in party strengths in the Assembly.
I must, however, urge the Committee to reject the two amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. These would have the effect of requiring the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in a determination under the new clause to provide for a "Department of Equal Opportunities".
There is much in the agreement about the importance of strong equality provisions underpinning the new political settlement in Northern Ireland. But my noble friend's amendment goes flatly against the wording of the agreement, which clearly leaves the political and administrative question of whether there should be a specific department dealing with equality to the Assembly.
I quote from paragraph 7 of the "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity" section of the agreement, which states:
"It would be open to a new Northern Ireland Assembly to consider bringing together its responsibilities for these matters into a dedicated Department of Equality".
It is certainly the Government's intention that the new equality provisions will give proper emphasis to the needs of the disabled. My noble friend has spent many years of his political life extremely effectively advancing the cause of disabled persons. I know that he would want to see no diminution in commitment in Northern Ireland to the needs of disabled people there. I assure him that it is the Government's intention that that will be the case in the future, but it will be up to the Assembly to take these matters further.
The Assembly will have the power to establish a department of equality, if it so wishes, but I suggest to my noble friend that it is not appropriate that this legislation contains such a provision because we are dealing, in effect, with an agreement which does not contain such a provision. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I rise to speak to my Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 130, 133, 134, 150 and 153, to which my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is a co-signatory. There is no one in this House or anywhere else who has done more to improve the well-being and status of the severely disabled people whom he works so tirelessly to help. I am delighted to see him in his place, just as I am to see and hopefully later also to hear two other dear friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, as the debate proceeds.
This is my maiden speech—on the Northern Ireland Bill. Thus I shall be brief—I hope not neglectfully so—in addressing my amendments.

1237
I do so with an interest to declare as a compulsive legislator on disability issues over the past 34 years, both as a private Member and a former Minister, not least for the disabled people of Northern Ireland, and I drafted the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill that prompted the present Leader of the Opposition in another place, as the then Minister for Disabled People, to enact the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995.
My amendments seek to reflect the concerns put to me by Monica Wilson, the chief executive of Disability Action in Northern Ireland, which has over 180 member groups. They cover every aspect of disability: physical and mental, sensory and hidden.
They believe strongly that unification of the existing commissions should not take place at this time. They point out that the vast majority of respondents to the White Paper disagreed with this proposal and that the Government said this issue was "subject" to the outcome of public consultation. Disability Action does not oppose the ultimate amalgamation of the equality bodies in Northern Ireland but argues cogently that this is not the appropriate time to do so.
They also explain why. A single unified commission, they believe, will create a hierarchy of discrimination in Northern Ireland, with religion dominating both resources and status, followed by gender and race, with disability last in the pecking order. I quote from Monica Wilson's statement to me:
"Any equality legislation depends on case law to embed it into our society. The absence of a Northern Ireland Disability Rights Commission will severely restrict the development of such case law and will mean that the quality of advice on this complex area of discrimination will be significantly diminished".
She goes on to ask:
"If government is set on the harmonisation of the Commissions, where is the logic in refusing to consider harmonising the legislation?".
The Bill does not impose a clear duty on public authorities to prepare statutory equality schemes, although this was envisaged by the agreement. Public authorities will have to prepare such schemes only if requested to do so by the equality commission.
Disability Action think requirements for statutory equality schemes and impact assessments should appear on the face of the Bill, instead of being left to be dealt with in guidance; and that the Bill should prohibit all discrimination, whatever its source or sector, whereas currently it prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion and politics.
Turning from equality to human rights issues, Disability Action want the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to be empowered to take cases in its own name without having to find an individual around whom to frame its actions. They believe this was envisaged in the agreement but is not currently provided for. Again, they believe that the HRC should be given the power to investigate human rights abuses or patterns of abuse. To do this, it must, of course, have powers of discovery of documents and to call witnesses; but if the Bill is passed as it stands it will not meet minimum international standards for HRCs.
1238
In many respects, the content of the White Paper has been overtaken by the Good Friday agreement. An already complex picture is further complicated by the existence of the Disability Rights Taskforce, the United Kingdom body established to define and plan the actions, structures and legislation needed to deliver the Government's manifesto pledge of comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for people with disabilities. Your Lordships will have noted, too, that shortly before the issuing of the White Paper the Disability Rights Taskforce had agreed that disability rights commissions be established in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
With many others here and in another place, I hope to see the Government's manifesto commitment put into statutory effect in the new Session of Parliament that begins next month. I hope very much as well that this Northern Ireland Bill is not enacted in a form that will require it to be amended when the new legislation comes before Parliament, which would be wasteful both of parliamentary time and public resources.
In the interests of brevity, there is but one further point I wish to make. Like Disability Action in Northern Ireland, I deeply regret that the White Paper, as an official consultation document addressing issues of such importance in the overall social inclusion agenda, was not published in a range of formats making its contents available to people with visual and hearing impairments or with learning disabilities. Clearly if consultation is not to exclude them, the contents of consultation documents must be made available in the formats that meet their particular communication needs. If this is not done, then disability agencies should be funded to act as consultation intermediaries to communicate all relevant information to people to whom "ordinary print" is not accessible. Disability Action would welcome an opportunity to discuss this, among other important matters, with the Secretary of State and in due course with representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which I hope can be arranged.
I am sure my noble friend the Minister will want to make the most helpful possible response to my amendments and trust it will be one disabled people in Northern Ireland, whose concerns are shared by others on both sides of both Houses of Parliament, can accept as fair to their rightful claims.
Lord Rix: In rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, I wish to thank him for his kind introduction. I wish to speak specifically to Amendment No. 153 to which my name is attached. I must declare an interest as I speak as chairman of Mencap, the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, of which Mencap in Northern Ireland is a most important part and is splendidly represented by our headquarters and resource centre in Belfast, Segal House, which is named after a past treasurer of Mencap and Member of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Segal.
Mencap, of course, welcomes the Government's commitment to equality and tackling exclusion, but Mencap in Northern Ireland feels that the Bill fails to take account of the different and specific needs,

1239
circumstances and experiences of people with a disability, but particularly those with a learning disability, and their families, and will help to underwrite their exclusion. A single commission would create a hierarchy of discrimination with a risk that new initiatives in the field of race and disability rights would be seriously undermined, given the fundamental difference between disability legislation and other pieces of equality legislation.
Mencap believes that the establishment of a separate Northern Ireland disability rights commission is essential. The absence of a dedicated body would mean, regrettably, that disability would once more be low on the equality agenda. I hope that the Government will give an assurance that disability is to be accorded an equal place among the Government's broad based equality agenda by giving further consideration before the Report stage to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester.
Lord Fitt: The pages of Hansard over the past 20 years will bear testament to the noble efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, since 1969 when he first piloted the chronically sick and disabled Bill through the House of Commons. He did so with great compassion. That Bill, limited as it was, brought great benefit to many people in the United Kingdom but not particularly to Northern Ireland at that time. I find myself engaged in the same kind of campaign as he has waged for many years. Disabled people in Northern Ireland were neglected from 1969 until 1978 when, with the help of my noble friend Lord Morris, I succeeded in piloting through to the statute book the chronically sick and disabled Bill (Northern Ireland) in 1978 which brought to Northern Ireland the same conditions as had existed for 10 years prior to that date in the United Kingdom. I believe there is room for a Minister for equal opportunities.
At the moment there are four commissions in Northern Ireland. I have just received word from my noble friend the Minister that in view of the representations that have been made he is prepared to establish an inquiry which is to start its work in November. It will be asked to report in January. It will consider the feasibility of making the four commissions one commission. We have already had many representations from the personnel of the four commissions. I am not too sure whether two months is an adequate period of time for an inquiry into the activities of the four commissions. My noble friend Lord Morris is quite right, disability is in a category of its own in Northern Ireland in that people's health and way of life are safeguarded by the legislation which exists to protect them.
There are other commissions for racial equality and equal opportunities. However, they do not affect the physical and mental well-being of disabled people in Northern Ireland. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree to appoint a Minister with special responsibilities to consider the problems of the disabled in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Morris has waged his campaign on behalf of those who are least able to look after themselves. I hope that just as the
1240
House of Commons listened with great interest and fervour to the arguments which he advanced in 1969, we in this House will listen to those arguments with the same interest and include them in the legislation.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I would like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has just said about the wonderful part played by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on behalf of the disabled over many years. Before I deal with his Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, I also wish to endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I was chairman of Mencap some years before him. I was chairman for four years and I went to Northern Ireland in that capacity a number of times. Mencap was extremely well organised there. We had reason to believe that both Loyalists and Republicans had mentally handicapped people. That is why they never terrorised or in any way made life difficult for the mentally handicapped or their associations.
I am a little surprised that Amendment No. 153 has not been grouped with these amendments because they overlap. However, we shall be entitled to discuss Amendment No. 153 later in some detail and therefore I shall not deal with it any further at the moment. However, I wish to deal with Amendment No. 39. I hope to be corrected if I am wrong but I rather think that the expression "Minister for Equal Opportunities" has not yet acquired any technical description. Looking at it just as it is, one would not know from Amendment No. 39 that it was to be applied particularly with regard to disabled people. They would be included, but does it also mean equal opportunities between the sexes? Does it mean equal opportunities between citizens of the Republic of Ireland and people living in Northern Ireland? Does it deal also with racial equality? With deep respect to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, although I understand and support the motives behind it, that expression needs to be qualified.
Lord Addington: The idea of having a Minister for equal rights who will be able to address disability problems, or indeed a commissioner, is an approach that I wholeheartedly endorse. But is this the right way of doing it? Are the Government convinced that there are ways other than those proposed here which can provide guarantees of achieving the same provision? If the Minister can tell us that there are and, better still, give examples, then we need not worry. If, however, he cannot do so, I am afraid that we must go down the path proposed in the amendments. If the Minister can deal with these problems now, he will save us all a lot of time later. It is to be hoped that if his answers are good, they will be copied by other Ministers on other occasions. We have had these arguments for a long time. The Labour Party when in Opposition often supported this type of amendment. I hope that the Government can give the Committee some idea of their thinking and the progress they are making in this field, and also tell us what will happen in other areas in relation to this problem.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support this group of amendments, so ably and comprehensively introduced

1241
by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. It gives me particular pleasure because this is the second of his maiden speeches that I have supported in this Chamber.
I also endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Rix. I hesitate to venture into debate on this Bill because I have never ventured into the affairs of Northern Ireland. However, I too have talked to Monica Wilson of Disability Action. My noble friend Lady Masham and I played table tennis with her 30 years ago. The other day on the telephone she sounded just as sensible and as frightening an opponent as she ever was. She is a very level-headed lady.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, Disability Action comprises over 180 members of all different kinds of disability and different organisations. Therefore the organisation knows what it is talking about. As a disabled person I understand the point about disability coming low in the pecking order. That is particularly so in Northern Ireland because of religious and political beliefs being high on the list. However, the proportion of disabled people per population in Northern Ireland is high. It is one in six; whereas in this country it is approximately one in nine.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, made a convincing case for a separate disability rights commission. Disability discrimination legislation is different from that relating to race and gender. There is a lack of case law. Time is needed to establish case law and to build a body of experienced staff who can advise on these matters within a unified commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is a caring, listening Minister. I was cheered by his words in winding up the Second Reading debate on 5th October. He said:
"The Bill also permits a new commission to establish consultative councils for gender, race, disability and other aspects of equality. We shall take account of the concerns expressed by noble Lords on the equality body. It is certainly not our intention that there should be any less emphasis, through having one body, on the different elements that go into that body. I for one should be very unhappy were that to be the case".
That is excellent news. However, in the very next sentence the Minister continued:
"I am assured that the steps we are taking will not lessen the concern for race relations, gender and all the other matters".—[Official Report, 5/10/98; cols. 225–226.]
I look forward to the Minister's reply. I hope that his remarks will be encouraging. I bear in mind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington; the Minister may say something else that will encourage us and these provisions may not be necessary. I feel that these amendments would help to ensure that the needs and rights of people with a disability were not subsumed or lost in all the other matters.
Lord Hylton: I am as sympathetic as anyone to the needs of people with disabilities. Certainly Hansard will show that in the past I have supported a good number of amendments moved by my noble friends on the "mobile Bench" and probably also by my noble friend Lord Rix.
However, we are dealing with Northern Ireland and need to bear in mind that its population is only 1½ million. It is quite a small entity. Given that fact,
1242
I wonder whether we should not rely on the equality commission as proposed in the Bill and on the statutory duty that will be imposed on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity. One may have received and heard a rather excessive amount of lobbying on behalf of specialised bodies and specialised interests. I wonder whether the situation could not be dealt with as set out in the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have a link with Northern Ireland in that a few years ago I was awarded an honorary degree at the University of Ulster. It was a very nice experience. Given the great number of problems in Northern Ireland, we have not heard very much about problems facing the 215,000 people with disabilities who represent 17.4 per cent. of the population.
As the Minister will know, disability can be complex and varied. Are those who will be involved with the commission to be trained in all disability matters? There is a fear that Northern Ireland will restrict the quality and quantity of support to disabled people and will experience significantly lower standards of treatment than in the rest of the UK.
It is easy to push disability matters down the agenda unless they are placed in legislation in their own right. I hope the Minister will find a way of safeguarding all the people in Northern Ireland who have disabilities, many of whom have suffered over the years as a result of the troubles.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: First, I wish to ask two questions about the lead amendment, Amendment No. 36. Subsection (4) states that,
"The number of Ministerial offices shall not exceed 10 or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order provide".
That is contrary to the Belfast Agreement. The agreement is clear. Page 7 refers to:
"Executive authority to be discharged on behalf of the Assembly by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and up to ten Ministers with Departmental responsibilities".
There is no suggestion that there should be more than 10 at any point. At different times in the Northern Ireland Office there have been four or five Ministers exercising those responsibilities. It seems to me that 10 is an adequate number. At earlier stages in these debates we were frequently told off on for straying outside the terms of the agreement, and this provision would seem to go outside it. Secondly, what does subsection (3) mean? I find it extremely difficult to know what it is getting at.
Turning to Amendment No. 38 and the other amendments in this grouping, I echo the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Morris. He and I were in another place together for a long time. I can therefore say with authority that everyone who says how hard he has worked for the disabled is absolutely right.
In the Northern Ireland situation there is an additional reason for being concerned about the disabled because there are many people on all sides who are disabled as a result of the troubles. There are policemen and others on the opposite side who are victims of violence and

1243
find themselves disabled as the result of a deliberate act or, for instance, as a result of being involved in a bomb explosion. As we have said in these Northern Ireland debates, the victims deserve special consideration if peace is to be achieved in full. We are part of the way there but if peace is to be achieved in full, the victims, and in particular the disabled among them, deserve special consideration.
That brings us to the two questions posed by the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. In Amendment No. 39 he suggests a Northern Ireland Minister for equal opportunities and in Amendment No. 153, which we have partially discussed, at least, he suggests a disability rights commission for Northern Ireland.
With regard to the question of having a Minister—by which it would be almost axiomatic that there would be a department as well—my noble friend Lord Renton asked whether there was a definition of "equal opportunities" for this purpose and how wide the term went. I suppose there is not such a definition in the legal sense of the word, and the noble Lord is, after all, a lawyer, but in the Northern Ireland agreement paragraphs on page 17 speak of:
"a new statutory Equality Commission to replace the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission (NI). the Commission for Racial Equality (NI) and the Disability Council".
In the next paragraph it says:
"It would be open to a new Northern Ireland Assembly to consider bringing together its responsibilities for these matters"—
that is, the four covered by the existing bodies—
"into a dedicated Department of Equality".
I think there is no doubt that that is what we are speaking about: all four matters would be dealt with by this department.
I believe that there is a lot to be said for a dedicated department of equality in Northern Ireland, but that is not necessarily a decision which we in Parliament should take, for two reasons. First, it would come better as part of the setting up of the new Northern Ireland government, if that is the way that the Assembly, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister wish to organise their affairs. I believe it is something that they should decide within Northern Ireland. Secondly, the paragraph in the agreement from which I have just read makes clear that that is what is intended in the agreement. I was slightly over-egging the importance of the agreement a moment ago, but nevertheless I think we should stay with it, and that is a second reason for believing that, if there is to be a department of equality, it would be better if it came about as a result of the decisions made in Northern Ireland by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Assembly.
Another question concerns whether there should be a disability rights commission separate from the equality commission. That question is more complicated. The first difficulty is how many rights and how many forms of equality are to be encompassed within the single commission. I take the point that Northern Ireland is not a large place to have four commissions, each dealing with different types of equality, and that they can
1244
overrun themselves. We have spoken about the problem of over-regulating and the difficulties of obeying all the regulations. A single commission could make sure that the different regulations covering different forms of equality dovetail satisfactorily and are policed satisfactorily by a single entity covering all four types of inequality which can occur.
I realise that separating disability into a separate commission is intended to give it greater prominence, but it may not necessarily do so. If there is a large equality commission covering the three areas apart from disability, that will be the large, important body, and there will be a little body to one side covering disability only. I do not believe that the little body will necessarily exercise the clout that people who support it would wish it to.
I do not think that in this case the Government need feel inhibited by the agreement, which says:
"Subject to the outcome of public consultation currently underway, the British Government intends a new statutory Equality Commission to replace"
the four. That is much weaker wording than in every other paragraph of the agreement. The rest of the agreement says, "The British Government will", "So-and-so will". This paragraph says, "the British Government intends". They did so intend at the time the agreement was written, but the matter is subject to public consultation, and this is part of the public consultation. I do not believe that the Government need feel bound to pursue this matter in exactly the detail that is set out in the agreement. I have doubts as to how that public consultation should result as far as a separate disability commission is concerned. The matter deserves careful thought, which I am sure it will receive from the Government.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: As so often in the past, my noble friend Lord Cope has said practically everything that I wanted to say on this matter. However, I was particularly struck by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in which he intimated a conversation, to which I was not a party, with the Minister. What he said was news to me; namely, that to all intents and purposes the Minister intends that consultation on this matter will be reopened. At least, that is what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, to say. If that is indeed the case, those people from whom many Members of the Committee have received representations, especially disabled people in Northern Ireland, will be delighted. I hope that the Minister will put on record exactly what he intends.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I can do no other than support the pleas made in general on behalf of the disabled and the handicapped. I served for a good many years as vice-chairman of the Eastern Special Care Management Committee, centred mainly on Muckamore Abbey but extending over the whole of the eastern part of the Province. We benefited greatly from the visits of the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Renton, during my time in office. We were demobilised by the updating and

1245
modernising of local government in 1973, and elected representatives—in the best sense of the term—were then excluded from all the operations.
Muckamore Abbey contained 800 patients. That number has now been greatly reduced, mainly as a result of the lobby for farming people out to what was called the community. Thankfully, in Northern Ireland we do not have many equivalents of Blackfriars Bridge, and many of those discharged prematurely from Muckamore Abbey have been well cared for.
At that time we came under the Stormont Department of Health and were fortunate in having sympathetic Ministers while I was involved. There came a time when the Department of Health muscled in on our activities, particularly with regard to the closure of the specialist schools and our specially trained teachers. As a result, despite the enlightened efforts of education experts, and so on, one finds that where two handicapped or disabled pupils are placed in a relatively small school the tendency is that far too frequently they are placed in the back row and follow as best they can. Certainly they do not benefit as much as they did under the unified educational and special care arrangement.
I trust that the claims of the disabled and the handicapped will be kept very much at the forefront of the deliberations of the new Assembly. Knowing personally a good many members of that Assembly, I am confident that those claims will not be neglected. Is it likely that the number will be increased greatly beyond 10? I note that the Secretary of State is given power to appoint an unspecified number of Ministers by order. Without wishing to spring this matter on the Minister at the last minute, can he say whether such an order will be subject to the approval of Parliament?
Lord Dubs: This has been a full debate. I deal first with a number of specific points that are not to do with the main thrust of the debate: disability. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the number of possible ministerial posts and why Amendment No. 36 made provision for the Secretary of State to increase the number beyond 10. The answer is that throughout the summer we have been consulting widely with all the parties on this question. The wording of the amendment therefore reflects the view of the parties in Northern Ireland simply to leave open the possibility that there may be a wish to have more than 10 posts. But that is something for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked about subsection (3) in Amendment No. 36. What it means is that all departments must have a Minister but that no Minister should be in charge of more than one department. Put that way, the noble Lord may say that it is rather simple. I know that the noble Lord is keen on clear English, as I am. I concede that its wording is a little more complex than the way I have put it.
I turn to the main focus of the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. I pay tribute to his lifelong dedication to the cause of the disabled and the very effective way in which he has achieved enormous gains for disabled people over many years. That is not to say that other noble Lords who have
1246
contributed to the debate have not also shown a high level of commitment to the needs of the disabled, including the noble Lord, Lord Rix. My noble friend Lord Morris referred to Monica Wilson. I have met Monica Wilson on a number of occasions and know her fairly well. She is a doughty and effective campaigner for the needs of the disabled. She puts the case with enormous strength and sensitivity and such is the force and persuasiveness of her arguments that it is not easy to disagree with her.
This debate has covered a good deal of the ground which is probably more appropriate to Part VI of the Bill to which we shall come later. That part of the Bill deals with these matters in detail. I do not say that in any way to diminish the importance of the points that have been made but simply to point out that we are bound to return to this matter in Part VI which is subject to government and other amendments. However, they are so far down the list that, apart from one or two, they are not necessarily before the Committee this evening in any way that we can discern. I do not belittle the arguments that have been put, but I shall reflect upon them between now and when we come to the appropriate part of the Bill when these matters will be before the Committee.
I say to my noble friend Lord Morris that the Government do not believe that their proposals which appear in the agreement will result in any diminution in the importance of addressing the needs of disabled people. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we do not wish to anticipate a more detailed debate on Clauses 58 and 59. I shall be happy then to address a number of the points in detail. The Government have tabled a significant number of amendments to those clauses and associated schedules to meet some of the concerns that have been expressed. I say most emphatically that disability will be treated on an equal basis as other equality concerns. There is absolutely no question of establishing a hierarchy of equality.
My noble friend Lord Fitt made reference to a consultation period which ended in July. The Government have reflected upon it and provided a number of reassurances and amendments. But we continue to believe in the merits of a single equality commission. No doubt other noble Lords will wish to discuss that further when the Committee turns its attention to Part VI. However, as to the amendments before us this evening, whatever the strength of the argument that has been put, I suggest to the Committee that these are considerations for the Assembly rather than this particular Bill. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister are charged with devising a structure of departments appropriate to the needs of Northern Ireland. It is better to leave it to them than to suggest that they can do that except in one respect when we want a particular department. I do not want to belittle the concerns that have been expressed about disabled people because I share many if not all those concerns, but I believe that the method that has been devised is the most appropriate way forward and we should leave the structure of Northern Ireland departments to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and let the Assembly pronounce upon it. Further, I believe that they will be

1247
sensitive to the concerns that have been expressed today and—who knows—may even adopt some of the suggestions that have been made, but essentially that is a matter for them and not us.
Lord Morris of Manchester: There will be an opportunity later, as my noble friend the Minister said, to return to this still sadly neglected policy area. For that reason, and so that representatives of Northern Ireland's disabled people can reflect on the Minister's response to me, I shall not be pressing Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 tonight. Meanwhile, I must point out that my amendments as a whole were drafted to facilitate a debate on Disability Action's concerns about the Bill as now drafted and, as your Lordships heard, my main purpose was both to draw attention to those concerns and the undoubted cogency with which they are argued by the disabled people of Northern Ireland.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 15 [Northern Ireland Ministers]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before I call Amendment No. 37, I should point out that I cannot call Amendment No. 38, although I appreciate that the noble Lord has already spoken to it.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 1, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
("(1) Where

(a) an Assembly is elected under section 24 or (Extraordinary elections);

(b) a determination under section (Ministerial offices)(1) takes effect;

(c) a resolution which causes one or more Ministerial offices to become vacant is passed under section 23(2);

(d) the period of exclusion imposed by such a resolution comes to an end; or

(e) such other circumstances obtain as may be specified in standing orders,

all Northern Ireland Ministers shall cease to hold office and the Ministerial offices shall be filled by applying subsections (4) to (9) within a period so specified.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments No. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 44:
Page 8, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 23 and insert—
("(6) If—

(a) the nominating officer does not exercise the power conferred by subsection (4) within a period specified in standing orders; or

(b) the nominated person does not take up the selected Ministerial office within that period, that power").

Page 8, line 26, leave out ("to") and insert ("and").
Page 8, line 31, leave out ("are") and insert ("were").
Page 8, line 32, at end insert ("on the day on which the Assembly first met following its election").
Page 9, line 5, after ("vacant") insert ("otherwise than by virtue of subsection (1), the nominating officer of the party on whose behalf the previous incumbent was nominated may nominate a person to hold the office who is a member of the party and of the Assembly.
(13A) If—

(a) the nominating officer does not exercise the power conferred by subsection (13) within a period specified in standing orders; or

(b) the nominated person does not take up the office within that period,").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Mental Health Legislation
7.49 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln The Lord Bishop of Lincoln rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to amend current mental health legislation in order to facilitate positive intervention to assist the mentally ill living in the community.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, my Question touches on one of the most excluded and neglected groups in our society. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has chosen to make his maiden speech as part of this short debate.
The care of mentally ill people is a topic which allows for nothing but realism and compassion. Realism is necessary because I am aware of the shortage of resources in mental health provision. Compassion is essential because the condition of life of some with mental illness falls far short of what they would desire for themselves.
The particular reason why I speak tonight is the case of Christopher Edwards, a young man killed by a fellow inmate in Chelmsford Prison in November 1994. At the outset I pay warm and heartfelt tribute to Christopher's parents who have campaigned tirelessly for justice on behalf of mentally disordered offenders.
Christopher was mentally ill. He was killed by a schizophrenic called Richard Linford. I do not want to become involved in the question of the responsibility for the events which led up to his murder. That matter has been dealt with at length in the inquiry chaired by Keiran Coonan, QC, and which reported in June this year. There are still questions which arise from that inquiry but they are under discussion by Members from another place.
My own concern is twofold. First, how can the mentally ill, who have little or no insight into their condition, be helped by the medical and social services?

1249
Secondly, how can mentally disordered offenders be diverted from prison, and if they do end up in prison, how can they best be helped?
The inquiry into Christopher Edwards' death found that the mental condition of both young men deteriorated because they did not recognise the need to take the medication prescribed for them, and that both of them should have been sent not to prison but to hospital. I am aware that sufficient powers already exist under mental health legislation to intervene where an individual's health or safety, or the safety of others, is at risk. The safeguards exist if they are properly used.
I am also aware that the Health Secretary has indicated that he wishes to see a system of care for the mentally ill which provides both security and support for all who need it. He has set in train a review of the Mental Health Act in order to reflect the opportunities and limits of modern therapies and drugs. I want to support his initiative wholeheartedly. But what I want to do, equally, is to encourage a thorough examination of this very difficult question of intervention and to encourage schemes of diversion away from prison.
A recognised symptom of mental illness is failure to be aware of your own condition. It is indefensible, then, to expect the mentally ill to seek and accept treatment and to hold them responsible for their condition if they do not. We do not treat people unaware of their physical condition after a car accident in that way; we take them to hospital. Of course, there are civil liberties involved, but the present system of minimum intervention aimed at protecting civil liberty has here cost one man his life and condemned another to many years in Rampton. Equally, it has condemned many other mentally ill people to self-harm, imprisonment, misery and sometimes suicide.
I recognise that the use of new medications can play a big part in encouraging and maintaining compliance with medication. But where a patient lacks insight into his or her condition and is resistant to or non-compliant with treatment and medication, there may ultimately be no option but to consider compulsory treatment. I believe that that should be a last resort and that it should always be provided in a hospital or equivalent clinical setting.
There must always be full and proper safeguards for the rights and dignity of the patient, and any treatment must be accompanied by full and ongoing monitoring of the individual's physical and mental condition.
I believe that problems in community care often stem from a lack of understanding of the complex needs of patients with a mental illness and their families. What is needed is the engagement of both individual and family in the entire process of the illness from the first signs of its onset to the establishment of a comprehensive individual care plan to meet their needs.
I turn to my second concern. No one can believe that prisons are suitable places for the treatment of severe mental illness. The Home Office, in a 1991 study, spoke of custodial remand as a method of obtaining help for mentally disordered offenders being "inhumane, expensive and ineffective". As I have said, the
1250
1983 Mental Health Act allows court diversion by remanding in hospital rather than in prison, but court diversion schemes vary throughout the country and there was no scheme existing at Colchester Magistrates' Court when Christopher Edwards was apprehended. No one seems to know how many schemes exist. Some are run by social services, others by health authorities or the Probation Service.
There is an urgent need for a comprehensive review of those schemes and for guidelines to be drawn up for their use. Just as important is the need to deal with the severe pressure on secure hospital beds. I am told that the number of patients who have to be compulsorily detained in hospital has trebled since 1980. Many authorities cannot staff 24–hour crisis teams. Many police surgeons do not have Section 12 training. Only 21 per cent. of all health care officers and nursing grades employed in prisons are registered mental nurses. All that has to be set against a current prison population where some 20,000 sentenced prisoners and 8,300 remand prisoners have some kind of mental disorder—psychosis, neurosis, personality disorder, substance misuse or addiction.
I shall not say more, save that I believe that the inability to find a more understanding, humane and just approach for mentally-disordered offenders has been one of the most conspicuous failings of both government and society over many years. I see these people when I visit prisons as part of my work as bishop to prisons and we hear of cases in the Board for Social Responsibility where we try to think through issues of community care.
I hope and pray that this Government's decision to conduct a comprehensive review of the Mental Health Act will be self-critical, thorough and compassionate. No one should underestimate the difficulties of achieving the integration of services, but if a set of core values, central to a decent quality of life for both users and carers, can be recognised and accepted, a significant step will have been taken to reduce the misery of the mentally ill and to assist and support all those who care for them.
8 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure we are all immensely grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for having introduced the subject today. I am also sure that we all look forward with great warmth to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
As a complete layman, I wish to underline a few of the points made by the right reverend Prelate. First, it is a time when, rightly, we face the need in penal policy to be much clearer about the distinction between right and wrong and to protect society. In particular, the most disadvantaged members of society are often asked to carry a disproportionately large burden in coping with delinquency and social disorder. It is, as we heard again in the House today, a time when we are determined not to be sentimental about the need for honest punishment on occasions. What has always concerned me is the degree to which our prisons are overcrowded with

1251
people who should not be in prison. I believe that the remarks of the right reverend Prelate underline the point which must concern all of us who consider the issue: the complex and thin dividing lines between criminal behaviour and mental disturbance. We cannot overemphasise the point, or encourage governments too much to endeavour always to make that distinction, and to ensure that the appropriate support is being given to people who need it.
During my 13 years some time ago as a Member of another place, there were within my constituency areas of acute deprivation. What troubled me then was that when there was a case of clear mental disturbance, it frequently put unimaginable burdens on families with limited resources to cope with them. The consequence was often breakdown among other members of the family because of their inability to cope and the absence of resources for support.
I worried at that time as regards my constituency. In my present work as president of the YMCA in England, I have seen the issue presented again in the overwhelming challenge of homelessness, not least among the young. We are often encouraged to attempt to consider the issue simply in terms of finding homes; but, on many occasions, the homelessness is the symptom of a deeper problem. With regard to drug addiction and those who work with drug addicts, again mental illness is often the origin of the problem and not simply a consequence.
If we accept the complexity of the interrelationship between those different dimensions and the thin dividing lines which I suggest exist between criminality and mental inadequacy or mental disturbance, it becomes clear, as the right reverend Prelate emphasised, that above all we need an integrated approach. We need flexibility. We need imagination. We have to avoid over-specialisation and over-fragmentation. The tremendous challenge is to ensure that adequate information is available to families and those who are looking for the right place and seek the right support. There is tremendous need for dynamic exchange of information between the different agencies working in this area.
I emphasise that I speak very much as a layman in these matters. However, I have been thrown up against the issue in various areas of my life. When the Government are considering commendably so rigorously and afresh many of these issues, we should urge them in every possible way to take the need for flexibility, imagination, integration and co-operation as one of the most important priorities in the whole approach.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, when I turned my mind to the contribution that I might make to this debate I recalled the words of Sir Walter Scott when he said:
"Respect was mingled with surprise".
I am sure it will be understood when I say that my respect for your Lordships' House is surpassed by my surprise at being here! Because of that I planned a long
1252
apprenticeship but, in the event, could not resist a comment on the important Question so well posed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.
However, before doing so, perhaps I may thank your Lordships for the warmth of welcome; and thank the officials for their unfailing help. I fear I may need that help for some time to come. I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous if I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on his appointment in the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had a very distinguished career in the National Health Service before joining your Lordships' House and I wish him continued success.
I began my career in the Probation Service. I mention that only because in those years I was well used to visiting penal establishments of all kinds. However, when later I had to work in a large, geographically isolated, Victorian mental hospital it had a profound effect upon me. The patients lived in large wards. They had few, if any, possessions, little or no personal space, no privacy and were often disturbed by the disruptive behaviour of others. It would be an exaggeration to say that their lives were confined to the perimeter of the hospital. Rather, their horizons did not extend beyond the ward in which they lived, and they had few rights. And what was even worse, over and above the effect of their illness, was the disabling influence of what became known as "institutionalisation" which created enforced dependency on the institution.
I am pleased to report that that institution, and many like it, are now closed. Because of new medications, and improved medical and social care, many thousands of people now have entirely new life opportunities and are being successfully cared for in the community, to everyone's benefit. If treatment in hospital is needed it is, as with other health matters, for a relatively short duration. The tragedy is that the services that were designed to replace the old institutions were often seriously underfunded. Furthermore, success depended on good inter-agency co-operation, which was all too often missing, and the services which existed, displayed in many instances an unrealistic degree of optimism about the ability of rootless people, who had been greatly affected by their illness, to live ordered lives.
As has been indicated, the current legislation dates back to 1959. Therefore, it is timely to consider a review to ensure that the law reflects changes in practice and meets new needs. I have no doubt that the review team, which the Government have established, will have in mind the following. First, mental health problems are very common and varied. They can be experienced by anyone at any time. They are a major reason for absence from work and they result in heavy demands being made upon local medical services. However the good news, and this must be emphasised, is that with the correct treatment most patients recover well and usually without admission to hospital.
Secondly, there exist already many examples of good practice based upon successful teamwork between the key agencies. We know already what works and what are the ingredients of a comprehensive, reliable and effective mental health service. We can build on that strong foundation.

1253
However—it goes to the heart of the Question posed by the right reverend Prelate—it must be acknowledged that in general the services have not properly addressed the complex and special needs of a small minority of patients who have been seriously damaged by their illness and who are potentially a danger to themselves and others. Often those patients lead casual life styles and cannot be relied upon to know when their mental health is deteriorating.
The tragedies which have occurred—and all too many have occurred—have often been because the services have expected these patients to be capable of leading more structured lives and to be aware of their own needs. In future the legislation and practice must ensure that those people do not fall through the net. In my view this requires specialist outreach teams, operating where the patients live, maintaining regular and frequent contact and making absolutely sure that essential medication is being taken. This requires the proper use of authority. Without this, some patients may be a serious danger to themselves and others, and the public will rightly lose confidence in the Government's policy.
The Government are to be congratulated on giving a much higher priority to mental health services. The safety and well-being of the community depends upon people with mental health problems receiving appropriate and effective treatment. For some that must include a realistic assessment of risk. Over and beyond that, I feel sure that your Lordships will want to be satisfied that those who experience mental health problems are treated with dignity and enjoy good standards of care.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is my great privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on behalf of this House as a whole and on behalf of your Lordships present in particular, on a splendid maiden speech, made within the time limit and one which was not too controversial. I hope we shall hear him many more times in the future.
It was my honour, when I was Lord Lieutenant of the Isle of Wight, to have had quite a lot to do with the Probation Service, in which the noble Lord started his career. I have the highest regard for them in their work. I entirely agree with much of what he had to say. I would also like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for introducing this Question and for his remarks.
It is splendid to see the Minister concerned listening to our debate. In my experience, it is very rare for Ministers to come and listen to debates in this House and I hope he stays to the end. I say that particularly because I am advised in what I say by SANE, of which I have the great honour to be the chairman. SANE is an acronym for Schizophrenia, A National Emergency. It was not just plucked out of the air, but was the title of a series of articles by Marjorie Wallace, who is now our chief executive. She has been telling me how much the Minister Mr. Boateng is working towards some sort of a solution to the problems which we are airing today.
1254
I believe that the care in the community idea was splendid. Indeed much of what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, had to say about the old asylums is very true. I saw it in the one we had on the Isle of Wight. There was definitely a good reason for the last Government taking the initiative that they did. However, they never had enough money to do it properly. It is also true to say that they did not give enough attention to the fact that some mentally ill people, some of the time, would need more accommodation than could be provided for them by care in the community. That is the nub of the problem. We have lost 50,000 beds during the past 15 years. They may have been the wrong beds in the old asylums, but the beds were needed. I really do not know how we will get them back. It will be a very difficult problem.
Furthermore, I believe that there are not enough people to look after the mentally ill. The British Isles has a population of around 60 million. If out of that number one in 200 suffers from some sort of mental illness at some stage in his or her life, then we must have people to care for up to 300,000, though not all of them all of the time. Even if it is 100,000 mentally ill people I am not sure that there are enough people with the aptitude and the ability to look after them. We have a real problem, which I am sure the Minister, Mr. Boateng, will do his best to try to solve, and I wish him all the best.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I can only endorse what previous speakers have already said on most of the points. When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln told me he was going to focus on this very difficult problem of mentally ill offenders it rang a bell in my mind, because my own son came into this class. It was many years ago and luckily he was never convicted. When it came to court, he was sent to hospital. I regret to say that, although I did not make any criticism at the time, the police had no conception of how to handle this kind of case: that of a known schizophrenic who had committed a serious offence but who had already been in and out of hospital and had a well-documented record. It is, and has been for many years, clear that the police and those concerned in the courts—solicitors, magistrates, prison staff—all need far greater exposure to education and training.
The problem of offenders is only one small segment of the enormous problem that the present Government are showing every sign of tackling with great determination. I believe that by the due process and care they have adopted in assembling recommendations from every quarter, we are at last to get something much nearer the kind of framework we require for above all solving the problem of co-ordination between authorities. The Griffiths Report made clear at the time that there were grave dangers unless there was a single agency to bring together health, social services, housing and so on. This is the glaring need. We want not only a single national policy accepted by all in the field, but also single district agencies, perhaps coterminous with either health authorities or counties, which would have full authority. They would have staff drawn from the

1255
local authorities, the health services and all concerned, so that there could at last be a properly co-ordinated tackling of the problems.
This is the key to the future and I hope and believe that, out of the Government's review of mental health legislation, this will emerge.
8.29 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate and to the House for being absent at the beginning of the debate, but I am not completely bereft of knowledge of his remarks. I hope he does not mind, but I telephoned his office this morning and the person who answered was kind enough to read to me the first and last paragraphs of his speech. I am grateful that he has opened up this important subject for discussion.
I entered this debate with some trepidation, but my locus for doing so is that I am one of three vice chairmen of the All-Party Mental Health Group. Thinking about the tragedy which lies behind today's debate, it occurs to me that there are certainly some procedures which should be put in place which might go a long way towards preventing similar situations from happening in the future.
What is needed to start with is a much greater clarity of thought in investigating these tragedies once they have occurred. At present, the immediate reaction of the public, media and politicians is to ignore the real background of the situation and simply to look at it from a crime and disorder viewpoint. Because of the fear that such occurrences trigger in our minds, we shut down our analytical faculties and fail to look at the whole time track of the individual who has committed the violent act. This fear is one of inexplicable, indeed of somewhat senseless, violence with no rhyme or reason to it, we feel. But is it?
There are two pictures we need to examine, not one. Yes, the individual does have a history of mental illness, but he, or she, also has a history of psychiatric treatment and this is where we should direct our attention. There are two questions which we and the police should always ask when one of these tragic incidents occurs. First, was he violent before he had psychiatric treatment; and, secondly, was he on one of the drugs known to cause violent and destructive behaviour?
As soon as an incident takes place, there should be an inquiry into the personal drug history before, during and after treatment. It is sometimes said that the problem occurred "because he was not taking his drugs". This begs another very important question: was the individual experiencing the withdrawal symptoms commonly associated with some anti-depressants and anti-psychotics? So far as I know, there are no long-term outcome studies of the drugs and certainly no understanding of the biochemical mechanisms and their effects involved in the withdrawal process.
I think that the kindest thing we can do for those suffering from behavioural and emotional problems is to make sure that we treat them in all respects as we ourselves would like to be treated under similar circumstances. In other words, we should provide a
1256
quiet environment where they are treated in a kindly manner which maintains their self-respect and does not do anything to make it more difficult for them to recover.
I do suggest that the solution is not to provide more and better of the same, but to re-examine the philosophical and medical basis of the treatments currently being provided. Would it not be better to step back and look at the problem as a whole; to admit that what we are doing at the moment is not working very well and to look for a different approach?
It has been said that the ethnic minorities are under served by the mental health service. But this is a somewhat two-edged sword. For many, such attention as they do receive sadly reflects their experience in other areas of society. Excessive doses of drugs and the exorbitant use of ECT have been all too frequent occurrences. Members of the ethnic minorities, particularly from the Afro-Caribbean community, may have mixed feelings about calls to provide them with increased levels of service unless this is seen to be culturally appropriate and sensitive.
My main hope is that we shall look carefully at alternatives to current treatment modalities. For example, it is now well known that an important, possibly the most important, factor in understanding eating disorders is a simple zinc deficiency. And this, multiplied across many other similar examples, does, of course, have a bearing on the question of the cost of mental health services. It also introduces comprehensibility to the whole question of mental disorder and gives sufferers and their families the chance to take responsibility for solving their problems.
It is interesting that this debate should have been initiated by one of your Lordships from the Bishops' Benches. Any sensible approach to the affliction of mental illness requires that we regard the human being holistically; that is, as spirit, mind and body.
8.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I, too, thank my right reverend friend for initiating this debate. I should like publicly to acknowledge his 15 year concern for the prison services. It is an outstanding record. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, if I may do so without presumption, on his maiden speech. He brings a wealth of experience to the subject from his knowledge of the probation and social services. I hope that he will have many other occasions on which to address this House, preferably with more than four minutes at his disposal.
I share the concern of my right reverend friend for the tragic, senseless and needless death of Mr. Christopher Edwards. I warmly support all that he said on the subject and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Is the Minister aware of the great satisfaction which exists in this country as a result of the Written Answer given by the Secretary of State for Health in another place on 31st July this year? The Answer will have given satisfaction to many people who courageously cope with suffering from mental illnesses, to those who care for them and to the professionals who work among

1257
them in conditions of considerable deprivation. It was very bold of the Secretary of State to speak of the inadequacy of the present provision, to demand and look for a dramatic change for the better and to announce a root and branch review of the Mental Health Act 1983. I reiterate that it is most welcome indeed. Making mental health a priority in our nation has been a stated aim in the health policy of this Government. It is most welcome and enormously appropriate.
The most alarming part of my right reverend friend's speech was the statistic showing a 300 per cent. increase in the number of people compulsorily detained in hospital since 1980. That figure was provided by SANE and illustrates a very serious issue. It is vastly out of proportion to the increase in the number of people with mental illnesses. What conceivable reasons can there be for a 300 per cent. increase during those years? Is it related to the increase in the number of drug-related mental illnesses in our population? Is it related to failures to prevent relapse; failures in the aftercare of those who move out into the community; or failure of the community to understand the needs of those who are coping with illnesses in the community?
I wish to emphasise the great need to attend to public education in mental health and their awareness of the nature of mental illness. I warmly support the five year campaign launched last week by the Royal College of Psychiatrists to de-stigmatise mental illness. So far as I am aware, mental illness is the only form of illness where the attitude of the general public makes a significant difference to the outcome. Therefore, it is vital that the general public are more fully appraised of the significance of what can now be done for those who suffer from mental illnesses and the importance of attitudes in the community to the outcome.
The Secretary of State for Health said that care in the community has failed. I understand what lies behind that statement. It is an understandable soundbite, even though it may have caused some distress and misunderstanding to the many who are courageously coping in the community. However, I am inclined to say, as of another subject when Christianity was claimed to have failed, the problem was not that it had failed but simply that it had not been tried.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I too would like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lincoln for raising this very important issue. It is interesting that the case he raised was one that very much concerned me when I introduced the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill in this House earlier this year. As a result of that I was asked to be a director of SANE, and I declare that as an interest.
Care in the community is the subject and I think it might almost be called care in crisis. Ask anyone in the street today, flung out of an in-care hostel or the psychiatric wing of a hospital because of a shortage of beds, "Where is care in the community?" and he will answer, "Wherever I can find somewhere to sleep; a cardboard box; a park bench; a railway arch".
1258
That is a terrible indictment of our modern society. The choice for them, all too often, is sleeping rough, committing a crime and going to prison or committing suicide. Forty per cent. decide to sleep rough. One in three suffers from mental illness; others are in prison; and one in seven commits suicide—some choice, some care!
Even Frank Dobson, the Secretary of State for Health, said that care in the community had failed a substantial number of mentally-ill people and I am delighted that this Government have decided to give a root-and-branch review of mental health law because it is now accepted that the Mental Health Act 1983 no longer serves the best interests of sufferers, their families, carers or the general public. We must have 24-hour crisis teams. We really need sheltered accommodation for the mentally ill, in the same way as the old folks have it, so that they can get their drugs and so that there may be a doctor looking after them, or whatever, all under the one roof. We must have more acute hospital beds. Without the backstop of hospital beds community care will never regain public confidence.
The saga of tragedies is revealed in the independent inquiry into homicides by mentally ill people which the Government instigated in 1994 and which revealed fault lines in a system in chaos. SANE surveyed 23 recent inquiries and found a clear-cut pattern of fault. All but one blamed the breakdown of communications. Nearly all revealed the lack of effective risk assessment; poor recording and keeping of case notes. There was a failure to listen to the experiences of family and sufferer. In some cases life and death decisions were made by people without qualifications. Within the mental health service patients' welfare is often shuffled around like a crazy game of pass-the-parcel from one authority to another—more importantly, from health care to social services.
When lives are lost in such circumstances, we are told that no one is to blame. But is not the system to blame? Is that not what we have to sort out? I am so glad that this Government seem to recognise the need for revolution in mental health care. Those of us who have been warning about the desperate situation for so long have lived to see the acceptance that community care has not been the Holy Grail of mental health. There is a long way to go. To make good intentions work we need to attract back doctors and nurses who have been demoralised, to build up centres of excellence for assessment and diagnosis and to impose sanctions on authorities which fall short of national standards, especially in providing the right number of available beds.
However, the Government must tackle the two most controversial and thorny problems. The first is the issue of compulsory treatment in the community and the second is the involvement of families and carers, the country's most wasted resource.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lincoln on

1259
initiating this debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on his extremely cogent and well-informed maiden speech.
Although the review of the Mental Health Act was only recently announced, I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to give us a clear indication of the principles which he believes the review team will follow and the issues that they will tackle. However, let me, first, say that we on these Benches welcome much in the Government's approach to mental health. We welcome the fact that one of the first two National Health Service frameworks to be drawn up will be for mental health. We also welcome a commitment to more 24-our nursing care. We welcome the concept of assertive outreach. We welcome the partnership-in-action approach, designed to break down barriers between health authorities, social services and other providers.
Finally, we welcome the commitment to a disability rights commission, which will cover people with mental health problems. I look forward to seeing that in the Queen's Speech. However, we do not welcome some of the punitive language that has been used by Ministers. The safety-plus approach adopted by the department must not mean treating mental patients as criminals. Furthermore, we do not welcome blanket statements by Ministers that care in the community has failed. The implementation of care in the community has undoubtedly failed in many cases, but the philosophy of care in the community has not failed and we must not return to the bad old days of thinking that every mental patient needs locking up in an institution.
With proper regular care and supervision, many patients can take their place in the community without danger to the public, but more resources are needed to provide for more effective care and supervision. We have been tantalised with reports of further substantial resources being made available for mental health services. I very much hope that the Minister tonight will confirm this and explain where it will be directed.
Turning to the Mental Health Act review itself, there is no doubt that it needs updating to reflect the care-in-the-community approach. Currently it is extremely orientated to institutional treatment. In addition, it needs to reflect the needs and concerns of carers. We believe that there may be a case for some form of compulsory treatment in the community, but this must only be as a last resort. Assertive outreach must not become aggressive outreach; otherwise it will fail.
As a number of organisations have pointed out, there should also be a right to care and treatment for those suffering from mental health problems. This should underpin the new legislation. We also hope that the review team will look at the issue of discharge, as highlighted by SANE. It was accepted by the previous government that the powers of lay managers to discharge without reference to the responsible medical officer should be abolished. We also believe that the legal regime for mentally disordered offenders should be re-examined, as was so graphically described by the right reverend Prelate.
1260
The review also needs to look at how those considered to have untreatable personality or psychopathic disorders are dealt with. Currently they appear to fall outside the Act. The issue of confidentiality also needs to be addressed. Information must be shareable in appropriate circumstances. At the end of the day, however, I hope that the review team and the Government will also recognise, both from the legal and the clinical perspectives, that public education is vital. I cannot say this better than did the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Ely in his remarks: for treatment to be truly effective we need the full confidence and understanding of the community—and only public education can do that.
8.39 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in considering the nub of this Motion—that is to say, the question of what might be done to amend current mental health legislation—I confess to starting from a basic belief. That belief is that the broad direction, the broad aim of mental health policy over the past 35 years, which has been to humanise care of the mentally ill and as far as possible to normalise their lives, has been the right one, both ethically and clinically.
Most people with mental health needs can and do lead satisfying lives in the community, given the right kind of support. In fact, being part of a normal community is the best kind of therapy for the majority of those with a mental illness. In recent years we have seen the closure of the large long-stay psychiatric hospitals, and in their place has been the provision of community services and appropriate accommodation.
In any transition as fundamental as that we can point to a balance sheet of losses and gains, but it cannot be stated too emphatically that in the recent development of care in the community the gains far, far outweigh the losses. I recently had the pleasure of visiting a mental health trust in the right reverend Prelate's diocese; namely the South Lincolnshire Community and Mental Health Services Trust. Anyone who wants to gain an understanding of what care in the community means, particularly in an extended rural area, would do well to pay a visit to the Stamford Resource Centre. The centre was opened recently as the base of operations for home treatment service for mental health patients living in the locality.
The service is provided by a 24-our on-call team, who will assess and treat patients in their own homes, either routinely or in response to requests for crisis intervention. The primary aims at Stamford are to provide a speedy service, to tailor the type of care to the specific needs of the individual patient and as far as possible to minimise any stay in hospital. The local verdict on the service, from GPs as well as patients, has been overwhelmingly positive, but it is not just a matter of putting in place a workable system in a particular area. Much depends, too, on the professionalism of the individuals running it.
The key to the home treatment service is for the team to get in early while the patient retains some measure of judgment and persuade the individual that he or she

1261
needs treatment. The key to that is to gain the trust of the patient and to establish a relationship which ensures that if treatment is needed, whether medication or a trip to hospital, persuasion rather than coercion will bring about the desired result. Indeed, if there is one thing which separates success from failure in community mental healthcare, it is that engagement with the patient, the exercise in communication which leads a patient to accept his or her condition and the treatment needed to tackle it. With mental illness, it is not enough to ask ourselves what patients need. We also have to ask what they want, and attempt to provide it, if care in the community is to succeed.
That is why I am cautious about any proposal which would allow clinicians to exercise on patients a power of compulsion broader or more severe than the powers already afforded to them under the Mental Health Act. Once you introduce such a power, you run the risk that the relationship of trust between patients and medical staff will break down, you risk stigmatising mental illness more than it is stigmatised already and you will also run into major logistical difficulties. How in practice could we envisage community psychiatric nurses forcibly treating people in their own homes?
I very much welcome the Government's intention to review the provisions of current mental health legislation. Among other areas, I think we need to look carefully at creating a better interface between mental healthcare and the criminal justice system for conditions such as psycopathy. But I firmly believe that delivering better care to the vast majority of mental health patients is not a matter of amending an Act of Parliament; it is first and foremost a question of resources.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I too should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for raising this important issue and for his very important work in this area over many years. I should also like to say how much I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. His intervention was as authoritative as one would expect from someone who has given such distinguished service as chief inspector in the Department of Health.
A number of noble Lords have raised concerns about aspects of our mental health services. These concerns have served to illustrate the failures of care in the community. Service provision has been too patchy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, pointed out, insufficient resources have been made available to provide the care and support services to which mentally ill people need to have access if they are to live as independently as is practicable. That is better for both them and for the wider public.
Let me say straight away that improving services for those who suffer from mental illness is one of this Government's key priorities. My honourable friend Paul Boateng, who is the Minister with responsibility for mental health policy, has made this very clear. The details of our new policies, which are aimed at providing safe, sound and supportive services for this most
1262
vulnerable group of people, will be announced soon, together with details of a substantial financial package to resource real improvements in both health and social services.
So far as concerns improving standards, we are determined to remove the appalling regional variations in services for those who suffer from mental illness. That is why we are developing, as a matter of urgency, a Mental Health National Service Framework.
This framework will set challenging evidence-based national standards that both health authorities and local authorities will have to meet. It will drive up standards so that people with mental health problems will receive the service they need, regardless of who they are or where they live.
An important element in our strategy for better mental health services will be a completely revised legislative framework. My right honourable friend Frank Dobson announced in July that there would be a root and branch review of mental health legislation. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely suggested, review of the Mental Health Act 1983 is long overdue.
Our new policy must be underpinned by modern and robust legislation that not only reflects modern patterns of care and treatment but also supports the robust policies which we are putting in place to ensure high quality services and that a proper balance is struck between the rights of individuals and the interests of the wider public on the few occasions where these can sometimes seem to conflict.
There is no doubt that the current Mental Health Act, many of the provisions of which date from the 1950s, reflects a bygone age. It is almost entirely about hospital-based treatment for those who are deemed to be in need of detention. Modern patterns of treatment and care, particularly the growing realisation of the importance of social care interventions, mean that legislation that is largely about hospital-based treatment is now out of date. Modern legislation must recognise the growing importance of life outside institutional settings for those who are mentally ill.
However, we do not pretend that revising mental health legislation is something that is easy or something that lends itself to quick solutions. There are highly complex issues involved and it is most important that we get the various balances that have to be struck exactly right. As a first step, therefore, we have established a small group of experts to consider the scope of the changes that are necessary. The chair, Professor Genevra Richardson, is an acknowledged expert in this field. The group has been tasked with advising Ministers on legislation to cover the whole field of mental health service provision in the setting of the modern policy context which we have established to improve the quality of mental health services. It will report to Ministers in April next year with firm recommendations which can form the basis of wider consultation on a completely revised legal framework which will reflect modern patterns of care and treatment and which will support our new, safe, sound and supportive approach to the provision of mental health services.

1263
There have been great changes in medication and in our growing understanding of the importance of social care interventions that have enabled more and more people with mental health problems to live more fulfilling and independent lives within supportive neighbourhoods, a point forcefully put by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who discussed the examples of good practice to be found throughout the country. This approach to treatment is proven to result in a better outcome when based on proper support—in turn based on proper assessment. This points up the important role that local social services authorities have to play in delivering comprehensive mental health services. All too often in the past patients have been discharged from in-patient treatment with insufficient attention being paid to their social care needs.
There is a large range of effective social care interventions, ranging from highly specialist rehabilitative day care and specialist supported housing to just having someone to help with the smaller problems of everyday life, such as shopping or paying the bills. Most importantly, effective social care provision can go a long way to preventing future crises and therefore to minimising unnecessary passages through the revolving door of care between hospital and home.
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, spoke of the need to ensure that the seams between service providers, and particularly between those providing health and social care, must be strongly sewn if those who are rootless or who for other reasons such as homelessness are hard to engage are not to fall through the net of care. This point was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I hope noble Lords will agree with me that the focus that we are now putting on partnership working will help to ensure that proper, robust and positive support, which must include better assertive outreach, will go a long way to ensuring that this most vulnerable group of people receive the help they need.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln specifically raised the tragic case of Christopher Edwards who was killed while sharing a cell with Richard Linford. The case was discussed also by the noble Lords, Lord McNair and Lord Rowallan. It was a very disturbing case. Many of the recommendations contained in the inquiry report have already been implemented by the agencies concerned and joint action plans have been made for follow-up action. As a result of their experiences, the parents of Christopher Edwards want to ensure that all the lessons are learnt from this and indeed other inquiries. They have launched a petition for improvements to Care in the Community and to the treatment of mentally disordered offenders. I am aware of that petition and of the significant issues which it raises. Many of those will be addressed in the forthcoming strategy on mental health.
Perhaps I may deal now with some of those issues. They were referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. We accept fully that there should be a sufficient number of secure places and
1264
recognise in particular the need to ensure that services engage effectively and speedily with those who for one reason or another might ordinarily resist help altogether.
The Government recognise that there is an urgent need to improve the quality and effectiveness of healthcare services in prisons, both to reduce the level of morbidity among prisoners and the risk of mental health problems becoming chronic or acute when prisoners are released back into the wider community. Unrecognised or untreated mental disorder increases risk to family members and the wider public and is likely to exacerbate problems of social exclusion.
The majority of prisoners identified as having a mental disorder can be managed appropriately within the prison setting in the same way as the majority of people in the general population with mental disorder are treated by primary care and community mental health services. The Government are now considering the recommendations in the HM Inspector of Prisons report that the responsibility for prison service healthcare be transferred to the NHS. The prison service and the NHS Executive have set up a working group to advise the Secretary of State and Home Office Ministers on the options for improving prison healthcare.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raised the issue of resources and beds and the noble Lord. Lord Rowallan, referred also to beds. My right honourable friend Frank Dobson has already given an indication of our proposals for mental health services. There will be a greater focus on crisis intervention, a growth in the number of acute beds and greater support within the community for hostels and other kinds of supported accommodation. He has indicated also that there will be a substantial financial package to underpin the new vision. But I am afraid that your Lordships will have to wait a little longer before we can reveal the details.
We are only too aware of the failure of services in the past to deliver to those who need them the right range of treatment and care. That is particularly important for people who are black or from an ethnic minority who we know have not been well served, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, pointed out. Black and ethnic minority users are over-represented in the proportion of their numbers under sections of the Mental Health Act and in psychiatric in-patient beds. We know also that they are not always deemed suitable for the range of non-drug treatments which are in such high demand. That cannot be allowed to continue. I am aware that my honourable friend Paul Boateng has urged those leading the work on the National Health Service framework to take account of that.
But if there is a responsibility on the NHS and local government to deliver quality services to provide for individual care plans, so there is also an increasing responsibility on individual patients to comply with their care programmes. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and my noble friend Lord Judd rightly pinpointed that important issue.
Just as compliance with treatment can be required for those who are detained in hospital, so we must now consider the need for similar measures for those living outside hospital. For some—and it is a very small

1265
minority of mentally ill people—that will mean that compliance with the treatment programme can no longer be optional.
Perhaps I may allay a fear put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We are not talking about forcibly administering treatment over the individual's kitchen table. Any new arrangements must involve compliance within an appropriate clinical setting. And of course, just as there are currently safeguards built into the current legislation governing detention in hospital, so too must there be safeguards when it comes to any requirements to comply with treatment programmes for those who are living in the community.
We do not underestimate the complexity of such arrangements and it is one of the key issues on which we shall look to the expert group for advice. But one thing is certain: as modern treatment and care arrangements quite rightly enable more people who are mentally ill to live in their own homes or in homely settings, we can no longer duck the issue of making certain that the care plans that enable this desirable improvement are adhered to. We must strive to achieve balance between the rights of individual patients and the understandable expectations of the wider public.
The expert group does not have an easy task before it. It will set the direction for completely new legislation that will underpin mental health services for the next millennium. But its work only begins the process. Once we have received its report there will follow a wide round of consultation.
Finally, I hope I have made it plain that not only do we recognise the need for modern robust services to deliver safe, sound and supportive services for mentally ill people, but we recognise too the need to support them within a legal framework that reflects the changes in patterns of care and treatment; and that through the inclusive approach that has characterised our whole approach to policy development in this absolutely crucial area we have taken steps to revise the law quickly and efficiently but, above all, thoroughly.

Northern Ireland Bill
8.55 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 15.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 9, line 6, at end insert—
("() Where a political party is linked to a terrorist organisation, which has not been certified to the Presiding Officer by the chairman of any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 as co-operating fully with that Commission, that political party shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsections (4) to (9) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: We now come on to a most important and topical matter; that is, decommissioning. It comes in the part of the Bill in which decisions are being made as to who can be members of the new Northern Ireland Executive. On these Benches, our
1266
belief is quite clear and can be very simply stated. It is that no one can be a terrorist and a democrat at the same time. Democracy cannot function properly under threat.
Of course, ex-terrorists can become democrats. Having been one does not exclude the other and there are good examples of that in Northern Ireland as well as in many other countries overseas. But how do you tell a terrorist from an ex-terrorist? Perhaps I should put that question the other way round. How can you tell an ex-terrorist from a continuing terrorist or, for that matter, how do you tell a democratic party from a group of terrorists? The answer is that when people give up violence, they have no more need for semtex or guns. It is that indication, that proof of the fact that a particular individual or group of individuals has moved from being terrorists to being democrats, that we seek in these amendments.
A great deal has been happening on this matter in public and on the airwaves as well as in private, of which we have no knowledge. I heard it said on Radio 4 this morning by a Sinn Fein representative that decommissioning is a matter only for General de Chastelain and the decommissioning commission which has been set up under the Belfast agreement to put all those matters into practice. I most strongly disagree with that. Whether or not there is decommissioning is a matter for everyone in Northern Ireland and it is most certainly a matter for this Parliament at this point.
I know that some of those in Sinn Fein-IRA talk as though what we require by this process is surrender. That is not so. I want to make that point extremely clear. If an army surrenders at the end of a conflict, it not only gives up its guns; it also holds up its hands. The soldiers are taken prisoner and are at the mercy of the victor to be placed in prisoner-of-war camps or whatever it may be. That is surrender. But that is not what we are looking for. Nor what is expected. On the contrary, prisoners are being released even now who would otherwise be held. There is no question but that people who come forward and hand in their guns will later be released. Indeed, the legislation we passed not too long ago specifically provides that the possession of a gun that has previously been used to commit murder or some other crime shall not be used as evidence in court to put people in gaol.
Therefore it is not a question of surrender. At the end of a conventional war—if one wants to use an analogy—we do not get surrender; we get demobilisation. That happened to the British Army and the allied armies that won the war in 1945 and has happened in every other major war. It is demobilisation with which we are concerned. That is what is happening with the British Army in Northern Ireland. As the situation allows, troops are being withdrawn. That will continue to happen provided that peace becomes a reality.
The reasons for having a decommissioning commission, the instructions it is given and the way it operates do not involve surrender; they involve verifying that people have given up their weapons and taken up democracy. That is what we are talking about. The commission is extremely important not only on its

1267
own account, but also because in people's minds it is symbolic of a movement away from terrorism to democracy.
It may be said that Amendments Nos. 45 and 81 set up in some way a new pre-condition. We have heard that many times. But they do not. They build on the Belfast agreement. Amendment No. 45 provides that nobody can become a member of the Executive or a Minister in the Northern Ireland Government unless their party has given up its weapons. The judge of that will be the chairman of the decommissioning commission. Amendment No. 81 strengthens the powers that the Assembly already has to reject a party for ministerial office because it does not support democracy.
Decommissioning has moved higher in perception over the time since the agreement was signed. The reason is simple. Decommissioning was agreed as part of the Belfast agreement and is supposed to be completed by May 2000—two years after the referendum took place. We are five months into that period and nothing whatever has happened in relation to Sinn Fein-IRA. Those on the other side of the divide are still waiting for action from the principals of that organisation.
That is the reason this issue has become so much more important. If a small amount of progress had already been made it would not loom so large in everybody's calculations; it would not be such a sticking point. Everybody agrees that the Belfast agreement must be taken as a whole. Decommissioning is part of that agreement and account must therefore be taken of it. It is not necessarily a matter, as David Trimble said on the radio this morning, of textual analysis; it is a matter of whether people trust former terrorists to be in government. Do they believe that they are no longer terrorists and are now democrats? That is what decommissioning is all about. It is because nothing has happened that we need to make progress at this time.
It was also said on the radio this morning that Sinn Fein must be on the Executive; that that is in the agreement. That is true—not in so many words, but it is implied; but so is decommissioning and we cannot pick out one piece and not follow the others. The agreement specifically says in several places and this Bill repeats that neither Sinn Fein nor anybody else can take their places on the Executive unless they are committed to democratic means. That has been spelt out by the Prime Minister, by the Taoiseach and everybody else since the agreement was concluded. The test of whether or not they are committed to democracy has become decommissioning.
It is also suggested that the pressure for decommissioning comes only from unionists. That is not true. The pressure for decommissioning comes from a wide spectrum of people throughout Northern Ireland; it certainly comes from this Chamber and many people here. It is time to be clear that in relation to terrorist supporters and the parties that have represented them over the years, if there is no decommissioning, they will not be allowed on the Executive. That may mean that the agreement begins to come apart and to founder. That would be dreadful.
However, it would not be right—it would not be democracy—to allow people to serve on the Executive who still support terrorism, who are still fully armed and who continue to use those arms in punishment shootings to almost the same extent as previously. It would not be right to allow that. In practical terms, that would not be acceptable to either unionists or the British people, as far as I can see. I do not think that now is the time to be mealy-mouthed about this issue. That is why I believe, given that nothing has happened, that this provision should be on the face of the Bill. That is the purpose of the two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I refer to paragraphs 3 and 6 on page 20 of the Good Friday agreement. I am not deliberately omitting paragraph 4. For some reason, in my copy of the "sacred agreement", there is not, and never was, a paragraph 5. I do not know what the missing book, the Apocrypha, contained, but those paragraphs to which I have referred make it abundantly clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, that decommissioning must be part of the package; it cannot be detached or left behind. Decommissioning must move forward in accordance and in harmony with all the other provisions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, those who drafted the agreement, and the democratic parties which subscribed to it and have observed it since Good Friday, are not in the business of demanding humiliation, surrender or anything else. It is simply a question of talking in terms of demobilisation, of disbanding the command structure of terrorist organisations. In the words of Mr. John Hume perhaps democratic parties cannot be expected to sit down with those bodies which have guns on the table, under the table or outside the door. I have always admired Mr. Hume for his courage in speaking out as he did.
Why is it that paramilitaries of whatever complexion are determined to retain their weapons? It is simply a matter of ensuring that they retain the known capacity to issue threats or, when democratic parties reach a point where their electoral supporters will not permit them to make further concessions, that the threat becomes real and is implemented. In other words, when terrorists in future see the conveyor belt conveying concessions under the guise of confidence-building measures, a threat will be issued and if the democratic parties do not look sharp, make concessions and speed up the conveyor belt, we may have two more major explosions.
I do not want to labour the point because I deliberately did not speak on this subject at Second Reading, but I listened with great interest to all noble Lords who contributed and they were not far out of line with what I have just said. However, one point worries me. There appears to be a fiction that we have peace at the moment. We all know that peace-breaking in the form of punishment shootings, beatings, threats, shadowing, and targeting is continuing—and we can prove that at first hand.
One point concerns me acutely. On 8th October I went to the city of Armagh to fulfil a fairly important engagement. I learnt on that very evening that an Army unit came under sustained fire. I cannot identify the

1269
body concerned. It is not my business. There are those who are qualified and equipped to do just that. However, I wondered why news of that was suppressed when I listened the next morning to the radio—those involved are never behind in issuing statements; blood-curdling statements—and why the newspapers seemed to conceal it as well. I wondered why, and in whose interests, the news was suppressed that the cease-fire had been broken on the evening of 8th October. Some day, in the nature of things, we shall discover the answer to the question, "Who dunnit?", if I may put it in that way, and to the question of which organisation decided calmly that it would suppress the news that the cease-fire was not entirely perfect.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: It is my belief that this amendment is probably the most important one that we shall have to deal with because, until this present difficulty is overcome, we shall not get much further. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I can certainly vouch that everything they said is correct. However, I do not think it is understood that it is not just Unionists who want decommissioning; people right across the board in Northern Ireland want this agreement to succeed. Everyone who is a democrat knows that democrats cannot sit down under any circumstances with people who are not democrats, who have not said that the war is over and have given no indication that they have any intention of giving up their weapons.
This makes it impossible for the ordinary man to see how the assembly can work. Yet it is worrying that people are saying, "David Trimble would give way but, of course, he cannot because of his hardliners". That is all rubbish. It is not just him who cannot give in. No ordinary sensible democrat could possibly sit down with parties he has no confidence in and whom he cannot trust. I think we have come a long way because great effort was made to ensure that the IRA need not feel it was surrendering or was beaten. The agreement is quite implicit that all the arrangements for the release of prisoners and the removal of Army road blocks, and so on, were to run in parallel with decommissioning. All these other things have happened and yet we have not witnessed decommissioning. I am afraid that the leaders of Sinn Fein are making out that it is all everyone else's fault. I believe this amendment will make it a little clearer that decommissioning must run in parallel with the other measures that are being taken—for example, the release of prisoners and other such measures.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, put the matter extremely fairly in his introductory remarks to his amendment. We are now at an extremely difficult juncture. It is not in the end a matter of legalistic quibbling; it is a matter of political reality as to whether the people of Northern Ireland, the party leaders of Northern Ireland and the people of Britain have confidence that this is a serious process that will advance. Of course, trust cuts both ways and there are no doubt those militant Republicans who are asking
1270
apprehensively whether they can trust what they think of as the British state to deliver on its promises in the agreement.
I think the key words that we have to look at are the words to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, drew our attention on page 20 of the Good Friday agreement. Paragraph 3 states:
"All participants … confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission"—
that is General de Chastelain's commission—
"and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years''.
Of course it is true that if you are to do it completely within two years you have to start some time. The days, weeks and months are ticking away and there is no sign yet of a start. Indeed, inspired by the example of the Provisional IRA, contumacious noises are now being made by the opposite equivalents on the Loyalist side. That is part of unravelling confidence rather than building confidence. But the words,
"continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission"
suggest to me that what is needed at this stage above all is a timetable submitted to General de Chastelain by the Provisional IRA indicating the steps by which it will start decommissioning. I myself think—it is not a unique thought by any means—that the key issue is the high explosives, semtex and others, which cannot conceivably be represented to be used to defend a threatened community, which may have been the traditional Republican argument. These can only be used for mass murder of the kind that we have seen. It may well be that a sensible timetable would indicate that movement could be made on that component of the arms inventory earlier.
I repeat to the Committee what I said on a previous occasion. I hope eventually our combined words will get through to the leadership of Sinn Fein who have to use whatever influence they may have in this matter. Some of us would consider they have a great deal of influence, given who they are and their combined histories. They really need to make sure that General de Chastelain receives not merely the form of co-operation. If the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will forgive me, in this respect his amendment is slightly misplaced. He refers to working with the independent commission. I believe that they would say that they are working with the commission. Martin McGuinness has been appointed as representative to General de Chastelain's commission and its members have had meetings with him. They might say that that represented working with the independent commission. It is my belief that unless that takes a more tangible form than having meetings—and at this stage even the preparation of a timetable would build confidence—effectively they are making it politically impossible for the institution of the Assembly, in which we have all vested so much hope, to proceed.
We know that their history is one of paranoia and suspicion, and possibly fear of those who seek to isolate and defeat them. But they, too, have to have the

1271
imagination to realise that now a gesture is needed from them. I am sceptical that the erection of hurdles in the Bill is the way to go. Simply as a matter of political reality, if they do not come up with tangible measures in the next few weeks, they will make it, de facto, impossible for progress to be made in Northern Ireland. The onus of responsibility that rests on the shoulders of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness is overwhelming. They do not have to do a great deal but they have to do something.
Lord Desai: I wish to raise a small technical point. At Second Reading I said that I agreed with much of what the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Holme, had said. I have since spoken to a colleague of mine who is a specialist in these matters. He raised a problem to which I should like my noble friend to give an answer; namely, that the agreement requires that Sinn Fein be included in the executive without any decommissioning, and if that fails to happen a move can be made in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland to annul the result of the referendum held in the Republic. I am not an expert, but I have heard that said. If the promise to implement the cabinet is not honoured, we could see the unravelling of Articles 2 and 3 of the referendum in the republic.
I await an answer from the Minister; however, if that is the case, and if in principle the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and other noble Lords are true, we might be taking a big risk by making this a precondition, whereas in the current situation it is not a precondition. I am entirely in sympathy with the spirit of their proposals; I merely wish to get the legalities clear.
Lord Fitt: It is with hesitation that I speak to this amendment. I am only too well aware that, given my political background as a former leader of the SDLP, as a Catholic and educated by the Christian Brothers, I am supposed to agree with every item in support of the nationalists, the SDLP and Sinn Fein. In Northern Ireland it is easy to be called a traitor who has betrayed his political, religious and nationalistic roots. I should not want to be in that position; however it is a strong possibility if I do not support every word and comma contained in the agreement.
I said at Second Reading that I wished to see the agreement work. I desperately want to see it work. But at present, from speaking to people who are deeply involved, I see a danger that the whole thing may collapse.
I know of people who speak to Gerry Adams. He says to them, "Look, all this talk doesn't mean anything. At the end of the day, in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation, Trimble will give way. He will take it to the very last second and then he will blink". The same people go to David Trimble and he says: "When it comes to the very last second, in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, Adams will give way on decommissioning". That is dangerous. If they carry that through to the very last second, the whole thing could collapse.
I have said in this House that a gesture is needed, and my noble friend Lord Dubs will agree with me. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme. The IRA and loyalist
1272
paramilitaries have been using arms for decades. I ask again whether it would not be possible for those organisations to make a gesture and say, "We have been using arms; the democratically elected politicians have not". They do not need to hand in tonnes of semtex or hundreds or thousands of revolvers or other kinds of armaments, but a gesture is desperately needed.
I was frightened when I read a report last week from Mr. Hutchison of the Progressive Unionist Party. He said, "We are not going to give up arms". They are in the key position. The loyalist paramilitaries say, "Unless the IRA give up arms, we are not going to give up our arms". The IRA says, "We are not going to give up our arms, either".
Although it was not written into the Good Friday agreement, it was said that the last prisoners would be released two years after the agreement was signed and that decommissioning would have to be complete after a period of two years.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. He will recall that the agreement says that the first lot of two years, for the release of prisoners, dates from later than the two years for the decommissioning. Decommissioning dates from the referendum, and the date for prisoner releases is after that. Under the agreement, decommissioning is supposed to be complete before the last batch of prisoners is released.
Lord Fitt: I agree with David Trimble on this matter. The point I am trying to illustrate is that it is implicit that these matters should run in parallel. At the moment it looks as if concession after concession has been made to the republican/nationalist agenda. In fact, I was told by people throughout last week in Northern Ireland that the British Government were no longer going to insist on extraditions. Three convicted IRA terrorists had been through the extradition process in America, having gone from court to court, until it was eventually said that everything had happened so long ago that the extradition would not be proceeded with. Mrs. Rita O'Hare, who has for many years had an extradition warrant against her in the republic, which the British Government have not given up, is now working in the Sinn Fein offices in America. The British Government did not insist on the extradition of that terrorist. It appears to the unionist community in Northern Ireland that concession after concession has been made to the republican/nationalist section of the community.
I never thought I would say this, but I believe that Gerry Adams has come a long way in dragging the republican movement away from its campaign of violence into the democratic process, and I think he deserves credit for that. I think that Martin McGuinness deserves credit for sitting down with John de Chastelain to talk about decommissioning. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme: the fact that he is talking to John de Chastelain does not mean much. The agreement said that all parties to it should use whatever influence they had. At the end of two years they could say that they had used all their influence but these people had not listened to them and still had their arms.

1273
Northern Ireland has gone through a tortured period of 30 years. For someone like me who has lived in Northern Ireland and spent his political career there, to think that it has all come to an end after 30 years is absolute bliss. It would be a terrible tragedy for Northern Ireland if the agreement fell down on the question of decommissioning. Sinn Fein had an electoral mandate. I was in Belfast on the day the referendum took place and took part in many television programmes together with spokesmen for the Nationalists, Catholics, bishops, etc. I could detect in their responses the desperate belief that those 30 years of murder had come to an end. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that not only Unionists, Protestants and Loyalists ask for some gesture on decommissioning to take place. I am quite certain that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, including the Nationalists and those who voted for Sinn Fein, which was given a mandate in the recent election that entitled it to take its seats, want decommissioning to take place.
My noble friend on this side of the Chamber said that if the Loyalists or Unionists do not give way on decommissioning and give up the crusade together, an action may take place in the Republic which means that the Belfast agreement is ultra vires. I do not believe that anyone in the Republic of Ireland, be he a lay citizen or the High Court that would have to decide the matter would lightly give such a decision that brought the agreement to an end. I also believe that the people in the Republic want to see the agreement succeed.
There will not be a vote on this matter this evening in this Committee. Even if we had the requisite numbers to vote for this amendment it would not mean anything because the Bill has been passed by the Commons and we shall pass it. But it is right to place on record our legitimate fears that all that has been achieved through this agreement and subsequent legislation may be brought crashing to the ground because of the intransigence of those who hold these arms in failing to make a gesture to bring peace and tranquillity to the whole of Northern Ireland.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: It may be helpful if, first, I restate briefly the Government's position on decommissioning. There must be progress on all elements of the agreement. The only way to break this impasse is for all sides to honour all the commitments that they made under the agreement and for all aspects of it to move forward in parallel. Decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement. It is not a precondition; it is an obligation and it must happen. The question is not whether it will happen but when.
However, decommissioning is not an end in itself. The reason that people rightly want decommissioning is because they want an end to violence in Northern Ireland and the confidence that this is a permanent end. That is the goal of the agreement and why decommissioning is an integral part of it. That is why decommissioning must happen. Furthermore, we condemn without reservation those engaged in so-called
1274
punishment attacks, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred. These assaults must stop now. It is clear that the continuation of such behaviour would not be consistent with the assessments of good faith and a genuine commitment to move away from violence which lie behind the judgment of the Secretary of State. If such patterns of behaviour persist, the Secretary of State will not hesitate to review the situation.
The issue is whether any progress towards decommissioning would be furthered by adopting the amendments before the Committee today. I do not believe that that would be the case and it would not help at all at a time when the Prime Minister, this very week, is having negotiations with some of the party leaders from Northern Ireland in an attempt to make progress on this issue. I do not think that an amendment added to the Bill would further the cause of decommissioning at all.
Furthermore, Amendment No. 45 has no basis in the agreement. It would require the chairman of the Decommissioning Commission to certify that each party is co-operating with him. In the absence of such a certificate, the party would be disregarded for d'Hondt purposes.
Not only is this not in the agreement, it is surely wrong in principle for decisions on such important matters as holding executive office to rest anywhere else than in the hands of the Assembly, which is what the Bill provides.
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 81 would enable the Assembly to vote for exclusion if a party is linked to a terrorist organisation which is not co-operating with the Decommissioning Commission. But of course the Bill already provided that the Assembly can take account of whether a party is,
"committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means".
Co-operation or otherwise with the Decommissioning Commission is certainly a factor which the Assembly will want to take into account here. But the judgment needs to be much broader than that. Indeed, the sort of factors the Assembly may want to take into account are set out in subsection (7) and go considerably further than just decommissioning, including directing violence, being involved in acts of violence and being committed to purely democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked me about a potential legal case in the republic. I do not think I am qualified to comment upon that, but the agreement certainly does not rule out a start to decommissioning now before the executive is formed. The agreement clearly requires that before taking office, any Minister must take the pledge of office. That includes a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. If an individual or party is not so committed, the agreement provides for the Assembly, by cross-community vote, to exclude them from office.
My noble friend Lord Fitt asked about extraditions. It is not correct to say that the Government have given up the extradition of Artt, Brennan and Kirby from the United States. In those cases, the United States courts have made a number of recent rulings and granted bail,

1275
but the extradition cases remain live and still before the United States courts. There is no question of easing up the pursuit at home and abroad of those who have committed serious offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also said that there had been a shooting, I believe in Armagh, which had had virtually no publicity. My officials have spoken tonight with the RUC and the Army at their headquarters in Northern Ireland. They have no record of any shooting taking place on 8th October, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, described. If he were to let me have more information, I would certainly see that that was looked into.
Incidentally, I cannot help him on the missing paragraph 5. Perhaps I can do better than not help him. I think it is missing because of a printer's error. We have had reference to that today. It is a simple printer's error and paragraph 6 follows paragraph 4.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: As a former printer myself, I can understand that. I accept the explanation.
Lord Dubs: I am most grateful. For the reasons I have given, I believe that it would not be helpful to accept Amendments Nos. 45 and 81. Accordingly I would urge the Committee to reject them.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall risk trying to help the Lord, Lord Desai, with his problem, but I do so with great hesitation and not great authority.
As I understand the matter, the referendum which was passed in the Republic of Ireland provides that the constitution shall change provided certain things happen. If those things happen, it becomes automatic. If they do not happen, the constitution does not change. Among those considerations is that the agreement is applied.
The question then is whether it is correct to say, as has been said, that the agreement provides that Sinn Fein must be on the Executive. Neither Sinn Fein nor any other party is specifically mentioned. Clearly the agreement provides that all parties concerned shall become members of the Executive provided that they fulfil the pledge of office, and are regarded by the Assembly as fulfilling the pledge of office.
I contend that no one can be considered to have become a democrat and to have fulfilled the criteria in the Bill if they are still fully armed, are using those arms in punishment beatings, and are prepared to use them for much worse. Therefore I believe it is possible that the terms of the agreement may be completely fulfilled without Sinn Fein being on the Executive if its members were regarded, as I regard Sinn Fein now, as not having become democrats because of the lack of proof that they are not still terrorists.
Having set that out, the noble Lord the Minister and everyone else will realise that there is endless scope for argument in the courts of the republic should the matter ever be tested; and we all hope that it will not be tested. However, returning to whether or not the amendments should be added to the Bill, I accept the criticisms made by the Minister of the precise wording and drafting of
1276
the amendments. I accept that whether or not we include them in the Bill may or may not help the Prime Minister and others engaged in negotiations which seek to achieve decommissioning. I do not wish to make the Prime Minister's life more difficult in this respect. No doubt I can think of one or two matters where I should like to make the Prime Minister's life more difficult, but in this matter he and his colleagues deserve every assistance in their difficult task.
While I do not entirely accept that adding such amendments to the Bill would not be helpful, I believe that it has been helpful to hear Members of the Committee from all sides of the Chamber express their views on decommissioning. They have made clear their sentiments. The sentiments expressed in this short debate are more important than the words of the amendment. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs moved Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("subsections (4) to (9) as applied by subsection (13)") and insert ("any application of subsections (4) to (9)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
JUNIOR MINISTERS
(".—(1) At any time after a First Minister and a deputy First Minister are elected under section 14(1), those Ministers acting jointly may determine—

(a) that a number of junior Ministers specified in the determination shall be appointed in accordance with such procedures for their appointment as are so specified; and

(b) that the functions exercisable by virtue of each junior Ministerial office shall be those specified in relation to that office in the determination.

(2) Procedures specified in a determination under this section may apply such formulae or other rules as the First Minister and the deputy First Minister consider appropriate.
(3) A determination under this section shall—

(a) make provision as to the circumstances in which a junior Minister shall cease to hold office, and for the filling of vacancies; and

(b) provide that a junior Minister shall not take up office until he has affirmed the terms of the pledge of office.

(4) A determination under this section shall not take effect until it has been approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support.
(5) Where a determination under this section takes effect—

(a) any junior Ministers previously appointed shall cease to hold office; and

(b) the procedures specified in the determination shall be applied within a period specified in standing orders.").

The noble Lord said: This new clause and the series of amendments consequential on it would enable the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the Assembly to decide to have junior Ministers as well as the Northern Ireland Ministers provided for in the Bill.
There is nothing specifically in the agreement about junior Ministers, although they are provided for in the Scotland Bill and were a feature of previous devolved governments in Northern Ireland as well, of course, as at Westminster. During subsequent meetings with the parties, however, there has been strong support for some provision in the Bill to enable junior Ministers to be appointed.
Accordingly, the new clause provides for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly to make a determination which may cover the number, functions and methods of appointment of junior Ministers.
Such a determination would not take effect until it has been approved by a resolution of the Assembly with cross-community support.
The other amendments in this group are consequential. They would subject junior Ministers to the provisions of Clause 23 on exclusion from office. They would provide that junior Ministers, like Northern Ireland Ministers, cannot serve as chairman or deputy chairman of a committee. Last but not least, the amendment to Clause 38 would enable junior Ministers to be paid extra.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps the Minister could reassure me on one point. If it is up to the First Minister and his deputy to decide what junior posts there will be, how many of them and what they will be, how are they then allocated between the parties? The danger on which I would like his reassurance is that the two main parties concerned who will hold the First and Deputy First Ministerships—the UUP and the SDLP—will have all the junior Ministers. Am I right in thinking—I hope I am—that, having decided how many of them there will be and what functions they should hold, the determination would still be by d'Hondt, so that some of the smaller parties (the Women's Coalition or the Alliance Party) would, to the extent they were proportionately entitled, benefit and would not simply all go to the two major parties represented by the first minister and his deputy?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Like the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I was slightly surprised that Mr. d'Hondt seemed to be taking a rest when we got to this part, and that these junior ministerships were going to be dished out without reference to any formula. That is slightly surprising in itself, but also a very genuine question to put to the Minister.
I was also concerned, as I indicated on an earlier amendment, as to what these junior Ministers will do. When I was in the Northern Ireland Office there were five of us, and at other stages there have been four Ministers, carrying out not only all the functions of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and thel0 Ministers proposed earlier in the Bill, but also the functions of the Northern Ireland Office, some of which
1278
will remain in being even after all this apparatus has been set up. So I do not think that they will be overworked, except of course that they will have a very large number of Assembly members to keep happy. As a former Whip, I know that there is more than one way to keep Assembly members happy and perhaps the junior ministerships will make a contribution, both in themselves and in the amount of time the junior Ministers can spend talking to the Back-Benchers who will remain. As I understand it, however, this clause originates with the parties in Northern Ireland, who thought it would be a good idea to have the possibility of junior Ministers being in the new administration. I certainly would not wish to stand in the way of that.
I referred to my time in the Northern Ireland Office; now, as a spokesman, I am bombarded literally daily with Orders and correspondence from the different departments regarding legal issues about which it is often extremely difficult to make any real judgment. They are often extremely small matters: the closing of a short length of footway and things like that, being done by order. All these things will pass to the Northern Ireland executive and will much better be looked after by them—by the Minister, assisted no doubt by these junior Ministers—than they can possibly be by the machinery of direct rule. Although, having been a part of it for a short while, I believe that direct rule has served the Province well, it has served the Province long enough and these detailed matters should be transferred to the Ministers and the junior Ministers under this clause.
Lord Hylton: I hope that there will not be too many junior Ministers and that they will not be paid too much. I hope that the size of the payroll vote will not increase to anything like the size of that in another place.
Lord Fitt: I can confidently predict that we will run into a Parkinson's law situation. I vividly remember the Sunningdale agreement. When the executive was set up, Members of my own party exerted tremendous pressure on myself and Brian Faulkner as Chief Executive to create positions for them. I have absolutely no doubt and can confidently predict that the First Minister and his deputy will, by the pressures from Members of their own party, be forced to create junior Ministers.
What type of junior Ministers will there be? In Westminster there are Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries. Will there be only one level of junior Ministers? I know Northern Ireland and I know the circumstances of most of the personnel there. There are 108 Members and only 10 will have ministerial positions. That leaves 98 back benchers who will feel very unhappy. They will all be looking for some form of promotion. I predict that the party leaders will be subjected to great pressure to create jobs. Therefore, will there be a limit on the number? Will there be one Minister and one junior Minister for each department or will they be able to create as many as they like? Given the pressures, no doubt they will be able to find excuses to create as many junior Ministers as possible. There should be some limit on the number.
Lord Skelmersdale: There is a curious anomaly between Clause 14, which we have just agreed, Clause 15 and this amendment. Clause 14 begins firmly:
"Each Assembly shall … elect from among its members the First Minister and the deputy First Minister".
One has to read a long way down Clause 15—to subsection (4)—before discovering that persons who hold office as junior Ministers must be Members of the party and of the Assembly. One wonders why the draftsman has chosen this convoluted formulation to achieve exactly the same object. It is clear to me that junior Ministers should be Members of the Assembly and that should be made patently obvious at the beginning of the clauses to which I have referred.
Lord Dubs: In essence, we have an enabling provision under which the First Minister and his deputy can make a determination providing for junior Ministers, their functions and the method of their appointment. Any such determination would have to be agreed by the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis. That is the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. The determination is that of the First Minister and his deputy and it would have to be endorsed by the Assembly on a cross-community basis. That effectively disposes of most of the arguments.
I understand what was said by my noble friend Lord Fitt, but clearly there are issues which we must leave to the Assembly to decide. There are powers which the Assembly will wish to take and it is only proper that we give it the chance to make decisions. It might be tempted to appoint too many junior Ministers and they would fall into the trap mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fitt. Equally, it might feel that that is not the proper way to go and will appoint very few, but it is a decision we felt appropriate to leave to the Assembly.
It was the wish of the parties that there should be provision for junior Ministers, but there was not agreement about the precise details of how many junior ministerial posts would be appropriate. Therefore, we are enabling the Assembly, on the basis of determinations by the First Minister and his deputy, to make progress in these appointments.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before the noble Minister sits down, could he say whether there has been consultation with all the Northern Ireland parties on this particular matter of the discretion of proposal being solely in the hands of the First Minister and his Deputy?
Lord Dubs: I understand that there has been such consultation. I am not saying that every one of the parties agreed that that was the best way of doing it, in their eyes, but there has been such consultation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [The Executive Committee]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 9, line 20, leave out ("the") and insert ("each").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think it has been suggested that we should also discuss with this amendment
1280
Amendments Nos. 49, 68, 76 and 78. That being so, I should like to make just a few remarks on Amendment No. 49. This is the one which proposes that Ministers of the Crown should not serve on the Executive Committee. It is a read-across from the other devolution Bills, and I must confess at once that it is unlikely that this provision will be required. Ministers of the Crown are, in the nature of things, unlikely to find themselves in a position to serve on the Executive Committee, at least as things stand now. However, we are designing this Bill and making these provisions in an attempt to make them last for many years. I think it is sensible therefore for us to look at all the possibilities that might arise and to read this across, as it were, from the other devolution Bills.
The other amendment which occurs in this group standing in my name which I want to mention is Amendment No. 70. This suggests that it should be a rule that the chairman of the relevant committee should not be of the same party as the Minister responsible for that department. This seems to me to be a sensible way to try to achieve a cross-party outlook on behalf of the Assembly. Clearly, the various committees will play a big part, just as they do in all parliaments, in monitoring the activities of the individual Ministers and the departments they are in charge of.
This Assembly will be in one sense extremely rare, if not unique, among assemblies in that it will have no opposition. Everybody in a sense will be in government—that is part of the point of it. But it means that it is in a very odd situation: every party will be in government all the time, although perhaps in different proportions as elections go one way or the other; but every party will be part of the government for ever and ever all the time. That is very rare.
I think that parliaments function well if there is an opposition and if there is somebody to question what is being proposed—in a constructive way of course, as I and my colleagues always try to do. It is difficult to see ways in which, in an assembly which is set up as this one is, one can provide for this role of opposition. One way in which it might be done is suggested by Amendment No. 70 and so I commend that to the Committee. I should very much like to know the Minister's view of that proposition.
10 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am very taken by Amendment No. 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It sounds sensible and practical. I shall be interested to see what reaction the Minister has to it.
I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 72 and 75 which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lester. We have a potential discrepancy between the standing orders of the Assembly itself and what the Government are proposing in the Bill. That is what these amendments are intended to deal with. Paragraph 5 of the agreement asserts that allocations of committee chairs, Ministers and committee memberships shall be in proportion to party strengths. Are all the fruits of office, all those prizes in the sense that Lewis Carroll said, "All shall have prizes"—that the new Assembly

1281
will be one in which as many people as possible should have prizes is probably rather a good thing at this point—to be taken as a whole or is there to be proportionality within each of those three categories—within committee chairs, within ministries and within committee memberships? Using d'Hondt, you could come to quite different outcomes according to how you did it. If you used proportionality within ministries and within committeeships, you would tend to weight the final disposition to the larger parties. You could even quite easily have an outcome in which there would be no role, whether committee chairmanships or ministries, for the Alliance, for the Women's Coalition or for the PUP, which would tend to make the appointments exclusive.
As the Minister will know, the standing orders of the Assembly have taken the other interpretation—the one represented by this amendment—that the ministries are to be first allocated according to d'Hondt, because they are the most sought after, but that the other positions, when they are allocated subsequently, should be so operated that the d'Hondt rules should be applied, including the first tranche of ministerial appointments. Minor parties would get some appointments although the major parties would clearly get the lion's share. I think that the amendment is far more in tune with the standing orders adopted by the Assembly and is also more politically adept in that it gives a role for others than the major parties to play.
Lord Dubs: This grouping contains a series of government amendments which parallel amendments already made to the clause on appointing Ministers. These include adjustments to the d'Hondt formula, the definition of "S" in the d'Hondt formula, and other technical provisions.
Perhaps the most significant amendment is Amendment No. 69, which sets out on the face of the Bill the requirement for standing orders to ensure that committees have the powers set out in paragraph 9 of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement.
The Bill always gave committees of the Assembly a key role but this amendment addresses the concerns expressed by some parties during the consultation exercise that the Bill did not go as far as provided for in the Belfast agreement. I believe that the amendment puts the matter beyond doubt.
There is also one, entirely drafting, amendment to the provisions on the executive committee of the Assembly. The grouping also includes a number of other amendments tabled by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has put forward an amendment which would prevent Ministers of the Crown also serving on the executive committee of the Assembly. The issue may seem academic in the Northern Ireland context, although one can never entirely rule these things out. The noble Lord's amendment echoes similar ones laid during debate in another place and extensive discussions during the course of the Government of Wales Act and the Scotland Bill. I can only repeat the points made by my
1282
colleagues in those debates and say that the Government see no difficulty in principle with people holding offices in both Westminster and the devolved administrations, and urge the Committee not to support the amendment.
The noble Lord also seeks to prevent committee chairmen coming from the same party as the relevant Minister. We are clear that subsection (6)(b) already achieves this. Nominating officers are obliged to select any other committee post except one in which they have a party interest, if at all possible. But there may be circumstances in which they have no choice; for example, if all other posts are already taken. I believe it would be wrong to deprive them of their right to a post in those circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, has put down two amendments which seek to adjust the d'Hondt formula for the purpose of allocating committee chairmanships and deputy chairmanships. The effect of these amendments would be to skew committee chairmanships heavily towards smaller parties. Instead of a party's number of assembly seats being related to its number of committee chairmanships alone, the amendment would require the number to be divided by the sum of the number of chairmanships and ministerial posts that the party already has. The effect would be to make it much more difficult for a party with posts already to gain more.
The formula we have at present is broadly mutual and proportionate. The Bill already provides for a considerable degree of proportionality and inclusiveness in the devolved structures. I can see no case for seeking to create an uneven playing field purely to benefit smaller parties over larger ones.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister did not expand on Amendment No. 74 which is in this group. It provides for the d'Hondt formula to run on the day on which the Assembly first meets following its election, with the party balance as it is at that time.
As the Minister said, earlier we agreed an equivalent provision with respect to the ministerial posts. But in the case of chairmanships we should just ponder for a few moments on whether that is the right way to go about it because the party allegiances of individual members of the Assembly can change. Indeed, there is some suggestion that some already have changed, even at this early stage.
If that happens, it seems to me that the chairmanships at least should be rethought at that point. Perhaps there should be a minimum below which it is not necessary. But merely to limit it, as Amendment No. 74 does, to the beginning of the Assembly immediately after an election and the particular split between the parties at that point seems to me to be rather inflexible if the political situation should change between one election and the next over a period of years. I appreciate that there may be difficulties in providing how it works but there is a genuine point underlying the matter. I am not happy about Amendment No. 74 in that context.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I hear what the Minister says on Amendments Nos. 72 and 75. I do not

1283
agree that there is a balance to be struck between the potential exclusion of minor parties and over-representation in the way that the Minister suggested might happen in relation to committee chairmanships. I am not convinced that that is the case. It may be something to which we shall wish to return, mathematically and not simply rhetorically, on Report.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The difficulty is that if the procedure laid down in Amendment No. 74 is not followed, one is liable to have to re-run d'Hondt at frequent intervals, which would be extremely destabilising. It is better to look at the party positions following an election and not keep moving the bases on which d'Hondt is run simply because one or two members of the Assembly have changed their minds as to their direct allegiances. It would not be helpful to go down that path and Amendment No. 74 is a better option.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 50:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
STATUTORY FUNCTIONS
(".—(1) An Act of the Assembly or other enactment may confer functions on a Minister or Northern Ireland department by name.
(2) Functions conferred on a Northern Ireland department by an enactment passed or made before the appointed day shall, except as provided by an Act of the Assembly or other subsequent enactment, continue to be exercisable by that department.
(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: This amendment was tabled in response to concerns expressed during debate in another place, and in particular confusion about the location of executive authority under devolution. During debates there seemed to be genuine misunderstanding about the extent of the powers in current Clause 18 which are conferred on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
Clause 18 provides that prerogative and other executive functions in Northern Ireland are exercisable by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly. Some interpreted that as meaning that all executive powers in Northern Ireland are vested in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister rather than in the Assembly or the Northern Ireland Ministers.
We are continuing to look at Clause 18. It may well be that we will bring forward amendments at Report stage, but it is important to realise that the clause is much more narrowly drawn than some appear to believe.
The main area covered by the prerogative is the management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The clause's references to "other executive functions" refers to the powers the government can enjoy in the same way
1284
as an ordinary citizen does—for example, the power to enter into contracts. We do, however, recognise that this confusion needs to be cleared up. What this new clause does is clarify the real source of executive authority in the transferred field after devolution.
As is the case now, the vast bulk of executive authority after devolution will be grounded in statutory powers and functions. This clause makes that clear, and also makes clear the Assembly's power to confer these functions and take them away. It is the Assembly which will be the ultimate source of legislative authority in the transferred field. Indeed, far from the provisions of Clause 18 giving the First Minister and Deputy First Minister an executive role above and independent of the Assembly, there will be nothing to stop the Assembly legislating in these or any other fields within its competence, and transferring the functions to whomsoever it wants.
Bearing in mind particularly the number of questions and perhaps misunderstandings in another place, we thought it better to bring this clause in at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am greatly relieved by the introduction of this new clause before Clause 18. However, I have a tiny "but".
The Minister said that he was considering bringing forward further amendments in relation to Clause 18 on Report. In that consideration, I hope he will be good enough to consider a point that occurred to me. The Marshalled List is littered with references to "junior" Ministers. Indeed, in every case that I could find it in the Bill, the word "Minister" has been replaced by the term, "junior Minister". However, in the new clause subsection (3) says,
"In this Act 'Minister', unless the context otherwise requires, means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister".
Should not that be "junior Minister"?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I, too, understand the reasons behind this new clause and support its insertion in the Bill. However, like my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, I, too, have a "but".
I was struck by the wording of subsection (1) that,
"An Act of the Assembly or other enactment"—
I presume that means an Act of this Parliament or perhaps an Order in Council; I cannot see what else it can mean though I am surprised it is not more clear—
"may confer functions on a Minister or Northern Ireland department by name".
A Minister by name is Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones or perhaps Lord Williams of Mostyn. I am not sure it is the intention that the name of a Minister as opposed to his office should be the way in which the functions are designated. It should perhaps say "by reference to his office". I understand that a Northern Ireland department can be named—for example, the Department of Finance and other great departments of state; but I felt it odd to confer functions on a Minister by name.

1285
With that exception, I support the new clause and believe it is right that the responsibilities given to the Northern Ireland Civil Service in the various departments should continue over into the new administration; otherwise a hiatus will arise and perhaps all sorts of other problems too.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I thank Members of the Committee for the helpful tone of both those contributions. I shall certainly put the collective mind to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
A number of definitions need to be looked at. Despite the late hour and our weariness, it is gratifying that your Lordships are still able to pick up those points, which is most helpful. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, it may be that we need a comma.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 19 [Community law, Convention rights etc.]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 10, line 1, at end insert (", confirm or approve").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments (with one exception) makes drafting and technical improvements to Clause 19, which is the clause which prevents Ministers and Northern Ireland departments from doing things, including the making of legislation, which are incompatible with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, or with European Community law, or which involve discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion. They enable the clause to set out more clearly the mischief which it aims to prevent, and bring certain additional matters within the scope of the clause so as to bring it into line with other provisions of the Bill.
Amendment No. 51 clarifies that not only is the making of legislation covered by the clause, but so is the confirming or approving of legislation. Amendment No. 52 makes clear the distinction between the legislative functions of a Minister or Northern Ireland department and the acts of a Minister or Northern Ireland department, so that such acts are properly covered by the clause.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 make it clear that aiding and incitement apply only in relation to acts and, additionally, have the effect of preventing a Minister or Northern Ireland department from making, continuing or approving legislation which modifies an enactment in breach of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Amendment No. 55 brings the clause more fully into line with its part-predecessor, Section 19(4) of the 1973 Act. The amendment provides that the limitation on acting incompatibly does not apply to acts which are already unlawful or which would be unlawful but for some exception under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.
Amendment No. 56 removes from the clause the definition of "Minister", which is to be amended and inserted by the new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: A few small points arise on this group of amendments. First, there is a slight hangover from the previous debate in that Amendment No. 56 takes out subsection (2), which is the part which defines the word "Minister". I do not think we had an answer—I certainly did not catch it—to whether the phrase "Northern Ireland Minister" includes "junior Minister", which was raised in the previous debate. That question is relevant to Amendment No. 56 which deletes such a definition, just as it was when that provision was included by another place.
As we are deleting the definition from this provision, why do we not move the definition of "Minister" to Clause 80 where everything else is defined which applies to the Act? I seem to remember that the report on the drafting of Bills by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a good many years ago recommended good practice for the drafting of legislation. One point was that the definitions should appear in a convenient form, all in one place. The definition of "Minister" might usefully be put into Clause 80 instead of being left in the middle of the Bill where it is hidden away and tucked in with rather complicated clauses.
Lord Skelmersdale: Surely to goodness it is already in the Bill before Clause 18 by means of Amendment No. 50, which reads,
"Insert the following new Clause …
(3) In this Act 'Minister' … means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister",
or, if I am right, "junior Northern Ireland Minister" or "Northern Ireland junior Minister", or whatever description the Government decide on.
The point is that "Minister" is defined, according to the whole Act, or in reference to the whole Act, before Clause 18. I agree with my noble friend to the extent that, if my memory serves me correctly, the Renton Report suggested that all such definitions should be grouped together, in which case the definition would not be found before Clause 18 or even in Clause 18 or Clause 19 but would be found in a "definitions clause". Perhaps the Minister would like to comment.
Lord Dubs: As regards the question asked about Amendment No. 56, I think we are clear that we may have to tidy up the definitions of "Northern Ireland Minister" and "junior Minister" throughout the Bill. We shall do so on Report. I believe that will make things simpler and deal with all the points that have been made.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise to the Committee. I have just realised that Clause 80, the definitions clause, includes a definition of "Minister", or at least it will, assuming we pass Amendment No. 209. However, that definition just refers one to the definition in the amendment inserted just now. That does not seem

1287
to be a helpful way to do things. Why not incorporate the definition in Clause 80 in full rather than refer to an earlier clause?
Lord Dubs: I know it is getting late but I thought I had said we would consider this matter and tidy up the Bill on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 56:
Page 10, line 2, leave out ("other").
Page 10, line 6, leave out (", or aids or incites any person to discriminate,").
Page 10, line 8, at end insert—
("() in the case of an act, aids or incites another person to discriminate against a person or class of person on that ground; or
() in the case of legislation, modifies an enactment in breach of Schedule 4.").
Page 10, line 8, at end insert—
("() Subsection (l)(c) and (d) does not apply in relation to any act which is unlawful by virtue of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, or would be unlawful but for some exception made by virtue of Part V of that Act.").
Page 10, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 52 to 56 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
EXCEPTED AND RESERVED MATTERS
(".—(1) If any subordinate legislation made, confirmed or approved by a Minister or Northern Ireland department contains a provision dealing with an excepted or reserved matter, the Secretary of State may by order revoke the legislation.
(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall recite the reasons for revoking the legislation and may make provision having retrospective effect.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are ungrouped. I indicate that for those who have followed the earlier grouping. The new clause in Amendment No. 57 is simply a redrafting of Clause 20(4)(b). The current provision is defective technically and in substance in that it relates only to excepted matters. We always intended that it should cover also reserved matters. Amendment No. 203 amends Clause 78 to require any order made under this provision to be subject to negative resolution at Westminster. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [International obligations]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 10, line 13, after ("international") insert ("treaty").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 58 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 59 to 63 and Amendment No. 204. Amendment No. 58 seeks to limit the power of the Secretary of State to strike down an Act of the assembly on the grounds that it offends against
1288
an international obligation of the United Kingdom. An international obligation is defined in Clause 80 on page 40 of the Bill. However, that is being amended in a slightly complicated way that I shall not trouble with at the moment. In the case of Ireland north and south there is a special significance in this amendment over and above the arguments which have been advanced in the course of debates on the Welsh Act and on the Scotland Bill.
The United Kingdom can be regarded as having all kinds of obligations. Some of them are contained in treaties of one kind or another but others are less formal. They may comprise understandings which develop between countries but which are regarded as obligations by Ministers.
The United Kingdom Government and the Republic of Ireland have long had close relations. When I was a Minister we had a lot to do with the Government of the Republic of Ireland during the course of the Anglo-Irish agreement. A variety of agreements were entered into from time to time by Ministers of every level of formality. There was a great deal of suspicion at the time about the whole process going on at Maryfield between myself and other Ministers and the officials who worked there and the equivalent officials and Ministers of the Republic. Much of that suspicion was unjustified; nevertheless, it was there.
In these circumstances the idea that the United Kingdom Government could strike down an act of the Assembly in response to some unpublished, but nevertheless appreciated by the British Government, obligation to the Republic of Ireland entered into at some time is bound to raise a great deal of suspicion. That is why this amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should be able to use these powers only in the case of treaty obligations which are well known and well understood.
There is a peculiarity in the Bill as I read it; namely, orders that are contrary to European Union law seem to be stated to be wrong, but so far as I can see the Secretary of State does not have power to strike those down, to "put the black spot on them", in the way that the Secretary of State will have the power to block any act which appears to offend against some agreement with the Republic of Ireland, or for that matter any other national government. I am not sure why European law should be given that kind of negative preference, as it were. Given the suspicion that lies behind it, we should be very careful as regards the way in which we phrase the power that is to be given to the Secretary of State to strike down the acts of the Assembly. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he indicated, this group includes his Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 and government Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 and 204. Perhaps it is convenient if I deal with the government amendments first.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are consequential on the new clause after Clause 19 which we have just considered, and Amendment No. 60 is purely a matter of drafting.

1289
The new clause after Clause 20 proposed in Amendment No. 63 permits the making of an order determining the Northern Ireland share of a quota imposed on the United Kingdom by virtue of an international or European Community obligation. The clause is identical in intention, though there are obviously differences in form, to amendments made to the Government of Wales Act and the Scotland Bill. The principle has been accepted in those cases and we think it appropriate that it should also be included in the Northern Ireland context.
There is an obligation of consultation with the relevant Northern Ireland authorities. We shall expect robust negotiation between different regions of the United Kingdom about the proportions of a quota obligation allocated to each. We would hope that amicable arrangements could always be arrived at. We will use our best endeavours to that effect. But there must ultimately always be a means by which we can ensure that the UK as a whole meets its international obligations. Orders under this clause will, by Amendment No. 204, be subject to negative resolution at Westminster.
I now turn to the linked but separate amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 would limit the Secretary of State's powers to prohibit or require action under the first two subsections of Clause 20, confining them to cases involving international treaty obligations, not simply international obligations. The noble Lord is right. "International obligations" is partly defined in Clause 80. As amended, it would be cast so as to exclude obligations to observe and implement Community law or convention rights.
The amendments would mean that that limitation no longer applied, so widening the power. The real defect is that it would leave Her Majesty's Government, who have to be the guarantors of the Government's international obligations, without the means to enforce obligations in international law that are not treaty obligations but are obligations in customary international law. They include some of the most fundamental international legal duties. An important element in the structure and coherence of the Bill would be lost if there were not that residual power to enable this country to fulfil its duties under international law. On the basis of that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Can the Minister give me an assurance that private understandings that may have been entered into between the United Kingdom Government and other Governments, such as the Government of the Republic of Ireland, would not be used as a reason for striking down legislation under this clause?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a perfectly legitimate question. My understanding is that, if one has what one might call a moral obligation, which is not either a treaty obligation or an obligation under
1290
customary international law, that would not found the basis for the Secretary of State's powers, as the noble Lord indicated.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 62:
Page 10, line 22, leave out ("or which could be revoked") and insert (", confirmed or approved").
Page 10, line 25, leave out from ("obligations") to end of line 29.
Page 10, line 31, leave out ("subsection (4) shall recite the reasons for revoking the legislation") and insert ("this section shall recite the reasons for making the order").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
QUOTAS FOR PURPOSES OF INTERNATIONAL OR COMMUNITY OBLIGATIONS
(".—(1) A Minister of the Crown may make an order containing provision such as is specified in subsection (2) where—

(a) an international obligation or an obligation under Community law is an obligation to achieve a result defined by reference to a quantity (whether expressed as an amount, proportion or ratio or otherwise); and

(b) the quantity relates to the United Kingdom (or to an area including the United Kingdom or to an area consisting of a part of the United Kingdom which is or includes the whole or part of Northern Ireland).

(2) The provision referred to in subsection (1) is provision for the achievement by a Minister or Northern Ireland department (in the exercise of his or its functions) of so much of the result to be achieved under the international obligation or obligation under Community law as is specified in the order.
(3) The order may specify the time by which any part of the result to be achieved by the Minister or department is to be achieved.
(4) Where an order under subsection (1) is in force in relation to an international obligation or an obligation under Community law, the obligation shall have effect for the purposes of this Act as if it were an obligation to achieve so much of the result to be achieved under the obligation as is specified in the order by the time or times so specified.
(5) No order shall be made by a Minister of the Crown under subsection (1) unless he has consulted the Minister or Department concerned.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Agency arrangements between UK and NI departments]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 10, line 33, leave out from ("between") to ("any") in line 34 and insert—

("(a) any department of the Government of the United Kingdom or any public body, or holder of a public office, in the United Kingdom; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 64, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66. The purpose of Clause 21 is to allow Northern Ireland departments to carry out functions on behalf of other UK administrations or vice versa. These agency

1291
arrangements were provided for in the 1973 Act and the amendments take devolved terminology into account. The inclusion of public bodies and holders of public office in the provision enables authorities outside central government departments to act on behalf of the executive, should the need arise. This will achieve parity between all three of the devolved systems and further leave scope for the making of agency arrangements with other UK public bodies and NDPBs.
Amendment No. 64 broadens scope to include any public body and/or holder of public office in agency arrangements. Amendment No. 65 ensures that any public body and/or holder of public office included in such arrangements retains responsibility for its functions regardless. Amendment No. 66 removes an obsolete clause, as the Post Office is a public body. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 67, tabled in my name, falls to be considered with this group. It attempts to give a little more definition to these agreements between the Northern Ireland executive and the United Kingdom Government and various other people, but particularly, as expressed in the amendment, between the two Governments. I have suggested that these arrangements should be called "concordats" and that they should be formal in the sense that a draft of such a concordat should be approved both in Parliament at Westminster and also in the Assembly. It seems to me important that these agreements should be above board and entirely public, that they should be seen to be so and that they should have the necessary democratic approval.
Some guidance on these kinds of agreements was given in connection with the Scotland and Wales legislation in some notes that were put in the Library on 27th February this year. It suggested that concordats would normally be signed by officials and would not be legally enforceable, which rather surprised me. I would have thought it important that each side should be able to insist on the other side carrying out the agreement. It also suggested that some of them should not be published. That is an odd provision to insert, given what everybody else has said at different times about freedom of information in government. There was no question that such matters would require approval of any kind either by Parliament or the Assembly. That is what leads me to table this particular amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether public bodies include the executive agencies that nowadays conduct so much of the business of government. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about Parliament having to approve such agreements. At the moment if a government department's business is sub-contracted, which is what this amounts to—whether the Northern Irish Government sub-contract to a British Government department or agency, or vice versa—I am not sure that normally it requires parliamentary approval. I believe that the test of parliamentary approval is whether whatever arrangements normally require such approval should continue to attract it. But I believe that such
1292
arrangements for sub-contracting work should at least be placed in the Library and information on them should be made available. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond on that point.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I believe it is important for the avoidance of doubt and even more important for the avoidance of friction to have the same form of endorsement and approval as the comparable legislation in the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly.
Lord Dubs: I first answer the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. The answer is that such agencies would be covered. Clearly, they carry out a great deal of the work in Northern Ireland. As regards Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I cannot agree to this amendment which would introduce a formal parliamentary procedure in relation to concordats which these non-statutory agreements simply do not justify and merit. Concordats are not intended to be legally binding contracts or treaties between the two administrations. They are agreements to promote effective communications and joint working between the Northern Ireland Executive and the United Kingdom Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about the publication of guidance. We are making arrangements to publish the guidance given to Northern Ireland departments. The guidance for Scotland and Wales has already been published.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
Page 10, line 37, leave out ("department") and insert ("person").
Page 11, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Statutory committees]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 68 and 69:
Page 11, line 4, leave out subsection (1).
Page 11, line 12, at end insert ("; and
() conferring on the committees the powers described in paragraph 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 11, line 18, leave out from ("the") to ("power") in line 19 and insert ("nominating officer does not exercise the power conferred by paragraph (a) within a period specified in standing orders, or the nominated person does not take up the selected office within that period, that").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 11, line 28, leave out ("are") and insert ("were").
Page 11, line 29, at end insert ("on the day on which the Assembly first met following its election").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 76 to 78:
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 11, line 37, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
Page 12, line 2, after ("vacant,") insert ("the nominating officer of the party on whose behalf the previous incumbent was nominated may nominate a person to hold the office who is a member of the party and of the Assembly.
() Standing orders shall provide that if—

(a) the nominating officer does not exercise the power conferred by subsection (8) within a period specified in standing orders; or

(b) the nominated person does not take up the selected office within that period,").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Exclusion of Ministers from office]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 79 and 80:
Page 12, line 6, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
Page 12, line 12, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 12, line 18, leave out from ("because") to ("other") in line 19 and insert ("it is not committed to such of its members as are or might become Ministers or junior Ministers observing the").
The noble Lord said: The government amendments in this group reflect comments made during earlier stages of the Bill and during consultation with the Northern Ireland parties. Amendment No. 82 addresses the feelings many had that the provisions in the Bill as they stood on excluding parties from office were too vague. In particular, it was felt the ability to exclude a party because of the "likely failure" of its members to uphold the pledge of office was too hard to judge and could lead to a party being vulnerable to exclusion because of the behaviour of an individual.
The amendment makes it clear that exclusion under this provision is based on the Assembly's judgment of the party's own policy, and exclusion is possible if the Assembly believes the party is not committed to its Ministers upholding the pledge of office. An example might be if a party came up with a firm policy of not complying with decisions of the executive committee or rejected out of hand the provisions of the ministerial code of conduct.
I see that Amendment No. 86 is now a joint one. The amendment ensures that if the Secretary of State believes the Assembly should consider a motion for exclusions, she must require the Presiding Officer to move a motion for the Assembly to debate and vote on.
Government Amendment No. 84 is a purely drafting point, making clear that all resolutions under this clause will require cross community support to be successful. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I shall not speak at length to Amendment No. 86, not least because of the sheer exhilaration of seeing the Minister's name appearing on our amendment. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, agreed with this amendment when we discussed it at an earlier stage and I am grateful to the Government for so gracefully acceding to it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think that perhaps I should have added my name and the noble Lord would have felt even better, at least on this occasion.
I have only one small point. How will anybody know whether a party is committed to its members observing the pledge of office if they are still armed and their followers still have semtex, and so on? It seems to me to be extremely difficult to know.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The issue here is whether the Secretary of State knows, and whether he or she believes that she knows, at least as regards Amendment No. 86.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for his help on that. It would be a broad judgment that the Secretary of State would have to make in the round, taking all facts and factors into account.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was speaking to Amendment No. 82 in which the Assembly has to make the judgment, but I take it that the same reply from the Minister will do as a portmanteau reply for both questions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 85:
Page 12, line 21, after ("Ministers") insert ("or junior Ministers").
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("subsection (1), (2) or (3)") and insert ("this section").
Page 12, line 38, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 12, line 40, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 12, line 43, leave out ("party concerned") and insert ("junior Minister or the political party").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Dates of elections and dissolutions]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 13, line 27, at end insert—
("(3A) At an Assembly elected under this section or section (Extraordinary elections) shall meet within the period of eight days beginning with the day of the poll at which it is elected.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday and any day which is a bank holiday in Northern Ireland shall be disregarded.").
The noble Lord said: Once again the government amendments in this group reflect the valuable debates we have had on the Bill both here and in another place. New Clause 90 radically restructures the Bill's provisions on extraordinary elections, bringing it more into line with the provisions of the Scotland Bill.
In the Bill as it stands, the Secretary of State may dissolve the Assembly and call fresh elections if she believes the Northern Ireland Ministers are unable to carry out their functions. This was seen as leaving too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, and planning for failure.
Accordingly, the new clause in Amendment No. 90 leaves the power to call early elections to the Assembly on a majority of two thirds of all members—that is to say, not just those voting. In addition, a fresh election will be triggered if the Assembly fails within six weeks to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
Amendment No. 88 clarifies that the Assembly shall meet within eight working days of the election.
I urge noble Lords to reject Amendment No. 91 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. This amendment seeks to prevent any order-making provisions about elections creating new criminal offences. The House has this year already approved two orders which included provisions on criminal offences: the Referendum Order and the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order. The sort of offences we are talking about cover a number of areas. Perhaps most significant are provisions on electoral fraud. This is a sensitive issue in Northern Ireland, and provisions are certainly necessary.
It is a moot point whether the provisions of such orders would fall foul of the noble Lord's amendment—whether we are creating new offences or applying existing ones. But on the grounds of clarity and consistency, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister correctly described the purpose of Amendment No. 91 standing in my name: that the Secretary of State should not be able, by order, to create criminal offences.
It is a difficult judgment. I believe that we legislate too much by subsidiary legislation, by secondary legislation, by order. At some stage we have to try to draw a halt to it by saying that we shall not make important law by means of orders. A few years ago, there were many fewer Acts of primary legislation on the statute books; and far fewer books full of statutory instruments. Unless at some point we in Parliament
1296
draw a line under it, and say that we shall have fewer statutory instruments, and draft improved primary legislation, the position as regards legislation on the statute book which people in this country are expected to obey will become worse.
That is a huge principle to apply to a small part of the amendment. However, if one does not stop somewhere, one will never stop. Serious offences require primary legislation rather than being invented at the whim of the Secretary of State and bowed through Parliament. Such measures are not always "bowed through", but in this House we have a convention that statutory instruments are not opposed. If we continue to put important legislation into statutory instruments that convention will not deserve to survive. At some point, the House will have to decide that we shall vote against statutory instruments of which we do not approve rather than automatically passing statutory instruments on to the statute book without opposition. That is not intended to be a threat but an observation on the number and importance of statutory instruments which are brought before us.
The relatively minor provision in Amendment No. 91 puts down a small peg in an attempt to illustrate the general point I make.
Lord Skelmersdale: Not for the first time this evening, I am amazed at the groupings on the Marshalled List. It is my fault that I have not complained earlier; and I do not complain now. However, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cope, Amendment No. 91, has been discussed with Amendment No. 90. I cannot see the relevance between the two.
My interest is in Amendment No. 90, because it pre-supposes that the Assembly passes a resolution and then the Secretary of State acts. That is fine, but that resolution cannot be passed unless it has the support of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly. This is to be found in subsection (2) of the clause.
I do not want to be unduly cynical, but there could be an occasion when several members of the Assembly walk out. We have seen it before and it is just possible that we shall see it again. In those circumstances, it would be quite sensible for an extraordinary election to be held. That cannot be done. A resolution, by definition, cannot be passed because there are not enough members to pass it. What happens then?
Lord McConnell: I support Amendment No. 91. I have always held that it is objectionable to have legislation by Order in Council, which cannot be amended. It should really be done by a proper Act of Parliament. It is bad enough when it is done about certain procedures, but to create a criminal offence by a mere order is objectionable.
Lord Dubs: We have, as I instanced when I spoke a few moments ago, occasionally created criminal offences by order. Clearly there are concerns about the use of that procedure, but there are occasions when it is necessary to do so and, in those instances, it would be

1297
unduly restrictive if we were to pass Amendment No. 91. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would urge us to do that; at least, I hope not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 13, line 28, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
EXTRAORDINARY ELECTIONS
(".—(1) If the Assembly passes a resolution that it should be dissolved the Secretary of State shall propose a date for the poll for the election of the next Assembly.
(2) A resolution under subsection (1) shall not be passed without 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.
(3) If the period mentioned in section 14(1) or (7) ends without a First Minster and a deputy First Minister having been elected, the Secretary of State shall propose a date for the poll for the election of the next Assembly.
(4) If the Secretary of State proposes a date under subsection (1) or (3), Her Majesty may by Order in Council—

(a) direct that the date of the poll for the election of the next Assembly shall, instead of being determined in accordance with section 24, be the date proposed; and

(b) provide for the Assembly to be dissolved on a date specified in the Order.").

Lord Skelmersdale: Obviously I bounced the Minister in my previous question, and I would be perfectly happy if he would commit himself to writing to me with the answer.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs: I appreciate that, and I shall do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Elections and franchise]:
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Vacancies]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 14, line 39, at end insert—
("() The validity of any proceedings of the Assembly is not affected by any vacancy in its membership.").
The noble Lord said: This is a rather large group of amendments dealing with a series of related and technical issues. Amendments Nos. 98 to 103 deal with the Assembly's power to call witnesses and documents, including Amendment No. 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Amendments Nos. 109, 110, 93 and 342 deal with the privilege of the Assembly and shadow Assembly and the validity of its proceedings. Amendments Nos. 336, 337 and 342 deal with disqualification provisions, as does Amendment No. 94 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. Amendments Nos. 97 and 283 concern the Assembly's standing orders.
The amendments on the Assembly's power to call witnesses and papers are relatively minor. They remove references to the Assembly's powers in respect of shared functions, since these do not apply in the Northern Ireland context.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has put down an amendment which would remove the requirement on a defendant to prove he had a reasonable excuse for his refusal to comply with an Assembly ruling, leaving only a requirement to have a good excuse. I am not sure how this would work. The defendant must explain his case to the court, rather than being able to get off scot-free merely by assuring the court he had a good excuse but not explaining what it was or giving the court an opportunity to consider it. I would urge the House to reject this amendment.
Amendment No. 92 makes it clear that the Assembly's proceedings will not be invalidated by any vacancies in its membership. A number of other amendments concern the Assembly's privileges. In line with the Scotland and Wales legislation, Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 provide that those reporting the Assembly's proceedings will not be liable to conviction for contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the reports are accurate and made in good faith.
Amendment No. 342 gives the shadow Assembly full privilege from the time of Royal Assent. This is in line with the view of the parties and the Presiding Officer, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and will enable the shadow Assembly to operate in very much the same way as the full Assembly.
There are a number of amendments dealing with the issue of disqualification. Amendment No. 96 provides for the case of bankruptcy and mental illness. In these cases, disqualification is not immediate but can follow after six months. The amendment ensures that the Member of the Assembly will not be able to participate in the Assembly's proceedings in the meantime.
Amendments Nos. 336 and 337 are minor and consequential amendments in the same area. They provide for the Presiding Officer to be informed if a Member is declared bankrupt or committed under mental health legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, seeks to reimpose disqualification of members of the Irish Senate. This subject was extensively discussed during the passage of both this Bill and the elections Bill earlier in the year. Members of the Irish Senate have traditionally included figures from Northern Ireland who have played a valuable role in public life in Northern Ireland. We do not see any pressing reason to exclude them from the Assembly on the ground of their Senate membership alone.
Amendments Nos. 97 and 283 concern the Assembly's standing orders. They make clear that standing orders require cross-community support to be amended or repealed as well as made in the first place. Amendment No. 283 removes the need for standing orders to include provision on obtaining the Royal consent in certain circumstances since we do not believe that these will apply in devolution. The consent applies

1299
to matters such as the estate of the Duchy of Lancaster, which does not own land in Northern Ireland. I beg to move Amendment No. 92.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I fear that the Minister has been misinformed by his advisors. I am not seeking to alter the disqualification regulations; I am simply trying to remove one of the two references to the Irish Senate. One is in Irish and the other is in English. I would wish to have removed the reference in English because it will cause widespread confusion, particularly as it relates solely to Northern Ireland.
The Irish title of the Senate in the preceding line of Clause 28(5) is not understood in English-speaking areas, therefore it does not cause confusion and offence. However, where there exists in the same subsection reference to the Assembly and then the Senate of Ireland, surely we have a recipe for confusion, particularly in the Senate Chamber at Stormont where my noble friend Lord Cooke sat as a Senator. I believe that that could easily be remedied by removing one of the two references. In this case, I would be very generous and allow the Irish to keep it in their own language.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As regards Amendment No. 94, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, was going to ask for the provision to read "the Senate of the Republic of Ireland" in line with some of our earlier debates. I agree with him in being willing to leave it solely in the Irish language.
I rose in order to talk to Amendment No. 101, which is part of the group. As the Bill stands, it is a defence for a person charged with an offence of failing to attend proceedings as a witness or to produce documents and so forth set out in Clause 37 to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his refusal or failure to live up to his obligations. I think that is a bit difficult. It is making somebody prove his innocence. Generally speaking, in our law it is up to the prosecution to prove that a person is guilty. I therefore suggested in Amendment No. 101 that it should be a defence to have a reasonable excuse. He would still have to justify it to the court but the prosecution, as it were, would have to show that he had failed to have a reasonable excuse.
All I am doing is shifting the onus of proof, because I dislike the onus of proof being on the accused party. It seems to me that he should be innocent until somebody else proves to the satisfaction of the court that he is guilty and did not have a reasonable excuse for refusing to attend. It is important that witnesses should be under a compulsion to attend and produce papers if the Assembly is to function properly, but it is not a reason for taking away the rights of the accused.
11 p.m.
Lord Monson: I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Molyneaux in his Amendment No. 94 because it removes the danger of confusion and
1300
misunderstanding, while being in no way insulting to the Irish Republic: if anything, rather the reverse, in that it gives enhanced status to the Irish language.
Lord Dubs: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for having misunderstood the intention underlying his amendment. However, I do not believe there is any possibility of misunderstanding. The words in brackets are merely intended as a translation and I would have thought that, if anything, they would clarify matters rather than cause confusion.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I will not detain my noble friend, but can he imagine a situation where, as seems to be the case, the projected forum which appears to be provided for in the legislation is going to meet in the Senate Chamber in Stormont and the television producer says: "It's a dull day in the Assembly; at the other end we are now going over to the Senate to hear what is being said on cattle diseases" or whatever? I think the noble Lord would concede that that will cause confusion: that is, mention of the Senate of Ireland when there will be meetings held under the auspices of the Assembly, not under the auspices of this Bill, in the very same building in the Senate Chamber.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure that I am persuaded by the noble Lord's argument. It is not that often that television commentators actually quote from legislation, and I would have thought they would use whatever language was most appropriate. But in terms of the legislation itself, I think the existing way of having the English version in brackets seems to be perfectly clear and not likely to cause any undue difficulties.
I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the burden of proof. No, non-compliance is an objective fact. Only the person failing to comply can give the reasons and it is likely that he would have to do so, and that they should be reasonable; otherwise we will lose clarity. I would have thought that the present wording is preferable to what the noble Lord suggests.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Disqualification]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 15, line 14, leave out from ("Commons") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 93 and to discuss with it Amendment No. 95. We are concerned here with whether an individual is disqualified for membership of the Assembly. The clause states that someone,
"is disqualified for membership of the Assembly if he is disqualified for membership of the House of Commons",
with which I agree. I would there put a full-stop. It seems to me that the same criteria should apply to both. However, the Bill goes on to say, unless my amendment is carried,
"otherwise than under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975".

1301
I am sure the Minister will be able to tell us the effect of those words, but we need some justification for the fact that people will be able to sit in the one but not the other.
While mentioning this point, I think it is worth inquiring whether Members of this House, who, after all, are not qualified for membership of the House of Commons, would, nevertheless, under the Bill as it stands be qualified for membership of the Assembly should they wish to stand for it.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 29 provide that the Assembly, if it wishes, in certain circumstances—they are limited circumstances—can overrule a disqualification of any kind. That does not seem desirable. The rules for qualification should be laid down firmly in legislation of this Parliament and not be a matter which the Assembly can waive, even in limited circumstances. They should be part of the law of the United Kingdom. That is why I have suggested the deletion of subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 29. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: Like some of the government amendments in the previous group, these amendments deal with the issue of disqualification. Amendment No. 93 would have the effect of applying the House of Commons disqualification provisions to the Assembly instead of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act, as provided for in the Bill. This matter was discussed in another place, where the Opposition's amendment was described as "probing". We believe that the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act is more appropriate as it is more tailored to the situation in Northern Ireland.
The 1975 Act was obviously designed specifically with the Northern Ireland Assembly in mind. It therefore includes in the list of disqualifying offices a number of posts which are specific to Northern Ireland and does not include a number of others which are not relevant to Northern Ireland. It also includes easier provisions enabling the Assembly to keep this list up to date rather than having to amend Westminster legislation, which would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment.
The 1975 Act applied to the previous assembly in Northern Ireland under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Assembly Order 1982, which was made under the Northern Ireland Act 1982. I hope this clarifies the position for the noble Lord and that he will withdraw the amendment.
The noble Lord has also put down an amendment which would remove the Assembly's power to provide relief from disqualification. I find that curious. The power to provide relief is available in the House of Commons. It is also in the Scotland Bill and was enjoyed by previous assemblies in Northern Ireland. It provides a useful degree of flexibility is assessing where disqualification may have been short-lived and perhaps inadvertent. The power requires a vote of the Assembly which could be subject to a petition of concern if Assembly members object. It seems a sensible provision and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
1302
The noble Lord asked whether Members of this House could stand for the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has done just that. It is permitted for Members of this House to stand there.
I should like to make one other point about disqualification.
"Otherwise than under the House of Commons Disqualification Act",
covers common law categories of disqualification; for example, mental health grounds and other statutes, such as the Representation of the People Act 1981. I hope that clarifies the position for the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall certainly look very carefully at what the Minister has just said. With regard to Amendment No. 93, he seemed to me to be speaking to subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this clause rather than to subsection (4), which my amendment addressed.
At the end of his remarks, he mentioned the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. He seemed to be saying that that legislation prevented those with mental problems becoming Members of the House of Commons. That is not a very sensible provision to suspend in the case of the Assembly. There used to be a Member of another place some years ago who had had a mental illness and he would occasionally produce his discharge certificate to demonstrate that he was the only Member of the House who could prove he was sane.
If I understood the Minister correctly on that point, I shall wish to return to it. I may not have caught exactly what he said. Unless he wishes to comment further, which he does not seem to, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Effect of disqualification and provision for relief]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 15, line 41, at end insert—
("() Subsection (1)(b) has effect subject to section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (mental illness) and section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (bankruptcy etc); and where, in consequence of either of those sections, the seat of a disqualified member of the Assembly has not been vacated—

(a) he shall not participate in any proceedings of the Assembly; and

(b) any of his other rights and privileges as a member of the Assembly may be withdrawn by a resolution of the Assembly.

() The validity of any proceedings of the Assembly is not affected by the disqualification of any person from being a member of the Assembly or from being a member for the constituency for which he purports to sit.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Standing orders]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 17, line 34, after ("made") insert (", amended or repealed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power to call for witnesses and documents]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 98 to 100:
Page 19, leave out lines 12 to 15.
Page 20, line 1, leave out subsection (10).
Page 20, line 2, at end insert—
("() In this section "statutory functions" means functions conferred by virtue of any enactment, including this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Witnesses and documents: offences]:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 20, line 28, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of section 36 and this section, a person shall he taken to comply with a requirement to produce a document if he produces a copy of, or an extract of the relevant part of, the document.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 103:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
WITNESSES: OATHS
(".—(1) The Presiding Officer or such other person as may be authorised by standing orders may—

(a) administer an oath to any person giving evidence in proceedings of the Assembly; and

(b) require him to take the oath.

(2) Any person who refuses to take an oath when required to do so under subsection (1)(b) is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment enables the Presiding Officer to apply an oath to a witness, meaning that those giving untruthful answers will be guilty of perjury in the same way that it is already an offence under the Bill to refuse to answer questions at all.
This amendment is in line with similar provisions in the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Act. A witness may, under the terms of the 1978 Oaths Act, make an affirmation instead of an oath. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Remuneration of members]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 20, line 36, leave out ("a Ministerial office") and insert ("office as a Minister or junior Minister").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 20, line 37, after ("deputy;") insert—
("(iia) holding office as a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission;").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are of a practical nature. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is just and sensible that those who continue to hold office and be responsible for the exercise of the functions of that office should continue to receive the same level of salary after dissolution as they received before.
Similarly, I am sure that the Committee will agree that if a member does not seek re-election after the dissolution, he should cease to receive a salary as a member of the Assembly.
I turn now to the individual amendments. Amendment No. 105 provides for members of the Assembly Commission to receive enhanced salaries. Amendment No. 106 provides for Ministers, the Presiding Officer and members of the Assembly Commission to continue to receive their enhanced salaries between the period after dissolution until such time as the new Assembly is formed. During that time, they will continue to carry out the functions of that office and should be rewarded accordingly. Additionally, it ensures that where a member does not seek re-election payment of the member's salary ceases on dissolution.
Amendment No. 107 is a technical amendment which deletes the definition of "Ministerial office" for the purpose of this section. Amendment No. 36 provides a definition of "Ministerial office" which will apply throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 106 and 107:
Page 21, line 19, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of this section, a person who is a member of the Assembly immediately before the Assembly is dissolved shall be treated—

(a) if he continues to hold such an office as is mentioned in subsection (3)(a)(I) to (iia), as if he were a member of the Assembly until the end of the day on which he ceases to hold the office; and

(b) if he does not fall within paragraph (a) but is nominated as a candidate at the subsequent general election, as if he were a member of the Assembly until the end of the day of the poll for that election.").

Page 21, line 20, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Letters Patent etc.]:
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Privilege]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 109 and 110:
Page 22, line 26, after ("a") insert ("fair and accurate").
Page 22, line 26, at end insert ("which is made in good faith").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Wild Birds: Fisheries Protection
  Wild Birds: Fisheries Protection
  West Moors Bypass
  West Moors Bypass
  House Building: Funding
  House Building: Funding
  Housing Stock: Renovation
  Housing Stock: Renovation
  Legal Aid Board: Civil Advice
  Legal Aid Board: Civil Advice
  Harbour Porpoises: Pembrokeshire
  Harbour Porpoises: Pembrokeshire
  Union Flag: Constitutional Status
  Union Flag: Constitutional Status
  Airspace: Definition
  Airspace: Definition
  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes: Membership
  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes: Membership
  Salmon Fishing
  Salmon Fishing
  Sand Eel Population: Protection
  Sand Eel Population: Protection
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Defence Diversification
  Defence Diversification
  Military Attachments: Estonia and Latvia
  Military Attachments: Estonia and Latvia
  Northern Ireland: Abortion Laws
  Northern Ireland: Abortion Laws
  Minister for the Disabled
  Minister for the Disabled